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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So what happens if Parnell wins and Ossoff loses?  Do we just shut everything down?

No, it just means the entire strategy of the dems is wrong.

Well, we already knew that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

NYT just moved their projection from Handel +0.8 to Handel +0.6. Clearly she's done for.

Now she's down to +0.5!

It varies a bit randomly. +0.9 now.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Karen Handel (Republican)    50.0%   60,718
Jon Ossoff (Democratic)    50.0%   60,712

Where are you getting these landslide results?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Handel up to 78 on PredicIt. Norman still at 95, not much reaction there.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Should Perez be fired after this? Spending this much on a congressional race and losing is embarrassing.

Perez/DNC didn't fully fund Ossoff. A lot of that was from small donors.

Over $6 million came from the DCCC.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

$30 million to lose a Trump by 1.5 point district by 5 points? Sad!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ossoff ran the tried and true New Democrat "Identity Politics" campaign.  Instead of talking about real issues, he just focused on checking off the minority boxes and getting his womyn buzzwords into cute soundbites.  It's the reason Hillary lost and it's the reason Democrats will continue to lose.

He talked about Healthcare the most.

Try again.

He opposed single payer.

$30 million to lose a Trump by 1.5 point district by 5 points? Sad!

Admit it, you're happier that Ossoff lost than you would have been if he won, aren't you?

Of course he is happy. Jfern is a mess.

You think I'm happy about how terrible the Democratic party is and how they will continue to not learn any lessons from epic failures like this?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And?

Look what district he is in.

So, he sucks on the one issue he talked about. No wonder he lost.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And?

Look what district he is in.

You are just the DC establishment personified aren't you.

lol, this isn't about being establishment.

This is common sense. This is a right-leaning district, so why would going all out to the left on healthcare be a smart move?

There was a poll where half of Republican Iowa caucus goers supported single payer. Why should Democrats take a position to the right of most Americans on healthcare?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm so glad we still have Dem posters here brow-beating the left about how "unrealistic" their chances are. Hey, you guys just spent over $20 million and lost to another Republican ghoul. Maybe give us a chance at the reins of power in the Dem party  and we'll do a better job than you at actually WINNING.

They'd rather lose with a neoliberal than win with a progressive. The Democratic establishment isn't going to give up power willingly.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ossoff couldn't even match his percentage in the 1st round. Sad!

There was a poll where half of Republican Iowa caucus goers supported single payer. Why should Democrats take a position to the right of most Americans on healthcare?

Iowa is different from GA-06.

Iowa is alot more open to government subsidize. GA-06 is dominated by well-off white people. Talking about single payer isn't going to win these people over.

Well, Berniecrats aren't the ones who said to put all the resources into winning districts like GA-06.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Scott, you're smart enough to realize that Quist and Thompson getting the boatloads of money Ossoff got would've been negatives for their campaigns.

So the best campaign doesn't raise any money?

Jfern, why do you constantly use Trumpian language?

Sad!"  is a common expression on this forum.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ossoff couldn't even match his percentage in the 1st round. Sad!

There was a poll where half of Republican Iowa caucus goers supported single payer. Why should Democrats take a position to the right of most Americans on healthcare?

Iowa is different from GA-06.

Iowa is alot more open to government subsidize. GA-06 is dominated by well-off white people. Talking about single payer isn't going to win these people over.

Well, Berniecrats aren't the ones who said to put all the resources into winning districts like GA-06.

Democrats didn't.

Alot of Ossoff's cash came from small donations.

Over $6 million came from the DCCC. It's obvious they want to double down on the Hillary strategy of running a bland campaign that avoids the issues and try to win rich people in the sunbelt, while ignoring the midwest.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ossoff couldn't even match his percentage in the 1st round. Sad!

There was a poll where half of Republican Iowa caucus goers supported single payer. Why should Democrats take a position to the right of most Americans on healthcare?

Iowa is different from GA-06.

Iowa is alot more open to government subsidize. GA-06 is dominated by well-off white people. Talking about single payer isn't going to win these people over.

Well, Berniecrats aren't the ones who said to put all the resources into winning districts like GA-06.

Democrats didn't.

Alot of Ossoff's cash came from small donations.

Over $6 million came from the DCCC. It's obvious they want to double down on the Hillary strategy of running a bland campaign that avoids the issues and try to win rich people in the sunbelt, while ignoring the midwest.

The most vulnerable Republicans are in the sunbelt, not in the midwest. Why target areas, where Trump is still doing fine approval ratings wise?

This cannot be stressed enough. You play where the odds are better.

There's really a point of diminishing returns when you put all your eggs in one basket to try to prove that your neoliberal sunbelt district strategy is working.

[○∙◄☻¥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 presidential results instead of House 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 Presidential, and Ossoff get a lower percentage of the vote than in the first round.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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?

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.  

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

Well, we've officially grasped the bottom of the barrel arguments here.