Roy Barnes is not a threat to GOP supremacy in Georgia (OPEN THREAD)

Call it a prediction or whatever you want to call it. But you read it here first: Roy Barnes will lose the General Election, and it won’t even be close.

Yes, he’s probably the candidate best equipped to take on any Republican challenger. Yes, he has a massive war chest and doesn’t have to dip into it for a costly run-off. Yes, he polls higher than both of the potential Republican candidates. Yes GOP voters are fed-up with the state’s elected leadership. Yes, he’s actually talking about issues (budget, education, jobs) as opposed to how much he hates/loves gay people. Yes, there may even be some protest voters who cross over to vote for him or John Monds over the GOP nominee.

It doesn’t matter. None of it matters. Roy Barnes has two words working against him: Barack Obama.

Like it or not, the 2010 election is a referendum on the first two years of Barack Obama. And even though Roy Barnes and Georgia have nothing to do Obama and Washington, simply being in the same party as The Chosen One will be enough to prevent him from coming close. Somehow, someway, whoever the GOP nominee is will find the means to tie Roy Barnes to Obama’s policies. And that will be enough.

I firmly believe that the Obama backlash in this country and this state is going to be even worse than pundits predict. And I honestly think it’s going to hurt all down-ballot Democrats. But then again, I’ve been wrong before. (And I’m about to get called out on that one)

On a separate note, please feel free to use this as an open thread to discuss something we typically don’t get into around here: National Politics

[Update] Hat tip to Doug Grammer, who directed us to these more recent polls which actually show Barnes losing to both Deal and Handel.

49 comments

  1. Since this is an open thread open to national politics, I just figured I’d post a brief rant. I just paid $4.31 per gallon of biodiesel. $177 to fill up my truck. Why is the price so high you ask? Because the subsidy for the brewers of biodiesel expired.

    As a Libertarian, I have no problems with not subsidizing the production of biodiesel (or anything else for that matter). But my question is this… if we’re not going to subsidize alternative fuels, why do we continue to subsidize oil companies who have posted record profits in the recent past?

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/25/nation/la-na-oil-spill-subsidies-20100525

    • Jace Walden says:

      As a libertarian, I am opposed to all corporate welfare, whether its to oil companies or farmers or businesses that produce biodiesel. Regardless of their profit margins.

      • Agreed. Let the fuels stand on their own merit. If we’d quit subsidizing ethanol (and every other fuel / oil) then only the viable ethanols would succeed. We wouldn’t see nearly the influx of corn based ethanols hitting the market.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      I don’t think we should be subsidizing either, as Jace said. Anti-free-marketeers like to blame the free market for not taking any initiative to come up with alternative fuels to oil. It wouldn’t be the case, though, without all the government subsidies. Business cannot compete with government subsidies. One relies on consumer trust and patronization, the other relies on an endless supply of taxpayer dollars and debt. Even if we took away all the subsidies and everything still ended up costing a fortune, at least we’d have a realistic picture of the market, and we’d know what to try from there.

  2. Red Phillips says:

    “Roy Barnes will lose the General Election, and it won’t even be close.”

    Agreed. I have said this in two other posts (I think) so far. The election will hinge on turn out and the turnout of the GOP base is going to be much larger than the Dem base.

  3. Gary Cooper says:

    I agree. Just look at the vote totals for the primaries to see that the Democratic Party is not doing very well in getting out the vote. On the other hand the GOP was and that is only going to turn up a few notches once we get to November. Plus this state has gotten redder and more conservative since Barnes lost in 2002.

    One thing people tend to forget is Roy Barnes won his first election in a solid Democratic year in 1998. On top of that, he was basically given Zell Miller’s third term. Neither of those were in play in 02 when he lost or this year as he tries to win his old job back.

  4. Scott65 says:

    A lot is going to depend on 2 things. How nasty this run off gets, and how expensive. Nathan Deal has shown already he will sling as much mud as needed (and take liberties with the truth). This could yield a damaged candidate against Barnes.
    Second thing is Lt Governor…I think Cagle really needs to be worried. Carol Porter even though she has a D after her name is no ideologue. She represents a lot of values we all want to see in the people that represent us. I cannot say the same for Cagle. I will not vote for him. No way, no how. I think, although maybe not spoken, lots of conservatives will cross over to vote for her. I cant find a single reason not to vote for her.

    • drjay says:

      the ace in the hole for the gop in that regard is that there is no pathway for the dems to take back the senate–so even if porter wins she will end up in a position “taylor made” to do nothing of substance

    • I’m sure that “Sonny-In-A-Skirt” has no plans to “sling mud” on Deal. Give me a break.

      Besides, what is wrong with stating the differences between you and your opponent. This blog is not one that the general public reads. Most of us on here know that you have to tell people what seperates you from your competition. If not, why are you running in the first place.

  5. Max Power says:

    Which will only reinforce the perception that Georgia voters are idiots. The GOP has ran the state off the road into a ditch where it burst into flames, and yet the voters will simply give them a new set of keys.

  6. AthensRepublican says:

    I hope you are right. I predict Roy Barnes will be the next Governor though. He will be a much stronger candidate against whoever we nominate. I predict all of the other races will be won by Republicans with the exception of the Governor.

  7. hannah says:

    The dung beetle may well consider its perch atop the heap a supreme location. However, it’s significance counts most with the bats hunting beetles at night.

    The GOP quest for supremacy is anachronistic, at best. Romney glitter is not likely to impress.

    • Our chickens like to perch atop the muck heap too. I don’t think there are any bats hunting them though. They just like eating the flys and fly larvae.

      Are you saying Romney is a dung beetle supremacist?

      • Scott65 says:

        bats eat mosquitoes so they are just fine by me…and bat dung makes really great fertilizer

    • Ambernappe says:

      I could be wrong (the memory is the first to go) but did not you recently post the Republicans are constantly groveling for recognition from their “superiors”……..do I only imagine the dichotomy?

    • Red Phillips says:

      Rember that was back when John Edwards was supposed to be the “conservative” Democrat. That was some time right after Al Gore was supposed to be the “conservative” Democrat.

  8. Doug Grammer says:

    Jace,

    Your poll was from March. I know I’ve seen more recent polls with Congressman Deal beating Gov. Barns and I would not be surprised by polls with Sec. Handel beating Gov. Barns.

  9. Ambernappe says:

    Hannah,
    Are you referring to Karen Handel as a “dung beetle”? Your mother would have washed your mouth out with soap. Scatological references are not really acceptable in this discussion of political candidates, better you should express your personal choices than demean those who have won wide acceptance from those who have demonstrated their social responsibility by voting. Did you ? Yes or no would be an acceptable reply. If no, please refrain fron expressing your displeasure as some unidentified citizen shouldered the burden of making a choice for you.

  10. Blog Goliard says:

    The one thing I’ve got to say about national politics today is this:

    They say the voters are angry. They say Congress’ approval ratings are at an all-time low and everyone’s in a throw-the-bums-out mood.

    We’ll know the voters are finally serious when name recognition becomes a *bad* thing. Until then, bet on same old, same old on Capitol Hill.

  11. CayF says:

    Candidates these days nearly all strive to come across as conservative or sensibly moderate, but there has for some time been an approach to regulatory agencies that should be intolerable. Regulatory agency heads, and of course their elected bosses where the buck is siad to stop, should not subterfuge or hijack an agency’s mission while mouthing the complaint (from a government postion or from a race to gain one) that the agency is governmental and thereby bad enough to be treated any way desired. Rather, if they have the conviction that a regulatory agency’s being or current mission is unjustified, or that its funding is excessive, they should campaign, legislate, veto where authorized, or even litigate from that sincere belief.

    Georgia is among the worse states in protection of elders (or others) in long-term care. Most of the scandals and horror stories that are reported concern nursing homes, but personal care homes (AKA assisted-living homes or facilities [ALFs]) cannot be counted upon to deserve the stamp of state approval that maintaining a state license implies. Behavior goes beyond some surveyors’ intentionally overlooking deficiencies during site surveys, to proactively covering up specific reported instances of abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Residents and their families have been regarded by Sunwest Management (there is recent news about them that deserves state and local coverage), and by some other players in the industry, as cash cows, and investors and taxpayers as chumps.

  12. Hannah – I’m currently reading Straight Talk by Lee Iacocca and thought of you when I read this. Thought you might appreciate the advice:

    “Say It in English and Keep It Short. Everyone has seen examples of bureaucratic double talk in written communication. You know what I mean — a long winded document that takes the reader through two dozen options and alternatives and ends up with any one of six or seven different conclusions. Most of us associate this phenomenon with government bureaucracies. But take my word for it, a lot of double talk exists in corporations as well.

    There are three factors behind the mumbo jumbo. First, the almost uncontrollable desire to tell all you know on any given subject. Second, the love of adjectives and adverbs over nouns and verbs. And third, the desire to impress your audience with your depth of vocabulary. I once read a fifteen-page paper that was tough to understand. I called in the author and asked him to explain what as in the tome he had written. He did it in two minutes flat. He identified what we were doing wrong, what we could do to fix it, and what he recommended. When he finished I asked him why he didn’t write that in the paper the way he’d just said it to me. He didn’t have an answer. All he said was: ‘I was just taught that way.’ And he was an M.B.A. to boot.

    Write the way you talk. If you don’t talk that way, don’t write that way.”

    You’re welcome.

  13. Rick Day says:

    why do only white people refer the POTUS as a chosen one?

    I mean, aren’t all elected officials the chosen ones?

    Or..is this what passes as the ‘new’ dixie-bigotry of a 21st century?

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      Why did they call Bush a “Chimp?”

      Presidents get nicknames. Don’t lose sleep over it.

    • Jace Walden says:

      They called Bush “Chimpy McFlightsuit”.

      Clinton called himself “The First Black President”

      They called Richard Nixon “Tricky Dick”

      Obama’s nickname is the least offensive. Besides, I thought this Presidency was suppose to be post-racism. Why do Obama’s accolytes (like you, Rick) always want to bring race into the discussion?

      Get over it, dickhead.

    • polisavvy says:

      The “chosen one” is better than some nicknames that could be given to him. Everyone who adores him should be glad of that.

  14. kolt473 says:

    King Roy is slick he mentioned change word right out of Obunism’s play book. Now if king Roy wants to lose, let $lick Willie back him like Baker it didn’t matter change beholden to unions, I laughed at his priorities, he sold the teachers and the flag out I wish Roy had looked after non union during first time, OX gone so should Barnes be.

Comments are closed.