GA-6 Special election discussion thread

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Even if he wins the special, can we all agree that he's dead in 2018 when this district's voters actually show up?

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Anything below 45% for all Dems combined should result in the firing of the head of the DCCC.

The DCCC can't run Ossoff's campaign for him, and it's not like he needs any more money.

I mean Lujan does need to go, but this isn't why.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

People REALLY overrate how many rural voters there are, period.

yeah, rural voters need to vote in spectacular high numbers and for one single candidate to make a difference.

that was "strange" about 2016 - would be hard to repeat.

But my point is that most Trump voters WEREN'T rural.  Just using Illinois, a state that Trump lost by a bad margin, he got 2,146,015 votes.  Of those 2,146,015, 72.67% came from counties that are part of metro areas of 150,000 or bigger:

1,041,346 in Chicagoland
67,906 from the Rockford metro area
58,405 from the Illinois side of the Quad Cities metro area
93,110 from the Peoria metro area
42,314 from the Bloomington-Normal metro area
43,482 from the Champaign-Urbana metro area
54,175 from the Springfield metro area
158,857 from the Metro East (Illinois suburbs of St. Louis)

He won all of those metro areas except for Chicagoland and Champaign.  He also won every single county not included in those metros except for Jackson County in Southern Illinois (Clinton won 11,634 to Trump's 10,843).  What's my point?  Just because Trump won rural counties in Illinois by massive margins DOESN'T MEAN HIS SUPPORTERS WERE RURAL.  As I just demonstrated, the vast majority of his votes came from those metro areas, which don't even include CLEARLY not rural places like Galena (which Trump won), Decatur (which Trump won), Carbondale (which Trump won), etc.

The vast majority of Republican voters are not rural people.  For every rural Republican voter, there are two that live in a much more populated area that just happens to have more Democrats in it.

EDIT: And, doing simple math from the exit polls, only 22.57% of Trump voters lived in rural communities, compared to 52.26% living in suburbs and 25.16% living in urban areas.  So again, let that sink in, there were more Trump voters living in cities than in rural areas.  It doesn't matter that he won a vast majority of rural counties, they just simply didn't provide the bulk of his support, and that's a fact.

I think that a 150,000 person metro area is going to be culturally rural to someone who lives in a 1M+ metro area.  When people here say "city", they are usually thinking of those 1M+ metros.  And the Trump/Clinton divide really does look like 1M+ metros vs. everyone else!  The census view of urban is too broad to reflect the current cultural divide in the country IMO.

1) I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then, and I will have to stop putting so much stock into the term "urban/rural divide," if that is what it really means.  Given the usual connations of that term, that cutoff is ridiculous; I have lived my whole life in either a metro of around 400,000 (Peoria) or 150,000 (Iowa City), and both have had tons of people who are quite educated, both areas have every store/restaurant type/summertime event anyone would need, both get concerts/plays/musicals, etc.  Neither place would seem rural to anyone in his or her right mind.  If these are the types of places (yes, I know Iowa City is a university town and quite Democratic, so let's use all of the suburbs of Des Moines, which went Republican then) that Democrats discount as "rural" when they imagine Republicans as less enlightened than they are, then the joke is on them.

2) Even if I accept your strange definition, the point is that your voters aren't limited to the counties or metros that you win.  Trump lost Chicagoland handily and still had twice as many votes from Chicagoland than all of those other places combined.  There are millions of Republicans and Trump voters that live in places that might have gone Clinton by margins under 10%, which really isn't that lopsided when we take off our political nerd goggles, right?  Again, most Republicans aren't in rural areas, period.

I don't have a particular dog in this fight, but I can anecdotally support the qualitative difference between big metros and small. I grew up in a big megalopolis region (shoreline CT) where the quaint "small towns" post populations of 26,000. New Hampshire is a pretty different pace of life (30,000 gets you considered a very big place up here), and going to college in Chicago, though another big metropolis, has caused me to travel around the Midwest a lot more than I had. It really is very different. 

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I saw this on DK today, and I have to ask, who exactly is putting together these emails for Ossoff?




Is trying to digitally guilt someone really the best way to solicit money?

Many of the Democratic PACs & whatnot that have my email are written in this style: it must work in getting liberal old ladies to fork over their money, but I hate it.

Yeah, most studies show that stuff like this works, unfortunately.

It works to get money. I think that most firms suffer from looking only at that metric - emails in this style hurt your brand, and the worst among them (with apocalyptic subject lines like "It's over. We lost." during early voting) might even discourage turnout.

The emails that Revolution Messaging (that rose to prominence with the Bernie Sanders campaign, but had done work with Chris Murphy and others before) are some of the best in Democratic politics. They authentically reproduce the voice of the candidate, build the brand, and bring in lots of $$$.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I saw this on DK today, and I have to ask, who exactly is putting together these emails for Ossoff?




Is trying to digitally guilt someone really the best way to solicit money?

I could be wrong, but that looks like a fake email to me.

Really? Why?
I've gotten almost this exact email from like, four candidates since 2014.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I saw this on DK today, and I have to ask, who exactly is putting together these emails for Ossoff?




Is trying to digitally guilt someone really the best way to solicit money?

Fire this person

Not a person, a well respected firm that is also doing emails for Quist, IIRC a bunch of other Democratic candidates.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

2 things:

1. They only send out fundraising emails like that because they work.
2. Ossoff has raised and spent a ton (more than any congressional race ever) and is still being outspent by dark money groups on the GOP side. Tells you a lot about the state of campaign finance.

They work to raise money, but they destroy the candidate's brand. Everything that a campaign does in public contributes to the public's perception of that candidate.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

2 things:

1. They only send out fundraising emails like that because they work.
2. Ossoff has raised and spent a ton (more than any congressional race ever) and is still being outspent by dark money groups on the GOP side. Tells you a lot about the state of campaign finance.

They work to raise money, but they destroy the candidate's brand. Everything that a campaign does in public contributes to the public's perception of that candidate.

lol

The only people that see fundraising emails are those on the campaign email list. All of them are either outside the district or already voting, so who cares what they think of whatever the "brand" is.

Are they really already voting when they see seven emails during early voting with subject lines that are variations on "It's over. We lost."?

Also like... "They're already voting, who cares?" is perhaps the best sentence I could use to sum up the malaise among a large portion of my fellow professional Democrats.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

It's been shown quite frequently that Ossoff only got to his near-majority through Republican support estimated at around 15%, so there is obviously a good deal of cross-over support. You simply cannot reach a figure like that in this district without some one other than the Democrats voting for you.

Far be it from me to play strategist, but is this kind of seat worth spending the kind of money that has been spent on it by the Dems?

Like, not to play into the rather poisonous dialogue comparing this seat to the MT-AL, but in Montana you've got a bunch of people who, while reliably GOP on a Presidential level, are more than willing to vote for the right Democrat. I would argue that that sort of seat might make a better investment than spending the truly ungodly amount of money that has been spent this cycle on a seat that, if Dems want to keep it, will require significant partisan crossover each every single cycle.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

It's been shown quite frequently that Ossoff only got to his near-majority through Republican support estimated at around 15%, so there is obviously a good deal of cross-over support. You simply cannot reach a figure like that in this district without some one other than the Democrats voting for you.

Far be it from me to play strategist, but is this kind of seat worth spending the kind of money that has been spent on it by the Dems?

Like, not to play into the rather poisonous dialogue comparing this seat to the MT-AL, but in Montana you've got a bunch of people who, while reliably GOP on a Presidential level, are more than willing to vote for the right Democrat. I would argue that that sort of seat might make a better investment than spending the truly ungodly amount of money that has been spent this cycle on a seat that, if Dems want to keep it, will require significant partisan crossover each every single cycle.

Because these 'Republicans'  could become reliable Democratic voters.  Pretty much every Ossof Republican voter voted Clinton in 2016.  This basically shows that these people have not come back into the fold, and are willing to vote for a Democrat even if their opponent isn't Trump, but rather a mainstream Republican.

Or that when Trump is on the ballot (or the race is completely nationalized and millions upon millions of dollars are spent establishing the Republican as a representative of Trump) people will vote against Trump. I'm not sure that's really a sustainable investment for the future of the party, or indeed a real way to "retake the house" in any meaningful sense.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

It's been shown quite frequently that Ossoff only got to his near-majority through Republican support estimated at around 15%, so there is obviously a good deal of cross-over support. You simply cannot reach a figure like that in this district without some one other than the Democrats voting for you.

Far be it from me to play strategist, but is this kind of seat worth spending the kind of money that has been spent on it by the Dems?

Like, not to play into the rather poisonous dialogue comparing this seat to the MT-AL, but in Montana you've got a bunch of people who, while reliably GOP on a Presidential level, are more than willing to vote for the right Democrat. I would argue that that sort of seat might make a better investment than spending the truly ungodly amount of money that has been spent this cycle on a seat that, if Dems want to keep it, will require significant partisan crossover each every single cycle.

Because these 'Republicans'  could become reliable Democratic voters.  Pretty much every Ossof Republican voter voted Clinton in 2016.  This basically shows that these people have not come back into the fold, and are willing to vote for a Democrat even if their opponent isn't Trump, but rather a mainstream Republican.

Or that when Trump is on the ballot (or the race is completely nationalized and millions upon millions of dollars are spent establishing the Republican as a representative of Trump) people will vote against Trump. I'm not sure that's really a sustainable investment for the future of the party, or indeed a real way to "retake the house" in any meaningful sense.

The reason why Democrats are spending millions on this race are because Republicans are as well.  Democrats aren't going to need to spend this much money on every district they compete in in 2018, because Republicans won't be either.

Democrats cannot afford to forfeit districts because they look too hard to win.  There is no path to winning the House if Democrats don't take push the envelope and contest a broad range of seats.

I agree that we need to contest seats that currently lean R. But building the Democratic coalition of the future out of short term suburban outrage at Trump's conduct seems paradoxical to me.

As for the ungodly gobs of money, I get that we're going toe to toe with the GOP. My question is - is this the seat (or the kind of seat) to do it in?

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

It's been shown quite frequently that Ossoff only got to his near-majority through Republican support estimated at around 15%, so there is obviously a good deal of cross-over support. You simply cannot reach a figure like that in this district without some one other than the Democrats voting for you.

Far be it from me to play strategist, but is this kind of seat worth spending the kind of money that has been spent on it by the Dems?

Like, not to play into the rather poisonous dialogue comparing this seat to the MT-AL, but in Montana you've got a bunch of people who, while reliably GOP on a Presidential level, are more than willing to vote for the right Democrat. I would argue that that sort of seat might make a better investment than spending the truly ungodly amount of money that has been spent this cycle on a seat that, if Dems want to keep it, will require significant partisan crossover each every single cycle.

Because these 'Republicans'  could become reliable Democratic voters.  Pretty much every Ossof Republican voter voted Clinton in 2016.  This basically shows that these people have not come back into the fold, and are willing to vote for a Democrat even if their opponent isn't Trump, but rather a mainstream Republican.

Or that when Trump is on the ballot (or the race is completely nationalized and millions upon millions of dollars are spent establishing the Republican as a representative of Trump) people will vote against Trump. I'm not sure that's really a sustainable investment for the future of the party, or indeed a real way to "retake the house" in any meaningful sense.

The reason why Democrats are spending millions on this race are because Republicans are as well.  Democrats aren't going to need to spend this much money on every district they compete in in 2018, because Republicans won't be either.

Democrats cannot afford to forfeit districts because they look too hard to win.  There is no path to winning the House if Democrats don't take push the envelope and contest a broad range of seats.

I agree that we need to contest seats that currently lean R. But building the Democratic coalition of the future out of short term suburban outrage at Trump's conduct seems paradoxical to me.

As for the ungodly gobs of money, I get that we're going toe to toe with the GOP. My question is - is this the seat (or the kind of seat) to do it in?

It's not short term the GOP has fully embraced anti-intellectualism

For whatever value that that's true (or like, important to people) that's been true for a long while. What's new is its vulgarian face.

The GA-6 had no problem voting for Bush, nor for returning a climate change denier to congress time and time again.

I'll say it again; betting the farm on the opposing party having a standard bearer for the next 10-20 years who can't be kept off of twitter is probably not a great idea.
 

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

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

But they're spending all the money though.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Without knowing the numbers, is it plausible the DNC regains all the money they spent on this IF they win? I imagine the momentum and message would be very strong if they squeak out a close win..."without you it wouldn't have happened!"

1) The DNC is spending 0 dollars on this.
2) DCCC is not gonna see a single dime. At best I think Ossoff's committee raises about 500k-750k on post election celebration, DCCC raises like 250k-500k.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I don't understand why people think it's going to be really close (<0.5). I mean, based on the results of the first round, Ossoff was the favorite and Trump has become even more unpopular now.

The GOP just has a way of always doing better than expected, and they have a tight leash on the one demographic that will cut off their arms to vote.

By which you surely mean that the GOP generally runs better campaigns.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

It's going to be a shame all this money was spent when Ossoff loses.

9 real 78 me.

Where will this PAC money be next September?

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I promised to eat a bug if Ossoff breaks 49%.

I'm really worried I might have to eat a bug.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

One of the amusing things about this race is the overenthusiasm of people placing Ossoff signs (they vastly outnumber Handel signs).  One busy intersection near my office started with one Ossoff sign and one Handel sign.  Then it went to 3 Ossoff signs, then 4, and today 5.  (There's still only one Handel sign.)  This isn't an isolated occurrence.  I've even seen some well outside the district boundary in Forsyth County.

Ughhhhh. I'd hate to be the field organizer here. People who think that lawn signs in public places do anything to persuade anyone are so frustrating.