A Dem further to the left would NOT have won GA-6. Ossoff got about as close as possible for a Dem.

[LBM20]

Ossoff was damn smart not to make the race about Trump and instead to make it about the lives of the people in the district, and a Dem further to the left sure as hell would never have come as close to winning that seat as Ossoff because that Dem would not have fit the district and would not have been able to put the coalition together that damn near won the seat.

Ossoff knew the district and played it just about right as a fiscal moderate to conservative and a social moderate to progressive. That is an affluent fiscally conservative district. He focused on the message of being a fresh outsider and economic development tailored to the district.

No Dem was ever EXPECTED to win that DEEP RED district. It was possible, but not probable. A strong Dem campaign was expected to get close, and the expectation was met. And it was damn right to try hard because THAT is the 50 state strategy and we need to compete everywhere.

This is a big country, and one-size-fits-all-ism does not work. If you want to be competitive in some of these purple and redder districts, you need candidates suited to the district. That doesn't mean Republican Lite, but it does mean Democratic Different. Core populist principles of an economy and government that work for ALL the people should be a commonality, but beyond that there has to be some flexibility. For example, John Bel Edwards in Louisiana is a social conservative and an economic moderate to progressive. And THAT is the kind of candidate that can win the governorship of Louisiana. A social liberal would never stand a chance in Louisiana. But Edwards is not Republican lite. He is far more progressive on the economic issues than the Republicans. He is a Democrat who fits that state.

[FBaggins]

1. If that's as close as possible for a democrst

How did Clinton do better?

[LBM20]

4. No, Ossoff got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton. Let me explain:

Remember, Johnson got some of the vote. Clinton was less than 47%, and Ossoff got just over 48%. Also, Trump was a strange candidate that no doubt spooked a good number of the socially moderate people in the district, such as the women, including some Republican women. So Trump's low number was really a historic outlier. If you look at McCain and Romney, they won the district with over 60% of the vote. And remember, the congressional seat it has been DEEP RED since 1979.

[FBaggins]

17. "Close" is how close you are to winning... not raw percentages

Another very reasonable standard is The pre-election polling. It's clear that he could have come closer, since he actually led by several percent in a number of pre-election polls.

[Blue_true]

2. Your OP.

Doesn't match up to the fairy dust, revisionist mindset. The claim is that loud loudly embracing singer payer and free college tuition is the path to victory. Three Democratic special election candidates did exactly that before Ossoff and lost by larger bargains in red districts. The people
making that claim ignore that reality.

[LBM20]

6. Right. Single payer and free tuition work in SOME places but NOT in others.

[Voltaire2]

13. A fair point, but the other elections did not get

financial support on the scale that we saw in GA6.

[LonePirate]

3. Ossoff was the Daily Kos backed candidate long before the jungle primary.

Nobody will ever mistake Daily Kos for a centrist group.

[LBM20]

5. Because they wanted a shot at a win, not because Ossoff was a far left progressive.

[Takket]

7. to me that election just showed runnnig in deep red districts/states is a waste of time

we could run a bucket of water against a can of gas and if the red state voters were on fire, they would still vote gas.

[LBM20]

8. So you don't believe in the 50 state strategy? Don't you think we should compete everywhere and

put them on defense and make them earn it? I do. How else can we be a national party? I think a Dem could eventually win that seat, but you have to build it up over time. And there will be more demographic shifts as well. It was totally worth it. You have to compete everywhere even if you know you will lose in some places. We have got to stop just writing places off.

Keith Ellison says we need to run hard in all 3000+ counties in the country, regardless of how red. He has said it over and over again.

[Takket]

10. nope

and i was a MAJOR proponent of the 50 state strategy until the recent special elections. we ran HARD in GA06, outspent Handle by what, 5:1? with a horrifically unpopular president that is a russian agent, and still came up short. The conditions are NEVER going to be more ripe to flip that seat.

the only party on the defensive is the dems. we have no say in federal government, the right completely controls 30+ state legislatures and governorship. How can we even being invading red territory until we solidify our own territory and begin flipping purple states? And purple states are GOING to flip, but we need to be smart about where we use the resources we have. GA06 was a referendum on the 50 state strategy and the results were: improved, but still a waste.

[LBM20]

14. Well, I disagree. We need to compete hard everywhere and put them on defense everywhere.

[BannonsLiver]

9. What it showed me

Was that expectations were way out of whack vs. the reality of the situation.

[LBM20]

16. The expectation in these deep red districts was that we would get closer but winning was unlikely.

[BannonsLiver]

19. It was for me and you

But there were plenty of people here, and more importantly, plenty in the national media who hyped this up like it was a Super Bowl.

[m-lekktor]

11. well, I assumed Hillary Clinton was going to trounce trump last November and since I

was completely off on that one, I gave up assuming I could predict election outcomes. sometimes i don't think it is the old left vs right thing anymore. but, like i said, after this last election i gave up thinking i can predict election outcomes.

[Voltaire2]

12. Well we know for a fact that a center right Democrat list.

We can speculate about how a left populist Democrat might have done.

[LBM20]

15. We know for sure that he got very close in a DEEP RED district, so let's please get real.

[kentuck]

18. Probably correct.

Democrats have to run in their districts. They cannot run on a national agenda.