About Last Night: Georgia Senate Runoffs Edition

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his writing website Yonder and Home.

Related Post Roulette

40 Responses

  1. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    Ossoff’s lead is currently about 16,500 votes above Pursue according to the Times. The remaining votes are from heavily blue counties and most media organizations have done everything but call it officially for Ossoff. Decision desk and Vox did call it for Ossoff.

    Credit should go to Stacey Abrams and Fair Fight who did an amazing job at getting out the vote especially black turnout. The Democrats increased their lead in nearly every county and turned some counties from red to blue this time. Trump committed unenforced errors because he is a vainglorious, syphilitic, moron. An AP poll stated that 56 percent of Georgians disapproved of Trump’s post-election GA antics. Trump cost the Republicans Georgia in November and now.Report

  2. InMD
    Ignored
    says:

    Democrats need to use this opportunity to show themselves as the party of competent government, economic recovery, and a little responsible rebalancing. It can’t be ‘pretend 2016 never happened/all was well under Obama’ and it can’t be a time of indulging the weirdos on the fringes. Then they need to buck the historical trend and at least hold in the midterms.

    Trump’s poor governance and generally embarrassing antics was probably never going to be enough for a come to Jesus talk on the right. ‘This guy was such an extraordinary fool he lost us f***ing Georgia’ on the other hand may have some traction.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to InMD
      Ignored
      says:

      While this is a continuum rather than a toggle, there are two ways this could play out:

      1) Democrats use this as an opportunity to get an important policy through Congress/White House.
      2) Democrats codify that Aunt Jemima is Persona non Grata and demand an inquiry into who the Black guy on the Stubb’s bottle is while ramping up bombing in Syria.

      My money is on #2.

      But we’ll see.Report

      • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Are you talking actual money? If so, I’ll take that bet.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
          Ignored
          says:

          How would we measure this?

          Whether we start bombing Syria before June mixed with silly culture war posturing?

          Or whether something important gets pushed through (and now we can define “important”… maybe $2000 checks or M4A or Supreme Court expansion)?Report

          • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            I’m sorry. I took you literally, not seriously. You had set the terms when there wasn’t money on the table. Now you want to haggle. No thanks.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
              Ignored
              says:

              I just wanted to know how we’d measure this.

              What terms would *YOU* like to set?

              “We’ve changed the top tax rate from 37% to 37.4%! That’s an IMPORTANT POLICY!”

              That’s something that I wouldn’t buy as an important policy.

              Bombing Syria strikes me as something that wouldn’t really require “well, you have to understand…” hair splitting from either of us.

              As for silly culture war posturing, we’d have to define that too.

              I mean, if there was real money on the table.

              I’d want something that we’d be able to point to as we went to the judges and said “I won the bet. Behold.”

              I mean, I wouldn’t want it to be just You vs. Me on this. I’d want a judge to say “I have looked at the terms and looked at the outcomes you’ve presented and I have decided that Jay is wrong!”

              Rather than just you saying “you don’t understand, 37.4% will save countless lives! And if you don’t agree, that just proves that you never intended to honor our bet in the first place!”Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You’re the one who set the terms before someone took you up on the bet. Now you want to re-set them. You’ve done it before. You’re doing it again.
                You might want to avoid betting metaphors in the future if you don’t want to be called on them.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                No, I’m exploring something like “okay, we’ll have North be the guy who says who won the bet on August 1st, 2021. I’ll write a post explaining, in detail, what the bet is and what the terms are. On August 1st, 2021, we will go to North and lay down what we said, link to some news articles, and ask him ‘who won?’ and then he will say who won and then the loser will pay up.”

                This is prelude to the bet actually happening!

                We have to hammer out what “an important policy” actually would be?

                Because I think that a second $600 check would not be “an important policy” but “a no-brainer” and something that Republicans would have to argue against in 2022 would qualify as “an important policy”.

                Like, something that they would run on changing in two years would be “an important policy” while a $600 (or even $2000!) check would be forgotten by the World Series.

                As for the line about “Democrats codify that Aunt Jemima is Persona non Grata and demand an inquiry into who the Black guy on the Stubb’s bottle is while ramping up bombing in Syria”, it was a humorous way to say what I will try to establish now:

                Major distracting culture war fights while bombing really ramps up again in earnest in the Middle East including (but not limited to) Syria.

                We hammer this stuff out here, I’ll write a post, and put it up.

                We’ll also want to discuss amounts.

                I’m more of a fan of “I’ll send $200 to the charity of your choice” than I am to “give me your home address and I’ll mail you a check”, for a handful of obvious reasons.

                (Oh, and the charities will probably have to be vetted by North as well. I’d have to get this donation past Maribou, after all.)Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I get that you won’t put up or shut up on your original offer. Now you want to make another one. I don’t negotiate with bookies. They set the line and I either play or don’t depending on whether I like the line. You set the line and then didn’t want to take the action. Fine. Alabama-Ohio State is coming up. I expect the bookies will set a line and stick to it. I know we won’t be haggling about it.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                So, then, let’s hammer out what you want the bet to be.

                1. An important policy being pushed through (we will not define “important” and we will not define “policy”)
                2. Democrats codify that Aunt Jemima is Persona non Grata and demand an inquiry into who the Black guy on the Stubb’s bottle is while ramping up bombing in Syria. (If Aunt Jemima is not mentioned in congressional floor transcripts as being no longer acceptable and if the Stubb’s product is not mentioned, then this condition is not met.)

                Do I have this right? That’s the bet you’re demanding?

                Well, how’s this. You win.

                One dollar. I’ll put it under the red rock in front of the house. If you don’t pick it up by Thursday night, I’ll assume you don’t want it.

                Because I would be willing to make this bet with you with clarifications on the first and an opportunity to rephrase my joke of the type of culture war bullshit that I saw likely to happen as a non-joking phrasing of what I see likely to see.

                And if North is an acceptable judge to you, I’ll ask him to be the guy to make the call as to who won the bet.

                Hell, we can even discuss an amount that we’re betting!

                Would you like to have that second discussion or do you want to say “I will bet money that they won’t talk about the Stubb’s bottle on the Congressional floor and you won’t take me up on it, coward!”?

                Because, if it’s merely the second, I will say that I will take you up on that bet, and then cheerfully concede, right now, that I’ll have lost it, and put your winnings outside for you to pick up with no-contact.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t and didn’t “want” the bet to be anything. You set the line, I took you up on it, you backed away. Which is what I expected. And you delivered.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, congrats. You have won the bet and I have lost it.

                Your money is outside.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Donate it to the charity of your choice.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Done.

                Now I’d like to return to my original point, if I may.

                While this is a continuum rather than a toggle, there are two ways this could play out:

                1) Democrats use this as an opportunity to get an important policy through Congress/White House.
                2) Democrats codify that Aunt Jemima is Persona non Grata and demand an inquiry into who the Black guy on the Stubb’s bottle is while ramping up bombing in Syria.

                My money is that we’re going to be a lot closer to #2 than to #1.Report

  3. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    If you would like a good chuckle:

    Report

  4. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    Much of the punditry about the election will be various flavors of the Pundit Fallacy, that the path to victory leads precisely through the area of the pundit’s own preferences.

    But what lead to victory or defeat isn’t ever clear. Whether the Democrats won in spite of/ because of X is very hard to determine.

    For example; Did the George Floyd protests help or hurt the Democrats? Did the Proud Boys help or hurt the Republicans? Did McConnell’s refusal to give the $2000 checks help or hurt?Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      Did the George Floyd protests help or hurt the Democrats?

      Hurt in the House but didn’t hurt Biden nationally, given that Biden pretty much ran on “it’s okay to split your ballot”. (We got into this over the issue of whether someone would vote for a Republican in the House because of Pelosi rather than because of the R vs. D choice before them.)

      Did the Proud Boys help or hurt the Republicans? I don’t know that there was a whole lot of Proud Boy coverage prior to Georgia. (The footage that I saw was PB vs. Antifa and that was usually seen as a carny sideshow rather than This Is A Microcosm of Trump vs. Biden.) To the extent that they had an effect, it was to help Biden (and thus, hurt the Republicans) because the message was “Vote Biden and This Goes Away.” I don’t know that the effect on Georgia was more than negligible.

      Did McConnell’s refusal to give the $2000 checks help or hurt? I think that McConnell’s refusal to give the checks cost at least one Senate race. Loeffler was doomed, I think. Magnificently horrible optics from the insider trading to the recent flailing. Perdue is up in the air. The checks strike me as likely to have saved him.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Right, but you’re giving us “Jaybird’s Perspective On What It Means”. Your interpretation of what you think other Americans and Georgians saw, and what it means to them.

        Which may be correct. Or not! Which is my point, that there isn’t any clear and unassailable message being sent, and the correct strategy going forward isn’t obvious.

        Here’s a funny tweet:
        https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1346670893859282945

        “So when do we get the nonstop newspaper columns and TV segments about how Republicans have gone too far to the radical right, losing Main Street Americans, and how they no have no choice but to embrace higher taxes on the rich, single-payer healthcare, and corporate regulation?”

        Because, y’know the answer to any Republicans proposal is :This is how we got Biden/ Senate Majority Leader Schumer.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          My argument wouldn’t be that the Republicans went to far to the Radical Right.

          It would be that, once again, when given the choice between representing The People and representing Big Business, they chose to represent Big Business.

          I imagine that this will result in, among other things, higher taxes on the rich and regulation of business that megacorporations will absorb easily and will be very difficult for small businesses to handle.

          As for single-payer, well… you have to understand. There are a lot of people who work in the insurance industry.

          But if I were a betting man, I’d bet on the high end of the highest tax bracket being nudged up at bit (it’s at 37% now. I can effortlessly see it hitting 37.5%. If someone wanted to argue that it’d hit 39%, I probably wouldn’t argue against them. 39.2% is around where I’d say ‘huh… I did not expect that.’)
          I’d bet on healthcare being really, really complicated.
          And corporate regulation? HELL YEAH CORPORATE REGULATION! But not, you know, for credit card companies. Or this corner of finance. Or that corner of options trading.Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      It’s the subjective versus the objective.

      What is the objective criteria we can use to judge this?Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Oscar Gordon
        Ignored
        says:

        I reject the premise, that “we” need to “judge” political strategy of what wins or not.
        “We” are not paid campaign consultants, and our judgement means nothing.

        What this barstool quarterbacking does, I think, is turn us from being engaged and empowered citizens of a republic, to detached cynical observers.

        I think it is unhealthy for us mentally to fixate on being savvy pundits and prognosticators. I think its much better to just speak forthrightly about our opinions of what is good or bad for our nation, of what is right or wrong and let the chips fall where they may.

        What’s the right thing for the Democrats to do going forward?
        I have a long list!

        What’s the politically advantageous thing?
        I don’t know.Report

  5. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    Let’s bask in the fact that a Deep South state just elected a Black man and a Jew to be their Senators. Warnock held the pulpit at Martin Luther King Jr.’s congregation. This is the triumph of the old civil rights alliance as Adam Serwer wrote on twitter last night. Cobb County, one of the bedrocks of modern conservatism went overwhelmingly Democratic.Report

  6. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    The National Review gets it: https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-trump-era-ends-in-disaster-in-georgia/

    “You know what suburban voters do? They show up and vote. Year in, year out, presidential years, midterms, off-year elections, special elections, non-November local elections. They must rank among the most easily overlooked, underrated, and underappreciated voters, those allegedly wishy-washy, milquetoast, not-fond-of-Trump, minivan-driving moderate suburban soccer moms and white-collar dads. They’re not exciting. They’re rarely looking for anything revolutionary. They’re not looking to “burn it all down”; they’re the ones who built the things that would get burned down.

    You know why it makes sense for a political party to target its messaging and appeal to this voter demographic? Because you don’t have to do much to get them to the polls. They do it out of habit and civic duty. As John Bragg put it last night: “They always vote, just like they always file their taxes, pay their bills, mow their lawns, send their kids to college. The question is, which party appeals to those people in 2020?”

    As for those blue-collar Trump voters . . . Republican grassroots turnout was down last night. Republicans will be arguing about why it was down for a long time. You can argue that David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler are less than thrilling candidates; they are not, as I like to say, whirling dervishes of raw political charisma. But recall that back in November, Perdue beat Ossoff by more than 88,000 votes; he just fell three-tenths of a percentage point short of that 50 percent threshold.

    David Perdue is the same guy he was in November. His opponent is the same. The state’s demographics didn’t change. So, what changed?

    What made this runoff election particularly unusual is that the president of the United States, the state party chairman, most of the state’s GOP congressional delegation, and other GOP figures spent the past two months arguing that Georgia’s recent presidential-election results were fraudulent and that mass-scale vote fraud and hacking of voting machines changed Trump votes to Biden votes. Shockingly, that consistent messaging did not increase the enthusiasm among Republican voters to cast ballots again. If only someone had warned them!”Report

    • Philip H in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      Right? Its like there’s a real consequence for claiming the election system you need to keep power has been corrupted by the other side . . . .Report

    • InMD in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      It is a truly epic self-destruct.Report

    • JS in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      “the state party chairman, most of the state’s GOP congressional delegation, and other GOP figures spent the past two months arguing that Georgia’s recent presidential-election results were fraudulent and that mass-scale vote fraud and hacking of voting machines changed Trump votes to Biden votes. Shockingly, that consistent messaging did not increase the enthusiasm among Republican voters to cast ballots again. If only someone had warned them!””

      Actually you’re missing one other thing that changed.

      Donald Trump was not on the ticket. Just like he wasn’t in 2018.

      Now maybe Trump’s primal screams that he didn’t lose turned off voters. Or maybe Donald Trump is just really good at bringing out low-propensity voters to vote for him, but not so good at getting them to vote for anyone else. While also being really, really good at making Democrats want to go vote against Trump, his party, and possibly anyone he ever met just in case.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *