In this regard I think it was very refreshing to see the fight over SC - 5, a battle the local Dems could easily have punted, and so often have in the recent past in this state. Not a ton of resources spent, but a decent candidate recruited.
By contrast, the money and effort expended in GA - 6 after the primary was ridiculous. Once the result of the primary was known, the result was a foregone conclusion, in my opinion. The party should have eased up on the pedal and saved the resources for another battle down the road.
Josh Barro has a very good column on exactly this point where he distinguishes Warren’s ideas from those of both Sanders and Clinton. The essence is fighting corporate monopoly power.
I still think that it matters less what your ideology is than that you a) actually believe in it and convince voters you believe in it, and b) make a good case for your worldview.
I think Ossoff fell short for the reasons Democrats usually fall short: a carefully calibrated set of positions and a carefully calibrated message(cut spending!) designed to appeal to the median voter in the district. Which would be fine, except that I don’t think the media voter believed Ossoff.
Ossoff didn’t say much at all of substance, whether regarding Trump or anything else. But why do you think this off-year special election was the most expensively funded House race in history, with both sides bathed in outside dark money contributions? Everybody else made it about Trump, and Ossoff quietly assumed the mantle.
I think you’re probably both right. The race was about Trump for progressive voters, who felt a greater sense of urgency to get out and vote in a mid-term election. However, Ossoff himself didn’t really make the campaign into an anti-Trump diatribe. He ran as a moderate democrat because the majority of the district is still either vocally supporting Trump or not ready to abandon him.
The race wasn’t all about Ossoff either. Ossoff didn’t attract over $30M in spending because people all over the country were so dedicated to electing him to Congress. It was all about Trump - or, more accurately, Democratic attempts to translate anti-Trump feeling into election success. The reverse holds true on the Republican side.
Basically this election was larger than either candidate, and was a proxy for the Trump/anti-Trump wars, regardless of what either candidate said or did.
Seriously, and with all due respect, that sound so complicated as to be literally impossible. I have to believe there is a simpler way. Perhaps picking 3 key issues that most Americans are concerned about, and rallying around the solutions. Get the wonky papers out there for the literate folks to munch on, but keep the mass campaign simple and direct. And you (the generic you) can never go wrong with: It’s the economy, stupid! Transgender rights are important and all, but not really something that is going to get the people’s attention.
I think it was more of a Democrat/Republican party war, myself. Dems were stung in the presidential election and they wanted to do everything in their power to make Repubs feel the same sting in this election. Basically “You took something we thought was surely ours, we want to take something you think is surely yours”.
Ossoff lost, in my opinion, for 3 main reasons:
He wasn’t different. He campaigned on the same platform as a Republican - cut wasteful spending and portraying his opponent as a big spender. Why on earth would one vote across parties for someone who is saying the same thing as the other candidate? That one really stumped me.
He ain’t from here - literally. He does not live in the district. He offered to move to the district if elected. That indicated to many residents that he had no real interest in representing the people, but only the party. I know there are other Senators who do not live in their district, but Ossoff showed no inclination or motivation to represent GA-6.
His money ain’t from here, either. Only 14% of his $23.6 million in direct contributions raised came from within the state. Handel, OTOH, got 56% of her $8MM in direct contributions from Georgia donors. It smacked of buying the election, Handel’s ads played that angle masterfully and it resonated.
I’m actually relieved he lost, but not because of his views. I think that if he had won, both parties would have sped headlong into selecting personalities to run for Senate seats, no matter where they live and bankrolling them to a victory. It will continue to happen, but it’s not how it is supposed to be.
Interesting post-election write-up by Politico, and I tend to agree with the main thrust of it. The Republican party may have won in 2016, and it may have managed to claw its way to victory in these recent special elections, but increasingly, it is gradually losing control of the suburbs.
I think progressives and left-leaning centrists such as myself ought to keep in mind that not much has changed over the last several years. The Republicans are intellectually bankrupt. They’re a party that’s held hostage to special corporate and religious interests that the vast majority of the country doesn’t relate to very well. They’re winning in terms of tactics and organization, but they’re not really winning on ideas, and increasingly, they’re running out of people who believe in their bullshit.
On the flip side, this is also what makes them dangerous. Knowing, as we do, that they’re really incapable of winning using straightforward, conventional democratic means, they’re resorting to less and less democratic means of keeping themselves in power, everything from race-based gerrymandering and voter intimidation to going after journalists and trying to invent their own version of reality. It’s critical that progressives, whatever their differences on everything else, stand in unison against these tactics.
None of that really rings true. It’s not like the Dems parachuted him in from New York. He lived most of his life in the district, afaik, and is currently living one district over til his wife finishes school. I guess the out of state money could have been meaningful to some. However there is the fact that Dems haven’t won that seat in decades. Why do we need to look at these little details to figure out why this Dem lost?
The basic lesson of these special elections is that the Democrats will have a number of paths to a majority in 2018. They will be competitive in suburban, affluent places like GA-6 or more downscale districts like the SC one.
However being competitive and winning are different and Democrats still need to do a few things:
a)Recruit better candidates with some experience and stature in the key races. No more Ossoff’s.
b)Allow candidates to adjust their positions to their district particularly on guns,abortion and immigration.
c)Develop a strong national message about how Democratic policies will help the average voter.
Dropping Pelosi, who has become an electoral deadweight, would be nice too but that isn’t looking likely so it will just be a burden they have to bear, which should be OK if they do the other things.
Yes, the Republicans may have won the White House in 2016, and may have managed to win each and every contested special election, and may control 33 governor’s mansions, 68 state legislative chambers, the U.S. House, and the US Senate.
But by God, they’re on the ropes, desperate and ineffectual. In the suburbs.
In my view, the Republican party is in better shape right now than the Democrats. “Great shape,” is really only relevant here as a comparative. “I don’t have to outrun the bear. I just have outrun you.”
