Politico: GA special election will be most expensive House race in U.S history

[Virginiá]

Georgia special election smashes all-time spending record

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/06/georgia-special-election-spending-record-238054

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At this point, it seems critical for Democrats to win not because of the extra seat, but for the symbolic value it would provide. Depending on the balance of spending on each side, it might also be another interesting test to see exactly how far money can take you in districts that generally aren't supposed to be competitive.

[McGovernForPrez]

Holy sh**t! I wonder if this says anything serious about the national climate. Democrats have been pouring obscene amounts of money into any race where people are putting up a fight. It's not just big money interests either. A lot of the money has been raised through small donations. It looks like the "Sanders" model of funding is extremely effective to say the least.

[Angrie]

I was just thinking of how much that is, and it certainly seems way out of proportion for a house race.

But then I thought to put it into context.

In a certain light, it is actually not very much. Metro Atlanta's GDP is apparently something like $340 billion (thank you for that, google). So that comes out to a bit less than .01% of the Atlanta area's GDP.

With the stakes as high as they are, in a certain sense it is surprising that more is not spent on elections than is already the case - and that is with money in politics being a large problem as is!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Sad how much money Democrats are spending on some bland candidate in a district that is more Democratic than the median district.

[heatcharger]

Sad how much money Democrats are spending on some bland candidate in a district that is more Democratic than the median district.

This bland candidate is doing much better in this district than some random Berniecrat you would've rallied behind.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Sad how much money Democrats are spending on some bland candidate in a district that is more Democratic than the median district.

This bland candidate is doing much better in this district than some random Berniecrat you would've rallied behind.

That's correct, considering that there's no way the DNCC would've lifted a finger to help elect a Sanders ally in a special election, thus rendering the campaign of "some random Berniecrat" doomed from the start.

Oh my f-ing god can we stop this?! Please? Ossoff is fine just cause Bernie doesn't drool on him doesn't make him bad and not every "Berniecrat" who runs is some pathetic nobody who the DNC shouldn't help 

[Hindsight was 2020]

Sad how much money Democrats are spending on some bland candidate in a district that is more Democratic than the median district.

This bland candidate is doing much better in this district than some random Berniecrat you would've rallied behind.

That's correct, considering that there's no way the DNCC would've lifted a finger to help elect a Sanders ally in a special election, thus rendering the campaign of "some random Berniecrat" doomed from the start.

Oh my f-ing god can we stop this?! Please? Ossoff is fine just cause Bernie doesn't drool on him doesn't make him bad and not every "Berniecrat" who runs is some pathetic nobody who the DNC shouldn't help 

My opinion of Jon Ossoff isn't at all related to Sanders' comments regarding his questionable progressive credentials or whatnot; after all, Sanders and OR have made plenty of questionable endorsements in the past. That being said, the fact that the Democratic Party is putting far more resources into a seat like GA-06 as opposed to somewhere like Montana is a testament to how far the party has fallen.

Yeah why is the GOP wasting it's time in a senate seat in Massachusetts man the party has fallen. Also most of Ossoff money is coming from small donations an on top of that unlike Quist Ossoff has a possible big future in the party if he wins

[heatcharger]

My opinion of Jon Ossoff isn't at all related to Sanders' comments regarding his questionable progressive credentials or whatnot; after all, Sanders and OR have made plenty of questionable endorsements in the past. That being said, the fact that the Democratic Party is putting far more resources into a seat like GA-06 as opposed to somewhere like Montana is a testament to how far the party has fallen.

A district that swings 22 points left is called fertile territory. Besides, winning a marginal Trump district like this one means much more to the collective chances of Democrats taking back the House in 2018. Ossoff has also proved himself to be a much better candidate than Quist has, objectively speaking.

Yes, I know Democrats have had success winning statewide in Montana, but the ones who have weren't unabashed left-wingers. Bullock hardly qualifies as one, Schweitzer picked a Republican for his running mate, and let's not get started on Baucus. My point is, the future of the Democratic Party won't be restricted from places like Montana, but it certainly isn't where the base will be.

[Holmes]

Erm, parties only care about the number of seats they have. Obviously they're going to put more money in a district that voted more Democrstic last year and with the candidate that is actually polling better. Obviously I also want Quist to win but the complaining here is pretty stupid.

[Yank2133]

Sad how much money Democrats are spending on some bland candidate in a district that is more Democratic than the median district.

This bland candidate is doing much better in this district than some random Berniecrat you would've rallied behind.

That's correct, considering that there's no way the DNCC would've lifted a finger to help elect a Sanders ally in a special election, thus rendering the campaign of "some random Berniecrat" doomed from the start.

Oh my f-ing god can we stop this?! Please? Ossoff is fine just cause Bernie doesn't drool on him doesn't make him bad and not every "Berniecrat" who runs is some pathetic nobody who the DNC shouldn't help  

My opinion of Jon Ossoff isn't at all related to Sanders' comments regarding his questionable progressive credentials or whatnot; after all, Sanders and OR have made plenty of questionable endorsements in the past. That being said, the fact that the Democratic Party is putting far more resources into a seat like GA-06 as opposed to somewhere like Montana is a testament to how far the party has fallen.

Fallen? It is called being smart, GA-06 is the exact type of seat they are going to have to win in 2018 to regain the house.

God grief, we are ****ed. People don't even know what the playing field looks like.

[DrScholl]

None of this has to do with Sanders or anyone connected to him. It's a new day and people like Ossoff are in the right seat.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Sad how much money Democrats are spending on some bland candidate in a district that is more Democratic than the median district.

This bland candidate is doing much better in this district than some random Berniecrat you would've rallied behind.

That's correct, considering that there's no way the DNCC would've lifted a finger to help elect a Sanders ally in a special election, thus rendering the campaign of "some random Berniecrat" doomed from the start.

Oh my f-ing god can we stop this?! Please? Ossoff is fine just cause Bernie doesn't drool on him doesn't make him bad and not every "Berniecrat" who runs is some pathetic nobody who the DNC shouldn't help  

My opinion of Jon Ossoff isn't at all related to Sanders' comments regarding his questionable progressive credentials or whatnot; after all, Sanders and OR have made plenty of questionable endorsements in the past. That being said, the fact that the Democratic Party is putting far more resources into a seat like GA-06 as opposed to somewhere like Montana is a testament to how far the party has fallen.

Fallen? It is called being smart, GA-06 is the exact type of seat they are going to have to win in 2018 to regain the house.

God grief, we are ****ed. People don't even know what the playing field looks like.

The part of the post you bolded was merely me lamenting the fact that the Democratic Party has become a party that labels working people "deplorables" and puts the near-entirety of its resources into winning over affluent suburbanites in places like GA-06. If we're indeed "****ed", then it's because the Party leadership has lost touch with - and derides - the natural base of any respectable left-wing party.

Oh please Hillary wasn't calling "working people" that she was calling Trump's hardcore base that which a lot are have you seen Breitbart or Infowars? They are heavly race baiting minorities in articles or heck 4chan ground zero of Trump support is a borderline neo-Nazi website

[Yank2133]

Sad how much money Democrats are spending on some bland candidate in a district that is more Democratic than the median district.

This bland candidate is doing much better in this district than some random Berniecrat you would've rallied behind.

That's correct, considering that there's no way the DNCC would've lifted a finger to help elect a Sanders ally in a special election, thus rendering the campaign of "some random Berniecrat" doomed from the start.

Oh my f-ing god can we stop this?! Please? Ossoff is fine just cause Bernie doesn't drool on him doesn't make him bad and not every "Berniecrat" who runs is some pathetic nobody who the DNC shouldn't help  

My opinion of Jon Ossoff isn't at all related to Sanders' comments regarding his questionable progressive credentials or whatnot; after all, Sanders and OR have made plenty of questionable endorsements in the past. That being said, the fact that the Democratic Party is putting far more resources into a seat like GA-06 as opposed to somewhere like Montana is a testament to how far the party has fallen.

Fallen? It is called being smart, GA-06 is the exact type of seat they are going to have to win in 2018 to regain the house.

God grief, we are ****ed. People don't even know what the playing field looks like.

The part of the post you bolded was merely me lamenting the fact that the Democratic Party has become a party that labels working people "deplorables" and puts the near-entirety of its resources into winning over affluent suburbanites in places like GA-06. If we're indeed "****ed", then it's because the Party leadership has lost touch with - and derides - the natural base of any respectable left-wing party.

This is bull****.

Democrats actually win the "working class", contrary to what some Bernie hacks think, black and brown people are working class too. And Democrats are going after suburbanites, because those places are trending Democratic (Clinton won 24 districts that are GOP-controlled).  Meanwhile, rural areas have been trending right for 15-20 years now. We are in the midst of a political realignment and Democrats are playing with the hand they have been dealt.

[Brittain33]

Sad how much money Democrats are spending on some bland candidate in a district that is more Democratic than the median district.

It's more anti-Trump than the median district, but it's far more Republican than the median district.

[Virginiá]

Regarding suburban districts, this is really what the Democratic Party has to work with right now. The trends that have softened these districts up aren't new and have been developing for a long time now. I can understand why some don't like the idea of loading up the party full of politicians who serve such constituencies, knowing what it might entail, but trying to change course is something no one can control right now, and getting back certain types of districts the party has lost would take years, if it still is even possible.

Further, I might add, just because Democrats would come to more deeply represent suburbia does not necessarily mean its leftwards shift would suffer. People tend to support a wide range of policies as long as the party/politicians can adhere to certain principles.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How many more districts could the Democrats get if they spent that money on getting anti gerrymandering propositions on the ballot like the one California passed? Sad!

[Hindsight was 2020]

How many more districts could the Democrats get if they spent that money on getting anti gerrymandering propositions on the ballot like the one California passed? Sad!

Again Ossoff is getting his money from small donations

[Virginiá]

How many more districts could the Democrats get if they spent that money on getting anti gerrymandering propositions on the ballot like the one California passed? Sad!

From what I know, ballot initiatives are part of their plan, but to what extent they are pushed isn't clear. Knowing them, they will probably wait until 2020 (aka the last minute) to try and get them passed as they'd want to see if they can win certain Governor's races/legislature chamber(s) in 2018, which would negate the need for initiatives in some states. I'd argue that they are needed anyway, but it can be expensive to do some of those.

Point is, it's way too early to be acting like they aren't going to do that. Maybe they won't, but you would have no idea. Plus, as others have said, it's not like all Ossoff's money is DNC/DCCC money. Most of it is small donors afaik.

[Shadows]

If I were a Democrat, all I'd care about is that they obstruct Trump's agenda and that the GOP loses 2 House seats, and electing them will make sure that this happens.

That's the problem with the Democratic Party, though: there's no coherent vision or message whatsoever. Demanding that the party fights to enact even the most basic of left-wing policies gets you branded as a divisive "purity snowflake" or whatever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't get this at all. Quist supports universal healthcare & an increased minimum wage; Trump wants to roll back labor laws & strip millions of their health insurance.

(Not that "populist" is a particularly meaningful or otherwise useful term, of course.)

I see, and I totally understand your frustration with the Democratic Party. Do you simply view the party as the "lesser of two evils" and don't really identify with it? Because if so, odds are that you're going to be very disappointed in the coming months and years, especially the next time a Democrat wins the presidency. Don't get me wrong or anything, but I think you and jfern might be closer to the Greens than the Democrats. But I'm not a Democrat, so I certainly won't argue with you about this.

Regarding Quist... I think his biggest mistake is that he's trying to (or pretending to) appeal to everyone at the same time (gun owners and gun control supporters, Berniecrats and Clinton supporters, populist Trump voters and Democrats in urban areas, etc.), but it's become obvious that he's not some "different kind of Democrat" but basically just a puppet of the national Democratic party, of which I'm... well... not the biggest fan of. I mean, JFC, he sounded like Hillary Clinton during the debate when he talked about foreign policy. I wouldn't mind voting for a honest Socialist or whatever, but Quist really strikes me as a fraud (and the state has had enough of these kind of politicians). I had a high opinion of him when he announced his campaign, but it's gone downhill rapidly recently. Either way, I'll be glad when the election is over.

Quist hasn't run the best campaign, but then Gianforte is terrible & is on ways moderate. He is close to Trump, doesn't believe in man made climate change, supports this extreme healthcare bill, doesn't even believe in Social Security, Medicare, opposed any background checks in the debate & is slimy & blatantly lies about everything including Quist taxing at 90% etc.

Sure Quist isn't perfect but Gianforte probably would have joined the Freedom Caucus if Montana was more like Alabama! But anyways, it's a 2 way election, so...!

[Yank2133]

Regarding suburban districts, this is really what the Democratic Party has to work with right now. The trends that have softened these districts up aren't new and have been developing for a long time now. I can understand why some don't like the idea of loading up the party full of politicians who serve such constituencies, knowing what it might entail, but trying to change course is something no one can control right now, and getting back certain types of districts the party has lost would take years, if it still is even possible.

Further, I might add, just because Democrats would come to more deeply represent suburbia does not necessarily mean its leftwards shift would suffer. People tend to support a wide range of policies as long as the party/politicians can adhere to certain principles.

Yeah, we have already seen this in polling data. College educated whites (people who live in the suburbs) are becoming more progressive.

It would be political malpractice to not try to win this voters over. Also flipping these voters would help Democrats in the future since they are the most likely to show up and vote in the mid-terms.