An 18 point shift in a seat R's have won since 1978 is a damn good showing!

[LBM20]

Last edited Wed Jun 21, 2017, 05:26 AM - Edit history (1)

We all knew it would be VERY hard for a Dem to win this seat. Remember, this is NOT a purple district. It is a RELIABLY RED district that R's have won BIG since the late 70's. The R won it by 23 points in November. This time they had to fight like hell to keep it. See the big picture. These Democratic over-performances and Republican under-performances in these deep red reliable Republican districts DO bode well for the party.

As to immediate factors that hurt Ossoff: not living exactly inside the district hurt, the fact the R's nationalized it and called him a Nancy Pelosi Liberal over and over again, and the weather seemed to have hurt D's more than R's. Still, a damn good big picture showing all things considered.

Don't be too disappointed. Keep reforming the party, keep organizing, keep strong, keep fighting. It is HARD to flip deep red reliably Republican seats with large Republican registration advantages.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. Absolutely. Democrats and DU need to stop beating themselves up. They "done good". . . nt

[LBM20]

3. Right. In fact doing what do what so many have been screaming for: Fighting hard EVERYWHERE.

If you're gonna fight EVERYWHERE, you have to expect losses. But you still FIGHT. That is the 50 state strategy which everyone has been screaming for.

[Demsrule86]

2. We all knew it was a heavy lift...but we gave it our best shot...the Carolina race was too close

for them too...we have to remember the House is gerrymandered. Also I used to live in that district. It is very red...it was as we all know Newt Gingrich's old seat. We have to keep fighting, but recognize that losing 16 was terrible and there will be consequences...not just the presidency but the senate as well. It is going to be tough.

[oberliner]

4. Jon Ossoff got fewer votes than the Democratic candidate who lost the district to Tom Price in 2016.

Hillary only lost the district by 1 point (Trump won there 48-47).

And Ossoff's campaign was flush with donations and outside funding, not to mention high profile support from a wide variety of folks across the country, including celebrities.

[LBM20]

5. This was a special election run-off. ALL turnout was down on a very rainy day to boot. You have to

look comparably. It doesn't matter that Hillary only lost to Trump by 2%. Price won by 23 points. R presidential candidates other than Trump win big. It has been red since '78.

[oberliner]

6. OK

I definitely appreciate the desire to find a silver lining in this result.

[LBM20]

18. Please tell me how it was ever going to be easy to win this very red district? It is very hard.

[oberliner]

19. It was never going to be easy

But a LOT of money poured into the Ossoff campaign. And there is (I would think) serious Trump-fatigue even among Republicans. Also Handel was a terrible candidate. It definitely felt like if ever there was an opportunity, this was it.

[Motownman78]

30. Trump fatigue is not

enough yet to turn a R +22 district. Wait until he gets around 30% in the polls. People hate admitting they made a mistake. Look at all the CYA in the workplace.

[FBaggins]

31. It isn't an R+22 district

Closer to R+8

[Motownman78]

45. If it is R+8

Why did the Dem lose by 22% in 2016?

[FBaggins]

52. Because there was an incumbent running against a nobody

Really... nobody had ever heard of the opponent. Hr didn't have a campaign, or website, fundraising/advertising.

On edit - it turns out that GA-6 actually IS R+8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Your title is DECEPTIVE. Only 24 votes fewer. Republicon got 66,500 votes fewer.

Your headline is DECEPTIVE. Democrats did VERY WELL. I don't know why you have to try to trick us.

Karen Handel . . 134,595 51.9%
Jon Ossoff . . . 124,893 48.1%
Total 259,488 100%

Compare to 2016:

Tom Price . . 201,088 61.7
Rodney Stooksbury . . 124,917 38.3
Total votes 326,005 100.00

[Persisted]

8. Deceptive? You don't say! I'm shocked, shocked. nt

[oberliner]

10. What was deceptive about the title

Can you elaborate?

[Persisted]

11. Kindly direct your inquiries to the poster who made the

claim.

[oberliner]

15. Thanks

I responded to that poster, as well. I just was wondering what your take was.

[Persisted]

35. I don't think my take could have been clearer. nt

[oberliner]

38. OK

Thanks for the response. All the best!

[oberliner]

9. Not at all

In fact, your second sentence confirms that my title is accurate.

In spite of massive amounts of spending and huge national attention, the Democratic candidate in this election received viewer votes than the Democratic candidate in the last election.

Fewer Republicans turned out for the Republican candidate, this time around, but still more than enough for her to win.

I don't understand how anyone can view this result positively, though I understand the desire to do so.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. Your accurate title is deceptive and uselessly depressive. . . . nt

[oberliner]

21. In no way is it it deceptive, but it is depressing

I really thought we were going to win this one, and I am very disappointed that we didn't.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

24. Your title is deceptive because it is less than a half truth. About a third truth.

It doesn't tell the important story. It obscures and hides the good news.

Yes, a defeat is not the best result. Yes, we had hoped to win.

But you think we were going to win does not warrant you shitting on Ossoff for getting 24 fewer votes. ** Your expectations do not trump a greatly IMPROVED result. **

If you are going to crap on Ossoff like that, then the fault is not with Ossoff, but with your expectations.

[oberliner]

28. The title is 100 percent true

It makes no other claim than what it claims. You might be reading other things into it, but they aren't there.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

33. Only as far as it goes. It goes less than half way to the whole truth, to the important truth. . nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

23. "view this result positively": Your quest for perfection is the enemy of the good.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

Oil tankers don't turn on a dime.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

"I don't understand how anyone can view this result positively,". IT IS A VERY LARGE IMPROVEMENT. The Democrats were much more effective at all measures, including GETTING OUT THE VOTE in higher percentages than the Republicons were able to.

What you are doing is like the coach in this analogy:

A runner (analogous to Democrat candidates in the district) runs some mile races and the winner regularly wins with times of 4:00 +/- a few seconds while our runner comes in at about 4:50. Then in the latest race the runner comes in at 4:20 and the winner at 4:18. The coach (analogous to you) shouts at the runner "You ran an awful race. You're a disgrace. There is nothing positive about your performance."

You are that bad coach.

Please stop coaching like that. It is counterproductive.

[oberliner]

27. I am someone who cannot believe that Trump is POTUS

And that Republicans still back him after everything.

It is just startling to me that the Trump candidate, and a poor one at that, can't be defeated despite all of the fundraising and our best efforts.

I am not trying to be a "coach" - I am running this race as much as anyone, and I am sick of losing.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

34. I believe Republican tRump is potus because that is reality.

If you are sick of losing, then don't crap on the Democrat brave enough to run in a very Republican district.

Newt Gingrich beat Democrats there by losing twice before winning. He didn't have the defeatist perfectionist attitude you are exhibiting in your posts in this thread.

Ossoff got the best result for a Democrat in decades.

[oberliner]

39. I admire Jon Ossoff and appreciate all the hard work that went into his campaign

If I am crapping on anyone, it is the voters of Georgia 6.

[Egnever]

46. in a special election

they had almost the same turnout as in a general election. While the republicans had your typical drop off. That shows pretty clearly the enthusiasm difference.

Dems over performed.

That is a win.

[oberliner]

47. It's not a win

Karen Handel is going to Congress - so that'd be a loss.

For it to be a win, we needed more than just the same turnout. One would think that considering the Ossoff campaign broke fundraising and spending records that he would have had more people vote for him than the candidate who ran last time and who spent, literally, no money.

[Egnever]

48. Sorry that is just nonsense

"Although Mr. Ossoff’s campaign far outraised Ms. Handel’s, she had much more outside support from party committees and “super PACs.” These groups spent more than $25 million on the race, primarily on advertising against the other side.

An Atlanta television station added a 7 p.m. newscast to profit from the deluge of ads in the race."

He raised more but her supporters in the form of pacs actually spent more.

And again Dems turned out and or republicans flipped and Republicans stayed home in a deep red district. It never should have been as close as it was and that is a win.

It was a lost cause from the beginning the fact that it was as close as it was is amazing.

[oberliner]

50. OK

I understand the desire to view this positively.

But the upshot is that Handel is going to Congress, which is not the outcome I was hoping for, so I'm not happy.

[Egnever]

53. I would say your expectations were unrealistic

I get wanting to actually win the seat but we never had a good shot at that.

A slim chance maybe but realistically it was a huge Longshot.

[oberliner]

55. June 9: Poll: Dem Ossoff leads by 7 in Georgia House race

Democrat Jon Ossoff is leading Republican Karen Handel by 7 points in Georgia’s House special election, according to a new poll, 51 percent to 44 percent.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign-polls/337089-poll-dem-ossoff-leads-by-7-in-georgia-house-race

Polls generally showed Ossoff leading in the weeks leading up to the election.

[cubbies01]

13. Wow

Not true at all and poor spinning to mention Trump number. It's what the republicans are gleefully spinning (that Ossoff did worse)

Fact: 7 months ago the Democrat lost by 23 points to Tom Price
Fact: In a special election on a rainy June day, the Democrat got 124k votes. In November Presidential election the Democrat got less votes 119k votes
Fact: Handel got 134k votes in special election, while Price got 191k votes, 56,000 more.

Those numbers (191k down to 134k for Republicans and Democrats going up 119k to 124k) say a lot.

Truth is we had a ridiculously hard challenge in KS, MT, and GA. We should have tempered expectations more and stressed how tough it is going to be vs unbridled and unchecked enthusiasm that turns to disillusion.

[oberliner]

16. Of course it is true

Look up the numbers. In 2014, Stooksbury got 124,917 voters; yesterday Ossoff got 124,893. That means the last Democratic candidate got more votes than Ossoff.

And there is no "spinning" to mention the Trump number. It indicates that the district, thankfully, is trending Democratic.

Fact: Fundraising for Ossoff was record breaking.
Fact: Ossoff had the backing of major political figures as well as high profile celebrities.
Fact: Polls showed Ossoff holding a lead going into election day.

This was a disappointing result. There was real hope that Ossoff was going to win. This was a very significant election, and it's worth reflecting on - and thinking about how best to move forward as a result.

[rockfordfile]

49. No I don't think so

It's a republican district. Clearly the close election is because of the hate for Trumpf. It was a long shot for Jon Ossoff. I like Jon Ossoff good candidate. Too much squid-billy in the area.

[oberliner]

51. It is literally true that Ossoff got fewer votes than the Democrat who ran in 2016

It's an indisputable fact.

[FBaggins]

36. That, too, is deceptive

Incumbents REGULARLY outperform someone from the same party running for an open seat. That's why parties focus so hard on open seats.

Also - incumbents in comparatively safe seats rarely get legitimate opponents who are well-financed - and thus their margin of victory is significantly outsized.

Looking at the Clinton/Trump numbers for the same district is not an illegitimate way to evaluate this race. It's certainly closer to "generic R vs. generic D" than looking at a blowout by an incumbent against someone with no name recognition and no fundraising.

For context - read this article from November:

http://www.cbs46.com/story/33632482/who-is-the-ghost-candidate-for-us-6th-district

ATLANTA (CBS46) - Voters are questioning "who is the Democrat U.S. representative 6th district candidate, Rodney Stooksbury?" He is on the Georgia ticket up against Republican Tom Price. Yet, he is virtually unknown. Stooksbury has no candidate picture, website, Facebook, Twitter nor LinkedIn account.

CBS46 went to the address registered to Stooksbury and no answer. We spoke with neighbors who say they've never even heard of him. One voter expresses her frustration on why the candidate would even run? "You would think for a Congressional race, someone who is on the ballot would take it a little more seriously," Emily Novik tells us.

There have been no campaign signs spotted with Rodney Stooksbury's name on it. Voters question if Stooksbury even exists.

[The Genealogist]

32. So what is your suggestion for this?

I am just curious. You've intimated that this is a shameful outcome this was for the Dems. Looks to me like Dems performed quite competitively in a ruby-red district in an election where Republicans had to pump beaucoup bucks into the race to hold a seat no Democrat has held since Jimmy Carter was president. I'd say it was a damned good showing, Trump or not.

I ask you: what, in your opinion, could the Dems have been done better?

[oberliner]

40. Here's my take

We lost this one, and it sucks. There was an opportunity to win this seat. It would have been a big deal if we did win it, and it would have given me some optimism for the midterms. A lot of money and work went into this campaign, and the Republican was an especially weak candidate, but we were unable to pull it off.

I guess, I just want to acknowledge the reality that this was not a good outcome, and to recognize that. It does not necessarily mean that we should do anything differently next time, but I think it is important to have an awareness what we are up against.

[Buckeyeblue]

12. I agree but i find it perplexing

That the Rs continue to have any support. We have a president who has proven himself to be absolutely incompetent and overly corrupt in less than 6 months. We have a congress that wants to gut everything, all of the safety nets, for everyone. And yet people still turn out to vote for them. They want the country to go down this path.

And make no mistake, winning last night would not have changed a thing I don't think.

But the turn out to vote R makes me wonder even more about my country.

[Blue_Roses]

26. It's those damn tax cuts

that they want.

[atreides1]

29. It's more then that

Add in bigotry, religious fanaticism, even a smattering of racism...with those tax cuts, and you have the basic Republican automaton!

[Blue_Roses]

37. Yes, so true

nt

[bresue]

14. I agree...we have to see the big picture!

So many new voters enthused and willing to work harder! One point not brought out is: the Dems gained a large group of enthusiastic activists and voters who have never been interested before. Rubs gained none...the Rubs who voted were registered voters who have always voted Rub.

[TNNurse]

17. I had hope

but I had too much hope in a district that tolerated Gingrich and Price.

[Madam45for2923]

22. PLUS there was some vote suppression type of shenanigans courtesy of Handle.

[Blue_Roses]

25. Yes it is!!

In Georgia of all states, no less!

[jcmaine72]

41. Since 1978? Sorry, but no, that isn't all that impressive.

If that 18 point shift occurred over 4 years instead of a whopping 40, maybe there would be ample cause for optimism. But FOUR FULL decades? C'mon.

What next, are we going to start analyzing point shifts and voter trends dating back to the 1860's in order to make ourselves feel better? Sorry, but this isn't the way to do it. If we want to start feeling better as Democrats we need to start winning elections. End of discussion. To do that we need to start fighting fire with fire. There are no moral victories in politics...only victories.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

42. Your supposed fact is not a fact. It's a 20 point swing in 8 months. Not 40 years.

Look it up.

[jcmaine72]

43. Hey, maybe I misread the OP, but that's essentially what it seems like they were peddling.

[L. Coyote]

44. Ans WOW did we ever make them pay heavily to just hang on to what they already had.

Link to tweet

[killbotfactory]

54. We are making republicans fight in deep red districts.

And we're building up party infrastructure by not writing off hard-to-win districts.

This is a good thing.

It would be awesome if we won one of them, but we're not doomed because we lost them.

[Jim Beard]

56. I really like hearing the positive facts and how we can improve.

For a while around here, it was sounding like the republicans were starting all the downer threads. Keep a good attitude but work.