GA-6 Special election discussion thread

[Mehmentum]

Edit- your also of the assumption that all of these first time voters are voting Ossoff, it's really a worthless exercise to be breaking down these numbers, Ossoff isn't going to get 50% on the run off unless turnout is crazy low.

First time voters almost always favor the Democrats.  Even in 2016, when Trump turned out many previously apathetic voters, Clinton won first time voters by 19 points.

Its a special election, low turnout is the norm.

[Mehmentum]

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/853052281792671748

You must be logged in to read this quote.

40% chance of showers and thunderstorms on Tuesday as well. Should be interesting.

Wow that's actually good for Ossoff, relatively speaking of course. R's were expected to pass D's today.

historically republicans vote in the rain.

Two things:
1.) The lower election day turnout, the higher the % of the electorate the (heavily Democratic) early vote is.
2.) Democrats are highly motivated, I wouldn't count on them staying home because of weather any more than Republicans.

[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.

[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.