REPUBLICAN KAREN HANDEL WINS GEORGIA SPECIAL ELECTION, AP PROJECTS

Thing1 said:
The Republican won in 2016 by a margin of 61 - 38. In 2014, that was 66-33. That kind of margin has been what that district has seen for the past couple of decades, give or take a few points.
Click to expand...

didnt the guy price was up against have like 0 donations?
 
Darth Omar said:
This is actually a teaching moment for democrats lol.

You get credit for stating publicly what most elected democrats won't. The Deplorables are running the country because liberal democrats refuse to listen to them about what matters, to them.

It's exactly that simple.
Click to expand...

Stop making this bigger than it is. Democrats were dumb to run a liberal in a district Republicans usually win by 30%, and even dumber to spend that kind of money there. And that's it.

Do Democrats need to hone their message? Of course, but let's not pretend that the GOP has much coherent going on these days.
 
Evmetro said:
Indeed. They put Trump in office, and they keep winning elections for Repubs. The ones who help Repubs win are the ones like evince, buckley, and Domer, so be sure to thank them.
Click to expand...

Don't forget Nancy Pelosi. The Dems had a chance to get rid of their mouth, and what did they do? They kept the senile excuse. I almost peed my pants when the douche spoke right after Ryan gave his heartfelt and compassionate remarks .
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...losi-address-congressional-baseball-shooting/
 
Thing1 said:
In deep red areas?

Never expected to win yesterday. Would have loved to pull off the upset, but call me when the special election is in Massachusetts.
Click to expand...

Why would a political party break the bank to almost win? Have they grown so accustomed to losing that coming within 6% is a victory for them?
 
SHITBALLS said:
45jJP3T.jpg


lmao
Click to expand...
Blank, stupid expressions on Defeatocrats? Priceless....
 
Thing1 said:
The Republican won in 2016 by a margin of 61 - 38. In 2014, that was 66-33. That kind of margin has been what that district has seen for the past couple of decades, give or take a few points.
Click to expand...

This is why you are almost always wrong in your predictions. You look at this data and make no further analysis.

Yes Tom Price did win by that margin. But I defy you to name his opponent. His opponent had zero dollars.

This was an unmitigated disaster for the democrat party. You can keep your head in the sand like you did after November but you will continue to not learn valuable lessons

Now for me this election should be seen as a message to Ryan and McCuntell
 
Thing1 said:
In deep red areas?

Never expected to win yesterday. Would have loved to pull off the upset, but call me when the special election is in Massachusetts.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall a special election in Massachusetts for Teddy Kennedy's seat that a republican won. Just sayin.
 
Alice in Liberaland said:
This is why you are almost always wrong in your predictions. You look at this data and make no further analysis.

Yes Tom Price did win by that margin. But I defy you to name his opponent. His opponent had zero dollars.

This was an unmitigated disaster for the democrat party. You can keep your head in the sand like you did after November but you will continue to not learn valuable lessons

Now for me this election should be seen as a message to Ryan and McCuntell
Click to expand...

The bolded is hilarious.

Republicans have won that seat for MANY years, by wide margins. There is a reason that Dems haven't put much money there until now. Why they did this time is beyond me, but they're desperate.

"Unmitigated disaster" is pure partisan hackery, though. It sounds like something Pelosi would say.
 
Thing1 said:
Stop making this bigger than it is. Democrats were dumb to run a liberal in a district Republicans usually win by 30%, and even dumber to spend that kind of money there. And that's it.

Do Democrats need to hone their message? Of course, but let's not pretend that the GOP has much coherent going on these days.
Click to expand...

Jobs and the economy never go out style, politically.

The problem for liberal democrats is they want to talk about climate change, free stuff, getting men to piss in the women's room and etc absurdities, instead of putting people back to work. Or when they do talk about putting them to work, they're forced to square the circle of advocating higher taxes to pay for their social programs; or in the case of climate change, advocating energy policy that hits the working class in their pocket books.

That formula just doesn't work outside of the blue precincts. It isn't rocket science.
 
Darth Omar said:
Jobs and the economy never go out style, politically.

The problem for liberal democrats is they want to talk about climate change, free stuff, getting men to piss in the women's room and etc absurdities, instead of putting people back to work. Or when they do talk about putting them to work, they're forced to square the circle of advocating higher taxes to pay for their social programs; or in the case of climate change, advocating energy policy that hits the working class in their pocket books.

That formula just doesn't work outside of the blue precincts. It isn't rocket science.
Click to expand...

You're just spouting generalities. Ossoff's campaign didn't focus on ANY of the issues you mentioned above. He ran a centrist campaign for the most part, and spoke mostly about business development.

And you guys are wrong on climate change. While I agreed w/ Trump's decision on Paris, I think you're underestimating how much people who aren't ideological care about the environment.
 
Thing1 said:
You're just spouting generalities. Ossoff's campaign didn't focus on ANY of the issues you mentioned above. He ran a centrist campaign for the most part, and spoke mostly about business development.

And you guys are wrong on climate change. While I agreed w/ Trump's decision on Paris, I think you're underestimating how much people who aren't ideological care about the environment.
Click to expand...

Basically Democrats can't win even when they avoid the issues. All that money washed away like liberal tears.
 
Thing1 said:
I said forever that the Dems shouldn't have spent money there. But they're desperate.

As to the 1st part, I do think the GOP is stupid in general.
Click to expand...

You can spin all you want but the democrat party wanted this badly. They don't spend $24 million on a house race to lose by five points.

Losers say they got close. Winners fuck the prom queen
 
Thing1 said:
I said forever that the Dems shouldn't have spent money there. But they're desperate.

As to the 1st part, I do think the GOP is stupid in general.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that the GOP is dumb but you avoided my question, because the correct answer proves that the Democrat Party is even dumber.
 
Thing1 said:
The bolded is hilarious.

Republicans have won that seat for MANY years, by wide margins. There is a reason that Dems haven't put much money there until now. Why they did this time is beyond me, but they're desperate.

"Unmitigated disaster" is pure partisan hackery, though. It sounds like something Pelosi would say.
Click to expand...

So your contention is that the democrat party spent $24 million they shouldn't have on a district they couldn't win out of sheer desperation and you DON'T think it's an unmitigated disaster?

Explain please
 
Thing1 said:
You're just spouting generalities. Ossoff's campaign didn't focus on ANY of the issues you mentioned above. He ran a centrist campaign for the most part, and spoke mostly about business development.

And you guys are wrong on climate change. While I agreed w/ Trump's decision on Paris, I think you're underestimating how much people who aren't ideological care about the environment.
Click to expand...

Climate change IS an ideology for the left. Moderates will tend to look at both sides of the issue while the democrats insist the only side of the issue is their side.

I spouted generalities because 'the general problem' for democrats pivots around such issues as climate change where they are utterly inflexible. That's why national/liberal democrats left their rank and file exposed to a populist like Trump.

A marketing whiz like Trump would say democrats have a branding issue. To be blunt, their brand sucks, because they've devoted so much energy on issues that people in large swaths of the country care little about.

In today's mobile NYT Ohio congressman Tim Ryan was going on about that very thing:

Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, who has been a vocal critic of his party’s overarching political strategy, said Democrats needed to recognize that they were “toxic” in huge parts of the country.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/...top-news&_r=0&referer=https://t.co/wLH1ITZEwE
____________

Some democrats get it and Ryan is one of them. He said "the democrats brand is worse than Trump".

I've made a similar claim when I point out that democrats should pay attention to their own polling instead of worrying about Trump's numbers.
 
Thing1 said:
You're just spouting generalities. Ossoff's campaign didn't focus on ANY of the issues you mentioned above. He ran a centrist campaign for the most part, and spoke mostly about business development.

And you guys are wrong on climate change. While I agreed w/ Trump's decision on Paris, I think you're underestimating how much people who aren't ideological care about the environment.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what Ossoff's campaign focused on.........but I bet the Georgia voters did and we can see how they voted..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top