GA-6 Special election discussion thread

[Adam Griffin]

I don't think these tricks they're employing, most of which basically amount to name-calling and invoking Democratic boogeymen/women, are going to be very successful or resonate with as many people as they'd like. This is the sixth most-educated district in the entire country. Full of professionals and moderate, reasonable people who care about the issues. So yeah, it's going to take a little more than 'Pelosi!1!!' to convince this electorate.

There's a small part of east Fulton that was weak for Handel in R1, and I don't know why. JC-13A & JC-13B she lost to Gray, and in the former she wasn't even in the top 3 (Ossoff came in 2nd, Moody 3rd). Similar result directly to the north in JC-14: Ossoff picked it up and she came in 3rd behind him and Gray. To the east in JC-12, same story - Ossoff first, Moody second, and she's in third. In JC-11 and JC-07, came in 3rd after Ossoff and Gray. Does anyone know why she performed so poorly there?

Bob Gray's neighborhood + his baseline vote share district-wide + united Democratic front = enough to knock Handel down to 3rd/4th place in these areas

If Moody or Hill had been above 10% district-wide, they would have likely flipped some of their home precincts as well.

[Ebsy]

This is a Nate Cohn tweet from Round 1 that I believe is helpful for context.

[Hindsight was 2020]

This is a Nate Cohn tweet from Round 1 that I believe is helpful for context.

That lines up with most Ossoff by 2 polls

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm pretty sure jfern is a Republican concern troll. Notice how he reflectively bashes every "establishment" Democrat over absolutely nothing

He is cut from the same cloth as those who think there is literally a party conspiracy to shut out viable progressive candidates in working class districts in favor of more moderate/centrist candidates in suburbia. He thinks the establishment would rather stay in the minority with centrists than win with progressives, which is silly, imo. If the party picked up the necessary 24 seats with a dozen or more progressives, the establishment would still have a lot of control. You don't need even close to a unanimously-centrist party to rule it in a centrist fashion. Not that I think this is what is happening, anyhow.

The party has made it clear that they'd rather lose with a neoliberal than win with a progressive. Hillary had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating during the primary, and they decided to nominate her over someone who polled much better in the general election. And those progressives who get the nomination don't get a lot of help from their party: Feingold, Teachout, Quist, and so on. The DNC was money laundering $350k donations back to the Hillary campaign from the Hillary Victory Fund during the primary to get around the $2700 donation limit, since that's nothing for Hillary's fat cat donors. The establishment has worked hard to the contempt of progressives.

[OneJ]

I'm pretty sure jfern is a Republican concern troll. Notice how he reflectively bashes every "establishment" Democrat over absolutely nothing

He is cut from the same cloth as those who think there is literally a party conspiracy to shut out viable progressive candidates in working class districts in favor of more moderate/centrist candidates in suburbia. He thinks the establishment would rather stay in the minority with centrists than win with progressives, which is silly, imo. If the party picked up the necessary 24 seats with a dozen or more progressives, the establishment would still have a lot of control. You don't need even close to a unanimously-centrist party to rule it in a centrist fashion. Not that I think this is what is happening, anyhow.

The party has made it clear that they'd rather lose with a neoliberal than win with a progressive. Hillary had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating during the primary, and they decided to nominate her over someone who polled much better in the general election. And those progressives who get the nomination don't get a lot of help from their party: Feingold, Teachout, Quist, and so on. The DNC was money laundering $350k donations back to the Hillary campaign from the Hillary Victory Fund during the primary to get around the $2700 donation limit, since that's nothing for Hillary's fat cat donors. The establishment has worked hard to the contempt of progressives.

lol

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm pretty sure jfern is a Republican concern troll. Notice how he reflectively bashes every "establishment" Democrat over absolutely nothing

He is cut from the same cloth as those who think there is literally a party conspiracy to shut out viable progressive candidates in working class districts in favor of more moderate/centrist candidates in suburbia. He thinks the establishment would rather stay in the minority with centrists than win with progressives, which is silly, imo. If the party picked up the necessary 24 seats with a dozen or more progressives, the establishment would still have a lot of control. You don't need even close to a unanimously-centrist party to rule it in a centrist fashion. Not that I think this is what is happening, anyhow.

The party has made it clear that they'd rather lose with a neoliberal than win with a progressive. Hillary had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating during the primary, and they decided to nominate her over someone who polled much better in the general election. And those progressives who get the nomination don't get a lot of help from their party: Feingold, Teachout, Quist, and so on. The DNC was money laundering $350k donations back to the Hillary campaign from the Hillary Victory Fund during the primary to get around the $2700 donation limit, since that's nothing for Hillary's fat cat donors. The establishment has worked hard to the contempt of progressives.

lol

I'm not sure where he came up with that money laundering accusation, but the earlier sentences are true.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm pretty sure jfern is a Republican concern troll. Notice how he reflectively bashes every "establishment" Democrat over absolutely nothing

He is cut from the same cloth as those who think there is literally a party conspiracy to shut out viable progressive candidates in working class districts in favor of more moderate/centrist candidates in suburbia. He thinks the establishment would rather stay in the minority with centrists than win with progressives, which is silly, imo. If the party picked up the necessary 24 seats with a dozen or more progressives, the establishment would still have a lot of control. You don't need even close to a unanimously-centrist party to rule it in a centrist fashion. Not that I think this is what is happening, anyhow.

The party has made it clear that they'd rather lose with a neoliberal than win with a progressive. Hillary had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating during the primary, and they decided to nominate her over someone who polled much better in the general election. And those progressives who get the nomination don't get a lot of help from their party: Feingold, Teachout, Quist, and so on. The DNC was money laundering $350k donations back to the Hillary campaign from the Hillary Victory Fund during the primary to get around the $2700 donation limit, since that's nothing for Hillary's fat cat donors. The establishment has worked hard to the contempt of progressives.

lol

I'm not sure where he came up with that money laundering accusation, but the earlier sentences are true.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-leak-clinton-team-deflected-state-cash-concerns-226191

[Hindsight was 2020]

Getting back to the topic at hand how did EV yesterday breakdown?

[Person Man]

I'm pretty sure jfern is a Republican concern troll. Notice how he reflectively bashes every "establishment" Democrat over absolutely nothing

He is cut from the same cloth as those who think there is literally a party conspiracy to shut out viable progressive candidates in working class districts in favor of more moderate/centrist candidates in suburbia. He thinks the establishment would rather stay in the minority with centrists than win with progressives, which is silly, imo. If the party picked up the necessary 24 seats with a dozen or more progressives, the establishment would still have a lot of control. You don't need even close to a unanimously-centrist party to rule it in a centrist fashion. Not that I think this is what is happening, anyhow.

There's a 2006 documentary called ''An Unreasonalble Man'' about the life of Ralph Nader where they interview former DNC officials (in reference to the 2000 election) who say that it's basically official policy at the DNC to ignore liberals and never answer to them.

Link (vid quality/sound is pretty lousy):

https://youtu.be/SKBut5e4iTs?t=4877

If true, this is how the Whigs stopped organizing. From what I can tell, they were divided between changing completely unacceptable but somewhat popular policy and just getting people elected that would just kind of give the other side a hard time. Eventually, the shannagans got so bad, the person they nominated won, stopped governing at all like a Whig, and the National party disavowed him. They eventually stopped winning elections after that and Whigs found coalition with more radical abolitionists and started the GOP.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Getting back to the topic at hand how did EV yesterday breakdown?

I posted it last night after the absentee file updated:

For reference:

In April (all votes), Fulton was 45%, Cobb 32% and Dekalb 23%.

In early vote, Fulton was 53%, Cobb 26% and Dekalb 21%.

Also for reference: the distribution of registered voters in the district is approximately Cobb 29%, DeKalb 23%, Fulton 48%.

In-person early voting ended today.  Here are the updated early vote totals (mail plus in-person):

Cobb 27381 (19.5%)
DeKalb 32410 (23.1%)
Fulton 80518 (57.4%)
Total 140309

[Hindsight was 2020]

Getting back to the topic at hand how did EV yesterday breakdown?

I posted it last night after the absentee file updated:

For reference:

In April (all votes), Fulton was 45%, Cobb 32% and Dekalb 23%.

In early vote, Fulton was 53%, Cobb 26% and Dekalb 21%.

Also for reference: the distribution of registered voters in the district is approximately Cobb 29%, DeKalb 23%, Fulton 48%.

In-person early voting ended today.  Here are the updated early vote totals (mail plus in-person):

Cobb 27381 (19.5%)
DeKalb 32410 (23.1%)
Fulton 80518 (57.4%)
Total 140309

Man putting cobb vs delkab ev in April vs now looks really good for Ossoff

[GeorgiaModerate]

Getting back to the topic at hand how did EV yesterday breakdown?

I posted it last night after the absentee file updated:

For reference:

In April (all votes), Fulton was 45%, Cobb 32% and Dekalb 23%.

In early vote, Fulton was 53%, Cobb 26% and Dekalb 21%.

Also for reference: the distribution of registered voters in the district is approximately Cobb 29%, DeKalb 23%, Fulton 48%.

In-person early voting ended today.  Here are the updated early vote totals (mail plus in-person):

Cobb 27381 (19.5%)
DeKalb 32410 (23.1%)
Fulton 80518 (57.4%)
Total 140309

Man putting cobb vs delkab ev in April vs now looks really good for Ossoff

Not necessarily.  DeKalb had more EV locations this time, while Cobb had fewer.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I’ve been playing with the early vote data between the first round and the runoff.  Obviously, early voting is way up in the runoff: a 148% increase from the first round!  But this increase isn’t uniform across the district.  I’ve attempted to relate the amount of increase to the party breakdown in round 1 votes.

The charts below show one bubble for each precinct.  The size of the bubble represents the total D+R vote in round 1.  The horizontal axis is the D percentage of the D+R vote in round 1. The vertical axis is the percentage increase of early votes from round 1 to the runoff.  Bubbles in the upper right and lower left quadrants should be good news for Ossoff: upper right is a higher increase in EV for D-leaning precincts, while lower left is a lower increase for R-leaning precincts.  Similarly, the upper left and lower right quadrants should be good for Handel.

Here’s the district-wide plot:



This seems good for Ossoff.  But since DeKalb had more EV locations in the runoff than in the first round, while Cobb had fewer locations, this may not be a fair comparison.  So I looked at each county individually.  Here’s Fulton County:



IMO Fulton looks slightly favorable to Handel. 

DeKalb:



DeKalb, not surprisingly, looks quite good for Ossoff, although since it has mostly D-leaning precincts it's hard to be sure.

Cobb:



Since Cobb has mostly R-leaning precincts, it’s difficult to compare D vs R here.  But the increases here are certainly less than in the other two counties.  However, a lot of this is probably due to the fewer EV locations.

Thoughts?

[Yank2133]

I'm pretty sure jfern is a Republican concern troll. Notice how he reflectively bashes every "establishment" Democrat over absolutely nothing

He is cut from the same cloth as those who think there is literally a party conspiracy to shut out viable progressive candidates in working class districts in favor of more moderate/centrist candidates in suburbia. He thinks the establishment would rather stay in the minority with centrists than win with progressives, which is silly, imo. If the party picked up the necessary 24 seats with a dozen or more progressives, the establishment would still have a lot of control. You don't need even close to a unanimously-centrist party to rule it in a centrist fashion. Not that I think this is what is happening, anyhow.

The party has made it clear that they'd rather lose with a neoliberal than win with a progressive. Hillary had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating during the primary, and they decided to nominate her over someone who polled much better in the general election. And those progressives who get the nomination don't get a lot of help from their party: Feingold, Teachout, Quist, and so on. The DNC was money laundering $350k donations back to the Hillary campaign from the Hillary Victory Fund during the primary to get around the $2700 donation limit, since that's nothing for Hillary's fat cat donors. The establishment has worked hard to the contempt of progressives.

The base picked Clinton over Sanders.

You people keep bitching about the "establishment", but they had nothing to do with Clinton winning over Sanders. It is not their fault, Sanders stupidly ignored the south.  

[Yank2133]

I'm pretty sure jfern is a Republican concern troll. Notice how he reflectively bashes every "establishment" Democrat over absolutely nothing

He is cut from the same cloth as those who think there is literally a party conspiracy to shut out viable progressive candidates in working class districts in favor of more moderate/centrist candidates in suburbia. He thinks the establishment would rather stay in the minority with centrists than win with progressives, which is silly, imo. If the party picked up the necessary 24 seats with a dozen or more progressives, the establishment would still have a lot of control. You don't need even close to a unanimously-centrist party to rule it in a centrist fashion. Not that I think this is what is happening, anyhow.

The party has made it clear that they'd rather lose with a neoliberal than win with a progressive. Hillary had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating during the primary, and they decided to nominate her over someone who polled much better in the general election. And those progressives who get the nomination don't get a lot of help from their party: Feingold, Teachout, Quist, and so on. The DNC was money laundering $350k donations back to the Hillary campaign from the Hillary Victory Fund during the primary to get around the $2700 donation limit, since that's nothing for Hillary's fat cat donors. The establishment has worked hard to the contempt of progressives.

The base picked Clinton over Sanders.

You people keep bitching about the "establishment", but they had nothing to do with Clinton winning over Sanders. It is not their fault, Sanders stupidly ignored the south.  

The base picked Clinton over Obama in 2008. How come she didn't end up with the nomination then?

?

The base of the Democratic party is people of color, Obama snatched them away from Clinton and that was the biggest reason why she lost in 2008.

[GeorgiaModerate]

How about taking the Clinton vs Sanders discussion to a different thread?

[Gass3268]

I'm pretty sure jfern is a Republican concern troll. Notice how he reflectively bashes every "establishment" Democrat over absolutely nothing

He is cut from the same cloth as those who think there is literally a party conspiracy to shut out viable progressive candidates in working class districts in favor of more moderate/centrist candidates in suburbia. He thinks the establishment would rather stay in the minority with centrists than win with progressives, which is silly, imo. If the party picked up the necessary 24 seats with a dozen or more progressives, the establishment would still have a lot of control. You don't need even close to a unanimously-centrist party to rule it in a centrist fashion. Not that I think this is what is happening, anyhow.

The party has made it clear that they'd rather lose with a neoliberal than win with a progressive. Hillary had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating during the primary, and they decided to nominate her over someone who polled much better in the general election. And those progressives who get the nomination don't get a lot of help from their party: Feingold, Teachout, Quist, and so on. The DNC was money laundering $350k donations back to the Hillary campaign from the Hillary Victory Fund during the primary to get around the $2700 donation limit, since that's nothing for Hillary's fat cat donors. The establishment has worked hard to the contempt of progressives.

The base picked Clinton over Sanders.

You people keep bitching about the "establishment", but they had nothing to do with Clinton winning over Sanders. It is not their fault, Sanders stupidly ignored the south.  

The base picked Clinton over Obama in 2008. How come she didn't end up with the nomination then?

?

The base of the Democratic party is people of color, Obama snatched them away from Clinton and that was the biggest reason why she lost in 2008.

Democratic Party primaries total vote count, 2008

Barack Obama-17,584,692
Hillary Clinton-17,857,501

If that includes Florida and Michigan it's invalid.

[Barnes]

We need to establish some kind of geo-block for non-Georgia posters.

Please take these inane arguments elsewhere.

[Brittain33]

The Obama-Clinton discussion belongs on another thread, guys. I don't want to have to delete posts on it. Thank you.

[Rookie Yinzer]

No matter how this race turns out, I am extremely impressed with the campaign Ossoff ran as a first time candidate. I really hope to see him be a big part of Georgia/national politics in the future.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If he wins this year, Dems won't have a candidate in 2020 for Senate.  He would be at the top of the list.

[This account no longer in use.]

If he wins this year, Dems won't have a candidate in 2020 for Senate.  He would be at the top of the list.

What do you mean? If anything, him winning this year gives the Dems an amazing potential Senate candidate.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

If he wins this year, Dems won't have a candidate in 2020 for Senate.  He would be at the top of the list.

What do you mean? If anything, him winning this year gives the Dems an amazing potential Senate candidate.

Agreed.

[Person Man]

If he wins this year, Dems won't have a candidate in 2020 for Senate.  He would be at the top of the list.

What do you mean? If anything, him winning this year gives the Dems an amazing potential Senate candidate.

Agreed.

If he does well, I can see him running ifor President in 2024...but chances are, he turns out to be a LTC Paul Hackett type even if he wins here. He, too ran as a special congress candidate in a swingy R district after the Republicans won everything with half the country hating tgem.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

If he wins this year, Dems won't have a candidate in 2020 for Senate.  He would be at the top of the list.

What do you mean? If anything, him winning this year gives the Dems an amazing potential Senate candidate.

Agreed.

If he does well, I can see him running ifor President in 2024...but chances are, he turns out to be a LTC Paul Hackett type even if he wins here. He, too ran as a special congress candidate in a swingy R district after the Republicans won everything with half the country hating tgem.

President is a little too ambitious, but I could be wrong.