Georgia's Very Own Megathread! (v2)

[Fuzzy Bear]

There's no reason to. There will be far more whites voting for Stacey Abrams than black voters choosing Brian Kemp.

Which doesn't necessarily make Abrams a winner.

Kemp and Cagle were/are both HPs in their own ways.  Abrams isn't an FF in my book, but she's not the HP those two are.

[Fuzzy Bear]

to prove they arent racist

No voter has to prove anything to Stacey Abrams.  Or to Matt Kemp, for that matter.

Why should a black Evangelical not vote for Brian Kemp?  Why should a black Evangelical who is pro-life, etc. not support Matt Kemp, who is certainly the more socially conservative candidate?

If I were a Georgia voter, I'd probably vote for Abrams.  She's not an FF, but Kemp is kind of an HP.
It would, however, be in spite of people of this forum who have been absolutely horrible ambassadors on her behalf.  They're the type of people who will end up costing her just enough votes for her opposition to win.  

[Fuzzy Bear]

If they were Evangelical Christians and believed that Kemp's positions on many social issues were important enough to overlook his personality.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If they were Evangelical Christians and believed that Kemp's positions on many social issues were important enough to overlook his personality.

There's the problem right there. It's all about getting what you want. Throw ethics out the window. Moral relativism. That's politics. It happens on both sides, but that doesn't mean that both sides are equally culpable. The difference is that the GOP is the side that preaches "morality" and "family values" etc. This is nothing new in politics and I can understand pragmatism, it is wrong to demand that only one side be ethical. Neither side should be preaching what they preach unless they are consistent. I am not necessarily it's wrong to be pragmatic, but the problem is the holier than thou attitude of the GOP. They didn't care if Clarence Thomas was guilty because he was a Republican and yet they cared about Bill Clinton's private life.

There are public policy issues that Evangelical Christians view as important that have the support of some unsavory persons.  I, personally, think focus should usually remain on policy.  The mistake Christians made was taking a short-cut on Clinton.  Of course he was a philanderer; the issue was POLICY. 

I don't particularly care for Kemp, and while I am an Evangelical Christian, I don't agree with all of Kemp's policy initiatives.  But there comes a point where the issue really is "Am I getting what I want?".  The issue, perhaps, is the virtue and goodness (or lack of same) in what I want.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Anyone want to make me feel better? I don’t even live in Georgia, but this one hurts me. Even worse, it scares me. I really liked Stacey Abrams and I have no doubt she was robbed, but Kemp actually scares me. Nathan Deal was bad, but he still put the good of the state above regressive social policy for the most part. It’s basically Trump, except very socially conservative, isn’t it?

He barely got over 50 percent. He doesn’t strike me as someone who will get more popular especially if he pursues some of these policies he’s floating like permitless gun carry and the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. And Georgia is pretty immune to national environments and pretty inelastic so put a strong candidate with a nice turnout operation against him and he can’t rely on a potential Democratic President in office to save him in 2022.

This is why voting is so difficult for me.

I certainly believe in the underlined that Kemp advocates.  Very much so.  I have to balance that with the fact that my spirit does not witness to his.  

I don't care for Stacey Abrams very much, but Kemp is a person that I consider to be fundamentally unfair and unjust, mean-spirited and lacking in empathy.  I have never believed that "If Stacey Abrams Wins, We All Win!" pap, but I do view Kemp as a stealth stalwart of the South's "Never" Faction, and that is far worse.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Ossoff is overrated.