Georgia Democrats in 2012? Better Look Deeper Into The Future

Today’s Courier Herald Column:

With last week consumed by the Republican Convention and this week occupied by the Democrats, the question about where Georgia fits in to this election is one that can be settled quickly.  As far as the electoral college is concerned, we don’t.  This November, Georgia will remain among the most red of red states.

Georgia went for John McCain in 2008, which was a landslide election.  That vote marked the strongest intensity and enthusiasm Democrats had held in a generation.  The anger against Republicans was palpable, even among many within their own base.  The economy was in free fall.  Virtually anything that could have been going against the incumbent party was, and yet Georgians stuck with McCain.

For 2012, Democrats do not share the edge they did in 2008.  President Obama is not candidate Obama, the blank slate who could promise “hope and change” and let each voter fill in the void of what that would mean to them.  The economy continues to underperform.  His signature economic stimulus plan did not keep unemployment below the 8% level as promised.  Our troops remain in Afghanistan.

In short, it is difficult to see how those who voted against President Obama in 2008 would vote for him now, while it is much easier to see how some who did will either elect for a change or elect to stay home.  Even the strongest Democratic partisans who disagree with this assessment will have difficulty explaining how Georgians that didn’t vote for Obama in 2008 would vote for him in 2012, though some will try.  Regardless, the Democrats will not make headway in Georgia during this election cycle.

So if not now, when?  Are the Democrats a relic and only relevant as part of Georgia’s history, or will they be able to rally and again become a competitive force in Georgia at the statewide level?  This is a matter that will be decided by both Republicans and Democrats, but it will not be settled quickly.

Presuming the logic for 2012 presented above holds true, the Democratic Party of Georgia, which recently had to shed staff and was having difficulty paying skeletal operating expenses, will be no stronger in December than it is today.  With few resources dedicated to organizing Georgia, the party will likely remain in need of strong organizational help after this election.

The immediate opportunity for the party would be for a U.S. Senate Seat in 2014.  Senator Saxby Chambliss will headline that ticket, which will also include most of Georgia’s statewide elected officials.  Given the power of the incumbent party with fundraising and the grassroots power of patronage, it does not appear at this time that the Governor’s race or most other statewide offices will be back in play during the next two years.

National politics, however, tends to change much more rapidly, as evidenced by the 2008 Democratic landslide followed by the 2010 Republican/TEA Party backlash landslide.  A primary challenge to Chambliss, should one materialize, could weaken the Republicans’ hand heading into November regardless of the primary’s outcome.  Should Mitt Romney win the White House, there is also a usual factor of the party of the incumbent president losing seats in Congress during the first mid-term elections.

It remains still, at this point, a longshot for the Democrats to pick up this seat.  The grassroots network in place already by the stable of statewide Republicans should be of great benefit to Chambliss or any other Republican nominee.  The Democrats will be starting from scratch in 2013 and will have little money on hand.  The advantage remains with Chambliss and the Republicans.

In 2016, it is another Presidential year.  Senator Isakson will be up for re-election but few other Republicans will be statewide on the ballot.  National politics will dominate this election but there are few prizes for Democrats at the state level.  Isakson remains popular enough with Republican and centrist/independent Georgians that this seat should remain his if he wants it.

In 2018, however, things start to get interesting.  Governor Nathan Deal will be term limited.  There will likely be a contested primary for his seat, which will also likely create openings in other statewide and Congressional seats.  Republicans will likely spend much of the two years leading up to this race fighting among themselves, and are likely to be somewhat fractured as a party.

Meanwhile, Georgia’s demographics, particularly in Atlanta’s suburbs, will be changing.  Minority voters, specifically Hispanic Georgians, are growing in population much faster than white voters.  Republicans will also have a 16 year track record at this point of being a majority party, and solving – or not solving – Georgia’s problems.

As such, 2018 represents the best opportunity for Georgia to turn “blue”.  Or at least be competitively purple.  While that sounds like generations away, the plans that are made now will determine how successfully Democrats can be at taking Republican power, and how successful Republicans can be at defending it.

We’ll spend the rest of this week on the future of Democrats in Georgia, using 2018 as a milestone.

31 comments

  1. Ken says:

    Spot on, Charlie.

    There is an additional question, which perhaps you’ll get to later this week: What elected offices will Democrats have from which to launch a campaign?

    South Georgia still largely votes geographically and an unknown or forgotten public figure with no office is fighting an uphill battle on a Teflon slope.

    • Charlie says:

      Thanks.

      This one doesn’t cover much new ground that wasn’t covered in my comments in Aaron Sheinin’s AJC piece or in Bill Dawers’ post/comments. Mainly I was getting my newspaper readers up to speed with where our conversation was/is.

      I’m still juggling the order, but the general theme of the next 3 pieces are going to deal with the issues that Democrats can use to message around, who their bench appears to be and some suggestions for them (as if they need advice from me, but it’s the best way to frame the discussion), and the problems/issues/barriers that will likely remain that could impede their chances at statewide leadership.

      • I Miss the 90s says:

        2018 is probably too soon, but not entirely unrealistic.

        The GOP has let the business of State slack for too long already.

        Disequilibrium can only be maintained for so long.

        The GAGOP is entirely disinterested in investing in the state’s infrastrucure…largely because they know taxes are too low, but raising them would be an admission of defeat for conservatism. Therein lies the real issue.

        People tend to underestimate the effect of the redistrictng powers vested in the state legislature. And that is fine. If a state wants to systematically ensure a specify majority they.can.

        While I would like to see more electoral competition, that may not be enough.

        GA’s problem, like the other failing southern states, is more a product of ideological purity. Conservatism has been failing GA for a long time. Progressive ideas are excluded from the dialogue by virtue of their ideological labeling.

        Ga does not have statesmen. We have ideologues. This means that most options available have been taken off the table simply because they fail a non-constitutional litmus test.

        Eventually a majority will arise that has figured out that nothing but harm has befallen the state since the GOP took the reins. Everyone knows that 4 years is not long enough to correct the course of the ship of state. The GAGOP has had 10 years, and things are worse now that ever. This trend will not magically reverse.

  2. The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

    “With few resources dedicated to organizing Georgia, the party will likely remain in need of strong organizational help after this election.”

    …You can’t help something that does not exist. For all intents and purposes, the Democrat Party is about as close to having zero meaningful organization in a state as an entity can be.

    It is somewhat puzzling that the Democrats have seemingly written off Georgia seeing as though the state has been one of the fastest-growing states in the nation with one of the fastest-growing minority populations over the past couple-of-decades.

    It makes absolutely no since that the Democrats have virtually no type of organization or meaningful presence to speak of in place throughout much of one of the fastest-growing and fastest-diversifying metro areas in the entire nation.

    The demographics show that the ‘Crats should be getting well over 50% and even up to 60% of the vote in statewide elections in Metro Atlanta NOW, not in a decade as non-Hispanic whites only made up 50.7% of the population of the metro area in the 2010 Census.

    The fact that the Democrats are nowhere even near remotely in position organizationally to take advantage of demographics that are rapidly changing the racial, ethnic, cultural and social makeup of the metro area and the state in their favor shows just how badly of a state of extreme disrepair that the Georgia Democrat Party is in.

    • Stefan says:

      So what offices are you referring to exactly? The House and Senate districts are designed not to allow competitive races. Mayor of Atlanta? Dem. Congressional Representatives in the 13th, 5th, and 4th? All Dems.

      The districts are drawn so as to hamper any upward movement of the Democratic Party.

      And I believe you meant to say “Democratic Party of Georgia”.

      • Charlie says:

        File that one under the law of unintended consequences.

        Republicans have long expressed frustration with the requirements of Section V of the voting rights act. It is the largest factor in the way these districts end up, which serve the interests of the extremes of both parties well, while not serving the citizens who are governed very much at all.

        • Stefan says:

          True, but as long as redistricting is seen a prize accorded to the majority, we will end up with extremely partisan maps. As long as you get to draw the maps, you only need 26% of the vote to keep your majority standing.

      • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

        I’m referring to almost pretty much virtually every political office at the local, state and federal levels outside of Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton counties with few exceptions.

        It’s not necessarily that Democrats don’t have anyone in those offices, its that Democrats often don’t even have anyone available in those rapidly-diversifying outlying counties to seriously or even credibly challenge for those offices.

        It should not and does not matter that the state and federal legislative districts are drawn to supposedly hamper any upward movement of the Democrat Party.

        What matters is that the Democrat Party has not even the simplest apparatus or organization in place at the grassroots level to recruit new voters, field candidates and compete outside of Fulton, DeKalb and Clayton counties at anymore than laughingstock level against Republicans who are increasingly stinking up the joint and seemingly making all of the wrong moves and doing everything that they can to hand their overwhelming power off to someone else who might be even the slightest bit more competent in their governance of this state.

        The problem is that despite all of the Repubs’ repeated overwhelming screw-ups in the last few years that there is no meaningful opposition to take advantage of what the GOP has seemingly been trying to give away on a platter. The Repubs’ screw-up and repeatedly try to give it away and there virtually is no Democrat opposition (often literally none-at-all) to speak of as Clint Eastwood so aptly demonstrated the other night, the choices for voters in this state are often of an incompetent, rambling and incoherent dirty old man in the Republicans and an empty chair in the Democrats.

        And I absolutely did mean to say “Georgia Democrat Party” as the people who make up the party are called “Democrats”, not “Democratics”.

        Besides, don’t you first have to at least have some semblance of a party before you can make requests as to what you want it to be called?

        You want what’s little currently remains of your party to be taken seriously and referred to as the “Democratic Party” in this state? Start fielding more than the occasional Mickey Mouse candidate against the goofballs on the other side and your near-extinct party might actually start getting at least some minimal amount of respect in this state, otherwise stop complaining about your almost non-existent party being called by your actual name instead of the name of the governing philosophy that your party calls itself trying to (unsuccessfully) hijack.

        • WesleyC says:

          Calling the Democratic Party by its proper name has nothing to do with its current strength in the state. It has to do with basic respect, which people who use the Hannity-esque “Democrat Party” slur most certainly lack. The Democratic Party was built by people like Jefferson, Jackson, FDR, and Kennedy, while the “Democrat Party” is a figment of Sarah Palin’s and Neil Boortz’s imagination. I thought we southerners took pride in our basic courtesies?

          • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

            The “Democrat Party” is your party, not mine, so I am under no obligation to call it the “Democratic Party”, which is a misnomer anyways as “Democratic” refers to a philosophy, but “Democrat” refers to a party of people filled with Democrats.

            Besides, what are you going to do about Georgians not respecting your party and calling it the “Democrat Party” against your wishes? Are you going to win a statewide election? Are you going to actually start fielding credible candidates with a serious shot of winning elections against a Georgia (and often national) GOP that at times has seemingly degenerated into a party of wholly incompetent goof-offs, slackers and [screw]-ups?

            You are right that us Southerners do take pride in our basic courtesies, but if your party wants the basic courtesy of getting respect around these parts from Georgians, your party has to EARN IT.

            Maybe your party might earn a small modicum of respect if they start sending up more than empty chairs in elections against the empty suits and empty brains currently running the state into the ground.

            Your party might earn even more respect around these parts if you stop mining for sympathy (where you are clearly not going to get it) and trying to play the victim card every chance you get by attempting (unsuccessfully) to trivialize non-issues such as claiming the word “Democrat” is a slur.

            How pathetic that Democrats claim that the word “Democrat” is a slur, but in most cases they’re afraid to even attempt to field candidates against the clowns that the Republican Party puts up these days.

            • Stefan says:

              Are you a supporter of any party? Other than Gwinnett, what offices/counties are you talking about? Is your question why can’t Democrats win a statewide election in Georgia despite the problems of the majority? The answer to that is embedded in your narrative. People don’t view the Democrats as a viable alternative. The louder national conservative agenda has convinced low-information voters that Democrats have nothing for them.

              • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

                Though I agree with Conservatives of supposed fiscal responsibility and limiting the size of government (even though one George W. Bush blew that out of the water with the massive expansion of the government and the doubling of the national debt in his 8 years) and I agree with Liberals on some social issues (but only to a reasonable extent), I am a political independent who not only supports neither party, but also can hardly stand or tolerate either of them right now.

                And the counties other than Gwinnett (57% non-white minority population) outside of Fulton, DeKalb and Clayton where I am talking about that the Democrats should be establishing a grassroots organization and at least becoming much more competitive in elections NOW rather than in a decade are Cobb (44% non-white minority population), Newton (48% non-white minority population), Henry (48% non-white minority population), Douglas (51% non-white minority population), Rockdale (59% non-white majority population) as in addition to the Blacks, Latino and Asian newcomers moving into those outlying counties, not all of the white newcomers moving into those areas are Republicans and hard-line, capital “C” Conservatives. A lot of the white newcomers moving into outlying counties are Independents, moderates and even Liberals who, if they even choose to participate in local and statewide elections, vote for the established Republicans in office because there are often no Democrat candidates to speak of in elections in those outlying counties, despite their continuing rapid demographic changes in favor of the ‘Crats.

                The reason why many Metro Atlantans and Georgians don’t view the Democrats as a viable alternative is because that alternative often does not even exist in most instances in many Metro Atlanta counties outside of Fulton, DeKalb and Clayton.

                You can blame the Republicans for supposedly convincing “low-information” voters that Democrats have nothing for them, but those arguments that you say the Repubs are making to those voters that the Dems have nothing for them ring pretty much entirely true if the Democrats do not even have a representative of the party there to compete in those races and defend themselves.

                A political party does not improve just by being content to sit around and wait well into the next decade for the demographics of the metro area to change overwhelmingly in their favor to win races, a political party improves by going in and competing and even losing races early on, even in places that they think that they might not have the best chances of winning…Just ask Georgia Republicans who used to get laughed out of the room and beaten down badly in places that they now thoroughly dominate, but by at least fielding candidates and losing in races early-on those Republicans learned how to compete and eventually win races in places in which they were originally severely overmatched, something that the increasingly out-of-touch Republican Party in Georgia seems to have forgotten.

                It’s not the fault of what is, frankly, a sagging Republican Party that isn’t exactly lightin’-it-up these days with Georgians that Democrats have virtually no grassroots organization in place in many outlying suburban Metro Atlanta counties to take advantage of demographics that are changing dramatically in their favor across the metro area as Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for their organizational failures at a time when they should be robustly expanding their reach.

                Hard-line Conservatives may yell and scream the loudest, but not every white voter or even every white Republican voter is a hard-line “Capital ‘C’ Conservative” and it is almost a shame that the Democrats don’t seem to be all that interested in reaching out to those moderate and Independent voters who are clearly not satisfied with current Republican legislative leadership, not to mention some uncomfortably extreme stances on social issues.

                • Stefan says:

                  Well, according to national trends, Georgia should have had a republican elected governor in 1998. Are you suggesting they didn’t run enough losing candidates in races around the state to speed that up? Are you also suggesting that due to grassroots activism Republicans took charge before they would have anyway due to national trends?

                  And to your point about county non-white populations, that only matters for elections that are county wide, of which there are few* (DA, Sheriff).

                  County Commission races are often districts, which all depends on who draws the district.

                  • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

                    Georgia just might have had a Republican elected governor in 1998 if former State Attorney General Mike Bowers, who if you’ll recall was the overall leading candidate early-on in that race, had not told the media that he had been having a lengthy affair with his former secretary.

                    Republicans had been slowly, but steadily, making inroads in once-hostile places throughout the entire state since at least the now-legendary Goldwater run (and loss) in the 1964 Presidential Election so the Repubs to have finally captured the Governor’s office in 2002 and taken complete control of the state’s political scene in the mid and late-2000’s was right about on the timeline that one could expect for the GOP to have taken control of a state and region of the country that was pretty much completely dominated by the Democrats.

                    And a county’s non-white population matters for more than only countywide elections as newcomers, no matter their race or political affiliation, are pretty much distributing fairly equally all over formerly predominantly white suburbs, especially over the last decade or so, an equal distribution that is especially the case in rapidly-diversifying and fast-growing suburban counties like Henry (48% non-white), Newton (48% non-white), Gwinnett (57% non-white) and Rockdale (59% non-white).

                    Just because a County Commission district seat may be held by a Republican does not mean that district is 100% Republican voters. A party can’t win if it doesn’t even bother to participate in elections.

            • Blake says:

              “The “Democrat Party” is your party, not mine”

              Then why on earth is your handle “The Last Democrat in Georgia”?

              “so I am under no obligation to call it the “Democratic Party”,”

              Of course you are under no obligation, but the fact is that the name of the party in Georgia, registered with the Secretary of State, is the “Democratic Party of Georgia.” That’s its *actual name*. Same for the federal party, same for every other state party, same for the county chapters. You are simply wrong.

              “which is a misnomer anyways as “Democratic” refers to a philosophy, but “Democrat” refers to a party of people filled with Democrats.”

              No, it does not. Small-d “democratic” refers to a set of related forms of government. Capital D-“Democratic” refers to a political party in the United States (and, for all I know, multiple unaffiliated political parties in other countries around the world).

              I agree with the meat of your argument, what I take as its main thrust, that the Democratic Party of Georgia is a joke, should be fixing itself (and is not) and attracting and fielding many more candidates than they are, and that compared to that the fact that Rush Limbaugh started a campaign to subliminally call Democrats rats by never referring to them as “Democratic,” even where that would be the correct word to use, is very small potatoes. But the fact is that nonetheless, on this issue, you are wrong, completely wrong, and your argument attempting to defend it is a joke.

              • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

                There’s one way to prove me and Limbaugh (never thought that I would say that one in a sentence) and the right-wing crew wrong and that is to start fielding candidates in places that the party clearly should either be competitive or becoming more competitive.

                If the Democrat Party wants to gain more respect and get called by the name that it desires around these parts they’ll have to get out there, take their lumps and earn it just as the now-dominant Republicans had to struggle to earn it the hard way in the 40 or so years before they finally gained control of the state’s political scene a decade ago.

                At least for the Dems, the good news is that the demographics of the region and the state are going to overwhelmingly come around their way relatively soon so by the time those numbers do come around their way they will hopefully be a better party than if they sit on their butts and wait for voters to eventually come around their way (which is not a great approach, even with the numbers trending their way as a party still needs a ground game to turnout voters during elections even when surrounded by a bunch of people who are much more open to voting for them).

                If the Democrat Party does not like being manhandled and treated like a joke (or worse, a disease) in Georgia, then the only way to change that is do something about it and start at least putting up some semblance of a fight and earning some respect, but until then, nobody frankly gives a rats a** about what Democrats do or do not want to be called in this state.

                • Blake says:

                  I see. So for some reason I don’t know, because you won’t say, you are misleading people with your user name, and because you are so disgusted with the Democratic Party, you think it is appropriate to deliberately refer to them incorrectly. In other words, deceptive and petty.

                  And for some reason I also don’t know, you decided to tell that to me in four paragraphs rather than two sentences, along with vigorously reiterating an argument I had already agreed with.

                  • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

                    “because you are so disgusted with the Democratic Party, you think it is appropriate to deliberately refer to them incorrectly.”

                    Whether you or any other Democrat thinks it is appropriate for me to leave the “ic” off of the word Democrat is not my problem (sounds like a Democrat problem to me).

                    And for the record, as if you couldn’t tell by reading my posts above or by reading any of my other posts in the past that have nearly gotten me booted from the site on multiple occasions, I’m not exactly all that enamored with the clowns who are currently leading this state from behind in the Republican Party, either.

                    • Blake says:

                      For the record, I am not a Democrat, I just vote for them when I think they’re better than the opposition; and I never questioned your lack of enamoredness for the Republican Party. Nor will I, going forward, question your ability to avoid simple germane questions or capacity for pettiness.

                    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

                      What’s petty is a party getting its panties all in a tissy over an issue as insignificant as whether or not someone leaves a couple of letters off of the name of their almost dead party when their party is pretty much almost extinct across large swaths of the country, that’s what’s petty.

        • Stefan says:

          Democratic is the adjectival form. So when you are modifying the word “Party”, which is a noun, you need to use an adjective. Members of the party are “Democrats”, which is a noun.

          If you are talking about a 60% Republican district, a R+10, it is very difficult for a non-funded Democrat to win that district. There isn’t enough financial support of local candidates right now to garner additional seats. The reason for that is twofold: candidates (including office holders) who don’t raise enough money and a party structure that cannot support them financially.

          • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

            In the early days when what is now the dominant Republican majority was just merely trying to establish itself and gain a foothold in a state that was thoroughly and completely dominated by Southern Democrats (the old Dixiecrats), Republicans would regularly run in districts that were over 80% Democrat and they would run repeatedly in those districts where they were overwhelmingly outmatched against established opponents and these were in days where there might have been explosive population growth, but it was almost entirely from Conservative whites moving into what were then the outer suburbs.

            You’re complaining about Democrats running and taking their lumps early-on in districts where the continued rapid diversification of the fast-growing population is more than likely to change the demographics towards your party’s favor in the not-too-distant future?…In other words, your party does not have an overwhelming chance at winning there immediately so why even bother attempting to establish any type of grassroots organization, a ground game or even a presence and fielding a candidate in that area (despite the demographics changing rapidly in your favor)?

            Basically, you’re saying that if your party can’t win going away in a blowout then you won’t even bother to try and play the game…That’s the reason why your party gets absolutely no respect from many Georgians, because your party doesn’t want to play the game unless it knows that it will win overwhelmingly…The Georgia Democrat Party only wants to run in elections in places in the metro area and the state where it knows it will thoroughly dominate the results, it does not want to run a principled campaign to stand for what it believes in areas where not everyone may agree with the stances of the party.

            It’s sad (and somewhat very pathetic) that the once-revered Georgia Democrat Party seems to be completely satisfied with its insignificant and woeful “Also-ran” status as long as it has its little-bit of power in its own little kingdoms in a few select spots around the state.

            Even though, at the moment, the Georgia Republican Party seems to be on a suicide mission to run itself completely into obvilion while taking the state with it, early-on Republicans did not hesitate to take its lumps as the GOP continued to make its case to voters while frequently getting its lunch eaten and their backsides handed to them on a platter by a well-entrenched Democrat Party.

            The circa-early 2010’s Georgia Democrat Party has the luxury of knowing that the demographics are going to change its way relatively very soon down-the-road and yet still, the party either does not want or seems to be afraid to take its lumps from the big, bad Republicans (not all of them are the TRUE Conservatives that they make themselves out to be) and do what it has to do get back in the game and be genuinely competitive in Georgia politics.

  3. Three Jack says:

    Good topic. The dems have so little with which to work when it comes to a candidate bench. Who is the up and coming dem in GA? Mayor Reed probably tops the list, but after that, who is there?

    The other more complex problem for dems is that they are stuck following the national party when it comes to policy. Higher taxes, continued spending and ignoring burdensome regulations will not play well in the south, certainly not in GA. It’s hard to see how they overcome the liberals that dominate on the national playing field (GOPers not in much better shape if at all considering their national platform and those leading the party, i.e. Mitch McConnell, Karl Rove, John Boehner and now Romney).

    I know it’s been said before but never successfully carried out, the time for a third party couldn’t be better. For all the reasons Charlie mentions and the general feeling that both parties suck, now would be an opportune time to rollout the next great political party. If not now, it’s hard to imagine when.

    • caroline says:

      That is why the GOP is going to probably be in power for quite a while in the state even if the state goes blue nationally.

      And the GOP has the opposite problem. They are increasingly in touch with the voters in places like GA, AL, and MS while nationally that hurts the party.

  4. James says:

    “They are increasingly in touch with the voters in places like GA, AL, and MS while nationally that hurts the party.” I don’t think I’ve seen a more accurate–and scary–statement on this blog.

  5. SallyForth says:

    Spot on, James and caroline. Just look at what happened to the Democrats, except in reverse. A traditional Georgia Democrat has always been a fiscal conservative and social moderate – a centrist even as the national Party was liberal and has gone farther and farther to the left. The Democratic power structure in this state was self-made by cohesive intra-state messaging of its core fiscal and social positions, but that finally could not hold against the national party’s tsunami of ultra-liberalism.

    The national party was courting the states with big numbers, e.g. California, New York, Pennsylvania, etc., and wrote off lowly Georgia. The national party’s extreme liberalism left Georgia Democrats with no North Star, and Republicans gladly stepped in to soak up this state’s voters. Their total hold on all our statewide offices and both bodies of the Legislature, plus overwhelming majority in our Congressional delegation, and the resulting ability to deliver electoral votes ensure lots of love from the national Republican Party.

    Charlie, your observations are also cogent. Our state needs two strong parties to keep each other honest, and sadly I’m afraid your estimate of being competitive in 2018 is too soon.

    • James says:

      SallyForth, I agree generally with your take on the Democratic party in Georgia. But just out of curiosity–what constitutes “ultra-liberalism” and “extreme liberalism” from your point of view?

  6. Dave Bearse says:

    “In 2016, it is another Presidential year. Senator Isakson will be up for re-election but few other Republicans will be statewide on the ballot.”

    Given judicial races are non-partisan, are anything other than a few PSC seats on the off-year general election?

  7. Dave Bearse says:

    I anticipate two of the next three columns are going to be a bit fluffy.

    As far as Georgia goes, there’s nothing to message about, and there’s no bench and nothing on the horizon.

    I’m looking forward to Georgia advice however, even if it comes with a grain of salt.

Comments are closed.