Wednesday, April 19, 2017


So there's a vote in Georgia tonight for the House seat vacated by the dude Trump picked to become the Health and Human Services Secretary. How the race ends isn't all that interesting. What's interesting is how pathetic the left looks because of this race. Observe.

At the outset, realize that special elections like this are often random. The incumbent's party is often complacent. The opposition is trying to string some wins together. Turnout is key, not popularity, and turnout tends to be low and somewhat random. So barring some major shock that goes crushingly against the history of the district, it's best not to read too many tea leaves from these election.

Yet, the left is making a huge deal of the fact that the Democrat might do well and might even "win" tonight. They are trying to call this evidence of their momentum. Here's the ridiculous part though: there are 18 people running and the two best will do a runoff unless someone gets about 50%. Being the tallest dwarf in an 18 person race does not a giant make. And the fact the Democrats would claim momentum from their guy getting to the second round where he is projected to get crushed is ludicrous -- it's as ludicrous as their prior attempts to claim momentum from losing "not as badly as expected" in a couple obscure local districts.

Even if he crosses the 50% line, and it doesn't look like he will, Trump only carried this district by 2%, so it's not like this is deep red territory miraculously flipping over. This is one of those districts where little changes in turnout swing the election. Elections like this cannot be used to read general trends, and the left is pathetic to try.

Just as pathetic, once Hollywood found out about this race, they dove in hoping to hand Trump a loss. They've all pulled behind the Democrat with money and commercials and nasty interviews. They are smearing Trump, Republicans, and Americans in the process. Didn't they learn how the public responded to them imposing their views during the general election? Apparently not.

What's more, these idiots are whining about this being part of the "resistance." Talk about delusionally self-aggrandizing BS. A resistance implies some sort of danger, some sort of risk... people who stand up to power to make a change. That is not this. This is just privileged assholes whining that their girl lost in a country where such whining is totally legal. Pathetic.

It's funny to me that this is what the left has become. I would be ashamed if this is what I counted for success.

BTW, knowing what you know now, read this quote from the Democrat and tell me if it doesn't make you shake your head:
“We may not know the outcome for some time. But let me tell you this, there is no doubt that this is already a victory for the ages. We have defied the odds, we have shattered expectations.”
Uh, no. You're doing exactly what one would expect. That is, you're meeting expectations if you didn't believe Trump had pissed off at least 2% of his voters or energized at least 2% more Democrats. If you believed that, then you massively under-performed. Victory for the ages indeed... loser.



Anthony said...

A political party seeking to win power seat by seat nor does playing down losses and playing up wins. It's just how the game is played.

BevfromNYC said...

Interest that the only democrat in a open field of 18, 17 being Republicans, garnered 48+% leading to a runoff. Uh, now counting up all the Repub votes who will most likely turn to the Republican in the runoff election. Yeah...kind of a no-brainier. And as I have come to realize, Hollywood starlets...well, let's just math is not their long suit. Poor Alyssa Milano.

ArgentGale said...

I don't live in the district but I've been hearing radio ads about the election to the point where I'm sick of it, and that's without the celebrities! The main kinds I hear are Ossoff (the Democrat) trying to make himself sound like a fiscal conservative...With endorsements from Roy Barnes and John Lewis, which would sink him in any district that wasn't part of Atlanta. I wasn't aware that Hollywood had gotten involved until this article, though I suspect you're right about them turning off the middle and angering the right. If he's saying stuff like that already then it sounds like the runoff is pretty much in the bag for the Republicans.

- Daniel

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, The issue isn't the Democrats trying to win seat by seat, that is how the game is played. The issue is that the left (the MSM and the progressive media and Hollywood) have been screaming that they were going to 'win' and that this is evidence of how much the country had turned against Trump and is now turning to them. They've called this a 'referendum on Trump'. They've called this 'proof of the resistance'. They've called it evidence of their 'strength going into 2018 and 2020.'

That's pathetic. It's pathetic that they would even consider just surviving to the second round as a victory. It's pathetic that they would consider a "near win" as evidence of their national resurgence, especially in a district they just lost by only 2% in November. That's loser speak. That's a 3-13 team saying, "We're better than our record indicates." No, you're not.

In fact, they should be freaking out that despite Trump supposedly turning everyone off (supposed 40% approval rating), despite Trump 'inspiring' average people to resistance him, they did no better than they did in November. What does that say?

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Math is definitely not their strong suit... assuming they have one other than smugness. It's funny to me too that when you see the interviews with these people, they are so flippin' arrogant. There is such a disdain for average people. We're all idiots who aren't smart enough to know that we're being misled.

You don't win people over by insulting them.

AndrewPrice said...

Daniel, If what I read was accurate, the Democrats spent $14 million and the GOP spent $3 million. That's a TON of ads.

In terms of the celebrities, yep, they were everywhere. One article I read gave pieces of interviews at least 12 different celebrities had done in the district to try to sway it. Some are losers like Rosanne Barr and John Leguizamo, but there were some more respectable one as well. And none of them seemed the least bit self-aware.

AndrewPrice said...

I just read an AP article on the race and they are running with the narrative: "near victory" that should "scare Republicans" and "shows the strength of the resistance movement that has grown since November." Wrong.

They even mislead on things like money. Apparently there was a ton of "out of state money" in the race (which they suggest went to the Republican -- actually the other way). They say the Democrat was "heavily attacked in ads," without mentioning that it was about $14 million to $3 million in his favor. No mention of Hollywood.

ArgentGale said...

That sounds about right based on the radio ads that I've heard going to and from work and driving around town, Andrew. I usually heard the same Ossoff ad three or four times compared to one or two general Republican ads. Karen Handel is also the only specific Republican candidate that I've heard an ad from (aptly comparing the whole thing to a circus). Like I said earlier I somehow missed the celebrities, though I can't say I'm surprised by any of the names that have been mentioned. Looking them up might be worth a laugh when I get home...or a head to desk induced migraine one.

- Daniel

BevfromNYC said...

But just for the records, this doesn't mean that Republicans can coast through to 2018 either. They need to keep the "smug" to a minimum. That's what got the Democrats in trouble from 2010 onward. The Dems will win again, but we have to keep making the case for reason and civility.

BevfromNYC said...

'Cause the Dems have enough "smug" to go around to feed 10 3rd World nations. Amazing how they haven't learned one darn thing from the last 8 years when they declared the Republican Party dead for at least 40 yrs (James Carville) through to the 2016 election cycle.

tryanmax said...

I think something that needs emphasized is that the Dems backed a 30-yr old with zero political baggage to the tune of several times what is spent in a standard primary and still couldn't win outright!

I saw a headline asking whether, given all that, he under-performed? You have to ask!?!?


As an aside, we have a miniature version of the same thing happening with the nonpartisan Omaha mayor's race. (I heard a DNC spox on TV saying that Omaha is on their target list.)

In the primary, the incumbent Republican got 44% of the vote while the Democrat challenger got 41%. Another Republican came in third with 11%. But all the talk is about how the Democrat has a "strong chance" to win.

This is based on fuzzy math that says the Dem got well over 1/3 of the vote, and past mayors have won with poorer primary showings. Overlooked is that this year's was a 2-way race, whereas Omaha mayoral primaries are usually 3 or 4-way.

So, yeah, desperate.

EricP said...

Keep underestimating and mocking We the People’s very awake and new-media savvy ranks, MSNBABCBS, Hollywood & Co. Paraphrasing the mighty Cliff Poncier in Singles, your intellectual dishonesty only makes us stronger.

AndrewPrice said...

Fox fired O'Reilly. I'm shocked it took them this long.

I've also noticed a trend of late. No matter what the story, the MSM puts some anti-Trump angle in it. Everything from the Easter Egg roll to the location of the navy to the Patriots visiting the White House, the story is always "something gets f*cked up by Trump." That's probably the best evidence I've seen yet of the deep psychosis on the left.

AndrewPrice said...

EP, I think it's funny that they just don't get this. I guess it must be hard for their egos to accept that people don't respect them... or like them.

AndrewPrice said...

Daniel, Too many ads is worse than no enough ads.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I agree. I think political parties need to always be selling themselves.

I think when you had Carville, he was basically a liar. What he did was fraud meant to throw flack over the public to make the GOP seem an unpleasant place and to keep eyes off the Democrats' problems. What we are seeing now, by comparison, is delusion.

They are desperate to see some sign that they are right, and so they are looking for any grain of hope they can find. And I think this comes from them telling themselves that the "vast majority of the public" loves them and it just somehow didn't work out in November... so yes, we don't really need to change anything, it will all be alright, breathe deeply, breathe! breathe!. But the evidence says otherwise and they aren't willing to accept that.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, The narrative is that they overperformed no matter what ultimately happens... THE END.

I find this laughable however. Trump won by less than 2%. Since the election, we are told, Trump has alienated the public, alienated conservatives, and now alienated the alt-right. His popularity is around 35%, amiright? And yet, the election results mirrored what happened in November. It doesn't take much to say that he came up around 15% below expectations if the narrative is true.

I think it's funny that a mayoral race in Nebraska can even be considered as being related to Trump.

Anthony said...


Political parties and their boosters invariably claim they are on the path to victory. April of Trump's first year is a little early to realistically expect a backlash so right now such talk isn't grounded in reality.

EricP said...

AP, bumming from Chuck D guesting on a Mellencamp song, because there's little this righty enjoys more than co-opting lefties' words, they're stuck on stupid and twice on dumb.

Post a Comment