Cheokas switched.

Sure we can say “it doesn’t matter” or “good riddance” except… The Republicans’ magic number in the House is now 5.

I understand one more Rep has already decided to switch. There are three others who really “ought” to be Republicans, and two, possibly three, who could switch but may not, either due to their district or allegiance. We can’t afford any switches. Period.


14 Responses to ICYMI

  1. JMPrince says:

    Incalculable damage, as usual. Witness the largest rate increase ever by Georgia Power from the Leg. boondoggle giveaways just recently. And no effective contravening power to prevent it or even call them to account for it. JMP

  2. Jason says:

    What exactly does the GOP want to do to the state constitution?

  3. Drew says:

    So what, if anything, are the Democrats doing to discourage its legislators from switching? Are they planning to do what the Republicans did to Michael Forbes

    Or are they planning on doing nothing, as usual?

    • Delicate Flower says:

      There isn’t much you can do at this point. Stress personal relationships, try to show district’s voting trends etc. but overall…we don’t have the money, we don’t have the power, we’re not drawing districts, choosing committees…

      • Drew says:

        I’ll grant that the Democrats don’t have the resources to do much, but doing nothing – beyond disinviting the switchers from a few holiday parties – shouldn’t be an option, either.

        How much did the Democratic Party spend on Cheokas et. al. – recruiting them, electing them, re-electing them? Not nothing. Now Cheokas has stolen that money from them and given it to the Republicans and they do nothing? That seems to guarantee further losses, possibly greater than what they’d lose if they campaigned against him.

        This isn’t a great analogy, but if one hundred people agreed to a contract with one other, then one of that hundred violated it, the one wouldn’t ignore it; they’d sue, and they’d probably sue regardless of whether the cost of the suit was greater than the cost of the loss due to the violation, because if they didn’t punish the violation, many of the others would be tempted to violate the contract as well.

        The reasoning should be similar with the Democratic Party: if one of their legislators defects, they should bring the hammer down, even if it might be costly, if only to discourage the others from doing the same, which would ultimately be more costly.

        • Jules says:

          As I understand it, the Dem Caucus can ask for their expenses ( if they spent any on him) back.. that’s about it.

          I’ve heard any number of actions being kicked around about what makes sense to do in regards to the switchers.. most aren’t very practical, legal or politically viable.

          This is probably a great topic for the next admin to discuss with operatives and those who wish to be them.

          I’d take it up with the next chair/caucus leaders.

          Nobody is going to discuss anything of a serious nature here on a public blog. I wouldn’t take anyone seriously if they did.

  4. Jules says:

    Doug wants to be Gov someday… and yes, he’ll do whatever that takes. I think as long as being a Dem is a difficult and hostile place to run as Gov from, he’d consider it.

  5. Trevor Southerland says:

    And of that magic number of 5, 2 of them are special elections that should go the GOP’s way, right?

    So really, their magic number is 3?

    How about over in the Senate? Isn’t the magic number 2 there, any rumors of switchers there?

    • Delicate Flower says:

      Thankfully, no.

      But if we have a candidate in one of those races we may have a pickup chance due to their turmoil.

      In the senate they are at two BUT, only Hooks remains who is real switch chance. But as the Dean, his seniority means he get to do what he wants so no reason to switch. I’ve floated that idea and no one’s really disagreed with it so I’d like to think its correct.

      Keep in mind too that they really only lose if they remain at 1 in the senate because drawing them a new district just hurts the “real” Republicans who’ve been in line before (or whatever else is promised). so unless there are two locks to switch don’t count on that happening.

      Not to harp on this point but I just don’t know who else would switch? Stoner?

      • Trevor Southerland says:

        Well, Stoner is the new Chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus… so that’d make it 2 for 2 on our caucus chairs I suppose… but I don’t think he’s switching…

        I know we have candidates in both of those special elections but I haven’t heard much else about them yet, hopefully after the holidays we’ll hear more about those races.

        • Delicate Flower says:

          Yeah I mean I don’t know what Stoner gains with a switch he was just first I could think of. But as McKillip showed, anything, these days, is possible.

          • Matt says:

            Stoner switching would make no sense. It’s probably by now a majority minority, Democratic district and getting moreso. And Stoner has shown he is more than able to kick Republican ass in the district.