Support NeoGAF

[Chris R]

Man, 2018 is going to SUCK for Alaska.

Expect a HARD swing to the right, even if the state doesn't get the income tax it so badly needs.

 

[Autodidact]

Man, 2018 is going to SUCK for Alaska.

Expect a HARD swing to the right, even if the state doesn't get the income tax it so badly needs.

The Moose's Moderate Darling Lisa Murkowski would never vote to hurt Alaska.

She'll just let the others do it. Don't you feel better knowing you have her moderate and bipartisan - and did I say moderate - concern and compassion? She might even chide her colleagues on your behalf!

 

[pigeon]

Did I say I liked that idea? Simply put, the people who consistently show up and vote don't like Abortion--to the point that they would vote for someone like Donald Trump in record numbers (he won Evangelicals by a higher margin than any Republican before him). If you want a Candidate that can consistently win in these regions they need to be more Manchin and less Harris.

Truth be told I think the Government should stay out of a Woman's Right to Choose entirely, it should be between a woman and their doctor, as well as what they think is best for themselves. But the fact is, it's the one issue that consistently riles up the Conservative base, and like it or not, the South is full of Conservative voters.

"I think Democrats should give up on women's rights to win elections, but hey, it's not like I ENJOY giving up on women's rights. I just think it's a good idea."

 

[KirbYuuYuu]

Man, 2018 is going to SUCK for Alaska.

Expect a HARD swing to the right, even if the state doesn't get the income tax it so badly needs.

I mean thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to read right now.

 

[Pixieking]

The talk of running pro-life candidates is... interesting. But I think the purity-tests will be harsher than they are for the economic side of the Dem base. Currently we have Bernie/socialists pushing for reconfiguration of party funding/healthcare/Wall Street, and shouting-down (to one degree or another) people who don't believe in any one of those. With abortion, I think you'd have the Dem base riled-up pushing against any relaxation of pro-abortion-rights Democrats. You'd make gains with the Republican voters, and genuine Christians who want to vote Dem but can't because of abortion. But I'm not sure the gains would counteract the infighting.

In any case, running pro-lifers attacks the symptoms, not the cause. The real issue (I think) is how single-issue partisan voters skew results, even when they're harmed by everything else the party believes in. Essentially, single-issue voters are willing to be complete bastards to drug addicts, school-children, single-mothers, the unemployed, the disabled... in order to get what they want (either anti-abortion laws, or gun rights).

Headway needs to be made in getting these voters to recognise that, though they're voting for someone who believes in abortion, they're also voting for someone who believes sexual assault is okay, or that their step-brother deserves to be locked-up for being hooked on oxy, or that their children's education can be ignored/destroyed. Headway needs to be made in in forcing these voters to become more self-aware... which is, actually, one of the reasons why the AHCA is a force for good in the long-term for the Dems. If the AHCA passes, it'll force people to realise that, though they "won" with abortion (to one degree or another), they lost with their actual family.

Unfortunately, relying on the AHCA to do this is both heartless, and risky.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Every thing you say here was the wise man's thinking about Barack Obama prior to his run. He broke the rule book.

We have seen time and time again recently, the rule book does not trump the politics of the moment.

This is true.

I want us to break the rules. I'd love to turn what we understand totally on it's head. But it's also why I believe pushing a strong pro labor, socialist agenda, regardless of how badly it has been messaged and positioned before shouldn't quite be laughed out yet. I don't think it's crazy to say we could be more successful attempting that with voters we haven't tried it with before.

I'm not trying to say anyone's ideas are wrong or running a more femenist approach wont work. But I think we could heavily invest in a number of different ideas and approaches and see how people receive them because it might not turn out as we expect.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Laugh - but I haven't heard a better message in this thread. What do you propose?

Also that stuff ACTUALLY HELPS PEOPLE.

Controlling college costs is better than free college, which I don't think is great policy.

You aren't getting single payer.

And marijuana reform is like issue 5786446 of what people are going to vote for.

You basically just proposed "these are the things I want that are my priorities" aside from healthcare.

I propose voters who lean left stop being such fucking babies and learn to live in reality, but that's never going to happen either.

Learn to vote for whoever the hell is running against the GOP. Because the alternative is basically always worse. Or live in the worse case. That should be enough to get people to vote. Because it works well enough for the GOP.

 

[Autodidact]

I think we had our answer a month ago and just ignored it. Remember those polls showing Generic Democrat beating all the Republican challengers? Well, Generic Democrat scored 48% tonight in blood red South Carolina, more than anyone predicted. (Because who the fuck knew anything about Parnell besides the fact he had a D next to his name?)

 

[neurosisxeno]

"I think Democrats should give up on women's rights to win elections, but hey, it's not like I ENJOY giving up on women's rights. I just think it's a good idea."

If you want to win in those regions consistently, it is a good idea. Like I said, it's a shitty idea, but if all you want is wins, that's how you do it. I would also like to point out that if 70% of a district refuse to vote in a Pro-Choice candidate to represent them, you're simply not going to win it if you refuse to budge on the issue. Like it or not, Congress is there to represent the people, and you can't expect a candidate that flies in the face of 70% of the district's opinion to win. A Democrat who votes with other Democrats 80% of the time is better than a Republican that does <10% of the time.

In any case, running pro-lifers attacks the symptoms, not the cause. The real issue (I think) is how single-issue partisan voters skew results, even when they're harmed by everything else the party believes in. Essentially, single-issue voters are willing to be complete bastards to drug addicts, school-children, single-mothers, the unemployed, the disabled... in order to get what they want (either anti-abortion laws, or gun rights).

Bingo. I would add that it may not be pretty but it's effective. Republicans have a lock on most of the single issue voters key issues, and having a Party full of Democrats who refuse to budge on any of these issues sets us up for continual losses.

(Because who the fuck knew anything about Parnell besides the fact he had a D next to his name?)

I wish I knew some of this stuff earlier....

 

[pigeon]

If you want to win in those regions consistently, it is a good idea. Like I said, it's a shitty idea, but if all you want is wins, that's how you do it. I would also like to point out that if 70% of a district refuse to vote in a Pro-Choice candidate to represent them, you're simply not going to win it if you refuse to budge on the issue. Like it or not, Congress is there to represent the people, and you can't expect a candidate that flies in the face of 70% of the district's opinion to win. A Democrat who votes with other Democrats 80% of the time is better than a Republican that does <10% of the time.

This is identical to the people who argued that we should just start running candidates who are okay with white supremacy because America has a lot of white supremacists and it would be good to win them, right?

As always, in the aftermath of a political loss you learn who believes in progressive values because they have moral character and who says they believe in progressive values because they believe it's a social expectation to do so.

Winning an election by running on the Republican platform does not constitute a victory from my perspective.

 

[whyamihere]

I mean how many pro-life Democrats are there left?

Joe Donnelly
Daniel Lipinski
Collin Peterson

All have a 71% rating from the National Right to Life Committee. And then:

Henry Cuellar (28%)
Bob Casey (25%)
Joe Manchin (25%)
Sanford Bishop (14%)
Marcy Kaptur (14%)

Those are the only members of Congress with anything less than a 100% from the National Right to Life Committee who are Democrats.

And on the state level, I believe that John Bel Edwards is the only pro-life Dem governor.

 

[Holmes]

So if the story is that Clinton's suburban sun belt numbers can now be replicated (and they have twice in the span of two months in the same district), then that's good. I really wanted the W though, but... maybe 2018 will be kinder in this district.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Controlling college costs is better than free college, which I don't think is great policy.

You aren't getting single payer.

And marijuana reform is like issue 5786446 of what people are going to vote for.

You basically just proposed "these are the things I want that are my priorities" aside from healthcare.

I propose voters who lean left stop being such fucking babies and learn to live in reality, but that's never going to happen either.

Learn to vote for whoever the hell is running against the GOP. Because the alternative is basically always worse. Or live in the worse case. That should be enough to get people to vote. Because it works well enough for the GOP.

Except voting for whoever the hell their party shits out doesn't work for Republicans. That's why Romney, McCain, and Dole never became President.

Since the era of hyper partisanship started in, let's say.. 94.. in presidential elections both parties are 3 wins 3 losses. The candidate that excited their base the most and turned out their voters the most has won every time.

 

[Abinash117]

If you want to win in those regions consistently, it is a good idea. Like I said, it's a shitty idea, but if all you want is wins, that's how you do it. I would also like to point out that if 70% of a district refuse to vote in a Pro-Choice candidate to represent them, you're simply not going to win it if you refuse to budge on the issue. Like it or not, Congress is there to represent the people, and you can't expect a candidate that flies in the face of 70% of the district's opinion to win. A Democrat who votes with other Democrats 80% of the time is better than a Republican that does <10% of the time.



Bingo. I would add that it may not be pretty but it's effective. Republicans have a lock on most of the single issue voters key issues, and having a Party full of Democrats who refuse to budge on any of these issues sets us up for continual losses.



I wish I knew some of this stuff earlier....

Pretty telling liberal/progressives/Democrats are willing to concede their principles so they can win elections; principles that are progressive and then to appear more conservative.

What makes people think they can abandon their principles and expect their voters to vote for them? Do you guys think Democrats will vote for whoever?

 

[Makai]

I mean how many pro-life Democrats are there left?

Tim Kaine, right?

 

[Pixieking]

Winning an election by running on the Republican platform does not constitute a victory from my perspective.

What actually happens when you win like this, too? Either you've fronted a candidate who genuinely believes that, say, abortion is wrong (way to go! That'll help the Dems win against any bill that defunds PP!), or you've fronted a candidate who'll say anything to win, in the expectation they won't be tossed out next election.

The theoretical "dream" is that the pro-life candidate will be allowed to vote against Dem policies, except when it's a close-run thing. But, is that really a possibility? Win in a wave with a ton of GOP-light candidates, and you're going to have a ton who can turn against you. Just scrape a majority with GOP-light candidates, and they'll be caught between voting in-line with the electorate who got them elected, and voting with the wider-party (which causes issues in the home state).

Except voting for whoever the hell their party shits out doesn't work for Republicans. That's why Romney, McCain, and Dole never became President.

Since the era of hyper partisanship started in, let's say.. 94.. in presidential elections both parties are 3 wins 3 losses. The candidate that excited their base the most and turned out their voters the most has won every time.

But at some point, the Dem base has to realise that it's not all about "What this candidate can do for me", but rather "I'm voting to stop an awful person from being elected". Hillary's campaign was mostly predicated on people seeing that, though she wasn't perfect, Trump was worse. The Dem base didn't accept this, whilst at the same time, Republican voters fell in love and got excited by Trump.

 

[mo60]

The good thing is GA-6, KS-4, MT-AL and SC-5 are all winnable in 2018 if trump approval rating drops further or trump fails to energize republicans in 2018. People can not ignore the progress democrats made in these districts recently.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Tim Kaine, right?

whyamihere is basing it on actual voting record, in which case he's fine, though iirc his record as governor was a bit spotty

 

[VendettaRed07]

Tim Kaine, right?

He had like a 99% rating from Planned Parenthood so no

 

[whyamihere]

NARAL ratings from 2015 with any Dem with less than a 100%:

Joe Donnelly (45%)
Bob Casey (60%)

Dan Lipinski (15%)
Colin Peterson (5%)
Marcy Kaptur (95%)
Matt Cartwright (90%)
James Langevin (80%)
Henry Cuellar (45%)

whyamihere is basing it on actual voting record, in which case he's fine, though iirc his record as governor was a bit spotty

A few of these people were spottier in the past -- ie. Sandford Bishop, Brendan Boyle. All have 100% ratings from NARAL.

Donnelly used to have a 0% rating. Not during his time in the Senate.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Langevin apparently got a 0% from NARAL in 2006 and a 100% in 2007 lol

 

[whyamihere]

Langevin apparently got a 0% from NARAL in 2006 and a 100% in 2007 lol

I wonder what's going to happen when Rhode Island only has one district after 2020. Cicilline is a much better dude but Langevin has been around longer and RI-2 has a bigger population center.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I think the fact over the last year that so many Dems have thought that Kaine was pro life goes to show how effective frivolous bipartisan messaging can be

Just like how if you listen to a lot of conservatives these days they talk about McCain as if he's literally pushed McMaster to start a government coup to remove Trump despite using none of his political power as a senator against him and largely voted with any legislation he's been able to push in front of him

 

[neurosisxeno]

This is identical to the people who argued that we should just start running candidates who are okay with white supremacy because America has a lot of white supremacists and it would be good to win them, right?

As always, in the aftermath of a political loss you learn who believes in progressive values because they have moral character and who says they believe in progressive values because they believe it's a social expectation to do so.

Winning an election by running on the Republican platform does not constitute a victory from my perspective.

The problem is, me being Progressive doesn't matter considering the people in these districts ARENT PROGRESSIVES/!@><<

You're literally advocating for purity testing candidates. That nobody can be a real Democratic candidate unless they adhear to specific ideals, but the simple fact is a bunch of Conservatives and Moderates aren't going to vote for someone who in their mind is one soundbite away from sounding like Karl fucking Marx. You're saying we need a one size fits all ideologically pure wonderkin for like 700 different Government jobs serving hundreds of different demographics. It is not going to happen. The country is more conservative than you seem to think.

This is indicative of a problem within the Democratic Party. I have voted straight Democrat and Progressive my entire life, and have always desired a more Progressive platform, but here I am getting called a faux-Liberal because I don't think running Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders in suburban Georgia is a great idea.

Funny that me suggesting moderating the platform apparently is turning it into the Republican platform. What is the metric for what changes constitute adopting the opposition parties platform? What if I want higher subsidies for college, if someone doesn't support that they're basically a Republican right?

Pretty telling liberal/progressives/Democrats are willing to concede their principles so they can win elections; principles that are progressive and then to appear more conservative.

What makes people think they can abandon their principles and expect their voters to vote for them? Do you guys think Democrats will vote for whoever?

People concede their principles all the time. Hillary changed a ton of her stances when she became the Democratic Nominee, and between 2008 and 2012 half of Barrack Obama's platform changes. The simple fact is if you can't get into office you can't change anything, and being the most ideologically pure person in the unemployment line means nothing.

 

[Pryce]

"I think Democrats should give up on women's rights to win elections, but hey, it's not like I ENJOY giving up on women's rights. I just think it's a good idea."

not to attack you or anything but I find it interesting how some people have purity tests on abortion rights but will bend all the way back on health care (or slander those who have "purity tests on healthcare) or other areas.

purity tests everywhere.

 

[pigeon]

You're literally advocating for purity testing candidates.

Uh, yeah, that's how political parties work. If somebody turns up in full SS uniform and says they want to run for president as a Democrat, the Democrats tend to say "no, fuck off." PURITY TEST!

Parties have policies. If you don't support those policies, you generally don't get to be part of the party. I am not surprised that some people want to change the policies of the Democratic Party to be less supportive of social justice, and naturally they think I'm "purity testing" them because "purity test" means "this person thinks a policy is important, but I don't think it's important." I don't consider that a flaw, I consider it a moral responsibility.

This is indicative of a problem within the Democratic Party. I have voted straight Democrat and Progressive my entire life, and have always desired a more Progressive platform, but here I am getting called a faux-Liberal because I don't think running Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders in suburban Georgia is a great idea.

You: "Maybe we should stop supporting a woman's right to choose."
Me: "That seems kind of regressive."
You: "SO IF I DON'T SUPPORT RUNNING LENIN'S CORPSE FOR GOVERNOR OF TEXAS I'M A REPUBLICAN, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING"

I dunno man. I reread but I don't think I'm the problem here.

Funny that me suggesting moderating the platform apparently is turning it into the Republican platform. What is the metric for what changes constitute adopting the opposition parties platform? What if I want higher subsidies for college, if someone doesn't support that they're basically a Republican right?

Well, personally, I would say giving up on women's rights would be running on the Republican platform, because women's rights have been core to the Democratic Party for years and social justice is a moral responsibility. If you disagree, I guess feel free to make that argument? Maybe get on Twitter and try to convince the Democratic politicians that the problem is they support Planned Parenthood. But just saying "SLIPPERY SLOPE, I WIN" doesn't seem like a very good approach here. There's a difference between wanting to sell out the core values of the Democratic Party and not being sure about free college.

not to attack you or anything

Uh-huh.

but I find it interesting how some people have purity tests on abortion rights but will bend all the way back on health care (or slander those who have "purity tests on healthcare) or other areas.

purity tests everywhere.

Like I said, "purity test" just means "I prioritize that lower than you do."

This post is not really detailed enough to bother rehashing the discussion about healthcare again, especially since it doesn't seem like you understand my position on the topic. Last time I posted about it I made it clear we should be pushing for Medicare for All.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Except voting for whoever the hell their party shits out doesn't work for Republicans. That's why Romney, McCain, and Dole never became President.

Since the era of hyper partisanship started in, let's say.. 94.. in presidential elections both parties are 3 wins 3 losses. The candidate that excited their base the most and turned out their voters the most has won every time.

That doesn't mean it doesn't work for the GOP.
Voting for whoever the party shits out is why just under half the population is going to vote R in the Presidential elections regardless.

If and when the Dems have a sparkly unicorn the GOP loses. The sparkly unicorn actually has nothing to do with policy. Relying on a sparkly unicorn is dumb.

No one cares whether Kerry or Gore or H Clinton ran on more or less progressive platforms.

Relying on sparkly unicorns at the lower level seems just as dumb.

Also all the hottaking in general is dumb, because this seat shouldn't be close anyway.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Uh, yeah, that's how political parties work. If somebody turns up in full SS uniform and says they want to run for president as a Democrat, the Democrats tend to say "no, fuck off." PURITY TEST!

Parties have policies. If you don't support those policies, you generally don't get to be part of the party. I am not surprised that some people want to change the policies of the Democratic Party to be less supportive of social justice, and naturally they think I'm "purity testing" them because "purity test" means "this person thinks a policy is important, but I don't think it's important." I don't consider that a flaw, I consider it a moral responsibility.

Except I do support those policies? The problem is people voting around the country don't seem to. You're simply not going to win if you don't play to the crowd. How does running more moderate/conservative Democrats in moderate/conservative strongholds (i.e. The South) negatively effect the ability to run more progressive candidates at the state level or for the Senate? It really doesn't. Those blue dogs will never clear a Democratic Primary so they're literally never becoming President. If their constituents will give them a shot and they vote with Democrats a vast majority of the time, it's worth having them around. The ACA wouldn't have passed if their positions weren't alterable.

You: "Maybe we should stop supporting a woman's right to choose."
Me: "That seems kind of regressive."
You: "SO IF I DON'T SUPPORT RUNNING LENIN'S CORPSE FOR GOVERNOR OF TEXAS I'M A REPUBLICAN, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING"

That's is not at all what I said. I said; "If you want to win in those regions consistently, it is a good idea. Like I said, it's a shitty idea, but if all you want is wins, that's how you do it." You can't expect every Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren to be competitive in Oklahoma or South Carolina. In an ideal version of America that would be fantastic, but it isn't realistic and it won't work. Instead we'd rather prop up some of the worst candidates imaginable and sink $0 into these seats over and over again and continue to lose them.

Well, personally, I would say giving up on women's rights would be running on the Republican platform, because women's rights have been core to the Democratic Party for years and social justice is a moral responsibility. If you disagree, I guess feel free to make that argument? Maybe get on Twitter and try to convince the Democratic politicians that the problem is they support Planned Parenthood. But just saying "SLIPPERY SLOPE, I WIN" doesn't seem like a very good approach here. There's a difference between wanting to sell out the core values of the Democratic Party and not being sure about free college.

Women's rights have been core to the Democratic Party, and still are. Requiring every candidate to be ideologically identical isn't realistic though. It's the same reason why Republicans in VT and Oregon don't have the same platform as Republicans in Oklahoma and Kansas. Could you imagine running Bernie Sanders in Arkansas? He'd get slaughtered. And while us arguing has little impact on what the Democratic Party is up to, just know that Tom Perez and the DNC aren't opposed to courting Pro-Life voters;

”The party does not believe in a litmus test," Xochitl Hinojosa, a DNC spokeswoman, said in response to a request for comment. ”Our role is to support state parties and candidates up and down the ballot and that's exactly what we did when we invested in the state party in Nebraska as well as Mello's campaign." An aide to Perez told The Atlantic last month the DNC Chair never said he doesn't support pro-life candidates.

 

[Zolo]

This feels like one of those issues where it might have helped if we had more than two parties.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

we ran a pro-choice lawyer who sues cops for free to support social justice in Kansas and lost by 6 points, I'm skeptical he would have won if he ran on regressive policies instead.

 

[neurosisxeno]

we ran a pro-choice lawyer who sues cops for free to support social justice in Kansas and lost by 6 points, I'm skeptical he would have won if he ran on regressive policies instead.

His opponent sure had no problem winning that way. That guy would have won by double digits in a blue state, but Kansas is not a blue state.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

His opponent sure had no problem winning that way. That guy would have won by double digits in a blue state, but Kansas is not a blue state.

please show me the people running successful campaigns as conservative Democrats in Republican districts

I'll help you out, here's the list

I mean how many pro-life Democrats are there left?

Joe Donnelly
Daniel Lipinski
Collin Peterson

All have a 71% rating from the National Right to Life Committee. And then:

Henry Cuellar (28%)
Bob Casey (25%)
Joe Manchin (25%)
Sanford Bishop (14%)
Marcy Kaptur (14%)

Those are the only members of Congress with anything less than a 100% from the National Right to Life Committee who are Democrats.

And on the state level, I believe that John Bel Edwards is the only pro-life Dem governor.

how much grassroots support would Dan Lipinski get from Thompson's base

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

we ran a pro-choice lawyer who sues cops for free to support social justice in Kansas and lost by 6 points, I'm skeptical he would have won if he ran on regressive policies instead.

We ran a Goldman Sachs tax attorney with the most generic message in political history in South Carolina and lost by 3 points.

Obviously the lawyer needed to also do work for Goldman and he would have gotten a few more points.

Not sure low turnout specials really say anything. GA-6 had insane turnout and 52-48 is probably the actual split of the district right now.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

We ran a Goldman Sachs tax attorney with the most generic message in political history in South Carolina and lost by 3 points.

Obviously the lawyer needed to also do work for Goldman and he would have gotten a few more points.

at least he wasn't running on lowering the deficit *snerk*

Not sure low turnout specials really say anything. GA-6 had insane turnout and 52-48 is probably the actual split of the district right now.

I don't think Kansas is suddenly overflowing with communists but I'm skeptical that running conservative Democrats is going to be effective anywhere other than southern Minnesota.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Don't read political GAF threads for at least three days after an election loss.

I fucked up. Be back in three days.

 

[Zolo]

Don't read political GAF threads for at least three days after an election loss.

I fucked up. Be back in three days.

lmao. I feel like this is good advice.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

at least he wasn't running on lowering the deficit *snerk*

I don't think Kansas is suddenly overflowing with communists but I'm skeptical that running conservative Democrats is going to be effective anywhere other than southern Minnesota.

I'm not entirely sure either (I think a lot of the religious right is motivated more by hatred of Muslims than abortion at this point), but we obviously need to see if there are things we can change that don't compromise our values much at all that would allow us to gain the 2 or 3 points we need. We're like 2-3 points short nationwide right now and we need to figure out how to get over the hump.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

lmao. I feel like this is good advice.

It is. At this point, we need to get ready for the next fight now.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The good thing is GA-6, KS-4, MT-AL and SC-5 are all winnable in 2018 if trump approval rating drops further or trump fails to energize republicans in 2018. People can not ignore the progress democrats made in these districts recently.

I would think the Democrats would probably do worse in GA-6 in 2018 than now, ceteris paribus, because at the moment it was functionally a national election with national-level attention, and consequent effects on turnout and engagement, which would be lower when it is simply one election among many. Sorry to be a pessimist, but that's probably true.

 

[Zolo]

I'm not entirely sure either (I think a lot of the religious right is motivated more by hatred of Muslims than abortion at this point), but we obviously need to see if there are things we can change that don't compromise our values much at all that would allow us to gain the 2 or 3 points we need. We're like 2-3 points short nationwide right now and we need to figure out how to get over the hump.

Abortion's the biggest issue as far as I can tell. Gun rights are big, but plenty of constituents would actually be fine with more regulation to a degree (though it won't stop opponents from exaggerating it). National Security is a big issue where there are constituents that actually talk about feeling safer. Republicans having a rep. as being better fiscally (Democrats should never have let them claim that).

It's also worth noting though that being a Democrat in itself is an issue simply by labels due to the nature of Fox News & right-wing media escalating tensions.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I'm not entirely sure either (I think a lot of the religious right is motivated more by hatred of Muslims than abortion at this point), but we obviously need to see if there are things we can change that don't compromise our values much at all that would allow us to gain the 2 or 3 points we need. We're like 2-3 points short nationwide right now and we need to figure out how to get over the hump.

Running on a more compelling message than "I'll lower the deficit" would be my suggestion.

Obviously it's a bit early but if Ossoff doesn't run again I wonder what kind of candidate they'll get out there.

 

[Holmes]

Running on a more compelling message than "I'll lower the deficit" would be my suggestion.

Obviously it's a bit early but if Ossoff doesn't run again I wonder what kind of candidate they'll get out there.

Scott Holcomb.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Running on a more compelling message than "I'll lower the deficit" would be my suggestion.

Obviously it's a bit early but if Ossoff doesn't run again I wonder what kind of candidate they'll get out there.

Ossoff was not a good candidate, Dems better do better in recruiting for 2018.

 

[Holmes]

Candidate performing well above expectations for a district, doing well in the polls: "what a great candidate... running a good campaign, great fit for the district"

Candidate loses: "horrible candidate... always knew it, couldn't connect to voters and message was bad"

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Candidate performing well above expectations for a district, doing well in the polls: "what a great candidate... running a good campaign, great fit for the district"

Candidate loses: "horrible candidate... always knew it, couldn't connect to voters and message was bad"

Only I said he was a bad candidate even before the primary results were in.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Only I said he was a bad candidate even before the primary results were in.

You say everything is bad though.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You say everything is bad though.

I mean, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. GA-06 was a +8 Republican district. The Democrats reduced that to +5 in a special election under national level of attention and unprecedented spending for what is ultimately a single seat. They won't be able to replicate that in 2018, which implies that if nothing changes between now and 2018, and the Democrats run a set of Ossoff-tier candidates, they'd be outperforming the Republicans by somewhere less than 3 points, which is insufficient to regain the House (I mean, it shouldn't be, but none of you need telling again how poor America's electoral system is...).

Gotta do better.

EDIT: To introduce some positivity, though, it is movement in the right direction. +3 is probably not enough. +4 would have been. So the Democrats are right on the cusp, it's just a matter of breaking through with the right message.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

I would think the Democrats would probably do worse in GA-6 in 2018 than now, ceteris paribus, because at the moment it was functionally a national election with national-level attention, and consequent effects on turnout and engagement, which would be lower when it is simply one election among many. Sorry to be a pessimist, but that's probably true.

If you look at how close the Kansas and South Carolina special elections turned out in heavily Republican districts there is some reason to think that all of the attention motivated GOP voters to turn out more.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If you look at how close the Kansas and South Carolina special elections turned out in heavily Republican districts there is some reason to think that all of the attention motivated GOP voters to turn out more.

I mean, alternatively Thompson was a much more attractive candidate...

 

[pigeon]

I mean, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. GA-06 was a +8 Republican district. The Democrats reduced that to +5 in a special election under national level of attention and unprecedented spending for what is ultimately a single seat. They won't be able to replicate that in 2018, which implies that if nothing changes between now and 2018, and the Democrats run a set of Ossoff-tier candidates, they'd be outperforming the Republicans by somewhere less than 3 points, which is insufficient to regain the House (I mean, it shouldn't be, but none of you need telling again how poor America's electoral system is...).

Gotta do better.

EDIT: To introduce some positivity, though, it is movement in the right direction. +3 is probably not enough. +4 would have been. So the Democrats are right on the cusp, it's just a matter of breaking through with the right message.

By the same argument, Democrats gained twenty points in a deep red South Carolina district without spending any money at all. The future is bright.