CPRM, Pt 3: LA 11/6

[Adam Griffin]

NYT has already projected Bourdeaux as the winner in GA-7 despite it being half the margin of GA-6 (and both districts are 97-98% reporting)...

[Oryxslayer]

NYT fixes their numbers. Wulfric got burned.

[Jeppe]

Despite trailing in the early vote badly, both McBath and Bourdeaux turned it around with e-day votes, and ended up winning surprisingly comfortably. McBath turned a 10 point deficit into a 7 point win, and Bourdeaux turned a 20 point deficit into a 4 point win.

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

APPARENT WINNER:

Lieutenant Governor
Republican Primary Runoff

CANDIDATE   VOTE   PCT.   
Geoff Duncan
277,505   50.2%   
David Shafer
275,688   49.8   
553,193 votes, 99% reporting (2,605 of 2,634 precincts)


This ends tonight's primary coverage. I'll let NYT figure out when to call GA-6.

[scutosaurus]

Handel and Woodall are safe, but they are both going to get a scare. Especially Woodall.

Why do you think Woodall is more vulnerable than Handel?

Woodall is more vulnerable than Handel. His district has historically been more Republican, but Gwinnett is trending Democratic rapidly due to increasing minority votes, and Woodall himself hasn't ever faced serious opposition during his entire time in elected office. Bourdeaux seems like a capable enough candidate who has outraised him consistently and who seems to have a fair amount of enthusiasm behind her.

Lucy McBath, on the other hand, is a person I admire and respect, but an atrocious candidate. Even die-hard Democrats I've spoken to in the district say she comes across as unpolished and inexperienced. Karen Handel already beat the most well-financed candidate in the history of congressional elections because he came across as inexperienced and too connected to national interests; why would she be unable to fend off an even less qualified candidate with the exact same flaws?

[Rookie Yinzer]

Handel and Woodall are safe, but they are both going to get a scare. Especially Woodall.

Why do you think Woodall is more vulnerable than Handel?

One argument I could see is that Handel already experienced the most expensive house race in the country and won by 5%, while Woodall has never been seriously challenged.

This. And Bourdeaux will be running a more dynamic campaign. McBath is going to have to work hard to frame herself as more than a gun safety advocate.

Woodall is more vulnerable than Handel. His district has historically been more Republican, but Gwinnett is trending Democratic rapidly due to increasing minority votes, and Woodall himself hasn't ever faced serious opposition during his entire time in elected office. Bourdeaux seems like a capable enough candidate who has outraised him consistently and who seems to have a fair amount of enthusiasm behind her.

Lucy McBath, on the other hand, is a person I admire and respect, but an atrocious candidate. Even die-hard Democrats I've spoken to in the district say she comes across as unpolished and inexperienced. Karen Handel already beat the most well-financed candidate in the history of congressional elections because he came across as inexperienced and too connected to national interests; why would she be unable to fend off an even less qualified candidate with the exact same flaws?

And this.

[JMT]

AP just called it. McBath wins

[Jeppe]

Kevin Abel was the guy that said that a white person should represent GA-06, because it's a majority white district. I'm sure candidates like Lauren Underwood, Colin Allred, Andy Kim, and Antonio Delgado would disagree.

Yeah, I'm glad he lost.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Kevin Abel was the guy that said that a white person should represent GA-06, because it's a majority white district. I'm sure candidates like Lauren Underwood, Colin Allred, Andy Kim, and Antonio Delgado would disagree.

Yeah, I'm glad he lost.

That's a stretch my friend. I interpreted that in a different light. McBath is fairly far left and really just about guns but Abel is a more moderate neolib pro business local endorsed by some business groups centrist. He fits the district much better, not white or black or woman or man or whatever other stuff you might say about identity that is non controllable, he just fits the district better, don't make it into that he was doing a personal attack on her identity.

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

I'm endorsing Handel for GA-6 and Bourdeaux for GA-7

[smoltchanov]

Democrats again nominated more liberal candidates in swingish, and Tilt-R at least (especially on non-Presidential level) districts. Tilt-R, probably (may be - Lean R)....

[Antonio the Sixth]

Glad to see the stronger, grassroots-backed women candidates defeat the useless, milquetoast, business-friendly, moderate-heroish men. The Democratic party seems to finally be getting a clue.

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

[ON Progressive]

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

Kemp had been favoured ever since the tapes of him admitting to supporting education policies he knew were bad and describing the campaign as "who could be the craziest" came out. This made him be not only seen as corrupt, it also made him viewed as someone who hated voters at the same time.

The tapes meant he was already toast, but the Trump endorsement of Kemp made sure it was going to be a massive blowout.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

Kemp had been favoured ever since the tapes of him admitting to supporting education policies he knew were bad and describing the campaign as "who could be the craziest" came out. This made him be not only seen as corrupt, it also made him viewed as someone who hated voters at the same time.

The tapes meant he was already toast, but the Trump endorsement of Kemp made sure it was going to be a massive blowout.

So Mr. Points-a-gun-at-a-teenager somehow ended up as the least damaged candidate in the race? Amazing. What a clown car.

Seriously, if Democrats can't win Georgia this year, it means it's unwinnable.

[smoltchanov]

Glad to see the stronger, grassroots-backed women candidates defeat the useless, milquetoast, business-friendly, moderate-heroish men. The Democratic party seems to finally be getting a clue.

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

The problem is, that Republicans are also glad. To have "stronger, grassroots-backed women" as their opponents))) in these districts.

[Brittain33]

Glad to see the stronger, grassroots-backed women candidates defeat the useless, milquetoast, business-friendly, moderate-heroish men. The Democratic party seems to finally be getting a clue.

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

The problem is, that Republicans are also glad. To have "stronger, grassroots-backed women" as their opponents))) in these districts.

This conventional wisdom may not hold in 2018. Remember that Dems were happy to have Donald Trump as our opponent, only to find the rules had changed.

[smoltchanov]

Glad to see the stronger, grassroots-backed women candidates defeat the useless, milquetoast, business-friendly, moderate-heroish men. The Democratic party seems to finally be getting a clue.

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

The problem is, that Republicans are also glad. To have "stronger, grassroots-backed women" as their opponents))) in these districts.

This conventional wisdom may not hold in 2018. Remember that Dems were happy to have Donald Trump as our opponent, only to find the rules had changed.

Of course that may happen. But as a general rule ("candidate must fit a distirict") i don't consider "bold progressives" the best candidates in swingy districts with strong Republican past, and not especially problematic Republican incumbents.

[Brittain33]

Glad to see the stronger, grassroots-backed women candidates defeat the useless, milquetoast, business-friendly, moderate-heroish men. The Democratic party seems to finally be getting a clue.

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

The problem is, that Republicans are also glad. To have "stronger, grassroots-backed women" as their opponents))) in these districts.

This conventional wisdom may not hold in 2018. Remember that Dems were happy to have Donald Trump as our opponent, only to find the rules had changed.

Of course that may happen. But as a general rule ("candidate must fit a distirict") i don't consider "bold progressives" the best candidates in swingy districts with strong Republican past, and not especially problematic Republican incumbents.

True, but "stronger, grassroots-backed women" doesn't necessarily imply "bold progressives" (although in this case, it does.)

[smoltchanov]

Glad to see the stronger, grassroots-backed women candidates defeat the useless, milquetoast, business-friendly, moderate-heroish men. The Democratic party seems to finally be getting a clue.

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

The problem is, that Republicans are also glad. To have "stronger, grassroots-backed women" as their opponents))) in these districts.

This conventional wisdom may not hold in 2018. Remember that Dems were happy to have Donald Trump as our opponent, only to find the rules had changed.

Of course that may happen. But as a general rule ("candidate must fit a distirict") i don't consider "bold progressives" the best candidates in swingy districts with strong Republican past, and not especially problematic Republican incumbents.

True, but "stronger, grassroots-backed women" doesn't necessarily imply "bold progressives" (although in this case, it does.)

Agree, but, speaking about these particular districts and election results, i am reasonably sure, that results increased Republican chances of holding these districts. Exactly because in this case "stronger, grassroots-backed women" are "bold progressives" in non-progressive districts.

[ON Progressive]

Glad to see the stronger, grassroots-backed women candidates defeat the useless, milquetoast, business-friendly, moderate-heroish men. The Democratic party seems to finally be getting a clue.

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

The problem is, that Republicans are also glad. To have "stronger, grassroots-backed women" as their opponents))) in these districts.

This conventional wisdom may not hold in 2018. Remember that Dems were happy to have Donald Trump as our opponent, only to find the rules had changed.

Of course that may happen. But as a general rule ("candidate must fit a distirict") i don't consider "bold progressives" the best candidates in swingy districts with strong Republican past, and not especially problematic Republican incumbents.

True, but "stronger, grassroots-backed women" doesn't necessarily imply "bold progressives" (although in this case, it does.)

Agree, but, speaking about these particular districts and election results, i am reasonably sure, that results increased Republican chances of holding these districts. Exactly because in this case "stronger, grassroots-backed women" are "bold progressives" in non-progressive districts.

Can we stop with the myth that average voters actually vote on ideology? A literal socialist won a VA State House seat against the GOP Caucus Whip in a district that MITT ROMNEY carried. I doubt most of his voters were socialists themselves too.

A progressive who has great candidate qualities (good fundraiser, charismatic, background that connects to voters, etc) will do a lot better than a moderate who is mediocre/bad in regards to candidate qualities.

[Brittain33]

Exactly because in this case "stronger, grassroots-backed women" are "bold progressives" in non-progressive districts.

Amy McGrath? M.J. Hegar?

[smoltchanov]

Exactly because in this case "stronger, grassroots-backed women" are "bold progressives" in non-progressive districts.

Amy McGrath? M.J. Hegar?

Have very serious doubts about Hegar (difficult to see her playing well in Temple or Killeen). McGrath - may be, but we will see. It won't be easy in any case, despite long Democratic tradition of Bluegrass area.

[Brittain33]

Exactly because in this case "stronger, grassroots-backed women" are "bold progressives" in non-progressive districts.

Amy McGrath? M.J. Hegar?

Have very serious doubts about Hegar. McGrath - may be, but we will see. It won't be easy in any case, despite long Democratic tradition of Bluegrass area.

All I'm saying is that the old conventional wisdom about who Democratic candidates are and what their gender signifies to voters has likely changed a lot since 2016 *because* of Donald Trump and the revulsion he evinces among a majority of American women—not just as voters but as candidates.

[smoltchanov]

Exactly because in this case "stronger, grassroots-backed women" are "bold progressives" in non-progressive districts.

Amy McGrath? M.J. Hegar?

Have very serious doubts about Hegar. McGrath - may be, but we will see. It won't be easy in any case, despite long Democratic tradition of Bluegrass area.

All I'm saying is that the old conventional wisdom about who Democratic candidates are and what their gender signifies to voters has likely changed a lot since 2016 *because* of Donald Trump and the revulsion he evinces among a majority of American women—not just as voters but as candidates.

May be. But most of us thought that Trump had no chances in 2016, partially because of "revulsion he evinces among a majority of American women", who are majority of American voters, and especially - because Democrats ran woman as a candidate. We all know, how it turned THEN. We will see how it turns this year.

[Zaybay]

Glad to see the stronger, grassroots-backed women candidates defeat the useless, milquetoast, business-friendly, moderate-heroish men. The Democratic party seems to finally be getting a clue.

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

The problem is, that Republicans are also glad. To have "stronger, grassroots-backed women" as their opponents))) in these districts.

This conventional wisdom may not hold in 2018. Remember that Dems were happy to have Donald Trump as our opponent, only to find the rules had changed.

Of course that may happen. But as a general rule ("candidate must fit a distirict") i don't consider "bold progressives" the best candidates in swingy districts with strong Republican past, and not especially problematic Republican incumbents.

Riiiight.Its not like every GOP congressperson is exactly the same, and many Blue Dogs are in Safe Dem seats, and many Progressives are in tossup or lean R seats.

There is no conventional wisdom for this. In fact, the two women were better choices because of their more socially progressive values. Atlanta suburbs hate guns, as do most suburbs. Just because someone is more liberal doesnt make them weaker. The only people to have gotten close or won in Alabama state elections was Doug Jones(who was famously pro-choice) and Ron Sparks(who famously said he was as Liberal as the president).

The myth about matching a district by being centrist has never worked for Democrats in the past, and is just an excuse for leadership to keep pushing centrist ideas.