But they're not gonna fight if we don't take a swing.

I get that people are down about us losing but that we came so very close in a long time and very red district, not to mention made the Republicans send a LOT of money defending it, is something to take pride in IMO.

This is still early in our fight. We have a long way to go and the fight's NOT going to be easy. Mourn today if you need to but allowing doom and gloomers to bring or keep us down can NOT be an option. Quite literally the future of our planet, our civil/human rights and millions of lives is at stake.

NGU!

Sad some don't see it.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

If that value were extrapolated over all 435 seats in the House, that comes to 10.875 billion dollars. For Congressional seats?

This has to be an extreme outlier.

too bad the guy running in SC didn't get similar fundraising help - maybe a few TV ads or a few more people making calls on his behalf could have swung a much lower turnout race in his favor.

The difference is, Rethugs have money to burn, Ossoff's loss cost some of our people some necessities.

Not just narrow the Rethuglican margin of victory in some meaningless game. The Ossoff money could have been wisely spent on some purple districts in 2018 that would have actually produced some Democratic Representatives, who could act as a brake on what Trump (or Pence) can do in the last two years of that awful administration.

in an incredibly important race?

Didn't that money show the country that Democrats are willing to back a 50 state strategy?

All I'm doing is making suggestions, that people are free to take, ignore, or modify. And I can guarantee you that we won't have 25 million dollars to fight even every close race, let alone the ones that are solidly in the GOP column.

We don't have to win the entire House, just a decent majority, like we had after the 2008 election.

And how are people supposed to know that prior to donating?

How do you propose to stop that sort of "pointless" spending?

to look to the history of the district or state involved, and see what the political climate has been like for the Democratic Party in recent decades. The district that voted Newt Gingrich into office is probably not terribly kind to progressive sensibilities.

Presidents pick Cabinet secretaries from safe places. They have armies of political analysts advising them which potential Cabinet officials to avoid, because of the danger of flipping the seat. Every party has done this for many decades. And as a rule, seats don't get flipped right after an election, it takes a couple of years for discontent with the party in power, or the individual in the office, to resonate with mushy middle voters who might be tempted to vote for a different party the next time around.

We'll be in better position in November of 2018 than we are right now to send Trump the repudiation he so richly deserves.

Because that is the "history of the district involved."

Here's more history on the district:



If we hadn't gone after that seat, people would be screaming that the Dems aren't gettting out there and going for the obvious....

And in what way are we neglecting " to send Trump the repudiation he so richly deserves."?

Though it's often difficult to understand the play, thankfully, Edward Lasker, being a non-linear thinker, realized the value of the Bishop Sacrifice in 1911.

I certainly sympathize with anyone who is unable (or simply) unwilling to examine not simply tactics, but strategy as well; and perceives one and only one solution within the context of that round, rather than seven moves down when the sacrifice results in mate.

They had to spend big bucks defending a piece of their own turf.

they don't care, they have more money than anybody should have. Our money comes from the substance of the lives of everyday people who have to make choices about spending money on a political campaign, or buying a necessity for themselves or their families.

was earmarked for others, and will not not be there for them?

I'm not privy to that information.

But money is not an infinite commodity, at least not for our side. The rich, who buy Congress seats all the time have almost unlimited resources to do so, that we do not. Money spent on a lost cause is money that is not available for a future fight where it could possibly make a meaningful difference.

Let's see how things go in 2018, and we can use 20-20 hindsight to see which close races could have benefited from a few extra percentage points that this year's money could have bought.

And no, it was not a lost cause.

If we had not tried hard to get him elected, then more bashing of "Democratic Leadership" would have ensued.

That's why the DNC had the worst May fundraising in 14 years.

who live in mostly safe blue areas .

next year to help out some candidates in purple areas to get out their messages, and defeat those who would follow Trump blindly.

If California Democratic voters could give to Ossoff, they could give to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Democratic candidates who are trying to fight the gerrymandering that Repukes are so skilled at.

All I can do is suggest that we use our ammo in battles we can actually win.

we could have picked up this seat in the first round of voting.

Suggestions often seem more valid when objective numbers and evidence are used to support them rather than simple allegations.

Yeah, money is an infinite resource... the question is if they spend it $5: $2, who runs out first?

And if that had happened during a regular election and/or in a more moderate district, what would have been the outcome?


If nothing else, it energizes the local Democratic-leaning organizations and gives the damn Republicans a broader fight to wage. It lines up repeat/reliable fundraising efforts (like monthly donations) as well.

Especially considering that congress votes on it?

And dark money from Russia might soon get scarce.

This is a loss.

Yes, this is progress. Instantaneous change - that lasts - doesn't exist. Incremental change does. Demanding instantaneous change is unrealistic.

The Ossoff campaign spent millions of dollars, while Stooksbury spent, literally, zero.

And Ossoff was running against a dud of a candidate, as opposed to Stooksbury who was running against a long-standing popular incumbent.

This was an opportunity to win the seat. I am not happy about the result.

elections.

So, % is more of a real indicator than actual numbers, because of the differences in actual turnout between those types of elections.

That is what the graph is using.

When Tom Price ran in 2016 he beat Rodney Stooksbury by 23.2%. Ossoff came much, much, closer.

Is that clearer?

Curious - did you donate to Ossoff's campaign?

There were literally record-breaking amounts of money being spent by both campaigns, so this was not your typical special election.

I donated a small amount to Ossoff's campaign. Thereafter, I was deluged with emails asking for more money - to an incredibly annoying degree. Since I assume you donated as well, you know what I'm talking about.

In any case, I am disappointed in the way things turned out, as this was a real opportunity to Flip the 6th, as the hashtag opined.

You must have an idea on what went wrong.

Maybe the candidate could have taken it to Trump a bit more. He seemed a little timid sometimes on that front, a strategy I understand and respect, but possibly not as effective as the alternative.

Also, maybe he was seen as too young and lacking enough relevant experience - and there was that silly point about not living in the district that kept dogging him.

On the whole, he seemed to run a good campaign, though. Maybe it just wasn't winnable. I don't know enough to do anything other than speculate about it.

to insist there is no progress are not seeing the whole picture.

the district. I had no idea this was the case. For me it's disappointing that a candidate wouldn't cross that basic T. For that, I have to say that Jon Ossoff did not do everything he needed to win.

I am not disappointed in the loss, but in a perceived lack of respect for the constituents of that district. A blind spot, if you will.

"Well, I grew up in this district. I grew up in this community. No one knew there was going to be an election coming,” Ossoff said when asked whether he would be able to vote for himself in Tuesday’s election; he will not. “I’ve been living with Alisha, my girlfriend of 12 years, down by Emory University, where she’s a full-time medical student. And as soon as she concludes her medical training, I’ll be 10 minutes back up the street into the district where I grew up, but I want to support her and her career and do right by her.”

on an expired license, because you don't have time to get to the DMV. Except that you are wanting to represent people in the legislative process in Washington. It's kind of serious.

And hearing that story only makes me want to ask, why hasn't he married her? It's not like they're Jerry Brown and Linda Ronstadt.

But hey, I ain't mad at him.

Was his residency as an issue worth 11,000 votes in Georgia 6? Hard to say. Was it a contributing factor in flipping people on the fence? Probably. How many of those were there?

It was a tight race. There are electoral rules, which in compliance he was. But there are political "rules" to which he was vulnerable. Is he qualified? Yes. Should he run again? Yes, but from within the district.

Exit polls?

What about all those others that came out for him that had not come out in previous elections where it was a red landslide?

There's a song where Warren Zevon sings, "never thought I'd have to pay so dearly for what was already mine."

After the Georgia election this week, I bet Republicans are singing that too.

I agree that the Democratic candidate made a nice showing but he still lost by 4 points. I'm not sure whether the Republicans' spending $25 million made a difference between a win and a loss.
Nevertheless it is significant that the Republicans felt compelled to spend that kind of money. That party does not feel safe even in a very red gerrymandered district.

He just didn't have the experience that Karen Handel has.

But I think someone who had been elected to public office might have won it.