U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-19-2017, 09:43 AM
 
773 posts, read 276,987 times
Reputation: 514

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Ok, please no partisan stupidity in response to this question (I know I'm asking for the impossible, sigh).

Why are the democrats pushing this hard in uphill district fights for house seats where the repubs have a pretty big margin?

I mean a Senate seat would be a much bigger deal given the margin there being small.

Are they just flush with donations from the backlash of losing the Presidential election or is the candidate "well connected" or is there some other underlying story?

I ask because usually neither party p*sses away a ton of money on what are seen as long-shots unless there is something else in play.
The answer is quite simply that the Democratic Party is in complete shambles and don't know what to do to fix it. So they go after the first shiny object that they see hoping that it has a message inscribed on it laying out what their political game plan should be. The party is lost in the wilderness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-19-2017, 09:44 AM
 
Location: The Woods
16,935 posts, read 22,198,202 times
Reputation: 9019
We are talking Georgia here. It should of been an easy GOP win.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2017, 09:53 AM
 
17,535 posts, read 19,702,562 times
Reputation: 7290
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
We are talking Georgia here. It should of been an easy GOP win.
It was... even in a district that hates Trump... still an easy win... kinda of like how Michigan, Penn, and Wisconsin should of been easy wins from the anti-Trumpers... the only thing in common is TRUMP WON... and anti-Trumpers STILL LOSE
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2017, 10:18 AM
 
Location: NJ
16,813 posts, read 11,748,622 times
Reputation: 10809
A patternis emerging, Dems claim wins even when they haven't won.


they won the presidential election 2016 and now Georgia.


Hysterically delusional and unfit to represent anyone.


Why heck Hillary should be president she won the popular vote in 2008 and 2016. New rule says that if you win the popular vote 3 times in a row you are coronated president. The Dems and Hillary's only hope!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2017, 10:48 AM
 
Location: The Woods
16,935 posts, read 22,198,202 times
Reputation: 9019
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
It was... even in a district that hates Trump... still an easy win... kinda of like how Michigan, Penn, and Wisconsin should of been easy wins from the anti-Trumpers... the only thing in common is TRUMP WON... and anti-Trumpers STILL LOSE
They didn't win, that's why there's a special runoff election now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2017, 11:13 AM
 
8,059 posts, read 4,395,330 times
Reputation: 3063
The law re residency in your district in Georgia has changed. Forget the year, (1980?), but when the Dems controlled the state, they tried redistricting Newt Gingrich out of his district. Newt simply moved to the new district, where most of his constituency reside. The rest is history, including the apparent change in the law re residency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Read. The. Constitution.

I used to think this provision was a wrong thing to put in the Constitution, but after seeing abuses like gerrymandering - especially the post-2000 redistricting which put four incumbents in two Michigan districts - it makes sense to me.

If an incumbent gets redistricted, why shouldn't they be allowed to run where their constituents are - even if redistricting put those constituents in a different district?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2017, 11:46 AM
 
12,639 posts, read 7,290,996 times
Reputation: 7449
I recommend dumping another $8M into the runoff Dems. Get your checkbooks out liberals!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2017, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Middle of the Pacific Ocean
11,411 posts, read 6,173,790 times
Reputation: 11239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
It was 51.01 to 48.90 with the two party vote. Certainly really can't predict much other than a tossup at this point when it comes down to two candidates. A slight change in turnout in the runoff from the Jungle primary could determine the race.
Your two party breakdown is correct.

Ossoff got 48.10% of the vote. Election Night Reporting

The other Dem candidates are Ragin Edwards (0.26%), Richard Keatley (0.12%), Rebecca Quigg (0.16%), and Ron Slotin (0.25%). They combined to get to 0.79% of the vote, meaning that all Dem votes combined accounted for 48.89% o the vote, while all GOP votes combined accounted for 51.11% of the vote.

This isn't all that much out of line with how much Trump won the district by ( when he won by less than 2 percentage points). Sure, Price won it by a much, much larger total, but given that this election was styled as a referendum on Trump (that's what Ossoff has been running on and is what the main stream media have been pushing), the results aren't very much out of line with how the district voted in the 2016 presidential election; of course, most Georgia voters also saw fit to give Donald Trump the state's 16 electoral votes by an even larger margin and there's nothing to suggest that a redo wouldn't see a similar result. Note, for the aforementioned reasons, it makes more sense to compare the special election results to Donald Trump's performance in the district in 2016 as opposed to comparing it to Price's performance. All in all, not much of a difference and nothing earth shattering.

Moving on, the fact that all the Republicans technically outperformed Trump in the district (albeit slightly . . . 2.22%) in an election that was styled as a "referendum" on the president is not exactly a positive sign for Ossoff going forward. The Dems best chance to pick up this seat was yesterday, when the GOP vote was divided. And Dems know it. When this thing goes to a runoff and its Hollywood vs. Georgia, I still think the election could be tight, though I still have the race as tossup/lean GOP. But this assumes that Dem enthusiasm remains high. Given historic Dem trends of voter falloff for runoff elections, however, this could very well up being a very comfortable win for Karen Handle. Time will tell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2017, 12:42 PM
 
17,535 posts, read 19,702,562 times
Reputation: 7290
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
They didn't win, that's why there's a special runoff election now.
You already lost, you just don't know it yet... everyone knows it but you... even Nancy Pelosi and CNN knows it... the only way for Democrats to win is to NOT go into a special election which they KNOW they will lose... bigly...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2017, 12:49 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
18,976 posts, read 15,428,301 times
Reputation: 3946
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Your two party breakdown is correct.

Ossoff got 48.10% of the vote. Election Night Reporting

The other Dem candidates are Ragin Edwards (0.26%), Richard Keatley (0.12%), Rebecca Quigg (0.16%), and Ron Slotin (0.25%). They combined to get to 0.79% of the vote, meaning that all Dem votes combined accounted for 48.89% o the vote, while all GOP votes combined accounted for 51.11% of the vote.

This isn't all that much out of line with how much Trump won the district by ( when he won by less than 2 percentage points). Sure, Price won it by a much, much larger total, but given that this election was styled as a referendum on Trump (that's what Ossoff has been running on and is what the main stream media have been pushing), the results aren't very much out of line with how the district voted in the 2016 presidential election; of course, most Georgia voters also saw fit to give Donald Trump the state's 16 electoral votes by an even larger margin and there's nothing to suggest that a redo wouldn't see a similar result. Note, for the aforementioned reasons, it makes more sense to compare the special election results to Donald Trump's performance in the district in 2016 as opposed to comparing it to Price's performance. All in all, not much of a difference and nothing earth shattering.

Moving on, the fact that all the Republicans technically outperformed Trump in the district (albeit slightly . . . 2.22%) in an election that was styled as a "referendum" on the president is not exactly a positive sign for Ossoff going forward. The Dems best chance to pick up this seat was yesterday, when the GOP vote was divided. And Dems know it. When this thing goes to a runoff and its Hollywood vs. Georgia, I still think the election could be tight, though I still have the race as tossup/lean GOP. But this assumes that Dem enthusiasm remains high. Given historic Dem trends of voter falloff for runoff elections, however, this could very well up being a very comfortable win for Karen Handle. Time will tell.


Basically it will come down to this.

1. How many of Ossoff's voters show up in June?.

2. How many of Handel's voters show in June?

3. How many of those who voted for the other candidates show up in June? How many of them go the other direction?

4. What happens nationally between now and then.


For the Democrats to win this, they need those who came out for Ossoff in the runoff to come out strongly again. If they don't he is in trouble. For the GOP its going to make sure those who voted for the other GOP candidates still come out very strong. They probably don't run the risk of more than a handful crossing over (which could have been a risk with Gray) but making sure they turn out in a special is important, especially considering the establishment candidate factor which might result in some staying home (probably more with the Gray voters than anyone else)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:39 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top