The election in Georgia's 6th Congressional District (Ga 6) is finally over. Karen Handel, the Republican, beat Jon Ossoff. It is the most expensive House race in history. Many things have been written about it, much of it highly partisan claims of the race's significance. What follows is data, and then opinion.
GA 6 has been represented by a Republican since 1979. The incumbent, Tom Price, handily won re-election in 2016, but was then appointed to Trump's cabinet. It was described in the media as 'heavily Republican' and other similarly leading terms. Here is the voting data from various recent elections quoted in the media-
2017 Congress- R+ 3.8%
Karen Handel (Republican) 51.9% 134,595
Jon Ossoff (Democratic) 48.1% 124,893
2016 Congress- R+ 23.4%
Tom Price (Republican) 61.7% 201,088
Rodney Stooksbury (Democratic) 38.3% 124,917
2016 Presidential R+ 1.5%
Donald Trump 48.3
Hillary Clinton 46.8
2012 Presidential R+ 23.3%
Mitt Romney 60.8
Barack Obama 37.5
Several mathematical observations, without conclusional or emotive clutter-
-Each election has been a Republican win;
-Romney beat Obama by a much wider margin than Trump beat Clinton;
-Price won by a much, much larger margin than Trump in 2016;
-Handel won by more than twice the margin as Trump;
-Handel won by far, far less than Price.
Now for context. Rodney Stooksbury did not campaign. As in, did nothing. Didn't even try. As I have pointed out in prior posts, in even the most lop-sided elections there will be about 1/3 of voters for the losing candidate. This is a good reflection of the diehard base of each party. Without doing anything, Stooksbury won 38%. In 2012 Obama did about the same, and spent almost no time or money in the area. In 2016 a weak Republican candidate beat a weak Democratic candidate, although not by much.
While it is fair to say the district has voted Republican, assigning changing vote percentages to 'educated, white voters, the type who vote for Democrats' (a quote from a recent article) is very misleading. The demographics of the district have not appreciably changed over 12 years. This is just a variant on the demographic inevitability argument, both worn out and false. As I have pointed out elsewhere, Trump did WORSE among white men than Romney. White voters are not why he won. Trump did BETTER among black and latino voters than any Republican in years, and WON white women. It was not about 'white male rage' and it still isn't. Demographics is not inevitability for either party, and it is a facile and wrong lens through which to see elections.
Handel did much better than Trump, suggesting either that Handel is perceived more favorably than him or Ossoff much worse than Clinton. Given Clinton's low favorability, it is more likely Handel was seen more favorably than Trump, hardly a difficult thing to do. More telling, Ossoff won fewer votes than Stooksbury! Admittedly turnout was lower, but it was still strong (58%), and Stooksbury did nothing, while Ossoff campaigned hard and spent 23 million dollars.
All this says to me the problem is with the message, and Democratic as well as other national polling agrees. The story of Russian collusion with Trump is of no national interest, despite its fascination for parts of the Democratic Party and inside the Beltway. Democrats in Congress are perceived less favorably than Trump, and as having no national agenda. Their only leader, Pelosi, is toxically unpopular, and the subject of a successful ad by Handel. Hating and demonizing Trump is not enough. No matter how much they hate Trump, the evidence of 6 elections (presidential and 5 congressional) is that anyone at all is better than a Democrat for Republicans, but also for a majority of independents, where elections are actually won.
The Democratic agenda appeals to their base. They are losing on turnout and independents. If it were not for the disorganization of Republicans, they would be getting absolutely killed right now. As it is, despite trying to tie up Trump is investigatory knots, Trump is enacting exactly the agenda he promised. As I see it, the lesson of Ga 6 is that Dems need a new agenda and new leadership.
Ted
GA 6 has been represented by a Republican since 1979. The incumbent, Tom Price, handily won re-election in 2016, but was then appointed to Trump's cabinet. It was described in the media as 'heavily Republican' and other similarly leading terms. Here is the voting data from various recent elections quoted in the media-
2017 Congress- R+ 3.8%
Karen Handel (Republican) 51.9% 134,595
Jon Ossoff (Democratic) 48.1% 124,893
2016 Congress- R+ 23.4%
Tom Price (Republican) 61.7% 201,088
Rodney Stooksbury (Democratic) 38.3% 124,917
2016 Presidential R+ 1.5%
Donald Trump 48.3
Hillary Clinton 46.8
2012 Presidential R+ 23.3%
Mitt Romney 60.8
Barack Obama 37.5
Several mathematical observations, without conclusional or emotive clutter-
-Each election has been a Republican win;
-Romney beat Obama by a much wider margin than Trump beat Clinton;
-Price won by a much, much larger margin than Trump in 2016;
-Handel won by more than twice the margin as Trump;
-Handel won by far, far less than Price.
Now for context. Rodney Stooksbury did not campaign. As in, did nothing. Didn't even try. As I have pointed out in prior posts, in even the most lop-sided elections there will be about 1/3 of voters for the losing candidate. This is a good reflection of the diehard base of each party. Without doing anything, Stooksbury won 38%. In 2012 Obama did about the same, and spent almost no time or money in the area. In 2016 a weak Republican candidate beat a weak Democratic candidate, although not by much.
While it is fair to say the district has voted Republican, assigning changing vote percentages to 'educated, white voters, the type who vote for Democrats' (a quote from a recent article) is very misleading. The demographics of the district have not appreciably changed over 12 years. This is just a variant on the demographic inevitability argument, both worn out and false. As I have pointed out elsewhere, Trump did WORSE among white men than Romney. White voters are not why he won. Trump did BETTER among black and latino voters than any Republican in years, and WON white women. It was not about 'white male rage' and it still isn't. Demographics is not inevitability for either party, and it is a facile and wrong lens through which to see elections.
Handel did much better than Trump, suggesting either that Handel is perceived more favorably than him or Ossoff much worse than Clinton. Given Clinton's low favorability, it is more likely Handel was seen more favorably than Trump, hardly a difficult thing to do. More telling, Ossoff won fewer votes than Stooksbury! Admittedly turnout was lower, but it was still strong (58%), and Stooksbury did nothing, while Ossoff campaigned hard and spent 23 million dollars.
All this says to me the problem is with the message, and Democratic as well as other national polling agrees. The story of Russian collusion with Trump is of no national interest, despite its fascination for parts of the Democratic Party and inside the Beltway. Democrats in Congress are perceived less favorably than Trump, and as having no national agenda. Their only leader, Pelosi, is toxically unpopular, and the subject of a successful ad by Handel. Hating and demonizing Trump is not enough. No matter how much they hate Trump, the evidence of 6 elections (presidential and 5 congressional) is that anyone at all is better than a Democrat for Republicans, but also for a majority of independents, where elections are actually won.
The Democratic agenda appeals to their base. They are losing on turnout and independents. If it were not for the disorganization of Republicans, they would be getting absolutely killed right now. As it is, despite trying to tie up Trump is investigatory knots, Trump is enacting exactly the agenda he promised. As I see it, the lesson of Ga 6 is that Dems need a new agenda and new leadership.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment