I continue to see articles in the national press about Georgia’s 6th Congressional District. Specifically, the nation is supposed to be riveted on a Special Election that will occur to fill this seat on April 18th. If you don’t know anything more than what I’ve just said then you probably sense how ridiculous this is, because a special election for a single seat in the 435 member House of Representatives doesn’t mean much of anything.
I haven’t seen this much hype about a special election since Mark “Hiking the Appalachian Trail” Sanford predictably thumped Stephen Colbert’s sister on May 7, 2013. That election became necessary when Sen. Jim DeMint resigned his senate seat to take over the Heritage Foundation and Gov. Nikki Haley appointed Rep. Tim Scott to fill his seat.
The new obsession isn’t a sibling of a liberal Comedy Channel fake news comedian. Jon Ossoff is a documentary film maker and former congressional staffer. The idea is that he has no business competing in a seat that became vacant when President Trump assigned Rep. Tom Price to serve as his Secretary of Health & Human Services. Georgia’s 6th District overlaps with Newt Gingrigh’s old territory, and it preferred Mitt Romney to Barack Obama by 23 points. But it’s a well-educated district and increasingly diverse, and Donald Trump only carried it by 1.5% points last November.
In Georgia, they have a runoff system, which means that no one will win the April 18th election unless they can clear 50% of the vote. If no one does, then there will be a follow-on election between the top two vote getters. Mr. Ossoff is almost assured of securing one of the top two slots because there are eleven Republicans in the race and only five Democrats. But the real goal is to get him over the magic 50% in the first election, because his chances go way down in a one-on-one race against a single Republican.
Here’s the point where cold water must be applied. Even if Ossoff does win this special election under these uniquely favorable conditions, he won’t help the Democrats retake control of the House of Representatives unless we wins again when he’s up for reelection in 2018. And, in that 2018, election, he won’t have the benefit of running against 11 Republicans.
So, why does anyone care about this election?
Partly, it’s because political animals love nothing more than elections, and we have precious few of them this time of year. Partly it’s because this is a symbolic seat, having been vacated by a guy who is now in charge of dismantling President Obama’s signature legislative achievement. The election could also be seen as an early referendum on President Trump’s job performance, I guess, and it also provides a test for how much erosion the Republicans are suffering in well-educated, affluent suburban districts.
But this is mostly hype. Special elections are weird and have odd turnout patterns that won’t be replicated in later general elections. They take place in their own political and economic environments. House races are never good barometers of the national mood, and congressional elections often have more to do with candidate quality and local issues than anything having to do with Capitol Hill or the president.
Another way of looking at this is to ask yourself what will be gained or lost by winning or losing this seat. Losing it will make the Democrats look weak and deluded, and that will sting for about 48 hours. Winning it will make Trump look like a drag on the midterm ticket and that might make a handful of Republicans more eager to create some distance from him. This could have some lasting positive effects, but the election’s usefulness as a predictor of the future is overrated and the Republicans will be beyond any lasting damage by the next news cycle.
Given the power of incumbency, it’s true that Ossoff will have a better chance of winning the seat in 2018 if he is already holding it, but that won’t change that he’ll feel constrained about voting with the Democrats all the time in a seat that Romney carried by 23 points.
I suppose my point here is that this election isn’t very important. Whether Ossoff wins the election outright, or loses in the runoff, or some other permutation occurs, we already know that the Republicans are hemorrhaging support in places like Georgia’s 6th District. We also know that they’re more than making up for it by successfully branding the Democratic Party as persona non grata in about 90% of the land mass of the country.
Perhaps the worst outcome from this election would be a Democratic victory that further convinced the left to accept that trade off. The seat in the 6th District is worth having, but a party can’t control state or national legislatures by doing well in cities and suburbs and nowhere else.
Daily Kos is among those fairly breathless about this election. Thanks for the perspective.
And the ones in Kansas and Montana, both of which are long shots at best.
I don’t disagree with the substance of anything you’ve written, but I feel like you’re being a little too negative about this. From listening to interviews with him and reading about his background, Ossoff seems like exactly the type of person we need in Congress, and especially in a regularly red district.
I think you are falling into your own trap regarding the news cycle and the importance of elections – no, this one won’t change anything major, but we should be electing good people to Congress every chance we get.
Since those in DC seem to watch the news cycle constantly what this election has done is put the fear of god in Pence and friends to the point they’re putting in campaign energy (time and money) into an R+15 district in Kansas (tip to Steve Benen). Suckered by their own hype is the way I see it.
Exactly. And the more defense team R has to play (and spend money on), the less they have in the tank for offense (and damage doing).
Plus, getting more locals excited to volunteer for D candidates will help build/rebuild for future races.
I used to think that about money but the rich are SO rich the money they spend now for republicans doesnt do much. They’ll spend on defense and have plenty left for offense.
It’s about uniting folks around something after recent losses.
That’s valuable.
On the other hand, I worry that the wrong lessons will be learned by winning and that losing, which is still the likeliest outcome, will be demoralizing.
The truth is, Trump is killing the Republicans in certain areas, but the sorting of the electorate is overall much to the advantage of the right.
The outcome of this election won’t change that.
That Cook Report is scary and you’re right that a win in an affluent Republican suburb won’t, by itself, change that. But I won’t say it’s unimportant. Every election and every demographic is important.
Without question, win or lose in Georgia, Democrats need to find a message that resonates in the heartland. We need to become the party of the little guy again. You’ve suggested antitrust as one means of appealing to ordinary folks in out-of-the-way places. I agree but it alone isn’t enough. We need a strong commitment to reform on a variety of issues and it must be backed by a sincere intent to help ordinary people solve life’s challenges.
I don’t know what it’s going to take to break through the right’s messaging. If W didn’t destroy their party for a generation, it’s easy to lose heart and hope. But in a way Obama failed to take advantage of the opportunity before him. With his oratory skills, why didn’t he promote his ideas with sweeping speeches that went over the heads of the media? A failure of vision?
I think he could have accomplished so much more by not adopting an insider’s style if not an insider’s game.
I think the issue is we have to have a believable message – ie that one can look at and say that will make a real difference.
Speaking entirely for myself, I don’t know what that looks like.
Example: in the last two Job reports we have lost 60K jobs in retail. The press is full of accounts of mall’s in trouble and stores closing.
What the hell are those people going to do for jobs?
Answer that question believably and I think we will win back the low income voters we lost and keep some of the upscale voters we won in 2016.
But if anyone has an answer…
Example: in the last two Job reports we have lost 60K jobs in retail. The press is full of accounts of mall’s in trouble and stores closing.
There have been empty stores in the mall nearest Booman for a while now. Heck, the building that once housed the nearest Circuit City to Booman is still empty like 8 years later. So it’s been a long, slow bleed.
Those jobs are not coming no back. In one report 30% of jobs will disappear within 15 years
It’s not a great time to have wreckers in control. But then, there is never a great time.
.
Not an answer but an approach: NHPR The Exchange had a discussion among 4 ppl Monday, 4/10 – The Debate On Work Requirements for Food Stamps and Other Welfare Programs around some state legislation. very concrete issue, detailed discussion. anyway, aside from Rs wanting to raise the eligibility for food snaps (“for their own good, keep them from becoming dependent”), reject Federal Money [because we also pay federal taxes and there’s a large deficit – i.e. it’s not that they’re cruel people) and the R state senator was pretty explicit that there are jobs to fill in retail (my interpretation: they want more low wage workers are needed in NH in retail, transportation shouldn’t be a problem if ppl can get to food stores they can get to jobs, ok my rant aside, a core issue that was touched on and will be subject of a future program and all discussants agreed was important was job training programs. Seems to me good representation of how concrete issues must be addressed on a state by state basis and there is a real opening for such. the general case is just lcd and worse than useless. this discussion on The Exchange was very specific to NH. also 4/10 there also was a discussion on VPR about the state budget, holding off on raising fees in anticipation of cuts in the federal budget and where the state will want to pick up and fill in for the cuts if they happen (missed most of that though). Anyway, state by state, region by region, very very concrete proposals around jobs, job training, all the support systems (child care, transportation, medical, school lunch – all this came up in The Exchange discussion, all very specific to NH)
I think the entire significance of the election is the panic it will cause Republican members of Congress–all of whom face reelection next year. If the Democrats can win (or even come close to winning) a safe red seat that was won by a very conservative Congressman by 23 points just 6 months ago, then it will be viewed as a sign that Trump is a major drag on Republicans nationwide.
Of course special elections have their own turnout patterns and even a blue upset won’t predict what will happen next year. But it will be perceived as a harbinger for 2018, and it will start a national conversation about how badly the GOP has been wounded by their unqualified erratic president. That is definitely a national conversation we should all want to have.
I fail to see any problem in getting people excited about a legitimate shot at flipping a House seat. We need 24, and the sooner we get started, the better.
Also, your statement that “Special elections are weird and have odd turnout patterns that won’t be replicated in later general elections” turns out not to be meaningful. According to FiveThirtyEight’s analyses, special elections on average do not differ substantially from regularly-scheduled elections. It is true that ONE INDIVIDUAL special election may differ substantially, but if there substantially better than normal Dem performance in this one, and the KS seat, and the MT seat, then we could be in for a wave election in 2018.
I suspect Ossoff won’t make it to a runoff. GA’s entire voter registration was recently hacked and the GA Secretary of State refuses to go to a paper ballot to ensure ballot integrity saying he’s not worried that the registrations were hacked. So, my guess is that the GA government is planning to steal the election outright.
This particular election is the most important in…maybe forever!
If the Democrats lose this election it will show they have learned nothing from nominating the worst Presidential candidate in American history. It will prove beyond all doubt that they are still beholden to the Goldman Sachs oligarchs. It will show that they don’t favor unions, that they spit on middle class issues, that it’s foolish to even mention Putin, and that they are doomed (doomed, I tell you!) to never, ever win national office again.
And it will prove once and for all that Glen Greenwald knows what he is talking about! On everything.
.
I’d be far more concerned about a win making democratic ELITES accept that trade off than the left. They are much farther down that road than the left as both Schumer and HRC have evidenced in padt statements or actions. Ossoff seems like the kind of candidate that you’d need to increase geographic reach.
But a needed reminder about special elections meaning almost for national trends. Fallen for that before but not again.
Can you please note when a link leads to a pdf?
how old is your browser?
I’m on Android, doesn’t alert me until it’s already downloading a report.
Harris Wofford’s PA Senate special election win in 1991, and Clinton’s win in 1992, meant that the Republicans were a spent force, and health care reform was right around the corner.
Until the 1994 mid-terms.
Special elections mean a lot, unless they don’t.