Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2017 4:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/21/2017 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2017 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2017 12:51:00 PM (view original):
A good loss? LOL

It's never to good to lose but if we're treating this one election as a indicator for how 2018 will go, the Dem candidate finishing a close second in a very red Georgia district is a good sign for the Dems.

The Dems are 0 for 5 in Special Elections this year. Is that a good enough indicator for you?
Try to spin it all you want, but 0 for 5 is 0 for 5, plus they've spend tons more, even though their contributions lag behind. Face it, the Dems are a rudderless ship that is sinking. Until they regroup, refocus, and find a new Captain, voters are going to continue jumping ship.

Why do special elections happen? Usually, because the President appointed the incumbent to a cabinet or director position within the administration. They President only appoints people from safe seats. He wouldn't appoint Darrell Issa, for example, because there is a good chance that seat would turn blue in a special election.

So he takes a Senator from Alabama or Congressmen from Montana and Georgia and South Carolina.

Obviously the Democrats want to win those seats and try to win those seats. But it's not realistic to expect the Democrat candidate to win a seat that was just lost 7 months ago by 24 points, which was the case in Georgia. The fact that it swung from -24 to -4 is a big turn. It bodes well for the seats in districts less conservative than Georgia's 6th.

I truly wonder if you actually believe most of the propaganda you post. For your sake, I sure hope not.

It would be like if the Congressman from CA 36 were to leave office and cause a special election. He won last November 60-40. If the new GOP candidate campaigned hard, had a lead in the polls going into the election, and ended up losing 48-51, the Democrats would be very, very worried.

Posted by all3 on 6/21/2017 4:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2017 4:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/21/2017 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2017 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2017 12:51:00 PM (view original):
A good loss? LOL

It's never to good to lose but if we're treating this one election as a indicator for how 2018 will go, the Dem candidate finishing a close second in a very red Georgia district is a good sign for the Dems.

The Dems are 0 for 5 in Special Elections this year. Is that a good enough indicator for you?
Try to spin it all you want, but 0 for 5 is 0 for 5, plus they've spend tons more, even though their contributions lag behind. Face it, the Dems are a rudderless ship that is sinking. Until they regroup, refocus, and find a new Captain, voters are going to continue jumping ship.

Why do special elections happen? Usually, because the President appointed the incumbent to a cabinet or director position within the administration. They President only appoints people from safe seats. He wouldn't appoint Darrell Issa, for example, because there is a good chance that seat would turn blue in a special election.

So he takes a Senator from Alabama or Congressmen from Montana and Georgia and South Carolina.

Obviously the Democrats want to win those seats and try to win those seats. But it's not realistic to expect the Democrat candidate to win a seat that was just lost 7 months ago by 24 points, which was the case in Georgia. The fact that it swung from -24 to -4 is a big turn. It bodes well for the seats in districts less conservative than Georgia's 6th.

I truly wonder if you actually believe most of the propaganda you post. For your sake, I sure hope not.

I truly wonder if you posses the cognitive ability to read and comprehend a sentence. Nothing in my post was propaganda. If you disagree with any of it, feel free to say what it is you disagree with.

Is -24 to -4 not a big turn? Am I incorrect as to why the special elections were held? Am I wrong about the perceived safety of the seats up for grabs in the special elections?

It's a good loss?

Mike keeps trying but so far BL is not playing the game today

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2017 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2017 12:51:00 PM (view original):
A good loss? LOL

It's never to good to lose but if we're treating this one election as a indicator for how 2018 will go, the Dem candidate finishing a close second in a very red Georgia district is a good sign for the Dems.

.

So red stayed red and that's encouraging? How do the red/blue states look right now?

If moy comes in and says "Trump's approval ratings are on the rise!!!" Will you respond with?

A) Things are looking up for the Trump Presidency
B) They're still historically low

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2017 5:13:00 PM (view original):
So red stayed red and that's encouraging? How do the red/blue states look right now?

It's encouraging that a very red district was in even play.

If there were a special election for Pelosi's seat and the GOP came within 4 points of taking it, you'd view that as a sign that things are looking up for the GOP, right?

Obviously, things are bad overall for the Dems. They have almost no federal power. Does that mean that things will always be bad for them or should we consider shifts in the electorate that look a lot similar to the shifts we saw prior to the 2010 elections?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2017 5:25:00 PM (view original):
If moy comes in and says "Trump's approval ratings are on the rise!!!" Will you respond with?

A) Things are looking up for the Trump Presidency
B) They're still historically low

B

Even if Ossoff had won, I'd concede that things are still bad overall for the Dems.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2017 4:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/21/2017 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2017 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2017 12:51:00 PM (view original):
A good loss? LOL

It's never to good to lose but if we're treating this one election as a indicator for how 2018 will go, the Dem candidate finishing a close second in a very red Georgia district is a good sign for the Dems.

The Dems are 0 for 5 in Special Elections this year. Is that a good enough indicator for you?
Try to spin it all you want, but 0 for 5 is 0 for 5, plus they've spend tons more, even though their contributions lag behind. Face it, the Dems are a rudderless ship that is sinking. Until they regroup, refocus, and find a new Captain, voters are going to continue jumping ship.

Why do special elections happen? Usually, because the President appointed the incumbent to a cabinet or director position within the administration. They President only appoints people from safe seats. He wouldn't appoint Darrell Issa, for example, because there is a good chance that seat would turn blue in a special election.

So he takes a Senator from Alabama or Congressmen from Montana and Georgia and South Carolina.

Obviously the Democrats want to win those seats and try to win those seats. But it's not realistic to expect the Democrat candidate to win a seat that was just lost 7 months ago by 24 points, which was the case in Georgia. The fact that it swung from -24 to -4 is a big turn. It bodes well for the seats in districts less conservative than Georgia's 6th.

How does that bode well? They aren't going to have $25 million to **** away on each seat in 2018. On average they spend under $2 million per seat.

Once again, republicans are showing they can spend much less and win elections based on their platform (and Trump).

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2017 4:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/21/2017 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2017 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2017 12:51:00 PM (view original):
A good loss? LOL

It's never to good to lose but if we're treating this one election as a indicator for how 2018 will go, the Dem candidate finishing a close second in a very red Georgia district is a good sign for the Dems.

The Dems are 0 for 5 in Special Elections this year. Is that a good enough indicator for you?
Try to spin it all you want, but 0 for 5 is 0 for 5, plus they've spend tons more, even though their contributions lag behind. Face it, the Dems are a rudderless ship that is sinking. Until they regroup, refocus, and find a new Captain, voters are going to continue jumping ship.

Why do special elections happen? Usually, because the President appointed the incumbent to a cabinet or director position within the administration. They President only appoints people from safe seats. He wouldn't appoint Darrell Issa, for example, because there is a good chance that seat would turn blue in a special election.

So he takes a Senator from Alabama or Congressmen from Montana and Georgia and South Carolina.

Obviously the Democrats want to win those seats and try to win those seats. But it's not realistic to expect the Democrat candidate to win a seat that was just lost 7 months ago by 24 points, which was the case in Georgia. The fact that it swung from -24 to -4 is a big turn. It bodes well for the seats in districts less conservative than Georgia's 6th.

(grimaces here)

BL is is spot on. The 'special elections are big wins for the GOP' is a myth specifically for the reasons BL mentioned.

While Ossoff raised a lot more money from individuals than Handel ($24m to $5m), Handel received $12m from Republican groups (NRCC & CLF) and $6m from super PACs. Ossoff received $5m from the DCCC and less than $3m from super PACs.

They spent $55m total, $32m by Ossoff and $23m by Handel.

Democrat candidates might not have that much to spend in 2018 for each seat, but they also won't be trying to flip a -24 district for every seat.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2017 6:21:00 PM (view original):
While Ossoff raised a lot more money from individuals than Handel ($24m to $5m), Handel received $12m from Republican groups (NRCC & CLF) and $6m from super PACs. Ossoff received $5m from the DCCC and less than $3m from super PACs.

They spent $55m total, $32m by Ossoff and $23m by Handel.

Democrat candidates might not have that much to spend in 2018 for each seat, but they also won't be trying to flip a -24 district for every seat.

They'll certainly be trying to save 23 democrat senate seats up for reelection, of which 10 are in states Trump won. Meanwhile, republicans only have 8 senate seats to defend in 2018.

I'm not liking the math when it comes to money per seat if I'm the Dems.

Posted by moy23 on 6/21/2017 6:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2017 6:21:00 PM (view original):
While Ossoff raised a lot more money from individuals than Handel ($24m to $5m), Handel received $12m from Republican groups (NRCC & CLF) and $6m from super PACs. Ossoff received $5m from the DCCC and less than $3m from super PACs.

They spent $55m total, $32m by Ossoff and $23m by Handel.

Democrat candidates might not have that much to spend in 2018 for each seat, but they also won't be trying to flip a -24 district for every seat.

They'll certainly be trying to save 23 democrat senate seats up for reelection, of which 10 are in states Trump won. Meanwhile, republicans only have 8 senate seats to defend in 2018.

I'm not liking the math when it comes to money per seat if I'm the Dems.

Why are you changing the subject to the Senate? Why can't you ever be like, "oh yeah, you're right. There wasn't a huge disparity in spending and, from the political parties themselves, Handel spent more than Ossoff?"

Yeah, the Democrats aren't likely to take the Senate. But history is against the President's party picking up a bunch of midterm Senate seats, so I'm guessing things stay about the same in the Senate, with one party gaining or losing 2 or 3 seats.