To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

2010 United States Senate election in Georgia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Senate election in Georgia, 2010

← 2004 November 2, 2010 2016 →
 
Johnny Isakson, official portrait, 112th Congress (cropped).jpg
Michael Thurmond.jpg
Nominee Johnny Isakson Mike Thurmond
Party Republican Democratic
Popular vote 1,489,904 996,516
Percentage 58.3% 39.0%

Georgia Senate 2010.svg
County Results

Isakson:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%

Thurmond:      40-50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%

U.S. Senator before election

Johnny Isakson
Republican

Elected U.S. Senator

Johnny Isakson
Republican

The 2010 United States Senate election in Georgia took place on November 2, 2010. Incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson won re-election to a second term.[1]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    Views:
    37 704
  • ✪ Why Super PACS Dominate Elections | Citizens United v. FEC

Transcription

Mr. Beat Presents Supreme Court Briefs Washington DC 2007 A self-described conservative non-profit corporation called Citizens United wants to release a documentary. The film, called Hillary: The Movie, (hey that’s a pretty catchy title) talks a bunch of trash about Hillary Clinton, who just so happens to be running for President. Citizens United wanted to distribute and advertise the film within a month before the Democratic primary elections in January 2008. However, this would be a violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, aka BCRA, aka the McCain-Feingold Act, the latest law that limited how political campaigns were paid for. BCRA said corporations or labor unions can’t spend money from their general treasury to broadcast anything through the mass media that specifically brings up a candidate running for federal office within 30 days of a primary. Anticipating that the Federal Election Commission, or FEC, might try to stop the release of their documentary, Citizens United went ahead and took the FEC to the United States District Court, essentially saying “don’t even think about it, FEC.” Citizens United claimed BCRA didn’t apply to Hillary: The Movie, because the film wasn’t clearly for or against a candidate. It also claimed that the Supreme Court decision FEC v. Wisconsin Right To Life justified them releasing the film within 30 days of the Democratic primaries. Not only that, but Citizens United argued that portions of BCRA straight up violated the FIrst Amendment to the Constitution. On January 15, 2008, the three-judge U.S. District Court said “nope, sorry Citizens United.” You can’t have your injunction, you gotta let the FEC regulate. The court said the film was clearly just meant to get people to not vote for Hillary Clinton, I mean...it was called Hillary: The Movie, for crying out loud. They also said the film was meant to be strategically shown right before the primaries for this purpose and they cited the Supreme Court decision in McConnell v. FEC as justification that the FEC could prevent the showing up this film. Citizens United was like you know what? I’m appealing to the Supreme Court. Now, as you know, this can be a long process. What ended up happening was Hillary Clinton did not get the Democratic nomination and Barack Obama ended up being elected President later that year. But that ended up being irrelevant other than the fact that Obama nominated a new justice, Sonia Sotomayor, that agreed with the justice she replaced, David Souter. Actually, that's kind of irrelevant, too. Throughout 2009, the Supreme Court heard multiple arguments about the case. The Court had remained very divided on the issue. Things got pretty philosophical. Finally, on January 21, 2010, the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United arguing that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibited the government from limiting money spent by corporations, labor unions, and other associations, on political campaigns. Specifically, we’re talking about independent political expenditures, or political campaign contributions not directly affiliated with the candidate. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” The Court's ruling basically freed corporations and unions to spend as much money as they want to elect or defeat candidates as long as they didn’t contribute directly to candidates or political parties. The majority also argued that First Amendment protects ASSOCIATIONS of individuals, not just individual speakers, so you can’t prohibit speech based on the identity of the speaker. So corporations have free speech rights just like you or I. The idea of Corporate Personhood, or the legal notion that corporations share some of the same legal rights and responsibilities held by individuals, had pretty much been established by the Supreme Court since the 1800s. In this case, the Court definitely ruled that corporations are people man, corporations are people. Justice John Paul Stevens led the opinion of the dissent. Stevens was pretty upset about how this one turned out His dissent was 90 pages, and he passionately summarized it for 20 minutes from the bench. Stevens later wrote a book explaining that a Constitutional amendment should be passed to make sure money doesn’t influence politics, mostly due to this ruling. Today, Citizens United v. FEC continues to get people fired up Bernie: If we are going to maintain a true democracy in this country it is absolute imperative that we overturn this disastrous 5-4 Supreme Court decision on Citizens United. Protesters have passionately spoke out against it, and organizations like Wolf PAC were created in response to the decision. Just like Roe v. Wade, this is a Supreme Court decision that will be discussed and debated for many years to come. I'll see you for the next Supreme Court case, jury!

Contents

Democratic primary

Candidates

Polling

Poll source Dates administered Michael Thurmond RJ Hadley Undecided
Survey USA June 14–17, 2010 68% 11% 22%
Survey USA July 7–8, 2010 64% 13% 23%

Results

Democratic primary results[2]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Michael Thurmond 297,226 84.3%
Democratic RJ Hadley 55,159 15.7%
Total votes 352,385 100.0%

Republican primary

Candidates

Results

Republican primary results[3]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Johnny Isakson(Incumbent) 558,298 100.00%
Total votes 558,298 100.00%

General election

Candidates

Campaign

Thurmond was the underdog in trying to become the first African-American to serve Georgia in the U.S. Senate. Thurmond claimed "Polls are irrelevant. As everyone knows, the only poll that counts is the election on November 2."[5] Isakson defended his record saying "Big business is not evil. If you didn't have big business, you wouldn't have jobs in America today."[6] Despite the fact all political prognosticators classified the race as being safe for Isakson by August 20,< he stated that Thurmond was a potentially formidable candidate, and that he would take nothing for granted.[7]

Debates

Predictions

Source Ranking As of
Cook Political Report Solid R[9] October 25, 2010
Rothenberg Safe R[10] October 22, 2010
RealClearPolitics Safe R[11] October 25, 2010
Sabato's Crystal Ball Safe R[12] October 21, 2010
CQ Politics Safe R[13] October 25, 2010

Polling

Poll source Dates administered Johnny Isakson (R) Michael Thurmond (D) Chuck Donovan (L) Other* Undecided
Rasmussen Reports April 22, 2010 51% 35% –– –– ––
Rasmussen Reports[permanent dead link] May 20, 2010 57% 30% –– 6% 8%
Rasmussen Reports August 11, 2010 55% 41% –– 2% 2%
Insider Advantage August 17, 2010 47% 35% 7% –– 11%
Survey USA September 10–12, 2010 56% 34% 6% –– 4%
Mason-Dixon September 19, 2010 52% 33% 4% –– 11%
Rasmussen Reports September 21, 2010 52% 36% 6% –– 6%
Insider Advantage September 27, 2010 61% 29% 3% –– 7%
Rasmussen Reports October 6, 2010 53% 38% 5% 1% 3%
SurveyUSA October 21–24, 2010 58% 34% 5% –– 3%
Rasmussen Reports October 24, 2010 59% 29% 5% 3% 4%
Mason-Dixon[permanent dead link] October 26–28, 2010 56% 33% 4% 0% 7%
* Note: There is only one "other" candidate: Chuck Donovan.

Fundraising

Candidate (party) Receipts Disbursements Cash on hand Debt
Johnny Isakson (R) $5,943,285 $5,650,138 $2,588,284 $0
Michael Thurmond (D) $288,666 $202,610 $86,055 $5,220
Source: Federal Election Commission[14]

Results

United States Senate election in Georgia, 2010[15]
Party Candidate Votes % ±
Republican Johnny Isakson (Incumbent) 1,489,904 58.31% +0.43%
Democratic Michael Thurmond 996,516 39.00% -0.98%
Libertarian Chuck Donovan 68,750 2.69% +0.55%
Independent Steve Davis (write-in) 52 0.00% N/A
Independent Raymond Beckworth (write-in) 24 0.00% N/A
Independent Brian Russell Brown (write-in) 12 0.00% N/A
Majority 493,388 19.31%
Total votes 2,555,258 100.00%
Republican hold Swing

See also

References

  1. ^ Galloway, Jim (May 8, 2008). "Isakson says he won't run for governor, will seek re-election to U.S. Senate". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
  2. ^ "7/20/2010 - United States Senator, Isakson". Sos.georgia.gov. Retrieved August 21, 2010.
  3. ^ "7/20/2010 - United States Senator, Isakson". Sos.georgia.gov. Retrieved August 21, 2010.
  4. ^ "Online Guide to Georgia Politics". Politics1. Retrieved June 14, 2010.
  5. ^ "Thurmond looks to oust senator". OnlineAthens.com.
  6. ^ For incumbent Sen. Isakson, it's all business » Local News » The Daily Citizen, Dalton, GA
  7. ^ Race looks tough for Isakson's competitors | ajc.com
  8. ^ US Senate debate in Atlanta October 24 - Submit your questions
  9. ^ "Senate". Cook Political Report. Retrieved October 25, 2010.
  10. ^ "Senate Ratings". Rothenberg Political Report. Retrieved October 25, 2010.
  11. ^ "Battle for the Senate". RealClearPolitics. Retrieved October 25, 2010.
  12. ^ "2010 Senate Ratings". Sabato's Crystal Ball. Retrieved October 25, 2010.
  13. ^ "Race Ratings Chart: Senate". CQ Politics. Archived from the original on October 28, 2010. Retrieved October 25, 2010.
  14. ^ "2010 House and Senate Campaign Finance for Georgia". fec.gov. Retrieved May 1, 2010.[permanent dead link]
  15. ^ 11/2/2010 - United States Senator, Isakson

External links

Official campaign websites (Archived)
This page was last edited on 5 October 2019, at 11:27
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.