And that is a bad thing why?
If anything, this fact may keep some Isakson supporters home who may otherwise have felt the need to “get out the vote”.
I’ll concur that Majette has little chance of defeating Isakson, but I agree her presense on the ballot will make this race closer than it otherwise would have been. But I fear it won’t be enough. And can only hope Kerry doesn’t need us.
I don’t think so. I think the big three are Ohio, Florida and Missouri. Bush must win all three. Even if he does hold all three it still may not be enough if Kerry wins in New Hampshire, West Virginia and Nevada.
Because she’s a grandstanding, raving lunatic who did nothing useful for the 4th District in the years she “represented” it.
Maybe – I wouldn’t know about that. But I do know she is the only member of Congress who has ever introduced a bill (the Voters Choice Act) to elect the House by proportional representation. That is – well, very important. Very, very important. At this stage in our history, really more important than anything else. See http://www.fairvote.org/op_eds/next_step_for_democracy.htm and http://www.fairvote.org/library/statutes/vca/lemons_lemonade.htm. See also this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269169
I’ve also heard McKinney floated some conspiracy theories about the 9-11 attacks – I mean, of course it was a conspiracy, but I mean theories that the Bush Admin might have intentionally allowed it to happen – and I certainly would not class her as a “raving lunatic” based on that! 
[hijacking my own thread]
Another unpleasant aspect of McKinney is her suspected anti-Semitism. Her father made some wildly anti-Semitic remarks during her previous campaign, which she refused to disavow. She herself plays the race card on a regular basis, which rubs her white constituents the wrong way. There are plenty of Democrats in Georgia who are none too pleased with McKinney.
[/hijack]
Majette won her runoff, by the way, so she is the Democratic nominee for Senate in Georgia. I predict heavy turnout among Georgia’s black voters in November.
I’m not so sure. My argument is that Kerry might be able to put Georgia in play without changing a single mind, simply by focusing on registration and turnout among black voters. If that’s the case, Georgia could help him even though his numbers nationally might not budge one way or the other.
Er, because letting a kook get back into the legislature is sort of ipso facto a bad thing?
From memory, I belive something like 70% of white men and 60-65% of white women in Georgia self-identify as Republican. (There is no party registration in Georgia.)
There’s one sure way to tell- are the candidates advertising in Georgia? In Michigan the ads have been constant for months now but then everyone says Michigan is a swing state. How is Georgia doing, ad-wise?
I’ve seen a couple of Kerry ads and a couple of Bush ads lately on my satellite system. Just a trickle.
But I don’t think ads are the approach Kerry needs to take in Georgia. I don’t think ads will make the difference. What will make the difference are voter registration and voter turnout.
Kerry’s campaign needs to try to enlist black musicians, Andrew Young, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and whoever else can help him register black voters here. I’ve noticed that several black musicians are beginning to speak up on the voter registration issue, and that’s the button that needs to be pressed. Issue ads won’t do it.
I think you are confusing the terms “swing state” and “battleground state”, BobLibDem, which are used synonymously but mean different things. Swing states are the ones that are somewhat likely to swing from the party they voted for last election to the other side. Battleground states are where the electoral battle takes place because both sides believe those states might swing in this election. Georgia has not faced an advertising blitz so it’s not a battleground state. That doesn’t mean it can’t swing to the Dems.
You have a point, 2sense. At least it makes sense2 me.
Whether he knows it or not, I think Kerry’s campaign just got a big boost here with the nomination of Majette.
I just hope Kerry’s camp has the wisdom to see this and to take advantage.
Does it help Kerry’s chances in Georgia, do you think, that his running mate, John Edwards, is a Southener? Or does it hurt his chances, because Edwards is a liberal Southerner?
Don’t think it helps him outside North Carolina, to be honest.
(On the other hand, I think John Edwards at the top of the ticket would have had a lot of appeal in the South.)
People don’t generally vote for the VP, except maybe in the VP’s home state.
I should amend that last post a bit.
I do think it’s a good thing for Kerry to have Edwards on the ticket. If he had picked another VP, a lot of resentful Southerner Democrats might have just stayed home. So while having Edwards on the ticket might not add any new votes in the South (outside NC), it does help keep Kerry from potentially losing votes in the South.
Okay, so let’s do the math.
Let’s assume that Majette’s presence on the ballot inspires 150% of the usual turnout of voting black Georgians (an arbitrary guess; maybe we’ll want to tweak this later).
Let’s further assume that 100% of them vote for Majette, and also for Kerry.
Meanwhile, voters from all other ethnic groups and political persuasions vote in their typical numbers.
Does Majette win? Does Kerry take the state?
We have too many unknown variables to do that math.
My googling has not yet turned up precentages of black and white voters in the past few Georgia elections. (Anyone?)
And while I’ve read that 27% of voting-age citizens of Georgia are black, I don’t know what percentage of those citizens is registered to vote.
Fiver, to attempt to answer your question
The voting breakdown in the 2000 presidential election (used because I needed something with a statewide race)
Total voted: 2,827,000
Total Black voted: 1,010,000
From that same file, the registered black voting population was only 1,296,000 so your assumption of 150% of the population now probably is a bit high. The black, citizen voting age population is listed at 1,892,000. Based on those numbers, I’d guess a black voting turnout at 120% of 2000.
Based on all of the above and the rest of your assumptions, the final vote tally for the Presidential election would end up somewhere around:
Bush - 1,419,720 (52%)
Kerry (with 120% black turnout, 100% for Kerry) - 1,318,230 (48%)
These numbers are extremely shaky and the assumptions don’t exactly seem reasonable. I reckon someone will come along with much better data and blow my ideas out of the water. Still, in what I would think would be a best case for Kerry he still comes up short.
And, in the end, a couple of things about this thread that are either being overlooked or given too much weight:
- Georgia is so safely Republican that Republicans won’t be energized and will assume everything is hunky dory in the election. Somehow this thread seems to be viewing Bush’s popularity here as a weakness that could cost him.
- Denise Majette is an inspiring figure to voters although she has done little of significance in her term in the House, has little money to spend, and up to this point in her political career has best benefitted by being “Not Cynthia McKinney.”
- She is facing a pretty well liked incumbent who has a solid base.
- Blacks vote solely based on skin color. I’d like to think black people won’t vote in lock-step just because Majette is black or a Democrat and that they can actually consider other options before blindly poking the boxes next to the (Dem.)s.