Why Georgia went R

[DrScholl]

It's a gerrymandered Republican district. A Republican state Senator said as much.

[Virginiá]

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.

The GOP rose from the dead after Obama's initial victory and claimed a ton of seats they hadn't held for a long time, many in over a century, and Democrats never got them back.

I just don't see why their inroads into suburbia are different, and only temporary. Especially after we are seeing the numbers stick so far. At the very least, right now, there is no good evidence to suggest one theory is more correct than the other, no?

[RINO Tom]

It's a gerrymandered Republican district. A Republican state Senator said as much.

So why'd you think you'd win it?

[DrScholl]

It's a gerrymandered Republican district. A Republican state Senator said as much.

So why'd you think you'd win it?

Did anyone ever say it was a guaranteed win? It was a worth a try. The point is, Handel was not an underdog who won a heavily Democratic district as Republicans are trying to claim. GA-6 is not a Democratic district.

[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?

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.

What I am saying is that overexposure blunts the cool.

[Rjjr77]

Republican district, soft democrat candidate, and nationalizing the race.

These republicans may dislike trump but not enough to all break democrat.

[PragmaticPopulist]

I agree with the past statements about GA-06 being too Republican, Ossoff being a bland candidate, and the race being too nationalized, but I have another theory to add.

Voters in the district can tell the difference between Trump and a typical Republican. While suburbs in the south are trending D, they aren't quite there yet.

[DrScholl]

It's a gerrymandered Republican district. A Republican state Senator said as much.

So why'd you think you'd win it?

Did anyone ever say it was a guaranteed win?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this comes pretty close, no?

Ossoff will win.

Also pretty sure you were dismissing the polls showing Handel ahead as "fake news".

Based on the independent polling, I said this. CSPPolling is indeed fake, no matter what the outcome of this race is. Clearly, there was a shift between the polling that showed Ossoff leading, but even so, it was never a guaranteed win. It's really not that serious, though. I'm not going to die over Ossoff losing the race.

[PoliticalShelter]

I just don't see why their inroads into suburbia are different, and only temporary.

The difference being that the republicans had been winning those blue dog districts for about a decade on the presidential level by the time 2010 came around, while the democrats have only won these suburban districts once under a presidential election, which happened under an extremely unusual republican candidate.

So the idea that these suburban gains will only be temporary is a pretty logical conclusion to make.

[#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.

What I am saying is that overexposure blunts the cool.

Makes sense. Agreed.

[Rookie Yinzer]

It is a Republican district. Money helps with name recognition but it does not change people's core political beliefs.

That's the whole reason Trump chose Price for HHS. To try and say this is indicative of Democratic support is outrageous. Let's wait and see how Dems do in districts where the R candidate typically wins by fewer than 5-7 points.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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.

He should have moved into the Sixth Congressional District the moment he decided to run. Sure, there's no technical requirement. But that's the exact sort of thing that gets my hackles up, and would make it *really* hard to support him.

[PragmaticPopulist]

I just don't see why their inroads into suburbia are different, and only temporary.

The difference being that the republicans had been winning those blue dog districts for about a decade on the presidential level by the time 2010 came around, while the democrats have only won these suburban districts once under a presidential election, which happened under an extremely unusual republican candidate.

So the idea that these suburban gains will only be temporary is a pretty logical conclusion to make.

Nate Cohn pointed out that 13 of the 15 most educated districts are represented by Democrats, and the two remaining trended strongly D in 2016, so I kind of doubt this is temporary. Democrats have also been winning some Republican-held suburban districts in presidential elections for a number of cycles in a row, granted, none of them I can think of are in the south (except FL-27, which is different). See CA-10, CA-21, NY-24, MN-03, NJ-07, and WA-08

[Technocracy Timmy]

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.

The GOP rose from the dead after Obama's initial victory and claimed a ton of seats they hadn't held for a long time, many in over a century, and Democrats never got them back.

I just don't see why their inroads into suburbia are different, and only temporary. Especially after we are seeing the numbers stick so far. At the very least, right now, there is no good evidence to suggest one theory is more correct than the other, no?

I think the ultimate takeaway is that Obama-Trump vs Romney-Clinton/Rust belt vs Sunbelt/etc. it's all just building infrastructure for the future. The Democrats since Reagan have only taken back significant political power when the economy is in a downturn (1992, 2008, etc.) even 2006 was caused in part by Bush threatening to privatize SS. This has been a constant theme with Democratic victories in this GOP alignment.

Most people don't think critically about trends or momentum shifting like us atlas nerds do. Your average American just sees that every single special election race that's been (in part) a referendum on Trump go down for the Democratic candidate 6 times in a row now. Most are not gonna sit down and try to rationalize what they saw with trends or anything like that; they're just gonna become demoralized seeing this unfold.

TD was right. Democrats aren't coming back until sh*t hits the fan with an economic crisis. Trump's institutional and civic instability clearly isn't enough to win the back the House alone. We can build infrastructure for the future races wherever Democrats happen to become competitive. But for the time being these kind of voters be they rural, suburban, college educated or noncollege educated, etc. are just gonna default to their partisan lines and belief that big government is horrible (at least philosophically) until an economic crisis hits and hits hard. I've realized that that's the only way these voters shift to the Democrats and shift long term.

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

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.

GA-06 election results
Romney +23

Handel +3

Clearly the Democrats aren't making any inroads.

[MT Treasurer]

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.

GA-06 election results
Romney +23

Handel +3

Clearly the Democrats aren't making any inroads.

I love how you skipped the "Trump +1" part. I agree that this area is trending Democratic and that GA should be a blue state by 2024 or 2028, though.

[Roronoa D. Law]

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.

GA-06 election results
Romney +23

Handel +3

Clearly the Democrats aren't making any inroads.

I love how you skipped the "Trump +1" part. I agree that this area is trending Democratic and that GA should be a blue state by 2024 or 2028, though.

I think people need to remember that Ossoff received a higher voter share than HRC. It was the 3rd party GOP defects that created a close race in November.

[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.

GA-06 election results
Romney +23

Handel +3

Clearly the Democrats aren't making any inroads.

You can remain confident that "educated suburbanites" will shed their political views overtime and become Democrats, rather than (almost) rejecting TRUMP's GOP (which, again, they didn't and haven't in a majority).  Maybe it'll work out for you.  I think it won't.

[PoliticalShelter]

I just don't see why their inroads into suburbia are different, and only temporary.

The difference being that the republicans had been winning those blue dog districts for about a decade on the presidential level by the time 2010 came around, while the democrats have only won these suburban districts once under a presidential election, which happened under an extremely unusual republican candidate.

So the idea that these suburban gains will only be temporary is a pretty logical conclusion to make.

Nate Cohn pointed out that 13 of the 15 most educated districts are represented by Democrats, and the two remaining trended strongly D in 2016, so I kind of doubt this is temporary. Democrats have also been winning some Republican-held suburban districts in presidential elections for a number of cycles in a row, granted, none of them I can think of are in the south (except FL-27, which is different). See CA-10, CA-21, NY-24, MN-03, NJ-07, and WA-08

Exactly, these districts are in the south and the voters in these districts are politically different to their educated counterparts in other parts of the country.

Those districts you mention have been voting democrat on the presidential election for numerous cycles it is entirely reasonable to suspect that democrats will start to win these districts on the downballot level on a more permanent basis.

Districts like GA 06 only became competitive last year, in abnormal conditions, and it shouldn't be expected that democrats are going to start winning these districts on a permanent basis (on the presidential level, never mind on the downballot).

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

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.

GA-06 election results
Romney +23

Handel +3

Clearly the Democrats aren't making any inroads.

You can remain confident that "educated suburbanites" will shed their political views overtime and become Democrats, rather than (almost) rejecting TRUMP's GOP (which, again, they didn't and haven't in a majority).  Maybe it'll work out for you.  I think it won't.

A moderate republican who isn't trump just got crushed. Trump hasn't created a new trend, he's simply accelerated what's been happening for a long time.

[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.

GA-06 election results
Romney +23

Handel +3

Clearly the Democrats aren't making any inroads.

You can remain confident that "educated suburbanites" will shed their political views overtime and become Democrats, rather than (almost) rejecting TRUMP's GOP (which, again, they didn't and haven't in a majority).  Maybe it'll work out for you.  I think it won't.

A moderate republican who isn't trump just got crushed. Trump hasn't created a new trend, he's simply accelerated what's been happening for a long time.

Like I said, stick with that strategy all you want, but the majority of your fellow Democrats disagree with that approach now, and the base of your party doesn't WANT those voters because they think the views they'd bring are antithetical to the Democratic agenda, so you're going to have a tough time getting that strange marriage to work.

Again, it might work.  But the analogy I see is the Democrats are whispering in the ear of a girl who's REALLY mad at her boyfriend, telling her how horrible he's acting and what a jerk he is and how he's different from when they started dating, all in the hope that they can swoop in and steal her ... problem is, I don't think she has any actual interest, and she (maybe delusionally) still thinks her GOP boyfriend will go back to normal ... and even if he doesn't, she STILL slightly prefers him to her Democratic alternative.

(I tried to make that statement gender neutral, but it was just WAY too clunky, LOL.)

[Sbane]

Georgia's 6th went R because it was a Republican district to begin with. Clinton's performance in 2016 was probably the best the Democrats could hope for considering current demographics, and even that was helped by GOP moderates voting third party. The district is trending Democrat but it will take another 4-8 years for it be a true swing district. Another factor hurting Ossoff was the high turnout. Democrats are obviously more enthusiastic about voting right now, but they lost that advantage here with the oversaturation of ads, media interest etc.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

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.

GA-06 election results
Romney +23

Handel +3

Clearly the Democrats aren't making any inroads.

I love how you skipped the "Trump +1" part. I agree that this area is trending Democratic and that GA should be a blue state by 2024 or 2028, though.

To be fair, Rubio probably would've won this district by 6-10%.  

[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.

GA-06 election results
Romney +23

Handel +3

Clearly the Democrats aren't making any inroads.

I love how you skipped the "Trump +1" part. I agree that this area is trending Democratic and that GA should be a blue state by 2024 or 2028, though.

To be fair, Rubio probably would've won this district by 6-10%.  

That's the point: the GOP floor is ridiculously high in these "muh educated cosmopolitan Republicans turned off by Trump" districts.  Who cares if you lose by 10 or 1?  There are too many Republicans who will bite the bullet and vote GOP no matter what.

[SATW]

because people aren't tired of winning yet!