0 - 4

If you are a Democrat, the pre-season for the 2018 mid-terms is off to a pretty poor start.  4 special elections, 4 GOP victories.  But Georgia seems to be the most painful Democratic defeat yet.  As Frank Bruni said in  the NY Times today:

They ached for this seat. They fought for it fiercely. They reasoned that Ossoff had a real chance: Donald Trump, after all, won this district by just 1.5 percentage points. Donations for Ossoff flooded in, helping to make this the most expensive House race in history by far.

Democrats came up empty-handed nonetheless. So a party sorely demoralized in November is demoralized yet again — and left to wonder if the intense anti-Trump passion visible in protests, marches, money and new volunteers isn’t just some theatrical, symbolic, abstract thing.

Ouch.   Maybe it's time for the Dems to finally realize maybe it really is them and their message.  You can only blame others for so long, and after a time, the record just speaks for itself.



Tom Price won this district 61.7% to 38.3% in 2016.  This is a landslide.  While Trump had a narrow margin, I think the district's constituents are much more comfortable with a "mainstream" Republican candidate than a Democrat.  Add that to the amount of money spent and it was an uphill battle.

Price's election results show how much progress the Democrats made in trying to capture the seat. 


or we can look at the data and draw our conclusions from that, instead of from our preconceived notions and pundit narratives.

As compared to the 2016 presidential results, Democrats have outperformed their benchmarks by an average of 14 percentage points so far across the four GOP-held districts to have held special elections to date. As compared to the 2012 presidential election, their overperformance is even larger, at almost 18 points. They’ve also outperformed their results from the 2016 and 2014 U.S. House elections by roughly 11 points, after one accounts for the fact that the special elections were open-seat races rather than being held against incumbents.

How might this translate for Democrats next November, when all 435 seats are up for grabs? The results simultaneously suggest that an impressively wide array of Republican-held seats might be competitive next year — perhaps as many as 60 to 80 — and that Democrats are outright favorites in only a fraction of these, perhaps no more than a dozen. To some extent, this configuration is a result of Republican-led gerrymandering in 2010. Republicans drew a lot of districts where their members are safe under normal conditions, but not in the event of a massive midterm wave.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...

Oh, I see.  None of these special elections mean anything because if the Dems just stay on message, the wave is gonna come, just like Hillary was gonna win the White house in a walk.  Maybe Elizabeth Warren just needs to be a bit more shrill and it'll all get done.  Maybe, but also maybe the Dems should start learning lessons from their many local and national defeats.



ice said:

Oh, I see.  None of these special elections mean anything because if the Dems just stay on message, the wave is gonna come, just like Hillary was gonna win the White house in a walk.  Maybe Elizabeth Warren just needs to be a bit more shrill and it'll all get done.  Maybe, but also maybe the Dems should start learning lessons from their many local and national defeats.

nice straw man


Well, thank you.  But actually it's a straw-person.  Please remember to use the gender-neutral whenever possible.


Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it

The Democrats continue to hit all the stale notes that have failed them repeatedly rather than grasping the path to opportunity that lies before them if only they would open their eyes.



ice said:

Well, thank you.  But actually it's a straw-person.  Please remember to use the gender-neutral whenever possible.

it's still straw man. I guess the logical fallacy industry is a little behind the times.

Your Logical Fallacy Is: Strawman



Gilgul said:

Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it

The Democrats continue to hit all the stale notes that have failed them repeatedly rather than grasping the path to opportunity that lies before them if only they would open their eyes.

I would say that describes Ossoff pretty well.  A guy who didn't live in the district and campaigned as Republican Lite.

In Montana, the race was close with Rob Quist, a country singer with a history of financial problems and tax liens running on the Democratic line.  Probably not anyone's idea of the same old, same old.

Better candidates in both of those districts may have actually pulled out a win.  More emphasis from the DNC on SC and less on GA may have produced a different result.

These were winnable seats if the Democrats had done everything right.  Recruited better candidates who spoke directly to voters' concerns and didn't have their own personal baggage, and then devote resources equally to all three districts.

Kansas was probably always out of reach.



ice said:

Well, thank you.  But actually it's a straw-person.  Please remember to use the gender-neutral whenever possible.

Nah, it's a straw man. You set up a straw man to throw easy punches at it.

A straw woman would kick the **** outta you for looking at her funny.


"Democrats: Our Brand is Worse Than Trump" -- New York Times headline blares.

That may not be literally true, but the party is in sorry shape. Who the heck will run in 2020? 

Disclaimer, I am an independent voter, neither Democrat nor Republican.  


I do agree the Dems need a better strategy before mid-term elections next year.

The DNC has been a total disappointment. Wasserman Schultz and Brazile did some serious long-term damage.

Perez needs to figure something out quickly and start leading. 


people can spin this any way they want and decide it means anything they want it to mean.  From the same NYT article that says "Democrats: Our Brand is Worse Than Trump," you'll also find a Republican saying this:

Nick Everhart, a Republican strategist in Ohio, said the party should not allow its relief at having kept Democrats at bay turn into complacency. Up to this point, he said, Republicans have been beating Democrats only on solidly red turf.  

“To pretend that there are not serious enthusiasm-gap issues with the G.O.P. base and more crucially, independents fleeing, is missing the lessons that need to be learned before truly competitive seats are on the board,” Mr. Everhart said.

Personally, I think it's clear that in midterm elections, it's all about getting the base out to the polls.  Are other versions of the tepid, Republican Lite Jon Ossoff the answer for Democrats?  I doubt it.  If you want to get voters fired up to come out to vote, you need to give them something to get fired up about.  This guy has about as much chance of winning the 1st District of Wisconsin as I do.  But in a competitive district in PA or NC or even NJ, he'd probably have a better chance than a mealy-mouthed so-called centrist.



If you are rooting for Republicans, you should be very glad that Republican strategists are thinking like Everhart is.  It's good to be a bit paranoid when you are trying to win.


So is it the message or the messenger? The Republican candidate in Georgia ran against Nancy Pelosi. What sort of message is that?

The problem with almost all commentators on MOL is that they are rational so they think most voters are rational. It's just not true. 

There is or was another thread called something like "How do you talk to a Trump voter"?

The Special Election in Georgia is evidence that you can't. Republicans are going to vote Republican. What it proves to me is that Democrats in 2018 ought to concentrate on Congressional Districts with Republican Congressman which voted for Hillary Clinton for President. Other than that they have to concentrate on turning out minorities and younger voters.



ml1 said:



  This guy has about as much chance of winning the 1st District of Wisconsin as I do.  But in a competitive district in PA or NC or even NJ, he'd probably have a better chance than a mealy-mouthed so-called centrist.


I do not know whether this guy is a "centrist" or a "leftist". I am not sure of his message but he is an excellent messenger. 

It would be rather difficult to link him to East Coast or West Coast "elitists".



ice said:


Ouch.   Maybe it's time for the Dems to finally realize maybe it really is them and their message.  You can only blame others for so long, and after a time, the record just speaks for itself.

How would you change the message?


I would say more about economic issues and how to improve fairness, equity & opportunity and much less rote repetition of identity politics. 


When Trump is re-elected in 2020 it will be with a near supermajority in the Senate. I have no faith. This country is done. Enjoy the ride if you can. 

Maybe there's a chance if the Democrats give up on a few of the wedge issues that are already a lost cause. Guns? That's the most obvious one. Free gun with every D primary ballot. 


That Randy Bryce video is excellent. It makes me want to move to Wisconsin so I can vote for him.


Trump's party is 4-0. Republicans will continue to win these seats because Trump generally reflects their values.



LOST said:



ice said:


Ouch.   Maybe it's time for the Dems to finally realize maybe it really is them and their message.  You can only blame others for so long, and after a time, the record just speaks for itself.

How would you change the message?
Gilgul said:

I would say more about economic issues and how to improve fairness, equity & opportunity and much less rote repetition of identity politics. 

Also, try to instill hope instead of anger.  Complaining about stolen elections and playing everyone as a either a perpetrator (businesses) or a victim (practically everyone else) isn't a positive message. It is one that only the hardcore base will respond to.  Nor is saying that the U.S.'s best economic days are behind us and that robust growth isn't possible any longer and that redistribution is the best we can hope for.  And lay off the condescension.

Believe it or not, I am a registered democrat and I used to vote solidly democratic back when the party was more centrist.  But the latest version of the party has really turned me off, and I now consider myself an Independent when I enter the voting booth.  I have a feeling that I'm not the only lapsed democrat out there who is tired of having to choose between such extremes in both major parties.


Anyone who thinks today's Democratic Party is too extreme is probably not a "centrist."


Both parties have moved right, but the GOP has moved so hard right it makes anyone left of Nixon look like a bleeding heart liberal. 


Speak the language of the young. Metal bending and mining as employers of the masses is not coming back. So speaking as you would to industrial employees is not going to work. 

It is the gig economy. Speak to the inequality of contractors such as a FICA system where they need to foot double payment. Speak to healthcare (though the young still mostly do not care about that). Speak to ways to help with income insecurity as gigs come and go with interruptions. Speak to retirement for people who do not even have access to 401K's.


Democrats will start winning elections when they start forcefully pursuing policies that help regular people. That will energize their base voters, especially young people, to come out and vote. No more Republican Lite "centrists" who don't stand for anything other than "not a Republican."



Gilgul said:

I would say more about economic issues and how to improve fairness, equity & opportunity and much less rote repetition of identity politics. 

So you're with Bernie Sanders.



ice said:



Believe it or not, I am a registered democrat and I used to vote solidly democratic back when the party was more centrist.  But the latest version of the party has really turned me off, and I now consider myself an Independent when I enter the voting booth.  I have a feeling that I'm not the only lapsed democrat out there who is tired of having to choose between such extremes in both major parties.

When was the Democratic Party more centrist? Seriously. Are you talking about the Clinton Presidency or earlier?

And what policies is the Democratic Party putting forward today that it was not putting forward 20 or 30 years ago? 


According to the advice being given from various quarters, the Democratic Party should be more centrist.  And more progressive.



South_Mountaineer said:

According to the advice being given from various quarters, the Democratic Party should be more centrist.  And more progressive.

The people calling for "centrism" should be ignored. They have been peddling losing strategies to the Democrats for years. Chasing the mythical middle in politics is a fool's errand.  


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.