WWTBAM Bored

Voters in the all important Georgia 6th district, where I used to live, have been given the responsibility of deciding the fate of the entire known universe today. Will we go down the dark abyss if they vote for the evil Handelmort? Or will we all be brought into the bright light of enlightenment if they choose His Highness Jon Ossoff, the first of his name? We will find out soon.

I actually think Handel will win a close one, which is still actually good news for Democrats. But the national Democratic party is so bad at managing expectations, that that outcome will seem like a huge loss for them.

In most elections, the Democrats seem to work overtime to lose. As long as they offer nothing but 'I'm not Trump' ( which Saint Ossoff has done surprisingly little of) they don't have much of a chance. Regardless who wins, it will have negligable(ESST spelin?) impact on the Democratic party going forward.

mrkelley23 wrote:I actually think Handel will win a close one, which is still actually good news for Democrats. But the national Democratic party is so bad at managing expectations, that that outcome will seem like a huge loss for them.

Polling has swung back towards Handel in the last week, with one poll out today having Handel ahead by a point (it's a Republican polling firm). There are about 530,000 registered voters in the Sixth District. In the first election, 192,000 votes were cast, with about 45,000 of those in early voting. This time around, over 140,000 votes were cast early, and no one really knows what the total turnout will be. The weather here is somewhat iffy, with some scattered heavy showers expected in some areas later today, which may hold down turnout, but I've heard estimates ranging from 250-350,000 total. Handel appears to be doing better in the early voting than the group of 11 Republicans did in the first election, but no one knows if this just indicates that more of her base is voting early or if there's movement towards her.

Georgia does keep track of whether voters in this election voted in the Presidential primaries last spring and over 40% of the early voters did not vote in either 2016 primary, whatever that means.

During the last month, Mrs. SSS and I received at least two dozen robocalls claiming to be political surveys. We hung up on most of them immediately, so there's no way to tell how many of them were legitimate and how many were disguised campaign pitches. I wonder who is more likely to sit through an entire recorded message and punch in answers about the age, sex, race, party affiliation, etc. Because if more Democrats than Republicans (or vice versa) simply hang up when they get those calls, that might skew the eventual results.

In the 2016 Congressional election, 326,000 votes were cast and Tom Price beat a complete unknown named Rodney Stooksbury 62-38%

The polling for the first election consistently underestimated Ossoff's total (eventually 48%), with most polls having him in the 42-45% range.

It's OK. Thomas doubted Me as well. Jon still loves you all....

Saint Ossoff wrote:It's OK. Thomas doubted Me as well. Jon still loves you all....

You're only going to win because your voters have you confused with this guy.

The Russians have endorsed Karen Handelmort in this election and are hacking and social media engineering to their fullest extent in order to get her elected. Trump told them it was ok. I also got my email from the VRWC (vast right wing conspiracy) giving me instructions on how to deny our Savior his rightful seat. I WILL RESIST! All the other 350 odd things that Hillary said cost her the election are also being used against His Holiness. So if His Highness loses the election, there are the reasons..

I didn't see this thread when I posted mine.

The rule I'm seeing in special elections: the more money and time the DNC spends on a race, the worse the Democratic candidate does. The SC 5th race, which the national Democrats ignored, actually wound up being closer than Georgia 6.

mrkelley23 wrote:The rule I'm seeing in special elections: the more money and time the DNC spends on a race, the worse the Democratic candidate does. The SC 5th race, which the national Democrats ignored, actually wound up being closer than Georgia 6.

Translation: When the electorate is given more information about the candidates and their policies, they lose.

Now why is that?

Was it Handel's opposition to a livable wage that did it, or was it her hatred for gay people?

No, it was the evilness, race hatred, greed and general ugliness of all the people in Georgia's 6th district. Right, SSS? Right, bob? Right, BJ?

Perhaps they didn't spend enough money to get His Highness elected. Maybe they should have gotten all those donors from out of the district to give him more money.

Well, it was a moral victory for the dems, anyway. Right? It just shows that the dems just need to keep on doing what they're doing. They don't need any issue except trashing and investigating the President. And thinking everyone who opposes their policies is a nazi fascist.

Bob Juch wrote:

Meyers is illustrating flock's point exactly, but you're too dense to realize that.

BackInTex wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:The rule I'm seeing in special elections: the more money and time the DNC spends on a race, the worse the Democratic candidate does. The SC 5th race, which the national Democrats ignored, actually wound up being closer than Georgia 6.

Translation: When the electorate is given more information about the candidates and their policies, they lose.

Now why is that?

The anti-Ossoff ads were basically that he was a puppet of Nancy Pelosi and her liberal agenda and contained numerous statements that were proved to be wrong on various fact-checking sites. If you want to characterize that as "more information about the candidates and their policies," fine.

I thought that Ossoff himself tried to stay on the issues and his ads were mostly about what he intended to do. The Democratic groups that backed him insisted on keeping running the same ad about how Handel was a wasteful spender when she was in office, blowing money on her personal expenses. That ad had proved effective in the past in Republican primaries, where one Republican branding another as a money waster is an effective tactic. It wasn't a good tactic in a general election.

I do think the Democratic groups backing Ossoff should have gone after Trump harder. He was barely mentioned in advertising, as opposed to Pelosi, whose name was invoked numerous times in every single anti-Ossoff commercial.

So, the bottom line is that I still have no representation in Congress.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Right? It just shows that the dems just need to keep on doing what they're doing. They don't need any issue except trashing and investigating the President.

And that's the irony. Ossoff did run on the issues and he didn't trash the President. If he had, he might have done better.

The only consolation (not for the country as a whole, I'm afraid) is that by 2018, we'll have another year's experience with just what Republicans are able to accomplish when they are running things.

And that's the irony. Ossoff did run on the issues and he didn't trash the President. If he had, he might have done better.

The ironic thing is that the President has such low approval ratings, but your party is no alternative. The dems have tripled down on demonizing everything and everybody they don't like, even to their own detriment (ie: Gorsuch). They seem to want to be the party of hate and discontent, and they are doing a good job.

The only consolation (not for the country as a whole, I'm afraid) is that by 2018, we'll have another year's experience with just what Republicans are able to accomplish when they are running things.

They seem to be doing alright considering the opposition party is deliberately trying to sabotage anything and everything.

So, the bottom line is that I still have no representation in Congress.

I had a hard time believing that Obama represented me for 8 years. But I gave him the respect he was due as the duly elected President.

Well, at least Ossoff will get a Democratic Party Participation Ribbon.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: but your party is no alternative. The dems have tripled down on demonizing everything and everybody they don't like, even to their own detriment (ie: Gorsuch). They seem to want to be the party of hate and discontent, and they are doing a good job.

And that's simply not true.

Hillary presented plenty of alternatives during the Presidential election. Her website was filled with policy proposals. The problem was that the media wasn't interested in them. They wanted a three ring political circus to deliver high ratings and that's what they got. So it was all (Benghazi/e-mails/health vs. groping women/anti-Muslim).

Jon Ossoff presented a lot of ideas as well, but the only thing that the voters wanted to hear was Nancy Pelosi.

Since Democrats are being completely excluded from the healthcare process and virtually every other Republican initiative that's lurching their way through Congress, they are reduced to pointing out the flaws in the Republican plans in the hopes that enough moderate Republicans won't ram them through to the detriment of the country.

And the Democrats did present an alternative to Gorsuch. His name was Merrick Garland and the Republicans refused to do their Constitutional duty of putting him up for a vote.

Flock, when you get all your news filtered through Hannity and Breitbart, it's no wonder you don't hear anything the Democrats have actually proposed.

Estonut wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Meyers is illustrating flock's point exactly, but you're too dense to realize that.

No, you're too dense to realize I do.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: but your party is no alternative. The dems have tripled down on demonizing everything and everybody they don't like, even to their own detriment (ie: Gorsuch). They seem to want to be the party of hate and discontent, and they are doing a good job.

And that's simply not true.

Hillary presented plenty of alternatives during the Presidential election. Her website was filled with policy proposals. The problem was that the media wasn't interested in them. They wanted a three ring political circus to deliver high ratings and that's what they got. So it was all (Benghazi/e-mails/health vs. groping women/anti-Muslim).

Jon Ossoff presented a lot of ideas as well, but the only thing that the voters wanted to hear was Nancy Pelosi.

Since Democrats are being completely excluded from the healthcare process and virtually every other Republican initiative that's lurching their way through Congress, they are reduced to pointing out the flaws in the Republican plans in the hopes that enough moderate Republicans won't ram them through to the detriment of the country.

And the Democrats did present an alternative to Gorsuch. His name was Merrick Garland and the Republicans refused to do their Constitutional duty of putting him up for a vote.

Flock, when you get all your news filtered through Hannity and Breitbart, it's no wonder you don't hear anything the Democrats have actually proposed.

As usual, you present, in a microcosm, exactly why the democrat party is in a major decline. Hillary might have presented a lot of policy, BUT MOST PEOPLE DIDN'T BELIEVE HER. Jon Ossoff apparently campaigned as if he were a republican, and MOST PEOPLE DIDN'T BELIEVE HIM. The republicans could have put Garland up for a vote, and probably would have rejected him, and anyone else Obama nominated, wasting everyone's time. Then the dems shot themselves in the foot by smearing Gorsuch (who was good enough to confirm to the Court of Appeals a few years earlier) and made it possible for Trump to nominate ANYONE next time. If Gorsuch was such a degenerate, not deserving of a seat on the SC, why was he confirmed to the Court of Appeals? Are degenerates allowed there?

Your party is full of hypocrites.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: The republicans could have put Garland up for a vote, and probably would have rejected him, and anyone else Obama nominated, wasting everyone's time. Then the dems shot themselves in the foot by smearing Gorsuch (who was good enough to confirm to the Court of Appeals a few years earlier) and made it possible for Trump to nominate ANYONE next time. If Gorsuch was such a degenerate, not deserving of a seat on the SC, why was he confirmed to the Court of Appeals? Are degenerates allowed there?

Your party is full of hypocrites.

Merrick Garland was the Chief Judge of the DC Court of Appeals. He was appointed to the DC Court by President Clinton and confirmed by a 76-23 vote, including many Republicans. Neil Gorsuch was appointed by President Bush to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and confirmed unanimously.

So, apparently it's okay for the party that claims to believe in the Constitution to abdicate their responsibility ("wasting everyone's time") and reject Judge Garland but not okay for the Democrats to oppose Judge Gorsuch ("shot themselves in the foot").

When you utter the word "hypocrite," Flock, you might want to look in the mirror.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Your party is full of hypocrites.

There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

Ossoff lost because he talked about global warming (fringe issue) lbgtqxyz issues ( fring issue) rights for women ( Sorry gals but fringe issue)

What America wants to hear is how good paying jobs are going to come back.

They want the repair if the infrastructure to start now, not when everyone is done dicking around with healthcare. And then tax reform. NOW.

They want to know they are safe in their homes, not a return to building billion dollar equipment with thousand dollar wrenches.

They want politicians to work TOGETHER, not defend the tribe at all costs.

They do not want ridicule of the government from people who have no real alternative plan. This predates this past election day.

They don't want the Democratic party of Hillary, Pelosi & Schumer. Nor do they want the Republican party of Cruz, Ryan and McConnell.

This is why they voted for Trump. This is why, even though there are fewer approving of him, when they get in the voting booth, they voted for those more likely to work with him because of the HOPE that, in the end, he will deliver on his promises.

Until the Dems put forth a genuine alternative, they might as well just go home.

And regarding the Supreme Court, Garland should have been confirmed, but there is nothing wrong with the confirmation of Gorsuch.