The last candidate was a nobody with no money. So it's not really relevant. The Presidential numbers are more relevant, especially if you're using the fact that Hillary did so much better than Obama in this district to double down on the rich sunbelt district strategy. For $30 million, you could have done better than normal in many races, rather than just 1 that you still lost.
You lack basic understanding of Southern politics. It doesn't matter if it's a "nobody" or a well-known commodity: a literal dildo (D) and a legacy candidate (D) are going to generally be right alongside one another with respect to their shares of the vote in an identical race. This is a very inelastic area.
Ultimately, there are several independent dynamics at work here - along with the infrastructure of the Ossoff campaign - that lead to a significant over-performance for a candidate not seeking the Presidency. This is a big development for this part of the South, especially considering Ossoff got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton or Obama (see what I did there?), and did so with a much-lower-than-presidential turnout that simultaneously exceeded that of a midterm.
So spending $30 million to lose a race in very inelastic area was a good idea?
Once an inelastic area flips, it stays flipped. Happened in Virginia in '08, happened on what's now called The Left Coast in the late '80's and early '90's.
I'm not sure whether MI, PA and WI stay GOP. In congress, TX-23 has flipped back and forth several times the past few years.
