• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

Ossoff still spent $2 million more that Handel. The "outside special interest groups" you refer to were actually the National Republican Congressional Committee ($6.7 million) and Paul Ryan's Congressional Leadership Fund ($7 million). Actual outside interest groups contributed $2 million to Handel, far less than contributions to Ossoff.
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

Some good points there. I guess those results are speaking for themselves (and the majority of those letting their voices be heard), Vance.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

The results of the last previous House race there show this is not at all true.
 
Cardinal said:
I've said a few things now:

1)28-30% support is where Trump is weak. 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...

"It will be up to Democrats to vote Trump and the Republican congress out, not for Republicans to pull support."

And at this point in time Democrats are ohferfour. At some point in time Democrats will have to win solid Republican districts to become the majority party.
 
Nilly said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly ... focus on the slash and burn redistribution politics that got them to where they are.
heh heh ... had to laugh at the Paris Accord line. That was a pisser.
 
haymarket said:
The results of the last House race there show this is not at all true.
Click to expand...

Again, I wouldn't put a lot of stock into that.
They've been trending towards narrower margins since the early 2000's.
Not to mention that a lot of transplants end up moving there from blue states.

This election should show that it can be flipped given the right conditions.
 
Harshaw said:
That's ridiculous. You know I'm talking about THIS election, from which you are trying to draw conclusions.
Click to expand...

And I'm talking about how the results of this election bode for future ones.

Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure, Ossoff here benefitted from attention but so did Handel. Outside groups funded her far more than they did Ossoff, who raised more money. And yes, he did have 'support' from the attention here from the media and even from hollywood, but this acts as a proof of concept. That even in heavy R districts it is possible for Dem's to compete. And so we should try to compete instead of just letting the seats go to Republicans (as what has happened multiple times before - in 2014, 11 R's and 10 D's ran unopposed).

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

Right and as I'm looking forward to the next set of elections the information you suggested (personalities, platforms etc) doesn't exist yet.

Harshaw said:
That is far less true than you think, especially in local politics.
Click to expand...

Disagree.
 
Handel never voluntarily mentioned Trump her whole campaign. Why was that?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Again, I wouldn't put a lot of stock into that.
They've been trending towards narrower margins since the early 2000's.
Not to mention that a lot of transplants end up moving there from blue states.

This election should show that it can be flipped given the right conditions.
Click to expand...

I would put a lot of stock in an election where the winner has a 20 point plus margin of victory and the district boundary has not changed since the last election. What is going to cause a reversal of that? I see nothing to do that.

Where is your evidence that this district could be flipped?
 
Gill said:
Ossoff still spent $2 million more that Handel. The "outside special interest groups" you refer to were actually the National Republican Congressional Committee ($6.7 million) and Paul Ryan's Congressional Leadership Fund ($7 million). Actual outside interest groups contributed $2 million to Handel, far less than contributions to Ossoff.
Click to expand...

Well let's be consistent then - $5m of Ossoff's $7.5 came from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. 'Actual outside interest groups' contributed around $2.5m to Ossoff.

And more than $2m came to Handel from 'actual' groups (using your definition of 'actual'), more like $4-5m, so double that of Ossoff.

Source: https://twitter.com/mjbeckel/status/877293833096220672

Fact is, most of Ossoff's money was raised by small donors. Most of Handel's wasn't. That's something for Dems to be proud of, not ashamed.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I would put a lot of stock in an election where the winner has a 20 point plus margin of victory and the district boundary has not changed since the last election.

Where is your evidence that this district could be flipped?
Click to expand...

Demographics and the fact that Tom Price has been a multi election incumbent (first elected in 2005).
Handle had the benefit of prior service and name recognition, while Ossoff in my opinion had more positives in charisma and platform.
I personally think that's why she won.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Demographics and the fact that Tom Price has been a multi election incumbent (first elected in 2005).
Handle had the benefit of prior service and name recognition, while Ossoff in my opinion had more positives in charisma and platform.
I personally think that's why she won.
Click to expand...

I ask again, where is there any evidence that this district could be flipped? Nothing has changed in it since the last election. The boundaries are the same and the demographics are the same. By your own admission the two candidates pretty much cancelled out each others positives and I am not sure I would even go as far as you did in assessing them.

So what exactly pointed to this being flipped?
 
MrPeanut said:
There isn't a lot of real significance in this race, but it does prove two things. Simply funneling massive amounts of money into an election doesn't necessarily work, and Trump is not so unpopular that Democrats will be able to take over deep red seats. They may have been two things most people already knew, but it is a necessary defeat to hopefully teach Democrats something.
Click to expand...

Money does work more often than not, but there have been several instances where it did not. I hope the 'not' is catching on.
 
Serenity said:
Some good points there. I guess those results are speaking for themselves (and the majority of those letting their voices be heard), Vance.
Click to expand...
From what I have seen, maybe the biggest thing that it says is that voters are still connected to ideology over candidate. It might just be what politics has finally become...but by all indications, Americans are not getting the best and brightest candidates from either party.
 
Nilly said:
And I'm talking about how the results of this election bode for future ones.
Click to expand...

By looking at THIS election. You're being purposely obtuse.


Sure, Ossoff here benefitted from attention but so did Handel. Outside groups funded her far more than they did Ossoff, who raised more money.
Click to expand...

No, those "outside groups" consisted mostly of two mundane sources - the Republican national congressional committees, who exist entirely for that purpose.

It's Ossoff who got all the out-of-state Hollywood and media help.

And yes, he did have 'support' from the attention here from the media and even from hollywood,
Click to expand...

"Here and there." Wow.

If you're only going to see what you want to see, you're going to continue to be disappointed over and over again.

but this acts as a proof of concept. That even in heavy R districts it is possible for Dem's to compete.
Click to expand...

Who says it's so "heavy R"? Atlanta has been changing rapidly over the last several years, especially with its massive increase in film and television production, not a typically R industry.

Because the former occupant of the seat won handily? See everything else I said -- that has a lot more to do with the people than it does with the party. My own district, largely Republican, sent a Democrat to the house for many years. I voted for him myself, because he was a good guy. But as soon as he retired, and the Democrats put up a typical grievance Lefty with hardly any appeal, the Republican -- who had last lost miserably against the Democrat - won in a landslide.

It's not just about D vs. R. But if that's all you're determined to see, which it clearly is, then like I said above, you're going to be frustrated again and again when things don't line up quite the way you think they should.

Try to expand your thinking.


Right and as I'm looking forward to the next set of elections the information you suggested (personalities, platforms etc) doesn't exist yet.
Click to expand...

No, dude. You're looking at the results of this election and trying to apply it to the next one, and in so doing, you're ignoring plenty of information readily available now.

If you can't acknowledge that, why should anyone bother with you?


Disagree.
Click to expand...

You say that as though it's a matter of opinion. It's not. So "disagree" all you like; it is what it is regardless if you want to see it or not.
 
haymarket said:
I ask again, where is there any evidence that this district could be flipped? Nothing has changed in it since the last election. The boundaries are the same and the demographics are the same. By your own admission the two candidates pretty much cancelled out each others positives and I am not sure I would even go as far as you did in assessing them.

So what exactly pointed to this being flipped?
Click to expand...

I gave you my evidence.
I can't believe I'm arguing in favor of a D and you're arguing against.
 
hanger4 said:
"It will be up to Democrats to vote Trump and the Republican congress out, not for Republicans to pull support."

And at this point in time Democrats are ohferfour. At some point in time Democrats will have to win solid Republican districts to become the majority party.
Click to expand...
The democrats didnt do themselves any favors electing a DNC head that is nothing but an angry bitter hate filled little man that has promoted campaigns based on nothing but anger and hatred. Perez was a great choice...if their goal was to keep getting the GOP elected.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

The question is: are there enough Democrats in Georgia's 6th district to vote for their candidate if they wanted to? If the answer is yes, then that tells us two things:

1) Republicans have placed a greater priority for the larger conservative agenda over the behavior of their candidates. This is a tribal issue, not a personality one.
2) Democrats are voting based on who inspires them in the moment.

Republican voters have a terrible larger vision, but at least they're looking at a bigger picture, twisted as it may be. I thought that might be the case for Democrats as well after January, but that appears not to be so.
 
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...

It is known that Reps do a much better job, in general, of getting their people out to vote than Dems. Especially in "off" elections like this one was. No one really knows why, but it is generally accepted as fact.

I have a very good friend who is very high up and active in the local Dem Party (county & state level) and she confirms this. To her, this is her biggest frustration, she acknowledges that the Rep Party does a better job at getting their people out to vote.
 
Food for thought.

Republicans went 0-5 on Special Elections to fill seats vacated by cabinet appointees in 2009, and then went on to win the house the next year.
 
Harshaw said:
By looking at THIS election. You're being purposely obtuse.

No, those "outside groups" consisted mostly of two mundane sources - the Republican national congressional committees, who exist entirely for that purpose.

It's Ossoff who got all the out-of-state Hollywood and media help.
Click to expand...

I address this in post 86.

Nilly said:
Well let's be consistent then - $5m of Ossoff's $7.5 came from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. 'Actual outside interest groups' contributed around $2.5m to Ossoff.

And more than $2m came to Handel from 'actual' groups (using your definition of 'actual'), more like $4-5m, so double that of Ossoff.

Source: https://twitter.com/mjbeckel/status/877293833096220672

Fact is, most of Ossoff's money was raised by small donors. Most of Handel's wasn't. That's something for Dems to be proud of, not ashamed.
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
"Here and there." Wow.

If you're only going to see what you want to see, you're going to continue to be disappointed over and over again.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who misquotes me. Such irony.

Harshaw said:
Who says it's so "heavy R"? Atlanta has been changing rapidly over the last several years, especially with its massive increase in film and television production, not a typically R industry.
Click to expand...

The fact that the average margin is something like +30 to republicans, and hasn't dipped below 20. And the margin in the actual 2016 election was in line with that. Not as if demographics have swung that wildly in 7 months.

Harshaw said:
Because the former occupant of the seat won handily? See everything else I said -- that has a lot more to do with the people than it does with the party. My own district, largely Republican, sent a Democrat to the house for many years. I voted for him myself, because he was a good guy. But as soon as he retired, and the Democrats put up a typical grievance Lefty with hardly any appeal, the Republican -- who had last lost miserably against the Democrat - won in a landslide.

It's not just about D vs. R. But if that's all you're determined to see, which it clearly is, then like I said above, you're going to be frustrated again and again when things don't line up quite the way you think they should.

Try to expand your thinking.
Click to expand...

Wait, and you're accusing me of extrapolating from one election result??

Harshaw said:
No, dude. You're looking at the results of this election and trying to apply it to the next one.
Click to expand...

I've said as much. I've also specifically said that this isn't a predictor of anything but the margins in this special election show that republican safe seats can be challenged, and that should be a lesson for the dems. This election can act as a template for winning votes going forward.

Harshaw said:
If you can't acknowledge that, why should anyone bother with you?
Click to expand...

I don't know, why are you bothering me? Axe to grind? It's not as if our discussions are ever fruitful.

Harshaw said:
You say that as though it's a matter of opinion. It's not. So "disagree" all you like; it is what it is regardless if you want to see it or not.
Click to expand...

Right back at you?
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wholly agree with this. Seriously, the Dem Party needs to do some honest introspection. (I think that's the word I want.)
 
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 fashion these days. Looking to the long term, I'm interested in how Kamala Harris's energy moves Democratic voters to participate.
Click to expand...

Kamala Harris appeals to California Liberals who think " **** Trump " is legitimate and intelligent messaging

Messaging is part of the Dems problem, and I really doubt " **** Trump " is going to be as effective in more Conservative districts as it is in California
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom