Posted on 06/23/2017 4:25:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
The victory of Republican Karen Handel in the special election in Georgia's 6th Congressional District on Tuesday has discouraged Democrats and encouraged Republicans. Democrat Jon Ossoff won 48.1 percent in the special election's first round April 18, and Democrats had high hopes that they could take this House seat from the Republicans.
But even with $30 million spent -- in what became the most expensive House race ever -- and with a turnout of 260,000 (more than the 210,000 who voted in the 2014 midterm), Ossoff won exactly 48.1 percent again. Not quite enough. Georgia's 6th District was significant because it's a traditionally Republican district whose college-educated voters (59 percent of adults, sixth-highest in the country) were repelled by Donald Trump. Mitt Romney carried it 61 to 37 percent in 2012; Trump won it by only a 48.3-46.8 percent margin last year. That's a huge shift from the persistent partisan patterns that have mostly held for two decades. The good news for Democrats is that they were able to hold Handel to a Trumpish rather than the traditionally expected margin in such a district. The bad news is that there aren't that many other Republican-held districts with a lot of highly educated voters.
Republicans hold only six of the 23 districts with college graduate majorities. Most were won years ago by Democrats in elections in which the persistent partisan patterns held true. Of the Republican-held districts where 40 percent or more of the voters are college graduates, only 14 were carried by Hillary Clinton last year.
These 14 seats -- plus the four more that Trump carried by less than 5 percent -- are obvious Democratic targets, and the result in Georgia suggests that Democrats could be competitive in many of them. But Democrats need a net gain of 24 seats for a House majority, and in good years, parties usually gain only half the seats they seriously target.
Moreover, Republican incumbents won 15 of these 18 seats by double-digit margins in 2016 despite the local Trump undertow. Most or all are running again, and though Democrats may try to field stronger opponents against many, the Georgia result won't help recruitment.
There's a contrast between the special election in Georgia's 6th District and the three other special elections in districts with far lower percentages of college graduates (23 to 31 percent) -- Kansas's 4th District, Montana's at-large district and South Carolina's 5th District. Trump carried all three by wider margins than Romney, but in each, Republicans failed to match his showing and won with results reverting toward or falling below the levels of the persistent partisan pattern. This is often the pattern in special elections, wherein you can cast a protest vote without affecting the balance of partisan power much. And it's especially true when, as in these examples, no one expects the incumbent party's candidate to lose. That was the case Tuesday in South Carolina's 5th District, where 87,000 voted -- one-third the turnout in Georgia's 6th District.
In off-year congressional elections, the dynamics are different. Incumbents enter with an edge and often without serious opposition. You can't cast a protest vote without risking a change in party control, a risk that seems likely to be palpable in 2018.
And the old maxim that increased turnout helps Democrats may not hold. It didn't in Georgia's 6th District, where highly educated Republicans, perhaps unnerved by last week's baseball shooting and constant talk of impeachment, turned out in the rain. Higher turnout would probably have helped Republicans in the other three special elections, too.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi presumably realizes this when she cautions fellow Democrats, as she did in 2006, not to frame the election as a referendum on impeachment. Why squander the votes of those who want to check the president but not oust him (or hold a pointless Senate trial)?
In Politico, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel advises Democrats to do what he did, as House campaign chairman, in 2006: Recruit candidates with local roots and views suited to local terrain -- and with sharp political instincts, which both parties' candidates seemed to lack in the special elections.
My impression is that none of the Democrats (except maybe Archie Parnell in South Carolina's 5th District) had the political skills and local appeal that enabled so many Democrats to win Republican-leaning seats in the 1970s and hold them in the 1980s. And none of the Republicans showed the political skills and enthusiasm of many Newt Gingrich followers in the 1990s or tea partyers in the 2010s.
In 2016, Trump carried 230 House districts, and House Republicans won 242 seats. To win a House majority, Democrats need Trumpish results in high-education districts and improvements in downscale areas on the persistent partisan patterns along which voters of all education levels make their choices. It's possible, but it's an uphill climb -- a little more so since Tuesday.
Pelosi and the DU retards are convinced they’re going to pick up 60+ seats based on how close their recent losses have been.
I’m convinced that Ossoff’s numbers were no where near the 48% they purport. The Democrats have been rigging elections for years now. They’ve turned it into a science.
The problem I see is that as they fall farther out of the mainstream, they have to be more bold with their cheating. We’ve outright caught them with their hand in the cookie jar, but the media plays it off as an anomaly.
Eventually they’re going to be seen for the true demons they are, and the decades of cheating will be laid out for truth.
Talk of impeachment, obstructionism, “resistance”, leaks, political violence, Hollywood condescension, campus fascism, all have kept Republicans energized and frankly pissed off even after we got what we wanted in Donald Trump. The Dems can only blame themselves for...well...being nasty Democrats!
Now let’s say they recruit someone normal, would voters be fooled to think that this person will NOT vote for someone like Nancy Pelosi as majority leader?
Also, the the leftist voters have shown little tolerance to vote in the primaries for someone who’s pro-life, or pro-2nd Amendment, etc. So will they LET a normal person be nominated? I have my doubts.
“...a turnout of 260,000 (more than the 210,000 who voted in the 2014 midterm)”
Surprise suprise. Even after the commies stuffed the ballot boxes, they lost.
This election meant NOTHING! We elected another RINO “just to win” because anymore this is what it’s about let’s win vs the conservative agenda. Is anyone going to remember who she is 4 years from now? Nope..Did electing her lower government national debt? Nope. Did electing and cheerleading her to win stop in its tracks the growth of Government? Nope...
This RINO will get buried into the largesse of Government and he one of many RINO Congresscritters getting nothing done, performing more RINO spending and vote “with the party”
All the while we conservatives will still get the shaft and the cheering section will keep shaking their Pom poms while the nation tanks
But even with $30 million spent -- in what became the most expensive House race ever -- and with a turnout of 260,000 (more than the 210,000 who voted in the 2014 midterm), Ossoff won exactly 48.1 percent again. Not quite enough.
The 48.1% both times argues that the computer program that they use to gerrymander voting districts is pretty darn accurate.
Sooo, Jughead6969, you would have preferred assoff?
You better re-enlist, there is no place but the Corps, with you humpen a 50 that will satisfy your anger.
You obviously didn’t read my post. I’m tired of the mentally lazy either/or argument. How about NEITHER because neither is about what we got. So while we can be merry that we won I’m sorry to inform you her winning won’t amount to a hill of beans in getting our fiscal house in order. We elected more of the same because that’s what we do. We elect RINOS that’ll vote party line time and again.
So while you are smitten with the election of yet another RINO get back with me in 20 when the country has tanked and tell me just how important the election of this RINO was
As one who has witnessed many election frauds first hand in IL, I'm curious on what do you base your allegations of Democrats in the GA 6th?
Are you alleging that ineligible people are registered and voted? Are you alleging that some people voted more than once? Are you alleging that there was fraud in the vote count at the precinct level? At the County level? At the Kennesaw U level? At the State Republican Brian Kemp level?
Republicans control the machinery in Cobb County. Democrats control the machinery in the heavily Republican areas of Fulton County and in the heavily Democrat areas of DeKalb County. Historically the DeKalb area would be the suspect area. So are you alleging something in Chamblee? Doraville? Tucker?
I raise the question because I take the issue of election fraud seriously. Wild, unsubstantiated charges destroy the credibility of the valid stories. So please be specific where and how you think fraud occurred.... or don't destroy our credibility.
College educated voters are pretty dumb.
Oh no I agree with you. That is why I believe conservatism (meaning true Reagan conservatism) died with him and was just a brief 8 year pipe dream.
It’s sad really that our elections anymore are the next episodes of American Idol
If I may, replace the word Educated with Indoctrinated and you are getting closer...
Re read the article with this filter in mind and you see what Barone is saying, they target “better Educated” area as expected to vote Democrat, all part of how they have been”educated” in the Universities....
Note how he laments their are many more “uneducated” districts that are tougher to win as “they” do not get it
Far more info he reveals in his article which I found to be quite elucidating
Vote fraud is a little harder in Georgia than it is IL.
We check IDs (since we are not a swing state, the Democrats’ legal beagles left us alone), we do not issue driver’s licenses to illegals, so they don’t get registered to vote through ‘motor voter’ that way.
Hey, I resemble that remark!
I’m college educated, and Trump does not repel me.
Same here. This “college-educated voter” is an invention of the establishment media for the purposes of shaming voters who might consider voting for Trump. They want to create a stereotype of the average Trump voter as an uneducated hillbilly.
According to Tina Fey, Trump was elected due to college educated white women:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.