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

[Kamala]

Also why does it have to be a "dem Reagan"? The person who beats Trump doesn't have to be a democratic Reagan it can be the next FDR or maybe they become the standard bearer president

(Being facetious, of course) FDR was on a losing ticket in 1920. That means our next FDR must come from someone who's lost as a running mate.
 
Kaine, Edwards, or Lieberman. Mondale's still alive, right? I know Bentsen and Ferraro have passed away, and everyone before them has too, Shriver, Muskie, etc.

[Technocracy Timmy]

But I still dispute the idea that we'll 100% see this person coming before they even run.

One of the few things that Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan all shared in common was a history of losing certain races in their lifetimes. They were also older (at least for their era with Roosevelt and Lincoln). So I'm guessing it'll be somebody who isn't currently on the national stage and born in the 1950's (assuming it's in 2024). The 50's also saw the most births in American history so it's a safe bet there.

People also usually don't expect the figures to be as successful or see them shift quite rapidly while in office. Lincoln campaigned on preventing the expansion of slavery and had no interest in abolition. Roosevelt campaigned on a balanced budget amendment and was seen as a lightweight by the political establishment. Nobody thought Reagan would be anywhere near as transformative as he ended up being.

[Mr. Smith]

Reagan was a drooling senile war criminal who traded arms for hostages and America's social safety net for tax cuts. So maybe we shouldn't aspire to that.

But that wasn't how the base saw him now was it?

So what do you think about my last reply and told why each of those candidates can't be the Dems Reagan

Reagan was a conservative who couldn't convince Northeasterners even with their snooty dislike of Carter, than he did.

As for Warren, Obama too was someone who shouldn't have had any clout with the WWC and lost them hard against Hillary in the primaries. Yet he beat McCain by the largest margin since '88 thanks to them, and he hammered Romney on issues they respond to. If Warren continues her focus on the big banks and castigating Trump for being like them, she has a chance.

Pochantas! You say? To that I say "Reagan's a Medicare gutter!"

The fact that Trump WANTS her and the far-right are trying to wreck her is telling as is.

[Sumner 1868]

Reagan didn't change anything. Look at the vast stretch of counties Dukakis and Clinton won that are now Tea Party strongholds.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Reagan didn't change anything. Look at the vast stretch of counties Dukakis and Clinton won that are now Tea Party strongholds.

Nixon and Reagan clearly forced the Democrats to abandon much of their New Deal Rooseveltian ideology going into the late 70's all the way to today. Bill Clinton wouldn't have decided to end welfare as we know it, cut capital gains taxes, tough on crime laws, NAFTA, deregulation, etc. if it weren't for these men laying the groundwork for a powerful rightward shift in our politics.

The big difference between Nixon and Reagan was that Reagan actually got congressional Democrats to get on board with most of his agenda (deregulation, tax cuts, increased military spending, small cuts to social programs, etc.) in a way either Nixon couldn't do or didn't want to do. That's what Reagan changed. He got the Democrats to kowtow to a new kind of agenda in a way that Nixon never did. The Democrats in the 80's were also much friendlier to Reagan than they were to Nixon. That's why nobody cares about Nixon but points to Reagan as the realigning ideologically successful President.

[Mr.Phips]

Reagan didn't change anything. Look at the vast stretch of counties Dukakis and Clinton won that are now Tea Party strongholds.

Nixon and Reagan clearly forced the Democrats to abandon much of their New Deal Rooseveltian ideology going into the late 70's all the way to today. Bill Clinton wouldn't have decided to end welfare as we know it, cut capital gains taxes, tough on crime laws, NAFTA, deregulation, etc. if it weren't for these men laying the groundwork for a powerful rightward shift in our politics.

Bill Clinton is a large part of the reason why Democrats are in the sad state that they are in today.  You had a Democrat who basically gave up on the populist issues that helped Democrats win all over the country in exchange for corporatist policies like NAFTA, deregulation, and capital gains tax cuts (as well as unpopular social policies like gun control) that allowed him to gain high income suburbanites (who often vote gop downballot). 

[OSR stands with Israel]

Reagan didn't change anything. Look at the vast stretch of counties Dukakis and Clinton won that are now Tea Party strongholds.

Nixon and Reagan clearly forced the Democrats to abandon much of their New Deal Rooseveltian ideology going into the late 70's all the way to today. Bill Clinton wouldn't have decided to end welfare as we know it, cut capital gains taxes, tough on crime laws, NAFTA, deregulation, etc. if it weren't for these men laying the groundwork for a powerful rightward shift in our politics.

Bill Clinton is a large part of the reason why Democrats are in the sad state that they are in today.  You had a Democrat who basically gave up on the populist issues that helped Democrats win all over the country in exchange for corporatist policies like NAFTA, deregulation, and capital gains tax cuts (as well as unpopular social policies like gun control) that allowed him to gain high income suburbanites (who often vote gop downballot). 

Clinton decided to trade the dem advantage in congress and at the state level for the advantage of the whitehouse. So Clinton did help them when it comes to presidential elections .

[Mr.Phips]

Reagan didn't change anything. Look at the vast stretch of counties Dukakis and Clinton won that are now Tea Party strongholds.

Nixon and Reagan clearly forced the Democrats to abandon much of their New Deal Rooseveltian ideology going into the late 70's all the way to today. Bill Clinton wouldn't have decided to end welfare as we know it, cut capital gains taxes, tough on crime laws, NAFTA, deregulation, etc. if it weren't for these men laying the groundwork for a powerful rightward shift in our politics.

Bill Clinton is a large part of the reason why Democrats are in the sad state that they are in today.  You had a Democrat who basically gave up on the populist issues that helped Democrats win all over the country in exchange for corporatist policies like NAFTA, deregulation, and capital gains tax cuts (as well as unpopular social policies like gun control) that allowed him to gain high income suburbanites (who often vote gop downballot). 

Clinton decided to trade the dem advantage in congress and at the state level for the advantage of the whitehouse. So Clinton did help them when it comes to presidential elections .

The Presidency means little without Congress.  Especially if you can't hold it for more than 8 years before losing it (see 2000 and 2016). 

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Reagan was a drooling senile war criminal who traded arms for hostages and America's social safety net for tax cuts. So maybe we shouldn't aspire to that.

But that wasn't how the base saw him now was it?

He drove the republican party into the crazy ideological brain-dead party of taxes are hitler heil America party it is today. The democrats shouldn't aspire to nominate a charismatic senile old man who wrecks systems in a way that devastates the country due to his stupid sociopathy.

[Mr. Smith]

Reagan was a drooling senile war criminal who traded arms for hostages and America's social safety net for tax cuts. So maybe we shouldn't aspire to that.

But that wasn't how the base saw him now was it?

He drove the republican party into the crazy ideological brain-dead party of taxes are hitler heil America party it is today. The democrats shouldn't aspire to nominate a charismatic senile old man who wrecks systems in a way that devastates the country due to his stupid sociopathy.

If said "stupid sociopathy" gets the taxes raised, Medicare for All passed, free tuition ala most of Europe,  then I don't see why not let it happen.

What were the men who freed the slaves but a worshipper of the political devil and a lawyer to tycoons who suspended habaeus corpus? Others decided to use Tea Party/Mitch McConnel-esque tactics to railroad his successor, who was just following the orders said man laid out because it wasn't radical enough?

What was the man who got the New Deal through but an egomaniac cripple with some racist tendencies

What was the man who got Civil Rights and Voting Rights out the door but an insecure, opportunistic, corrupt boogeyman who probably used a lot of ballot-stuffing to override one of the most iconic, clean, but low-key man in Texas and then bugged his opposition for the landslide?

Sorry sweetheart, but a little "stupid sociopathy" is very much a necessity. What is politics but a cutthroat endeavor?

[Technocracy Timmy]

Reagan was a drooling senile war criminal who traded arms for hostages and America's social safety net for tax cuts. So maybe we shouldn't aspire to that.

But that wasn't how the base saw him now was it?

He drove the republican party into the crazy ideological brain-dead party of taxes are hitler heil America party it is today. The democrats shouldn't aspire to nominate a charismatic senile old man who wrecks systems in a way that devastates the country due to his stupid sociopathy.

The way you make it sound suggests that Reagan set the country on fire and by 1989 he had throughly destroyed both the country and his Party. None of which is true but yeah.

[RINO Tom]

So sick of the smug revisionism and, frankly, ignorance coming from liberals who claim that "before year XXXX, the GOP was alright and not crazy yet."  You all would have hated Eisenhower, just accept it.

[Sbane]

Xingkerui,

If I'm reading what you wrote correctly I think you're saying that Dems should first get a lockdown on Obama-Trump voters before they target Romney-Clinton voters correct? If so, then I fully agree as somebody who knows the latter cohort quite well. I asked a DCCC consultant at my local campaign volunteer event about GOP rep-Clinton voters in and around Orange County and she told me clearly that those kind of voters were primarily republicans who didn't like Trump but were satisfied with their incumbent GOP reps based on the internal polling that had been done on them. Dissapointing albeit totally non-surprising answer.

I think Royce is the only vulnerable Republican in Orange County. Walters is probably fine and I think Rohrabacher is pretty safe. Issa is done but that's mostly due to San Diego County. And the reason why Royce is vulnerable and the others are not is because it has a lot of middle class areas with lots of minorities like Buena Park, La Habra and Fullerton in it. It also has places like Diamond Bar and Walnut, which are pretty wealthy, but have lots of minorities. They are more likely to swing at the congressional level than say Mission Viejo or Huntington Beach. The only city Walters needs to worry about is Irvine and Tustin, but other than that the district is full of wealthy white suburbanites. Villa Park is even in that district.....Rohrabacher has Newport Beach....Royce only has Yorba Linda and Brea to fall back on.

[anthonyjg]

So sick of the smug revisionism and, frankly, ignorance coming from liberals who claim that "before year XXXX, the GOP was alright and not crazy yet."  You all would have hated Eisenhower, just accept it.

I mean, I have very little love for Eisenhower, but I don't see how anyone can deny the GOP's lurch to the right.

[Sbane]

All these special elections show a pattern that in areas where Trump cratered, Democrats are not able to do much better than Clinton did. In areas where Trump did well, or rather Clinton didn't do well, the Democrats are ascendant. It basically shows that a traditionally Democratic leaning district that voted by 10 points for Trump should be just as much of a target as districts like GA-6 where Trump barely won.

[Mr. Smith]

So sick of the smug revisionism and, frankly, ignorance coming from liberals who claim that "before year XXXX, the GOP was alright and not crazy yet."  You all would have hated Eisenhower, just accept it.

I mean, I have very little love for Eisenhower, but I don't see how anyone can deny the GOP's lurch to the right.

[Kamala]

All these special elections show a pattern that in areas where Trump cratered, Democrats are not able to do much better than Clinton did. In areas where Trump did well, or rather Clinton didn't do well, the Democrats are ascendant. It basically shows that a traditionally Democratic leaning district that voted by 10 points for Trump should be just as much of a target as districts like GA-6 where Trump barely won.

Democrats need to have a 435-district strategy.

[RINO Tom]

So sick of the smug revisionism and, frankly, ignorance coming from liberals who claim that "before year XXXX, the GOP was alright and not crazy yet."  You all would have hated Eisenhower, just accept it.

I mean, I have very little love for Eisenhower, but I don't see how anyone can deny the GOP's lurch to the right.

That's all fair and fine, but both parties have lurched away from the center (or, more accurately, been purged of any meaningfully influential moderate wing), and I'm not going to sit here and pretend I would have loved JFK because he doesn't seem quite as in-your-face progressive to me as a modern Democrat.  I am a frequent criticizer of today's GOP, and I won't deny it lurched right; it's the romanticization of past Republicans strictly in order to further demonize current ones that gets annoying ... if you're left of center, you can trash the current GOP perfectly fine without saying a single good thing about past Republicans.

[Shadows]

The GOP has been accused of being hypocritical & rightfully, but when will the Democrats stop being uber partisan & have the honesty to admit Ossoff was a terrible candidate? You can't shift & play around with the goal-posts & be uber party loyalists while attacking the other party of being hacks !


Did Worse than the run-off - Total Democratic votes was 49% in the run-off with Ossoff getting 48% & the rest 1%. Ossoff's total vote share is 48% now. He under-performed vs the Jungle primary, with insufficient turnout of his base.

0 Cross-over appeal - This guy got 0 cross-over appeal, no Republican votes. Any random candidate even Yankwhatever or Invisiblewhatever will get 4-5% of the GOP vote if they run. And Ossoff the moderate got nothing from the GOP. Handel had 20% of the votes & now ends up with 52%.

He ran against a failed mediocre candidate - Handel is a terrible candidate who has had failed runs for Senate, Gov & is prone to making stupid errors & is by no means to be characterized as an out-standing candidate.

Blew a whopping 30M - For all that money, those many donations, those many volunteer hours, taking those DNC/DCCC resources away from other potential races, he has to answer & deliver. Business executives have to answer for a failed situation or when they blow up money, why does a politician get total immunity?

Did worse than Hillary Clinton - While Hillary trailed Trump by 1%, Ossoff lost by 4% even when Trump is doing terribly. Handel is not a strong candidate either. Everywhere people have over-performed Hillary, Quist by 15%, Thompson by 20%, the SC person too. Ossoff went down with record money & support.

Bland, boring character & uninspiring campaign - This guy is a bland, charisma less person who ran a boring campaign focusing on nationalizing the campaign with no core, coherent, inspiring message. He ran a mediocre campaign & lost.


To improve, you have to take responsibility, whether it is Hillary or Ossoff

[GlobeSoc]

On the whole, you're right, but he did get crossover vote, it just wasn't enough.

[Sbane]

All these special elections show a pattern that in areas where Trump cratered, Democrats are not able to do much better than Clinton did. In areas where Trump did well, or rather Clinton didn't do well, the Democrats are ascendant. It basically shows that a traditionally Democratic leaning district that voted by 10 points for Trump should be just as much of a target as districts like GA-6 where Trump barely won.

Democrats need to have a 435-district strategy.

I don't disagree with that, but there will always need to be priorities. And which districts are your priorities shape your general message for the electorate, which is extremely important. If the Democrats don't have a general message for the country, they will lose in 2018.

[DrScholl]

It's a lie that he got no crossover votes. He wouldn't have received 48% off of Democratic votes alone.

Second, there was third party vote in the presidential election. By percentage,  Ossoff picked up 1%.

In comparison to how the previous Democratic nominee ran, Ossodd ran 10% ahead. It's the downballot number that really shows the swing.

[Santander]

He was a child who didn't even live in the district. That was the problem.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Because he wasn't? Ossoff lost because of tribal politics not some major failing on his part

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

GA-06 is not your typical true suburban swing district. It ain't CO-06. It's a fundamentally conservative seat, and both Handel and Ossoff were fairly good candidates. GA-06 was lost just because Ossoff was the nominee? lol. This meme needs to die.