Did Ossoff even stand a chance?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

Right now it is the healthcare bill specifically, and incompetence of the Republican congress and Trump generally, that is hurting the Republicans. The Russian scandal is not moving the dial in the least and running against Trump the personality doesn't seem to work. I suppose one could have surmised that from the 2016 general elections. The Democrats need to run on something, and the Republicans are about to hand them the perfect gift with the AHCA.

Progressives never liked the ACA that much (one of the reasons why it's approval has been anemic) and now they can run on their own alternative. But it's not an argument that is made for districts such as this, which is why Ossoff was running on the cutting government waste nonsense. Democrats can and should run on a more progressive message in Midwestern strongholds they lost as well as places in the sunbelt like CA-10,21,25,39 and TX 7,23 and 32 where there are more minorities and the districts are more middle class than upper middle class. The exception being well off minorities in seats like TX 7 and CA-39. Democrats will have greater luck there than GA-6 in my opinion. Even in GA-6, Johns Creek moved towards Ossoff....

Yea, I tend to agree with that assessment of the situation.

The problem is that there aren't many districts where they are competitive in the Midwest anymore, certainly not to the level of 2006/2008. Most of the potential is is suburban districts as well. Democrats have shifted too much on social issues/immigration/trade to compete effectively for many of the rural seats, especially when redistricting is factored in.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

Right now it is the healthcare bill specifically, and incompetence of the Republican congress and Trump generally, that is hurting the Republicans. The Russian scandal is not moving the dial in the least and running against Trump the personality doesn't seem to work. I suppose one could have surmised that from the 2016 general elections. The Democrats need to run on something, and the Republicans are about to hand them the perfect gift with the AHCA.

Progressives never liked the ACA that much (one of the reasons why it's approval has been anemic) and now they can run on their own alternative. But it's not an argument that is made for districts such as this, which is why Ossoff was running on the cutting government waste nonsense. Democrats can and should run on a more progressive message in Midwestern strongholds they lost as well as places in the sunbelt like CA-10,21,25,39 and TX 7,23 and 32 where there are more minorities and the districts are more middle class than upper middle class. The exception being well off minorities in seats like TX 7 and CA-39. Democrats will have greater luck there than GA-6 in my opinion. Even in GA-6, Johns Creek moved towards Ossoff....

Yea, I tend to agree with that assessment of the situation.

The problem is that there aren't many districts where they are competitive in the Midwest anymore, certainly not to the level of 2006/2008. Most of the potential is is suburban districts as well. Democrats have shifted too much on social issues/immigration/trade to compete effectively for many of the rural seats, especially when redistricting is factored in.

Yes, which is why I could see the Democrats come up short in 2018, despite making impressive gains in a lot of districts. These special elections show that same pattern.

The results in SC-05 do show some potential for such seats, but you would have to have the situation get absolutely terrible for Republicans and run candidates like Heath Shuler in them. I could see that scenario playing out in 10 or so seats, and that could provide the marginal districts.

I find it somewhat concerning that all the Dems this time (in the specials at least) seem cut from the same cloth. Despite all the talk about "finding blue dogs", the candidates are either Ossoff types or Bernie types. Those are good for certain districts, but not the whole diverse mix that last put Pelosi in the gavel, which included 50 blue dogs.