GA-6 Special election discussion thread

[The Other Castro]

Maybe Handel is a weak candidate and Ossoff a strong one. If Ossoff can get a large share of the GOP vote with a centrist campaign appealing get to college-educated whites it might put a dent in the claim that Democrats need to be like Bernie to win.

Different Democrats are better suited to win in different places. There's a reason Bernie's going to Montana and Tom Perez is not, and why Bernie's not going to Georgia.

[windjammer]

Why isn't Handel leading with numbers like these?

I agree it makes no sense.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

"We should be investing everywhere! 50-state strategy! Why are we not funding winnable races?"

"But don't invest where I don't like the voters because they don't fit my preconceived notions of who should be voting for Democrats."

I'm fine with investing everywhere, and I'm fine with Ossoff's bid being a targeted race. What I'm not fine with is this kind of district having a Democratic buy in north of $10 million dollars (and I'm being deliberately quite conservative with that number) when I think that it's fundamentally dubious that we'll be able to keep it in 2018, much less 2020.

I'm not sure that this district was actually on the list of "must-win"'s for the Democratic Party to win a House majority again (in the short-term). It is certainly an option but there are others that could take its place. However in many suburban districts, the openness to Democrats isn't just due to Trump, or in other cases, Trump was a trigger but it was brewing for a long time anyway. There is no guarantee some of these places end up going back to Republicans like they were prior to Trump.

If people want to change the kinds of districts Democrats win in order to have more favorable policy, they are going to have to start running different kinds of candidates, and probably most important of all, different kinds of presidential candidates, and it will take many years to turn the ship, if it can even be done. On top of that, I'm not entirely convinced various liberals will like the kind of changes that might be necessary to claw back working class districts we've lost. It's not a free ride, after all.

I fundamentally disagree with you on the analysis of the (affluent) burbs, but we'll have to see.*

As for needing different kinds of candidates, I actually agree. I'm probably more comfortable with the kind of Democrat necessary to compete in the districts I believe are a sustainable coalition for Dems more than most (I'm actually pretty pro-gun, I like football and domestic beer, I don't hate people who are culturally traditional, etc), but I get your point.

What I find most disturbing about Ossoff is the compromises he needs and doesn't need to make to win. Like, what kind of Democrat is releasing ads talking up his status as a deficit hawk? Why is it a good thing that he can get away with being a Georgetown educated Congressional staffer? Agreed that to get things I think are necessary (wholesale investment in sustainable energy, Medicare for All, etc) we need to adjust our identity. But Ossoff seems like a move in the wrong direction from my perspective. Again, his race still deserves investment and I hope he wins. But jeez.

*I think the real major battleground will be poor and downwardly mobile suburbs, but they'll need a very different appeal than the GA-6.

[mds32]

Or maybe we should just be happy that 2 polls have Ossoff up and only one in the past 2 weeks has shown Handel up.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Or maybe we should just be happy that 2 polls have Ossoff up and only one in the past 2 weeks has shown Handel up.

1) They're all within margin of error and don't show anyone cracking 50.
2) Again, victory at what cost and for how long. Seriously, the $/vote ratio for this race is going to be [inks]ing insane. We cannot go toe to to with the GOP in funding. What are we taking from potential strong recruits in KS, PA, the ME-2, the IN-9, and the NE-2 so that Jon Ossoff is in a tossup race on June 20?

[Brittain33]

Or maybe we should just be happy that 2 polls have Ossoff up and only one in the past 2 weeks has shown Handel up.

1) They're all within margin of error and don't show anyone cracking 50.
2) Again, victory at what cost and for how long. Seriously, the $/vote ratio for this race is going to be [inks]ing insane. We cannot go toe to to with the GOP in funding. What are we taking from potential strong recruits in KS, PA, the ME-2, the IN-9, and the NE-2 so that Jon Ossoff is in a tossup race on June 20?

I disagree that the funding dynamic is bad for Dems. Ossoff has tapped into new money just for this race. If he wasn't getting this attention, the money would have stayed in people's pockets. It would be better if the wealth were spread around more, but there is always the potential for future Dem races to get Ossoffied and capture millions of dollars.

It's Republicans whose fundraising is static and which won't find new sources of funding they don't already have.

[DrScholl]

Ossoff was at 50% in one of the polls, so let's be truthful. Second, the funding put into GA-6 is not going to prevent money from being invested elsewhere, because there will be plenty to go around next year.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I disagree that the funding dynamic is bad for Dems. Ossoff has tapped into new money just for this race. If he wasn't getting this attention, the money would have stayed in people's pockets. It would be better if the wealth were spread around more, but there is always the potential for future Dem races to get Ossoffied and capture millions of dollars.

It's Republicans whose fundraising is static and which won't find new sources of funding they don't already have.

1) that's a fair point that I hadn't considered. But again, at this point Ossoff would be doing better for the party if he took like, half of this money and put it into a leadership PAC that he helmed if he lost or something equally ludicrous.

Ossoff was at 50% in one of the polls, so let's be truthful. Second, the funding put into GA-6 is not going to prevent money from being invested elsewhere, because there will be plenty to go around next year.

*cracking * 50%. But it's all margin of error and meaningless anyway.

[Brittain33]

1) that's a fair point that I hadn't considered. But again, at this point Ossoff would be doing better for the party if he took like, half of this money and put it into a leadership PAC that he helmed if he lost or something equally ludicrous. 

True, the actual sums here have gotten obscene.

[Virginiá]

I fundamentally disagree with you on the analysis of the (affluent) burbs, but we'll have to see.*

As for needing different kinds of candidates, I actually agree. I'm probably more comfortable with the kind of Democrat necessary to compete in the districts I believe are a sustainable coalition for Dems more than most (I'm actually pretty pro-gun, I like football and domestic beer, I don't hate people who are culturally traditional, etc), but I get your point.

What I find most disturbing about Ossoff is the compromises he needs and doesn't need to make to win. Like, what kind of Democrat is releasing ads talking up his status as a deficit hawk? Why is it a good thing that he can get away with being a Georgetown educated Congressional staffer? Agreed that to get things I think are necessary (wholesale investment in sustainable energy, Medicare for All, etc) we need to adjust our identity. But Ossoff seems like a move in the wrong direction from my perspective. Again, his race still deserves investment and I hope he wins. But jeez.

*I think the real major battleground will be poor and downwardly mobile suburbs, but they'll need a very different appeal than the GA-6.

Fair enough. For the record though, I must state I do share some liberals' concerns that taking on increasingly affluent districts will shift the party away from more liberal economic ideas, but my concerns are mitigated by research that shows voters also take on some of the ideas of the politicians they support (something you can also see in polls of the GOP base's shifting views in the Trump era). If that is indeed the case, having more educated, wealthier voters on our side is a plus come time for midterms. They are reliable voters. In addition, even if we did control more of those districts, we still have others that could balance out any economic conservatives with liberals.

Anyway, it's a start at least. Like you were saying, Ossoff isn't perfect but sure as hell better than some empty suit hack like Handel.

[DrScholl]

I disagree that the funding dynamic is bad for Dems. Ossoff has tapped into new money just for this race. If he wasn't getting this attention, the money would have stayed in people's pockets. It would be better if the wealth were spread around more, but there is always the potential for future Dem races to get Ossoffied and capture millions of dollars.

It's Republicans whose fundraising is static and which won't find new sources of funding they don't already have.

1) that's a fair point that I hadn't considered. But again, at this point Ossoff would be doing better for the party if he took like, half of this money and put it into a leadership PAC that he helmed if he lost or something equally ludicrous.

Ossoff was at 50% in one of the polls, so let's be truthful. Second, the funding put into GA-6 is not going to prevent money from being invested elsewhere, because there will be plenty to go around next year.

*cracking * 50%. But it's all margin of error and meaningless anyway.

Oh, okay, "cracking" (whatever that means). Moving goal posts, but whatever. If Ossoff fit a different profile, the amount of money he was raising would not even be being complained about.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I disagree that the funding dynamic is bad for Dems. Ossoff has tapped into new money just for this race. If he wasn't getting this attention, the money would have stayed in people's pockets. It would be better if the wealth were spread around more, but there is always the potential for future Dem races to get Ossoffied and capture millions of dollars.

It's Republicans whose fundraising is static and which won't find new sources of funding they don't already have.

1) that's a fair point that I hadn't considered. But again, at this point Ossoff would be doing better for the party if he took like, half of this money and put it into a leadership PAC that he helmed if he lost or something equally ludicrous.

Ossoff was at 50% in one of the polls, so let's be truthful. Second, the funding put into GA-6 is not going to prevent money from being invested elsewhere, because there will be plenty to go around next year.

*cracking * 50%. But it's all margin of error and meaningless anyway.

Oh, okay, "cracking" (whatever that means). Moving goal posts, but whatever. If Ossoff fit a different profile, the amount of money he was raising would not even be being complained about.

If I thought the GA-6 were a sustainable investment I'd be less bothered, yes. (still bothered, but yes less bothered) He could keep some of the money and use it to keep the seat in 2018 and 2020 and 2022. As it is, this is just a huge transfer from Democratic small donors to the execs at WSBTV.

[Virginiá]

Personally, I'd much rather see this kind of investment go towards winning the GA gubernatorial election in 2018 than winning 1 House seat, as that would have a much bigger impact in the coming years, but then again, I guess we also do need a symbolic victory right now.

[heatcharger]

Personally, I'd much rather see this kind of investment go towards winning the GA gubernatorial election in 2018 than winning 1 House seat, as that would have a much bigger impact in the coming years, but then again, I guess we also do need a symbolic victory right now.

Yeah, Dems could use a boost to morale after years of losing, and I suspect if Ossoff wins, top-tier candidates will start popping up with Clinton/GOP districts.

I agree that the money being spent in this race is getting ridiculous, but it's kinda hard to shut off the faucet at such a pivotal time.

[Adam Griffin]

It's almost as if Dems are making up for rudely, selfishly and ignorantly not investing hundreds of millions of dollars in GA over the past few cycles by pouring it all into one race in one district at once. Now if they'll just dump another $50 million into all of the other CDs like they have done in NC thus far, we'll be going places!

[mds32]

Think of all the Dem voters that have now been registered in GA-06. With this shift I bet Trump would have only won Georgia with <50% of the vote.

[MT Treasurer]

Yeah, after all that money, attention and hype the party that loses this race by 1 or 2 points is going to be very disappointed, to say the least.

[Shadows]

They should invest some of this money to get flip the Virginia Legislature which will support the Gov in expanding medicaid, enacting a 15$ min wage, etc & in defeating those clowns in North Carolina who have not decency or dignity & are blatantly stoking racism !

[windjammer]

Ossoff is going to win by 4 points in the end unless dem turnout goes down or rep turnout goes up and I see non reason to believe it is going to happen.

[Adam Griffin]

I meant to post about this a week or two ago, but I had heard through someone in the state party that Ossoff's campaign basically stopped phone banking (and/or canvassing possibly) for some period of time because they have totally saturated the district, contacted every voter by phone and door multiple times and were starting to piss off rather large numbers of people. Not sure how reliable/true that is but I wouldn't think the person would've just made it up.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I meant to post about this a week or two ago, but I had heard through someone in the state party that Ossoff's campaign basically stopped phone banking (and/or canvassing possibly) for some period of time because they have totally saturated the district, contacted every voter by phone and door multiple times and were starting to piss off rather large numbers of people. Not sure how reliable/true that is but I wouldn't think the person would've just made it up.

Do you think they'll start up again when early voting opens (May 30)?

[Adam Griffin]

I meant to post about this a week or two ago, but I had heard through someone in the state party that Ossoff's campaign basically stopped phone banking (and/or canvassing possibly) for some period of time because they have totally saturated the district, contacted every voter by phone and door multiple times and were starting to piss off rather large numbers of people. Not sure how reliable/true that is but I wouldn't think the person would've just made it up.

Do you think they'll start up again when early voting opens (May 30)?

They very well may have already: I first heard this two weeks ago or so. I can't imagine they're just sitting on their hands for a long period of time, regardless of voter sentiment. Again, it could also have been a word-of-mouth exaggeration sort of thing...gossip spreads quickly and isn't always truthful in said circles! If anything, with the recent court ruling, they would have been able to focus on registering new voters and the like.

[Sorenroy]

I meant to post about this a week or two ago, but I had heard through someone in the state party that Ossoff's campaign basically stopped phone banking (and/or canvassing possibly) for some period of time because they have totally saturated the district, contacted every voter by phone and door multiple times and were starting to piss off rather large numbers of people. Not sure how reliable/true that is but I wouldn't think the person would've just made it up.

Can confirm. They just restarted out of district phone banking this Friday.

[Figueira]

I can't decide who is favored here. I guess still Handel, very very very narrowly.

[_]

This race is ridiculous, whoever wins is going to be there forever with the money they're getting from this.