Something that is not lost on me but I forgot to mention is that the runoff system in Georgia was created explicitly to keep men like Raphael Warnock from taking office.
This seems like time for a mini-thread, as multiple people have already asked me to explain why.
So here we go:
The racist origins on Georgia’s runoff elections.
Before 1962 Georgia’s elections operated under a county-unit system where counties were individually given a vote and a candidate had to earn the majority of the units. Ostensibly to mirror the electoral college, instead what it did was eliminate the power of urban counties.
That system was abolished in 1962, clearing the way for the “one person one vote” standard. When it was abolished a new system had to be put into place.
Enter in State Rep. and segregationist Denmark Groover.
Groover had a grudge. In 1958 he had lost his race due to the turnout of the Black vote turning out against him in a 5 to 1 margin. So he devised the runoff system where if no candidate gets a majority of the votes a second election is held with only the top two candidates.
Groover’s fear was that Black Georgians would vote for one candidate where the white vote would split to multiple candidates. Keep in mind this was at the height of an era where party identities were changing with the Democrats embracing Civil Rights.
Decades later Groover would admit his intentions, which were barely concealed at the time:
“I was a segregationist. [...] But if you want to establish if I was racially prejudiced, I was. If you want to establish that some of my political activity was racially motivated, it was”
At the time no one could imagine a majority of Georgians ever voting for a Black candidate.
It took far too long but they were wrong.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Maybe it’s time to talk about what happened in Georgia in 2018 and why it is completely different than what is happening now, since this seems to be making the rounds of conservative talking points. since she was a Black woman no one actually paid attention to her complaints.
First off Brian Kemp, who was running against Abrams, was Secretary of State at the time and he purged 340,000 voters from the state’s voter registration, disproportionally targeting Black voters. theguardian.com/us-news/2018/o…
Kemp also put over 53,000 voter registrations on hold due to extremely minor discrepancies, again targeting Black voters. vox.com/policy-and-pol…
The first example of a concession is said to be John Adams private congratulations to Jefferson after the latter’s victory in 1800. While concession speeches did not become a thing until the 1920s when radio became a popular medium. Still concessions by telegram were common.
But the election I want to focus on here is the Election of 1916.
Democrat Woodrow Wilson was running for re-election against Charles Evans Hughes, who had resigned from the Supreme Court in order to run for President. Hughes was a compromise candidate for the GOP.
1912 had famously split the party between Taft and Roosevelt, which allowed Wilson to coast to victory. 1916 was different, especially among the early returns. The race was close but early returns were pointing to a Hughes victory. Indeed crowds began to gather in Times Square...
Some people seem to think “back to normal” means that we will revert to where we were. That is impossible. Too much has been lost, and I’m not even talking about the 238,000 who died of COVID-19.
What returning to normal means is the ship has been turned in the right direction.
“Back to normal” has little to do with policy, which will in all likelihood be hindered by an obstructionist Republican Senate led by Mitch McConnell.
It instead has to do with tone, decency and values, which transcend politics in ways that aren’t always exactly clear.
Joe Biden cannot fix all of our problems just by becoming President. Our disagreements are too entrenched, our opinions too hardened by algorithms that are designed not to challenge those beliefs, but to reinforce them, no matter how detached from reality they may be.
As we head into an election night that has more uncertainty than anyone would like, I think it is a good time to take stock of what we know and what we don't know, and how to be good consumers and conveyors of information at a time where America is on edge and simmering.
Here's what we know: There will be massive numbers of early voters, but some states have not yet begun to count those votes. As such, we will have large vote totals for some states early, and other states will take much longer to count the votes.
WE KNOW: that the demographic for absentee ballots, early voting and day of voting are different, politically.
WE DON'T KNOW: Exactly what those numbers are and how they will be reported state-by-state.
So, tonight I'd like to talk about James A. Garfield. I realize that isn't a statement that is said very often, but I think there might something we can learn from his life, or, more accurately, his death.
And I'm not talking about his assassination by an entitled charlatan who demanded a position he was not qualified for, and became convinced that the only way to stop infighting from his political party. Instead, I'm going to talk about what happened AFTER he was shot.
After Garfield was shot he was taken to an office where he was laid on a mattress, before being moved back to the White House at Garfield's request. The doctor who took charge was not using sterilized equipment or hands when he began exploring the wound.