Karen Handel defeats Democratic opponent in the hotly contested Georgia special election

[SavedByGrace1980]

I'd like to get back to the topic of how much money was spent (mostly on the losing cause by the democrats) on this election.  By all accounts I've seen, a record amount for a congressional race.  For years we've been hearing "there's too much money involved in elections".  We've had Congress attempt to apply a band-aid in the form of "McCain/Feingold."  We've had the Supreme Court address it with "Citizens United."

All the while, the amount of money in each election cycle seems to continue to rise.

So the Left poured millions of dollars into what turned out to be a lost cause.  Will they perhaps learn the lesson that money alone (sans message) cannot buy elections?  I'm cautiously optimistic.

In listening to the post election spin on TV, I heard someone's take on this.  While much less attention was paid to it, there was also a special election in South Carolina.  While the republican did win that one as well, it turned out to be surprisingly much closer than anyone thought it would be.  And much closer than the Georgia election.

So maybe the big-money donors will learn, and find other ways to influence the vote.  Come up with a palpable message, perhaps?

Blessings,

-Ed

[Guest Butero]

The only reason this race mattered to anyone nationally is because Democrats invested loads of money into it in hopes they would win and they could use it for propaganda purposes against Trump.  They lost!  It doesn't matter what happened in elections past or what will happen in the future.  Democrats were counting on people to turn out and elect their candidate to a district Trump won by less than 2 points in order to show he has lost support, even among Republicans, and their guy lost.  Now they are trying to find some kind of positive spin to put on defeats. 

The Democrats are going so far as to say that since Republican victories were not large enough, they are in big trouble.  What a crock!  It is nothing but propaganda from the fake news media.  A loss is a loss, and Democrats keep losing.  I don't take them lightly.  I am not looking at this and thinking their party is doomed.  I see them as a serious threat every election cycle, and so should all Republicans, but still, at this time, they are the party that is losing and my side is winning.  I want this trend to continue, so Republicans need to keep up their ground game and show up and vote for their candidates.  They need to get behind Trump and every Republican running in every race and make sure we keep the Democrats defeated and demoralized.  Don't take things for granted, but don't buy into the idea that this wasn't one heck of a great night for the GOP because it was. 

[ricky]

I live in Texas and I was getting ads to donate to Mr Ornoff on Facebook. It is  obvious that the Democrats wanted to play up this race outside Georgia to make a national point that in more educated wealthier suburban districts the Democrats could be making inroads against the Republican. The see rural white Republicans as less educated rednecks obviously. While it is true that working class  white voters have turned to Mr Trump and the Republican Party in great numbers in district like this business conservatism still has a place over middle class liberalism. 

[Running Gator]

1 hour ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

I'd like to get back to the topic of how much money was spent (mostly on the losing cause by the democrats) on this election.  By all accounts I've seen, a record amount for a congressional race.  For years we've been hearing "there's too much money involved in elections".  We've had Congress attempt to apply a band-aid in the form of "McCain/Feingold."  We've had the Supreme Court address it with "Citizens United."

All the while, the amount of money in each election cycle seems to continue to rise.

So the Left poured millions of dollars into what turned out to be a lost cause.  Will they perhaps learn the lesson that money alone (sans message) cannot buy elections?  I'm cautiously optimistic.

In listening to the post election spin on TV, I heard someone's take on this.  While much less attention was paid to it, there was also a special election in South Carolina.  While the republican did win that one as well, it turned out to be surprisingly much closer than anyone thought it would be.  And much closer than the Georgia election.

So maybe the big-money donors will learn, and find other ways to influence the vote.  Come up with a palpable message, perhaps?

Blessings,

-Ed

I think you are dreaming!    The big money donors have more money than they know what to do with, so they are willing to roll the dice on things like this. 

Also, this is seen as a war, by those on both sides, and this was just a single battle in a larger war.  Neither side is opposed to sending in the troops as cannon fodder to look for weakness.  

In November, just a 6 months ago Price won by more than 23%, this time the race was much closer.  Did the Dems learn something in their defeat that closed the gap that they can use next year?  Maybe, time will tell.

I would say the race was close enough that I doubt many people felt it was wasted money.

I think the thing that will make money less important in election is the demise of TV as we have watched it over the last 50 years.   Fewer and fewer people watch traditional TV, especially younger people.  Ads will get less and less effective as less and less people have a chance to see them.

[Guest shiloh357]

29 minutes ago, Butero said:

 

The Democrats are going so far as to say that since Republican victories were not large enough, they are in big trouble.  What a crock!  It is nothing but propaganda from the fake news media.  A loss is a loss, and Democrats keep losing.  I don't take them lightly.  I am not looking at this and thinking their party is doomed.  I see them as a serious threat every election cycle, and so should all Republicans, but still, at this time, they are the party that is losing and my side is winning.  I want this trend to continue, so Republicans need to keep up their ground game and show up and vote for their candidates.  They need to get behind Trump and every Republican running in every race and make sure we keep the Democrats defeated and demoralized.  Don't take things for granted, but don't buy into the idea that this wasn't one heck of a great night for the GOP because it was. 

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.  The margin would not matter.  A win is a win and a loss is a loss.

[SavedByGrace1980]

36 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

I think you are dreaming!    The big money donors have more money than they know what to do with, so they are willing to roll the dice on things like this. 

 

Maybe, maybe not.  They may have more money than they know what to do with, but they also didn't get to be wealthy by squandering their money.  They outspent their opponents something like 7 to 1, yet the result was a higher percentage win in this district for the R candidate than in 2016.  I think it may cause at least some to fallback and regroup - rethink their strategy if you will.  From their standpoint, they see a problem (republicans).  Yet even Stevie Wonder could see that simply throwing money at their problem hasn't solved it.

But if you're correct, and if this is an example of what they think is spending money wisely and effectively, then I won't be taking any stock market tips from them.

36 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

I think the thing that will make money less important in election is the demise of TV as we have watched it over the last 50 years.   Fewer and fewer people watch traditional TV, especially younger people.  Ads will get less and less effective as less and less people have a chance to see them.

Here I agree with you.  And TV is the biggest drain on money - that is to say most of the money given to campaigns goes to TV advertising.  So given your two statements - they'll continue to spend money but TV advertising will decline - what do you think they will be spending money on?

Blessings,

-Ed

[Running Gator]

3 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

Maybe, maybe not.  They may have more money than they know what to do with, but they also didn't get to be wealthy by squandering their money.  They outspent their opponents something like 7 to 1, yet the result was a higher percentage win in this district for the R candidate than in 2016.  I think it may cause at least some to fallback and regroup - rethink their strategy if you will.  From their standpoint, they see a problem (republicans).  Yet even Stevie Wonder could see that simply throwing money at their problem hasn't solved it.

 

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. 

[SavedByGrace1980]

28 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. 

Yes I was referring to Trump's showing in that district in 2016 - I should have been more clear.

Since Trump's critics -not me- were the ones making this special election a referendum on Trump, I'm just attempting to measure the outcome by their own yardstick.

Had the democrat won, it's a sure thing that we'd be hearing about this being the end of the Trump administration.

Personally I think special elections - particularly congressional ones - are not necessarily indicative of anything larger than the mood of the district. All elections (as I believe Tip O'Neill said) are local. In fact, I'll posit that the election WOULD have been closer had the outside money - 90 percent in support of the democrat - not come in.  

I think people look at it as interference from outside, and it may have backfired.

Can't prove it, but it's what I think.

Blessings,

-Ed

[OldSchool2]

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Doesn't really matter.

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?

[Running Gator]

8 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

Yes I was referring to Trump's showing in that district in 2016 - I should have been more clear.

Since Trump's critics -not me- were the ones making this special election a referendum on Trump, I'm just attempting to measure the outcome by their own yardstick.

Had the democrat won, it's a sure thing that we'd be hearing about this being the end of the Trump administration.

Personally I think special elections - particularly congressional ones - are not necessarily indicative of anything larger than the mood of the district. All elections (as I believe Tip O'Neill said) are local. In fact, I'll posit that the election WOULD have been closer had the outside money - 90 percent in support of the democrat - not come in.  

I think people look at it as interference from outside, and it may have backfired.

Can't prove it, but it's what I think.

Blessings,

-Ed

You may well be correct. It is my understand the Dem didn't even live in the district and that worked against him, but I never actually double checked that story as it really was not that important!  lol