Two comments:Pruitt wrote:I agree.brian wrote:I don't think losing a CD by a few points that had never been even competitive in 35 years is such a big deal.
Has there ever been a more hyped one-off congressional election? Too much media, too much of a need to create a nationwide narrative.
More than $50 million spent on the Georgia congressional election.
For context, in the 2015 UK General Election, ALL of the candidates (649 constituencies - all of which had candidates from at least 4 parties) spent 39 million pounds. Which is approximately the same amount.
1. Despite its history, this was a very winnable seat as the district is trending blue. That's why the DCCC dumped all it's resources into this race instead of the other special elections, which may've been winnable with more of a commitment. But Ossoff did several percentage points worse than Clinton did in the district back in November. He was not packaged well -- despite having a fairly impressive record, the Dems basically ran him as an empty suit as he didn't take any real position on health care, economic inequality, etc.
2. It's a somewhat bad sign because the Dems' conventional wisdom remains that they can win back the house in 2018 by flipping GOP voters in the suburbs who don't like Trump (instead of say, motivating nonvoters with a more populist agenda). But it didn't work in Georgia, at least not to the degree hoped for.