• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republican Karen Handel Wins Georgia House Special Election

Nilly said:
Turnout in #GA06 2nd round was 259,622, up from 193,981 in 1st round. Incredibly, higher than the 210,504 turnout in 2014 general election.

Too early to call it a trend - but it seems the more people turn out, the better Dems do.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't draw any national trends from this race.
The people there are more center right, than hard right.
It's a wealthy urban/sub urban area right outside Atlanta proper, but within the metro area.

Handel was a safe pick to run, but she has a lot of negatives even for R's.
 
Cardinal said:
Ossoff was reserved and...pleasant.

For those who've been having a difficult time adapting to the temperature of the country, reserved and pleasant aren't really in. Looking to the long term, I'm interested in how Kamala Harris's energy moves Democratic voters to participate.
Click to expand...

In the Senate hearing she managed to make herself look less appealing than Jeff Sessions. Not a good sign.
 
Cardinal said:
Ossoff was reserved and...pleasant.

For those who've been having a difficult time adapting to the temperature of the country, reserved and pleasant aren't really in. Looking to the long term, I'm interested in how Kamala Harris's energy moves Democratic voters to participate.
Click to expand...

Ossoff was waaaay better than Handle, by a large margin.
Handle had the benefit of name recognition and prior service as SOS.

If I voted, I would of voted for Ossoff well before Handle.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
This race was played up as a potential win for D's in a supposedly deep R area (it's not really deep R).
There was a lot of talk and predictions the D would win, but he didn't.

Now the race was closer than usual, but it's a special election (lower turnout usually), the R candidate was not very good and the D candidate was pretty strong comparatively.
Also, a lot of out of state D's threw a ton of money towards this campaign.
Click to expand...

Ossoff was reserved and...pleasant.

For those who've been having a difficult time adapting to the temperature of the country, reserved and pleasant aren't really in fashion these days. Looking to the long term, I'm interested in how Kamala Harris's energy moves Democratic voters to participate.
 
Serenity said:
Genuine question here from a foreigner who would like some feedback to understand the significance of this and what difference it may make.

Republicans already control the House, Senate, and Presidency. They've already won.
Click to expand...

The significance here really is that since Trump has come in a previously ultra safe seat has come under serious fire. When voters actually turn out - Dems seem to actually stand a chance.

Republicans didn't win much in 2009, but they sure as hell did in 2010. That's the real goal here.
 
Cardinal said:
I've said a few things now:

1)28-30% support is where Trump is week. 40% is perfectly good for him as well as the unity of the Republican party.
2)It will be up to Democrats to vote Trump and the Republican congress out, not for Republicans to pull support.

Now one could of course point out that if enough Republicans had simply not shown up to vote yesterday, that would mathematically have handed a victory to Ossoff. But that would be missing the point.
Click to expand...

Demokrats and Hillary dumped white America as a strategy. Obama ravaged much of America.

Thinking Demokrats are going to win that back with a whistle and song is wishful thinking.

What is the Demokrat Strategy??? What is their message???

POLLS:
Once again we see the typical Demokrat Propagandist trend.
Ossoff was up... in the closing days it was closer... Demokrat loses.

That's Scenario 1 played out repeatedly.

Scenario 2.
Polling Trump brings false numbers.
Demokrats poll the wrong stuff, as admitted by a former Clinton pollster... Penn.
People, as with Reagan just aren't opening up to pollsters about Trump.

It's difficult to believe Demokrat Polls... and when they show positive results, you still have to wonder how much they're knocking it down.
 
Nilly said:
The significance here really is that since Trump has come in a previously ultra safe seat has come under serious fire. When voters actually turn out - Dems seem to actually stand a chance.
Click to expand...

:roll: No . . . that's just what a lot of people, obviously including yourself, hoped.

No. One. Congressional. Election. Means. Anything.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Ossoff was waaaay better than Handle, by a large margin.
Handle had the benefit of name recognition and prior service as SOS.

If I voted, I would of voted for Ossoff well before Handle.
Click to expand...

This election was about a lot more than Ossoff vs. Handel. It was a referendum on Trump and the entirety of the Republican party, and Republican voters got that message loud and clear. Democrats did not.

Democrats miss the point in the most frustrating ways imaginable. The only vote in the biggest elections and miss the larger story every...goddamn...time.

Republicans were voting for a set of conservative agendas, judicial appointees being principal among them, while Democrats were in a state of arrested development and thought it was a choice between Handel and Ossoff.
 
Nilly said:
If democrats make the same gains nationwide as they did here, they'll be on track to win 70+ seats in 2018.

Also, to those noting about how much money the Dems spent - let's not forget about repubs! Think it's important to note that outside groups spent a hell of a lot on this election, $19M for Handel, $7.5m for Ossoff. THey had to spend a hell of a lot to 'secure' a supposedly safe district. source: https://twitter.com/mjbeckel/status/877293833096220672

Dems didn't win the seat back but I'm categorizing this 'optimistic' loss.
Click to expand...

Huh ? Lol ! What gains ? Theyre 0-4 after spending record amounts of money in special elections.

Thats not a " gain ", thats a glaring indictor that the Democrats are losing despite pumping in millions into these camapaigns and depsite their 24/7 attacks on Trump and his voters.

The truth is 5 month long temper tantrums and 24/7 russian colludion conspiracy theories dont really inspire confidence in the American voter.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll: No . . . that's just what a lot of people, obviously including yourself, hoped.

No. One. Congressional. Election. Means. Anything.
Click to expand...

Of course this individual election didn't mean much - it wasn't going to flip anything. Plus, post-president special election wins/losses aren't necessarily a harbinger of next year's general elections.

Margins, however, are important, and I'll take that.
 
Jack Hays said:
In the Senate hearing she managed to make herself look less appealing than Jeff Sessions. Not a good sign.
Click to expand...

Republicans think she's a "rude, interrupting bitch," but have given Trump a pass for bragging about sexual assault, stealing nearly a quarter billion dollars from regular Americans in his university scam, lying 669 times since January alone, and moving to remove health care for over 23 million people. So you'll pardon me if I don't consider Republicans to be fabulous judges of character.
 
zimmer said:
Demokrats and Hillary dumped white America as a strategy. Obama ravaged much of America.

Thinking Demokrats are
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess nothing intelligent follows from there.
 
Fenton said:
Huh ? Lol ! What gains ? Theyre 0-4 after spending record amounts of money in special elections.

Thats not a " gain ", thats a glaring indictor that the Democrats are losing despite pumping in millions into these camapaigns and depsite their 24/7 attacks on Trump and his voters.

The truth is 5 month long temper tantrums and 24/7 Russian collusion conspiracy theories don't really inspire confidence in the American voter.
Click to expand...

1. Ossoff outraised Handel by 5-1, but outside special interest groups donated far more to Handel ($19m to Handel vs $7.5m to Ossoff), securing her victory.
2. Gains in votes/margins. No GA6th election has had less than a 20pt R win, with the average being around 30. This win was around 4.
 
Thank you all for your replies.

Specifically to Zim.

zimmer said:
You can never win too much, especially when the Socialists are the opposition. If it were a pro-American party it would be tolerable, but because they're not... well... winning is everything.
Click to expand...

I guess my response to that is that just winning alone is not everything. Winning means nothing unless the Republicans accomplish what they were voted in by the people to do. Surely it's far better to support and focus on that rather than the partisan side of things. Easy for me to say I know, not having a horse in the race, but that's how I'd approach it.
 
Cardinal said:
This election was about a lot more than Ossoff vs. Handel. It was a referendum on Trump and the entirety of the Republican party, and Republican voters got that message loud and clear. Democrats did not.

Democrats miss the point in the most frustrating ways imaginable. The only vote in the biggest elections and miss the larger story every...goddamn...time.

Republicans were voting for a set of conservative agendas, judicial appointees being principal among them, while Democrats were in a state of arrested development and thought it was a choice between Handel and Ossoff.
Click to expand...

I very much disagree with that.
I think they running people like Kamila Harris would be very bad.
Ossoff was a good pick and if given another chance he could potentially win in that district.

If R's don't wise up D's are going to run a slew of young charismatic people like Ossoff and trounce them.
D6 is far from a safe area for R's.
 
Nilly said:
Of course this individual election didn't mean much - it wasn't going to flip anything. Plus, post-president special election wins/losses aren't necessarily a harbinger of next year's general elections.

Margins, however, are important, and I'll take that.
Click to expand...

The only factor you're taking into account is D vs. R. Nothing else. You aren't taking into account personalities. You aren't taking into account actual platforms. You aren't taking into account performance during the campaign. Nothing. The only thing you're looking at is D vs. R, and you think the people who voted look at it in those narrow terms, too -- because that's the only way your calculus could make any sense.

That's not the way elections work.
 
Serenity said:
Genuine question here from a foreigner who would like some feedback to understand the significance of this and what difference it may make.

Republicans already control the House, Senate, and Presidency. They've already won.
Click to expand...
It has been expressed that one of the reasons Hillary lost is because voters believed it was already int he bag for a Hillary win. Since Trump won, the American voting public has been reportedly 'woke' and would rise up against Trump and reflect the TRUE winner of the November 2016 Presidential elections. 4 times now, the voters were going to hand Trump embarrassing defeats. 4 times now the predictions have been the democrat would win. 4 times, CNN has had to deal with the results.

IMG_5279.webp

NOT the faces of unbiased journalists reporting the news.
 
Harshaw said:
The only factor you're taking into account is D vs. R. Nothing else. You aren't taking into account personalities. You aren't taking into account actual platforms. You aren't taking into account performance during the campaign. Nothing. The only thing you're looking at is D vs. R, and you think the people who voted look at it in those narrow terms, too -- because that's the only way your calculus could make any sense.

That's not the way elections work.
Click to expand...

1. How can I take into account personalities and platforms when we don't know who is running in 2018/2020?
2. You infer the best you can from the information you have. Once you get more information, update your analyses.
3. Even in the general, most people are disinterested enough in politics that the letter after the name is more important than the name itself. Depressing but unfortunately true.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I very much disagree with that.
I think they running people like Kamila Harris would be very bad.
Ossoff was a good pick and if given another chance he could potentially win in that district.

If R's don't wise up D's are going to run a slew of young charismatic people like Ossoff and trounce them.
D6 is far from a safe area for R's.
Click to expand...

Ossoff was such a good pick that he inspired Democrats to stay home. Yeah, I'm going to go try my luck with Harris.
 
1) Has anyone mentioned that the polls were off by 8 (they had Ossoff ahead by about 2 and he lost by 6).
That was among a more accessible/measurable sample base.
Q: Anyone think that maybe polls measuring something like "approval" could be, let's say, a little unreliable?​
mmmm ... yeah, could be.

2) Watching the dour faces on MOJO this morning I noticed their Democrat guests were kind of singing more of a populist tune.
Q: Anyone think that maybe they realize they can't depend on "At least we're not Trump" as core of the Party platform?​
Nah! me either.
 
bubbabgone said:
1) Has anyone mentioned that the polls were off by 8 (they had Ossoff ahead by about 2 and he lost by 6).
That was among a more accessible/measurable sample base.
Q: Anyone think that maybe polls measuring something like "approval" could be, let's say, a little unreliable?​
mmmm ... yeah, could be.

2) Watching the dour faces on MOJO this morning I noticed their Democrat guests were kind of singing more of a populist tune.
Q: Anyone think that maybe they realize they can't depend on "At least we're not Trump" as core of the Party platform?​
Nah! me either.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I think a platform of 'at least we won't kick 23million people off of their healthcare' or 'at least we won't limit access to contraceptives' or 'at least we'll stick to the same Paris Accord that everyone else is in to at least try to put a dent into combating climate change' would be better.
 
Cardinal said:
Ossoff was such a good pick that he inspired Democrats to stay home. Yeah, I'm going to go try my luck with Harris.
Click to expand...

It tilts R but it's not a solid R.
The demographics for that area are good for flipping, that's why they chose it.
I know the area fairly well and I think it was a shrewd plan to target it.

Also, this was on someone's door from the area. :lol:
DCuEWXrXcAAfikB.jpg
 
Nilly said:
1. How can I take into account personalities and platforms when we don't know who is running in 2018/2020?
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. You know I'm talking about THIS election, from which you are trying to draw conclusions.

As for 2018, how does your calculus account for the fact that the money and attention which poured in for this special election isn't going to be there in 2018 when all districts, not just this one, are up for grabs? I don't think it does.

2. You infer the best you can from the information you have. Once you get more information, update your analyses.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of information you're purposely ignoring to look at only ONE dynamic - D vs. R. I listed a bunch of it.

3. Even in the general, most people are disinterested enough in politics that the letter after the name is more important than the name itself. Depressing but unfortunately true.
Click to expand...

That is far less true than you think, especially in local politics.
 
radcen said:
In a sense you are correct, but party rhetorical spin aside, the Dems really needed this victory. More so than they'll admit publicly. Politics is just as much about perception as anything else. And they need the perception that they are 1) still relevant and in touch, and 2) that Trump and the Reps are self-destructing. They got neither here.
Click to expand...

I agree that they needed this victory - if only to cause some GOP members of Congress to start to think about how long they should stay with Trump. If the Dems won last night and flipped a relatively safe gerrymandered Republic district, it may have caused some pangs of doubt to being to grow among Republicans. But that did not happen. There will be no cracks in the GOP armor for the foreseeable future and Trump has nothing to worry about from a GOP COngress regarding the Russian investigations and any possible impeachment actions that could have resulted.

The GOP hard line will continue unabated.

Being an adult means walking off the field after you lose and trying to figure out why you did so and how to avoid it in the future. And that is what the Dems need now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom