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

[Norm dePlume]

Now if you asked about the $2700 limit per donor per candidate, I would say the significance is that you can give that much directly to the candidate's campaign organization. If you want to give more than that, you'll have to give it to a PAC or SuperPAC, which is not supposed to coordinate their efforts with the candidate's campaign. Handel had much more PAC money supporting her candidacy.

[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.

On election day, November 2, 2010, Greene lost to DeMint by a margin of 63% to 28%, with Green Party candidate Tom Clements receiving 9% of the vote.

The winner, Jim DeMint, spent 5.4 million overrated dollars on his winning campaign.

[Lady Marva]

Handel had much more PAC money supporting her candidacy.

Small individual donations are somehow much more righteous no matter how much the total amount of spending...........................

[Newman]

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:

And sometimes "spectacular offenses" are cathartic.

John Kennedy was not doing terribly well before his assassination. But his death sparked an eruption of admiration for the positives he embodied, including youth ("the torch has been passed...."), ambition ("before this decade is out...."), and optimism (the Peace Corps). The American voters, in handing LBJ a clear landslide, were in effect laying a wreath at JFK's tomb.

That was a "wave" election, and launched a generation of liberal policies, for good and ill.

In 2015 almost everyone underestimated the anti-establishment discontent of "Middle America" that led to Trump's upset victory last fall, even though it had been brewing for many years. It was always derisively dismissed by the cognoscenti, those "steeped in the complexities of public policy," as one conceited "journalist" put it.

They still underestimate it, but I think it arose again in GA 6.

[Lady Marva]

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.)


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.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]911[/ATTACH]

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

Agree. Voters are watching the crudeness and rudeness and violence.

[Norm dePlume]

Small individual donations are somehow much more righteous no matter how much the total amount of spending...........................

It's almost as if democracy involves getting greater numbers of supporters behind a particular candidate or something.

[Newman]

Now if you asked about the $2700 limit per donor per candidate, I would say the significance is that you can give that much directly to the candidate's campaign organization. If you want to give more than that, you'll have to give it to a PAC or SuperPAC, which is not supposed to coordinate their efforts with the candidate's campaign. Handel had much more PAC money supporting her candidacy.

Another significant ceiling is $250, at which point you get listed as a donor. (Below that you are anonymous, more or less.)

[Newman]

It's almost as if democracy involves getting greater numbers of supporters behind a particular candidate or something.

Does this apply to Bernie and Hillary?

[Norm dePlume]

And sometimes "spectacular offenses" are cathartic.

John Kennedy was not doing terribly well before his assassination. But his death sparked an eruption of admiration for the positives he embodied, including youth ("the torch has been passed...."), ambition ("before this decade is out...."), and optimism (the Peace Corps). The American voters, in handing LBJ a clear landslide, were in effect laying a wreath at JFK's tomb.

That was a "wave" election, and launched a generation of liberal policies, for good and ill.

In 2015 almost everyone underestimated the anti-establishment discontent of "Middle America" that led to Trump's upset victory last fall, even though it had been brewing for many years. It was always derisively dismissed by the cognoscenti, those "steeped in the complexities of public policy," as one conceited "journalist" put it.

They still underestimate it, but I think it arose again in GA 6.

Yes, the former County Commissioner, former Georgia Secretary of State, and former Senate candidate was the anti-establishment candidate.

[Norm dePlume]

Does this apply to Bernie and Hillary?

Are you now going to claim that votes are overrated?

[Newman]

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.

Are you now going to claim that votes are overrated?

And you accuse me of twisting your words?

[Newman]

Yes, the former County Commissioner, former Georgia Secretary of State, and former Senate candidate was the anti-establishment candidate.

Are you being deliberately thick?

The wave of GOP votes that buried Ossoff was not a surge of affection for Handel. She was, as you point out, a long known quantity. Something else accounts for it.

I say it's not the Scalise shooting alone, but a crystallization of anti-Democrat sentiment that lay dormant through the earlier polls.

[Norm dePlume]

And you accuse me of twisting your words?

It might have escaped your incredibly dim attention, but I had the courtesy to ask you if you were going to make that statement. I didn't tell you that you had. It's more and more clear that you lack even the tiniest sliver of honesty.

[80zephyr]

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
(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.)


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.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]911[/ATTACH]

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

And the bigger problem is, is when you cater to minorities, they want to see you put your actions into words. The white democrats want to stay in power, only needing the minorities for votes. Now, these minorities are demanding that they get some of that power as well.

Bwhahahahaha!! Being displaced by the very people you are trying to "help".

Mark

[80zephyr]

Are you being deliberately thick?

The wave of GOP votes that buried Ossoff was not a surge of affection for Handel. She was, as you point out, a long known quantity. Something else accounts for it.

I say it's not the Scalise shooting alone, but a crystallization of anti-Democrat sentiment that lay dormant through the earlier polls.

Hopefully, the silent majority is no longer silent.

Mark