Special Election In Georgia...

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Special Election In Georgia...

Post by Lord Jim »

Will Georgia’s Special Election Show an Anti-Trump Tide?

Voters in Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District will have 18 candidates to choose from Tuesday when they decide who should fill the seat vacated by former Representative Tom Price, a Republican who was tapped to become President Trump’s health and human services secretary.

But none have earned more press, or raised more money, than Jon Ossoff, 30, a Democrat and documentary filmmaker who bills his campaign as a way to “Make Trump Furious.” Now, in one of the first political tests of the Trump presidency, the question is whether he can turn anti-Trump anger and energy into enough votes to send him to Congress from a wealthy suburban district that has not sent a Democrat to Washington in decades.

Here are some key questions about Tuesday’s election.

Can Mr. Ossoff land a knockout in Round 1?

The top two vote-getters on the crowded ballot will advance to a June 20 runoff — unless one of them earns more than 50 percent of the vote.

Mr. Ossoff, more than his Republican opponents, may need a knockout blow of 50 percent plus one. That would allow Democrats to avoid a long and costly slog toward a runoff when a Republican candidate is likely to be heavily favored in a one-to-one matchup.

Mr. Ossoff has raised more than $8.3 million, much of it from out-of-state donors, helping to fuel an energized ground game rife with local volunteers. But Republicans have countered with attack ads against him. One features images of Osama bin Laden and argues that Mr. Ossoff is untrustworthy because his documentary company produced films for Al Jazeera, the Qatari TV news network.

Many Republicans feel confident that with one Republican running in June instead of 11 now, the district would elect whoever survived the primary in a runoff against Mr. Ossoff.

What kind of Republican candidate are voters looking for?

Some of the Republicans vying to replace Mr. Price have embraced Mr. Trump’s rhetoric and positions. One of them is Bob Gray, a business executive and former City Council member in Johns Creek, Ga., who says he will be a “willing partner” of the president. [that would differentiate him from some of the women Trump tried to force himself on....]

But Mr. Gray’s experience shows how complicated and fractured Republican politics have become. He was endorsed by the Club for Growth, the small-government group. But he has since been attacked over that endorsement by a pro-Trump group called the 45 Committee, which, in a recent ad, called the Club for Growth a “D.C. special interest group” that was propping up “Bob Gray’s failing campaign.”

The Club for Growth opposed the failed effort that Mr. Trump favored to replace the Affordable Care Act on the grounds that it was not conservative enough.

Other strong Republican contenders include Karen Handel, the former Georgia secretary of state; and two former state senators, Judson Hill and Dan Moody.

Ms. Handel has called herself “an enthusiastic supporter” of Mr. Trump, but her enthusiasm has been more muted than that of Mr. Gray, who, in one ad, portrays himself standing in a swamp, draining it in chest waders.

Many observers believe that a more mainstream Republican like Ms. Handel would be the most formidable runoff opponent to Mr. Ossoff, offering a safe harbor for Republicans who are put off by Mr. Trump’s style or wary that his evolving policy positions will stray too far from Republican orthodoxy.
Which voters will turn out? And at what strength?

Early results indicate that nearly 55,000 people in the district turned out in the early voting period that ended on April 14. The New York Times’s Nate Cohn has estimated that about 57 percent of those early voters would have voted for Hillary Clinton, but he also noted that many reliable Republican voters would not be casting their ballots until Election Day.

Kerwin Swint, a political-science professor at Kennesaw State University, said that if Mr. Ossoff wants to score a surprise knockout, young voters will be crucial. “Young voters in that district are really excited by him,” Mr. Swint said. “He’s like a Bernie Sanders-type Democrat — the future.”

More broadly, Mr. Swint said he would be watching the turnout in the northern areas of the district, which tend to be more conservative, to gauge the prospects of Republicans, and the southern part, which is more diverse and closer to Atlanta, to gauge the prospects of Democrats.

Will minority voters show up for the Democrat?

The race thus far has been framed as a test of Mr. Trump’s popularity among white suburbanites, and of the gains the anti-Trump movement might be making among such voters.

But the district, though about 70 percent white, also has significant minority populations. Blacks make up about 13 percent of the population, Asians about 11 percent and Hispanics about 13 percent, according to census figures.

“People are going to be watching to see if minority voters turn out at a rate that’s even remotely proportional to their percentage of the population,” said Andra Gillespie, a political-science professor at Emory University.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has sunk a six-figure sum into ads on Atlanta radio stations targeting African-American voters.

“Remember what happened the last time people stayed home,” the actor Samuel L. Jackson says in one ad. “We got stuck with Trump. We have to channel the great vengeance and furious anger we have for this administration into votes at the ballot box.”

How will each party spin the results?

What happens in Georgia on Tuesday night is sure to resonate nationally. That poses opportunities and risks for both parties.

Last week, the Republican Ron Estes won a special election in Kansas’ Fourth Congressional District, filling the seat previously held by Mike Pompeo, Mr. Trump’s new C.I.A. director. The losing Democrat, James Thompson, was nonetheless able to reduce the Republican margin of victory in the district to 7 percentage points from 31 points in 2016.

Mr. Trump, in a Twitter post Sunday night, criticized the news media for its focus on both races and insinuated that reporters were overemphasizing anti-Trump sentiment.

For Republicans, a decisive victory, whether it comes now or in June, would throw some cold water on the notion that Mr. Trump has made congressional candidates more vulnerable in the midterm elections next year.

If Mr. Ossoff pulls out a victory, Mr. Swint said, Democrats will probably use it to show Mr. Trump’s weakness — “that this guy is a lame duck already,” he said.

But Mr. Swint is among many here who see a runoff as a more likely outcome. And he sees a danger for Mr. Ossoff even if he finishes first on Tuesday.

If Mr. Ossoff makes the runoff but underperforms — garnering, Mr. Swint said, about 40 percent of the vote or less — Democrats may decide to stop pouring money into what they perceive to be an uphill battle.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/us/p ... ssoff.html
Tuesday’s contest in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District to fill the seat of now-Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price has gotten the president’s attention. He tweeted, “The super Liberal Democrat in the Georgia Congressioal [sic] race tomorrow wants to protect criminals, allow illegal immigration and raise taxes!”

However unintentionally, this line of crude attack may well remind many upscale Republican and Democratic voters in this district why they dislike President Trump. He barely carried the district, running almost 20 points behind Price in November. (NBC News finds: “Tom Price got 62% of the vote in this highly educated and affluent Atlanta-area district in 2016, and Mitt Romney took 61% in 2012. But Trump barely beat Hillary Clinton here in 2016, 48%-47%.”)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... 61e8478f51

The ultimate outcome of this race (whether it comes tonight or in June) is going to be an early test of two major factors that the Dems would need to have running strongly in their direction to have any shot at retaking the House in '18...

The first is the ability to make congressional races a referendum on Trump...(With Trump just barely carrying this district, despite it's overall Republican leanings, and his popularity being even lower now, if that can be done effectively a race like this should definitely be winnable.)

The second is the ability to translate the turnout for marches and rallies and town halls into actual votes at the polls. For the Democrats to have a real chance to retake the House, the number one precondition is that they change the voter pool that typically shows up for a midterm election. With the exception of 2006, (where they were aided primarily by Republicans disillusioned with George W. Bush staying home, more than they were with any dramatic increase in Democratic turnout) their track record on this has been pretty piss poor...

If they can't do these two things; nationalize the local congressional elections into a vote on Trump, and get their people out to the polls in higher numbers than normally happens in off-year elections...

They will have a zero percent chance of retaking the House in 2018...

This special election offers an early opportunity to see how those efforts are going...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 9102
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Special Election In Georgia...

Post by Sue U »

Lord Jim wrote:If they can't do these two things; nationalize the local congressional elections into a vote on Trump, and get their people out to the polls in higher numbers than normally happens in off-year elections...

They will have a zero percent chance of retaking the House in 2018...

This special election offers an early opportunity to see how those efforts are going...
The Democrats have a zero percent chance of retaking the House in 2018 regardless of Trump's unpopularity. To gain a bare majority, they'd have flip about 25 GOP seats without losing any currently held, and I highly doubt there are as many as 10 where there's even a competitive race to be had due to the gerrymandered configuration of districts. The Dems need to concentrate on state legislative elections so that they can have more influence on redistricting after the 2020 census if they hope to ever have a majority in the House again.
GAH!

Big RR
Posts: 14911
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Special Election In Georgia...

Post by Big RR »

Give Trump time--he may well split his party and alienate more of the faithful to produce many more competitive races, but if he doesn't screw things up really bad it is likely not enough to flip the House to the dems (and if he does, he may well be removed from office before the election).

Burning Petard
Posts: 4596
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: Special Election In Georgia...

Post by Burning Petard »

"But the district, though about 70 percent white, also has significant minority populations. Blacks make up about 13 percent of the population, Asians about 11 percent and Hispanics about 13 percent, according to census figures".

For a total of 107%. One more datapoint along the generality that race in American has no objective meaning. It is not adequate, unless you are making a conscious effort at fake news, to use the word 'about' to excuse the illogical total.

I made money contributions to the Dem Natl Party last year. About two weeks ago they sent me a big questionnaire about just what the priorities should be for the Dems, both right now and long term--2020. I said essentially what LJ says above, but even more specific. I said they need to get intensive in support of local campaigns: school boards, zoning boards, really local stuff to rebut the impression that the 'party elites' don't care about the ordinary voter and their daily problems.

snailgate

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Special Election In Georgia...

Post by rubato »

Sue U wrote: "...

The Democrats have a zero percent chance of retaking the House in 2018 regardless of Trump's unpopularity. To gain a bare majority, they'd have flip about 25 GOP seats without losing any currently held, and ... " .
You are probably correct but each seat they take away makes the "House Freedom Caucus" more powerful and the Speaker, weaker.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: Special Election In Georgia...

Post by Guinevere »

Sue U wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:If they can't do these two things; nationalize the local congressional elections into a vote on Trump, and get their people out to the polls in higher numbers than normally happens in off-year elections...

They will have a zero percent chance of retaking the House in 2018...

This special election offers an early opportunity to see how those efforts are going...
The Democrats have a zero percent chance of retaking the House in 2018 regardless of Trump's unpopularity. To gain a bare majority, they'd have flip about 25 GOP seats without losing any currently held, and I highly doubt there are as many as 10 where there's even a competitive race to be had due to the gerrymandered configuration of districts. The Dems need to concentrate on state legislative elections so that they can have more influence on redistricting after the 2020 census if they hope to ever have a majority in the House again.

1000% correct.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Special Election In Georgia...

Post by Lord Jim »

It's true that the Dems have a huge bench strength problem (having lost 1000 net state house and senate seats since 2008...that's pretty devastating) but I while their ability to take back the House in 2018 is certainly a long shot, I disagree that it's as hopeless as some here are saying...

(The situation in the Senate is actually worse...Thanks to all the Tea Party ying yangs that got nominated in 2012, the GOP is only defending 8 seats total out of the 33 that are up, while the Democrats are defending 10 seats in states that Trump carried...Even with only a net of 3 needed to take control of the Senate, considering those numbers, that's a really tall order...)

There are 23 House seats currently held by Republicans in districts that Hillary Clinton carried. There's another group where she lost by only 2 points or less. (The Georgia district from yesterday's special election is one of those...)

Yes, because of gerrymandering (which currently favors the GOP because they held the majority of Governorship's and state legislatures in 2010...they certainly didn't invent it) the Republican Party starts out with a built in advantage, but not an insurmountable one...

Not if there's a "wave" election...

Since 1994, there have been six mid term elections, and three of them have been "wave" elections...('94, '06, and '10)

Midterm wave elections share two key characteristics:

1.an incumbent President who is personally very unpopular and/or who has pursued major policy goals that are very unpopular. (An easily imagined situation given the current incumbent.)

2. The House and the Senate both being controlled by the party of that President.

In each of these three cases, ('94, '06, and '10) the party out of power was able to capitalize on this by nationalizing the House races (which are usually decided on local perceptions of local candidates) and turn them into a referendum on the policies of the President....

In a wave election, traditional assumptions about "competitive seats" go out the window, because the turnout model assumptions they are based on aren't valid...

The vote for the party in power is suppressed both by of a lack of enthusiasm for the unpopular leader, while the opposition vote is energized for the same reason...

There's every reason to believe that the basic elements needed for a wave election are going to be in place...

The big question is whether the Democratic Party of 2018 (they were able to do it 2006 with Howard Dean as party Chairman and Rahm Emanuel focused on candidate recruitment as head of DCCC) will be able to have the kind of national organization needed to take advantage of the opportunity...

That involves developing a consistent national theme that resonates with the mood of the country, recruiting capable candidates who are good fits for the districts they are running in, and getting their vote out to the polls...

(Of the three, I think it's the third the Dems will have the biggest issue with; they have a perennial problem with getting their people to show up for midterm elections. Obama got so exasperated about this after 2014 that he started talking about trying to make voting mandatory... :roll: )

But of course if the effort isn't made, and all the Democrats do is sit around wringing their hands and going "Boo hoo, woe is us, it won't matter what we do, the evil Republicans have the districts so gerrymandered we can't possibly win", then you're right, they'll have a zero percent chance...

ETA:

I think it's kind of funny that it's a Republican here who actually sees a real path for the Dems to be able to take back the House, while the Democrats and Liberals here seem to be hanging crepe... 8-)
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: Special Election In Georgia...

Post by Guinevere »

OFFS, the only one boo-hooing is you.

And really, one day you complain and criticize about the Dems taking a strong stand on something (Gorsuch) and then the next day you criticize them and call them negative sad sacks (or whatever the language you used).

The party spent time and money in KS and GA and got good results. It will probably spend time and money on th special election in MT too, even though that's a long shot. And of course there will be a strong push in 2018 to make gains in the House and Senate. But resources are not unlimited, and I'm not willing to spend money recklessly. I'd rather spend it strategically and build up the bench and he resources for 2020.

As I've said before, there is both a short game and a long game to be played. Each require sometimes competing strategies. But I'm confident we will be playing, and playing hard for 2018 and 2010. If you think otherwise you're just being foolish.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
RayThom
Posts: 8604
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Longwood Gardens PA 19348

Special Election In Georgia

Post by RayThom »

And the "Nice Try Award" goes to: Jon Ossoff

Now that it's down to one Dem and one Repug, Ossoff won't stand a chance in the June runoff.

The weight of the White House Mariner's albatross won't be felt until after the November 2018 elections -- unless Lord Dampnut defeats himself before then.
Image
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.” 

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Special Election In Georgia...

Post by Lord Jim »

Here's an excellent example of how Trump's popularity (or lack thereof ) has the potential to dramatically impact the midterm elections:
Poll shows Texas Dem Castro leading Cruz

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) edges out Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in a potential 2018 Senate matchup, a new poll shows.

According to the statewide poll numbers released Wednesday by Texas Lyceum, Castro gets 35 percent support of Texas adults in the potential matchup, while Cruz gets 31 percent.

And in a matchup between Cruz and Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas), the two are tied at 30 percent.

A Democrat hasn't won a Senate race in Texas in 29 years. Cruz, who came in second in last year's GOP presidential primary, has long been considered a big favorite.

The poll also found President Trump underwater in job approval, with 54 percent disapproving to 42 percent who approve.

Fifty-two percent of respondents said the country is on the wrong track — down from 63 percent in a 2016 edition of the poll.

Texans are divided on the question along partisan lines, with 84 percent of Democrats saying the country is on the wrong track compared to 73 percent of Republicans who say it's on the right track.

The poll was conducted from April 3 to 9 and includes 1,000 interviews. The margin of error is 3.1 percentage points.

O'Rourke last month officially jumped into the race to take on Cruz in 2018. He was the first announced Democrat running to unseat Cruz in what will be a steep uphill battle in a reliably red state. Castro is still considering a bid of his own.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/ ... dem-castro

Now admittedly it's early and Cruz is a very smart fella who will no doubt spend a lot of time reconnecting with his state after all of his cavorting on the national stage, but if the country's mood in 2018 is such that they can even take a senate seat away from the GOP in Texas that shows you the potential impact of a wave election...

The thing that should most worry Cruz is the huge number of undecided...

I'm sure his name identification is in the high 90s so the number of people who are undecided because they simply don't know enough about him to form an opinion of him has got to be infinitesimal...

This poll shows that about 70% of the voters in Texas, knowing all about Ted Cruz and what he stands for, are never the less either willing to commit now to voting for his Democratic opponent, or are completely open to the idea of doing so...
ImageImageImage

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Special Election In Georgia...

Post by rubato »

Ossoff got 48.1%. Should be easy to pick up 2% from all of the rest of the field.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
RayThom
Posts: 8604
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Longwood Gardens PA 19348

Special Election In Georgia...

Post by RayThom »

Poll shows Texas Dem Castro leading Cruz
A sign of things to come? Rep. Castro was on Hillary's short list for a running mate. That said, it is Texas and her lone star doesn't shine too bright there.

Will Cruz, with Lord Dampnut help, blow it in the stretch? They will need to look really bad for the Texas voters to shift in Castro's direction.

Eighteen months is an eternity in politics. It would be foolish for anyone to entertain how this will eventually play out until four or five months before the '18 vote.
Image
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.” 

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Special Election In Georgia...

Post by Lord Jim »

rubato wrote:Ossoff got 48.1%. Should be easy to pick up 2% from all of the rest of the field.


yrs,
rubato
I agree that Ossoff should be able to win...

So long as progressives don't decide he isn't "pure" enough and don't bother to turn out...

I've posted a lot laying out how I believe the stage could be set for a big Democratic wave election win in 2018...

Here's an excellent article that shows how they could blow this opportunity:
Finally, Bernie Sanders Says He Hopes Jon Ossoff Wins

OMAHA, Neb. ― Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) endorses Georgia Democrat Jon Ossoff for Congress, he told The Huffington Post on Thursday night.

“I don’t know a whole lot about Jon. I certainly hope that he wins,” Sanders said after a rally where he was promoting Omaha mayoral candidate Heath Mello. “It would be an asset. It would be part of the process of reclaiming the House of Representatives for the Democrats.”

Sanders released an additional statement affirming his support for Ossoff on Friday. “Let me be very clear,” it reads. “It is imperative that Jon Ossoff be elected congressman from Georgia’s 6th District and that Democrats take back the U.S. House. I applaud the energy and grassroots activism in Jon’s campaign. His victory would be an important step forward in fighting back against [President Donald] Trump’s reactionary agenda.”[That should have been his position from the outset]

The Vermont senator’s stance on the special election in Georgia had been a source of contention after Sanders made ambivalent comments about Ossoff earlier in the week. Ossoff is “not a progressive,” Sanders said Tuesday, according to The Washington Post.

That seemingly conflicted with Sanders’ support of Mello, who he did refer to as a progressive. Mello has a long history of opposing reproductive freedom, something that apparently only became clear to most national
observers of the mayoral race over the past few days.

Sanders had backed other Democratic special election candidates, leading to questions about which candidates would get his support.

Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez has been on a “unity tour” with Sanders, and has also felt pressure around the Mello endorsement. He issued a statement on Friday walking back his earlier claim that Democrats needed to embrace a broad coalition and not write off candidates who are anti-choice. That is no longer Perez’s opinion, according to the new statement that is a resounding win for advocates of reproductive freedom:
Democrats trust women to make their own decisions. Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health. That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state. That is why I will be convening women leaders from across the country in the next week on how we can make sure our Democratic candidates and elected leaders are living up to these fundamental values.

Whatever one’s personal beliefs about choice, no government should legislate them onto others. That is a fundamental principle Democrats of all backgrounds have always fought for, and we will continue to do so at local and national levels. At a time when women’s rights are under assault from the White House, the Republican Congress, and in states across the country, we must speak up for this principle as loudly as ever and with one voice.

I fundamentally disagree with Heath Mello’s personal beliefs about women’s reproductive health. It is a promising step that Mello now shares the Democratic Party’s position on women’s fundamental rights. Every candidate who runs as a Democrat should do the same, because every woman should be able to make her own health choices. Period.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oma ... 90a84?enpd

No Bernie, Ossoff is not what you would call a "progressive" he's a moderate liberal. No Sanders/Warren type progressive can possibly win in a district like the one he's running in, and if the Dems want to have any hope of taking back the House, (or even substantially increasing their number of seats) they need to be able to win in districts like the one Ossoff is running in.

What Ossoff is is a reliable vote against cuts in social programs, against punitive immigration policies, against de-funding Planned Parenthood, etc...

In other words, a broad collection of issues presumably important to the Democratic Party and issues on which his Republican opponent is likely to be on the opposite side of, right down the line.

There may not be a whole lot of "progressives" in a district like the one Ossoff is running in, but there are some, (not enough of course to elect anyone on their own) and in what is likely to be a very close election, whether they choose to turnout to vote for him even though he isn't as far to the left as they are, could very well make the difference. If they decide, "well he just isn't liberal enough to be worthy of my vote" they will be helping to instead elect a person who they agree with on absolutely nothing...

This sense of self-righteous purity and insistence that those who they vote for share it, is a strong impulse among many on the left, (and yes it's certainly present among many on the right as well) but it's one they must overcome if they want to take advantage of the opportunity they are likely to have...

Now let me talk a little bit about Mr. Perez, and the position that the ideological purists have put him in...(I'll give him some credit; at least his first impulse was the correct one)

Tom Perez has one of the most unenviable jobs in the country...(maybe only Sean Spicer has a worse one)

He is tasked with rebuilding a party that not only has lost control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, but over 900 state legislative and senate seats, creating this situation:
Republicans Now Control Record Number of State Legislative Chambers

Republicans added to their historic 2014 gains in the nation’s state legislatures with the addition of five state House chambers and two state Senate chambers in last week’s election, while Democratic control was reduced to levels not seen since the Civil War.

Republicans are now in control of a record 67 (68 percent) of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers in the nation, more than twice the number (31) in which Democrats have a majority, according to the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

“That’s more than at any other time in the history of the Republican Party,” according to NCSL. “They also hold more total seats, well over 4,100 of the 7,383, than they have since 1920.”

Next year, the GOP will control both legislative chambers in 32 states - an all-time high, according to NCSL - while Democrats will have total control of just 13 state legislatures.

In 24 of the 32 states with Republican-controlled legislatures, voters have also elected Republican governors. In contrast, Democrats have a “political trifecta” in just six states.

Since 2009, when President Obama took office, his party has lost a total of 919 seats in state legislatures nationwide, according to NCSL data.Since 2009, when President Obama took office, his party has lost a total of 919 seats in state legislatures nationwide, according to NCSL data.

In 2009, Democrats had total control of 27 state legislatures, and held a majority in at least one chamber in eight more states where power was divided. In contrast, Republicans controlled just 14 state legislatures.

During Obama’s first year in office, Democrats held 1,024 of the 1,971 total state Senate seats in the nation, compared to 889 in Republican hands. They also held 3,058 of the total 5,411 state House seats, compared to 2,334 for Republicans.

In addition, there were 28 Democratic governors, compared to 22 Republican governors.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/bar ... atures-all

And the losses have been similar at the local level, with mayorships, (Like the mayorship of Omaha that Heath Mello is running for, which the Dems lost to a Republican in 2013 for the first time in 16 years) town councils, school boards, etc....

If I'm the leader of the Democratic party, I'm looking at the situation the party is facing from President down to library board, and I'm thinking I've got a friggin' five alarm emergency on my hands...

The last thing I need to be doing is kissing off any electable candidate for any office anywhere with some kind of asinine one issue litmus test... :loon

That's simply not a luxury I can afford...

So long as the candidate is going to be supportive of the basic philosophy of my party and most of the positions that a majority of Democrats hold, that's going to have to be good enough...

What all the high falutin' language Perez was apparently forced to embrace boils down to is :

" Mr. or Ms. Candidate, we don't care that you support our positions on social programs, or Planned Parenthood, or income inequality, or the environment, or anything else. And we don't care that you're an appealing, articulate and electable candidate who could win your race and prevent someone who shares none of our positions from winning. Unless you maintain the absolute maximalist position on abortion rights, you can go fuck yourself. We don't care that you're running in a pro-life district and otherwise could get elected. If you're opposed to federal funding of partial birth abortion for example, you hate women and we don't want you. Hit the road."

If that's the approach the party wants to take (on abortion, or gun rights, or any other single issue) then the Democrats will absolutely remain what they have become today; an essentially coastal and urban party, mired in perpetual minority status in most places in the country across the board; federal, state and local....

Not only will they be unable to take advantage of the wave opportunity they will likely have in 2018, they won't even be able to begin crawling out of the deep abyss they have fallen into at the state and local levels in most of the country. "Short game" or "long game" this approach will kick their ass...

Majority parties are not pure, ideological monoliths. The Democratic party certainly never was before when it was a majority party and the Republicans aren't now. (All you have to do is look at the failure to get healthcare bill out of the house to see proof of that)

Majority parties have factions. Majority parties have lots of people in them who deviate from the "party line" on this or that issue. That's how they get elected in states or districts where otherwise the guy or gal from the other party would win. Winning those states and districts (state or federal) is how you become a majority party...

The Democratic party certainly used to understand this quite well. It's a lesson they need to relearn if they ever want to reverse all the losses they have suffered...

You would think that the reality of all these losses would be enough to drive this lesson home, but given the reversal Perez was forced to make, apparently some folks are just really slow learners...

I get the impression that Perez himself understands the approach that needs to be taken. But he needs to grow a backbone and stand up to those elements within his party (or who are allied with his party) who are insisting that they follow a path that assures perpetual minority status, rather than cave in to them...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: Special Election In Georgia...

Post by Guinevere »

Say it with me, slowly, clearly, and distinctly -- Bernie is NOT and never has been a Democrat. He and his "pure-as-driven-snow" :roll: ideologues will be the death of the Democratic party if WE ALL don't learn to get along and figure out a plan to work together.

I'm beyond frustrated with this nonsense. There is SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT STUFF TO BE WORKING ON.

There. I feel better now.














Actually, I really don't. This continued infighting is REALLY pissing me off.
:arg
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 20058
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Special Election In Georgia...

Post by BoSoxGal »

Why are you so angry at just the Bernie progressives, though? Clearly the Democrats have dropped the ball in a major way both via serious missteps in Clinton's campaign strategy - which many of her people are now admitting - and at the national AND local level in losing thousands of seats in recent years. I don't pretend to be an expert on how all of that came about, but it sure as heck isn't all the fault of Bernie bots. So I think there is plenty of 'blame' to go around for Democratic Party dysfunction, but the only way to move forward effectively is to build strong coalitions of progressives and moderates, win back the legislatures and reshape the districts after 2020. We all need to find ways to get along productively and anti-Trumpism is only going to get us so far.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Special Election In Georgia...

Post by rubato »

Why are you so angry at just the Bernie progressives, though?

Because they were pissy little children and didn't get the candidate they wanted (who would have been hammered in the general election) Trump was elected. That's not a good reason? Same with the idiotic Nader voters in 2000.

Bernie was a selfish asshole who only joined the Democratic party because he wanted something from them after 30 years + of never doing anything for them.


yrs,
rubato

Burning Petard
Posts: 4596
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: Special Election In Georgia...

Post by Burning Petard »

I can't speak for the GOP. I am a yellow-dog Democrat. I have worked in local Democrat party politics in Jackson County Missouri, Midland County Michigan, and New Castle County Delaware. In all three places the party has made demands from the top down. The party rarely supports the very local candidates. One begins by proving you can get elected WITHOUT party support, and then you get more party support, directly proportional to the money and votes you can bring in to support the party and individuals higher up on the ballot.

And the GOP has been eating our lunch at the local level. It was a long slow process that brought us to the point that the election districts are defined most places by the GOP. Gerrymandering works and only leads to more and better gerrymandering.

snailgate

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17271
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Special Election In Georgia...

Post by Scooter »

Interesting. I look at this and see that the New Castle County Executive, 9 of 13 county council members, the sheriff, the recorder of deeds, the clerk of the peace and the recorder of wills are all Democrats. Democrats have majorities in the state house and state senate, and the governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general are Democrats.

Now that may well have been accomplished with little or no help from the national party, but it hardly points to a Republican ascendancy.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Special Election In Georgia...

Post by Lord Jim »

Three factors are going to determine the outcome of this election...


Turnout, turnout, and...

gee...what's the third thing...

Oh yeah, turnout:
Georgia 6th District Runoff Poll: Jon Ossoff Narrowly Leads Karen Handel

A new poll shows Democrat Jon Ossoff holding a narrow lead on Republican Karen Handel in Georgia’s 6th congressional district runoff election for the vacant U.S. House of Representatives seat.

The poll was released by a Democratic polling firm and shows Ossoff ahead of Handel by one point (48-47). It was performed by Anzalone Liszt Grove Research from April 23-26 and asked 590 likely voters in the runoff election their opinion on the race.

Five percent of voters considered themselves “undecided” and there was a margin of error of four percent.

The election is to replace former U.S. Rep. Tom Price, who was selected by President Donald Trump‘s and was confirmed as the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/jon-ossof ... ion-price/
ImageImageImage

User avatar
RayThom
Posts: 8604
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Longwood Gardens PA 19348

Special Election In Georgia

Post by RayThom »

At the moment it's Ossoff leading Handel by just 48-47. Unfortunately, and even if both parties put in optimum effort, it will be a Handel win by the slimmest of margins.

I can hear Drumpf cranking up the rhetoric already.
Image
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.” 

Post Reply