GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread

[Virginiá]

Judging from the result in SC-5, as well as the previous specials where results were closer than expected, I wonder if the money really had much to do with the margin in GA-6. I think there has to be a strategy where enough resources are available, but campaigns are more stealth and can catch Republicans off guard.

If you look at the results over the past year, there might be a good argument that there are significant limits to money, but not so significant that the idea of money in politics should be diminished. It really depends on the race, the candidate, and other factors. Money also helps more in races with less attention being paid.

It's also hard to tell because it's not one-sided. Team Handel was still matching Ossoff's investments (although Ossoff's direct funding allowed for discounted ads, so there is that).

In the end though, candidates will raise as much money as they can because consultants are telling them they need this or that, and that there is always going to be that lingering feeling that if they don't do all they can, they might miss out on a possible win.

[The_Doctor]

Ossoff get a lower percentage of the vote than in the first round.

Oh, and here's another dumb narrative already circulating on jfern Twitter that's pure BS:

April: 48.12%
June: 48.13%

Comparing SC 05 and GA 06 to prior 2012 / 2014 / 2016 numbers is illuminating. I'll leave it at that. The Democrats are doing extremely well in these areas comparatively.  

[Virginiá]

Virginia, Holmes, I understand you guys have obligations to spin this however you can, but let's face it, your party threw everything but the kitchen sink at this race and didn't gain a single tenth of a percentage point over round 1. You aren't winning this in '18, and you're not winning the 7th or some other seat in GA either. If the house  will have a dem majority, it will be because seats flipped elsewhere - the GA  delegation will be unchanged.

You don't really know that, and your entire argument right now is basically "Ossoff lost, and because I think this was a mistake to target, that means I'm right and you're wrong."

All you've done is make statements and act like they validate themselves. You're talking about a seat that was he lost by a few points in each round, not some landslide blowout, Wulfric.

[Adam Griffin]

Thank you for posting a quote that validates the idea that dems shouldn't have tried in this seat.

Virginia, Holmes, I understand you guys have obligations to spin this however you can, but let's face it, your party threw everything but the kitchen sink at this race and didn't gain a single tenth of a percentage point over round 1. You aren't winning this in '18, and you're not winning the 7th or some other seat in GA either. If the house  will have a dem majority, it will be because seats flipped elsewhere - the GA  delegation will be unchanged.

Ultimately, throwing the kitchen sink at it was what likely caused the problem. The massive amount of spending - brought on by the fact that virtually nothing else interesting to donors on both sides was going on - increased attention and awareness for the race by so much that it ultimately dragged out several thousand more Republicans in the second round than it did Democrats. This race had 25% more voters than the previous midterm. In an environment where Democratic enthusiasm remains but there are 435 of these elections occurring simultaneously, things might look a bit different. I'm sure there isn't going to be $50 million spent on this race in 2018.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Just leaving this here...

Just correcting this wack-ass image that uses DCCC funding for Group A and total contributions (including small donations) for Ossoff; that uses  results instead of  results because it self-cherrypicks the data-points for the narrative they want

Trump won the district by only 1.5 points. The Democrats spent $30 million to have the margin be worse than the 2016 , and Ossoff get a lower percentage of the vote than in the first round.

More votes came in since you last checked. Ossoff got the exact same % that he did in round 1. The votes came in in a different order this time, but they were no more or less pro-ossoff than before.

OK, but still not as good a margin as Hillary. And Trump probably did better in the median district than GA-06.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Virginia, Holmes, I understand you guys have obligations to spin this however you can, but let's face it, your party threw everything but the kitchen sink at this race and didn't gain a single tenth of a percentage point over round 1. You aren't winning this in '18, and you're not winning the 7th or some other seat in GA either. If the   will have a dem majority, it will be because seats flipped elsewhere - the GA  delegation will be unchanged.

You don't really know that, and your entire argument right now is basically "Ossoff lost, and because I think this was a mistake to target, that means I'm right and you're wrong."

All you've done is make statements and act like they validate themselves. You're talking about a seat that was he lost by a few points in each round, not some landslide blowout, Wulfric.

What else could dems seriously do to win this seat? They literally tried everything.

[Holmes]

Just correcting this wack-ass image that uses DCCC funding for Group A and total contributions (including small donations) for Ossoff; that uses presidential results instead of House results because it self-cherrypicks the data-points for the narrative they want

This is exactly what I was dreading from an Ossoff loss. It wasn't the idea of missing out on an extra seat in Congress or having a battle-hardened incumbent for 2018, it was that people on the left would all pile on about how everyone else is wrong and the party is a giant failure, while cherry-picking statistics to buttress their argument. That's not even factoring in the idea that these districts have special elections right now precisely because Trump's admin. thought they were safe (and most of them were, on paper) when they snatched the Representatives out of them.

The fact that we even came this close in districts like KS-4, SC-5 and GA-6 should be cause of celebration on its own, except that months of building up excitement and expectations shifted the goalposts so far that now it is somehow a failure and a disappointment and somehow vindicates that suburbs are TOTALLY lost for Democrats and we should take the establishment folks and string them up!

I mean my god folks.

In the end, Ossoff received the exact same % of the vote he got in round 1 - 48.1%. All that money to get the same exact % of the vote. What a complete waste. Democrats should have never tried in this seat.

And right as I clicked post, this comes in and provides a clear example of what I was saying. Should have never tried? Are you kidding? This race was and had been effectively a toss-up, and circumstances provided for a small Handel win. That's what happens in toss-ups. Each side has a good chance, and in the end one wins for various reasons. It's not like Ossoff never had a chance ffs.

Again, somehow a small loss in a previously-safe Republican district was a waste and big mistake? How does that even make sense?

If nothing else, it gave Democrats life in a part of Georgia where they'll need to keep close if they ever want to win statewide

Exactly this but apparently it's spinning.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Trump won the district by only 1.5 points. The Democrats spent $30 million to have the margin be worse than the 2016 Presidential, and Ossoff get a lower percentage of the vote than in the first round.

Who gives a f[inks] what Trump won it by? This is an election for House, not for President. The last Republican to run for this seat - in 2016 - won by 23 points. The Republican in this race won it by (apparently now) 4 points. That's a 19 point swing. Compare that to Quist's paltry 9 point swing and Thompson's larger 23 point swing.

And again, you're either being completely obtuse or disingenous. DCCC contributed $6m to Ossoff; a few hundred thousand to the other two. In total money raised/spent, Ossoff raised more than $20m; Quist had around $10m spent on his behalf and broke all previous Montana records. If anything, the amount spent on Quist's race was more obscene than Ossoff's because of the relative costs of media/campaigning in the two districts.

That dumbass image is purposefully lying. You don't come up with those figures unless you're deliberately trying to mislead. You either compare one group of figures consistently or the other; you don't mix them up so that they all display the best outcome for your pissy narrative.

The last candidate was a nobody with no money. So it's not really relevant. The Presidential numbers are more relevant, especially if you're using the fact that Hillary did so much better than Obama in this district to double down on the rich sunbelt district strategy. For $30 million, you could have done better than normal in many races, rather than just 1 that you still lost.

[Holmes]

Virginia, Holmes, I understand you guys have obligations to spin this however you can, but let's face it, your party threw everything but the kitchen sink at this race and didn't gain a single tenth of a percentage point over round 1. You aren't winning this in '18, and you're not winning the 7th or some other seat in GA either. If the   will have a dem majority, it will be because seats flipped elsewhere - the GA  delegation will be unchanged.

You don't really know that, and your entire argument right now is basically "Ossoff lost, and because I think this was a mistake to target, that means I'm right and you're wrong."

All you've done is make statements and act like they validate themselves. You're talking about a seat that was he lost by a few points in each round, not some landslide blowout, Wulfric.

What else could dems seriously do to win this seat? They literally tried everything.

Maybe nothing other than register new voters, keep them engaged and wait? It's still a Republican district deep down and that won't change overnight, even with a President with a -20% approval. But we've seen that there's a continuing shift in this district and come 2018, 2020 and beyond, who knows?

[Adam Griffin]

OK, but still not as good a margin as Hillary. And Trump probably did better in the median district than GA-06.

You're still not grasping that this district is notoriously more GOP down-ballot than it is at the top of the ticket and that comparing against presidential results is useless. This is a trend that goes back years and years. I wrote about it on here months ago when I said I thought Ossoff would lose. Kerry, Obama and Clinton alike have easily over-performed all down-ballot Democrats in huge portions of the northern metro by anywhere from 5-20 points. The fact that Ossoff even managed to get above 42% is indicative of him making significant ground against that trend.

[Matty]

jfern stinking up yet another thread

[Adam Griffin]

The last candidate was a nobody with no money. So it's not really relevant. The Presidential numbers are more relevant, especially if you're using the fact that Hillary did so much better than Obama in this district to double down on the rich sunbelt district strategy. For $30 million, you could have done better than normal in many races, rather than just 1 that you still lost.

You lack basic understanding of Southern politics. It doesn't matter if it's a "nobody" or a well-known commodity: a literal dildo (D) and a legacy candidate (D) are going to generally be right alongside one another with respect to their shares of the vote in an identical race. This is a very inelastic area.

Ultimately, there are several independent dynamics at work here - along with the infrastructure of the Ossoff campaign - that lead to a significant over-performance for a candidate not seeking the Presidency. This is a big development for this part of the South, especially considering Ossoff got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton or Obama (see what I did there?), and did so with a much-lower-than-presidential turnout that simultaneously exceeded that of a midterm.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

OK, but still not as good a margin as Hillary. And Trump probably did better in the median district than GA-06.

You're still not grasping that this district is notoriously more GOP down-ballot than it is at the top of the ticket and that comparing against presidential results is useless. This is a trend that goes back years and years. I wrote about it on here months ago when I said I thought Ossoff would lose. Kerry, Obama and Clinton alike have easily over-performed all down-ballot Democrats in huge portions of the northern metro by anywhere from 5-20 points. The fact that Ossoff even managed to get above 42% is indicative of him making significant ground against that trend.

It's not worth spending $30 million to have some bland candidate in a House race lose by more than the last Presidential candidate. The other races had Democrats who were significantly outspent.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Just correcting this wack-ass image that uses DCCC funding for Group A and total contributions (including small donations) for Ossoff; that uses presidential results instead of House results because it self-cherrypicks the data-points for the narrative they want

This is exactly what I was dreading from an Ossoff loss. It wasn't the idea of missing out on an extra seat in Congress or having a battle-hardened incumbent for 2018, it was that people on the left would all pile on about how everyone else is wrong and the party is a giant failure, while cherry-picking statistics to butress their argument. That's not even factoring in the idea that these districts have special elections right now precisely because Trump's admin. thought they were safe (and most of them were, on paper) when they snatched the Representatives out of them.

The fact that we even came this close in districts like KS-4, SC-5 and GA-6 should be cause of celebration on its own, except that months of building up excitement and expectations shifted the goalposts so far that now it is somehow a failure and a disappointment and somehow vindicates that suburbs are TOTALLY lost for Democrats and we should take the establishment folks and string them up!

I mean my god folks.

In the end, Ossoff received the exact same % of the vote he got in round 1 - 48.1%. All that money to get the same exact % of the vote. What a complete waste. Democrats should have never tried in this seat.

And right as I clicked post, this comes in and provides a clear example of what I was saying. Should have never tried? Are you kidding? This race was and had been effectively a toss-up, and circumstances provided for a small Handel win. That's what happens in toss-ups. Each side has a good chance, and in the end one wins for various reasons. It's not like Ossoff never had a chance ffs.

Again, somehow a small loss in a previously-safe Republican district was a waste and big mistake? How does that even make sense?

Democrats are bad at building a sustained organization and movement right now. How may times did the Goldwater people lose before they started winning?

The Democrats right now, today, have it 100x far easier than Barry Goldwater and his crew ever did.

     You have partisans who are convinced that they are going to win until they get tired of winning because the poll numbers are favorable to them at this time. Things are more complicated than that, though, and results occur "against expectations". I am greatly pleased to see Handel walk away with the win, but this seat should never have been close to begin with.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The last candidate was a nobody with no money. So it's not really relevant. The Presidential numbers are more relevant, especially if you're using the fact that Hillary did so much better than Obama in this district to double down on the rich sunbelt district strategy. For $30 million, you could have done better than normal in many races, rather than just 1 that you still lost.

You lack basic understanding of Southern politics. It doesn't matter if it's a "nobody" or a well-known commodity: a literal dildo (D) and a legacy candidate (D) are going to generally be right alongside one another with respect to their shares of the vote in an identical race. This is a very inelastic area.

Ultimately, there are several independent dynamics at work here - along with the infrastructure of the Ossoff campaign - that lead to a significant over-performance for a candidate not seeking the Presidency. This is a big development for this part of the South, especially considering Ossoff got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton or Obama (see what I did there?), and did so with a much-lower-than-presidential turnout that simultaneously exceeded that of a midterm.

So spending $30 million to lose a race in very inelastic area was a good idea?

[GoTfan]

Does Ossoff's defeat mean we can start moving the Democrats in a progressive direction now?

[Mr. Smith]

The last candidate was a nobody with no money. So it's not really relevant. The Presidential numbers are more relevant, especially if you're using the fact that Hillary did so much better than Obama in this district to double down on the rich sunbelt district strategy. For $30 million, you could have done better than normal in many races, rather than just 1 that you still lost.

You lack basic understanding of Southern politics. It doesn't matter if it's a "nobody" or a well-known commodity: a literal dildo (D) and a legacy candidate (D) are going to generally be right alongside one another with respect to their shares of the vote in an identical race. This is a very inelastic area.

Ultimately, there are several independent dynamics at work here - along with the infrastructure of the Ossoff campaign - that lead to a significant over-performance for a candidate not seeking the Presidency. This is a big development for this part of the South, especially considering Ossoff got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton or Obama (see what I did there?), and did so with a much-lower-than-presidential turnout that simultaneously exceeded that of a midterm.

So spending $30 million to lose a race in very inelastic area was a good idea?

Once an inelastic area flips, it stays flipped. Happened in Virginia in '08, happened on what's now called The Left Coast in the late '80's and early '90's.

[Sumner 1868]

$unbelt

$unbelt

$unbelt

KKKollege eduKKKated

KKKollege eduKKKated

KKKollege eduKKKated

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Does Ossoff's defeat mean we can start moving the Democrats in a progressive direction now?

The establishment isn't going to give up power willingly.

[Sir Mohamed]

The last candidate was a nobody with no money. So it's not really relevant. The Presidential numbers are more relevant, especially if you're using the fact that Hillary did so much better than Obama in this district to double down on the rich sunbelt district strategy. For $30 million, you could have done better than normal in many races, rather than just 1 that you still lost.

You lack basic understanding of Southern politics. It doesn't matter if it's a "nobody" or a well-known commodity: a literal dildo (D) and a legacy candidate (D) are going to generally be right alongside one another with respect to their shares of the vote in an identical race. This is a very inelastic area.

Ultimately, there are several independent dynamics at work here - along with the infrastructure of the Ossoff campaign - that lead to a significant over-performance for a candidate not seeking the Presidency. This is a big development for this part of the South, especially considering Ossoff got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton or Obama (see what I did there?), and did so with a much-lower-than-presidential turnout that simultaneously exceeded that of a midterm.

So spending $30 million to lose a race in very inelastic area was a good idea?

Once an inelastic area flips, it stays flipped. Happened in Virginia in '08, happened on what's now called The Left Coast in the late '80's and early '90's.

I'm not sure whether MI, PA and WI stay GOP. In congress, TX-23 has flipped back and forth several times the past few years.

[Adam Griffin]

The last candidate was a nobody with no money. So it's not really relevant. The Presidential numbers are more relevant, especially if you're using the fact that Hillary did so much better than Obama in this district to double down on the rich sunbelt district strategy. For $30 million, you could have done better than normal in many races, rather than just 1 that you still lost.

You lack basic understanding of Southern politics. It doesn't matter if it's a "nobody" or a well-known commodity: a literal dildo (D) and a legacy candidate (D) are going to generally be right alongside one another with respect to their shares of the vote in an identical race. This is a very inelastic area.

Ultimately, there are several independent dynamics at work here - along with the infrastructure of the Ossoff campaign - that lead to a significant over-performance for a candidate not seeking the Presidency. This is a big development for this part of the South, especially considering Ossoff got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton or Obama (see what I did there?), and did so with a much-lower-than-presidential turnout that simultaneously exceeded that of a midterm.

So spending $30 million to lose a race in very inelastic area was a good idea?

Once an inelastic area flips, it stays flipped. Happened in Virginia in '08, happened on what's now called The Left Coast in the late '80's and early '90's.

I'm not sure whether MI, PA and WI stay GOP. In congress, TX-23 has flipped back and forth several times the past few years.

Those areas are not inelastic by any means, at least when compared to the South. You can also have inelastic areas that are literally right at 50/50 that sway back and forth ever so much; it simply means that the difference in the two parties' vote shares there is smaller than the already-small amount by which the district or area can shift.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The last candidate was a nobody with no money. So it's not really relevant. The Presidential numbers are more relevant, especially if you're using the fact that Hillary did so much better than Obama in this district to double down on the rich sunbelt district strategy. For $30 million, you could have done better than normal in many races, rather than just 1 that you still lost.

You lack basic understanding of Southern politics. It doesn't matter if it's a "nobody" or a well-known commodity: a literal dildo (D) and a legacy candidate (D) are going to generally be right alongside one another with respect to their shares of the vote in an identical race. This is a very inelastic area.

Ultimately, there are several independent dynamics at work here - along with the infrastructure of the Ossoff campaign - that lead to a significant over-performance for a candidate not seeking the Presidency. This is a big development for this part of the South, especially considering Ossoff got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton or Obama (see what I did there?), and did so with a much-lower-than-presidential turnout that simultaneously exceeded that of a midterm.

So spending $30 million to lose a race in very inelastic area was a good idea?

Once an inelastic area flips, it stays flipped. Happened in Virginia in '08, happened on what's now called The Left Coast in the late '80's and early '90's.

Well, it didn't flip, and spending $30 million in a losing House race probably isn't the best way to flip it.  

[AtorBoltox]

The last candidate was a nobody with no money. So it's not really relevant. The Presidential numbers are more relevant, especially if you're using the fact that Hillary did so much better than Obama in this district to double down on the rich sunbelt district strategy. For $30 million, you could have done better than normal in many races, rather than just 1 that you still lost.

You lack basic understanding of Southern politics. It doesn't matter if it's a "nobody" or a well-known commodity: a literal dildo (D) and a legacy candidate (D) are going to generally be right alongside one another with respect to their shares of the vote in an identical race. This is a very inelastic area.

Ultimately, there are several independent dynamics at work here - along with the infrastructure of the Ossoff campaign - that lead to a significant over-performance for a candidate not seeking the Presidency. This is a big development for this part of the South, especially considering Ossoff got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton or Obama (see what I did there?), and did so with a much-lower-than-presidential turnout that simultaneously exceeded that of a midterm.

So spending $30 million to lose a race in very inelastic area was a good idea?

Once an inelastic area flips, it stays flipped. Happened in Virginia in '08, happened on what's now called The Left Coast in the late '80's and early '90's.

Well, it didn't flip, and spending $30 million in a losing House race probably isn't the best way to flip it.  

I thought you were a fan of the 50 state strategy, going after every vote etc? Now you want to write off the sunbelt because the democrats lost one congressional race in a safe Republican seat?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The last candidate was a nobody with no money. So it's not really relevant. The Presidential numbers are more relevant, especially if you're using the fact that Hillary did so much better than Obama in this district to double down on the rich sunbelt district strategy. For $30 million, you could have done better than normal in many races, rather than just 1 that you still lost.

You lack basic understanding of Southern politics. It doesn't matter if it's a "nobody" or a well-known commodity: a literal dildo (D) and a legacy candidate (D) are going to generally be right alongside one another with respect to their shares of the vote in an identical race. This is a very inelastic area.

Ultimately, there are several independent dynamics at work here - along with the infrastructure of the Ossoff campaign - that lead to a significant over-performance for a candidate not seeking the Presidency. This is a big development for this part of the South, especially considering Ossoff got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton or Obama (see what I did there?), and did so with a much-lower-than-presidential turnout that simultaneously exceeded that of a midterm.

So spending $30 million to lose a race in very inelastic area was a good idea?

Once an inelastic area flips, it stays flipped. Happened in Virginia in '08, happened on what's now called The Left Coast in the late '80's and early '90's.

Well, it didn't flip, and spending $30 million in a losing House race probably isn't the best way to flip it.  

I thought you were a fan of the 50 state strategy, going after every vote etc? Now you want to write off the sunbelt because the democrats lost one congressional race in a safe Republican seat?

Talk about a ridiculous straw man argument. $30 million is too much for a House campaign period. I was calling for spreading out the money more.

[Holmes]

But it's ok for Sanders to raise and spend an obscene amount of money because........reasons.