Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

more georgia-06 commentary

47 views
Skip to first unread message

michael anderson

unread,
Jun 22, 2017, 2:27:49 PM6/22/17
to
https://www.vox.com/2017/6/20/15843864/jon-ossoff-special-election

This is bad for dems. If dems couldnt win this seat(a 50-50 district now) running against *that* weak non-incumbent gop candidate, where can they win?

wolfie

unread,
Jun 22, 2017, 6:14:13 PM6/22/17
to
"michael anderson" wrote

> If dems couldnt win this seat (a 50-50 district now)

You keep saying that. It's still not true. The district
is anti-Trump, not 50-50. It's a +20 GOP district.

Even IF it's true - which it isn't - you still can't explain:

Kansas (Trump +27, GOP by +6 in special)
Montana (Trump +20, GOP by +6 in special)
South Carolina (Trump +15, GOP by +3 in special)

If the general House elections follow the same trend
as those three - even ignoring GA -- the Dems win the
House *easily.*

And, historically, even popular Presidents have their
party lose seats in the first midterm. Trump is anything
but popular.





Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger

unread,
Jun 22, 2017, 7:21:47 PM6/22/17
to
Against the party of Pelosi and Franken? I like the GOP's chances.

unclejr

unread,
Jun 22, 2017, 10:32:55 PM6/22/17
to
What the hell do you have against Al Franken?

Ken Olson

unread,
Jun 22, 2017, 10:43:54 PM6/22/17
to
He's so far Left he's on fire?

plai...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 23, 2017, 12:23:01 AM6/23/17
to
I thought this was going to be the Al Franken Century.

Some dued

unread,
Jun 23, 2017, 12:57:42 AM6/23/17
to
I wonder how many rsfcers got that.

J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,
Jun 23, 2017, 8:24:13 AM6/23/17
to
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 18:14:09 -0400, "wolfie" <bgbd...@gte.net> wrote:

>"michael anderson" wrote
>
>> If dems couldnt win this seat (a 50-50 district now)
>
>You keep saying that. It's still not true. The district
>is anti-Trump, not 50-50. It's a +20 GOP district.
>
>Even IF it's true - which it isn't - you still can't explain:

The GoP won - no explanation is necessary.

Hugh


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

michael anderson

unread,
Jun 23, 2017, 12:20:12 PM6/23/17
to
On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 5:14:13 PM UTC-5, wolfie wrote:
> "michael anderson" wrote
>
> > If dems couldnt win this seat (a 50-50 district now)
>
> You keep saying that. It's still not true. The district
> is anti-Trump, not 50-50. It's a +20 GOP district.

bullshit...it's a +20 gop district when a longterm popular congressman is running. That's like saying Montana is a 50/50 state since Jon Tester has somewhat of a chance to win re-election there....throw any generic non-incumbent dem in there and it's a +20(or more) GOP district....so stop with this bullshit about how it's a +20 district for the GOP. It's become pretty close to a 50/50 district because of the changes. 4-6 years ago it was maybe a 55-45 type district. I know because I grew up just south of there and still visit the area...


>
> Even IF it's true - which it isn't - you still can't explain:
>
> Kansas (Trump +27, GOP by +6 in special)
> Montana (Trump +20, GOP by +6 in special)
> South Carolina (Trump +15, GOP by +3 in special)

wait...so now Trump is the baseline?


>
> If the general House elections follow the same trend
> as those three - even ignoring GA -- the Dems win the
> House *easily.*
>

lmao....you guys keep believing that.

wolfie

unread,
Jun 23, 2017, 3:24:49 PM6/23/17
to
"michael anderson" wrote

> it's a +20 gop district when a longterm popular congressman is running

And any GOP Presidential candidate other than Trump, like Romney
by +23.

Even 538 has it +10 GOP weighting with Trump's poor performance.




michael anderson

unread,
Jun 23, 2017, 5:42:21 PM6/23/17
to
if we are going to talk about the gop's poor candidate in 2016, shouldn't the dems poor candidate also get equal mention? If trump depressed gop turnout in that district, surely the dem's terrible candidate did the same there.

Plus, this is not even a consistent argument others are making....in kansas and montana it was "oh, look how much we closed the gap on what trump did". Now in georgia it's "forget about trump's numbers as the baseline"....I mean which is it?

The dems didn't put 25 mill into a seat that they would have felt was a massive uphill battle. They threw 25 mill into it because they felt they could win it, and they didn't.

wolfie

unread,
Jun 23, 2017, 6:45:11 PM6/23/17
to


"michael anderson" wrote

> ... this is not even a consistent argument others are making

That's because you don't want to understand it. The special
elections were ALL in safe seats, seats the GOP was expected
to win heavily. And all of them were close. That's not good
news for the 20+ GOP reps sitting in districts Clinton won or
the 40+ GOP reps sitting in districts less safe than this GA seat.
They KNOW that, even if you don't agree.


michael anderson

unread,
Jun 23, 2017, 8:49:13 PM6/23/17
to
you're jumping around the point again. We're discussing this particular seat, and I pointed out that dems have been using the trump vote % in those other special election districts as a baseline, but then for this georgia district they dont want to do that....that was my point on how it was inconsistent, and not surprisingly you didn't address that angle of it.
0 new messages