Money well spent
The DCCC spent an unprecedented amount of money on centrist Jon Ossoff while ignoring more progressive candidates (in the case of Quist, getting involved only at the last minute). And the result is that Ossoff did worse than Hillary did against Trump in that district.
Obviously we lost in all cases so for immediate practical purposes we've got nothing to cheer. The argument has been that these are all tough districts for Dems so all of these results, even Ossoff's, show that the Dems might be able to take back the House in 2018 where we'll be competing everywhere. But there are some other takeaways from this:
1) Progressives do better relative to the realities of their district, i.e. yes Quist lost by more than Ossoff but he made up much more ground. Ossoff actually lost ground. A progressive, populist message can be a winning message. There is certainly not a case to be made that the Dems have to tack to the center or go right (which has long been the DLC/Clinton message).
2) The DCCC sure doesn't spend their money strategically. Unless their strategy is to prop up centrists and let progressives lose. Even if Quist's campaign had gotten the same amount of money early in the race, it could have made a big difference. Instead the grassroots had to painstakingly set up the campaign infrastructure.
3) Not related to the above data, but in all of the races, a big campaign point for the Republicans was "A vote for X is a vote for Nancy Pelosi has House leader". I don't like Pelosi for the opposite reason that Republicans do, but it seems clear at this point that her longstanding role as the right's bogeywoman has eliminated whatever her positive attributes may be. We could use a fresh face. And to dovetail with the above, it should be someone able to articulate a progressive populist message.
By the way, the Democrat in the previous GA-6 election literally didn't exist.
By fnord12 | June 21, 2017, 9:30 AM | Liberal Outrage