DescentBB

Since the Dems made a big deal out of the GA congressional election, dumped 30 million dollars into it and said a Dem win would somehow be a referendum against Trump...I guess the Dems can officially crawl under a rock because the election was a a big supporting win for the Trump presidency. I know it must be a bitter bill for slick to swallow given as much as he was boasting last year about how the Dems were a mighty unstoppable machine. Now they are reduce to a leggo construct that can't win a dog catchers race. Too bad the Repub. don't understand they are in charge.

GA-06 2014: R 66%, D 34%
GA-06 2016: R 62%, D 38%
GA-06 2017: R 52%, D 48%

This was almost a +30% R district a couple years ago. It was a +25% R district just last year. It was a +4% R district yesterday.

Except the Dems were proclaiming they would win and it would be a slap in the face of Trump.

I don't think many dems proclaimed they would win. Most that I saw said they could win, and some were a bit skeptical. I also think it's a bit weird to say losing 20 points in 6 months is some sort of Trump vindication.

Vander wrote:I don't think many dems proclaimed they would win. Most that I saw said they could win, and some were a bit skeptical. I also think it's a bit weird to say losing 20 points in 6 months is some sort of Trump vindication.

LOL... I loved your use of stats while leaving out the fact that it was a SPECIAL election which is nominally much much LOWER turnout than normal or general elections.

Either way, it was a major OSS-kicking.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/2 ... del-239778

What's your point? I also left out that D turnout is usually lower than R turnout in off year elections.

GA-06 2014 total votes: 210,500
GA-06 2016 total votes: 326,000
GA-06 2017 total votes: 259,500

GA-06 2014 total R votes: 139,000
GA-06 2014 total D votes: 71,500

GA-06 2016 total R votes: 201,000
GA-06 2016 total D votes: 125,000

GA-06 2017 total R votes: 134,600
GA-06 2017 total D votes: 124,900

BTW this election had a 50% turn out. A large turn out by voters no matter how you look at it. also it had the most money donated for this size election (50 million). So Vander, unless you are deliberately obfuscating, the prior elections are meaningless.

woodchip wrote:Since the Dems made a big deal out of the GA congressional election, dumped 30 million dollars into it and said a Dem win would somehow be a referendum against Trump...I guess the Dems can officially crawl under a rock because the election was a a big supporting win for the Trump presidency. I know it must be a bitter bill for slick to swallow given as much as he was boasting last year about how the Dems were a mighty unstoppable machine. Now they are reduce to a leggo construct that can't win a dog catchers race. Too bad the Repub. don't understand they are in charge.

note how Slick never mentioned it. I felt it was a fools errand for the Dems, that diluted focus from putting together a unified message. Told them as much when they solicited funds for the race in Georgia, posted my reservations on FB. No, I'm not the least upset at the outcome, it was pretty much what I expected after the runoff outcome. The only chance they had was to jump the runoff and take 50.1% then, not in a one-on-one with a strong local GOP. I do hope the Dems get a unified message together, because they should EASILY be able to wipe out much northern GOP House incumbants, and win back the House in 2018. This current Healthcare clusterfuck doesn't help. Still, they have to figure out that merely running against Trump isn't going to work a bit better than running against Obama nationwide.

woodchip wrote:So Vander, unless you are deliberately obfuscating, the prior elections are meaningless.

Who are you trying to fool here other than yourself? Prior elections are only meaningless if you don't want to acknowledge the reality that this has been a +30% Republican district for the past decade, and Republicans only won by 4% yesterday.

Just to be clear, you say this is a "big supporting win for the Trump presidency." So what's your theory on why there were 65,000 fewer votes for the Republican candidate than in 2016, while Democratic votes stayed about the same? A win is a win, but it looks to me like less support for the Trump presidency. (insofar as one can gauge support for the Trump presidency by looking at the results of a special election in Georgia)

woodchip wrote:Except the Dems were proclaiming they would win and it would be a slap in the face of Trump.

They lost because they STILL haven't learned anything from their 2016 loss. What they needed was a good kick in the ass and slap on the face and I hope this election fiasco will wake them up, although somehow I'm not counting on it. If it's any indication for the Dems in the future however, the margins were horrible for the Republicans, when they shouldn't have been even remotely that close in those solidly red districts. Trump is an overweight anchor that's very close to sinking the Republican ship. Unless that is, if the Dems don't sail their own ship into the reef first.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/ ... ation_Pos2

oh, and to the point of 'a big Trump win'.....NEITHER candidate mentioned Trump. Both avoided him(to the dismay of some Dems). The district was barely pro-Trump in November and current polling doesn't even give him a majority there at the moment. So, to call it a win for Trump is borderline delusional, although I'd give Woody a pass since he's clearly just cobbling together the Neo Fascist talking points. No, the nation still hates your Orange Hitler, Woody, to the tune of 62% against.......we'll see what happens if 2018 really does turn into a referendum on Trump along with GOP answers to taxation and health care, coupled with escalating military casualties. Now THAT might be a referendum you won't be cheerleading.

Only one thing to say about the Ossoff loss:



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

not quite sure the sourcing on that. From what I saw, total spending for both camps(PAC money included) was about equal, give or take $28 million. A truly obscene waste of money all around. Given the vote spread, I suspect someone playing a bit fast and loose with reality there.

TB, I really liked that you called out my stats earlier, and then posted that.

Ossoff - 31.5 million total. 24 million candidate, 7.5 million outside (PAC)
Handel - 23.7 million total. 4.9 million candidate, 18.8 million outside (PAC)

link