Bam Bam Baklava
Member
The national polls in the presidential election were more accurate than in 2012 and missed Clinton's lead by only 1 point.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Georgia's 6th Congressional District Special Election |OT| Round 2: Fight!
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
The national polls in the presidential election were more accurate than in 2012 and missed Clinton's lead by only 1 point.
GoldenEye 007
Member
How much did the GOP spend in GA6?
PataHikari
Banned
http://resistancereport.com/politics/georgia-special-election/
Gerrymandering is also suppression, especially when it leads to confusion like your neighbor being able to vote in a district and you can't.
The fuck? No, this is not a case of voter suppression. Dist 6 is comfortably republican, and not for reasons of voter suppression. It's great, amazing even, that Ossoff did as well as he did here.
Edit: ^ fair enough I suppose.
Lord Frieza
Member
Dems flipped two red state house seats that's never been blue, so that was good.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
Why even fucking bother with polling at all when the margin of error is close 10 percent?
None. Guy lost by so much the few that stayed dry because of the storm wouldn't have swung things.
I don't know the area but why was so much money and attention thrown into this particular race? People are saying it was R+20 and has been held for 40 years - why even bother? After all the hype over it, a big loss like this would surely have a depressing effect on future liberal voter turnout no? Seems this was more damaging than helpful trying to grab this 1 seat.
Tarkus
Member
I see rich whites in Johns Creek, some of Alpharetta, and in Milton. Not really anywhere else
I mean, it's another filthy R in office so yea, things are worse.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Being cautiously optimistic, but I don't reasonably see how Trump wins a second term. It would require one or both of the following to occur:
1. Republicans come out in greater numbers than last time
2. Democrats come out in fewer numbers than last time
And while voting suppression tactics are a legitimate concern, I wouldn't think that it would be enough to counteract disappointment by Republicans and concern by Democrats. Democrats know he can win because he has won, where they didn't have that concern last year.
It's an R in office filling in for an R in office. In the simplest terms, that's breaking even. But when you examine the nuance of the situation, it's an R who had to fight to win a hard-R district.
1. Republicans come out in greater numbers than last time
2. Democrats come out in fewer numbers than last time
And while voting suppression tactics are a legitimate concern, I wouldn't think that it would be enough to counteract disappointment by Republicans and concern by Democrats. Democrats know he can win because he has won, where they didn't have that concern last year.
It's an R in office filling in for an R in office. In the simplest terms, that's breaking even. But when you examine the nuance of the situation, it's an R who had to fight to win a hard-R district.
madstarr12
Member
Awful, deplorables win again for now.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
It's not like the people in Roswell are suddenly poor.
Lord Frieza
Member
About the same as the Dems, 20-25 million. But their money came mostly from the RNCC and SuperPACS, and there was some fundraisers from Trump and Pence.
don't worry guys we'll get the "moderate" suburban republicans to vote democrat next time
it's never worked in the past and even if trump somehow manages to alienate them once they'll obviously go back to republicans once he's gone but i just have this feeling that if we raise enough money from the financial services and defense industries we can absolutely lose by even closer margins next time
it's never worked in the past and even if trump somehow manages to alienate them once they'll obviously go back to republicans once he's gone but i just have this feeling that if we raise enough money from the financial services and defense industries we can absolutely lose by even closer margins next time
Merchandise
Member
A bit less than Dem but this was like the most expensive rando election, so
Here
Edit: This one is better. Ossof raised a bunch, Handel got $$$GOP$$$
PataHikari
Banned
This election was a referendum on Trump and the current Congress's policy.
Their victory means that they are now considered "in the right" and will continue pressing on without fear, meaning that Republicans with doubts will have said doubts assuaged instead of confirmed. So any sort of lingering resistance against killing people and serving as Putin's puppet are gone.
Lord Frieza
Member
Because Donald Trump only won it by 1.5 points, and Ossoff almost won the seat outright back in April (he was just 2 points short, I think).
Funny how that works. Of course the referendum was held in a strong R district. Maybe we should have another one in Brooklyn? Wonder who'd win there?!?
SolarPowered
Member
I'm getting teary eyed just reading this post. The acid burns.
You're right.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Actually the republican side spent a lot more money :
https://twitter.com/mjbeckel/status/877293833096220672?s=09
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
A Link to the Past
Banned
There are issues with this.
1. It assumes that Trump's unpopularity levels have hit a floor.
2. It ignores that despite the win, it was a win that shouldn't have needed to be close at all. Republican strategists will still identify this situation as one where supporting Trump does carry risks.
Escape Goat
Member
But the seat was already held by an R.
They still strongly support him in polls : the supporters, the voters and the leadership of the party. It's a strong hypothesis if the trends continues, especially if the Dems don't try to build a serious alternative that isn't just "let's go back to what was before Trump". It won't work.
PataHikari
Banned
It being in a Red district was why it was a referendum.
Republicans in Congress needed to be shown that their actions would cost them support in previously safe areas.
Instead, it's been shown that their gerrymandering and suppression hold strong, so no need to worry, stay the course.
Merchandise
Member
Yes that's like interest money. Poor people donated a lot more to Ossof.
Well, he isn't wrong.
TheCochese
Banned
Link is bullshit.
Durwoody ring a bell?
Pretty much everything north of the river in Fulton is rich and white. Like, 70% and double the median household income wealthy.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
"Also, congrats to what's her name. Doorknob?"
repeating the losing strategy that cost us the easiest presidential election in history sure worked out well
but who wants to try new things after massive repeated failures right? we should definitely just keep throwing money at the same consultants and lobbyists who got us into this situation to begin with
Nothing personal. Keep the positive vibes alive. Until next time my friend!
The Albatross
Member
Not sure if this is a joke account, but I don't think that anybody is ignoring those results. I mean, Donald Trump is president today.
But, FWIW, Trump won those swing states by a smaller percentage than Clinton won the popular vote. I have an uncle who was bragging about how Clinton barely won the popular vote and so it shouldn't even be a footnote in the election, and I was like, well... If Clinton barely won the popular vote at 2.1%, then what were Trump's victories in Florida (+1.2%), Michigan (+0.23%), Pennsylvania (0.72%), Wisconsin (0.77%), which are the states that won him the election.
Those 75 electoral seats rested on an average margin of victory of 0.73%.
So Ossoff's margin actually got worse then?
A Link to the Past
Banned
It is an ineffective and ultimately bad approach to take, but "be afraid" is a valid thing to say to voters. Trump is scary, and voters are scared of him - enough of them on the left anyway. He certainly isn't winning over independents or moderates. And yeah, for certain, the Dems need to be able to prop up someone who can win over the hearts of the left like Obama did, but even an establishment candidate could effectively outdo Trump in 2020 just by the virtue of people wanting Trump out of office. This would be a bad approach for the longterm, but I don't think Trump can reasonably win even if there is an unpopular candidate.
Plus, the job performance polling is showing that he's bleeding supporters (presumably the fence-sitting moderates and independents).
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
Americans as a whole would rather see people die in the street than pay taxes. There is a strong undercurrent of delusional meritocratic fantasy in this country, where people believe they work hard whether they do or not and anyone who has less than they do is simply lazy. That line wasn't going to hurt her.
Dems really need to get through our heads that elections are popularity contests. For as passionate as the party and his supporters were about him, the candidate himself was bland as plain toast.
Stop coalescing behind candidates that are some mean data point of agreeable and safe; The overriding concern needs to be "Is this person interesting? Can they express their platform and fire back at opponents without making it sound like a regurgitated volley of canned talking points? Can they sit in the middle of a room and tell a story to a crowd in a way that conveys and elicits some genuine fucking emotion?"
I don't know why the party keeps king-making candidates that can't pass muster on these sorts of basic-ass guidelines.
Stop coalescing behind candidates that are some mean data point of agreeable and safe; The overriding concern needs to be "Is this person interesting? Can they express their platform and fire back at opponents without making it sound like a regurgitated volley of canned talking points? Can they sit in the middle of a room and tell a story to a crowd in a way that conveys and elicits some genuine fucking emotion?"
I don't know why the party keeps king-making candidates that can't pass muster on these sorts of basic-ass guidelines.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Here is a radical idea
You put the candidate in each district based on the populations ideals and try to win around that!
Whoa, I wonder what type of strategy this would be called???
Yes, these rich affluent people would have absolutely accepted the populist message of a true liberal. It's true because I believe it!
Lev
Member
I get your point but they don't make the majority of republican voters. It's the poor and middle class whites.
Because the far left only understands outrage,and purity, not strategy
The last race they were coming planning the DNC didn't do enough. I'm sure that's the case here again, despite the funding.
What republican strategists think are worthless. They advised reaching out to minority groups after 2012. Instead, they doubled down on a white supremacist and won! Why would you ever listen to a strategost ever again? The more vile they act, the more invigorated the base becomes.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked