GA-6 Special election discussion thread

[GeorgiaModerate]

Handel needs to give Trump supporters a reason to not stay home, but at the same time she's giving Republicans who hate Trump more of a reason to stay home or vote for Ossoff.

Don't count on this happening--we thought the exact same would happen with the presidential election, and look where we're at instead. Republicans will show up regardless.

Not every single race is going to mirror the presidential election. The point is that Handel coming out in support of things that are unpopular will do nothing to help her with undecided voters

Oh, I don't by any stretch think this will mirror the presidential election--more realistically it'll mirror the 2014 midterms because Dem turnout is even lower in races where the president isn't on the ballot.

The first round of this election seems to indicate the contrary.

[Barnes]

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.

[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.

[Mehmentum]

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.

[DrScholl]

GA-6 is the sort of new territory that Democrats have to play in to have a chance at winning the House. Sure, Montana could be won, but it is something that would be lower on the priority list because of how heavily it voted for Trump.

[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.

[Mehmentum]

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.

[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?

[Hindsight was 2020]

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

[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.
 

[Tintrlvr]

"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."

[Shadows]

It is necessary to spend decent money to compete - Some money to counter negative ads, maybe create one's & some money for positive message ads of the candidates & GOTV efforts.

Beyond a while, it is wastage of money. Hillary spend 1.4B & out-spend Trump 2 to 1 & still lost. Money is essential to compete but in today's digital world & partisan lines, spending unlimited money will not win you elections !

Since the Democrats have enough resources in GA-6, it should be more about utilization of it - Ground efforts to boost turnout, rallies, door-knocking, quality of ads & every other little thing !

[Hindsight was 2020]

"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."

Sad but true

[GeorgiaModerate]

New Gravis poll:

Ossoff 47
Handel 45

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/05/14/new-poll-has-ossoff-handel-neck-and-neck-in-6th-district-runoff/

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/gravis-marketing-ga-6th-congressional-poll/?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Gravis%20Marketing&utm_content=Poll1


Of those who didn’t vote in the first round, 53% said they’ll vote for Ossoff in the runoff, 32% for Handel.

[KingSweden]

"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."

Hahahaha I dig this

[Hindsight was 2020]

New Gravis poll:

Ossoff 47
Handel 45

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/05/14/new-poll-has-ossoff-handel-neck-and-neck-in-6th-district-runoff/

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/gravis-marketing-ga-6th-congressional-poll/?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Gravis%20Marketing&utm_content=Poll1


Of those who didn’t vote in the first round, 53% said they’ll vote for Ossoff in the runoff, 32% for Handel.

Go Ossoff go!!

[MT Treasurer]

Why isn't Handel leading with numbers like these?

[heatcharger]

Can we talk about how Gravis completely copied PPP's publishing format? They are so ridiculously amateurish it's hilarious.

[heatcharger]

Can we talk about how Gravis completely copied PPP's publishing format? They are so ridiculously amateurish it's hilarious.

Yeah, I had to check again whether this was Gravis or not when I saw this, lol.

I'm still not 100% convinced their polls are real, and even then, their crosstabs have the gender split at 53-47 in favor of Males, which is very unusual.

I suppose this is a good poll for Ossoff, but I would think Handel has more room to improve based on her somehow having lower name ID than Ossoff.

[OneJ]

Lol. I was surprised at Gravis' format too.

But MT has a point. You would think that numbers like this Handel shouldn't have much of a problem leading Ossoff.

What I find most interesting is that 45%-43% think Handel is better on healthcare despite the fact that 42% don't like the AHCA passed by the House.

[Hindsight was 2020]

So we have 3 runoff polls that are all within the MOE with 2 having Ossoff up and one with Handel up

[Virginiá]

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 to have a standard bearer for the next 10-20 years who can't be kept off of twitter is probably not a great idea.

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.

[Holmes]

It's Gravis and they pulled numbers out of their ass.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Junk. Poll.

[Pericles]

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.