A GOP SuperPAC is launching a million-dollar ad campaign to reveal the shocking fact that Ossoff… dressed up as Han Solo while horsing around with his college buddies. :eek: :rolleyes:
Given their tendency to accuse the Democrats of much milder versions of their own sins, I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before we see the pictures of the Republican candidate dressed as Jar-Jar Binks. 
This is serious. How can we possibly be expected to vote for someone who, while in college, behaved like a college student?
Come on, man. That’s not a closing gap. That’s a one off Trump anomaly.
Like I said, I can’t stop you from being that sort of poster.
Sorry, you clearly made an opinion about the voting trend in Georgia, i.e. the gap is clsing. I’m not remotely “reading something into your words”. I don’t even know how you get off saying that.
And from 2004 to 2008 it closed, from 2008 to 2012 it closed, and from 2012 to 2016 it closed, though as you point out, perhaps due to Trump, more significantly. That’s certainly a trend line.
And between 2000 and 2008 it went up by .3%. Between 2000 and 2012 the “closing” is half a percentage point. That’s one shallow trend line.
Let’s look at a few more elections:
1972 +50.3
1976 -33.8
1980 -15.7
1984 +20.4
1988 +20.3
1992 -0.6
1996 +1.2
Basically the 2000/04/08/12 elections is the longest period of stability in Georgia in 40 years. It would be the longest straight part of the hacksaw shaped line.
So? This is not a relevant point to the commentary you are so “helpfully” providing, is it?
The OP has established that a trend exists. Your assertion that it does not exist, or that the 2016 election is explained only by the Trump phenomenon is not supported by the evidence adduced.
Uh, what’s with the scare quotes around “helpfully”? I am disagreeing there’s a trend of any note here. The past four elections were around R+12 and the last one Trump fell short. That’s no trend.
Who said I was saying that this time? Yep, you’re reading into my words that I was saying you were reading something into my words. Kinda solipsistic, but there you are.
Anyway, 14.1, 12.5, 11.7, 7.2 is unquestionably a decreasing sequence. If you want to say the difference among those first three doesn’t count or something, maybe it does or maybe it doesn’t. But it seems clear at this point that if I post something in this thread, you will surely do what you can to find something to pick at. I can’t stop you from being that sort of poster.
Well, aren’t we the touchy sort of poster.
It’s also the longest period of stability in national elections in 40 years as well. (Find me another period of 4 consecutive elections where 40 states stay with the same party throughout!)
Yep, I sure can’t, can I? :rolleyes:
'32, ‘36,’ 40 and '44 is pretty close if the lack of Alaska and Hawaii is allowed for.
I’m sorry if I was annoying. I was just voicing skepticism that this is a race to watch and I didn’t mean to come off as antagonistic as I apparently did.
Update:
So last night I met with Jon Ossoff and thought I’d share a couple notes / observations:
Ossoff mentioned a recent poll out yesterday that had him leading all contenders followed closely by Republican Karen Handle. The poll is summarized here, showing Ossoff in a virtual tie with Handle at 18%. The 4 candidates immediately behind Ossoff are all Republicans while the next Democrat comes in at under 3%.
The campaign strategy is clearly to go all out and try to win >50% in the April 18th election, thereby avoiding a runnoff. They seem to feel they have momentum now and are hoping to capitalize. In addition, there’s a good chance that several of the Democratic opponents will drop out before the election. If motivated Democratic voters can rally behind a single candidate, while discouraged Republicans split their votes, then perhaps there’s a chance.
Fundraising note – as of yesterday, the Ossoff campaign has now received donations from all 50 states. In total, they’ve received over $2 million with an average donation of $28. I don’t know how these compare to a typical election - but it sounds impressive / unusual in my very limited experience.
A reporter and camera crew from Vice (reporter out of D.C. and crew out of NY) was following him around for the day. When they met with our small group, they filmed Ossoff talking with us, but also asked if any of us were either Republicans or undecideds. One woman stepped up and was interviewed separately about her views. Clearly they are pursuing his ability to attract independents or disaffected Republicans.
Ossoff is positioning himself as a moderate and apparently hoping to not alienate the Republican base. I don’t think he expects to win any traditional Republicans over. But if he can come across as sufficiently non-threatening, perhaps that helps reduce Republican turnout?
Personal note: Ossoff is young. He comes across polished, perhaps a bit ideological, but with a youthful naiveté perhaps. Nothing disqualifying – if anything a bit refreshing. But if he were running against an established heavyweight – I think that might be an issue.
Thanks for your post.
His strategy seems a little optimistic. If the next highest Democrat is running at less than 3%, Ossoff better hope none of the Republicans drop out, or that factor alone will swamp any gain of 3%. If it does get to a run-off, his chances nearly disappear. Five of the six top contenders are Republicans. A run-off between the top two finishers would only succeed if none of the non-Handel voters vote for her.
Given that your poll shows a Trump approval rating of 51% to 41%, it is a little hard to believe that Republicans will be discouraged and stay home in a special election.
Regards,
Shodan
He’s going to have to walk a tight line. You’ll note that same poll and another I saw linked from DailyKos both have Trump in solid positive approval territory, despite just barely winning it in November. So Ossoff isn’t going to be able to "ride anti-Trump fervor " to victory as I’ve seen suggested in some articles. Is he really going to whip up the Dem voters without a tonne of Trump bashing?
I think we need to look at the reality of the numbers and observations posted by Kiber.
Under bullet #5, Kiber hits on a main point. The goal isn’t to flip anyone from red to blue. I agree that would be pie in the sky thinking. If someone approves of the job Trump is doing, there is very little likelihood they would consider voting for Ossof.
That said, that’s not the strategy. Basically it’s this:
[ul]
[li]Lets fire up the BLUE voters to come out and vote! GA has a horrible track record and getting anyone to show up for special elections, run-offs, etc. Just doing a solid get out the vote drive could make this winnable.[/li][li]Don’t inflame the REDS to where they are motivated to come out and vote. Don’t say anything too incendiary.[/li][/ul]
I’m heartened by the fact that a couple of my friends/co-workers live in GA-6. The BLUE friend is pumped about Ossof, and WILL get out to vote that day. My RED co-worker who lives there doesn’t seem to be aware that there is even an election scheduled. Anecdotal, I know, but I’ll take all the comfort I can get.
This is pretty much the ballgame. Special elections are all about who shows up.
This would make sense if the winner of the most votes on April 18 went straight to Congress, but that’s not how it works. If the votes for all the other candidates besides Ossoff, regardless of party, add up to at least 50% + 1, it goes to a runoff even if the GOP votes are split every which way from Sunday.
It really does come down to who shows up. The game, for Ossoff, is to get more of his people to the polls on 4/18 than all the other candidates combined can manage to do. The odds are against him, needless to say, but stuff like this happens in special elections, because a much smaller chunk of the electorate than usual is even paying attention.
While any poll is better than no poll at all, I’ve got to mention that this poll had a 1.51% response rate. (Where I work, we have to do a nonresponse bias study if the response rate is <70%, for comparison’s sake.)
A little further back, but tru dat.
Apology accepted.
I just want to say that I agree that even in the circumstances we’re in now, where the Dems are motivated and the R’s are less so, this is very much an uphill race.
But here’s the thing: *every *race right now is a race to watch, because there will be only a limited number of races between now and November 2018. And for that reason, it’s worth investing in races that one normally wouldn’t, because how else are you going to learn anything? As a Sesame Street song I often sing to my son goes, “you’ll never ever know if you don’t try at all.” Even if a Republican still wins this, the closeness (or lack of it) would give us an idea of what races it’s worth investing in in, say, Virginia’s state legislative elections this fall. If we lose GA-6 by 2%, we’d ratchet up our assumptions about which such races are viable much more than we would if we lose GA-6 by 12%.
And finally, a race like this gets people involved. People’s time, energy, and money are only a zero-sum game after a certain point. As any fundraiser knows, the best people to hit up for money are those who’ve already given in the past. And the easiest people to talk into volunteering their time and energy for one race are those who’ve done so before. This race should get a bunch of new people involved, and that’s a Good Thing.
Not only do you have to play to win, you’ve got to play to lose well, to gain the skills and experience it takes to win some other day. This is why it’s worth doing.