GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Just consider this:

Low Investment:

SC-5: Trump 57-39, Norman 51-48 (D + 15)
KS-4: Trump 60-33, Estes 53-46 (D + 20)

Medium Investment:

MT-AL: Trump 57-36, Assaulterforte 50-44 (D + 15)


Maximal Investment:

GA-6: Trump 48-47, Handel 52-48 (R + 3)

While the democrats found success with low or medium Investment, maximal Investment clearly hurt them. Democrats should have spent notably less in GA-6 - it probably would have helped.

This is buffoonish. Compare Congressional races to past Congressional races, not the Presidential.

The previous Dem congressional candidates in 3 of these 4  races were total nobodies. Plus, your party was touting the gains over Clinton in the other 3 races as a sign a wave was coming, but now that that stat isn't in your favor, it's suddenly worthless? Give me a break.

Believe it or not people within the party believe different things.

I'll agree that not nationalizing the race would have helped, but I've been a critic of the HRC voter = lifelong Dem notion ever since the DCCC based its tier 1 target list off of it and people got more excited about Ossoff than Thompson or Quist. All of my friends in College Republicans who quietly voted for HRC are not questioning their party loyalty. I guarantee you that their parents aren't, and their friends aren't.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Just consider this:

Low Investment:

SC-5: Trump 57-39, Norman 51-48 (D + 15)
KS-4: Trump 60-33, Estes 53-46 (D + 20)

Medium Investment:

MT-AL: Trump 57-36, Assaulterforte 50-44 (D + 15)


Maximal Investment:

GA-6: Trump 48-47, Handel 52-48 (R + 3)

While the democrats found success with low or medium Investment, maximal Investment clearly hurt them. Democrats should have spent notably less in GA-6 - it probably would have helped.

This is buffoonish. Compare Congressional races to past Congressional races, not the Presidential.

The previous Dem congressional candidates in 3 of these 4  races were total nobodies. Plus, your party was touting the gains over Clinton in the other 3 races as a sign a wave was coming, but now that that stat isn't in your favor, it's suddenly worthless? Give me a break.

Gains were certainly touted, but, to Chickenhawk's point, different Dems have touted different metrics. I am, at least, completely consistent in saying Congressional results should be compared to Congressional results, not Presidential ones.

And yes, 3 out of 4 prior Congressional candidates were jokes. That's sort of the point. Democrats need to be trying everywhere. 50 state, 435 congressional district, 3,114 county, 350,00 municipality strategy, etc., etc.

But ideally making, say, the IA 4 where they spend 30 mil, not the GA 6.