Why Georgia went R

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

This.  It's pretty amusing to see atlas CW do a complete 180 overnight btw.  Suddenly, the Monday morning quarterbacks who were singing Osoff's praises and laughing at how pathetic/desperate the GOP's attacks were seem to have conveniently decided Osoff ran a bland, dull excuse for a campaign that failed to respond effectively to "effective" attacks like the once-infamous Star Wars ad.  Of course, these newly converted chicken littles still aren't half as bad as the True Left internet slacktivists who were basically rooting for Osoff to lose just so they'd have a new excuse to whine about "muh neoliberals." 

The fact is that this is a very partisan and very Republican district where Democrats had no business even trying to keep their loss to single-digits on paper.  The fact that this was a highly competitive race mattered far more than who won and I'd still say that even if Osoff won.  Republicans have about as much to celebrate as they did in 2006 when Jean Schmidt beat Paul Hackett in OH-2.  And I like how the True Leftists conveniently seem to forget that Osoff and Archie "Evulz Goldman Sachs Employee!!!!" Parnell both did better in far tougher districts against much stronger opponents than Rob Quist did in the MT special.  If Osoff's defeat means a suburban strategy won't work, intellectual consistency dictates that Quist's defeat proves a left-wing populist strategy would be a disaster (both absurd claims, but you can't make one while rejecting the other).

[RINO Tom]

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.

This.  It's pretty amusing to see atlas CW do a complete 180 overnight btw.  Suddenly, the Monday morning quarterbacks who were singing Osoff's praises and laughing at how pathetic/desperate the GOP's attacks were seem to have conveniently decided Osoff ran a bland, dull excuse for a campaign that failed to respond effectively to "effective" attacks like the once-infamous Star Wars ad.  Of course, these newly converted chicken littles still aren't half as bad as the True Left internet slacktivists who were basically rooting for Osoff to lose just so they'd have a new excuse to whine about "muh neoliberals." 

The fact is that this is a very partisan and very Republican district where Democrats had no business even trying to keep their loss to single-digits on paper.  The fact that this was a highly competitive race mattered far more than who won and I'd still say that even if Osoff won.  Republicans have about as much to celebrate as they did in 2006 when Jean Schmidt beat Paul Hackett in OH-2.  And I like how the True Leftists conveniently seem to forget that Osoff and Archie "Evulz Goldman Sachs Employee!!!!" Parnell both did better in far tougher districts against much stronger opponents than Rob Quist did in the MT special.  If Osoff's defeat means a suburban strategy won't work, intellectual consistency dictates that Quist's defeat proves a left-wing populist strategy would be a disaster (both absurd claims, but you can't make one while rejecting the other).

I think it's just kind of funny that no Democrats are celebrating the SC "close loss" and wondering if they might be able to flip back a few "WWC" voters after all.

[Stranger in a strange land]

The Star Wars thing was stupid and probably backfired. What did damage Ossoff was that the GOP was successfully able to tie him to Nancy Pelosi, San Francisco, and Hollywood.

Now, this wouldn't have worked in a less fundamentally conservative district, but folks in Suburban Atlanta still eat this sh[inks] up. They did not suddenly become liberal just because they're anti-Trump. Trump creates an opening to reach them, but he doesn't guarantee it unless we stand for something.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Because, there is still support among party faithful to Trump, eventhough he is unpopular. That's why the GOP won in their own home turf in KS, MT and GA. We will see nxt year in Ca, NY, FL and PA.