The New Exchange » Congressional Special Elections

TheLagerLad · 6/21/2017 7:32 am

Last night's results:

GOP 2 - Dems 0

In special congressional elections since Trump became POTUS

GOP 5 - Dems 0

Sigh.

Trump wakes up again this morning with the belief that polls don't matter and his side always wins.

I had always presumed that it was a slam dunk that the Democrats would take the House in 2018 and probably have a good chance at tipping the Senate back in their favor. Now, I'm thinking it's less than a 50-50 chance. Because all the old rules are jumping out the window.

I was struck that going into the biggest, most expensive House race ever, the one story that I saw about new DNC Chairman Tom Perez this week was about him advocating for statehood for Puerto Rico.

I'm left to wonder which is worse..... A man-child POTUS or a worthless opposition party?

Finally, when the AP projected Karen Handel the winner in the Georgia 6th, I immediately thought back to this line for the opening scene of the Newsroom

Tarnation · 6/21/2017 7:47 am

The GA special election cost $40,000,000.00. Forty MILLION.

I think about the $80.00 "shoe vouchers" that The Salvation Army gives out for work boots---monthly quota and budget usually gone before half the month is over. Typcially about 30 vouchers per month.

That election could have supplied 500,000 shoe vouchers.

That is a moral outrage.

Goose · 6/21/2017 7:53 am

Very disappointing.
The Dems need a message that serves the men and women in the middle.
Simply Opposing Trump Probably wins them the White House in 2020.
But it does not win back state houses, state legislatures, the Senate, and maybe not even the House.
The dems need to focus at the grass roots, and on issues like being FOR things that people need.

And, I agree with Tarnation. What an outrage to spend that kind of money on both sides. Lots of money to buy TV time for two parties who really don't have much to say.

Last edited by Goose (6/21/2017 7:54 am)

TheLagerLad · 6/21/2017 7:57 am

In terms of the financing of the campaigns, Ossoff, the Dem raised significantly more money than Handel, the Repub and still lost.

It makes me wonder what affect campaign finance reform would have on actual election results.

Goose · 6/21/2017 8:04 am

Well, it is a district that the Rs have owned since 1979.

They may want to say a little prayer of thanks for a narrow victory while dancing in the end zone

Just Fred · 6/21/2017 8:27 am

Good points and comments by all. I've got to think about this for a while.

Off the top of my dome I'm beginning to wonder just how much does the general population even want to get involved. I always like to compare the number of eligible voters vs the number that actually vote. Didn't one of the founders of the nation say something like, 'Democracy is good if you can keep it.'

Does an under-informed, misinformed, or apathetic citizenry even deserve democracy? Maybe it's too much work.

TheLagerLad · 6/21/2017 9:22 am

Goose wrote:
Well, it is a district that the Rs have owned since 1979.

They may want to say a little prayer of thanks for a narrow victory while dancing in the end zone

Yes, the Georgia 6th has been a long term GOP stronghold for Congress.

But take a look at South Carolina's 5th district, which was the other race from last night.

Yes, the 5th has sent a republican to the House over the last 8 years. But prior to that, it was a solid democratic district for 30 years. There are undoubtedly a lot of people there who voted for democrats in their lifetimes.

And now, with the disaster in the White House, the Democrats still can't find majorities of voters to choose their candidates.

It feels sorta hopeless

Edit to add: Nate Silver from 538 dot com makes a great point - The DNC and DCCC put minimal resources into SC-5, thinking it was a lost cause despite the fact that the district voted D as recently as 2008. The Dem candidate lost by 3.

This is sort of thing that tells me that the Dems want to be a part of the coasts and large cities. They ain't going to come back that way.

Last edited by TheLagerLad (6/21/2017 9:32 am)

Goose · 6/21/2017 9:40 am

I was not aware of that.
Really stupid of them to pour resources into one race while practically ceding one in a district with a more favorable recent history.

tennyson · 6/21/2017 8:58 pm

The Dems made the mistake of thinking that at this early juncture that the lack of progress would deter Trump voters or GOP loyalists. Many still believe that all those promises are going to happen---that the jobs of old will come roaring back (especially coal jobs), that everyone will get a fair deal in the tax reforms (IF they happen), that the new Trumpcare is going to be a great deal for everyone, that a great will will be built along all of our Southern border, etc. etc.

My guess is that the majority of these things WON'T happen especially as painted on the campaign trail. There will certainly be some grace period that all loyalists are willing to grant, but it is NOT indefinite.

We have yet to see any real meaningful legilsation clear Congress and a lot of that has to do with that the GOP is not a united front.

Index
» Politics
» Congressional Special Elections

6/21/2017 7:32 am #1

Congressional Special Elections

6/21/2017 7:47 am #2

Re: Congressional Special Elections

6/21/2017 7:53 am #3

Re: Congressional Special Elections

6/21/2017 7:57 am #4

Re: Congressional Special Elections

6/21/2017 8:04 am #5

Re: Congressional Special Elections

6/21/2017 8:27 am #6

Re: Congressional Special Elections

6/21/2017 9:22 am #7

Re: Congressional Special Elections

Goose wrote:

6/21/2017 9:40 am #8

Re: Congressional Special Elections

6/21/2017 8:58 pm #9

Re: Congressional Special Elections

Index
» Politics
» Congressional Special Elections

Board footera