GA-6 Special election discussion thread

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

First results coming in now.

link??

DDHQ says they are about to post them.

https://decisiondeskhq.com/results/georgia-6th-congressional-district-ga06-special-election-primary/

Do they have a live podcast or something you're listening to?

Also--anyone getting weird Adware looking things on DDHQ?

That site was blocked for me.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What would you say Ossoff needs tonight for 50/50 odds in the runoff?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What would you say Ossoff needs tonight for 50/50 odds in the runoff?

I'm skeptical on any runoff (as it'll allow Rs to consolidate and focus their message), so I'll say 47%.

Well, I guess you could say that for him to have at least 50% odds at winning he has to hit 50% tonight and win without a runoff.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Was it expected that Bob Gray would do that poorly in DeKalb EV?

This is just the early vote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Imagine if Ossoff got 49.98%.

Imagine if he got exactly 50%. I imagine you need over 50% to avoid a runoff.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Imagine if Ossoff got 49.98%.

Imagine if he got exactly 50%. I imagine you need over 50% to avoid a runoff.

Nope, you need 50.00000000%

That's not a majority though.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Imagine if Ossoff got 49.98%.

Imagine if he got exactly 50%. I imagine you need over 50% to avoid a runoff.

Nope, you need 50.00000000%

No, you need 50% plus one vote.

A half if there's an odd number of votes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Conor Sen‏ @conorsen
BREAKING: Ashford Park Elementary in DeKalb reports. Ossoff with 53.0% of 827 votes cast. Hillary got 45.6% here.

But there's also this:

Conor Sen‏ @conorsen  
 BREAKING: Ashford Dunwoody Rd in DeKalb reports. Ossoff with 47.9% of 1121 votes cast. Downtick from Hillary’s 51.8%

And this:
Conor Sen‏ @conorsen
More
 BREAKING: Silver Lake in DeKalb reports. Ossoff with 50.5% of 1284 ballots cast. Hillary at 51.5%.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ossoff is ahead in every precinct in Cobb in the early vote except for one where he's in a 3 way tie with 2, LOL.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ossoff has 62% of early vote

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Some more DeKalb numbers (ED) just came in. Now:

Jon Ossoff (Democratic)    62.2%   33,302
Karen Handel (Republican)    14.6%   7,812
Dan Moody (Republican)    8.6%   4,603
Bob Gray (Republican)    5.9%   3,172
Judson Hill (Republican)    5.4%   2,908

The election day numbers pushed him up. He was at 62% on EV alone.

He's down to 61.5% on the NY Times. For some reason the counts are the same as in the quoted post.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Only 4% in even though polls closed almost 2 hours ago.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"Making Metro Atlantaa the Silicon Valley of the South"

ewww he's lost my vote.

Silicon valley- you mean the place where companies rake in 10%+ profit margins and underpay tech workers?

Shouldn't berniebots NOT like some of the left's glorification of the tech sector?

The liberals that I see praising Silicon Valley the most are DLC types.

And what's bad with that? Every liberal is obliged to be anti-DLC "bold progressive"? Why? "Liberal" doesn't mean being communist or even socialist..

There's plenty of room to the right of communist or socialist for liberal without including DLC.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What were the 2016 Presidential results in that district again ?

Did Hillary win it, considering she won virtually all of Atlanta ?

Trump won by a point. So Ossoff didn't exactly run better than Hillary.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"Making Metro Atlantaa the Silicon Valley of the South"

ewww he's lost my vote.

Silicon valley- you mean the place where companies rake in 10%+ profit margins and underpay tech workers?

Shouldn't berniebots NOT like some of the left's glorification of the tech sector?

The liberals that I see praising Silicon Valley the most are DLC types.

And what's bad with that? Every liberal is obliged to be anti-DLC "bold progressive"? Why? "Liberal" doesn't mean being communist or even socialist..

There's plenty of room to the right of communist or socialist for liberal without including DLC.

Yes, but why this maniacal desire to exclude it? "Always march to the left" Not every Democrat is a "bold progressive", not everyone is even a liberal, and, IMHO, that's normal.. After all, there are only two main parties in US, so they are unlikely to be as ideologized as in Europe, where there is 4-5 (even 10) parties, spanning the whole spectrum from far left to far right..

A few progressives and a bunch of lying neoliberal hawks doesn't cut it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hasn't he spent more money on a House race than any previous Democrat? What a whiner. This is as bad as Hillary begging for 1 dollar.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ossoff is a HP for sucking up all the resources.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This one's over.

Please don't say things like this. Have we not learned our lesson from 2016?

Please, two weeks before the election Hillary didn't have a seven point lead, and she definitely wasn't leading in Georgia.

We're just talking about one poll from a random pollster in a special election in a congressional district here.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In less time than this stupid election has been dragging on, the UK Labour party with less money than Ossoff spent went from 20 points behind to losing by 2 and now ahead.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

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

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

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

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

lol

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

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This new Washington Post article titled "Democratic win in Georgia would signal that the establishment is alive and kicking" almost makes me hope Ossoff loses.

Clearly the lesson would be to spend $25 million to elect drab establishment candidates in each of the districts that Hillary lost by a point so that the Democrats have a bigger minority in the House.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I can't help but be annoyed at the hypocrisy of Jfern an other hard leftist on this topic. On the one hand they constantly rip on "the establishment" for "talking about Russia and not healthcare" yet Quist brought up Russia all the time in Montana while Ossoff is the one who doesn't bring up Russia and talks about healthcare

Quist supports single payer while Ossoff does not. And I'm sure Ossoff would have attacked his opponent if she had invested in Russia.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm not going to argue, but I think this is a silly argument to begin with.  Um, let me put it this way.

ThereisnothingCongressmanOssoffwouldsupportthatBernieSandersorElizabethWarrendonot.

Ossoff is not pro free college, at least.

Read what he said carefully.

He opposes single payer.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/14/georgia-special-ossoff-handel-239523

And I don't think he's really laid out his positions. I'm sure he's to the right of Bernie on many, if not most issues.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm not going to argue, but I think this is a silly argument to begin with.  Um, let me put it this way.

ThereisnothingCongressmanOssoffwouldsupportthatBernieSandersorElizabethWarrendonot.

Ossoff is not pro free college, at least.

Read what he said carefully.

He opposes single payer.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/14/georgia-special-ossoff-handel-239523

And I don't think he's really laid out his positions. I'm sure he's to the right of Bernie on many, if not most issues.

Read what Scott said carefully.

It's a ridiculous assertion. I'm sure he'd vote with the 91 Senators for increased military spending and not the 3 that included Bernie here.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00301