Current Events > Democrats Get 'Crushed' In Georgia House Election Despite 7x Spending Advantage

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-20/live-updates-georgias-special-election'

The article is pretty biased but here are some objective statements to ponder.


Between March 29 and May 31, Ossoff reported receiving 7,218 donations from California, dwarfing the 808 donations he received from Georgia. In the nine Bay Area counties alone, he received 3,063 donations in the same time period

First, what the literal fuck. I don't care if it's Cali or Texas funding their candidate, out of state donations need to be limited.


Finally, just as we pointed out earlier this morning, there seems to have been some "oversamples" in the polling data as the Real Clear Politics average had Ossoff winning by 5 points just last week...for those keeping track that's a roughly 10-point polling 'error' from how things actually turned out.

I remember Antifar having polls indicating Ossoff was in the clear lead but we both acknowledged the polling agencies were openly partisan. It's really disappointing to see party preference dictate results that you want to see, rather than what will probably happen.

Of course, making Handel's win even sweeter for Republicans is the fact that Democrats outspent them by a margin of 7-to-1, with Ossoff dropping a staggering ~$22 million versus only $3 million for Handel....which is kind of reminiscent of how things played our for Hillary

Dems need to realize that throwing money at problems is not always best. They need to find a positive (ie not shaming) way to reach out to people that aren't hardline left.
---

When will Democrats stop trusting fake polls?
---

I wouldn't calling going from a 20% lead to a 4% lead, crushing anyone. The election should be a cause for concern to the Republican. They won, sure but this is a traditional heavy Republic voting area and the Republicians only won by 4%. That should be a pretty big wake up call to the Republicans.

Edit: I originally put 3%, when I should of put 4%, I've fixed it now.

The spending from independent organizations (as opposed to solely from campaigns' pockets/fundraising) brought the total amount spent on the election closer, though I agree with your sentiments on out-of-state money and messaging regardless.
---

Money can't buy you elections, only a brief lead in fake polls.
---

JE19426 posted...

I wouldn't calling going from a 20% lead to a 4% lead, crushing anyone. The election should be a cause for concern to the Republican. They won, sure but this is a traditional heavy Republic voting area and the Republicians only won by 4%. That should be a pretty big wake up call to the Republicans.

Edit: I originally put 3%, when I should of put 4%, I've fixed it now.

They were outspent 7 to 1, though.

If Republicans need a wake-up call, it's to open the war chest.
---

darkjedilink posted...

They were outspent 7 to 1, though.

Only if you limit the spending the campaign themselves made.

If you spending by independent groups the spending cost is 22 Million (For Handel) vs 31.6 Million (For Ossoff). So it goes from 7x the amount to about 1.5x the amount.

Manocheese posted...

When will Democrats stop trusting fake polls?

When their supporters stop believing that the polls were right but the election was rigged.
---

Bloodychess posted...

Dems need to realize that throwing money at problems is not always best. They need to find a positive (ie not shaming) way to reach out to people that aren't hardline left.

But the left are the ones in favor of getting money out of politics
---

It does seem like far right types are really good at getting elected despite being massively outspent by their opponents, much more so than far left types. Another example was the guy who unseated Eric Cantor a few years back.
---

Gamer99z posted...

Bloodychess posted...

Dems need to realize that throwing money at problems is not always best. They need to find a positive (ie not shaming) way to reach out to people that aren't hardline left.

But the left are the ones in favor of getting money out of politics

And yet they're the ones throwing the most money at shit.
---

JE19426 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

They were outspent 7 to 1, though.

Only if you limit the spending the campaign themselves made.

If you spending by independent groups the spending cost is 22 Million (For Handel) vs 31.6 Million (For Ossoff). So it goes from 7x the amount to about 1.5x the amount.

You got a link to that?
---

Bloodychess posted...

reach out to people that aren't hardline left.

ossoff was reaching out to the center

the problem is actually that the dems don't reach out to the hardline left on economic issues, only on social issues
---

Darkman124 posted...

the problem is actually that the dems don't reach out to the hardline left on economic issues, only on social issues

This. They peddle their neoliberalist nonsense and think that people are just gonna run out and vote for them because they like gay people and safe abortions.

Don't get me wrong, I like those things too, but they kind of lose their value when people are suffering due to unbridled free market capitalism.
---

The Dems thought Republicans were going extinct but instead it's them

Russians interfered again smh republicans sold us out to the russians
---

i blame russia

also sexism
---

democrats before the election: "this is a referendum on trump when we win it will prove trump is finished!"

democrats after the election: "this loss was actually a win trump is finished!"
---

darkjedilink posted...

You got a link to that?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/20/us/politics/georgia-6th-most-expensive-house-election.html

Add up the campaign and independent group spending.

AlephZero posted...

democrats before the election: "this is a referendum on trump when we win it will prove trump is finished!"

Did they say that?

Zikten posted...

The Dems thought Republicans were going extinct but instead it's them

Trump is a hail mary that provides short term benefits in exchange for long term consequences
Barring some major upheaval, the GOPs days are numbered. They know this, which is why they're trying to ram their shitty legislation down our throats quickly and why they're gonna try to disenfranchise voters via gerrymandering and id laws

JE19426 posted...

Did they say that?

Some did, yes.

JE19426 posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/20/us/politics/georgia-6th-most-expensive-house-election.html

This really just makes me more upset, this much money shouldn't be in politics.
---

KarmaMuffin posted...

Zikten posted...

The Dems thought Republicans were going extinct but instead it's them

Trump is a hail mary that provides short term benefits in exchange for long term consequences
Barring some major upheaval, the GOPs days are numbered. They know this, which is why they're trying to ram their shitty legislation down our throats quickly and why they're gonna try to disenfranchise voters via gerrymandering and id laws

Please, people keep kicking the can down the road and when the supposed death of the GOP will happen. They're going to retain everything in 2018 imo and they won't magically die in 2020, even if they (probably will) lose the White House.
---

A loss is a loss

But the GOP reeeeeaaaaalllly needs to stop patting themselves on the back and pretending they're all good. The trends being set in these districts is not great.

If I were a GOP strategist I'd be keeping my eye on this
---

Why does this have to be explained over and over again?

GOP performance in these elections:

Montana
2016: 56.2%
2017: 49.9%

Georgia
2016: 61.7%
2017: 51.9%

South Carolina
2016: 59.2%
2017: 51.1%

Yeah man, great signs for the GOP.

It's so weird how they lost seats in the House, lost seats in the Senate, lost the popular vote, have had special elections in deep red districts/states suddenly turn competitive and are heading into midterms with a historically unpopular president but the narrative is how great they're doing. I thought Democrats were the cocky losers?

democrats: "republicans control every branch of the federal government and we're irrelevant outside of a few stronghold states but this is actually good news for democrats"
---

republicans: "losing seats and having an unpopular president during the midterms is actually good news for republicans"

here's how hillary can still win
---

Apparently ossoff closed the gap from 20 to 4, an improvement from a fictional candidate the previous election

http://www.cbs46.com/story/33632482/who-is-the-ghost-candidate-for-us-6th-district


And got 24 lower total votes than a candidate that didn't exist. While spending $22million

Democrats win again
---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

South Carolina

lmao i thought this said South California and stared at it for a good 30 seconds trying to figure out why there would be an election in SoCal and why the fuck the GOP would win it

Zikten posted...

The Dems thought Republicans were going extinct but instead it's them

No its the repubs but they fight tooth and nail as they fall. These special elections were for spots filled not only by conservatives but super hard core conservatives. The dems had no chance to win those spots. It's just better to fight and lose then to not even try.
---

KarmaMuffin posted...

Trump is a hail mary that provides short term benefits in exchange for long term consequences

The GOP didn't even want Trump to win their primary. Try again.
---

Crazyman93 posted...

The GOP didn't even want Trump to win their primary. Try again.

It's almost like I'm referring to the ideology and not the party.

J E S U S posted...

Apparently ossoff closed the gap from 20 to 4, an improvement from a fictional candidate the previous election

http://www.cbs46.com/story/33632482/who-is-the-ghost-candidate-for-us-6th-district


And got 24 lower total votes than a candidate that didn't exist. While spending $22million

Democrats win again

lmao this is hilarious

@Broseph_Stalin tell me again how spending tens of millions of dollars to get fewer votes than a ghost candidate is a victory for democrats
---

How come the left doesn't mind big money in politics if it's spent on the left?
---

Clad posted...

How come the left doesn't mind big money in politics if it's spent on the left?

"Don't hate the player, hate the game."
---

Clad posted...

How come the left doesn't mind big money in politics if it's spent on the left?

It's like when they complain about the NRA. They piss and moan about those damn lobbyists and then don't bat an eye when Bloomberg pumps $50 million of his personal money into gun control.
---