Did Ossoff even stand a chance?

[Sbane]

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....

[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.

[Sbane]

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.

[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.

[Sbane]

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.

I think they need to have an unified message on economics, especially regarding healthcare and taxes on the rich to save Medicare. There should be leeway on social issues, especially regarding gun control. No one really talks about it, but I think the difference in close states like Wisconsin and Michigan in 2016 could have been the Democratic push for gun control. Democrats running in districts with a lot of students would also be smart to run on Marijuana legalization. That could get them some marginal 18-29 White male voters they so desperately need to win elections.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

Usually because they ignore the part of the government that probably has the majority of the waste, the Department of Defense. Well, certainly the majority if you exclude healthcare.

[Maxwell]

He stood a chance when he campaigned on something people cared about - and his momentum came to a dead halt when he decided to cue up the bland centrist routine.

[Mr. Smith]

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.

I don't recall John Boehner's 2010 takeover including any Chaffee's or Jefford's types either. Just 63 Portman/Collins-esque "moderates" and Tea Party types.

[hopper]

He stood a chance when he campaigned on something people cared about - and his momentum came to a dead halt when he decided to cue up the bland centrist routine.

Yeah but you don't want to run as a liberal in the General Election in a R-Leaning Seat.

[politicallefty]

He did, but it's still a quite conservative district. It's moving, but it's not ready to flip yet.

Everyone's chopping their heads of running around like it's the only thing that matters. I'm not worried right now. Democrats had back luck in special elections running up to the 2006 midterms as did Republicans running up to the 2010 midterms (for the House).

If you compare these election with last November, there's an average swing of about 8% against the Republicans. If that's the kind of swing that happens next November, the Republican House Majority will not survive.

[Alabama_Indy10]

This time last week he was a future presidential candidate

[Mr. Smith]

This time last week he was a future presidential candidate

Could still happen. I don' believe Obama won his one bid for U.S. Congress in 2000 or 2002.

Bush Jr didn't win his first bid and it took another 16 to become Governor.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There is no doubt about it, Ossoff could still be a future president of the united states.

[Alabama_Indy10]

This time last week he was a future presidential candidate

Could still happen. I don' believe Obama won his one bid for U.S. Congress in 2000 or 2002.

Bush Jr didn't win his first bid and it took another 16 to become Governor.

There's a big difference between losing to an entrenched incumbent (Bobby Rush) and losing to Karen Handel

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

There is no doubt about it, Ossoff could still be a future president of the united states.

Maybe as a Republican.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There is no doubt about it, Ossoff could still be a future president of the united states.

Maybe as a Republican.

LOL
why are you suggesting he'd likelier be a Republican president than a Democratic one, provided he gets there in the first place?

[Hammy]

I said from day one that Ossoff was never going to win here. If anything, the GOP was complacent in the first election, since it was an absolute guarantee you wouldn't have a D vs D runoff, so many likely didn't vote. The fact that Ossoff reached 48%, if anything, spooked Republicans into showing up in larger numbers, in addition to some of the polling (and the amount of Dem spending.) Had he gotten lower (say 42-45%) those spooked Republicans may not have shown up but there wouldn't have been enough to shift in his direction--he was never going to win regardless.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Yes, all things considered he was a good candidate who ran a good campaign, but still lost. There's a lot for Democrats to learn for 2018 and 2020:

1) Republicans will take any little thing and turn it into a campaign-ending scandal, and 90% of the time it's trifling bullsh[inks], whether it's the Clinton email server, Rob Quist smoking marijuana, or Ossoff living a mile outside the district. While it was certainly admirable for Ossoff to want to support his girlfriend while she was in med school, he should have realized this would be a vulnerability and just rented an apartment in the district. If he'd gotten elected, he would have been spending most of his time in DC anyway.
2) Nancy Pelosi and San Francisco are albatrosses around Democrats' necks. I feel torn on this because Pelosi is such an effective floor leader and because the San Francisco of right-wing imagination no longer even exists, but Republicans have irrevocably tarred her as part of a corrupt, out-of-touch establishment. And to be fair, they wouldn't be able to do so effectively if there weren't at least a grain of truth to this.
3) In future jungle primaries, we shouldn't be putting all of our eggs in one basket: a far better strategy is to run an Establishment Dem and a Berniecrat and be gauranteed either a hold or a pickup. The GOP has more factions (religious right, Trumpists, moderates, teabaggers, libertarians, etc.) so their vote will still be split more ways.
4) For the love of god, don't run ads like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIpHdyy2GI8.
5) Democrats need to bring out disengaged younger voters. The easiest way to do this is to support marijuana legalization. Single issue potheads are probably 10% of millennials and 20% of Gen Z. Like it or not, these people see no difference between the parties if you're not giving them their precious weed, and they won't vote. Anyone who strongly feels pot should remain illegal isn't voting Democratic, especially not in a place like GA-6. On a related note, I still think Hillary Clinton would be president right now if she had come out for marijuana legalization and against DAPL.

[JoshPA]

Nope just more republicans then democrats in the first round that how he won the first round.

[Technocracy Timmy]

There is no doubt about it, Ossoff could still be a future president of the united states.

Maybe as a Republican.

LOL
why are you suggesting he'd likelier be a Republican president than a Democratic one, provided he gets there in the first place?

Because he's too centrist to be the Democratic nominee even in 2020 (let alone for future presidential races). He opposed taxes on the rich, said he'd fight a single step towards single payer, and wanted deficit reduction. Not to mention he's bland and uninspiring despite being an effective speaker.

[GoTfan]

There is no doubt about it, Ossoff could still be a future president of the united states.

Maybe as a Republican.

LOL
why are you suggesting he'd likelier be a Republican president than a Democratic one, provided he gets there in the first place?

Because he's too centrist to be the Democratic nominee even in 2020 (let alone for future presidential races). He opposed taxes on the rich, said he'd fight a single step towards single payer, and wanted deficit reduction. Not to mention he's bland and uninspiring despite being an effective speaker.

Precisely. Democrats on here are generally more conservative than the base voters. Ossoff lost because he was bland, uninspiring, and trying way too hard to be Republican lite.

The voters were given a choice of a Republican or a Republican-lite, and fhose the Republican. Shocking, I know.

[heatcharger]

Precisely. Democrats on here are generally more conservative than the base voters. Ossoff lost because he was bland, uninspiring, and trying way too hard to be Republican lite.

The voters were given a choice of a Republican or a Republican-lite, and fhose the Republican. Shocking, I know.

Yeah, the six-figure salaried white-collar people in Cobb County with houses like these would've voted for Bernie-lite instead of Handel or Ossoff.



Australian college students should not be allowed to influence Democratic electoral strategy anyway. Very unfair!

[OneJ]

Not gonna comment on Ossoff's chances, but Ossoff lost me when he opposed raising taxes on the rich though. I understand that he was trying to appeal to some moderate Republicans, but I have to admit that it's a disappointment nonetheless especially considering when I supported (and still support) higher taxes on the rich.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Not gonna comment on Ossoff's chances, but Ossoff lost me when he opposed raising taxes on the rich though. I understand that he was trying to appeal to some moderate Republicans, but I have to admit that it's a disappointment nonetheless especially considering when I supported (and still support) higher taxes on the rich.

Educated upscale Republicans aren't dumb either. They understand full well that voting for Ossoff is a vote for Pelosi's agenda even if he promises to them that he won't raise taxes on the wealthy. The same prevailing sentiment is here in my social circle as well.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

No, I always knew that Handel would win in the end. Never called it solidly for Ossoff even once. Just too polarized.