CPRM, Pt 3: LA 11/6

[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.

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.

In short - idiocy. Try to elect your "beloved progressives" in most southern districts. Many of them became solidly Republican exactly after such attempts. MS-03 happily elected Sonny Montgomery for many years, but switched immediately after his retirement. The same with AL-4 and Tom Bevill, with a lot of districts in fact. Or MS-02 in early 1980. After pragmatic moderate conservative white Democrat David Bowen retired in 1982, local and national liberals decided that district is ripe for liberal Black congressman, and ran Robert Clark. As a result - district, which didn't elect a Republican for many many years elected Republican (former conservative Democrat) Webb Franklin, and reelected him in 1984. Only after making district even more Black and running less "ideologically pure" Mike Espy in 1986 Democrats were able to get district back. You elected "progressive" Josh Newman to California state Senate and heralded it as a "new dawn in Orange county", where he is NOW??? And so on. Jones won mostly because of Moore, not because he was a "progressive and pro-choice", in fact - he won despite all this because his opponent turned to be Moore. Atlanta suburbs are "purple", not "solid Blue"......

[Rookie Yinzer]

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.

We are talking about today. 2018. What happened in 2016 happened in 2016. Just sit back and let these women run their races. If David Kim and Kevin Abel were so much better they would have won.

[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.

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.

In short - idiocy. Try to elect your "beloved progressives" in most southern districts. Many of them became solidly Republican exactly after such attempts. MS-03 happily elected Sonny Montgomery for many years, but switched immediately after his retirement. The same with AL-4 and Tom Bevill, with a lot of districts in fact. You elected "progressive" Josh Newman to California state Senate and heralded it as a "new dawn in Orange county", where he is NOW??? And so on. Jones won mostly because of Moore, not because he was a "progressive and pro-choice", in fact - he won despite all this because his opponent turned to be Moore. Atlanta suburbs are "purple", not "solid Blue"......

1) Districts like MS-03 and AL-04 are rural white Southern districts which are dark red. Even a Blue Dog has zero chance of winning either. AL-04 was Moore's best CD (he won it 68-31 against a moderate Dem!)

2) Newman was recalled because it was seen as a way to punish the state legislature for a gas tax, not because he was too "progressive" for a 53-41 Clinton district.

3) There's no proof that purple areas will be turned off by liberal candidates. Again, a socialist won a VA House seat that voted for Mitt Romney literally within this decade.

[smoltchanov]

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.

We are talking about today. 2018. What happened in 2016 happened in 2016. Just sit back and let these women run their races. If David Kim and Kevin Abel were so much better they would have won.

No. In present Democratic primaries (just as in Republican since at least 2010) wins not, who is better, but who is "most pure" and cries most loudly. "Activists" rule)))))

[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.

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.

In short - idiocy. Try to elect your "beloved progressives" in most southern districts. Many of them became solidly Republican exactly after such attempts. MS-03 happily elected Sonny Montgomery for many years, but switched immediately after his retirement. The same with AL-4 and Tom Bevill, with a lot of districts in fact. You elected "progressive" Josh Newman to California state Senate and heralded it as a "new dawn in Orange county", where he is NOW??? And so on. Jones won mostly because of Moore, not because he was a "progressive and pro-choice", in fact - he won despite all this because his opponent turned to be Moore. Atlanta suburbs are "purple", not "solid Blue"......

1) Districts like MS-03 and AL-04 are rural white Southern districts which are dark red. Even a Blue Dog has zero chance of winning either. AL-04 was Moore's best CD (he won it 68-31 against a moderate Dem!)

2) Newman was recalled because it was seen as a way to punish the state legislature for a gas tax, not because he was too "progressive" for a 53-41 Clinton district.

3) There's no proof that purple areas will be turned off by liberal candidates. Again, a socialist won a VA House seat that voted for Mitt Romney literally within this decade.

1. Districts like MS-03 and AL-04 were solidly Democratic for decades. But they required non-liberal, or even conservatively inclined Democrats to be held, and Democrats simply don't run such candidates anymore (despite all talk about "big tent". It fact - it was much wider in 1960-1970th in both parties, while now only liberals are welcome in Democratic party, and only conservatives - in Republican). When Democrats had shown that they don't care about these conservative inclinations of district's population - people of these districts turned to Republicans, who readily presented such conservative-leaning candidates. As a result - districts were lost.

2. Even 53-41 Clinton district in Orange county is NOT really liberal. It's anti-Trump district, which is socially moderate or even somewhat liberal, but - not fiscally. Fiscal conservatism is still approved there. As one Republican politician from Maine has said "my heart is on the left, but my wallet is on the right". So, Newman's "punishment" served both purposes - to punish Legislature and personally him for this fiscal apostasy.

3. We speak here not about simple "purple" disitricts, but purple just recently (essentialy, percentages for Clinton are the first case of their "purple" leanings), with strong Republican tradition of previous decades, solid Republican incumbents, and so on. In very big wave everything is possible - you can elect your candidates in even "alien" districts. But i doubt, that wave will be so high this year.

P.S. Let's return to beginning. THEN i said only that running very liberl candidates in purple districts instead of moderate liberals , IMHO (and i am entitled to such opinion, and explained why) decreases Democratic chances to flip it. You disagree? Your right. But chances that you will be able to shake my convictions are almost zero. Just as it's a sort of axiom to me that candidates must reflect preferences of their districts (so, i am for progressives in progressive districts, centrists - in purple, and yes, conservatives - in conservative one's), not impose their views on district. Seldom something good comes from it. We spoke about Mississippi, so i will remind that John Stennis held a Senate Seat from it rather easily, but more liberal Wayne Dowdy, who ran for his seat later - couldn't even get elected (partially because he was somewhat too liberal for the state)

[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.

In short - idiocy. Try to elect your "beloved progressives" in most southern districts. Many of them became solidly Republican exactly after such attempts. MS-03 happily elected Sonny Montgomery for many years, but switched immediately after his retirement. The same with AL-4 and Tom Bevill, with a lot of districts in fact. Or MS-02 in early 1980. After pragmatic moderate conservative white Democrat David Bowen retired in 1982, local and national liberals decided that district is ripe for liberal Black congressman, and ran Robert Clark. As a result - district, which didn't elect a Republican for many many years elected Republican (former conservative Democrat) Webb Franklin, and reelected him in 1984. Only after making district even more Black and running less "ideologically pure" Mike Espy in 1986 Democrats were able to get district back. You elected "progressive" Josh Newman to California state Senate and heralded it as a "new dawn in Orange county", where he is NOW??? And so on. Jones won mostly because of Moore, not because he was a "progressive and pro-choice", in fact - he won despite all this because his opponent turned to be Moore. Atlanta suburbs are "purple", not "solid Blue"......

Alright, there are many problems with this.

The South used to be referred to as "Solid" for the Ds, they would vote for literally any D on the ballot. In fact,many older whites still vote D in states like AL, LA, MS, and so on.

The South flipped, however, on the Pres level. But not on the congressional level. Many incumbents were able to survive, because they had been there so long. Senator Diane Fienstien was elected in Pro-GOP California and has held on ever since. In Pro-Dem Iowa, senator Grassley and governor Brandstad. I should also note that some of these Dems were rather liberal. When they retired, there was nothing to stop the R+20 electorate from putting in an R, just like how after many suburban Rs retired in Orange County, the Dems became favored to win their seats. Personal appeal is a big factor.

Josh Newman is a terrible example, as he was blamed for the gas tax, which voters across the spectrum disliked. And its likely a D will win back the seat.

Jones was also close to Moore before the allegations, and was gaining. In fact, its possible the race would have gone to Jones by a larger margin if the race hadnt been nationalized.

There are many progressive Dems who hold tossup or lean R seats, such as Matt Cartwright, Carol Shea Porter, and Rick Nolan to name a few. And, as I have shown in other posts, only 7/19 members in the Blue Dog caucus(including Connor Lamb) hold tossup/lean R seats, while the progressives caucus holds 8 tossup seats.

You dont need to put up a meh candidate just because the district is purple, especially in the south. If a district is purple, its because the voters, who are inelastic, are equal in size, with very few swing voters. The only way to win in such a seat is not to try to win over the 100 centrist voters, but to get your base to turn out. Thats what Rs do, and thats what Ds need to do.

[smoltchanov]

^ I wouldn't call people of districts in question "inelastic". They had shown this by switching in droves from Romney to Clinton. And if so - there must be substantial number of centrists (the type i described - fiscally conservative, but socially - moderate, to even liberal) in these districts, which Democrats must attract if they want to flip these districts. And if a base wouldn't vote for moderate liberal because he/she is "not progressive enough" - it's base's problem: they may have their present Republican congressmen for few more years and be proud of their "purity"....

[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.

In short - idiocy. Try to elect your "beloved progressives" in most southern districts. Many of them became solidly Republican exactly after such attempts. MS-03 happily elected Sonny Montgomery for many years, but switched immediately after his retirement. The same with AL-4 and Tom Bevill, with a lot of districts in fact. You elected "progressive" Josh Newman to California state Senate and heralded it as a "new dawn in Orange county", where he is NOW??? And so on. Jones won mostly because of Moore, not because he was a "progressive and pro-choice", in fact - he won despite all this because his opponent turned to be Moore. Atlanta suburbs are "purple", not "solid Blue"......

1) Districts like MS-03 and AL-04 are rural white Southern districts which are dark red. Even a Blue Dog has zero chance of winning either. AL-04 was Moore's best CD (he won it 68-31 against a moderate Dem!)

2) Newman was recalled because it was seen as a way to punish the state legislature for a gas tax, not because he was too "progressive" for a 53-41 Clinton district.

3) There's no proof that purple areas will be turned off by liberal candidates. Again, a socialist won a VA House seat that voted for Mitt Romney literally within this decade.

1. Districts like MS-03 and AL-04 were solidly Democratic for decades. But they required non-liberal, or even conservatively inclined Democrats to be held, and Democrats simply don't run such candidates anymore (despite all talk about "big tent". It fact - it was much wider in 1960-1970th in both parties, while now only liberals are welcome in Democratic party, and only conservatives - in Republican). When Democrats had shown that they don't care about these conservative inclinations of district's population - people of these districts turned to Republicans, who readily presented such conservative-leaning candidates. As a result - districts were lost.

2. Even 53-41 Clinton district in Orange county is NOT really liberal. It's anti-Trump district, which is socially moderate or even somewhat liberal, but - not fiscally. Fiscal conservatism is still approved there. As one Republican politician from Maine has said "my heart is on the left, but my wallet is on the right". So, Newman's "punishment" served both purposes - to punish Legislature and personally him for this fiscal apostasy.

3. We speak here not about simple "purple" disitricts, but purple just recently (essentialy, percentages for Clinton are the first case of their "purple" leanings), with strong Republican tradition of previous decades, solid Republican incumbents, and so on. In very big wave everything is possible - you can elect your candidates in even "alien" districts. But i doubt, that wave will be so high this year.

P.S. Let's return to beginning. THEN i said only that running very liberl candidates in purple districts instead of moderate liberals , IMHO (and i am entitled to such opinion, and explained why) decreases Democratic chances to flip it. You disagree? Your right. But chances that you will be able to shake my convictions are almost zero. Just as it's a sort of axiom to me that candidates must reflect preferences of their districts (so, i am for progressives in progressive districts, centrists - in purple, and yes, conservatives - in conservative one's), not impose their views on district. Seldom something good comes from it. We spoke about Mississippi, so i will remind that John Stennis held a Senate Seat from it rather easily, but more liberal Wayne Dowdy, who ran for his seat later - couldn't even get elected (partially because he was somewhat too liberal for the state)

1. The South was referred to as "solid" for a reason. Ds would always win. And you are wrong to say that only moderate or conservative candidates would win, because many Liberal Ds were also sent to congress. It was the Nixon Southern strategy and Reagan revolution that caused these voters to turn, not because the Democrats had abandoned them.

2.As I said before, no one likes gas taxes, and Newman got the blame. There are many conservative Ds in safe seats in CA, and many progressive Ds in tossup seats in CA. Josh Newman's loss was not because the district disapproved of fiscal liberalism, but because of the gas tax.

And, to bring up state races, in PA, many suburban Ds, who should be socially L, and fiscally C, according to you, voted for multiple DSA members, who ousted long time members of the state congress.

3. They can still elect a D, just because its a recent shift doesnt disqualify it from flipping, thats like saying "Rs shouldnt compete in the Rust Belt because its only a recent shift".

P.S Im glad you are just admitting that you will never listen, cause it means I dont have to spend anymore time debating this.

Looking at the candidate you brought up, it occurred after the Reagan revolution where the South switched to Rs, and even then, he only lost by a rather modest margin, considering the national election had a PV of R+8. In comparison, if the environment had been neutral, its likely the "Liberal" John Stennis would have won.

[Zaybay]

^ I wouldn't call people of districts in question "inelastic". They had shown this by switching in droves from Romney to Clinton. And if so - there must be substantial number of centrists (the type i described - fiscally conservative, but socially - moderate, to even liberal) in these districts, which Democrats must attract if they want to flip these districts. And if a base wouldn't vote for moderate liberal because he/she is "not progressive enough" - it's base's problem: they may have their present Republican congressmen for few more years and be proud of their "purity"....

Or, the more likely reason, is that major demographic and economic shifts in the Atlanta Metro had an effect on the vote in the district. Especially considering that these shifts only occurred in the Atlanta Metro and not the suburbs surrounding Savanna or other major cities in GA.

And by your logic, in 2017, it should have been Jon Ossoff who won the special election. After all,he was a centrist, so he best reflects the district.

[Antonio the Sixth]

ayy lmao at centrists pretending they know anything about what makes a candidate "electable" when they've been consistently wrong about it for the past 10 years

[IceSpear]

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.

Those ads didn't damage Kemp at all. They helped him. What people in NYC or LA thought about them is irrelevant.

[Zaybay]

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.

Those ads didn't damage Kemp at all. They helped him. What people in NYC or LA thought about them is irrelevant.

No, they definitely damaged him. Kemp lost the first round by a large margin. The thing was, however, is that Cagle in the first round was a moderate Lt. Gov, but in the runoff, he became a corrupt, inauthentic career politician. And Cagle was still making it close, according to polling....until Trump endorsed Kemp, which caused Cagle to collapse.

[Adam Griffin]

^ I wouldn't call people of districts in question "inelastic". They had shown this by switching in droves from Romney to Clinton. And if so - there must be substantial number of centrists (the type i described - fiscally conservative, but socially - moderate, to even liberal) in these districts, which Democrats must attract if they want to flip these districts. And if a base wouldn't vote for moderate liberal because he/she is "not progressive enough" - it's base's problem: they may have their present Republican congressmen for few more years and be proud of their "purity"....

Or, the more likely reason, is that major demographic and economic shifts in the Atlanta Metro had an effect on the vote in the district. Especially considering that these shifts only occurred in the Atlanta Metro and not the suburbs surrounding Savanna or other major cities in GA.

Demography alone was responsible for approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of the swing in metro ATL. The rest was actual R-to-D defections. We know this because unlike in almost every other state, GA publishes turnout by race, gender and age all the way down to the precinct level.

That basically means GA would have went from Romney +8 to Trump +7 without the persuasion factor. Of course there were also persuadables outside the metro; they were simply swamped by the D-to-R defections and voters staying home.

[IceSpear]

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.

Those ads didn't damage Kemp at all. They helped him. What people in NYC or LA thought about them is irrelevant.

No, they definitely damaged him. Kemp lost the first round by a large margin. The thing was, however, is that Cagle in the first round was a moderate Lt. Gov, but in the runoff, he became a corrupt, inauthentic career politician. And Cagle was still making it close, according to polling....until Trump endorsed Kemp, which caused Cagle to collapse.

Kemp's polling improved after the ads got publicity and was what got him a solid spot in the runoff to begin with.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/governor/ga/georgia_governor_republican_primary-6286.html

And polls aside, it is just common sense that Georgia Republicans would love those ads. He wasn't trying to appeal to Atlanta liberals.

[Zaybay]

^ I wouldn't call people of districts in question "inelastic". They had shown this by switching in droves from Romney to Clinton. And if so - there must be substantial number of centrists (the type i described - fiscally conservative, but socially - moderate, to even liberal) in these districts, which Democrats must attract if they want to flip these districts. And if a base wouldn't vote for moderate liberal because he/she is "not progressive enough" - it's base's problem: they may have their present Republican congressmen for few more years and be proud of their "purity"....

Or, the more likely reason, is that major demographic and economic shifts in the Atlanta Metro had an effect on the vote in the district. Especially considering that these shifts only occurred in the Atlanta Metro and not the suburbs surrounding Savanna or other major cities in GA.

Demography alone was responsible for approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of the swing in metro ATL. The rest was actual R-to-D defections. We know this because unlike in almost every other state, GA publishes turnout by race, gender and age all the way down to the precinct level.

But it doesnt account for previous voters who voted R->D, and vice versa. As I said before, the GA metro was one of the only places to swing against Trump, and this is partially due to the suburban shift that was experienced in other states. But the GA shift was monumental, and only seen in two other states, Texas and Arizona. If it truly was all due to suburban Rs trending hard D, PA, WI, and MI would not have fallen.

In the special election with Jon Ossoff, the margin was almost the exact same as in 2016. This makes sense, as Trump was not the most controversial back then(still bad, but hes much worse now), and suburban seats are very inelastic. But  if it truly was a suburban switch, they should have voted for Handal, as she was a "normal" R. This inelasticity suggests to me that it was more of a permanent shift, rather than a suburban shift.

If I gave percentages, I would say 1/4-1/3 was caused by defections, while the rest was caused by transplants, demographic changes, and other factors.

[Zaybay]

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.

Those ads didn't damage Kemp at all. They helped him. What people in NYC or LA thought about them is irrelevant.

No, they definitely damaged him. Kemp lost the first round by a large margin. The thing was, however, is that Cagle in the first round was a moderate Lt. Gov, but in the runoff, he became a corrupt, inauthentic career politician. And Cagle was still making it close, according to polling....until Trump endorsed Kemp, which caused Cagle to collapse.

Kemp's polling improved after the ads got publicity and was what got him a solid spot in the runoff to begin with.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/governor/ga/georgia_governor_republican_primary-6286.html

And polls aside, it is just common sense that Georgia Republicans would love those ads. He wasn't trying to appeal to Atlanta liberals.

In a primary, I would think it was less the ads, and more the publicity they got. It gave Kemp name recognition and a name as "The True Conservative". But, in the end, it was not enough to secure a majority in the first round. And it will likely not help the Rs in the general.

And not every R in GA is some hick.

[Adam Griffin]

In the special election with Jon Ossoff, the margin was almost the exact same as in 2016. This makes sense, as Trump was not the most controversial back then(still bad, but hes much worse now), and suburban seats are very inelastic. But  if it truly was a suburban switch, they should have voted for Handal, as she was a "normal" R. This inelasticity suggests to me that it was more of a permanent shift, rather than a suburban shift.

In the special election with Jon Ossoff, the margin was almost the exact same as in 2016. This makes sense, as Trump was not the most controversial back then(still bad, but hes much worse now), and suburban seats are very inelastic. But  if it truly was a suburban switch, they should have voted for Handal, as she was a "normal" R. This inelasticity suggests to me that it was more of a permanent shift, rather than a suburban shift.

I'm honestly not really sure what you're saying here. GA, TX & AZ's major metros swung to the extent that they did because they are massive enough to where past GOP performance was an anomaly. Of the top 10 largest metro areas, there are only 4 on the list that aren't/haven't been immensely Democratic: Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas and Houston. Virtually every other large US metro area had already been generating Democratic performance at levels strong enough to where the kind of gains made in GA/TX/AZ in 2016 was impossible. Trump was the catalyst that finally shook these areas loose (at least in that race specifically). There really aren't any other comparable metros in the South size-wise, and no other comparable metros nationally that weren't already firmly Democratic.

Nevertheless and as far as Ossoff's race, I think you're conflating coincidence with correlation. The special election electorate had a higher percentage of "strong Democrats" show up to vote than 2016's electorate had. The Democratic energy and money galvanized loyal Democrats to vote (just like in AL), with the main difference between that the GOP was caught flat-footed in the race initially. Metro ATL (particularly the area centered around CD 6) has a history going back to at least 2004 where Democratic presidential candidates would overperform congressional and down-ballot candidates by 10-20 points or more; there are dozens of precincts in places like North Fulton, Dekalb, Cobb and Gwinnett where Obama got 55% or more in 2008, but the average downballot Dem didn't break 40%.

If I gave percentages, I would say 1/4-1/3 was caused by defections, while the rest was caused by transplants, demographic changes, and other factors.

I mean, you could give those percentages, but they wouldn't be accurate. I'm not sure what "other factors" would even entail, but in discussions about elasticity and the like, there are two main factors: persuasion and turnout. Persuasion involves flipping voters and turnout involves getting your solid supporters to vote. Even within the dynamic of fresh arrivals, they fall into one of those two categories effectively. ATL's growing rapidly but not that rapidly - and not massively more than between 2008-12 - and surely you're not counting people who moved to the metro 10+ years ago and who had been voting GOP until 2016 as "transplants" in such an assessment?. Most transplant growth in the metro is minority growth and vice-versa (at least among adults), so it's largely accounted for in the demographic assessment of the swing.

[Zaybay]

In the special election with Jon Ossoff, the margin was almost the exact same as in 2016. This makes sense, as Trump was not the most controversial back then(still bad, but hes much worse now), and suburban seats are very inelastic. But  if it truly was a suburban switch, they should have voted for Handal, as she was a "normal" R. This inelasticity suggests to me that it was more of a permanent shift, rather than a suburban shift.

In the special election with Jon Ossoff, the margin was almost the exact same as in 2016. This makes sense, as Trump was not the most controversial back then(still bad, but hes much worse now), and suburban seats are very inelastic. But  if it truly was a suburban switch, they should have voted for Handal, as she was a "normal" R. This inelasticity suggests to me that it was more of a permanent shift, rather than a suburban shift.

I'm honestly not really sure what you're saying here. GA, TX & AZ's major metros swung to the extent that they did because they are massive enough to where past GOP performance was an anomaly. Of the top 10 largest metro areas, there are only 4 on the list that aren't/haven't been immensely Democratic: Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas and Houston. Virtually every other large US metro area had already been generating Democratic performance at levels strong enough to where the kind of gains made in GA/TX/AZ in 2016 was impossible. Trump was the catalyst that finally shook these areas loose (at least in that race specifically). There really aren't any other comparable metros in the South size-wise, and no other comparable metros nationally that weren't already firmly Democratic.

Nevertheless and as far as Ossoff's race, I think you're conflating coincidence with correlation. The special election electorate had a higher percentage of "strong Democrats" show up to vote than 2016's electorate had. The Democratic energy and money galvanized loyal Democrats to vote (just like in AL), with the main difference between that the GOP was caught flat-footed in the race initially. Metro ATL (particularly the area centered around CD 6) has a history going back to at least 2004 where Democratic presidential candidates would overperform congressional and down-ballot candidates by 10-20 points or more; there are dozens of precincts in places like North Fulton, Dekalb, Cobb and Gwinnett where Obama got 55% or more in 2008, but the average downballot Dem didn't break 40%.

If I gave percentages, I would say 1/4-1/3 was caused by defections, while the rest was caused by transplants, demographic changes, and other factors.

I mean, you could give those percentages, but they wouldn't be accurate. I'm not sure what "other factors" would even entail, but in discussions about elasticity and the like, there are two main factors: persuasion and turnout. Persuasion involves flipping voters and turnout involves getting your solid supporters to vote. Even within the dynamic of fresh arrivals, they fall into one of those two categories effectively. ATL's growing rapidly but not that rapidly - and not massively more than between 2008-12 - and surely you're not counting people who moved to the metro 10+ years ago and who had been voting GOP until 2016 as "transplants" in such an assessment?. Most transplant growth in the metro is minority growth and vice-versa (at least among adults), so it's largely accounted for in the demographic assessment of the swing.

All right, so I decided to do some digging to see which of us was right.

After running the numbers, it appears that it was 1/2 Persuasion and 1/2 D growth, but a bit more persuasion than growth. I concede.

The other factors, BTW, would have been things like resources(Hillary famously spent little in the state), overall turnout of the state, The national PV, homestate advantage, that kind of stuff.

But I still wont concede that many of these voters are centrist, and that the centrist voter actually exists in large numbers. But that was mostly with Smoltchanov, not you.

[smoltchanov]

But I still wont concede that many of these voters are centrist, and that the centrist voter actually exists in large numbers. But that was mostly with Smoltchanov, not you.

Let's honestly disagree, and see the reuslts. Both - congressional elections in GA-06 and GA-07 this November, and Senate elections in Alabama in November of 2020. Then we can return to this discussion with new data.

[136or142]

Any possibility David Kustoff loses to George Flinn? 

[wjx987]

Any possibility David Kustoff loses to George Flinn? 

It seems doubtful, but it is interesting that Trump gave Kustoff a shoutout, he usually only does that for endangered politicians.

[Attorney General & Senator Dwarven Dragon]

Results: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/02/us/elections/results-tennessee-primary-elections.html

[Cuca_Beludo]

My prediction for the Republican Gubernatorial Primary in TN:

Lee - 29,1
Black - 27,1
Boyd -25,8
Harwell - 15,7
Others - 2,3

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Diane Black will win the primary.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Which Democratic Gov candidate should I root for?