Steve_S Posted June 21, 2017 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted June 21, 2017 57 minutes ago, Running Gator said: Tom Price won this district by more than 23 points in 2016. How is this win a bigger win than in 2016? I think you are referring to that percentage that this district went for Trump in 2016. I think it's important for both sides to not try to take too much away from it. This is the sort of district the democrats would've never focused any real resources (or even a candidate they may consider to have future promise) on - because - versus a fairly beloved 12 year incumbent. The candidate price ran against, rodney stooksbury, did not face a primary challenger, did not have a campaign website, did not engage in campaigning, did not do any fundraising, and did not even deploy so much as a single campaign sign, evidently. I seriously cannot even find a picture of the guy on google right now. When reporters went to his door to try to figure out who he was prior to the 2016 election, no one answered. It was, quite simply, a throwaway race if you are a democrat and a dead set lock if you're a republican incumbent like price, probably in any year under any circumstances, and the democrats treated it as such. I think the republicans should be mildly concerned that they won a very previously red district so closely, but not overly so, because the district is not as red as it seems by price's margins. It's in the northerm suburbs of atlanta, with part even extending down past the 285 loop, up to marietta and extends into lesser populated areas farther North. I actually go to this district fairly frequently, as my wife's grandparents live there. There are a lot of people who are more liberal to moderate that live there than you would typically see in other parts of georgia, save for the city of atlanta itself. Even though it was close compared to previous races, I think the democrats should be cautious in viewing this as a national trend, and not get ahead of themselves. They ran a fairly moderate young candidate who seriously wanted to win against a non-incumbent in an area that isn't exactly blood red in actual political outlook, but more towards light pink and trending towards being purple by attrition. Basically, the population of atlanta itself, ever expanding, is mostly expanding in that direction, and mostly democratic leaning. My gut instinct would be to say that the same thing that happened with scott brown is going to happen there, except for the fact that the democrat did not win, while walker as a mass. republican did, losing two years later to a democrat - that is that an upstart opposition party candidate ran a good race against a non-incumbent candidate and that the district itself will probably regress towards the mean in coming elections. She will probably win by 8-12+ percent in 2018. In 10 years, though, different story, if the demographic trends continue in that same district. The democrats are highly unlikely to put any real resources towards it, though a democratic candidate that will actually try to make a splash may run there based on this race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool2 Posted June 21, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 701 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,511 Content Per Day: 1.35 Reputation: 1,759 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1955 Share Posted June 21, 2017 1 hour ago, shiloh357 said: Yes, if Ossoff had one by only 2% or even 1% they would touting it as a decisive victory and claiming it spelled doom for Trump.... Of all the claims of fake news, the one bogus story run by most of the mainstream media was that any of these five special elections could prove to be a referendum against Trump, or that they were an omen of things to come in 2020. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted June 21, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,923 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted June 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said: Does it matter that after her victory Handel thanked the president -- but didn't even mention him by name -- and then thanked VP Pence by name? It shows the Rs still don't know what to do about Donald Trump. It's my understanding that Handel is a traditional, so called 'middle of the road' R. She's no 'Trumpster.' She will probably turn out to be the type or R (few that there are) that we have up here in NY. She will likely oppose Trump as much as support him. In other words, she's the kind of republican we've all come to know and love in the last 20-30 years. John McCain will be proud. Blessings, -Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool2 Posted June 21, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 701 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,511 Content Per Day: 1.35 Reputation: 1,759 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1955 Share Posted June 21, 2017 5 hours ago, shiloh357 said: .... The point is that the Democrats use a lot of emotion and bluster; they blow a lot of smoke, but at the end of the day, they have no substance. If Trump were as bad as his critics keep carping and whining that he is.... But who was blowing smoke during the campaign by claiming he was going to lock up crooked Hillary and make Mexico pay for a border wall? Where was the substance in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool2 Posted June 21, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 701 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,511 Content Per Day: 1.35 Reputation: 1,759 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1955 Share Posted June 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said: It shows the Rs still don't know what to do about Donald Trump.... At best Prez Trump is a mixed blessing for the GOP, but only time will tell if he can get anything accomplished aside from just derailing all of Obama's ill-advised decisions through Executive Orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted June 21, 2017 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted June 21, 2017 Just now, OldSchool2 said: At best Prez Trump is a mixed blessing for the GOP, but only time will tell if he can get anything accomplished aside from just derailing all of Obama's ill-advised decisions through Executive Orders. My guess is that trump's influence and actions will greatly extend past the 2016 or even the 2020 race. He brought a sort of conservative populism to the republican party that will almost certainly not be going away anytime soon. It will be interesting to see if some of the younger previously more neocon-type republicans, like rubio, et. al., take a turn towards that direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted June 21, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,923 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted June 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said: At best Prez Trump is a mixed blessing for the GOP, but only time will tell if he can get anything accomplished aside from just derailing all of Obama's ill-advised decisions through Executive Orders. He's certainly at best a mixed blessing for the gop establishment. I firmly believe that the GOPe (as I've seen it called) - since it couldn't get its favorite son Jeb Bush the 2016 nomination - didn't really care about winning the election. In fact, I'll go out on a short limb and say they preferred Hillary over Trump. And yet Trump is likely the only one of the 16 or 17 primary candidates that had a chance of beating Hillary. Which brings me to my main point about the GOPe. They don't really want to govern. They don't care about winning electoral majorities. Look at it this way: If Hillary had won, then republicans wouldn't be on the hook for repealing Obamacare (which they don't want to do in the first place). Yet they'd still be able to demagogue it. They'd still be able to run ads against it. They still be able to criticize it. And they wouldn't have to do anything about it. The same thing with illegal immigration - which they favor as much as democrats. (just for different reasons). Republicans in short don't like the RESPONSIBILITY of governing; they just like the trappings of office. Stupid Trump - he had to come in from left field and spoil their party. No wonder they don't like him. Blessings, -Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 41 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said: But who was blowing smoke during the campaign by claiming he was going to lock up crooked Hillary and make Mexico pay for a border wall? Where was the substance in that? There's still over three years to go... You act like if he didn't do it six months, it will never get done. He doesn't operate off of your time line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted June 21, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted June 21, 2017 33 minutes ago, Steve_S said: My guess is that trump's influence and actions will greatly extend past the 2016 or even the 2020 race. He brought a sort of conservative populism to the republican party that will almost certainly not be going away anytime soon. It will be interesting to see if some of the younger previously more neocon-type republicans, like rubio, et. al., take a turn towards that direction. Conservative populism will only go as far as Trump can accomplish anything. I know it is early still, but there is not much to hang a hat on other than the economy continuing the trends that were there before he got elected. Think about it, this time next year we will be knee deep in the mid-term elections. What will the GOP have to show for their time in charge? Healthcare might have a new name but will anything be better? I do not think we will have a wall. Will tax reform happen and will it happen in way that helps anyone but the super rich? Every day that Trump spends tweeting about Comey or such things is one less day to get things done. Now, for me who wants split power in DC, that is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingnut- Posted June 21, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 39 Topic Count: 101 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,673 Content Per Day: 1.31 Reputation: 7,358 Days Won: 67 Joined: 04/22/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted June 21, 2017 6 hours ago, SavedByGrace1981 said: But another way to look at that is this: The problem of 'too much money spent in elections' may ultimately be a self-correcting one. Most money is spent on TV ads - and maybe the law of diminishing returns is coming into play. The more negative TV ads that run against candidate A, it actually hurts candidate B. I think there is a saturation point when it comes to commercials, and people reached it long ago. Hollywood spent millions, yet their candidate still lost. Lesson learned? Perhaps one can hope 'celebrities' will go back to their gated mansions in Beverly Hills and Malibu and simply return to play acting. Blessings, -Ed I like your positive outlook on this, generally I share an optimistic outlook on things as well. When it comes to Hollywood though, I don't believe they live in the same reality as the rest of us. I suspect if you or I went and polled these folks regarding the election, the response we would get is that Trump colluded with the Russians to fix the election and that is why Hillary lost. I suspect they would talk about how she won the popular vote and things of that nature, so while I hope you are correct in this, I wouldn't expect the money from Hollywood to stop pouring in. I do agree that most people have had their fill of the smear campaigns though, and that they do not render the desired result. God bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts