GA-6 Special election discussion thread

[Yank2133]

Handel made an honorable and courageous decision at Komen, but right now we need Ossoff in congress to lessen the power of Trump.

Yet apparently not Quist, who would probably vote in almost exactly the same way on everything.

I admit that not endorsing Quist is a decision I have questioned, but I just can't endorse someone who is open about voting for and liking Bernie.

Bernie is a useless schmuck, but this a bad reason not to back Quist.

[Yank2133]

I'm pretty sure jfern is a Republican concern troll. Notice how he reflectively bashes every "establishment" Democrat over absolutely nothing

He is cut from the same cloth as those who think there is literally a party conspiracy to shut out viable progressive candidates in working class districts in favor of more moderate/centrist candidates in suburbia. He thinks the establishment would rather stay in the minority with centrists than win with progressives, which is silly, imo. If the party picked up the necessary 24 seats with a dozen or more progressives, the establishment would still have a lot of control. You don't need even close to a unanimously-centrist party to rule it in a centrist fashion. Not that I think this is what is happening, anyhow.

The party has made it clear that they'd rather lose with a neoliberal than win with a progressive. Hillary had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating during the primary, and they decided to nominate her over someone who polled much better in the general election. And those progressives who get the nomination don't get a lot of help from their party: Feingold, Teachout, Quist, and so on. The DNC was money laundering $350k donations back to the Hillary campaign from the Hillary Victory Fund during the primary to get around the $2700 donation limit, since that's nothing for Hillary's fat cat donors. The establishment has worked hard to the contempt of progressives.

The base picked Clinton over Sanders.

You people keep bitching about the "establishment", but they had nothing to do with Clinton winning over Sanders. It is not their fault, Sanders stupidly ignored the south.  

[Yank2133]

I'm pretty sure jfern is a Republican concern troll. Notice how he reflectively bashes every "establishment" Democrat over absolutely nothing

He is cut from the same cloth as those who think there is literally a party conspiracy to shut out viable progressive candidates in working class districts in favor of more moderate/centrist candidates in suburbia. He thinks the establishment would rather stay in the minority with centrists than win with progressives, which is silly, imo. If the party picked up the necessary 24 seats with a dozen or more progressives, the establishment would still have a lot of control. You don't need even close to a unanimously-centrist party to rule it in a centrist fashion. Not that I think this is what is happening, anyhow.

The party has made it clear that they'd rather lose with a neoliberal than win with a progressive. Hillary had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating during the primary, and they decided to nominate her over someone who polled much better in the general election. And those progressives who get the nomination don't get a lot of help from their party: Feingold, Teachout, Quist, and so on. The DNC was money laundering $350k donations back to the Hillary campaign from the Hillary Victory Fund during the primary to get around the $2700 donation limit, since that's nothing for Hillary's fat cat donors. The establishment has worked hard to the contempt of progressives.

The base picked Clinton over Sanders.

You people keep bitching about the "establishment", but they had nothing to do with Clinton winning over Sanders. It is not their fault, Sanders stupidly ignored the south.  

The base picked Clinton over Obama in 2008. How come she didn't end up with the nomination then?

?

The base of the Democratic party is people of color, Obama snatched them away from Clinton and that was the biggest reason why she lost in 2008.

[Yank2133]

Ossoff has ran a great campaign and was a very good candidate. Regardless of how this race turns out or your political views you have to admit that.

No, he's a prop-up if he loses. A prop-up who ate money that could've gone to TWO districts that were competitive, one of which had a +20 edge against and moved left by 14!

A handsome looking one, but still a prop-up.

KS-4 and MT-AL probably weren't going to flip with extra money.

Yeah, I don't understand why some on the left have such a fetish for these districts. Having GA-06 as a higher priority then KS-4 and MT is just common sense politically. The majority of the districts Democrats are going to have to win in 2018 look more like GA-06 then KS-4 and MT

[Yank2133]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I find this thought process by them to be silly given how much the party has moved to the left in the last decade.

Also, I think the belief that economic left-wing populism will win in rural areas to be naive to say kindly.

[Yank2133]

I hate to take jfern' side on this one, but it's true that getting only rich suburban districts that swung heavily for Hillary wouldn't get the Democrats a majority even if Ossoff won, which he hasn't.

True, but it would get them close (there are 23 districts that Clinton won in 2016, the majority of them are dominated by suburban, college-educated white people).

Dems need 24 seats to retake the house.