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

[Del Tachi]

In hindsight, Dems should have run two candidates (an Ossoff type + a Sanders type) in hopes of producing a D-vs-D runoff in GA-06.  Guaranteed pickup that way.

[ApatheticAustrian]

And would you all suggest that out of the tens of millions of people that voted for Democrats in 2016, the most loyal ones are not in large part "idiots"?

Yes, some hard core Democrats mindlessly regurgitate what the Democratic Party leaders say as well, but I don't see how anybody can dispute the material difference between the Republican base and the Democratic base in terms of their willingness to believe and regurgitate absolute nonsense, such as I pointed above.  

1.The hard core idiot Republican base is about 35% of total voters.  These are the people who continue to support President Trump.  I don't think the idiots on the Democratic side is anywhere near that large.

2.The Republican Party has an infrastructure of non elected dissemblers at Fox 'News' on talk radio (not just Rush Limbaugh and other national high profile radio show hosts, but in every state there are local versions, like Lars Larson in Oregon and Washington state), newspapers like the Washington Times, the Washington Examiner and the New York Post, and internet sites like World Net Daily and Breitbart.    I know of no such equivalence on the Democratic Party side.

The idiot Republican base here and elsewhere would say "New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Rachel Maddow..." what have you, but while these outlets obviously make mistakes from time to time I think there is no question that these outlets have a standard of basic intellectual honesty (not that every opinion journalists at those newspapers or guests on CNN do) that Rush Limbaugh et al do not have.  

Unless you can show to me an equivalent cast of high profile dissemblers on the left who the idiot Democratic base mindlessly regurgitates, I think it's fair for me to say that your comment is based on nothing more than the mindlessly lazy thinking of 'both sides do it/both sides are equally bad."

The best I think you could probably come up with are 'The Young Turks' but then, as we saw in the election, unlike the base idiot Republican dissemblers of whom some were Never Trumpers until he won their party's nomination, The Young Turks hardly ever embraced Hillary Clinton.

AM Joy (which is a pretty good show sometimes), Bill Maher, etc. are the equivalents.

Most Democrats I know hate Bill Maher.

which is a shame, besides being a provocateur he is a truth-talker, even if you disagree with his opinions and willing to talk with about anyone.

[Holmes]

In hindsight, Dems should have run two candidates (an Ossoff type + a Sanders type) in hopes of producing a D-vs-D runoff in GA-06.  Guaranteed pickup that way.

It would never happen. It's like when Republicans hope for an RvR runoff in California.

[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.

[kyc0705]

He was one of the better candidates that they could have fielded for the race. That being said, this district was always going to be a hard sell. It was possible, but ultimately a combination of strategic failure on the part of Ossoff/his campaign as well as the attention attracted to the race proved insurmountable.

[RINO Tom]

On the whole, you're right, but he did get crossover vote, it just wasn't enough.

Same story with Hillary.  Eventually actual Democratic voters (not political nerds who picked a team and want to win the EC and control the Senate or some political commentator, but the tens of millions of loyal Democrats who vote Democratic because they believe in the core principles of liberalism) are going to get fed up with it ... they probably already are.

[mvd10]

Ossoff wasn't a bad candidate. GA-6 is just too Republican and nominating a Berniecrat wouldn't change anything. Becoming a left-wing populist party is a viable strategy for the Dems, but don't complain if you don't win wealthy suburban districts that way. If you want to do that you should nominate moderates like Ossoff (and even then a lot of those districts might be too Republican).

[RINO Tom]

Ossoff wasn't a bad candidate. GA-6 is just too Republican and nominating a Berniecrat wouldn't change anything. Becoming a left-wing populist party is a viable strategy for the Dems, but don't complain if you don't win wealthy suburban districts that way. If you want to do that you should nominate moderates like Ossoff (and even then a lot of those districts might be too Republican).

The longterm problem for Democrats is their current pool of voters if they're seriously this obsessed with "suburban inroads."  The GOP can quite easily form a coalition of wealthy suburbanites who want government out of their lives and rural communities that want the same.  Democrats like Ossoff and the voters he'd need to win in an area like GA-6 are going to have interests diametrically opposed to inner-city and heavily minority districts that make up the base of support for the Democratic Party.

[The Other Castro]

When will some people realize it takes more than just a good candidate to win a race? Ossoff was by no means a bad candidate. He wasn't perfect, but he did probably pretty close to the best a Democrat in his position could do given the circumstances. People don't lose just because of how good they are as a candidate. Perhaps there is a set of factors that could have aligned to provide a victory, but that was not the case here at this time.

[Dr. Arch]

When will some people realize it takes more than just a good candidate to win a race? Ossoff was by no means a bad candidate. He wasn't perfect, but he did probably pretty close to the best a Democrat in his position could do given the circumstances. People don't lose just because of how good they are as a candidate. Perhaps there is a set of factors that could have aligned to provide a victory, but that was not the case here at this time.

[henster]

Holcomb was always the best candidate here, the messaging against Ossoff weak on nat security, boyish, sympathetic with violent groups would just not work against a veteran.

[Technocracy Timmy]

When will some people realize it takes more than just a good candidate to win a race? Ossoff was by no means a bad candidate. He wasn't perfect, but he did probably pretty close to the best a Democrat in his position could do given the circumstances. People don't lose just because of how good they are as a candidate. Perhaps there is a set of factors that could have aligned to provide a victory, but that was not the case here at this time.

I generally agree with this but I think the broader lesson here is that the number of anti-Trump wealthy downballot republican voters who are willing to vote for a Democrat downballot is smaller than people expected.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Just consider this:

Low Investment:

SC-5: Trump 57-39, Norman 51-48 (D + 15)
KS-4: Trump 60-33, Estes 53-46 (D + 20)

Medium Investment:

MT-AL: Trump 57-36, Assaulterforte 50-44 (D + 15)


Maximal Investment:

GA-6: Trump 48-47, Handel 52-48 (R + 3)

While the democrats found success with low or medium Investment, maximal Investment clearly hurt them. Democrats should have spent notably less in GA-6 - it probably would have helped.

[Brittain33]

I merged a couple of threads about Ossoff's candidacy and funding into this main GA-06 thread. --Mod

[BigSkyBob]

Tuesday was almost a sad day for American politics. Not since George Herbert Walker Bush ran on a platform of "Read my Lips! No new taxes!" and proceeded to raise them, and, since when confronted with his serial infidelity Bill Clinton postured on Sixty Minutes as a humbled, chastised man who had found a new commitment to fidelity has there been a larger fraud perpetrated on the electorate.

There is a reason Jon Ossoff was a staffer for Hank Johnson: they are fellow liberals. This was sanitized into non-existence. The Jon Ossoff on the campaign trial had nothing to do with the Jon Ossoff who would vote in Congress.

Then, there is the business of his residency. The Constitution states a member must be a resident of the state in which he is elected. Ossoff had every right to stand for any of Georgia's districts. But, he had no right to lie about it. He had every right to run as a Georgian, but, instead promoted several mendacities. First, he tried to claim he was merely a block outside the district. It was two miles. Then, when he realized the political error he made in not moving into the district he concocted some nonsense story about how he was "supporting" his fiancee. Was he too stupid to realize that in less than a week he was intending to move DC? If "supporting" her was that important he could have not stood for Congress. If her living two miles closer to campus was that important to him, he could have set up a second home. And, what about her "supporting" his run for office? She could have moved into the district with him adding as little as two miles each way to her commute to campus. Presumably, she was willing to relocated to DC, but, not across the county??? Give me a break.

What is doubly pathetic is how the press acted as Pravda to sell the phony moderate story. The definition of "moderate" is suppose to be something like, "as reasonable balance of positions from the Right, the Left, or neither." It isn't suppose to be, "A liberal running South of the Mason Dixon line."

[BuckeyeNut]

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.

[BuckeyeNut]

Just consider this:

Low Investment:

SC-5: Trump 57-39, Norman 51-48 (D + 15)
KS-4: Trump 60-33, Estes 53-46 (D + 20)

Medium Investment:

MT-AL: Trump 57-36, Assaulterforte 50-44 (D + 15)


Maximal Investment:

GA-6: Trump 48-47, Handel 52-48 (R + 3)

While the democrats found success with low or medium Investment, maximal Investment clearly hurt them. Democrats should have spent notably less in GA-6 - it probably would have helped.

This is buffoonish. Compare Congressional races to past Congressional races, not the Presidential.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Just consider this:

Low Investment:

SC-5: Trump 57-39, Norman 51-48 (D + 15)
KS-4: Trump 60-33, Estes 53-46 (D + 20)

Medium Investment:

MT-AL: Trump 57-36, Assaulterforte 50-44 (D + 15)


Maximal Investment:

GA-6: Trump 48-47, Handel 52-48 (R + 3)

While the democrats found success with low or medium Investment, maximal Investment clearly hurt them. Democrats should have spent notably less in GA-6 - it probably would have helped.

This is buffoonish. Compare Congressional races to past Congressional races, not the Presidential.

The previous Dem congressional candidates in 3 of these 4  races were total nobodies. Plus, your party was touting the gains over Clinton in the other 3 races as a sign a wave was coming, but now that that stat isn't in your favor, it's suddenly worthless? Give me a break.

[TheSaint250]

I still think it's wrong to say that the losses show that there will be no Dem wave in 2018. It all depends on what happens over the next year and a quarter.

[Technocracy Timmy]

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.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Just consider this:

Low Investment:

SC-5: Trump 57-39, Norman 51-48 (D + 15)
KS-4: Trump 60-33, Estes 53-46 (D + 20)

Medium Investment:

MT-AL: Trump 57-36, Assaulterforte 50-44 (D + 15)


Maximal Investment:

GA-6: Trump 48-47, Handel 52-48 (R + 3)

While the democrats found success with low or medium Investment, maximal Investment clearly hurt them. Democrats should have spent notably less in GA-6 - it probably would have helped.

This is buffoonish. Compare Congressional races to past Congressional races, not the Presidential.

The previous Dem congressional candidates in 3 of these 4  races were total nobodies. Plus, your party was touting the gains over Clinton in the other 3 races as a sign a wave was coming, but now that that stat isn't in your favor, it's suddenly worthless? Give me a break.

Believe it or not people within the party believe different things.

I'll agree that not nationalizing the race would have helped, but I've been a critic of the HRC voter = lifelong Dem notion ever since the DCCC based its tier 1 target list off of it and people got more excited about Ossoff than Thompson or Quist. All of my friends in College Republicans who quietly voted for HRC are not questioning their party loyalty. I guarantee you that their parents aren't, and their friends aren't.

[BuckeyeNut]

Just consider this:

Low Investment:

SC-5: Trump 57-39, Norman 51-48 (D + 15)
KS-4: Trump 60-33, Estes 53-46 (D + 20)

Medium Investment:

MT-AL: Trump 57-36, Assaulterforte 50-44 (D + 15)


Maximal Investment:

GA-6: Trump 48-47, Handel 52-48 (R + 3)

While the democrats found success with low or medium Investment, maximal Investment clearly hurt them. Democrats should have spent notably less in GA-6 - it probably would have helped.

This is buffoonish. Compare Congressional races to past Congressional races, not the Presidential.

The previous Dem congressional candidates in 3 of these 4  races were total nobodies. Plus, your party was touting the gains over Clinton in the other 3 races as a sign a wave was coming, but now that that stat isn't in your favor, it's suddenly worthless? Give me a break.

Gains were certainly touted, but, to Chickenhawk's point, different Dems have touted different metrics. I am, at least, completely consistent in saying Congressional results should be compared to Congressional results, not Presidential ones.

And yes, 3 out of 4 prior Congressional candidates were jokes. That's sort of the point. Democrats need to be trying everywhere. 50 state, 435 congressional district, 3,114 county, 350,00 municipality strategy, etc., etc.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Just consider this:

Low Investment:

SC-5: Trump 57-39, Norman 51-48 (D + 15)
KS-4: Trump 60-33, Estes 53-46 (D + 20)

Medium Investment:

MT-AL: Trump 57-36, Assaulterforte 50-44 (D + 15)


Maximal Investment:

GA-6: Trump 48-47, Handel 52-48 (R + 3)

While the democrats found success with low or medium Investment, maximal Investment clearly hurt them. Democrats should have spent notably less in GA-6 - it probably would have helped.

This is buffoonish. Compare Congressional races to past Congressional races, not the Presidential.

The previous Dem congressional candidates in 3 of these 4  races were total nobodies. Plus, your party was touting the gains over Clinton in the other 3 races as a sign a wave was coming, but now that that stat isn't in your favor, it's suddenly worthless? Give me a break.

Gains were certainly touted, but, to Chickenhawk's point, different Dems have touted different metrics. I am, at least, completely consistent in saying Congressional results should be compared to Congressional results, not Presidential ones.

And yes, 3 out of 4 prior Congressional candidates were jokes. That's sort of the point. Democrats need to be trying everywhere. 50 state, 435 congressional district, 3,114 county, 350,00 municipality strategy, etc., etc.

But ideally making, say, the IA 4 where they spend 30 mil, not the GA 6.

[publicunofficial]

For the record, the 2016 D nominee for GA-06 has never been seen in public, has no known address, didn't make any form of webpage, spent $0, and may not even be a real person.