Random Politics & Religion #25

The innovators organically tackle obstacles; nevertheless the white-collar workers right-scale our acculturated, mind-blowing, business philosophy. A rapid efficiency gain goes hand-in-hand with a solid increase in margins, whilst standardizations interact with a strong execution message, paving the way for a control-based scoping.

The enablers co-develop functional pockets of opportunities. As a result, the network adequately reinvests in robust socializations at the individual, team and organizational level.

Pretty much, yeah. It's not an apples to apples comparison when there are so many factors influencing the final result, including the massive dump of money into Ossoff's campaign.

Last year, Tom Price, who vacated the congressional seat to become the secretary of health and human services, was a six-term Republican incumbent who raised more than $2 million. His Democratic opponent raised nothing and spent $346.

The race to replace Price was a money bonanza, with both Ossoff and the eventual winner, Republican Karen Handel, enjoying a seemingly bottomless pit of funds both within their campaigns and from outside groups. Ossoff's campaign spent more than $22.5 million on the race — or, to be exact, $22,532,263.57 more than the Democratic candidate who faced Price last year.

Put another way, Ossoff spent $22,532,263.57 more to finish 9.5 percentage points better than Democrats did last time in the district. And by the way, Ossoff's 48% was little better than Hillary Clinton's performance in the district in the 2016 presidential election.

Figure of speech. The talking point that polls were off again is incorrect. The race became too close to statistically predict. Either way, that seat previously went to the Republican in November by over 20 something percent and the final result from yesterday has the winner up by about 4%. That's a massive shift in a short amount of time.

It also doesn't help when he is being played as an outsider who's loyalties doesn't revolve around the voters themselves, but the donors in NYC and San Francisco.

Semantics. They're estimating support among likely voters. The polls you guys linked showed a statistical tie. Up by 1-3 points in pretty meaningless when the error range is as large as it is. The fact that most of the spreads are colored blue doesn't signify anything when the numbers are so small.

Last night, the political world was glued to computer and television screens in a manner reminiscent of a general election, to watch returns filter in from a previously obscure congressional district in Atlanta’s northern suburbs. Democrats had high hopes that they could capture the open congressional seat previously held by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. But Republican Karen Handel defeated Democrat Jon Ossoff by a surprisingly large margin of four percentage points in a district that looked like it was getting away from Republicans just a few weeks ago.

Republicans are spinning the loss as terrible news for Democrats’ hopes of claiming a majority in 2018, while Democrats insist that Republicans dodged a bullet. To them, the real story is that they came close in a heavily Republican district – two, if you count South Carolina’s 5th District, which also held an election last night. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Here are five observations on the elections, and the state of play in the House:


1. Georgia 6 isn’t great news for Democrats. Although these numbers have been tossed about frequently, they probably bear repeating, because a lot of the interpretation of this race comes down to what you think the nature of the district is. GA-6 had been reliably Republican for decades, since the creation of its rough present form in 1992. Indeed, over the course of its existence, it has regularly turned out large margins for Republicans. In 2012, it was the 83rd most Republican district; there are 157 districts more Democratic than it is that are nonetheless held by Republicans. So, if this is the proper baseline, the result is actually quite good for Democrats.

But it isn’t the only way to read GA-6. The district has the most college-educated whites of any district held by Republicans in the country, and it swung hard against Donald Trump in 2016. Only 26 Republicans hold seats where Hillary Clinton won a larger share of the vote. If this represents the outer bounds of where Democrats can hope to win, their path to a 24-seat gain runs through the psephological equivalent of an inside straight.

Which one you think is more important in defining the district is difficult to sort out, but what we can say is this: The district defines one potential path for Democrats to a House majority in 2018. Democrats had hoped that an Ossoff win would suggest that traditionally Republican suburban districts, particularly in the South, were abandoning their GOP roots and preparing to swing to the Democrats. Talk abounded of making serious runs in similarly situated districts that hadn’t seen competitive races in decades (and in some cases, ever). In particular, the 18th- and 20th-most Democratic districts won by a Republican in 2016 were Texas’ 32nd and 7th districts, respectively the inner suburbs of Dallas and Houston (the latter was first won by a Republican when an obscure Texas oilman by the name of George H.W. Bush claimed it in 1966). Handel’s win here doesn’t foreclose that route by any stretch, but it does suggest that it isn’t a done deal.

Perhaps most importantly, Democrats are unlikely to get as clean a shot in any of these other districts as they had here. Most of the remaining districts will feature Republican incumbents, and few will have a candidate who is able to raise tens of millions of dollars, as did Ossoff. In other words, this path doesn’t necessarily get any easier for Democrats.

Again, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any other routes for Democrats; it doesn’t even mean that this route is foreclosed. In that sense, winning Georgia 6 was probably sufficient to prove Democrats had a good shot at the House, but not necessary. At the same time, I think it is a bit of a reality check on those who had thought these sorts of Republican voters would be eager to flip.

2. SC-5 shows another route for Democrats, one that runs through traditionally Democratic, blue-collar areas that swung hard toward Trump. There, Republican Ralph Norman defeated Democrat Archie Parnell by a surprisingly small margin of 3.4 points. This district had gone heavily for Trump, who carried it by 19 points, but it had gone for Mitt Romney and John McCain by narrower margins.

Moreover, its partisanship wasn’t changed much in the 2010 redistricting. At its core, it was still the same district that elected a Republican for the first time since Reconstruction in 2010, and where Democrat John Spratt had been considered unassailable for years prior. But once again, Democrats came up just short in a race that largely flew under the radar.

3. The distribution and enthusiasm gaps could be problems for Democrats. A developing scenario is this: Democrats have a highly energized core of supporters who would walk through a hurricane to vote against a Republican. In polling parlance, they make up the “tens” of enthusiasm (races for which tens of millions of dollars are raised). The strata below them, however, may be disproportionately Republican, who typically make up a larger percentage of high-propensity voters but are apathetic because of Trump, or at least displaced by Democrats.

This makes it easy for Democrats to overperform in races that slide under the radar, explaining results like KS-4 earlier this year and SC-5. But as the election gains visibility, those lower-propensity Republican voters become activated. The problem is that these special elections serve as shots across the bow for complacent Republicans and could reduce the number of Democrats who might sneak through in 2018.

One other possibility here: If those unusually energized Democrats are disproportionately distributed in heavily Democratic or rural Republican districts, it could reflect an especially large distributional issue for Democrats.

4. It is important for the GOP agenda. One significant consequence of an Ossoff win would have been concern about the viability and popularity of Trump’s agenda. It would have imperiled priorities such as the health-care bill, tax cuts, immigration, and other issues. Ossoff’s loss doesn’t make those objectives a sure thing by any stretch, but it does remove a potential existential threat.

5. It’s early. This is probably the most important thing to remember. The 2018 midterms are still 17 months away. The president is unpopular, and Democrats have a sizable lead on the generic ballot (which asks whether people would vote for Democrat or Republican in the fall). We should also remember that in mid-2010, Republicans lost a close race in southwest Pennsylvania, in the only district that voted for John McCain and John Kerry, which many interpreted as evidence that the House wouldn’t flip. Instead, it turned out to just be a district where Democrats got lucky: They went on to lose 63 seats in the fall. That’s the danger with dodging bullets; sooner or later, one of them is likely to hit.

No, and I'm running out of ways to explain in simple terms why this reasoning is wrong. Unfortunately, this is partially due to brain cells lost in repeated facepalming.

That's great kid.

Now how about you go play in traffic for a little while so that I can get some work done....

Thanks.

The guy didn't have a job, lived in his girlfriends place, outside his own district, and had no message except "i'm not trump". Somewhere along the campaign, his girlfriend magically became his fiancee (totally not posturing yo). One of Obama's true pajama boys.

Libs threw almost 50 million into his campaign and into the super PACs, on a message of nothing but TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). The sad part is that the speakers pumping out the hatred at the DNC are so loud now that no one in there can hear or think anything else. It's a runaway train and they have no one else to blame but themselves.

No, and I'm running out of ways to explain in simple terms why this reasoning is wrong. Unfortunately, this is partially due to brain cells lost in repeated facepalming.

I would hate to be the one who had to tell Hillary Clinton today that A woman can beat a man even when she's outspent 6 to 1.

No, and I'm running out of ways to explain in simple terms why this reasoning is wrong. Unfortunately, this is partially due to brain cells lost in repeated facepalming.

Um, thanks Fone. Quite the catch there....

"Drain the Swamp" isn't a Republican slogan, it's one of Trumps slogan.

Specifically it means to get rid of all the unelected bureaucrats who have been running the Government for decades....

Yes.

No.

It menat different things to everyone who heard it.