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

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I'm so glad we still have Dem posters here brow-beating the left about how "unrealistic" their chances are. Hey, you guys just spent over $20 million and lost to another Republican ghoul. Maybe give us a chance at the reins of power in the Dem party  and we'll do a better job than you at actually WINNING.

Your progressive in MT lost to a guy who literally assaulted a reporter in a race with less attention(and thus a higher special election advantage). He didn't have as much money, yes, but neither did his opponent.

Just leaving this here...

Clinton was toxic in MT, which is also more prone to electing downballot dems anyway. GA-06 was never supposed to be even competitive, and Handel never body-slammed a reporter.

Jfern, if every democrat who lost has lost because they're not left wing enough, why did Quist lose by 6 points?

Quist lost because as long as the leadership of the Democratic party has positions that contradict the positions of the candidates they run...they will never be seen as genuine or serious.

As long as Botox Pelosi is running the show...the Democratic party will never be taken serious, neither by half its own base and the rest of the American people.

Yes, I'm sure GA-06 would have just loved a berniecrat if only pseudo-neoliberals weren't kind of semi in charge of the democratic party, kinda.

Also

Botox Pelosi

Are you f**king serious?! I know you're a total piece of s**t, but really?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Reagan was a drooling senile war criminal who traded arms for hostages and America's social safety net for tax cuts. So maybe we shouldn't aspire to that.

But that wasn't how the base saw him now was it?

He drove the republican party into the crazy ideological brain-dead party of taxes are hitler heil America party it is today. The democrats shouldn't aspire to nominate a charismatic senile old man who wrecks systems in a way that devastates the country due to his stupid sociopathy.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Reagan was a drooling senile war criminal who traded arms for hostages and America's social safety net for tax cuts. So maybe we shouldn't aspire to that.

But that wasn't how the base saw him now was it?

He drove the republican party into the crazy ideological brain-dead party of taxes are hitler heil America party it is today. The democrats shouldn't aspire to nominate a charismatic senile old man who wrecks systems in a way that devastates the country due to his stupid sociopathy.

If said "stupid sociopathy" gets the taxes raised, Medicare for All passed, free tuition ala most of Europe,  then I don't see why not let it happen.

What were the men who freed the slaves but a worshipper of the political devil and a lawyer to tycoons who suspended habaeus corpus? Others decided to use Tea Party/Mitch McConnel-esque tactics to railroad his successor, who was just following the orders said man laid out because it wasn't radical enough?

What was the man who got the New Deal through but an egomaniac cripple with some racist tendencies

What was the man who got Civil Rights and Voting Rights out the door but an insecure, opportunistic, corrupt boogeyman who probably used a lot of ballot-stuffing to override one of the most iconic, clean, but low-key man in Texas and then bugged his opposition for the landslide?

Sorry sweetheart, but a little "stupid sociopathy" is very much a necessity. What is politics but a cutthroat endeavor?

Reagan finished the transformation of the right's ideology from problematic but able to be reasoned with to the stubborn, simplistic, feelings based wrecking ball it is today. Roosevelt and Lincoln did nothing of the sort. The Democrats weren't drained of nuanced thought in 1932. It definitely moved left(not enough, frankly), but it didn't go crazy. The kind of leftism that mirrors Reaganism would be dangerous in a similar way. Raising taxes on the rich too far can actually have pretty serious consequences. We should certainly raise them a decent amount, but the mythical economy killing point does exist (probably somewhere between 50 and 80 percent). I don't think sanders would acknowledge that. It looks like "raise taxes on the one percent" is becoming the lefts "when in doubt, cut more taxes", in both rhetoric and negative effects.

 

Reagan was a drooling senile war criminal who traded arms for hostages and America's social safety net for tax cuts. So maybe we shouldn't aspire to that.

But that wasn't how the base saw him now was it?

He drove the republican party into the crazy ideological brain-dead party of taxes are hitler heil America party it is today. The democrats shouldn't aspire to nominate a charismatic senile old man who wrecks systems in a way that devastates the country due to his stupid sociopathy.

The way you make it sound suggests that Reagan set the country on fire and by 1989 he had throughly destroyed both the country and his Party. None of which is true but yeah.

He did a lot of bad and not a lot of(if any) good.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I'm so glad we still have Dem posters here brow-beating the left about how "unrealistic" their chances are. Hey, you guys just spent over $20 million and lost to another Republican ghoul. Maybe give us a chance at the reins of power in the Dem party  and we'll do a better job than you at actually WINNING.

Your progressive in MT lost to a guy who literally assaulted a reporter in a race with less attention(and thus a higher special election advantage). He didn't have as much money, yes, but neither did his opponent.

Just leaving this here...

Clinton was toxic in MT, which is also more prone to electing downballot dems anyway. GA-06 was never supposed to be even competitive, and Handel never body-slammed a reporter.

Jfern, if every democrat who lost has lost because they're not left wing enough, why did Quist lose by 6 points?

Quist lost because as long as the leadership of the Democratic party has positions that contradict the positions of the candidates they run...they will never be seen as genuine or serious.

As long as Botox Pelosi is running the show...the Democratic party will never be taken serious, neither by half its own base and the rest of the American people.

Yes, I'm sure GA-06 would have just loved a berniecrat if only pseudo-neoliberals weren't kind of semi in charge of the democratic party, kinda.

Also

Botox Pelosi

Are you f**king serious?! I know you're a total piece of s**t, but really?

Said assault happened the night before the election, after most of the votes were made. Convenient little tid-bit there you missed. And he still moved the needle even more leftwards and was 2 points behind overall where margins are concerned, despite the lack of polish. Try again kiddo.

Pelosi is one of the representatives around my turf, I read her stuff in the papers when she has something to say, whatever she was in '06 and before is gone. Where she is now makes that a very apt statement. Just like by the end  of his term, Cranky Stark for Pete Stark, etc.

The votes that were to be cast on election day were significantly more republican then average, and there was still a third of the vote to be cast. He had a shot. And more importantly, Montana is rather open to electing democrats down-ballot.  Tester won an open seat in a less amazing environment, as did Bullock. Frankly, the fact that he didn't actually win in the current environment is a pretty big strike against Quist.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I'm so glad we still have Dem posters here brow-beating the left about how "unrealistic" their chances are. Hey, you guys just spent over $20 million and lost to another Republican ghoul. Maybe give us a chance at the reins of power in the Dem party  and we'll do a better job than you at actually WINNING.

Your progressive in MT lost to a guy who literally assaulted a reporter in a race with less attention(and thus a higher special election advantage). He didn't have as much money, yes, but neither did his opponent.

Just leaving this here...

Clinton was toxic in MT, which is also more prone to electing downballot dems anyway. GA-06 was never supposed to be even competitive, and Handel never body-slammed a reporter.

Jfern, if every democrat who lost has lost because they're not left wing enough, why did Quist lose by 6 points?

Quist lost because as long as the leadership of the Democratic party has positions that contradict the positions of the candidates they run...they will never be seen as genuine or serious.

As long as Botox Pelosi is running the show...the Democratic party will never be taken serious, neither by half its own base and the rest of the American people.

Yes, I'm sure GA-06 would have just loved a berniecrat if only pseudo-neoliberals weren't kind of semi in charge of the democratic party, kinda.

Also

Botox Pelosi

Are you f**king serious?! I know you're a total piece of s**t, but really?

Said assault happened the night before the election, after most of the votes were made. Convenient little tid-bit there you missed. And he still moved the needle even more leftwards and was 2 points behind overall where margins are concerned, despite the lack of polish. Try again kiddo.

Pelosi is one of the representatives around my turf, I read her stuff in the papers when she has something to say, whatever she was in '06 and before is gone. Where she is now makes that a very apt statement. Just like by the end  of his term, Cranky Stark for Pete Stark, etc.

The votes that were to be cast on election day were significantly more republican then average, and there was still a third of the vote to be cast. He had a shot. And more importantly, Montana is rather open to electing democrats down-ballot.  Tester won an open seat in a less amazing environment, as did Bullock. Frankly, the fact that he didn't actually win in the current environment is a pretty big strike against Quist.

And of course presidential gains often don't translate into downballot gains immediately(see blue dogs). The republican incumbent won the seat by 23 points at the same time that trump won by 1. The republican had always been winning by huge margins and continued to during trump. And then GA-06 was nationalized, eliminating the enthusiasm gap advantage given by special elections as compared to most elections.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Ossoff actually got less raw votes than the 2016 Democrat who ran against Price. Did he win some Republicans over? Probably. Did low information Democrats not turn out even though there was a bombardment of advertising? Unquestionably.

Good point. The Democrats appear to have a much lower ceiling among upscale college educated Republicans than they'd like to admit.

As far as I can tell, the whole point of that post was that the electorate in the special was much whiter and more full of Romney voters then in 2016.