GA-6 Special election discussion thread

[Skill and Chance]

Look at this tweet and tell me why Pelosi should remain minority leader, she was also a factor in losing FL-13 with Sink.

https://twitter.com/hotlinejosh/status/848909731414585345

I agree with the sentiment, but I don't really think this tweet is evidence of that. That person would make the same jump with any Democratic House Leader.

Before I clicked, though, I thought it was going to be a quote from Pelosi saying something along the lines of "Ossoff is a true liberal, and a close personal friend. I am proud to endorse him and hope to see him in Congress next to me!"

No because most voters would not care who Tim Ryan or Joe Crowley is they'd have low name ID. Look at Schumer/McConnell's numbers most Americans don't know who they are.

You are assuming that those people would not have name recognition if they were minority leader, which is inaccurate. Regardless of who the minority leader was, Republicans wouldn't like them. Collin Peterson would be considered a communist by these sort of people.

For whatever reason, there is a good 10-20% of the population that vaguely knows of Pelosi as "the Obamacare (or cap and trade) lady" but doesn't know any of the other congressional leaders from Adam and Eve.  It isn't helpful to deny this anymore and it could conceivably swing a few House seats.  I see a ray of hope that Pelosi will be pressured to retire if Ossoff and others lose their specials after this type of advertising.

[Skill and Chance]

Hmmm...

https://i.imgur.com/icC1G6d.png

That's quite a gender gap.  If Ossoff can fire up the high energy old Georgia women, and the men stay home, then we might actually have a shot!

Careful, though.  We saw last fall that the early vote was coming in ~56% female in many states.  That didn't hold.

[Skill and Chance]

Unfortunately 2016 proved that early voting can be over interpreted. Robby Mook made sure Hillary crushed the Florida early vote, but still got swamped on the Election Day vote. It's just like taking out a loan... You eventually have to pay it back.

But Hillary didn't really crush the early Florida vote but also presidential election vs special is apples to oranges

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-early-vote-2016_us_58200106e4b0e80b02cae01c

In North Carolina, 1.3 million Democrats voted early, compared to just 990,000 Republican.

Having been burned by stories / numbers like this, it's hard not to be skeptical.

Always be skeptical of early voting, but this is not the right comparison to make.  GA doesn't have party registration, so the D/R/I numbers being reported here are based on whether you voted in the Democratic or Republican primary or neither last year.  In North Carolina, there are still like 500K registered "Dems" who haven't voted Dem for president since at least Bill Clinton and some since Jimmy Carter.  The "Dems" being reported in GA-06 voluntarily picked a Dem primary ballot last year.

[Skill and Chance]

On Mississippi on the map above, the state is both the poorest and most rural state in the Deep South, and the white voters could be demographically similar to West Virginia than surrounding states, so the Dem trend (if one happens) would be much slower than surrounding states.

I'm really not buying Mississippi.  Louisiana is the better target because it actually has 2 large cities.  Other than Virginia, where it already happened, the only Southern states I am reasonably confident will vote left of the nation by 2040 are Georgia and Texas.  Florida will probably move right and NC could go either way.  Both states will get more diverse, but if Trump is the future of the GOP, the retirement communities in Florida will be the Republican answer to NY-15 in another decade and NC has enough Appalachian exposure that nothing is assured there.  Basically, you need giant metros to be >50% of the entire state for things to work out consistently for Democrats in the South. 

[Skill and Chance]

I agree that GA will go the way of VA, and this should happen very quickly. By 2030 or so, MS, LA and maybe NC could all lean D and TX and FL (and maybe SC) would be pure Tossups or lean D. The Democratic Party's base will be in the South.

Rhode Island and Delaware look random, and I can't see Illinois or New Mexico voting Republican on a presidential level unless the GOP makes significant inroads with Hispanics.  I also wouldn't put Georgia as safe D either, by any means.

There are few things that we can be certain of, but Mississippi not being a Democratic-leaning state in 13 years is one of them.  I kind of understand the argument for it being competitive in 2050 (even if I don't fully agree with it), but there is no way it is there in 2030.

The thing that makes MS so precarious is that it is wholly dependent on white block voting to keep it Republican. If MS whites voted as Republican as they do in neighboring states, it would be a lean Democratic state. There is also the factor that the bulk of those White Republicans are concentrated in the age bracket 65 and above. By 2030, half of those people will be gone. That means that the White Vote is going to naturally trend downward for the GOP over the next several years as 90% GOP Seniors are replaced with 50-50 Millenials starting to vote more frequently.

So 2030 is not at all unreasonable for it to be tilt Dem state.

That might be true if MS white millennials were voting 50-50, but the NY Times demographics calculator said they voted 86 or 88% (I can't remember which) for Romney in 2012.  White millennials as a whole voted for Trump, so they of course voted overwhelmingly for Trump in Mississippi of all places.  If it ever goes Democratic (apart from in a landslide), it will simply be because the black vote outvoted the white vote, which doesn't seem to be that close to happening yet, considering the 2016 results.  There is no NOVA or Atlanta that could anchor Mississippi to a rapid trend like Virginia and, possibly, Georgia.

Yep.  If anything, you could make a better case for Louisiana with the growing film/arts presence in New Orleans.

[Skill and Chance]

Both states will get more diverse, but if Trump is the future of the GOP, the retirement communities in Florida will be the Republican answer to NY-15 in another decade and NC has enough Appalachian exposure that nothing is assured there.  Basically, you need giant metros to be >50% of the entire state for things to work out consistently for Democrats in the South.  

I'd argue that old people will not always stay so Republican-leaning. What happens in 15-20 years when you have almost a whole generation of more heavily Republican seniors passing away and being replaced by less Republican seniors in Florida? If you combine this with the growing Hispanic electorate in FL, it presents a bigger problem for the GOP.

Of course, it also depends on where the old people moving to FL come from, but I still think the time period matters. Old people alone aren't enough to keep Florida in Republican hands, imo.

Isn't it the "youngest" old people who are the most Republican and the "oldest" old people who are the most Democratic, though?  And given that the Reagan generation comes next, this would likely continue until we actually have millennials retiring.

I would be a lot more optimistic for Democrats in the West where more states are completely dominated by 1-2 cities and some of the Mormon vote may actually be up for grabs going forward.

[Skill and Chance]

Isn't it the "youngest" old people who are the most Republican and the "oldest" old people who are the most Democratic, though?  And given that the Reagan generation comes next, this would likely continue until we actually have millennials retiring.

That is actually a pretty good question. I'm not sure if you mean the "youngest/oldest old people" within the 65+ age group, so I'll assume no - 65+ is the most Republican group in Florida, with 50-64 being the 2nd most. I think in terms of old people moving to FL to retire, they would have most of their effect on the 65+ age group, meaning that about 15 years from now Democrats will have significant support among at least the 30-60 age range, but most likely 18-60. The voters set to take the place of FL's pre-retirement age group (50-64) are very Democratic - by at least 15%, and so there simply aren't enough Republicans to hold on to anything but 65+ year olds.

The most rosy long-term scenario for Republicans in FL to me is that they have a Illinois 2016 situation going, where pretty much every age group is voting for Democrats by double digits, except 65+, which in IL swung massively to Trump with at 61-35 (T)

Of course this assumes a linear progression of voting patterns coupled with Hispanic growth, but it's possible Republicans make inroads with other groups they are currently failing hard with. The depth of it matters, but it's not off the table.

Actually, I was thinking of the (well documented) divide between the very oldest people born during the 1920's and early 30's who still lean Dem vs. people born later.  Trump's platform just seems tailor made to eventually have a Republican margin with white retirees that matches the Democratic margin with African-Americans, so I wouldn't assume anything can't happen when it comes to Florida.  It really would not shock me if Sumter County (The Villages) was 91% Republican come the mid 2020's.

[Skill and Chance]

Isn't it the "youngest" old people who are the most Republican and the "oldest" old people who are the most Democratic, though?  And given that the Reagan generation comes next, this would likely continue until we actually have millennials retiring.

That is actually a pretty good question. I'm not sure if you mean the "youngest/oldest old people" within the 65+ age group, so I'll assume no - 65+ is the most Republican group in Florida, with 50-64 being the 2nd most. I think in terms of old people moving to FL to retire, they would have most of their effect on the 65+ age group, meaning that about 15 years from now Democrats will have significant support among at least the 30-60 age range, but most likely 18-60. The voters set to take the place of FL's pre-retirement age group (50-64) are very Democratic - by at least 15%, and so there simply aren't enough Republicans to hold on to anything but 65+ year olds.

The most rosy long-term scenario for Republicans in FL to me is that they have a Illinois 2016 situation going, where pretty much every age group is voting for Democrats by double digits, except 65+, which in IL swung massively to Trump with at 61-35 (T)

Of course this assumes a linear progression of voting patterns coupled with Hispanic growth, but it's possible Republicans make inroads with other groups they are currently failing hard with. The depth of it matters, but it's not off the table.

Actually, I was thinking of the (well documented) divide between the very oldest people born during the 1920's and early 30's who still lean Dem vs. people born later.  Trump's platform just seems tailor made to eventually have a Republican margin with white retirees that matches the Democratic margin with African-Americans, so I wouldn't assume anything can't happen when it comes to Florida.  It really would not shock me if Sumter County (The Villages) was 91% Republican come the mid 2020's.

91% is quite a radical number. I can't speak for Virginia, but I think there are way too many differences among white retirees for them to be that homogeneous of a voting group. For one, they prioritize their entitlements. Guess which party is commonly associated with proposing to cut them? Second, educational divide is still greater among whites than it is among almost any other voting group, and that still plays a part in people's ideologies. I could go on and on, but "white retirees" is way too vague to lump all together to produce such a lopsided result. Maybe 80% tops, but even that is pushing it, IMO. Now, if we're talking about white retirees from the Plains states or from Texas, then yeah, I'd agree. But white retirees from places along the East and West Coast are going to be decidedly more Democratic relative to the Plains/Midwesterners.

I should clarify that this applies to retirees who are (relatively) wealthy enough to move to and own retirement property in Florida.  Relatively poor retirees, who would be the most inclined to vote Dem, tend to stay where they lived during their working years and eventually move in with family.  As far as Florida retirees are concerned, though, they are likely to be the new GOP core.

[Skill and Chance]

Yea I don't think that Florida is going to trend like these other states, because of that wealthy skew of the retiree population.


Also, it is not so much that demographics equal destiny and Democrats will rule everything from here to the end of time. What happens is that you have a hostile demographic or generation coming through the pipeline, the Republicans then have to adapt to achieve a majority. The question then becomes which path requires them to adapt the least, because that is the path they will take. Right now, the Northern/Trump one is the answer.

We have actually seen this play out in both the macro and the micro levels. We have seen state's flip because of generation change opening the door, and the Republicans or Democrats rushing in to take full advantage causing the state to flip. The were generations of Georgians who would blow your brains out if you asked them to vote Republican. There was another one after that, which would largely vote for a yellow dog before voting for a Republican because of the New Deal and Great Depression. They would vote Republican sometimes (Reagan, Nixon etc) and the Silents even more so. Beginning with the boomers, you had a generation open to being heavily Republican and Republican Party moved aggressively to meet them. The end result is that GA began to shift heavily Republican in the 1990's, once they reached prime voting age.

The political map is constantly in an evolutionary state.

This, but I think it's more about states that are/will be dominated by large cities than Millennials or ethnic demographics per se.  Although political generations are real enough that I do expect a 12-20 year Dem streak when Millennials are at peak voting strength.  This has been a consistent feature of US history.  I also think identity politics will fade away over the next 15-30 years and Obama era racial polarization will be viewed as an exception to the rule, in the same way Catholic/Protestant polarization was under Kennedy.

[Skill and Chance]

The number of people on this forum who think Georgia will be solidly Democrat by 2030 astounds me. Sure, it might swing less conservative (same with Texas), but that's because recent ideological trends (i.e.Trumpism) within the Republican party have been less south-centric, and is not because of long-term demographic problems within the Republican party.

The reason I think the 'demographics is destiny' trends assumed for many states here is b.s. is because this assumption is based on two faulty principles:
1. That, because older generations vote more Republican than younger generations, eventually the Republican voter base will die off faster than the Democratic voting base
2. That, because minority populations will represent larger and larger segments of the overall population, Democrats will necessary swamp Republicans with vast majorities within these groups until the end of time

Number 1 is the easier point to address; there's a good resource available here that deals with this in part: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/03/do-we-become-more-conservative-with-age-young-old-politics

The basic gist is this: people get more conservative as they age. The baby boomers used to be the most liberal generation of them all, and are now the most conservative. This isn't that hard to understand because as people experience more of the world their worldview tends to solidify, and they become more resistant to change. While not universal, this is a definite trend that Democrats seem to conveniently ignore whenever they discuss the emerging supermajority the millennial generation will provide them with.

Number 2 is more difficult to address, as (unfortunately) there is virtually no data on the extent to which 'browness' indicates propensity to vote Democratic, but the basic gist is this: persons who are half-black (such as Barack Obama) currently count as just as much of an African American as someone who is full-black. As America gets browner, it will most certainly get less White - but it will also get less Black. Unless Democrats can find a way to convert similar percentages of quarter-black (or less) persons, both the White voter base of Republicans AND the Black voter base of Democrats will die off, leaving people who are brown but not 'as black' as the Democratic minority base of old.

However, as mentioned previously, there is simply no data on this hypothesis one way or another. People are counted as simply 'black' or 'white' based on how they identify, and there is no clear cutoff point at which someone becomes 'White' vs. 'Black' (or Hispanic, or Asian, etc.). Democrats do tremendously among African-Americans presently, but if in the emerging generation (which will be much more minority than previous generations because many more kids of interracial couples are in it than in previous generations) Democrats do even a bit less well, that would be a big blow to their voter base (though of course the fact that the generation as a whole is less White will hurt Republicans as well).

In other words, Democrats like to talk only about the demographic changes in this regard that will presumably hurt Republicans, while not talking about potentially changes that could hurt their voter base.

While point 2 is not as spurious as point 1 (i.e. there's plenty of data to disprove point 1, and none whatsoever on either side to disprove or prove point 2 yet), I see no particularly strong reason to think that states such as GA or TX (much less MS) will become Democratic within the next decade or two.

Consider this: in this era of increasing polarization, for the past 28 years most states have remained fairly constant in their partisan-order (i.e. if you lined up the states in order of most Democratic to least). Generally, partisan changes in this ordering have been largely attributable to dynamics of individual races (i.e. Trump did not bother appealing to or visiting the Sun Belt while spending all his time in the Midwest/Florida/North Carolina, while Hillary sent both multiple surrogates to Arizona).

Talk of the Democratic party being dead in Minnesota or Michigan (much less Oregon lmao) in 20 years is just as unfounded as talk of Republicans being dead in Georgia or Texas. Sure, a few of these states will naturally flip sides over time, but the progression will be a lot slower than people here seem to think. The Republicans are prohibitive favorites in Georgia and Texas at least through the next decade or two, as they vastly underperformed in both places due to the unique dynamics of a race. While a Democrat could win either in a landslide, neither will be voting to the left of Michigan in the near future.

As for Florida, the demographic changes there don't seem to be benefitting either side, and people here are finally starting to get that. Florida will always be older than the nation as a whole (which will always benefit Republicans unless ideologies flip drastically) but also more diverse (again, which will always benefit Democrats barring ideology changes), and the overall tilt of the state will probably remain slightly Republican for the foreseeable future.

The only true long-term demographic problem I see presently for either party is a simple one: Democrats seem to be more inclined to box themselves into small, densely populated areas, while Republicans appeal more and more to geographically diverse voters across a large majority of the country's area. The constitution is set up in such a way as to value geographic diversity (via providing bonuses to the party which wins more states through additional senators and therefore the electoral college votes those seats in congress represent), and so Democrats will need to find a way to start appealing to people outside of the burbs to win consistently.

Just my (much more than) two cents.

Behold!
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/georgia/president
That 66-point age gap would explain people expecting Georgia to go the way of Virginia (probably to an even more dramatic extent) in the next decade or so. A large part of it has to do with people under the age of 25 in Georgia being 50% minority, and that number gets bigger and bigger as you get into younger birth years. Now, I don't think the nation as a whole will follow Georgia's rather extreme age/demographic gap, so I'd be hesitant to extrapolate this onto other groups.

There is something to be said for Georgia's extreme age gap (it was one of the biggest in the country) versus states like Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota which actually had reverse age gaps.  But, Georgia had a much smaller age gap in the Senate race, so it may just be dependent on the direction the Republican Party goes.  I wish we had seen exit poll data for Georgia white 18-34s because it would have been interesting to see how much Clinton improved with them (Obama was only in the low 20s, if I remember correctly) and to see how much of it is an age issue versus how much of it is a racial issue.

Oh, I agree, but if those numbers are anywhere close to accurate, once Georgia flips, it ain't coming back. Even if Republicans did manage to make small inroads with minorities, it wouldn't be anywhere near enough to overcome that.

Yes, GA is one of the few places where the emerging Democratic majority theory still holds up.  But it's really about urban vs. rural than anything else.  Atlanta metro is even more dominant in GA than NOVA is in VA.  It's basically the opposite situation of Michigan, where Detroit was maxed out and provided a comfortable Dem statewide margin for years while the rural areas were not maxed out for Republicans until Trump came along.  Now that the Atlanta suburbs are giving out and the non-Atlanta metro white vote is already 85%+ R, it could turn into not just Virginia but Maryland overnight. 

But lest Dems get too excited, the only other state where this kind of analysis works is Texas, and it certainly isn't happening next year there.

[Skill and Chance]

People REALLY overrate how many rural voters there are, period.

yeah, rural voters need to vote in spectacular high numbers and for one single candidate to make a difference.

that was "strange" about 2016 - would be hard to repeat.

But my point is that most Trump voters WEREN'T rural.  Just using Illinois, a state that Trump lost by a bad margin, he got 2,146,015 votes.  Of those 2,146,015, 72.67% came from counties that are part of metro areas of 150,000 or bigger:

1,041,346 in Chicagoland
67,906 from the Rockford metro area
58,405 from the Illinois side of the Quad Cities metro area
93,110 from the Peoria metro area
42,314 from the Bloomington-Normal metro area
43,482 from the Champaign-Urbana metro area
54,175 from the Springfield metro area
158,857 from the Metro East (Illinois suburbs of St. Louis)

He won all of those metro areas except for Chicagoland and Champaign.  He also won every single county not included in those metros except for Jackson County in Southern Illinois (Clinton won 11,634 to Trump's 10,843).  What's my point?  Just because Trump won rural counties in Illinois by massive margins DOESN'T MEAN HIS SUPPORTERS WERE RURAL.  As I just demonstrated, the vast majority of his votes came from those metro areas, which don't even include CLEARLY not rural places like Galena (which Trump won), Decatur (which Trump won), Carbondale (which Trump won), etc.

The vast majority of Republican voters are not rural people.  For every rural Republican voter, there are two that live in a much more populated area that just happens to have more Democrats in it.

EDIT: And, doing simple math from the exit polls, only 22.57% of Trump voters lived in rural communities, compared to 52.26% living in suburbs and 25.16% living in urban areas.  So again, let that sink in, there were more Trump voters living in cities than in rural areas.  It doesn't matter that he won a vast majority of rural counties, they just simply didn't provide the bulk of his support, and that's a fact.

I think that a 150,000 person metro area is going to be culturally rural to someone who lives in a 1M+ metro area.  When people here say "city", they are usually thinking of those 1M+ metros.  And the Trump/Clinton divide really does look like 1M+ metros vs. everyone else!  The census view of urban is too broad to reflect the current cultural divide in the country IMO.

[Skill and Chance]

I find it somewhat odd that such a wealthy district like this has such an unfavorable view of the health act.

Polls a few years ago found the strongest opposition to the aca in suburban districts.

Maybe this suburb isn't as fiscally conservative as it first appeared

It's more that we are entering an era where people have become unusually willing to vote against their own (short-term?) economic interests.  Look at the UK election last night.  In US terms, some of those parliamentary seats the Tories just lost were the equivalent of The Woodlands, TX voting Bernie Sanders for president!  For as long as Trump remains president, why couldn't the wealthiest parts of Atlanta start voting like Atherton, CA already did last year?

[Skill and Chance]

If Trump's approval here is only ~33% and this remains about the same in 2018 and is relatively distributed across the country, the midterms will be a blood bath for the Republicans.

Stunning that Trump is only at 33% in a district that voted 4 points more Republican than the nation as a whole. Trump's deep unpopularity could cause a tsunami the nasty Republican gerrymanders could not have predicted in these wealthy suburbs. Places like suburban Philadelphia, Miami, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas, and Houston will be big pickup opportunities in 2018.

I don't believe in uniform swings, and it's conceivable to me that Trump has fallen more in a district like this one than he would have fallen in a seat like, say, IA-4.

What is interesting is how fast things appear to be moving in GA.  Historically it would take another 10-20 years for a congressional district that went from a landslide to a statistical tie at the presidential level to be statistically tied or won by the opposition party at the congressional level.  Now, it's happening in less than a year.

[Skill and Chance]

If Trump's approval here is only ~33% and this remains about the same in 2018 and is relatively distributed across the country, the midterms will be a blood bath for the Republicans.

Stunning that Trump is only at 33% in a district that voted 4 points more Republican than the nation as a whole. Trump's deep unpopularity could cause a tsunami the nasty Republican gerrymanders could not have predicted in these wealthy suburbs. Places like suburban Philadelphia, Miami, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas, and Houston will be big pickup opportunities in 2018.

I don't believe in uniform swings, and it's conceivable to me that Trump has fallen more in a district like this one than he would have fallen in a seat like, say, IA-4.

What is interesting is how fast things appear to be moving in GA.  Historically it would take another 10-20 years for a congressional district that went from a landslide to a statistical tie at the presidential level to be statistically tied or won by the opposition party at the congressional level.  Now, it's happening in less than a year.

As I've said before, a lot of votes for Price last november were to place a check on Clinton, who everyone assumed would be elected President. With Trump that factor is gone.

If that holds, I could see even places like GA-07, VA-07, TX-03 and TX-02 where Trump barely cleared 50-52% being competitive by 2020.

[Skill and Chance]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/06/09/ajc-poll-ossoff-opens-lead-over-handel-in-georgias-6th/

Atlanta Journal Constitution poll of 745 likely voters shows Ossoff up 51-44.

This one's over.

If a Democrat is winning this district by 7, they would easily be winning statewide.  GA-GOV could be a surprise marquee race next year.

[Skill and Chance]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/06/09/ajc-poll-ossoff-opens-lead-over-handel-in-georgias-6th/

Atlanta Journal Constitution poll of 745 likely voters shows Ossoff up 51-44.

This one's over.

If a Democrat is winning this district by 7, they would easily be winning statewide.  GA-GOV could be a surprise marquee race next year.

No, they would not be "easily" winning statewide. You can't assume a uniform swing like in this district to other more inelastic districts in the state. To win statewide, Dems would probably need to win GA-6 and GA-7 by at least mid-single digits and get Obama level turnout in the black belt.

They would only need to net half their swing in this seat statewide .  That's very doable.

[Skill and Chance]

What is considered winning here is a complicated question. In terms of getting a result indicative of flipping the house in 2018, Ossoff has already done that and will do that again in the runoff if he only loses by a couple of points or so. However, this has been hyped up so much now that the only way Dems can spin a win in the short term is if they actually win this election. It will be close, and as of right now Ossoff appears favored, but I do not believe by more than 2 points at most. Also, I don't think other Democrats would be doing as well as Ossoff, who has surprised me in how disciplined and professional he is as a first time candidate.

If they don't win GA-06, they will need to take literally every single Romney->Clinton seat and keep all 4 of the Trump landslide seats they still hold, including the open MN-01.  That's a very tall order. 

[Skill and Chance]

What is considered winning here is a complicated question. In terms of getting a result indicative of flipping the house in 2018, Ossoff has already done that and will do that again in the runoff if he only loses by a couple of points or so. However, this has been hyped up so much now that the only way Dems can spin a win in the short term is if they actually win this election. It will be close, and as of right now Ossoff appears favored, but I do not believe by more than 2 points at most. Also, I don't think other Democrats would be doing as well as Ossoff, who has surprised me in how disciplined and professional he is as a first time candidate.

If they don't win GA-06, they will need to take literally every single Romney->Clinton seat and keep all 4 of the Trump landslide seats they still hold, including the open MN-01.  That's a very tall order. 

Or, you know, flip a few of the very marginal Trump seats, which is much more likely than flipping all 23 Clinton/R seats. MN-2, NE-2, FL-25, GA-7, PA-16, ME-2, IA-1, IA-3, IL-13, MI-8, MI-6, NJ-2, NJ-3, NJ-11, NY-1, NY-19, NY-23, NY-21, OH-1, VA-2, VA-5

Isn't GA-06 a test of the very marginal Trump seats?

[Skill and Chance]

So apparently Bikers for Trump are doing GOTV for Handel https://mobile.twitter.com/alexis_levinson/status/873663431857106944

More likely to harm than help in this CD.