Who wins GA?

[vcczar]

New poll

[Rezi]

Unfortunately, if 2022 ends up being the R+3, R+4 environment that it's looking towards, I see no path to victory for Abrams or Warnock.

[Hestia]

Georgia continues to lean blue while others lean red in 2021. I saw somewhere that Dems have flipped some 40 municipal-level seats since the 2020 election or in 2021, can't remember which. Georgia Democrats have built a machine that other state level parties are going to envy. They will get their voters out. I don't think the GOP is the same here - fractured beyond belief, even with a drag against Biden nationwide. 

[Pringles]

1 minute ago, Rezi said:

Unfortunately, if 2022 ends up being the R+3, R+4 environment that it's looking towards, I see no path to victory for Abrams or Warnock.

I agree in Abrams case. I think Warnock has more breathing room, especially with his opponent.

[vcczar]

I think whoever wins Gov wins Sen and Vice versus. We’re so partisan that split ticket voting is so rare as to not be decisive. 

[jvikings1]

3 hours ago, vcczar said:

I think whoever wins Gov wins Sen and Vice versus. We’re so partisan that split ticket voting is so rare as to not be decisive. 

I could see Walker flip the Senate seat but Kemp lose the gubernatorial election. Walker’s football clout will be a boost, and Kemp is dealing with a fracture in the GOP.

[pilight]

Georgia's never had a black governor or a female governor.  It's hard to imagine someone who's both winning.

I still don't think Walker will be the nominee.

Trump is openly despised by most of the GOP here after he criticized all of them for not cheating for him in the election.  This is one place where his abrasiveness has backfired.

[jvikings1]

21 minutes ago, pilight said:

I still don't think Walker will be the nominee.

Why not?

[Dobs]

52 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Why not?

For a reason identical to why Sean Parnell will not be the PA Senate nominee. Georgians don't like wifebeaters unless they're talking about the undershirt.

[jvikings1]

4 hours ago, Dobs said:

For a reason identical to why Sean Parnell will not be the PA Senate nominee. Georgians don't like wifebeaters unless they're talking about the undershirt.

He's the last Heisman trophy winner and national champion (maybe not for too much longer on this one though) at UGA with the support of both Trump and McConnell. People here are greatly underestimating the clout of Hershall Walker.

Not to mention that the two situations you mentioned are not the same. Parnell is currently engaged in a court battle over custody (something affected by his now suspended Senate candidacy), while Walker is not dealing with current court proceedings.

[Timur]

5 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

He's the last Heisman trophy winner and national champion (maybe not for too much longer on this one though) at UGA with the support of both Trump and McConnell. People here are greatly underestimating the clout of Hershall Walker.

Not to mention that the two situations you mentioned are not the same. Parnell is currently engaged in a court battle over custody (something affected by his now suspended Senate candidacy), while Walker is not dealing with current court proceedings.

I do question if someone with mental problems should be elected to Senate.

[jvikings1]

9 hours ago, Timur said:

I do question if someone with mental problems should be elected to Senate.

Well, we did just have a Biden v Trump presidential election. Seems like that's not a turnoff for lots of people.

[Dobs]

5 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

Well, we did just have a Biden v Trump presidential election. Seems like that's not a turnoff for lots of people.

Well given a choice between two candidates with mental problems, there tends to be a 100% success rate there.

[Dobs]

Just now, Patine said:

It's still a choice the voters should not have had to make. And since the American party primary systems are quite unrepresentative and easily manipulated, and especially favour incumbents, the primary voters can't take the fall fully either. Not to mention the constant institutional suppression of Third Party/Independent candidates. Although not a, "deep state," by any sense of the word, the blame for the rotten choice there falls on the shoulders of far fewer people, collectively, than is commonly attributed.

No kidding, I had no idea you held this view!

[Pringles]

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

Why am I not surprised that @Pringles does not understand - or support - the demands and sacrifices of public service? Especially Given many of the policies and politicians he's eagerly supported, praised, and defended - and his own possible psychiatric health issues.

[Kitten]

1 minute ago, Pringles said:

Based

[Dobs]

8 minutes ago, Patine said:

Why am I not surprised that @Pringles does not understand - or support - the demands and sacrifices of public service? Especially Given many of the policies and politicians he's eagerly supported, praised, and defended - and his own possible psychiatric health issues.

 

Just now, Patine said:

I know you're a fan of Goldwater, @Dobs, but that lawsuit was probably his lowest point of integrity, where he showed the greatest contempt and dismissal of public service for utterly self-serving reasons. Can you tell me ONE GOOD REASON by someone running for a position of such authority and responsibility should have a GUARANTEED RIGHT to mask psychiatric health from their voters? ONE GOOD REASON, and how it is NOT completely counter to the duties, expectations, and sacrifices expected of one engaging in public service?

I find this hypocritical coming from someone who has made his disdain for ever engaging in public service egregiously well-known.

But if you must know, Goldwater was protecting the integrity of the medical field by preventing it from being turned into a political battering ram. Any doctor worth their salt would tell you that the Goldwater rule has saved the medical community from embarrassment many times over the years.

And to answer your other question because you won’t let me forget it, of course I agree that the 2020 election was far from optimal in its choices and contrary to your charge, I have made that clear on the forum many times.

[Dobs]

Just now, Patine said:

@Dobs And I'd still like an answer to my previous question, as well.

Aha! I am a soothsayer! I know the future!

[Kitten]

 

[Dobs]

21 minutes ago, Patine said:

And this, as it seems you missed it to point where, "soothsaying," was required to find it, is the other question I would very much like answered:

"But do you see this, as well? Or do you believe the Republic was well-served by the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election? You've never outright said on this forum."

Babe, I’ve already answered this, not only in the forum, but in response to both your question and unnecessary reminder.

[jnewt]

6 hours ago, Patine said:

I'm also curious as to your reason for disagreement, as well, @jnewt. Do either of you fully understand what public service means to desire to be engaged in, and how it is DRASTICALLY different in duties, obligations, and expectations from any other vocation?

Yes I do. Do you fully understand the stigma around mental health? Do you understand how little most of society understands about mental health conditions, how if you say you have depression or anxiety, people think you're a danger to society, incompetent, and will act unpredictably? (Guess what? Most of the time, none of those things are true.) Employers look down on potential employees who are mentally and don't hire them because they think those things. Healthcare providers won't provide you with the same standard of care because they think they can get away with it because you're "crazy", or they simply don't even understand mental health enough to actually treat patients with even an ounce of effectiveness. Society at-large routinely discriminates against people who are mentally ill. They have fewer opportunities for work, school, and ESPECIALLY social activities. They simply are not valued the same as non-mentally ill people by society. 

I am actually aware of this and understand it. I've suffered from social anxiety disorder and depression since I was as young as I could remember. I wouldn't wish it on anyone (especially SA), but I would especially never want to force someone to disclose they suffer from mental illness just to be viewed as a crazy person by society. I'm open about it because I'd like to change that stigma, but also I simply do not give a fuck anymore if people think that about me at this point. I don't want to work for or socialize with anyone who thinks like that anyways. And yes, I realize the arguments for Trump and Biden are that they have dementia or something similar and thus cannot reason logically. But that doesn't mean I should have to disclose that I was hospitalized for anxiety when I was 16-years-old 30 years ago as I prepare for my 2048 Presidential campaign. Mental illnesses that can be and actually are being treated effectively have ZERO effect on your Presidential qualifications (despite what some people might think). I don't understand how anyone with even a smidge of empathy and understanding of mental illness and the stigma around it could ever advocate for forcing someone like me to disclose my mental health history to the world and be subjected to what comes along with that.

[jnewt]

6 hours ago, Patine said:

Why am I not surprised that @Pringles does not understand - or support - the demands and sacrifices of public service? Especially Given many of the policies and politicians he's eagerly supported, praised, and defended - and his own possible psychiatric health issues.

THIS IS THE EXACT STIGMA I'M TALKING ABOUT. Why do you think it's okay to use mental illness as an insult for people you dislike or have disagreements with? This is disgusting behavior and my entire point about how society treats mental health.

[Rezi]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

I actually fully understand the consequences and stigma of mental health. I have a psychiatrist, and as a social worker, I deal with the phenomenon a lot. But, the bigger issue at stake is transparency and honesty by someone desiring public service. It's not, at the end of the day whether Goldwater has a mental illness (although that very well may affect his job - a head-of-state position is not for the faint-of-heart or any but the clearest of heads, in any sense of the word), but his big lawsuit over it makes him seem untrustworthy, and like he has things to hide - probably including other things, which may be much worse regarding his job. Just like Trump refusing to release his tax returns. It quickly stopped being about the taxes, and more about his untrustworthiness, and likely other secrets (though personal fiscal issues, like a number of mental illnesses, can be big problems for political leaders that voters should know about). Also, saying ZERO impact on a Presidency is a different kettle of fish than the impact on other jobs. Someone going into office as U.S. President with depression - well, that office IS apparently a very depressing and gloomy workplace, a lot of the time, keep in mind. A lot of other mental illnesses won't necessarily impair someone from many lines of work - but the White House is one of the most stressful and high-wired workplaces out there. Do YOU not understand this. It's NOT a standard job. Command of one's psychological faculties, physical resiliency (not necessarily military or pro-athlete endurance, or even, as FDR proved, full ambulatory capability, but resiliency), and a strong sense of responsibility are ALL needed to succeed. I'm afraid it's THAT kind of job.

This is, in truth, more generous than just saying his disgusting, inappropriate, toxic, juvenile behaviour and laugh emotes at sick, twisted subject matter that are absolutely not funny is his own deliberate and knowing choice and he refuses to knock it off, regardless of vilely low he sinks. It's more so an indulgence to let him save face (though he probably doesn't deserve) rather than a serious attempt at diagnosis.

Stop

[jnewt]

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Also, saying ZERO impact on a Presidency is a different kettle of fish than the impact on other jobs. Someone going into office as U.S. President with depression - well, that office IS apparently a very depressing and gloomy workplace, a lot of the time, keep in mind. A lot of other mental illnesses won't necessarily impair someone from many lines of work - but the White House is one of the most stressful and high-wired workplaces out there. Do YOU not understand this. It's NOT a standard job. Command of one's psychological faculties, physical resiliency (not necessarily military or pro-athlete endurance, or even, as FDR proved, full ambulatory capability, but resiliency), and a strong sense of responsibility are ALL needed to succeed. I'm afraid it's THAT kind of job.

I said it had zero impact if it were being treated EFFECTIVELY. Someone diagnosed with depression but is being treated effectively means they're being treated to the point where they are well enough that they can take care of themselves and complete whatever responsibilities and duties they have. If they are healthy enough that they are at the point they are able to do this, then they are being treated effectively and the fact that they have depression really doesn't affect their lives. Whether any currently used treatment would be effective enough for certain cases of mental illness in certain people is another story, but that doesn't mean that the majority of cases of mental illness CANNOT be treated to this point.

[Kitten]

13 minutes ago, Patine said:

Stop what?

Are you okay?

Maybe it's time to take a break off the interweb and make a scenario.