• Republican Karen Handel has won Georgia's special election
    92 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sableye;52384302]they're saying that this total went to 50 million, ossoff spent in the range of 23-25 million.[/QUOTE] :snip: Misread post.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52384353][I]They're[/I] also saying that the earth is flat. Source?[/QUOTE] It's the first sentence in the OP. The rest of the money must be Republican donors if the 25 million was Ossoff
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52384353][I]They're[/I] also saying that the earth is flat. Source?[/QUOTE] OP's source. [QUOTE] Ossoff, a former congressional aide and documentary filmmaker, captured the anti-Trump fervor coursing through the Democratic Party and raised over $23 million for his campaign.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Komodoh;52384051]The Democrats poored MILLIONS of dollars into this guy and still couldn't win, lmao. The guy alone got 7800 donations from people in California. It's fitting really. The party of big, overreaching government tries to completely undermine a local election with 50+ million out of state dollars, and STILL manages to lose. The party of incompetence truly shining bright tonight.[/QUOTE] During the [url=https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/georgia-house-special-election-district-6]actual election[/url] Mr. Ossoff had 48% percent Ms. Handel had 19%. If he got 48% percent that is something amazing.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52384359]It's the first sentence in the OP. The rest of the money must be Republican donors if the 25 million was Ossoff[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Raidyr;52384360]OP's source.[/QUOTE] Totally misread his post, I thought he was saying total money raised by both candidates was $50 mil. My bad.
[QUOTE=BicycleDay43;52384309]Kek be praised. Another loss for globalist pedophiles and CNN.[/QUOTE] pictured: Handel voter
[QUOTE=da space core;52384382]pictured: Handel voter[/QUOTE] This is third/fourth time that he keeps changing his profile picture every minute.
Please, 'Handel' with care! :v: [sp]i live here and i'm very bitter about her winning [/sp]
Shit sucks, but the deck's stacked in the GOP's favor for these areas. All the same, you can see a gradual blue shift now that more people are realizing the GOP's nothing but crooks and liars.
There's a good twitter thread on this but the fact that it swung so hard towards the democrats from an incredibly safe republican district to being withing a few percent, and lots of the recent ones have been similar, will a) force the republicans to invest defensively in places they could previously ignore and b) show that closer areas are likely to swing to the democrats.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;52384754]There's a good twitter thread on this but the fact that it swung so hard towards the democrats from an incredibly safe republican district to being withing a few percent, and lots of the recent ones have been similar, will a) force the republicans to invest defensively in places they could previously ignore and b) show that closer areas are likely to swing to the democrats.[/QUOTE] You mean that they'll pump money into 2018 to just barely hold out, and then redistrict again and gerrymander them harder to maintain their seats so they don't have to answer to their constituents. Most hard-red states would be mildly blue or battlegrounds if their insane gerrymandering was eliminated.
the South Carolina 5th is an extremely interesting result for Democrats in comparison, [URL="http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/georgia-south-carolina-special-elections/"]the margin there was closer than in Georgia despite being almost [I]twice[/I] as red[/URL]. that's some prime data for the strategists to chew on right there
Problem for the democrats is this: they invested so "bigly" in this election that they clearly expected a victory. Not only will this demoralize the base leading up to 2018 it will also make the party more reluctant to invest to the same degree in these states. So the DNC will be less willing to waste money on these races in the future, and thus will likely loose them by even larger margins.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;52385262]Problem for the democrats is this: they invested so "bigly" in this election that they clearly expected a victory. Not only will this demoralize the base leading up to 2018 it will also make the party more reluctant to invest to the same degree in these states. So the DNC will be less willing to waste money on these races in the future, and thus will likely loose them by even larger margins.[/QUOTE] I don't know how you manage to reach the exact opposite of the dem takeaway like this. This race shows that they need to fight every battle they can because they have a chance of winning them. Formerly deep red states can be made into toss-ups, which they can then win. The DNC isn't going to [I]not[/I] spend money on elections, that's the entire point.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;52385262]Problem for the democrats is this: they invested so "bigly" in this election that they clearly expected a victory. Not only will this demoralize the base leading up to 2018 it will also make the party more reluctant to invest to the same degree in these states. So the DNC will be less willing to waste money on these races in the future, and thus will likely loose them by even larger margins.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Komodoh;52384051]The Democrats poored MILLIONS of dollars into this guy and still couldn't win, lmao. The guy alone got 7800 donations from people in California. It's fitting really. The party of big, overreaching government tries to completely undermine a local election with 50+ million out of state dollars, and STILL manages to lose. The party of incompetence truly shining bright tonight.[/QUOTE] look, kids. this is what brainwashing looks like
[QUOTE=Komodoh;52384051]The Democrats poored MILLIONS of dollars into this guy and still couldn't win, lmao. The guy alone got 7800 donations from people in California. It's fitting really. The party of big, overreaching government tries to completely undermine a local election with 50+ million out of state dollars, and STILL manages to lose. The party of incompetence truly shining bright tonight.[/QUOTE] Nobody is surprised that ignorance and reactionary conservatism trumped education and compassion, but why laugh?
[QUOTE=Whoaly;52385262]Problem for the democrats is this: they invested so "bigly" in this election that they clearly expected a victory. Not only will this demoralize the base leading up to 2018 it will also make the party more reluctant to invest to the same degree in these states. So the DNC will be less willing to waste money on these races in the future, and thus will likely loose them by even larger margins.[/QUOTE] I don't know what you're thinking. This was a safe seat for Republicans where Democrats didn't stand a chance and had no expectation of victory, and now it's been turned into a contested seat. This is bad news for Republicans no matter how you spin it.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;52385262]Problem for the democrats is this: they invested so "bigly" in this election that they clearly expected a victory. Not only will this demoralize the base leading up to 2018 it will also make the party more reluctant to invest to the same degree in these states. So the DNC will be less willing to waste money on these races in the future, and thus will likely loose them by even larger margins.[/QUOTE] Yes, I'm sure the Democrats getting 48% of the vote in a historically safe Republican region will demoralize Democrats.
[QUOTE=Streecer;52385271]I don't know how you manage to reach the exact opposite of the dem takeaway like this. This race shows that they need to fight every battle they can because they have a chance of winning them. Formerly deep red states can be made into toss-ups, which they can then win. The DNC isn't going to [I]not[/I] spend money on elections, that's the entire point.[/QUOTE] The democrats poured all that money in and they still lost, of course it was close, (but not nearly close enough) you focus that much effort and resources on a single election and of course it will be close. The democrats felt that this was a vulnerable seat and that applying a little extra pressure would tip it towards them, that's why nothing short of an outright win (or getting close enough to demand a recount) can be seen as a victory for the democrats. Another problem for the democrats is the inevitable debate that will be had as to whether a "true progressive" would do better. The democratic establishment [B]hates[/B] the idea of having to appeal to the hard-left, and ever since Trump came along they've been wanting to get "moderate republican" voters (who don't really exist) to switch to the democrats, and allow the party to act more like what it actually is: a centrist neoliberal party.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;52385375]The democrats poured all that money in and they still lost, of course it was close, (but not nearly close enough) you focus that much effort and resources on a single election and of course it will be close. The democrats felt that this was a vulnerable seat and that applying a little extra pressure would tip it towards them, that's why nothing short of an outright win (or getting close enough to demand a recount) can be seen as a victory for the democrats. Another problem for the democrats is the inevitable debate that will be had as to whether a "true progressive" would do better. The democratic establishment [B]hates[/B] the idea of having to appeal to the hard-left, and ever since Trump came along they've been wanting to get "moderate republican" voters (who don't really exist) to switch to the democrats, and allow the party to act more like what it actually is: a centrist neoliberal party.[/QUOTE] so youve convinced yourself of the parameters for a "win" and "loss", and also know 100% about the internal makeup and sentiments of the democratic party and all of their desires and plans, and in your esteemed knowledge, coming very close in a historically very safe southern seat is a [b]bad[/b] thing for the Dems. Alrighty...the rest of us over here in the real world recognize that this is an abnormally good result that will give Democrats hope to challenge the Republicans in swing sweats all over the country
It's particularly baffling to argue that the Democrats allocated an inordinate amount of resources when the Republicans did just as much and spent almost the same amount of money.
polls appear to have been nearly bang on right with this one
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;52385389]so youve convinced yourself of the parameters for a "win" and "loss", and also know 100% about the internal makeup and sentiments of the democratic party and all of their desires and plans, and in your esteemed knowledge, coming very close in a historically very safe southern seat is a [b]bad[/b] thing for the Dems. Alrighty...the rest of us over here in the real world recognize that this is an abnormally good result that will give Democrats hope to challenge the Republicans in swing sweats all over the country[/QUOTE] Let me put it another way: the democrats have lost [B]every[/B] special Congressional election since Trump's presidency began, and you can't deny that the democrats were pushing for an actual win. The democrats still have the same flawed assumptions that lost them the 2016 election: that there is a large contingent of Romney republicans so disgusted by Trump that it will put Red states in play.
But the red states ARE in play Whoaly. A 3 point lead is not a safe seat. You're contradicting yourself. The only reason this special election happened was because Tom Price, who won the district with a 20 point lead 6 months ago, quit to become part of Trump's cabinet.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;52385375]The democrats poured all that money in and they still lost, of course it was close, (but not nearly close enough) you focus that much effort and resources on a single election and of course it will be close. The democrats felt that this was a vulnerable seat and that applying a little extra pressure would tip it towards them, that's why nothing short of an outright win (or getting close enough to demand a recount) can be seen as a victory for the democrats.[/QUOTE] You have unrealistically high expectations. Do you just expect them to win every fucking seat they contest? That isn't how politics work. This WAS a vulnerable seat, this was a deep red state that they had the opportunity to snatch from the Republicans. The fact that they even had this opportunity is a good sign for the future campaigns. You can pour all the money and effort into an election that you want, but ultimately it is NOT the deciding factor in electoral victory. You don't automatically win based on how much money you spend.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;52385411]But the red states ARE in play Whoaly. A 3 point lead is not a safe seat. You're contradicting yourself.[/QUOTE] Only after spending twice as much as the GOP. I expect that if the Republicans had bothered to match or exceed Democratic efforts (which they obviously didn't think was necessary) this would have been a much different result.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;52385422]Only after spending twice as much as the GOP. I expect that if the Republicans had bothered to match or exceed Democratic efforts (which they obviously didn't think was necessary) this would have been a much different result.[/QUOTE] you're just moving the goalposts now dude
[QUOTE=Chonch;52384218]While I agree with the historical fact, history has not proven to be the sky's brightest star in guiding the political season thus far. I would be wary.[/QUOTE] I agree. It seems more and more that the candidates with less votes and popular support are getting into office more and more.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;52385422]Only after spending twice as much as the GOP. I expect that if the Republicans had bothered to match or exceed Democratic efforts (which they obviously didn't think was necessary) this would have been a much different result.[/QUOTE] And even after spending and hyping this whole special election up so much, Ossoff scored less votes than Stooksbury, who lost against Price last year. It has to hurt even worse for the Democrats considering how those three counties apparently went for Clinton during the presidential election, but they just couldn't repeat that for these special elections despite the Democrats going pretty much all out in putting in funds just for this. And I thought they said last year that they didn't want to be the party of big money anymore, yeah right, that's why they made this the single most expensive congressional district vote of all time.... EDIT: Looked at it wrong, the counties went for Clinton during the elections, but the 6th congressional district went 48 for Trump to 47 to Clinton. Handel pulled in the same district a relatively bigger victory margin over Ossoff than Trump did over Clinton, 52 to Handel against 48 to Ossoff. Pretty funny how some Democrat media outlets tried hyping this one up as a ''referendum on Trump'', I doubt that they will be saying the same about it now.
[t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCz4BubUMAIgRh-.jpg[/t] :v: Shit, how do I thumbnail?????
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.