Democracy Succeeds in Georgia

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
66,735
48,224
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#1
From WSJ editorial page:

Democracy Succeeds in Georgia
Stacey Abrams claims voter suppression despite record turnout.

By The Editorial Board
Nov. 19, 2018 7:32 p.m. ET

Republican Brian Kemp was declared Georgia’s Governor-elect over the weekend, yet Democrats are now trying to rob him of legitimacy by accusing him of stealing the election. Democrats hope to benefit politically by undermining faith in American democracy.

At the last tally on Sunday, Mr. Kemp led Democrat Stacey Abrams by about 55,000 votes or 1.4 percentage points. She finally acknowledged Mr. Kemp’s victory on Friday, though her non-concession concession makes Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump sound like gracious losers.

“This is not a speech of concession, because concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper,” she said. As secretary of state for eight years, Mr. Kemp presided over “systemic disenfranchisement, disinvestment and incompetence,” she declared.

Leading her long list of grievances worthy of Festivus on “Seinfeld”, she has accused Mr. Kemp of “purging” some 53,000 voters—most of whom were minorities—from the rolls. Georgia’s “exact match” law enacted by the GOP Legislature last year requires information on voter registration applications to mirror the information on file at the Georgia Department of Driver Services and federal Social Security Administration. The law was intended to prevent groups from sloppily filling out applications for individuals, as Ms. Abrams’s New Georgia Project appears to have done.

Yet voters whose applications are flagged have 26 months to clear up discrepancies. They may also vote if they present a valid photo ID, as is required of all voters under Georgia law. Voters whose IDs don’t match the names on registration forms may still cast provisional ballots. In other words, nothing stopped legitimately registered voters from casting ballots—except perhaps the Democratic warnings that they may be deemed ineligible.

Democrats also howl that Mr. Kemp has cancelled some 1.4 million voter registrations since 2012. Mr. Kemp’s alleged offense: Complying with federal and state law. Under Georgia law, registered voters who haven’t voted in three years are sent notices to confirm their residency. If they don’t respond or vote in the following two general elections, they are removed from the rolls.

Georgia is merely implementing the federal 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which requires states to “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names” of voters who are ineligible “by reason of” death or change in residence. In 2002 Congress added that “registrants who have not responded to a notice” and “have not voted in two consecutive general elections for Federal office shall be removed.” Georgia’s registration procedures are similar to those in Ohio, which the Supreme Court upheld in June.

If Mr. Kemp was trying to suppress voters, he did a lousy job. Georgia’s voter rolls have swelled by more than 20% since 2010 amid an expansion in online registration. Voter turnout this year was up 16.4 percentage points over 2014 levels, which is even greater than the 12.6-point increase nationwide. Early voting also doubled since 2014.

By all evidence Ms. Abrams benefitted tremendously from this surge in turnout. She received 90% more votes in Atlanta’s Fulton County (45% black) than the Democratic candidate in 2014 and 62% more in neighboring DeKalb County (55% black). No Democrat running for Governor or U.S. Senate has come closer to victory in nearly two decades in the conservative state. Democrats also flipped one House seat near Atlanta and another possible House pickup is too close to call.

Ms. Abrams said she plans to bring “a major federal lawsuit against the state of Georgia for gross mismanagement of this election,” and she calls her defeat proof that “democracy failed.” No doubt she hopes that inflaming the politics of racial resentment will help stoke minority and liberal turnout during her next campaign, which could come as soon as 2020 against GOP Senator David Perdue. But the price will be an even more cynical and polarized electorate.

Appeared in the November 20, 2018, print edition.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,113
31,270
1,743
oklahoma city
#2
Whether you want to believe the right-wing media that it was all on the up and up or the left-wing media that he was doing things to sway the election his way, what seems clear to me is that it is completely unreasonable to have a person running as a candidate in an election as the public official sworn to uphold that same election. He should have been forced to resigned when he chose to run, not after the fact. It is like Gundy being the referee and head coach for one of our games and claiming that he isn't biased and will just follow the rule book.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
66,735
48,224
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#3
Whether you want to believe the right-wing media that it was all on the up and up or the left-wing media that he was doing things to sway the election his way, what seems clear to me is that it is completely unreasonable to have a person running as a candidate in an election as the public official sworn to uphold that same election. He should have been forced to resigned when he chose to run, not after the fact. It is like Gundy being the referee and head coach for one of our games and claiming that he isn't biased and will just follow the rule book.
Is he accused of doing anything after the election other than following the law?
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,113
31,270
1,743
oklahoma city
#4
Is he accused of doing anything after the election other than following the law?
He is accused of lots of things which is the entire reason that I made the point.

It is the same as judges recusing themselves or as mentioned, not coaching and refereeing the same match. It doesn't matter if you actually did something illegal. The appearance of potential bias is the issue.

How comfortable would you feel if the person that is choosing who will be hired for your next job is also applying for the job? But, he is only going to follow the organization's strict criteria based on his evaluation of the interviews.
 
Sep 23, 2018
648
200
43
37
Memphis
#5
Whether you want to believe the right-wing media that it was all on the up and up or the left-wing media that he was doing things to sway the election his way, what seems clear to me is that it is completely unreasonable to have a person running as a candidate in an election as the public official sworn to uphold that same election. He should have been forced to resigned when he chose to run, not after the fact. It is like Gundy being the referee and head coach for one of our games and claiming that he isn't biased and will just follow the rule book.
Thank you for this reasoned comment. I'm liberal, and if the situation were reversed, I'd definitely want Miss Abrams to remove herself from overseeing the vote. It's a positive situation for both sides.

Also, you know damn well conservatives would be whining their asses off if Abrams wouldn't resign.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
15,793
23,496
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#6
Whether you want to believe the right-wing media that it was all on the up and up or the left-wing media that he was doing things to sway the election his way, what seems clear to me is that it is completely unreasonable to have a person running as a candidate in an election as the public official sworn to uphold that same election. He should have been forced to resigned when he chose to run, not after the fact. It is like Gundy being the referee and head coach for one of our games and claiming that he isn't biased and will just follow the rule book.
Some politicians used to resign when they ran for higher office. That never happens anymore. In 2008, how could McCain or Obama represent their state in Congress when they spent an entire year running for president. Nobody cares though, they don't want their party to give up the power.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,113
31,270
1,743
oklahoma city
#7
Some politicians used to resign when they ran for higher office. That never happens anymore. In 2008, how could McCain or Obama represent their state in Congress when they spent an entire year running for president. Nobody cares though, they don't want their party to give up the power.
That should happen also. But, that isn't even close to the same level of conflict of interest.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
66,735
48,224
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#8
He is accused of lots of things which is the entire reason that I made the point.

It is the same as judges recusing themselves or as mentioned, not coaching and refereeing the same match. It doesn't matter if you actually did something illegal. The appearance of potential bias is the issue.

How comfortable would you feel if the person that is choosing who will be hired for your next job is also applying for the job? But, he is only going to follow the organization's strict criteria based on his evaluation of the interviews.
If all those things happened before he ran and happened according to the law then why would they be a problem?
 
Jul 20, 2018
805
111
43
58
77539
#9
Whether you want to believe the right-wing media that it was all on the up and up or the left-wing media that he was doing things to sway the election his way, what seems clear to me is that it is completely unreasonable to have a person running as a candidate in an election as the public official sworn to uphold that same election. He should have been forced to resigned when he chose to run, not after the fact. It is like Gundy being the referee and head coach for one of our games and claiming that he isn't biased and will just follow the rule book.
Just because he was overseeing the election, he changed the outcome? Exactly how is that possible?

If the Russians aren't changing the outcome of elections, Republicans are. Or, maybe democrats simply lost.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,113
31,270
1,743
oklahoma city
#10
If all those things happened before he ran and happened according to the law then why would they be a problem?
Why do you keep ignoring everything I say in order to ask questions that are only peripherally related to what I said?

Yes, that is rhetorical because we both know you don’t have a response to the point. We both also know if these were dems you would be up in arms about it rather than trying your Socratic defense. You are a university professor, you know this is a conflict of interest . Your questions do not matter to that point. A judge doesn’t have to make a bad ruling for a conflict of interest. Gundy would not have to call holding on every play. It is still a conflict of interest.

If you aren’t going to speak to the point, further “questions” will be ignored.
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,113
31,270
1,743
oklahoma city
#11
Just because he was overseeing the election, he changed the outcome? Exactly how is that possible?

If the Russians aren't changing the outcome of elections, Republicans are. Or, maybe democrats simply lost.
Stupid strawman argument. Not worthy of a response.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
66,735
48,224
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#15
Why do you keep ignoring everything I say in order to ask questions that are only peripherally related to what I said?

Yes, that is rhetorical because we both know you don’t have a response to the point. We both also know if these were dems you would be up in arms about it rather than trying your Socratic defense. You are a university professor, you know this is a conflict of interest . Your questions do not matter to that point. A judge doesn’t have to make a bad ruling for a conflict of interest. Gundy would not have to call holding on every play. It is still a conflict of interest.

If you aren’t going to speak to the point, further “questions” will be ignored.
My questions are entirely to the point. All that stuff outlined in the OP happened before the election season, and it happened according to law. It's like the rules committee deciding what the rules were going during the off-season. This was done well before the contest, before it was even known who the contestants were going to be, before the primaries. Then the contest. Then the score. The only thing left is declaring that the score is the score. "Yep, that's the score." It's not like he's actually counting the votes or interfering with counting the votes, that is left to people on the ground and there are teams of people from both sides doing that. If that were happening then you would have a point. You are, and she is, trying to create a conflict where none exists. Her suit will go nowhere. She lost, she's a sore loser, everyone in Georgia is racist, war on women, and something-a-phobe according to the Dem-playbook.

But you'll ignore further questions anyway.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,113
31,270
1,743
oklahoma city
#16
My questions are entirely to the point. All that stuff outlined in the OP happened before the election season, and it happened according to law. It's like the rules committee deciding what the rules were going during the off-season. This was done well before the contest, before it was even known who the contestants were going to be, before the primaries. Then the contest. Then the score. The only thing left is declaring that the score is the score. "Yep, that's the score." It's not like he's actually counting the votes or interfering with counting the votes, that is left to people on the ground and there are teams of people from both sides doing that. If that were happening then you would have a point. You are, and she is, trying to create a conflict where none exists. Her suit will go nowhere. She lost, she's a sore loser, everyone in Georgia is racist, war on women, and something-a-phobe according to the Dem-playbook.

But you'll ignore further questions anyway.
Right, everything was over before the election. Nothing for Kemp to do at all in that boring old job of overseeing his own election:

Kemp is now facing renewed scrutiny after his office announced Sunday — without providing evidence and doing so just hours before Election Day — that it is investigating the Georgia Democratic Party for an alleged hack of the state’s voter registration system.

The move to publicly disclose the probe appeared to break with tradition in the office, which oversees voting integrity, as it differed from how Kemp’s team handled an earlier cyber breach at Kennesaw State University.

‘It all just sounds very strange’

Edgardo Cortés, Virginia’s former elections commissioner, called Sunday’s announcement “bizarre” and said the timing of it is “problematic,” adding he wouldn’t have done it had he been in Kemp’s shoes. Such public statements, Cortés said, could depress voter turnout by making people question the reliability of the election system.

“It all just sounds very strange,” said Cortés, an election security advisor for the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonprofit institute at New York University’s School of Law. “You suddenly open an investigation without giving any sort of details about what happened? In Virginia, we would never have done something like that because I think it would have created a lot of concern among voters.”

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--reg...h-scrutiny-brian-kemp/AElKvktttgsz5UgJbiXgyO/
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,113
31,270
1,743
oklahoma city
#17
My questions are entirely to the point. All that stuff outlined in the OP happened before the election season, and it happened according to law. It's like the rules committee deciding what the rules were going during the off-season. This was done well before the contest, before it was even known who the contestants were going to be, before the primaries. Then the contest. Then the score. The only thing left is declaring that the score is the score. "Yep, that's the score." It's not like he's actually counting the votes or interfering with counting the votes, that is left to people on the ground and there are teams of people from both sides doing that. If that were happening then you would have a point. You are, and she is, trying to create a conflict where none exists. Her suit will go nowhere. She lost, she's a sore loser, everyone in Georgia is racist, war on women, and something-a-phobe according to the Dem-playbook.

But you'll ignore further questions anyway.
You are trying so hard to make my statement about that election and it wasn't. I don't know and don't care if he was honest and forthright and she is making up crap or if he misused his office. The only thing that matters is that he should not be in a position to misuse the office or even be accused and innocent because it is a conflict of interest to be in that office when you are a candidate. It should not happen.
You know that. And, if it were a dem, if you were being honest you would be agreeing with me fully.
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,148
273
1,713
#18
This thread vs the Florida election goofiness thread is another perfect example of the bias of this board. Just last year there was a suit filed against Georgia election officials, and just days after the suit was filed the server containing crucial voting data was wiped clean. No one would say who gave the order to wipe the servers, but you can guess who was in charge at the time...
https://www.apnews.com/877ee1015f1c43f1965f63538b035d3f

Here's a NYT opinion piece on some of the other shenanigans Kemp and Georgia have been accused of. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/...rosecutions.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytopinion
 
Jul 7, 2004
4,107
2,748
1,743
#19
RIAN KEMP DISSECTS STACEY ABRAMS ENTIRE VOTER SUPPRESSION ARGUMENT POINT BY POINT
1:26 PM 11/20/2018 | POLITICS
Molly Prince | Politics Reporter
7958
  • Gov.-elect Brian Kemp disproved Stacey Abrams’ claim that there was widespread voter suppression in the Georgia election by showing there was a historic turnout at the polls.
  • Kemp claimed that many of the problems that arose during the election were due to Abrams’ own voter registration initiative.
  • Kemp quashed Abrams’ assertion that he set up fewer polling locations in non-white areas by explaining that only happened in one area, which was determined by the Democrats.
Georgia’s Republican Gov.-elect Brian Kemp refuted his Democratic challenger Stacey Abrams’ repeated claims of voter suppression on Monday by explaining why the state’s elections are “secure, accessible and fair.”
Kemp called Abrams’ voter suppression allegations “unfair,” while appearing on “Fox & Friends,” and asserted that Georgia’s election system make it “easy to vote and hard to cheat.” Kemp, Georgia’s former secretary of state, oversaw elections as the state’s chief election officer. (RELATED: Democrats Are Misleadingly Blaming The GOP For Racist Voter Suppression In The Georgia Gubernatorial Battle)
Abrams and her campaign have consistently accused Kemp of racist voter suppression. A spokeswoman for Abrams’ campaign released a statement in October claiming that the he is “maliciously wielding the power of his office to suppress the vote for political gain and silence the voices of thousands of eligible voters — the majority of them people of color.” Following Abrams’ loss, she has been appearing regularly on cable news shows repeating those assertions.


“We saw the ‘easy to vote’ part — we had 1.4 million more voters in this election than we did in the last governor’s race. A historic turnout,” Kemp explained. “We have a million more people on the rolls because I pushed for and implemented online voter registration where people could register to vote 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If my opponent and her activist groups had used the online system, they wouldn’t have had as many problems as they did with the folks that they were registering.”
Kemp was referring to the New Georgia Project, which was founded by Abrams to register “all eligible, unregistered citizens of color in Georgia.” The initiative canvasses with paper forms rather than via Online Voter Registration (OVR), however, since the OVR system prohibits a “pending” status, if the New Georgia Project registered voters online, 40 percent of the 53,000 would not currently be pending, according to the Georgia GOP.
“Nobody’s questioning the Democrats’ wins, knocking off one of our congresswomen in the state of Georgia,” Kemp continued. “They’re not questioning the local races that they won. This is just political rhetoric.”
Host Brian Kilmeade asked Kemp about Abrams’ claim that he set up fewer polling locations, especially in areas with primarily non-white residents. (
“Well, that’s just a mistruth. The county elections officials, the local elections boards have the sole responsibility for how many polling locations they have and where they are,” Kemp said. “The one county that this was an issue with before the election, they’re controlled by Democrats. [Abrams] is blaming me for a problem that [Democrats] created and it’s just ridiculous.”
Kemp also disputed that the “exact-match” law, whereby voter registrations must mirror the state’s records of individuals, such as motor vehicle or Social Security records, is illegal or racist. Abrams has frequently claimed that those laws did not work on her behalf.
“We have laws on the books in Georgia, and I know [Abrams] may not like some of the laws, but we take an oath of office and the county officials have a duty to follow the law and the elections rules that we have in our state,” Kemp said. “We check citizenship. We require people to show photo ID when they vote. And we verify this information before people go on the voter rolls.”