The Blog Page

Last Men And OverMen

Sorry, I like my Presidents legitimate, OK?

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Note to Media: Jon Ossoff did not ‘Lose’

Many are making it sound that way and Stephanie Ruhle this morning stated ‘But he lost.’ Not true. There is going to be a runoff on June 20. And most of the polling analyst types-Nate Silver, Dave Wasserman, Sean Trende-see it as at least a tossup.

This in a district the Dems haven’t won in 37 years, that Tom Price won by 28 points, that Mitt Romney won by 24 points. The GOP got 50.39% of the vote to 49.41% for the Dems. Sean Trende:

“Ossoff will have a reasonable chance of winning in June. So Ossoff is going to end this first voting stage with (a) an awful lot of money, (b) momentum and (c) a combined Democratic vote share that is right at 49 percent. For him to take the district, all it would take is a slightly increased Democratic tailwind combined with some sour grapes from Republican supporters of unsuccessful primary candidates.”

“This is not a great result for Republicans. Moral victories are a myth, but they can tell us things about other, similarly situated contests. It’s the reason the NCAA selection committee takes strength of schedule into account when seeding postseason tournaments. All other things being equal, Republicans weren’t neutral on the outcome here.  They would have preferred that Ossoff wind up in the low 40s or even the 30s, instead of taking them to the wire. This district is, at its core, a Republican one, which a Republican should have won easily.  As I put it Tuesday, there was a continuum of concern among Republicans from hardly any at all if Ossoff won 40 percent of the vote to panic if he won the district outright, with genuine concern starting in at around 45 percent.  I still think that’s correct, and this outcome was closer to panic than “meh.”

 “It is true that Donald Trump did not run well here – the presidential race was very close.  But that is part of the point.  Republicans were hoping that the 2016 results were race-specific, and that without Trump on the ballot, this district would revert to Republican form. The reason is that there is a host of historically Republican suburban districts such as Texas 7, California 45, Texas 32, Illinois 6, and Virginia 10 where Trump ran well behind the traditional GOP baseline.  If those numbers stick, there will be a lot of races that we haven’t seen as competitive in the past pop up on our radar screen.  Additionally, this will help recruiting, as a bevy of Democratic officeholders will be thinking, “If a novice can do this, just think what I can do!”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/04/19/five_takeaways_from_the_georgia_special_election_133642.html

As another novice considering office this makes me feel better too.

P.S. As we saw in my poll out last week, the long awaited poll results are in, and right now I’m just 11 points down vs. Peter King (GOP-NY-District 2). And the voters don’t even know who I am yet.

http://lastmenandovermen.com/2017/03/15/poll-results-r-ny-peter-king-trail-11-points/

There is nothing more important in getting answers to Trump-Russia collusion than a Democratic House in 2019. Please donate to help me in my part of the effort to fight for a Dem House.

http://linkis.com/www.gofundme.com/DyE2z

Thank you. We must have a Dem House. And so, we will.

Post a Comment

Leave a Reply

img

Popular Post