Georgia 6th district was no referendum. November will be.

The Georgia 6th congressional district was given too much attention in my opinion. Let me list all the reasons why the recent special elections were not a referendum on the President (whom I will not name).

The special elections were held on different days instead of all at once. Each district is different with different issues and candidates.

All special elections held so far were won by incumbent parties (There was one Democrat win in California). In the Republican districts there were swings in vote percentages towards the Democrats. Democrats did not win however. All this says is that voters remain polarized.

The President has been in office for less than 6 months. I'm sure most voters are still in 'time will tell' mode.

Now let me tell you why November's off year elections will be more telling:

More people will be voting at once. There are gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey as well as legislative elections in both. There MIGHT be redo legislative elections depending on a Supreme Court case regarding gerrymandering in North Carolina. There is also a special election for a congressional seat in Utah.

The President will have been in office for a little over 9 months by then. More to time for his policies or lack thereof to be implemented and take effect.

Of course ultimately the 2018 midterms will be the ultimate referendum, but seeing how Americans are impatient to go to the polls and want something political to chew on, here it is.

 

I agree with you entirely.

I will say that we learned one significant thing from these special elections though. Nancy Pelosi is the gift that keeps giving for the GOP. Much like the left used Bush as their boogeyman during Obama's first term, the right has Nancy Pelosi and its paying off just as well as Bush did for the left.

 

Agree with a few conditions. Number one, the Dems have to realize using Trump-hate as their main platform is not working. Since Bush-hate had a lot to do with Obama's election, not sure they'll give up that strategy too easily. Two, they desperately need some new blood. The Pelosi, Warren, Reid, Biden, Waters, Clinton party leaders they serve are relics of a bygone era. Ive said it before and I'll say it again... they need their own version of Donald Trump to energize their voters. Otherwise, more and more Dems will just stay home on election day.

 

You are just in your initial stages of grieving over this last series of humiliating defeats for Dems.

The Dems really have no message that honest, working Americans can relate to.

Trump is the name you cannot hear. Your must be like the Monty Python characters.

 

I did not cheer on for Democratic wins for various reasons, but mainly because I have very very low expectations for these special elections. I refuse to say his name because that's what he wants: free advertising. Maybe if you pay me to say it...

 

I think you are getting good therapy in this forum. You might be suffering from T.A.R.D. Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder.

 

The Democratic criminal syndicate is 0 for 4 so far, and this after throwing major piles of cash at this last one along with a total full court press by the MSM hacks who continue to spew out fake news, vile hatred, racist hate speech, and a barrage of outright fraudulent claims and charges, Chris Wallace's interview with one of the White House attorneys last Sunday morning being a particularly embarrassing Moment for the major network Talking Heads, who just can't control themselves and continue to openly and blatantly lie about what people said just seconds before, and on it goes.

2018 will be a Trump landslide, thanks to The Reflatulence. Keep up the great work there, you're doing so well! Don't change a thing, and keep that loon Pelosi and the hypocrite hack liar Schumer front and center! Maxine Waters in 2020! Run Maxine, Run!

 

Nancy Pelosi for President 2020! lol

 

This election was a bellwether victory for the Republicans.

Trump won 207 congressional districts by over 50% in 2016.

The GA 6th is one that he didn't win by a majority and where he won by only one point. And 56% of the adults in the district are college educated.

Spending about 40 million dollars and finding out that the Democratic Party is in very serious trouble... Priceless !!

 

If the democrat had won it would have been a "referendum" but since they lost, it suddenly isn't. Not sure how you can paint the VA governor's race as a referendum on Trump seeing as how the state didn't vote for him and has a democratic governor already. It would be like saying teh San Fransisco Mayor's race is a referendum on Mitch McConnell.

 

Actually, I paid no attention at all to those special elections. Even if the Democrats won, I'd just roll my eyes at the American obsession over elections with large amounts of money spent not in the voter's interests and low turnout. I would ignore the over-analysis whatever the result.

As for the VA governor's race, I just assumed that perhaps supporters of the President still believed he can win over new voters if his policies work to the benefit of the voters. That increase in Republican votes (if it happens) could be an indicator of the President's increasing popularity. Second, there are also several other elections happening as I pointed out. And Mitch McConnell does not represent San Francisco in any way. He represents Kentucky voters not California voters. The President represents ALL Americans.

 

Except the state of Virginia where he lost as for the context of this discussion. Virginia is hardly representative of the nation. The DC & Richmond suburbs control the outcomes. It would take pretty much everybody else in the state joining hands to overcome their grips on elections.

 

The Democratic Party spent $40 million on an election they now claim didn't matter?

 

That's who Bernie Sanders was - and the DNC tore him down. The same people still control the DNC. DNC leadership is becoming so old that soon they will qualify for a group-rate discount for mobility chairs.

 

smartmouthwoman;

"Bush-hate had a lot to do with Obama's election."/?

I think voters in 2008 voted against Republican because of the economic crash which hit one month earlier and because they rejected the invasion of Iraq.

Voters in 2016, rejected Hillary the candidate and Obama the President.

Obamacare was his Iraq.

 

Hate and division is their only platform.

 

So true. The people along with the party sold out the people they once represented. As they were discontinuing representing the average American and moved to represent only the upper middle class and the elites, banking and MNCs, the question was asked...what about minorities and the rest of the working middle class? The answer? Well, where else would these people go? They would have to vote for the dems. And the rest is history.

Unless the dems become principled again and begin to represent the torn apart and decimated working class and working middle class, they will remain in limbo, irrelevant, and only appeal to college profs, the upper middle class and the elites. They didn't think they needed the white blue collar vote to beat trump and once again their ignorance revealed itself.

 

The Dimmies thought this would be a 'referendum' against Trump...now they are licking their hurting backsides once again. Will they ever learn that hatred is not a viable platform?

 

Let me ask just one question, If Ossoff would have won, would that have been a referendum?

 

Good points, but I doubt if the economy or foreign affairs had much to do with Republicans losing in 08. More likely, as Biden put it, it was the 'clean and articulate Black man who spoke with a minimum of negro dialect.' The novelty of electing Americas first black president whipped the left into a frenzy. The GOP never had a chance.

 

Sad but true.

 

Absolutely not. Perhaps the collective Democratic party viewed it that way, but not me.

Would I have preferred a Democratic win? Yes. But I would not be here gloating if they did.

In fact, to prove my consistency on this, go through all my recent posts and you will see I made NO remarks on special election developments until this thread. And mark this thread. If the Republican party make electoral gains in November, I will admit that the American voters have very different priorities compared to me. It would be sad but true.

 

Why did you start now?

 

Special elections don't mean much as an indicator for the midterms coming next year. Especially when 50 million dollars is spent on just one congressional runoff. Governor races in New Jersey and Virginia should be won by the democrats as long as they run a decent candidate. New Jersey state legislature is almost all democratic and that won't change. Virginia's might, the Democrats have an excellent shot at the Virginia Senate.

But again, I'm not sure what they mean for the midterms. I would watch President Trump's approval numbers, party affiliation/identifications numbers, which seats are at risk and how many among other things. Since FDR every party that held the white has lost seats in their first midterm with the exception of Bush II in 2002. But 9-11 just happened uniting the country behind Bush. He lost 33 seats in the House in 2006 which probably should be considered his first midterm. History shouldn't be tossed out the window looking forward to November of 2018.

Obama lost 63 seats in 2010
Bush gained 8 seats in 2002 But lost 33 seats in 2006
Clinton lost 54 seats in 1994
Bush lost 8 seats in 1990
Reagan lost 26 seats in 1982
Carter lost 15 seats in 1978
Nixon lost 12 seats in 1970
LBJ lost 47 seats in 1966
JFK lost 22 seats in 1962
Eisenhower lost 18 seats in 1954
Truman lost 28 seats in 1950
FDR gained 11 seats in 1934.

 

smartmouthwoman;

I think Obama got lucky.

Hillary had a media buildup behind her going back to at least '06 plus a lot of money to propel her campaign for '08. Like the comments about Bush Sr. who ran before her, her support was a mile wide and an inch deep.

For whatever reason (and there were many) the democrat party elites just didn't like her as their candidate. Obama was an alternative, but a gamble.

He was not an experienced politician (it later showed). He was more of a poster boy for the party instead of a leader of the party. He sold the idea of Hope and Change, made pretty speeches and had a $600 million war chest.

In order to get the Kennedy endorsement (which was the start of the end for the Clinton campaign), I think he committed to make Ted Kennedy's dream of health care his number one priority once in office at the expense of other issues.

That being said, what really put him in the White House was dissatisfaction with the Iraq War and the '08 Crash just before the election. McCain was a viable candidate before that.