Why Georgia went R

[Bidenworth2020]

discuss

[Dr. MB]

Attack ads in the later stages of the race, along with the fact that it's a traditionally Republican district.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Because it's the dna of the place

[Lord Admirale]

Ossoff was a terrible candidate. He just had "Pelosi' written all over him.

If he wanted to win, he should've run as a blue dog Democrat, and maybe turned away outside donations.

[I’m not Stu]

The district leans conservative. R+6.

[Confused Democrat]

Ossoff was a cookie cutter neoliberal who ran a bland/uninspiring campaign. He amassed an war chest that was way larger than necessary and that left him open to some pretty effective attack ads by the GOP. Not to mention that this race was nationalized to the point where CNN was clawing for a prime time debate (ridiculous). This nationalization of the race only served as a wake-up call to the GOP and further activated their base for an election they probably wouldn't  have seen such high turnout otherwise.

The shooting of Representative Scalise didn't help either.

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

Dems can't win anymore.

[Mike Thick]

I think it was a combination of muddled Democratic messaging on a national level and Ossoff himself being a somewhat lackluster candidate.

[The_Doctor]

I feel polarization was a huge issue and the $50 million polarized people to vote their biases. Ossoff would have won perhaps had the race been less nationalized.

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

The perception of Ossaff as an immature millennial, this still being a pretty R district at heart, Handel being a good opponent, the races extreme nationalization, successful attack ads against Ossaff, etc all hurt.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The perception of Ossaff as an immature millennial, this still being a pretty R district at heart, Handel being a good opponent, the races extreme nationalization, successful attack ads against Ossaff, etc all hurt.

Handel wasn't that good of a candidate (she didn't even have an incumbent advantage) and Ossoff ran not only a great campaign but messaged himself as best as he possibly could for the kind of reluctant Trump voters in this district. This is what RINO Tom and I have been saying all along: in order to win over these kind of voters in the sunbelt (notwithstanding districts that have changed primarily because of an influx of minorities or millennials), the Democrats are gonna have to moderate more on economics to bring the affluent college educated suburban whites into the fold of the Democratic Party. That's the price we're gonna have to pay to bring them in.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Reagan decorate exist but reps will never cross over in the same way

[Alabama_Indy10]

I was somewhat surprised by the results. I thought Ossoff ran a wonderful campaign and Handel was a terrible candidate

[Mr. Smith]

The race got overexposed and nationalized, and the GOP base are better at impulse voting over events like shootings than the Democratic base. Also, Southern Undecideds usually go R anyway, even without the suburban ecology.

But really, I never believed it for a second that'd he actually win.

[Cactus Jack]

Ossoff was a bland candidate with an apparent phobia of running on actual issues instead of how much Trump sucks. Sort of sums up the Democratic Party's electoral woes in a nutshell.

[The_Doctor]

The perception of Ossaff as an immature millennial, this still being a pretty R district at heart, Handel being a good opponent, the races extreme nationalization, successful attack ads against Ossaff, etc all hurt.

Handel wasn't that good of a candidate (she didn't even have an incumbent advantage) and Ossoff ran not only a great campaign but messaged himself as best as he possibly could for the kind of reluctant Trump voters in this district. This is what RINO Tom and I have been saying all along: in order to win over these kind of voters in the sunbelt (notwithstanding districts that have changed primarily because of an influx of minorities or millennials), the Democrats are gonna have to moderate more on economics to bring the affluent college educated suburban whites into the fold of the Democratic Party. That's the price we're gonna have to pay to bring them in.

I don't agree. One striking thing is the money and national attention spent in SC 05 versus GA 06. There was next to no money spent in SC 05, no preparation, nothing, Yet, that district returned 48% Democratic. I think that the GOP spent money and nationalized the race to keep the college educated cohort Republican enough to win this race. They had to nationalize and polarize the election through advertisements and spending and national attention to keep it GOP by 4 points. This is a district that was Romney +23 in 2012 and shifted radically in 2016; and clearly has maintained that shift.

I think the GOP had a worse night in the long run. They learned that to maintain the House majority, they need to dial up the polarization to 11 and spend a lot more money while the Democrats can pick off sleeper seats with minimal investment. I think a lot of people are underestimating the dangers of the GOP strategy (they can't polarize a 50-50 country forever without the dam breaking).

We learned the GOP base needs money and national investments to come out whereas the Democratic base is going to storm out no matter what. That actually fits with what we know of the number of specials so far.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The perception of Ossaff as an immature millennial, this still being a pretty R district at heart, Handel being a good opponent, the races extreme nationalization, successful attack ads against Ossaff, etc all hurt.

Handel wasn't that good of a candidate (she didn't even have an incumbent advantage) and Ossoff ran not only a great campaign but messaged himself as best as he possibly could for the kind of reluctant Trump voters in this district. This is what RINO Tom and I have been saying all along: in order to win over these kind of voters in the sunbelt (notwithstanding districts that have changed primarily because of an influx of minorities or millennials), the Democrats are gonna have to moderate more on economics to bring the affluent college educated suburban whites into the fold of the Democratic Party. That's the price we're gonna have to pay to bring them in.

I don't agree. One striking thing is the money and national attention spent in SC 05 versus GA 06. There was next to no money spent in SC 05, no preparation, nothing, Yet, that district returned 48% Democratic. I think that the GOP spent money and nationalized the race to keep the college educated cohort Republican enough to win this race. They had to nationalize and polarize the election through advertisements and spending and national attention to keep it GOP by 4 points. This is a district that was Romney +23 in 2012 and shifted radically in 2016; and clearly has maintained that shift.

I think the GOP had a worse night in the long run. They learned that to maintain the House majority, they need to dial up the polarization to 11 and spend a lot more money while the Democrats can pick off sleeper seats with minimal investment. I think a lot of people are underestimating the dangers of the GOP strategy (they can't polarize a 50-50 country forever without the dam breaking).

We learned the GOP base needs money and national investments to come out whereas the Democratic base is going to storm out no matter what. That actually fits with what we know of the number of specials so far.

There's no doubt that the tide is shifting but when you look at districts like SC-05 or MT-AL it's clear that this has more to do with the national environment we're in than anything of a sunbelt or wealthy college educated whites trending Democrat. I guess the point I was trying to get at is that this notion that Romney-Clinton voters are somehow just as easy if not easier to win over than the Obama-Trump cohort hasn't been on display in any of these special elections.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Because it's the dna of the place

Attack ads in the later stages of the race, along with the fact that it's a traditionally Republican district.

Yes.  Trump was literally the worst Republican fit for this district (other than Ted Cruz), and even he won it.  It's really not a surprise that a Republican with less baggage would end up doing better.  Remember, this district was 60%+ Romney in 2012; it's still impressive that Ossoff only lost it by 4%, even with his numerous "advantages."

[Tekken_Guy]

I say there was higher-than-expected Republican turnout. I think a lot of people who wouldn't have voted came out to keep the district from going to the Dems. Also, the classic "anti-Pelosi" strategy still worked, and the whole $50 million donations behind Ossoff made him seem like an insider to many.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Dems ran the pre 2016 campaign strategy....to no one's surprise it failed epically.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

I'm going to refrain from making decisions on the ideology or quality of the candidate. I'll leave that to people smarter than I.

In terms of strategy, the Dems erred in trying to make this race a national race (to an extent, this is on the DNC and not the Ossoff campaign). The intense national spotlight pushed voters back into their "natural" corners. This goes hand in hand with the pressing need to replace Pelosi as speaker and this comes from someone who has a positive opinion of her.

It, coupled with Trump's win in November and Romney's loss in 2012 should really start to show candidates that simply having the most money and throwing it at ads isn't a winning strategy any more. There's a phenomenon in psychology / advertising that claims that, beyond a certain point, the more often you're exposed to advertising for a product (in this case a political candidate), the less likely you are to buy such product. It isn't even diminishing returns, it's literally negative returns beyond a certain point of saturation.

The oversaturation of ads, combined with the natural partisan lean of the voters pushed people into their natural corner/party and delivered a loss to the Dems.

The lesson for dems should be, we need to figure out a way to reach voters outside of lazy ad buys on tv and radio. But consultants get paid big money and are pretty lazy, like the rest of us. So they go with what has worked in the past for as long as they can. A new strategy is needed.

[Person Man]

I'm going to refrain from making decisions on the ideology or quality of the candidate. I'll leave that to people smarter than I.

In terms of strategy, the Dems erred in trying to make this race a national race (to an extent, this is on the DNC and not the Ossoff campaign). The intense national spotlight pushed voters back into their "natural" corners. This goes hand in hand with the pressing need to replace Pelosi as speaker and this comes from someone who has a positive opinion of her.

It, coupled with Trump's win in November and Romney's loss in 2012 should really start to show candidates that simply having the most money and throwing it at ads isn't a winning strategy any more. There's a phenomenon in psychology / advertising that claims that, beyond a certain point, the more often you're exposed to advertising for a product (in this case a political candidate), the less likely you are to buy such product. It isn't even diminishing returns, it's literally negative returns beyond a certain point of saturation.

The oversaturation of ads, combined with the natural partisan lean of the voters pushed people into their natural corner/party and delivered a loss to the Dems.

The lesson for dems should be, we need to figure out a way to reach voters outside of lazy ad buys on tv and radio. But consultants get paid big money and are pretty lazy, like the rest of us. So they go with what has worked in the past for as long as they can. A new strategy is needed.

Democrats suck because of what happens when the parents get involved  in a kids' fad?

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

I'm going to refrain from making decisions on the ideology or quality of the candidate. I'll leave that to people smarter than I.

In terms of strategy, the Dems erred in trying to make this race a national race (to an extent, this is on the DNC and not the Ossoff campaign). The intense national spotlight pushed voters back into their "natural" corners. This goes hand in hand with the pressing need to replace Pelosi as speaker and this comes from someone who has a positive opinion of her.

It, coupled with Trump's win in November and Romney's loss in 2012 should really start to show candidates that simply having the most money and throwing it at ads isn't a winning strategy any more. There's a phenomenon in psychology / advertising that claims that, beyond a certain point, the more often you're exposed to advertising for a product (in this case a political candidate), the less likely you are to buy such product. It isn't even diminishing returns, it's literally negative returns beyond a certain point of saturation.

The oversaturation of ads, combined with the natural partisan lean of the voters pushed people into their natural corner/party and delivered a loss to the Dems.

The lesson for dems should be, we need to figure out a way to reach voters outside of lazy ad buys on tv and radio. But consultants get paid big money and are pretty lazy, like the rest of us. So they go with what has worked in the past for as long as they can. A new strategy is needed.

Democrats suck because of what happens when the parents get involved  in a kids' fad?

I'm not sure I follow this question, sorry. My main point is that tv and radio ads aren't as effective as they once were.

[Thomas Jackson]

The district leans conservative. R+6.

President Trump won this district by 1%. I love the moving goal post.

[RINO Tom]

Dems ran the pre 2016 campaign strategy....to no one's surprise it failed epically.

This is all that needs to be said.  This "suburban strategy" will crash and burn, and the GOP will become more invincible to it as the party evolves over the next 30 years.  Sorry, but that's just the truth.