That's still a gain of 10 points in that district. Ironworker still has to win the nomination but that's the type of people I want running.

He said he would stand up to Donald Trump.

And the Republicans turned out to ensure that wouldn't happen.

Trump is going to be around a long, long time, til January 2025, so just get used to him like we had to get used to the other guy for 8 years, as well.

I'm not a fan of Ossoff types but I don't think the evidence really suggests his campaign is primarily to blame for the loss. Democratic turnout was high.

The race became a big national story so Republican turnout was high too, and there are more Republicans in the district. Maybe Ossoff could have overcome that anyway if he were a better candidate, I dunno.

Along these lines, one thing I am worried about for 2018 is Trump trying to make the midterms a big deal. I can't remember any sitting Presidents doing this successfully in my lifetime, but I also don't recall any trying hard to do so. Trump loves the spectacle of elections so I could definitely see him putting lots of effort into it.

There is no equivalency with any other president. Don't pretend like there is, because you are only dragging yourself down with him. The man is a complete fraud.

Also Democrats need to update their Civil Rights message for the modern era. If you really want to run on Civil Rights, you have to speak openly and boldly about ending the War on Drugs, ending mass incarceration, holding police accountable, and massive reforms to the bail system and prison system. Also you have to talk about voting rights. This wishy washy 1960's basic accomodation crap doesn't mean anything to anybody in 2017.

lol I totally forgot how racists got super upset at seeing interracial dancing, thanks for reminding me about that mini-furor.

LOL I predict this foray into Politics ends with you triggered into tears.

"the other guy" ****ing priceless.

FYI he is a frequent POG politics poster...and he often complains about how that thread isn't a safe space for his posting

On the first question, I'd like to see the DCCC and DNC work with campaigns on a very different strategy in a lot of these districts that focuses more on campaign staff and person-to-person contact and less on TV/radio ad buys.

1. Poll every House district. Don't skimp on the polls, spend money and do the job right.

2. Focus more on getting out the vote at the local level than on spending. Use micro-targeting and knock on doors. With the data available today and through polling, you should be able to compile a list of registered Democrats, liberal third parties, and independents who didn't turn out in 2016/14/whatever, and use micro-targeting through social media to know what issues matter to them. Hire 100-150 campaign staffers for about six months, and send them knocking on those doors, prepared to talk about those issues. Arrange to have town halls with the candidate on one issue a week, and invite people to the ones about their issues.

There are about 700K people per district, and average turnout is 35-40% in midterms. That leaves 455K people who are not going to vote, and we can assume ~155K are hopeless. So let's say we targeted 300K. If you got 50K of those voters to show up and vote for Democrats, you'd be taking heavily Republican districts.

Further more, a lot of this could conceivably fly under the radar somewhat and be difficult for the Republicans to counter. You're not turning these races into national races, you're making them hyper-local and targeting people who are largely unlikely to vote for Republicans - they're either voting for you or not voting.

3. Hammer it home with surprise ad buys at the last minute in places that are close. Maybe a week or two before the election, use the continuous polling you're doing to target all of the districts that are surprisingly close and fire away with some ads. The idea is that this prevents what happened in GA-06, which was obviously a different dynamic in a special election, but never the less allowed the GOP to counter and turn it into a national race. Through this strategy, you'd be contesting maybe 100 districts instead of the ~40 everyone expects (although obviously those would get more effort and more attention from the start, including ad buys). So out of those other 60, who knows where exactly you get a feisty candidate, great campaign staffers, and a suddenly competitive race? The Republicans may not even be polling it. You pick the five, 10, whatever where you have a shot and you try to get an uncontested last minute ad buy. It could even be a Matt Santos style, "This is just me talking into the camera," type of ad since there wouldn't be a ton of time for production.

I think if these special elections have shown anything, it's that:

1. Democrats need to be contesting districts across the board.

2. Democrats need to be running candidates that get grassroots support from the left to drive voters to the polls. It doesn't have to be from the far-left, it doesn't have to be just progressive millennials, but it does need to be grassroots.

3. The DNC/DCCC can't ignore any district, they've come just as close in special elections in places where they barely spent anything. This means the party apparatus needs to be able to adjust quickly, poll everywhere, and pour money into races on the fly at the last minute. They can't decide now what races will be competitive in November '18 and build up war chests and dump all the money into those and ignore the rest.


There are a lot of issues with this ad, but I'll just take one: how the **** do you call it Obamacare and not the Affordable Care Act? More people like the ACA than Obamacare, because they're stupid and don't know they're the same... So use the more popular name.

The two races that most surprised us were the closeness of the Kansas and South Carolina races. That was because they were not heavily focused on by media and the parties and they had low turnout.

The Democrats need to figure out how to campaign with stealth turning out their people while the Republican voters sleep.

Cuserounder for head of DNC

Sweet Jesus, you're becoming a parody of yourself.

Just when we think it's impossible for ol' FlyWf to come up with even more ridiculous ways to play the race card, you produce this gem.

Someone find the gif of the dude in the basketball(?) stands who absolutely cannot believe what he's seeing right now.

Bravo sir, bravo.

How much did ossoffs age hurt him

Classic tactic of dehumanizing a black man.

Shocker

Football.

Jaguarfan.gif

there is that word again. RACIST. try losing that word and winning elections. until libs figure out that the old white folks like to sleep and dont want to be disturbed this nonsense will keep going on. you keep using that word and you rile the old chaps up and they turnout en masse.you have to remember old white folks vote a lot more than young folks of all races. this gives them much clout in elections. so please stop using that word and enciting them or its 8 years of republican folly for all of us.

****, the repubs should totally reconsider taking away their healthcare and quadrupling their premiums then.

Or maybe... The old folks don't give a **** so long as the black folks don't get their handouts huh? Must be what the republicans are banking on with the bill they are trying to pass

Also, you voted for Trump, what the **** are you on "republican folly for all of us." We know what concern trolling is.

I was scratching my head trying to figure out what grievance he's nursing with that deep cut.

If the elections are fair, why do you need to cheat so much? Why do you need other countries to help you win?

If your party isn't hugely racist, why do so many policies single out Muslims, Hispanics, and Blacks?

These are truths that cannot be disputed. Wave hands. Jump up and down. But you can't dispute the facts. You can choose to ignore them. But you can't refute them.

I agree with most of what you said, but just going to say that for, amongst other people, gay people (who can still get fired for their sexuality in many states), trans folks (who have to deal with ridiculous bathroom bills), and children with special needs (who usually get pretty poor results from school choice), the basic accommodation fight isn't over. But these issues do constitute the dreaded, "identity politics," so Dems probably won't run hard on that stuff either, at least not in swing districts.

i mean, nothing says they have to run on it as a prerequisite for governing on it, right?

if people like gay people not being fired for being gay, but hate politicians talking about bias against gay people, the answer seems pretty straight forward

Haha thanks... While I'm at it, new messaging priorities for the Democratic party:

1. Jobs/Living Wage
2. Healthcare
3. Jobs/Living Wage
4. Healthcare
5. See 1-4.
6. Money/Corruption Out of Politics

We'd still fight for all of the social issues, and we'd still talk about them in campaigns, but I also think they can easily be intertwined within these as well. I think these are the ones you win elections on, and when you win elections you get to actually DO the other things, not just talk about them. You get to hit them on Russia in terms of the corruption/money in politics, but the media is going to make hay out of that constantly and I think we've seen that the "Trump sucks, Trump is racist, Trump is bigoted, Trump is sexist, Trump is in cahoots with Russia," messaging riles up your base but it doesn't win over enough voters... Hammer them on it when asked, but don't forget to have a positive message about what you're going to do other than replace the other guy.

Also, it's been a huge failure of the Democratic party not to more strongly connect a Living Wage to increased wages for the lower, lower-middle, middle, and upper-middle class. You get the stupid outrage from like paramedics over fast food employees possibly getting $15/hr. Well, just cause the government isn't MAKING people pay you more in any other job doesn't mean there won't be a trickle up effect. There will... Otherwise people would take the stress free $15/hr jobs. $15/hr minimum wage means everyone else gets a boost too, and it cranks up the economy when people have more money to spend.

Like, this stuff isn't rocket science here. I don't know how the Democratic Party isn't shifting in this direction. It should have happened in '14 or '16.

I was typing my last post up as you posted this, but the bolded part, 100%. Morally, we should never shy away from talking about it, but we also don't need to make it the central focus of our campaigns. Talk about it more when you're in front of the people who it matters to, but make the broad messaging of your campaign about jobs, a living wage, healthcare, etc.

It's sad that it's true, but sometimes focusing too much on these issues in campaigns slows down progress. There's part of an episode of the West Wing about that, where Bartlet has to tell a gay donor that if he makes a big deal out of some ridiculous bill that's been proposed but will never pass, he'll be igniting a debate and helping the right... That the play is to ignore it, give it no attention, and when the time is right they'll move on their own agenda in that regard.

That's true but I don't even see Democrats running on federal anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ people. I would love to see that though. The idea is to press the status quo. That gives people something to get fired up and vote about.