- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Talking point: Handel only won by 4 in a district the last Republican won by 20+
Posted on 6/21/17 at 11:15 am to Ag Zwin
Posted on 6/21/17 at 11:15 am to Ag Zwin
I'll repost this here.
quote:
Snipe
What I find highly entertaining is the way liberals keep moving the goal post so that they maintain the illusion of success.
ex. Winning an election used to mean getting more votes than your opponent then carrying out the duties of the office to which they were elected to liberals, and every other sane thinking person. Now, since actually getting more votes is becoming an unrealistic goal of many in the liberal party, they have redefined the term "Win" to include but not limited to not losing by a size able margin. Beautiful stuff....
0
Posted on 6/21/17 at 11:18 am to navy
quote:
now the first Congresswoman in the history of GA.
Really...the left should be rejoicing over that.
Posted on 6/21/17 at 11:31 am to Ag Zwin
Was completely a voter turnout thing. Pretty much everyone who voted Democrat in the 2016 election voted again. 44000 fewer Republicans voted in the special election.
Posted on 6/21/17 at 11:50 am to Ag Zwin
quote:if you ever wanted to explain this board to someone, this is the perfect post. its the ideal blend of lying, ignorance, and delusion.
I would guess that incumbency is good for AT LEAST 15 points in any election, regardless of party.
But, let's not let facts get in the way of an agenda/narrative.
Posted on 6/21/17 at 11:53 am to Ag Zwin
Wouldn't a more apt talking point be that Handel won the district by a higher percentage than Trump did?
Posted on 6/21/17 at 11:58 am to Ag Zwin
Last open elections had the winners win by 8 and >40 points.
Posted on 6/21/17 at 12:26 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
From 1827 to 1979, the democrats held this seat. It's not some eternally red district anyway. When a district votes blue for 152 years, if obviously has some left leaning tendencies
The tendencies have remained, but they're not left-leaning ones. What turned that district from consistently blue to consistently red was the application of the "southern strategy" a conscious decision to neglect concerns of African Americans in order court the votes of southern whites who wouldn't abide a coalition with blacks. It's what turned the south red (for example, Louisiana elected its first Republican governor, Dave Treen, in 1980 with the same strategy).
Here's Nixon's strategist, Kevin Phillips, on the strategy:
quote:
From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
Posted on 6/21/17 at 12:33 pm to TigerDoc
I've talked about the southern strategy on here before but let me just say that there is evidence that the south was becoming less "solidly" democratic long before nixon. Eisenhower won louisiana and upper south states, and even in the 20s, the GOP was making inroads as well.
Did a Southern Strategy exist? Yes. But that's called good politics. Let's remember something: Nixon's team knew he had enough strength in areas he needed to win so instead of shoring up the troops and simply reinforcing their must win areas, his team sought an even bigger mandate and that meant winning the south.
Hillary employed a similar strategy during the height of her polling lead in the summer last year. She was sending kaine to texas, herself to arizona and utah. A bigger mandate= more political capital.
But let me assure you something: regardless of what nixon did, the south would be republican right now regardless, and that's because of the democratic party lurching to the left.
Did a Southern Strategy exist? Yes. But that's called good politics. Let's remember something: Nixon's team knew he had enough strength in areas he needed to win so instead of shoring up the troops and simply reinforcing their must win areas, his team sought an even bigger mandate and that meant winning the south.
Hillary employed a similar strategy during the height of her polling lead in the summer last year. She was sending kaine to texas, herself to arizona and utah. A bigger mandate= more political capital.
But let me assure you something: regardless of what nixon did, the south would be republican right now regardless, and that's because of the democratic party lurching to the left.
Posted on 6/21/17 at 12:50 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
It was good politics, but it's also something the RNC chairman formally apologized to the NAACP for in 2005 (although in the current political moment, I think the party might have some regrets about that apology.
IMO, the critical way the Democratic Party "lurched to the left" primarily by splitting over the issue of civil rights for years and ultimately coming around to support it en masse. Eisenhower won due to his popularity as commander of Allied Forces in WWII. The only competitive state politics at the time was within the Democratic Party - largely Long vs. Anti-Long. Trump is a continuation of white identity politics. Had the Republican party taken up the cause of civil rights, the Democrats might have taken up the Southern strategy in which case we'd probably have a solid blue south today.
IMO, the critical way the Democratic Party "lurched to the left" primarily by splitting over the issue of civil rights for years and ultimately coming around to support it en masse. Eisenhower won due to his popularity as commander of Allied Forces in WWII. The only competitive state politics at the time was within the Democratic Party - largely Long vs. Anti-Long. Trump is a continuation of white identity politics. Had the Republican party taken up the cause of civil rights, the Democrats might have taken up the Southern strategy in which case we'd probably have a solid blue south today.
This post was edited on 6/21/17 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 6/21/17 at 1:04 pm to MastrShake
quote:
if you ever wanted to explain this board to someone, this is the perfect post. its the ideal blend of lying, ignorance, and delusion.
You either missed my point (and that may be my fault), or you are being deliberately obtuse.
I had two points.
One: Comparing an open seat, special election, to a prior election with an long-tenured incumbent is not at all an apples-to-apples thing. A long-term incumbent will generally have a huge advantage baked into their campaign. I don't have specific data at hand, but there is plenty of data for general incumbency/reelection rates, and anecdotal evidence is strong that that there is a signficant number to attach to this.
Two: Much of the media has been making exactly that comparison, saying that the margin was tiny compared to the last regular election that Price faced. They only mention in passing that the margin was higher than the Trump-Clinton race. This is what I mean by not letting the facts get in the way of a narrative.
I make an effort to not be a drum-beater here.
Posted on 6/21/17 at 1:08 pm to Ag Zwin
Fair points, but look at Price's last several elections prior to '16. He won by 32 in '14, 29 before that. He's won by 40+ points in the past. A 23 point win was low for him in that district. The common factor in the '16 and '17 elections is Trump.
This post was edited on 6/21/17 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 6/21/17 at 1:13 pm to Ag Zwin
Wasn't the district redrawn relatively recently to make is less heavily republican?
Posted on 6/21/17 at 1:28 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Fair points, but look at Price's last several elections prior to '16. He won by 32 in '14, 29 before that. He's won by 40+ points in the past. A 23 point win was low for him in that district. The common factor in the '16 and '17 elections is Trump.
Wasn't aware of all the history (and I won't trust your spouting off of them now
). The media I heard never mentioned races before that. It was all "23 before and 4 now. Woo-hoo!" Kind of reinforces my point, but actually in the other direction. If the lazy asses would flesh out a story line properly they could make a more convincing case.
Posted on 6/21/17 at 1:44 pm to Ag Zwin
President Reagan liked to say " trust but verify".
Take a look for yourself. For example, 2006 was a wave election for Dems (233D - 202R), but Price won by 45(!) that year. I'd have to check, but I think that district itself is considered +9 for Republicans.
Take a look for yourself. For example, 2006 was a wave election for Dems (233D - 202R), but Price won by 45(!) that year. I'd have to check, but I think that district itself is considered +9 for Republicans.
Posted on 6/21/17 at 1:50 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
I'd have to check, but I think that district itself is considered +9 for Republicans.
So, massive spending from out of state, creating the most expensive House race in history, against an unquestionably weak candidate, in a year when the coverage was epically onesided (even by historical standards).
And they made up 5 points from the "base" (and lost 3 points from the Presidential).
Posted on 6/21/17 at 1:51 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
Talking point: Handel only won by 4 in a district the last Republican won by 20+
Key point in bold.
It was an election. No matter the outcome, someone would have to form a narrative around it; especially after the money spent.
If the Republican wins in a landslide, that forms the narrative of A.
If she wins narrowly, then B.
If the Dem wins narrowly, then C.
If the Dem wins in a landslide, then D.
If a third party wins, then apparently hell has frozen over and the world is ending because that seems impossible these days.
Posted on 6/21/17 at 1:52 pm to Ag Zwin
How much did the Democrats spend in this election again?
Oh yeah that's right, enough for 5 other elections.
That's the only reason it was close. That, and the good point about an incumbency.
Oh yeah that's right, enough for 5 other elections.
That's the only reason it was close. That, and the good point about an incumbency.
Posted on 6/21/17 at 1:55 pm to Ag Zwin
Republican Johnny Isakson won the special election to succeed Newt Gingrich in 1999 and Democrats only got 5% of the vote.
Incumbency does not explain the over performance of dems in these republican strongholds
Incumbency does not explain the over performance of dems in these republican strongholds
Posted on 6/21/17 at 1:56 pm to skiptumahloo
quote:
Incumbency does not explain the over performance of dems in these republican strongholds
Posted on 6/21/17 at 2:09 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:I could have been Pope if I had the money.
Talking point: Handel only won by 4 in a district the last Republican won by 20+
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News