GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread

[Xing]

Ugh. This one stings. Really makes it feel like Democrats can't win no matter what they do. I think that one lesson to take away from this is that districts like GA-06 are not the "future" of the Democratic Party, and will be much harder for Democrats to win back than districts that are more working class. Clearly, the path to a majority in the House doesn't run through Republican districts that swung to Clinton. It runs through districts like IA-01, NY-19, and ME-02. And it's also obviously the case that flipping WI/MI/PA will be much easier for Democrats than flipping AZ/GA.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Though on the bright side the dems have been secretly nailing star rural recruits in Ojeda,Gray, and Davis

[Cactus Jack]

Though on the bright side the dems have been secretly nailing star rural recruits in Ojeda,Gray, and Davis

Bingo. The thing none of the Democrats in this thread seem to want to acknowledge is that Ossoff, on the whole, had all the makings of a dud candidate, with all the weaknesses of Clinton ratcheted up and made even more transparent. Charisma and public appeal matter, as does running an actual campaign based on actual issues. Thompson and Parnell proved that, and Quist might have done had he not been a terrible candidate for totally unrelated reasons.

[Mr. Smith]

Ugh. This one stings. Really makes it feel like Democrats can't win no matter what they do. I think that one lesson to take away from this is that districts like GA-06 are not the "future" of the Democratic Party, and will be much harder for Democrats to win back than districts that are more working class. Clearly, the path to a majority in the House doesn't run through Republican districts that swung to Clinton. It runs through districts like IA-01, NY-19, and ME-02. And it's also obviously the case that flipping WI/MI/PA will be much easier for Democrats than flipping AZ/GA.

I don't recall the GOP taking this attitude that much in '09, and then they went after MA and Obama's Senate seat too.

GA-06 and flipping GA/AZ  simply should be used in the periphery, AFTER the rest is locked up.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Ugh. This one stings. Really makes it feel like Democrats can't win no matter what they do. I think that one lesson to take away from this is that districts like GA-06 are not the "future" of the Democratic Party, and will be much harder for Democrats to win back than districts that are more working class. Clearly, the path to a majority in the House doesn't run through Republican districts that swung to Clinton. It runs through districts like IA-01, NY-19, and ME-02. And it's also obviously the case that flipping WI/MI/PA will be much easier for Democrats than flipping AZ/GA.

I don't recall the GOP taking this attitude that much in '09, and then they went after MA and Obama's Senate seat too.

GA-06 and flipping GA/AZ  simply should be used in the periphery, AFTER the rest is locked up.

Major difference Obama was popular in 09 so se loses were expected. With Trump we are only 6 months in yet he has had blunder after blunder but yet like the election no matter how much awful he does he pays no consequences. To the point where it's not even "Teflon" and more "is half of this country just f**king insane"

[Mr. Smith]

Though on the bright side the dems have been secretly nailing star rural recruits in Ojeda,Gray, and Davis

Bingo. The thing none of the Democrats in this thread seem to want to acknowledge is that Ossoff, on the whole, had all the makings of a dud candidate, with all the weaknesses of Clinton ratcheted up and made even more transparent. Charisma and public appeal matter, as does running an actual campaign based on actual issues. Thompson and Parnell proved that, and Quist might have done had he not been a terrible candidate for totally unrelated reasons.

No, Ossoff definitely did great [especially with making a point to get small donations], the district was just an overrated shot and it was silly to think he'd gain the 2 points from when he initially lost by 2, AND that was under an in-fighting GOP. Ossoff needed to do better than great though to make it.

If anything, we had a mini Emmauel Macron vs Marine Le Pen going on, except Americans, especially Southern suburbans...just don't take things the way the French did (especially the Fillon voters who seem to be the rough equivalent)

[Virginiá]

Ugh. This one stings. Really makes it feel like Democrats can't win no matter what they do. I think that one lesson to take away from this is that districts like GA-06 are not the "future" of the Democratic Party, and will be much harder for Democrats to win back than districts that are more working class. Clearly, the path to a majority in the House doesn't run through Republican districts that swung to Clinton. It runs through districts like IA-01, NY-19, and ME-02. And it's also obviously the case that flipping WI/MI/PA will be much easier for Democrats than flipping AZ/GA.

I'm not sure GA-6 would qualify as a prime example for the type of district Democrats need to take on. It really wasn't supposed to be very hospitable.

It should mean something to people that Ossoff even came this close, though. Presidential voting patterns do not usually translate into these kinds of downballot performances so quickly. Ossoff performed about as well as Clinton, give or take a little bit. If Democrats have that kind of performance in 2018, that will mean a boatload of seat pickups across the country. Maybe it won't mean a House majority outright, but it'll come very close.

Then again, look at how well random Democrats performed in districts that Trump won by huge margins? We came close in all of the recent special elections. I dunno, I just don't get why Democrats should see this as some sort of confirmation that one strategy or the other doesn't work. If I told you a Democrat would get this close in GA-6 in January 2016, you'd call me nuts.

[Xing]

I wasn't implying that Upstate NY and IA alone can deliver Democrats the House, simply that districts with more Obama/Trump voters will probably be easier targets than districts with more Romney/Clinton voters. And while Democrats will need some suburban districts to win the House, and ones like CA-49 and VA-10 should definitely be doable, I don't think districts like TX-07 and IL-06 are more winnable than IA-01 or ME-02.

[Cactus Jack]

Also, I really do think that the Democrats here ought to be taking more from SC-5 than they are. Sure, turnout was low, but the district wasn't even on the radar for a competitive race until literally today. With Parnell's close call, the Dems are now four for four in putting the Republicans on the ropes in districts that in no way should have ever been competitive.

Ossoff lost a winnable race, but this is far from the end.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Xingkerui,

If I'm reading what you wrote correctly I think you're saying that Dems should first get a lockdown on Obama-Trump voters before they target Romney-Clinton voters correct? If so, then I fully agree as somebody who knows the latter cohort quite well. I asked a DCCC consultant at my local campaign volunteer event about GOP rep-Clinton voters in and around Orange County and she told me clearly that those kind of voters were primarily republicans who didn't like Trump but were satisfied with their incumbent GOP reps based on the internal polling that had been done on them. Dissapointing albeit totally non-surprising answer.

[Tender Branson]

Just woke up (it's 7am here) and WOW !

I knew something was going on in GA-06 in the final days, but 52% for Handel is still something. Maybe it was the shooting, maybe it was the undecideds breaking for her in the end who leaned Republican, who knows ...

48% is still a good result for Ossoff though. We have to remember that this district usually voted 20%+ for Republicans and Handel is no Trumpish candidate and even he won by 1% there ... Ossoff continues a trend for Democrats doing some 15% better on average than they did in the 2016 elections.

SC-06 was surprisingly close, probably because Dems were much more motivated and because of the lower turnout. Still, Parnell continued the strong trend towards the Dems: he only lost by 3 in a GOP+20 district.

[Adam Griffin]

Just leaving this here...

Just correcting this wack-ass image that uses DCCC funding for Group A and total contributions (including small donations) for Ossoff; that uses presidential results instead of House results because it self-cherrypicks the data-points for the narrative they want

[Adam Griffin]

Speaking of comparing House races to presidential ones...

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

In the end, Ossoff received the exact same % of the vote he got in round 1 - 48.1%. All that money to get the same exact % of the vote. What a complete waste. Democrats should have never tried in this seat.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Just leaving this here...

Just correcting this wack-ass image that uses DCCC funding for Group A and total contributions (including small donations) for Ossoff; that uses presidential results instead of House results because it self-cherrypicks the data-points for the narrative they want

Trump won the district by only 1.5 points. The Democrats spent $30 million to have the margin be worse than the 2016 Presidential, and Ossoff get a lower percentage of the vote than in the first round.

[Virginiá]

Just correcting this wack-ass image that uses DCCC funding for Group A and total contributions (including small donations) for Ossoff; that uses presidential results instead of House results because it self-cherrypicks the data-points for the narrative they want

This is exactly what I was dreading from an Ossoff loss. It wasn't the idea of missing out on an extra seat in Congress or having a battle-hardened incumbent for 2018, it was that people on the left would all pile on about how everyone else is wrong and the party is a giant failure, while cherry-picking statistics to buttress their argument. That's not even factoring in the idea that these districts have special elections right now precisely because Trump's admin. thought they were safe (and most of them were, on paper) when they snatched the Representatives out of them.

The fact that we even came this close in districts like KS-4, SC-5 and GA-6 should be cause of celebration on its own, except that months of building up excitement and expectations shifted the goalposts so far that now it is somehow a failure and a disappointment and somehow vindicates that suburbs are TOTALLY lost for Democrats and we should take the establishment folks and string them up!

I mean my god folks.

In the end, Ossoff received the exact same % of the vote he got in round 1 - 48.1%. All that money to get the same exact % of the vote. What a complete waste. Democrats should have never tried in this seat.

And right as I clicked post, this comes in and provides a clear example of what I was saying. Should have never tried? Are you kidding? This race was and had been effectively a toss-up, and circumstances provided for a small Handel win. That's what happens in toss-ups. Each side has a good chance, and in the end one wins for various reasons. It's not like Ossoff never had a chance ffs.

Again, somehow a small loss in a previously-safe Republican district was a waste and big mistake? How does that even make sense?

[Holmes]

In the end, Ossoff received the exact same % of the vote he got in round 1 - 48.1%. All that money to get the same exact % of the vote. What a complete waste. Democrats should have never tried in this seat.

Maybe. But an investment is an investment, whether or not you see the results right away. The enthusiasm and new registered voters this special brought in for Democrats will go a pong way towards making Georgia more competitive in the future. In what might've been a fluke for Clinton in a yesr where Price won by 23% was just replicated by a previously unknown Democrat eight months later. I think that shows that investment is always a good thing, even if you don't necessarily win the battle.

[Adam Griffin]

In the end, Ossoff received the exact same % of the vote he got in round 1 - 48.1%. All that money to get the same exact % of the vote. What a complete waste. Democrats should have never tried in this seat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Just leaving this here...

Just correcting this wack-ass image that uses DCCC funding for Group A and total contributions (including small donations) for Ossoff; that uses  results instead of  results because it self-cherrypicks the data-points for the narrative they want

Trump won the district by only 1.5 points. The Democrats spent $30 million to have the margin be worse than the 2016 , and Ossoff get a lower percentage of the vote than in the first round.

More votes came in since you last checked. Ossoff got the exact same % that he did in round 1. The votes came in in a different order this time, but they were no more or less pro-ossoff than before.

[The_Doctor]

Just correcting this wack-ass image that uses DCCC funding for Group A and total contributions (including small donations) for Ossoff; that uses presidential results instead of House results because it self-cherrypicks the data-points for the narrative they want

This is exactly what I was dreading from an Ossoff loss. It wasn't the idea of missing out on an extra seat in Congress or having a battle-hardened incumbent for 2018, it was that people on the left would all pile on about how everyone else is wrong and the party is a giant failure, while cherry-picking statistics to butress their argument. That's not even factoring in the idea that these districts have special elections right now precisely because Trump's admin. thought they were safe (and most of them were, on paper) when they snatched the Representatives out of them.

The fact that we even came this close in districts like KS-4, SC-5 and GA-6 should be cause of celebration on its own, except that months of building up excitement and expectations shifted the goalposts so far that now it is somehow a failure and a disappointment and somehow vindicates that suburbs are TOTALLY lost for Democrats and we should take the establishment folks and string them up!

I mean my god folks.

In the end, Ossoff received the exact same % of the vote he got in round 1 - 48.1%. All that money to get the same exact % of the vote. What a complete waste. Democrats should have never tried in this seat.

And right as I clicked post, this comes in and provides a clear example of what I was saying. Should have never tried? Are you kidding? This race was and had been effectively a toss-up, and circumstances provided for a small Handel win. That's what happens in toss-ups. Each side has a good chance, and in the end one wins for various reasons. It's not like Ossoff never had a chance ffs.

Again, somehow a small loss in a previously-safe Republican district was a waste and big mistake? How does that even make sense?

Democrats are bad at building a sustained organization and movement right now. How may times did the Goldwater people lose before they started winning?

The Democrats right now, today, have it 100x far easier than Barry Goldwater and his crew ever did.

[Adam Griffin]

Trump won the district by only 1.5 points. The Democrats spent $30 million to have the margin be worse than the 2016 Presidential, and Ossoff get a lower percentage of the vote than in the first round.

Who gives a f[inks] what Trump won it by? This is an election for House, not for President. The last Republican to run for this seat - in 2016 - won by 23 points. The Republican in this race won it by (apparently now) 4 points. That's a 19 point swing. Compare that to Quist's paltry 9 point swing and Thompson's larger 23 point swing.

And again, you're either being completely obtuse or disingenous. DCCC contributed $6m to Ossoff; a few hundred thousand to the other two. In total money raised/spent, Ossoff raised more than $20m; Quist had around $10m spent on his behalf and broke all previous Montana records. If anything, the amount spent on Quist's race was more obscene than Ossoff's because of the relative costs of media/campaigning in the two districts.

That dumbass image is purposefully lying. You don't come up with those figures unless you're deliberately trying to mislead. You either compare one group of figures consistently or the other; you don't mix them up so that they all display the best outcome for your pissy narrative.

[DrScholl]

Judging from the result in SC-5, as well as the previous specials where results were closer than expected, I wonder if the money really had much to do with the margin in GA-6. I think there has to be a strategy where enough resources are available, but campaigns are more stealth and can catch Republicans off guard.

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

In the end, Ossoff received the exact same % of the vote he got in round 1 - 48.1%. All that money to get the same exact % of the vote. What a complete waste. Democrats should have never tried in this seat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you for posting a quote that validates the idea that dems shouldn't have tried in this seat.

Virginia, Holmes, I understand you guys have obligations to spin this however you can, but let's face it, your party threw everything but the kitchen sink at this race and didn't gain a single tenth of a percentage point over round 1. You aren't winning this in '18, and you're not winning the 7th or some other seat in GA either. If the house  will have a dem majority, it will be because seats flipped elsewhere - the GA  delegation will be unchanged.

[Adam Griffin]

Ossoff get a lower percentage of the vote than in the first round.

Oh, and here's another dumb narrative already circulating on jfern Twitter that's pure BS:

April: 48.12%
June: 48.13%

[Tender Branson]

Ossoff did as well as he could do.

We are talking about 4 special elections in districts that were at least R+16 in the previous elections and ALL Democrats improved by between 10 and some 20 points.

Maybe Ossoff would have had a chance 2-3 weeks ago after Handel's wage comments and before the shooting, who knows, but that's not how it works ...

Democrats now need to focus on VA an NJ and work on a program on their own that they can present to voters in 2018. You can't win elections if you do not create a convincing platform on your own to sell to voters. If they can do this and maintain some momentum, they are in good shape for 2018 in closer House races than the extremely GOP-leaning ones this year ...