Morning Reads Thursday, November 13

If you woke up feeling sentimental, this song calls for you. Keep your heart, three stacks.


  • Georgia Democrats need a Moses metaphor to describe their election autopsy
  • CL thinks it knows why Dems are losing. Democrats aren’t tapping into the state’s largest voting bloc: young, hip, white ITP liberals
  • In two days minus 150 years, Atlanta will burn. Because it did, Lincoln was re-elected; our red state credentials run deep.
  • Keep Atlanta weird
  • Where’s former Beltline President Brian Leary? With our arch-rival Charlotte
  • SCOTUS will soon hear a case on race and re-districting with huge implications for Southern politics. Here’s why. Thoughts?
  • Filed under “news so obvious we didn’t think they’d write a story”, medical marijuana is coming back
  • Two days from Saturday, when Georgia plays Auburn and Todd Gurley comes home. This hair-raising production is “the zenith of the hype-video era
  • If we win, as God and the angels have whispered to me that we must, free Waffle House

Lesser Places


    • Chet Martin says:

      I did. This is one of many reasons I think the two parties should be re-named Autobots and Decepticons. I’ll leave it to y’all to decide which name your respective party gets

    • saltycracker says:

      Well how else are you going to get nuisance squirrels or kittens out of the trees without endangering a firefighter ?

    • WeymanCWannamakerJr says:

      I’m trying real hard but can’t recall a single mugging in the Botanical Center. A couple of fights between some Junior League Debs only involved slinging some congealed salad and the like.

    • benevolus says:

      I’m glad I wasn’t packing when they didn’t let me in on my Groupon tickets. I was P.O’d.

      Groupon is like a lottery. You’re really only buying a CHANCE to go to the event.

  1. Raleigh says:

    Looks like Mr. Gruber was counting on economic ignorance to get the Obama Care Cadillac Tax passed. He knew that taxing policy holders would cause an uproar so the Dem’s counted on peoples ignorance of economics and taxed the insurance companies instead. He knew the companies would in turn pass it on to the consumer. Well now a business passing taxes on to the consumer, who knew……

    • Noway says:

      Looks like the Repubs have found their “endless loop” commercial for 2016! LMAO! “The stupidity of the American people” will have the base turning out in even greater numbers with well reasoned scorn for the Dems! Thanks, Barry! Ohhhhh, and ad to that Hillary’s “corporations don’t create jobs” gem!!! These things usually happen in threes. Where is the next Democrat pearl of wisdom and who will say it?

    • zedsmith says:

      this is something I’ve become fanatical about over the past year. I’ll refrain from saying “of course it will never happen because its not in the interest of dominant parties to upset the applecart” and go straight to asking if anybody knows how STV was implemented anywhere else. I know scotland and san fransisco use it (i think).

        • Will Durant says:

          Instant voting would be cost prohibitive for Georgia at this point. Non-partisan primaries electing the top 2 for the general election are the way to go. Two trips to the polls max per cycle and ALL of the voters get to choose the two finalists. IANAL but still can’t understand how taxpayers footing the bill for partisan primaries is considered Constitutional.

            • Will Durant says:

              It means buying new machines. According to one of Buzz’z columns from a couple of months ago here.

              Besides that, I prefer open primaries just on principle over the two-party primary system we have now that is turning more people off than on to the process. Why not let all of the voters choose both of the lesser evils?

  2. FranInAtlanta says:

    Regarding the gerrymandering of African American/Republican districts, the history in Georgia has been interesting. Generally speaking we have packed only enough African American voters into districts to reliably elect African Americans to the House.
    As I remember (and I could be wrong on some of the details) following the 2000 census, Roy Barnes, with the legislature still in control of the Democrats, wanted to draw four white Democratic districts (leaving the African Americans with their three districts). The four drawn districts elected one black Democrat (David Scott was elected from what was then a white majority district), one white Republican (Gingrey), and two white Democrats (Barrow and someone else, now a prof at an Ivy League school).
    Bishop had always made an effort to represent all of his district and my take is that, if he had not gotten into trouble with the CBC college scholarships, he was in for life. But he almost lost in (I think) 2008 and his district was redrawn to give him more blacks and it meant one white Democrat was traded in for Austin Scott (white Republican).
    It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court says. National Democrats complain loudly about the South’s gerrymandering but it does give us visible black Representatives. And, not surprisingly, they are some of the most conservative Democrats in the House – Lewis is the most liberal and I am not sure even he is as liberal as the average white Democrat in the House.

      • Salmo says:

        How in the name of Ganesh would that even work? Districts have to be redrawn every 10 years, so somebody has to do it. I don’t see how you can effectively create a constitutional provision that prevents the person drawing the lines from doing so in a manner that helps their preferred party.

        I suppose the only way it would be feasible would be to use a random number generator to assign precincts to a district based on population, but then the districts would look super-goofy and wouldn’t make much geographic sense. You’d also run the risk of having districts that are even more gerrymandered than they are under the current system, albeit accidentally. And you couldn’t draw them to make each district race highly competitive, because there simply aren’t enough voters to go around for both sides in most states.

        • Chet Martin says:

          A large panel of mixed party geographers, political scientists, and eminent citizens. The same way states handle plenty of non-partisan expertise issues. If they create anything egregious, there could be a legislative/popular override clause

        • Will Durant says:

          A computer program using an algorithm that starts at the population centers and works it way to the borders outward, dividing as needed along the way first by political boundaries as in city limits, county lines, etc., then by geography as in rivers, roads, mountains. Small districts like state house would probably require neighborhoods and unincorporated communities to be considered. It doesn’t have to be a program but could have human bureaucrats using the required algorithm but I would trust the computer more to remain neutral to party, race, and all the other crap. Also I could mention it would be much, much cheaper. The only argument would be on structuring the algorithm but done right, it would be a one-time argument.

  3. Jon Lester says:

    CL editors are right about the state party’s dysfunction, but they misidentify one or two libertarian trends as “progressive,” which probably says something about their own insufferable worldview.

  4. Will Durant says:

    Of course China has their own F-35 now. They make parts for our F-35. No one thought they might put them together for themselves at some point?

    I’m more concerned with their launching of missile subs.

    • Ghost of William F. Buckley says:

      And Chinese pilots have how much actual time spent in aerial combat? Their training has no “Top Gun,” or anything close to the simulators and flight-buddy experience that our Air Force carefully cultivates.

      Just because you can build a Ferrari doesn’t mean you can win the Grand Prix.

      China is to be carefully watched, but their own internal strife will keep them from overtaking the world stage. Their demographics are utterly out-of-whack due to the hideous “One-Child” policy. Soon millions of Chinese men will be woman-less bordering Putin’s Russia. What’s that gonna look like?

      I hear you Will Durant, that is why the Sino desk is an active Intel assignment.

  5. John Konop says:

    What will the GOP do?

    ……….President Barack Obama plans to announce an overhaul of U.S. immigration policy through executive action that would shield up to 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation, the New York Times reported on Thursday.

    Such a move will set up a showdown with Republicans, who have blocked Democrats’ efforts in Congress to reform immigration laws and warned the president not to take unilateral action on immigration.

    The Times, citing unidentified administration officials with direct knowledge of the plan, said Obama’s proposed overhaul may be announced as soon as next week. Officials said it would allow many parents of children who are U.S. citizens or legal residents to obtain work documents and stay in the United States.

    The Times said Obama’s plan will provide more opportunities for immigrants with high-tech skills and add security resources to the border with Mexico. Undocumented immigrants with family ties in the United States and no criminal record also would be considered lower priority for deportation than those with criminal records or who are considered security risks…..

    • Andrew C. Pope says:

      There was some serious saber rattling coming from McConnell and Boehner last week; it looks like the President is going to call their bluff. The “nuclear option” is refusing to pass a CR and shutting the government down. I don’t think the GOP brain trust is going to blow whatever political capital they gained two weeks ago on a shutdown over an issue a healthy chunk of Americans side with the President on. They’ll need to do something, but I have a hard time thinking of something that doesn’t either leave Obama looking like the good guy or angering a base that just provided them a huge electoral victory.

      • Harry says:

        Polling shows that 75+% of citizens want realistic reforms – i.e. effective border security and an immigration system that works and is fair. Obama has shown no willingness to make realistic reforms.

            • xdog says:

              I’m not so sure they weren’t just setting up ever-moving goalposts. At least I remember mostly arguments about one moat or two and how high the fences should be and different kinds of outlandish monitoring.

              At any rate, there was a decent bill that a majority would/could support but instead of putting the issue behind them, gopers let Cruz torpedo it.

Comments are closed.