The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[Tani Coyote]

https://decisiondeskhq.com/results/montana-at-large-congressional-election/

Live results from the Montana race. So far we have about 9% of the precincts reporting and 103,000 votes.

Quist has a narrow lead on Gianforte, and it sounds like they're counting absentee/early ballots first. This bodes bad for Gianforte if he doesn't gain a lead: the early/absent ballots were seen as a cushion against fallout from the poor CBO score and the assault story.

[SSF1991]

Gianforte's leading by 3% now. And apparently he's "running 4-5% ahead of his numbers in the Governor's race last year" according to their live blog.

I'd say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

[Patticus]

Quist will likely lose, but the percentage by which he loses will be important. FiveThirtyEight's Harry Enten explained this a few minutes ago on their Montana Special Election Live Blog:

Quote

We’ve gotten some questions and comments from readers to the effect of: What are you stupid? How can you say a Democrat losing by several percentage points good for the party?

It’s a fair question. At the end of the day, Democrats need to win Republican-held seats to take back the House. But Montana’s seat wouldn’t be a top pickup opportunity. There are 120 Republican-held seats that lean more Democratic on the presidential level than Montana’s. So looking at the Montana race by itself isn’t helpful if you’re interested in the national picture.

Instead, we look at how much better Quist is doing than we’d expect given the presidential lean in Montana. If he loses by say 8 points. It means he outperformed Montana’s default political lean — how it would vote in a presidential election that was tied nationally — by 13 points. There are 64 GOP-held seats that are 13 points redder than the nation as a whole or less. Now, Democrats likely won’t win all 64, but that’s why a mid-single digit loss for a Democrat in Montana suggests that a lot of seats are in play for them in 2018.

So far, with 42% of precincts reporting, Gianforte is leading by about 3.2%, 48.7% to Quist's 45.5%. At the end of the night, he may reach the low-mid 50s. This should concern Republicans deeply, behind the scenes, as he should be hitting the low 60s.

[Tani Coyote]

25 minutes ago, SSF1991 said:

Gianforte's leading by 3% now. And apparently he's "running 4-5% ahead of his numbers in the Governor's race last year" according to their live blog.

I'd say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

The role of the early vote cannot be understated. There are reports of lots of people calling in asking about changing their vote after last night's incident.

It's moments like this that really establish how nice second-round voting would be.

[KHCast]

Guess I shouldn't be surprised if he ends up winning given the state of the country. I mean a republican could probably put a middle finger up to a baby and say "fuck blacks" and still get moderates and defenders justifying why he's still a good candidate. Though if the percentage of people wanting to change their votes now exceed those still standing by their choice, I'll take this all back.

[SSF1991]

The fact that you can body-slam a reporter and still be elected, early vote or not, is disgraceful. It disgusts me. We've seen case after case of the GOP doing this crap, in many cases actions that simply cannot be justified or defended by many affiliated politicians, and yet they're still winning seats and still getting votes.

I'm firmly convinced that their voting base is less so political and more so a cult. There is literally nothing the GOP could do that would make them lose their base and it just feels like blind worship at this point. It's scary.

I just want to see Democrats actually gaining seats, winning elections, and proving to me that they really are "turning districts blue". Close races mean nothing when there's no elected seats to show for it. Instead, it's just jerks, criminals, and liars getting elected. And that's inexcusable.

(If you haven't guessed by now, yeah he won)

[Nepenthe]

In lighter news, Mayor Mitch Landreau put forth an amazing speech on why the confederate statues in New Orleans needed to be removed.

[KHCast]

In more shitty news 

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/watch_betsy_devos_says_anti_lgbt_discrimination_by_schools_is_just_another_example_of_parental_choice

Fuck this

[Tani Coyote]

48 minutes ago, SSF1991 said:

The fact that you can body-slam a reporter and still be elected, early vote or not, is disgraceful. It disgusts me. We've seen case after case of the GOP doing this crap, in many cases actions that simply cannot be justified or defended by many affiliated politicians, and yet they're still winning seats and still getting votes.

I'm firmly convinced that their voting base is less so political and more so a cult. There is literally nothing the GOP could do that would make them lose their base and it just feels like blind worship at this point. It's scary.

I just want to see Democrats actually gaining seats, winning elections, and proving to me that they really are "turning districts blue". Close races mean nothing when there's no elected seats to show for it. Instead, it's just jerks, criminals, and liars getting elected. And that's inexcusable.

(If you haven't guessed by now, yeah he won)

Only narrowly, fortunately. There's clearly a lot of dissatisfaction with the GOP.

Don't be so pessimistic about the support base, though. As has been highlighted in this thread, even Trump's base is shrinking. Not just among independents but among the same working class whites who pushed him over the finish line. If we had a repeat of 2016, he'd lose.

Dems gained their first two state-level seats on Tuesday in ruby red districts, and are currently at a net +1 for 2017 as a result. It's encouraging for the midterms because it means that moderate seats could be swung even more easily. GOP margins are slipping just about everywhere.

Montana was never a likely Democrat pickup. That Quist still got a decent vote share is encouraging.

Georgia, on the other hand? That seat is looking like an increasing flip. All Democrats need to do is turn out and not take it as a given, and the Dems have their first House seat needed to retake the majority.

[KHCast]

To be fair Ogi, you're one of the few that I've seen can turn a loss in politics into a positive haha and ignore the emotional negative response lol. Not that that's bad mind you haha. Just don't really see many people as optimistic when situations like this constantly pop up 

[Tani Coyote]

Just now, KHCast said:

To be fair Ogi, you're one of the few that I've seen can turn a loss in politics into a positive haha and ignore the emotional negative response lol. Not that that's bad mind you haha. Just don't really see many people as optimistic when situations like this constantly pop up 

I spent my whole life thinking I'd have to wait until I was like 50 to marry a boyfriend.

Then voila, Supreme Court gives me gay marriage all gift wrapped.

Change is a gradual process consisting of many dashes forward and setbacks. As bad as Trump and co. are, they are merely continuing the trend. But people cause trends, however. Upset Democrats will not see anything improve if they don't make a point to turn that anger into action.

But fortunately, many of them already are. There is reason to be hopeful for the future, so long as we all do our small part.

[KHCast]

13 minutes ago, Lord Liquir (Ogilvie) said:

I spent my whole life thinking I'd have to wait until I was like 50 to marry a boyfriend.

Then voila, Supreme Court gives me gay marriage all gift wrapped.

Change is a gradual process consisting of many dashes forward and setbacks. As bad as Trump and co. are, they are merely continuing the trend. But people cause trends, however. Upset Democrats will not see anything improve if they don't make a point to turn that anger into action.

But fortunately, many of them already are. There is reason to be hopeful for the future, so long as we all do our small part.

I wouldn't say "gift wrapped", it still needs lots of ironing out, but yeah I see your point.

back to my earlier post, can I just say I'm just livid that the secretary of education is encouraging discrimination? Who the fuck are these shitty clowns?

[Tani Coyote]

http://gothamist.com/2017/05/26/new_york_healthcare_battle.php

Single payer in New York is very close to passing, with 31 of the 32 votes needed for it to pass in the Senate. Simcha Felder, a man elected as a Democrat who caucuses with the Republicans, is the last holdout of the 32 Democrats in the Senate. Naturally, Dems are also fishing for votes among the Republican State Senate members, some of whom are from New York City and Long Island. Given the recent Democratic upset there, who knows, one of them may become the next Arlen Specter.

We have two state seats up for grabs on the 30th in South Carolina and June 15th in Tennessee, but the real interesting day will be June 20th: not only is the Georgia 6th up for grabs, but the South Carolina 5th as well. That will be the end of House vacancy elections until November, when Jason Chaffetz' Utah seat goes up for grabs and likely stays in GOP hands. 2 of South Carolina's state House seats also will be filled on the 20th. Ossoff will cast a shadow over every other race, but who knows, maybe we'll see multiple upsets like we did a few days ago.

[Patticus]

Has the New York single payer healthcare plan been examined like the California plan? I'd be interested to see how they compare, but of course I know they're not going to be identical.

Anyway, big news!

Quote

Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin

Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports.

Ambassador Sergei Kislyak reported to his superiors in Moscow that Kushner, son-in-law and confidant to then-President-elect Trump, made the proposal during a meeting on Dec. 1 or 2 at Trump Tower, according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials. Kislyak said Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications.

The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser.

The White House disclosed the fact of the meeting only in March, playing down its significance. But people familiar with the matter say the FBI now considers the encounter, as well as another meeting Kushner had with a Russian banker, to be of investigative interest.

Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications gear at its embassy or consulate — a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as well as the Trump team.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.8221813f3904

This in more than likely to be what the FBI wanted to talk to Kushner about. 

It's pretty incredible how they think that they can have all these deep connections to Russian oligarchs and the Putin regime and expect nobody to notice or mind. What is their end goal here - to serve Russia's interests? To serve their own interests and then Russia's?

What happened in 1987 when Trump was evidently turned by the Kremlin?

[Volphied]

On 26. 5. 2017 at 0:24 AM, Patticus said:

I used to think, "Eh, Trump's not so bad really. His agenda's totally stalled, the national political environment is looking very good for a 'Blue Wave' next year, and by then if he gets out of hand I'm sure they could impeach him. What's the worst that can happen?"

But now that he's shown his true colors, colors apparently painted in 1987 during his visit to the USSR, and refused to endorse Article V... the sooner he gets impeached, the better. If Putin doesn't believe Trump will enforce Article V, he will act quickly to take what he can, while he can.

His domestic agenda might have stalled on many fronts, but he's completely free on foreign matters, which gives him power to wreck the world

This year's G7 summit has ended, and Trump had already caused a lot of damage.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/27/donald-trump-decision-paris-climate-deal

Quote

Donald Trump has resisted pressure from Europe, Canada and Japan to declare his support for the UN’s landmark climate change treaty signed in Paris in 2015, marking a defiant end to his first international trip as US president.

The deadlock at the end of the G7 summit in Italy left other world leaders frustrated. The German chancellor Angela Merkel said the discussions “had been very difficult and not to say very unsatisfactory.”

“Here we have a situation of six against one, meaning there is still no sign of whether the US will remain in the Paris accord or not,” she added.

Instead, six of the seven nations used a communique at the end of the meetings to assert their commitment to implement the Paris plan, leaving Trump to tweet that he will decide next week whether the US will join them in their pledge.

[...]

In an assertion of US unilateral power, Trump also forced the Italian prime minister Paulo Gentiloni – the summit host – to shred plans for an ambitious statement stressing the plight of migrants was a global rather than regional responsibility.

Italy had planned a five-page G7 statement on human mobility, stressing migrants’ rights, their positive contribution to host nations and the threat they faced from traffickers. Instead the final statement highlighted the right of nation states to secure their borders, and set migration targets.

Trump also shot down Italian plans on African food security, days after the White House revealed plans to cut American foreign aid by a third. In 2015 the G7 committed to lift 500 million people out of famine and malnutrition, but instead famines have spread in Africa.

Friederike Röder, director at ONE, the aid charity said: “In a year of greatly-diminished expectations, the G7 have managed to set a new low. The early promise of this summit was crushed by the Trump administration’s hostile negotiating posture and the evident lack of ambition.”

[...]

The two days, along with the mini- Nato summit in Brussels on Thursday, were seen as a chance for Trump to define his ‘America First’ slogan, and test its compatibility with multilateral institutions such as the G7. At one point, Trump was seen ostentatiously not wearing the translation headphones as Gentiloni led a discussion on African growth.

Millions will suffer, thanks to Trump.

[Tani Coyote]

#AmericaFirst is a mentality peddled by people with little understanding of trade and international politics.

We often make the mistake of viewing government decisions like individual exchanges. It's no surprise people advocate running the state like a for-profit business. There's a fundamental failure to recognize the government's size and authority makes it without compare to even the most powerful individuals and businesses.

We see providing food as some loss to us, but let's remember starving people are very good at upsetting social stability. There's a reason the Romans made it a priority to feed their poor. "Let them eat cake" is a great mentality to have if you don't want to stay in power. When we feed the poor of these many countries, we give them more of a stake in the status quo and by proxy encourage stability.

If you're an accelerationist hoping for world revolution, then Trump's decision to begin cutting aid is fantastic. If you're a humanitarian or otherwise just don't want the world to go down in flames, this is a terrible idea. US interests are ultimately served by giving a fraction of what we take in as profit from dominance over the third world back in food and healthcare aid. Trump and many of his supporters buy into the idea that helping others with no direct return is detrimental to American interests, but they couldn't be further from the truth.

Trump sees us paying for most of NATO as a travesty. What he doesn't realize is that by guaranteeing we have the backs of all these various allies, countries like Russia and China will think twice about pursuing hostilities towards them. This allows our companies to freely trade and invest in these countries, allowing them to maintain huge profits. The government may be running a deficit, but the private sector is collecting huge dividends from pre-Trump foreign policy. It's like the highway system: the government has an on-paper loss from it, but it's obvious the boon to commerce more than outweighs it.

Honestly, I'd have to say this is a problem with a lot of conservative viewpoints. They tend to have surface level logic that ignores the wider ripple effect and circumstances. Voter ID laws make sense on paper as a way to reduce fraud, but in practice there is not much fraud to begin with and they end up disenfranchising voters who don't have reason to have an ID. Lowering taxes on the wealthy so they invest more makes sense on paper, but in practice we know they tend to just invest it in pre-existing companies, put it away, or otherwise just simply don't drive job creation with the savings. Having a huge military as a deterrent makes sense, until we realize we have a giant nuclear stockpile that can erase just about any country from the map if they push us against the wall. And so on.

Trump probably buys into the myth that other countries only have robust welfare networks because we subsidize their defense. This ignores the large defense budgets of countries like Britain and France. Their welfare isn't the result of a neglected military, but higher tax rates and a fundamentally different conception of citizens' rights.

What's really amusing about Trump's pro-taxpayer stance is he criticizes NATO for not spending enough because it forces America to pick up the slack, even as he asks for more and more defense spending. He can't act like he has some huge infrastructure bill in the cards but he can't pay for it because of them darn Europeans.

[8ther]

This is depressing...

http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/wake-liberals-there-will-be-no-2018-blue-wave-no-democratic-majority-and-no-impeachment

[Volphied]

37 minutes ago, CD Sanic said:

This is depressing...

http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/wake-liberals-there-will-be-no-2018-blue-wave-no-democratic-majority-and-no-impeachment

Articles like this are the reason why I've been ignoring AlterNet for the past few years. Giantfort's victory wasn't "decisive", He began with R+20 only to see it crumble down to R+7, and that was BEFORE the bodyslam.

15 hours ago, Lord Liquir (Ogilvie) said:

#AmericaFirst is a mentality peddled by people with little understanding of trade and international politics.

Unfortunately, the Republican party seems to be fine with Trump's ignorance.

 

[Patticus]

The core EU states might have to come together and practically federalize if they want to outlast the ascendant Russia. Divided, they will fall.

[Volphied]

16 minutes ago, Patticus said:

The core EU states might have to come together and practically federalize if they want to outlast the ascendant Russia. Divided, they will fall.

What's hilarious is that the most anti-United Europe country was the UK. They blocked every attempt at further integration and on creating an EU army. Brexit will ironically strengthen the EU,

[Tornado]

That's a bit of a simplification of things.

[Tani Coyote]

Interesting thought. While the President is commander in chief of the armed forces, the Supreme Court is still able to issue injunctions against the President. Could a federal court, in theory, order Trump to defend NATO in line with our treaty obligations?

Courts have stayed silent on issues like ignoring marijuana laws, but that's because marijuana has increasingly broad public support. Would not defending NATO have a similar approval?

My guess is not, barring those who in an ideal world would never vote. The moment a country defaults on its treaty obligations, it loses all credibility. We may as well tear up copyright laws and become like China. No one will want to do business with us because they know we can't be trusted. This is why we stick by Taiwan even though it would potentially be more convenient to let China roll over them.

And while the hardline patriot's like "AMERICA FUCK YEAH, WE CAN TAKE EM ALLLL ON" no... that's not really how it works. Look at the quagmire we got into in Iraq, a poor country that is very small compared to most others. We can't rely on brute force to solve our problems. We have enormous cultural and economic power that can be leveraged in diplomacy. People often overlook our enormous soft power capabilities in favor of our military strength. Plus, our military strength is ultimately the product of a powerful economy that can sustain big budgets for hardware and research. If we start losing our economic power because of increasing reluctance to engage in trade deals, we will be forced to go into debt or inevitably make cuts to defense.

As Obama once said, we cannot retreat from the world, nor bully it into submission. We are too connected now.

9 hours ago, CD Sanic said:

This is depressing...

http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/wake-liberals-there-will-be-no-2018-blue-wave-no-democratic-majority-and-no-impeachment

And tripe.

Gasp! A Republican candidate won a red-leaning state which cast the bulk of its votes early? NEVER. Instead of considering that, just bank on the idea a bunch of conservatives want to stick it to the media anyway. Frankly this guy comes off as overly pessimistic and smug.

Meanwhile, Democrats are turning out and flipping special election seats in other areas, GOP margins are falling in just about every race, and polls are showing Democrats like Ossoff ahead of Handel.

He's arguing Democrats are in poor shape while citing a bunch of Obama midterm numbers. No shit? The President's Party always loses seats over the course of his term. Obama set a record of 1000+, but 600-800 isn't uncommon over the last few Presidencies. Off the top of my head, I believe Reagan was an exception, gaining for his party a net total of 2 seats over the course of his term.

Guys who write articles like this frankly sound like they just want an excuse to stay home. There's no chance it'll happen so why bother mitigating the damage?

And that's the kind of mentality that frankly needs to be berated every time it comes out. Every vote does count, because when you turn out and vote, it encourages others to do the same, and that one vote can quickly become thousands or millions.

He's right. The Democrats do need a more coherent central message. The majority of House Democrats back Medicare for All. The 2016 platform won the popular vote but narrowly lost key states. Election 2018 is 17 months away. And while Perez poorly chose his words on the pro-life Democrat issue, he's doing damage control. There is ground here for a unified platform that can give the Republicans a run for their money. The GOP, meanwhile, continues to show impressive dysfunction despite control of the whole federal government and the vast majority of state governments. How is that possible? Either way, if that continues, it can very likely be enough to drive swing voters to the Democrats or just simply deter conservatives from voting.

Let's consider a key factor in all this: the year 2010. 2010 comes hot on the heels of a healthcare law that few people understood and many thought was terrible. A healthcare law that increasing numbers of people defend now that they understand it's actually better than what came before. This led to a Tea Party and Republican swamping of the polls (no doubt spearheaded by older people fearful of "death panels" and the like), which in turn let them gerrymander just about everything with modern computer technology. Gerrymandering that is currently under threat in the courts. This is unlikely to change because Clarence Thomas is a swing vote on race issues and with how closely connected racial and political gerrymandering are, the GOP is likely to see a lot of "safe seats" stolen from them by the Supreme Court's decisions.

The GOP gerrymandered like nobody's business after 2010 with computer technology, but by doing so, they went so far with it that they potentially will lose everything. All for a few years of uncontested supremacy.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I'm glad the GOP leadership's evil is only matched by their stupidity.

[Candescence]

Peter Lewis at The Guardian raises the notion that Australia might've already had its Trump moment in the form of PM Tony Abbott, who was tossed out a couple of years back by current PM Malcom Turnbull because the electorate rapidly soured on Abbott's policies and incompetence. Turnbull himself barely saved his government from defeat at the polls last year due to his initial appeal, but his own polling numbers collapsed when it turned out he was basically at the mercy of the right-wing of his own party, and his government is suffering a roughly six-point deficit in terms of two-party-preferred polling numbers across multiple different polls.

But this comparison also provides an insight into what the future potentially holds for Trump. We're already seeing an anti-Trump push in terms of polling numbers in favor of the Democrats due to non-diehard voters gradually finding that they're not liking what they're seeing out of Trump. If the GOP ends up considering him a liability, they'll find a way to get rid of him, much like the Liberal Party did with Abbott, though unlike Australia's PMs, an unpopular president can't just be challenged by someone from their own party and replace them.

(Yes, one of the two main conservative parties (both in coalition with each other) in Australia is called the 'Liberal Party', though the Libs do have a libertarian streak (if some of the party's diehards campaigning to get rid of a key part of an anti-hate speech law is of any indication), and it's a holdover from the days when it was a rather different beast and actually was the party of Robert Menzies rather than John Howard.)

[Tani Coyote]

20 minutes ago, Candescence said:

Peter Lewis at The Guardian raises the notion that Australia might've already had its Trump moment in the form of PM Tony Abbott, who was tossed out a couple of years back by current PM Malcom Turnbull because the electorate rapidly soured on Abbott's policies and incompetence. Turnbull himself barely saved his government from defeat at the polls last year due to his initial appeal, but his own polling numbers collapsed when it turned out he was basically at the mercy of the right-wing of his own party, and his government is suffering a roughly six-point deficit in terms of two-party-preferred polling numbers across multiple different polls.

But this comparison also provides an insight into what the future potentially holds for Trump. We're already seeing an anti-Trump push in terms of polling numbers in favor of the Democrats due to non-diehard voters gradually finding that they're not liking what they're seeing out of Trump. If the GOP ends up considering him a liability, they'll find a way to get rid of him, much like the Liberal Party did with Abbott, though unlike Australia's PMs, an unpopular president can't just be challenged by someone from their own party and replace them.

Not until the 4 years are up, at least. Come 2020, an ambitious GOP challenger could definitely try to steal the nomination from Trump. No sitting President in the age of primaries was formally denied their Party's nomination (LBJ dropped out of the running after a poor showing in early primaries), but Reagan came close against Gerald Ford, who was catching flak for pardoning Richard Nixon.

Given the current scandal potentially blows Nixon's out of the water(gate), I wouldn't put it past John Kasich or Ted Cruz to ask for a rematch in the primaries. Now that it's established how woefully unprepared Trump is for all this, a lot of the enthusiasm for a nationalist outsider won't be there. He benefits from being the default choice (which helps his re-election odds as well), but at the rate he's going it's less about him and more about who challenges him. Someone like Kasich honestly could probably beat him in the primary and still win in the general by merit of having more moderate stances on key issues like healthcare. "Repeal Obamacare" will likely become a way to push oneself to the political fringe from now on after the current fiasco.

Until those 4 years are up, though, it's unlikely we'll see a similar situation. The supermajority needed to end Trump's term requires 67 Senate votes, and will need to be a bipartisan effort even if Democrats somehow took every GOP Senate seat next year. Quite honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats reasoned that if the mainstream GOP wants to toss him out, it's to their advantage to keep him in. At the same time, though, throwing him out could alienate his core base and in turn deliver many races to the Democrats (which is, in turn, why I imagine any removal vote will fall just short of what's needed).

What I can say is I don't see Pence going down with him until a new Vice President is appointed after Pence becomes President. The Senate GOP doesn't like Paul Ryan and his ideology that much and that means they're not going to let him become Acting President.

[Tani Coyote]

Special elections in May have officially closed out with two seats retained by the GOP in South Carolina. We saw a slip in GOP margins as has become usual.

With the end of May, we've seen 2 state seats flip, and between all state and federal races, the GOP has lost an average of 17 points in each race. 10 if you exclude the one race where the GOP was challenged while previously running unopposed. 10 away from the GOP and 10 to the Democrats is enough to swing quite a few districts. We'll get a real taste of what 2018 will be like with Virginia and New Jersey's races later this year, due to how many elections will be held on the same day and thus increase turnout to levels comparable to midterms. The Georgia 6th in particular is encouraging because the turnout for April's primary was comparable to turnout for the 2014 midterms, which would have had an anti-Democratic tinge due to Obama's Presidency.

Speaking of GA 6...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/us/georgia-democrats-jon-ossoff-republican-karen-handel.html

Early voting has started. Thousands of new voter registrations were reported after a judge ordered an extension on registration, but it's not known if they will be Democrats or Republicans.

Ossoff's campaign has been all about moderate outreach, with volunteers being told to knock on the doors of people with signs for his opponent, Handel, and downplaying the anti-Trump sentiment that he used back in April in favor of a platform of increasing healthcare, reforming the justice system, and creating jobs. They're using incredible tact, avoiding racism as a talking point to convince black voters to support him, based on the concept black voters are already used to racism and so need a stronger draw than that.