Did Ossoff even stand a chance?

[RINO Tom]

No, and I think even if he had been the second coming of Obama, he still would have lost. Places like GA-06 simply aren't hospitable to Democrats.

But it's literally the future base of the party, friend.

[RINO Tom]

No, and I think even if he had been the second coming of Obama, he still would have lost. Places like GA-06 simply aren't hospitable to Democrats.

But it's literally the future base of the party, friend.

The future isn't now though, now is it.

That "future" will never exist, hence my sarcastic post.

[RINO Tom]

No, and I think even if he had been the second coming of Obama, he still would have lost. Places like GA-06 simply aren't hospitable to Democrats.

But it's literally the future base of the party, friend.

The future isn't now though, now is it.

That "future" will never exist, hence my sarcastic post.

Never say never. The GOP were never gonna get into The South either, then Hoover did it.

The West Coast was Rocky Republican land that'd always come back, then Mondale trended it away, Dukakis won it, and Clinton won bigly.

Maybe.  It doesn't seem like a party a Democrat like you would continue to support, and I think leadership knows that.  Count me as skeptical it'd ever happen.

[RINO Tom]

Again, I don't think the people making fun of Democrats are not admitting that the rise of Trump coupled with SOME demographic change hasn't made for an impressive margin cut in places like GA-6 ... it's that Democrats seem to have largely planned their "comeback" around winning over these conservative voters with a distaste for Trump, and that's suicide, IMO.  The Democrats will infuriate way more in their party than they'd pick up outside of it by taking the kinds of stances they'd need to to win these districts, and they know that.  So, their option is go after places that COULD be open to their agenda (and were a few short years ago) or run "centrists" in these types of "Never Trump"-ish districts, and that's clearly failing.  There is such a high floor for a Republican in a rich, White, suburban district like this, and I just think it's a fool's errand.

[RINO Tom]

Ossoff's strategy of running on ending government waste seemed phony to me. Sure, the attacks on him for being a "San Francisco liberal" were just as bad but calling for an end to government waste isn't promising much. Every politician promises it but there's not much to cut. It doesn't get to the core issues of the country. He ran on nothing and couldn't win over people who might have given him a chance. Of course, in a district like this it would be hard to run on Medicare for all and increasing taxes on the rich. It will be hard for Democrats to win districts like this which are exclusively white, rich suburbanites, especially if they voted for Trump. They will do better to stick with districts that have either more minorities, college students or working class folks who can be won over with a more traditional Democratic argument.

I must say I called this race completely wrong, largely because I over estimated the willingness of said demographic to flip in the era of, and in reaction to, Trump. Even more so because of how much the situation has degraded to the point where I seriously doubt Trump even makes it through the year. Against that backdrop, I expected the results to be far worse.

I could be TOTALLY wrong come 2018 (I fully admit that) and anecdotal evidence should be taken worth a grain of salt (I fully admit that's what this is, as well), but nothing I have experienced in "real life" (aka outside of political nerds' fantasies and over-analyzation) suggests that any meaningful number of "upscale" Republican voters are anywhere near ready to join the Democratic Party just because there was a GOP nominee they despised ... heck, a plurality of them stuck with the nominee, and needless to say stuck with their downballot Republicans even more loyally.