Georgia Election Results: Handel Defeats Ossoff in U.S. House Race

[Norm dePlume]

I hope you take heart by considering that this election demonstrates that money is no guarantor of electoral success.

I don't think anyone here ever claimed it was, but regardless of that, this election demonstrates nothing of the kind since both sides spent a lot of money.

Right. It just means that evil Republicans aren't allowed to spend money on elections because that's not fair, but Leftists can spend much, much MORE on elections because that's what they have to do. Also, court cases.

Good grief. Go ahead and cling to "guarantor" if you'd like, but you know Goddamned good and fucking well that you and other Leftists have been howling about how horrible money is in elections for quite some time now, only to wind up being abject hypocrites on the topic.

You have a real problem with clear statements. Keep whacking that straw man.

[scott]

Ossof raised a lot more in small donations. Handel raised a lot more from PAC's.

Do you know the significance of the "under $200" point as it pertains to "small donations?"

[80zephyr]

People are drawing all manner of "lessons" from this election. Very few favor the Dems.

Many say coming closer than they did in previous elections is a positive sign. Jake Novak of CNBC takes this to task, below.

Others argue that Ossoff fatally backed away from being a clear progressive. CNN's Gregory Krieg writes:
cnn.com/2017/06/21/politics/democrats-ossoff-loss-georgia/index.html

(Part of the fallout is some noise among Democrats about removing Pelosi (Politico).)

CNBC's lessons:
(As I was saying....)

Not exactly "all politics is local," but writer Jake Novac has a point. Hating Trump is not enough.

Easier said than done, I say, and so does Jake in the next paragraph:


Here, Jake would sound like Yoda, "Flip or do not flip. There is no close." "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades," say others, in a galaxy more recent and closer to home. "And bocci ball," other insomniacs might add.


He counsels Republicans to credit Handel herself, and to find similar candidates (by which he means moderate) for 2018. He ends with an excellent summation:

Still, the bottom line here is the Democrats need to change course and do it fast. They just spent all the political money in the world on the wrong candidate whom they still shackled with an untenable national label. No matter how unpopular President Trump is, they simply cannot win with their existing formula. That is clear to everyone now. What isn't clear is whether this time the Democrats will actually stop, listen and learn.

Novak doesn't say whether such a course change should be toward the right or the left, policy-wise. It looks like the "activist base" wants to go left. As CNN Krieg captures it:
Yes, I ran "ratf-----g" through the Google translator, Democrat to English.

One of your links states that the Democrats need a new national message to win local elections.

The problem is, is that the Democrats hitched their wagons to every minority group they could think of to gain an edge. Since new policy to win elections would include all Americans, they would have to put their commitment to minorities on a "back burner".

Does anyone really see that happening?

Mark

[80zephyr]

Right. It just means that evil Republicans aren't allowed to spend money on elections because that's not fair, but Leftists can spend much, much MORE on elections because that's what they have to do. Also, court cases.

Good grief. Go ahead and cling to "guarantor" if you'd like, but you know Goddamned good and fucking well that you and other Leftists have been howling about how horrible money is in elections for quite some time now, only to wind up being abject hypocrites on the topic.

We have a winner!!

Mark

[80zephyr]

Right. It just means that evil Republicans aren't allowed to spend money on elections because that's not fair, but Leftists can spend much, much MORE on elections because that's what they have to do. Also, court cases.

Good grief. Go ahead and cling to "guarantor" if you'd like, but you know Goddamned good and fucking well that you and other Leftists have been howling about how horrible money is in elections for quite some time now, only to wind up being abject hypocrites on the topic.

You don't seem to understand Adam. Big corporate money is bad, big union money is good.

Try to keep up.

Mark

[Billy Jingo]

Tim Ryan (D-OH) is using the defeat as talking point in his effort to unseat Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as the House Democratic leader. He may be just positioning in the long slog.

On a side note, I get the argument Republicans (and change Democrats) are making about a win is a win is a win. But for my part I see these narrow Republican victories in near lockdown Republican districts as an indicator that the Democrats will take the House next year. That is something I thought was damn near impossible recently. Maybe it is as simple as Democrats being motivated where Republicans aren't; Ossoff got 24 less votes than the Democratic candidate got in the 23 point win for Tom Price in 2016. But even if that is the case, an off year election works in the favor of the motivated.

At this point, I think serious Republican strategists are shitting bricks. If Republicans were getting within 3 or 4 points in special elections where Democrats win by 20-25 points during normal elections, I doubt Republicans would dismiss that as meaningless "second place trophies."

[Newman]

If both sides spend a ton of money, the only thing guaranteed is that one of those sides will lose having spent a ton of money. Therefore, money is not a "guarantor of success." Also, water is wet. And night follows day. Now try and find someone who won by spending zero money. Money matters. It's not all that matters. It doesn't not matter. And it buys influence. Big donors get access. Tune in next week for more Tales of the Obvious as told to the oblivious.

Alvin Green in South Carolina. He wiped out his anointed Democrat foe in the primary by doing nothing and letting the favorite implode.

You continue to argue as if the $$ spent was equivalent or nearly so by both Handel and Ossoff. It was not, and the lesson learned, among others, is that big money is overrated.

[80zephyr]

Tim Ryan (D-OH) is using the defeat as talking point in his effort to unseat Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as the House Democratic leader. He may be just positioning in the long slog.

On a side note, I get the argument Republicans (and change Democrats) are making about a win is a win is a win. But for my part I see these narrow Republican victories in near lockdown Republican districts as an indicator that the Democrats will take the House next year. That is something I thought was damn near impossible recently. Maybe it is as simple as Democrats being motivated where Republicans aren't; Ossoff got 24 less votes than the Democratic candidate got in the 23 point win for Tom Price in 2016. But even if that is the case, an off year election works in the favor of the motivated.

At this point, I think serious Republican strategists are shitting bricks. If Republicans were getting within 3 or 4 points in special elections where Democrats win by 20-25 points during normal elections, I doubt Republicans would dismiss that as meaningless "second place trophies."

Trump won that particular Georgia district by 1.5% over Hillary. Ossoff lost by what, 6 percent?

Math is hard.

Mark

[Newman]

Emphasis changed.

I hope you take heart by considering that this election demonstrates that money is no guarantor of electoral success.

I don't think anyone here ever claimed it was, but regardless of that, this election demonstrates nothing of the kind since both sides spent a lot of money.

Right. It just means that evil Republicans aren't allowed to spend money on elections because that's not fair, but Leftists can spend much, much MORE on elections because that's what they have to do. Also, court cases.

Good grief. Go ahead and cling to "guarantor" if you'd like, but you know Goddamned good and fucking well that you and other Leftists have been howling about how horrible money is in elections for quite some time now, only to wind up being abject hypocrites on the topic.

You have a real problem with clear statements. Keep whacking that straw man.

I think your writing is clear enough, and your claim is mistaken. "Nothing of the kind" is a broad preface to your erroneous contention that there is nothing to be learned from the fruitless expenditure of enormous sums (record setting by far) largely by the Democratic candidate, who only needed a little, teeny push over the top.

[Billy Jingo]

Alvin Green in South Carolina. He wiped out his anointed Democrat [sic] foe in the primary by doing nothing and letting the favorite implode.

A near meaningless primary is a bit of a reach.

[Norm dePlume]

Emphasis changed.I think your writing is clear enough, and your claim is mistaken. "Nothing of the kind" is a broad preface to your erroneous contention that there is nothing to be learned from the fruitless expenditure of enormous sums (record setting by far) largely by the Democratic candidate, who only needed a little, teeny push over the top.

You change "nothing of the kind" to "nothing to be learned"? You are hopeless.

[Norm dePlume]

Alvin Green in South Carolina. He wiped out his anointed Democrat foe in the primary by doing nothing and letting the favorite implode.

You continue to argue as if the $$ spent was equivalent or nearly so by both Handel and Ossoff. It was not, and the lesson learned, among others, is that big money is overrated.

You continue to misconstrue and put words in my mouth. Do not tell me what I said. I know what I said. You are a particularly bad source on what I said.

[Newman]

One of your links states that the Democrats need a new national message to win local elections.

The problem is, is that the Democrats hitched their wagons to every minority group they could think of to gain an edge. Since new policy to win elections would include all Americans, they would have to put their commitment to minorities on a "back burner".

Does anyone really see that happening?

Mark

As you'd say if you had an out of body experience, We have a winner!

I think that's a brilliant insight, actually: The Democrats have blocked themselves out of the possibility of generating a message that can attract the mass of the general electorate, by catering without any reservation or limit (my own two cents) to every aggrieved (left of center) segment that could generate a headline. Changing will require more than generating a positive message about jobs; it will require a metamorphosis of character, as if a milquetoast parent has to become a tough love adult. Not impossible, but really hard.

So far they can't say no. When some BLM people commandeered Bernie Sanders' mike in Seattle, perhaps Democrats saw the possibility of a new battalion in their assembly of militias. But I think "the mass of the general electorate" saw spineless Democrats getting run over by loudmouths. (The opposite is Reagan's "I paid for this microphone" moment.)

By my reckoning a sign of this is here:

GOP turnout confounds pollsters in Georgia election

The surge of Republican voters even surprised the only public pollster to predict Karen Handel as the winner.

...Pollsters say sky-high turnout drove Handel, the GOP nominee, to a nearly 4-point victory on Tuesday, despite most pre-election surveys showing Ossoff with a small-but-shrinking lead.

Unlike in some other races, however, it wasn’t because Democratic voters didn’t show up. More than 259,000 votes have been tallied as of Wednesday afternoon, considerably more than the 193,000 votes in the first round of voting in April.

In fact, turnout was much higher than for other off-year special elections in recent history. Typically, between 100,000 and 225,000 voters turn out for special elections like the one held on Tuesday in Atlanta’s northern suburbs, where both parties compete.

John Anzalone, Ossoff’s pollster, said the Democrat’s campaign succeeded in turning out its voters — but they were swamped by Republicans who came out in numbers that ended up dwarfing previous high-profile special elections, like those in which former Reps. Mark Critz (D-Pa.) and Travis Childers (D-Miss.) were successful in the past decade.

“This has much more to do with a historic turnout — 260,000 people, 40,000 more than a midterm — in a special election, which is normally a very restrictive universe,” said Anzalone, who added that the more than two months between the initial vote on April 18 and Tuesday’s runoff gave Republicans time to organize. “At the end of the day with 260,000 people voting, we just ran out of Democrats and independents.”

(Short pause to mock Anzalone's excuse that "the more than two months between the initial vote on April 18 and Tuesday’s runoff gave Republicans time to organize," as if Democrats weren't allowed to organize during that time.)

The turnout surge surprised the only public pollster to predict Handel as the winner: the Atlanta-based Trafalgar Group, which released a poll the day before the election showing the Republican 2 points ahead. Trafalgar’s Robert Cahaly said Wednesday that their turnout prediction was “in the 230 [thousand] range” and that the surge of additional voters boosted Handel.

“When turnout starts going up that high, and people start coming out of the woodwork to vote,” Cahaly said, “it moves back to the [natural] alignment of the district.”

Cahaly added that, in his view, Handel and Republican outside groups also drove turnout by nationalizing the race. In addition, pollsters in both parties suggested Handel gained additional momentum following the shootings in Virginia last week at congressional Republicans’ baseball practice.

“It’s not that people were like, ‘Oh, this terrible tragedy happened to Republicans. We’re going to rally around Republicans,’” Cahaly said. “[But] it kind of galvanized these folks. And we watched her percentages of Republicans go from the high 70s to over 85 over the weekend. Republicans were definitely consolidating behind her.”

Something drove up GOP turnout. In my opinion it was anti-Democrat sentiment. The Dems got their anti-Trump voters out, but were swamped by the anti-Democrats.

Cahaly notes a supposed surge after the Scalise shooting, but such spectacular offenses often have little effect on the general electoral temperament. The shooting of Rep. Giffords is instructive on the point.

But I think Hodgkinson's politically motivated violence crystallized a public perception of the Democrats that hasn't been a secret. Here's Democratic leader John Burton, again:

We're Democrats and we approve this message.

Cali-f-Trump-js-300x224.jpg

We're the voters of Georgia, and we do not.

[Norm dePlume]

Do you know the significance of the "under $200" point as it pertains to "small donations?"

I believe it means that each individual donation was less than $200. But feel free to give my your version.

[Newman]

You change "nothing of the kind" to "nothing to be learned"? You are hopeless.

That soft shoe sidestep was yours, Norm. Your dogged efforts to deny the obvious is a challenge, but you're clearly up to it.