Georgia voters watched two debates this week featuring four candidates seeking two of the most consequential offices in our state. By the end, I found myself less concerned with who had won either debate than with how we had arrived at a point where these were our final choices.
There were substantive disagreements about healthcare, immigration, taxes, public safety, and the cost of living. There were also accusations, evasions, and the familiar effort to convince voters that whatever shortcomings one candidate possesses, the alternative is simply too dangerous to elect.
I have written before about the diminishing room for independent judgment in Georgia politics and the Republican Party’s failure to offer a credible challenge to Senator Jon Ossoff. These debates reinforced both concerns. Our parties have become remarkably comfortable asking Georgians to excuse their nominees’ deficiencies because the alternative is supposedly worse.
The Senate Race: A Better Debate Is Not a Better Record
Jon Ossoff was, in my estimation, the stronger performer against Republican Congressman Mike Collins. He appeared more disciplined, better prepared, and more capable of turning his opponent’s record into an argument about what Georgians should expect from a United States senator. That is an observation about the debate, not an endorsement.
I have serious objections to Ossoff’s record, particularly his votes against legislation intended to preserve female sports categories. I also remain frustrated by the Democratic Party’s difficulty confronting antisemitism within its coalition. When asked about growing anti-Israel sentiment among Democrats, Ossoff addressed Israel, Palestinians, and international humanitarian law without directly confronting the question of where legitimate criticism of Israel gives way to antisemitism.
These are precisely the issues I would want a credible challenger to press him on. Collins had that opportunity, but much of the debate instead illustrated why he has struggled to make the case that he should replace Ossoff.
To his credit, Collins has a meaningful legislative accomplishment in his work on the Laken Riley Act. I have written about the consequences of failures in immigration enforcement, including the deaths of women and children whose families must live with those failures. I am not inclined to dismiss legislation addressing immigration enforcement simply because I find fault with its sponsor.
But that accomplishment does not exempt Collins from scrutiny of his judgment, associations, or conduct. He entered this race carrying controversies involving his office, political associations, and public rhetoric. His denunciations of racism and antisemitism during the debate did little to resolve those concerns. Condemning hatred in principle is easier than demonstrating a willingness to confront it when doing so carries a political cost.
Then there is Donald Trump. Collins seems to believe that loyalty to Trump is sufficient reason for Georgians to send him to the Senate. Perhaps that works in a Republican primary, but Georgia has not been the reliably Republican state of 2014 for quite some time. Winning statewide requires persuading voters who did not support Trump, supported him reluctantly, or simply expect their elected officials to exercise independent judgment.
Collins has offered little indication that he understands this. The result is an incumbent Democrat who can spend much of his campaign highlighting his opponent’s liabilities rather than defending his own record. That may be effective politics, but it leaves Georgians who want Ossoff held accountable with little reason to believe Collins is the answer.
The Governor’s Race: A Different Republican Strategy
The gubernatorial debate presented a different dynamic. Republican Rick Jackson and Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms both have records deserving scrutiny, and neither was my preferred choice from their respective primaries.
Bottoms served as Atlanta’s mayor during a period marked by serious concerns about violent crime and public safety. The difficulties of governing during an extraordinary period deserve acknowledgment, but they do not eliminate questions about her leadership. Voters are entitled to ask what she learned and what she would do differently as governor.
Her position on the Riley Gaines Act presents another obstacle. Bottoms has said she would seek to undo Georgia’s protections for female school sports. That is a consequential policy choice affecting girls across the state, not a cultural disagreement to be dismissed as a distraction.
Still, her proposals on Medicaid expansion, housing affordability, teacher compensation, and childcare deserve consideration on their merits. A candidate can be wrong about something important without being wrong about everything.
Jackson presents different concerns. As a healthcare entrepreneur whose companies have done substantial business involving state-funded programs, he should face rigorous questions about potential conflicts of interest. Voters deserve to know whether his healthcare proposals are workable and how he would separate Georgia’s interests from his own business interests.
I also want clearer answers about his companies’ recruitment of foreign healthcare workers and their employment practices. Are visa-based hiring programs addressing genuine workforce shortages or substituting for investment in American workers? Jackson should explain his practices, while his critics should distinguish documented concerns from allegations.
What interests me most about Jackson’s campaign, however, is the contrast between how he and Collins understand Georgia’s electorate.
During the Republican primary, Jackson emphasized his alignment with Trump. In the general election, he has increasingly presented himself as a Brian Kemp–style Republican willing to put Georgia ahead of national political demands. That is a politically astute adjustment, but it deserves skepticism.
Kemp’s reputation for independence was tested when Trump demanded things he would not do following the 2020 election. Jackson is borrowing the appeal of that independence without yet demonstrating that he would exercise it when doing so carried a cost.
Nevertheless, Jackson appears to recognize that winning a Republican primary and winning statewide require different arguments. Collins seems determined to conduct both as exercises in proving loyalty to Trump. Understanding what Georgia voters want to hear is not the same as possessing the judgment to govern them well, but at least Jackson seems to recognize that the state has changed.
When Voting Against Someone Becomes the Entire Argument
There is a difference between evaluating a candidate’s shortcomings and allowing those shortcomings to become the entire substance of an election.
I want to know whether candidates understand the responsibilities of the offices they seek, can distinguish Georgia’s interests from those of a party, president, or business enterprise, and possess the judgment to choose the responsible course when it is not the politically convenient one. Those questions should guide candidate selection long before voters encounter names on a general election ballot.
Instead, our parties seem to operate on the assumption that nominees need only survive a primary. Afterward, the argument becomes the danger of allowing the other party to win.
Democrats can rely on voters alarmed by the direction of the Republican Party. Republicans can rely on those alarmed by Democratic positions on immigration, sex and gender, and public spending. Those disagreements are real, but neither party should use them as an excuse to avoid producing better candidates.
This is especially frustrating for independent voters, whose refusal to excuse one party’s failures is often mistaken for support of the other. I can believe Ossoff outperformed Collins without believing he has earned my confidence. I can recognize Jackson’s more sophisticated campaign strategy without dismissing concerns about his businesses. I can agree with a Bottoms proposal while rejecting her position on girls’ sports. That is not inconsistency, it is what evaluating candidates individually ought to look like.
I do not expect to agree with every elected official on every issue. I do expect candidates to defend their records, answer uncomfortable questions, and recognize that public office is a responsibility rather than a reward for partisan loyalty. Above all, I expect political parties to take the quality of our choices seriously.
November will produce a senator and a governor regardless of whether Georgians are satisfied with the candidates. Those officials will make decisions affecting our families long after the campaign advertisements disappear. I am tired of being told that the stakes are too high to demand better candidates. The stakes are precisely why we should.
Georgia does not suffer from a shortage of capable people. It suffers from political parties too comfortable assuming voters will settle for whoever survives their nomination process. Until that changes, we may keep entering election seasons with plenty of reasons to vote against someone and far too few reasons to vote for anyone.