• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

'17 Specials & '18 Midterms Thread

Joe Wilson, the Congressman who shouted "you lie" during Obama's speech:

Attendees chant 'you lie' at U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson during Graniteville town hall

Of note:

"I was very pleased by the President's response," said Wilson, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, during an interview with reporters before the event. "And I would have supported the prior president if he had acted, but he didn't. Where chemical weapons are used, there should be immediate action. Because if we don't, sadly it's an opportunity for chemical weapons to be used around the world and, we know, ultimately, within the United States."

2013 flashback:

Joe Wilson: Against "Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel, and General Dempsey’s inability to provide specific answers to direct questions conveys that authorizing a military strike will place American families at greater risk and increase instability which threatens our allies of Israel, Jordan, Turkey, and Iraq."

Link
 
Thompson is winning Wichita by a solid margin so far.

A higher likely percentage of votes have been tallied from smaller Republican counties than from Wichita so far. That's just compared to the 2016 turnout.
 
Last edited:
Looks like Estes might pull this out but not a good sign for the GOP at all. This race shouldn't even be close.
 
2018 Midterms: Chaffetz is a fool

Looks like Estes might pull this out but not a good sign for the GOP at all. This race shouldn't even be close.

So far, 23% of the vote from Segwick and Harvey (Wichita and north) is in compared to 2006.
The rest of the district has gotten 26% in so far.

There are some tiny counties that haven't reported in that went heavy for Pompeo. They accounted for about 4.5% of the 2016 vote and went 84% Pompeo.

Update: Estes is up but 32% of red county votes are in compared to 2016. Only 23% of the blue county votes are in. If Wichita turnout is higher than the rest of the district, he loses.

Update: Estes is the likely winner at 52% with 73% of precincts reporting. Wichita remains blue but Thompson's lead has narrowed.
 
Last edited:
Estes declared the winner with 52.0% of the vote.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/kansas-house-special-election-district-4

The Republicans got 35% of the votes they got in 2016. The Democrats got 65%. The Democrats actually got as many or more votes than 2016 in 5 of the small counties. They outperformed 2016 in every county. This looks like a missed opportunity. Republicans rallied late and Democrats sat on their hands.
 
The FCCC abandoned Thompson, and dipshit pundits claiming it was strategic. The Democratic party is a fucking embarrassment.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
 
I don't know if more Dem National support would have helped/hurt/or done nothing. The only thing I've learned from 2016 is that conventional wisdom about what kinds of things lead to more votes is pretty much meaningless.
 
I don't know if more Dem National support would have helped/hurt/or done nothing. The only thing I've learned from 2016 is that conventional wisdom about what kinds of things lead to more votes is pretty much meaningless.

What do you mean? Despite the loss, there was a huge enthusiasm gap here.
 
What do you mean? Despite the loss, there was a huge enthusiasm gap here.

Not quite sure what you mean by enthusiasm gap, but I've seen people saying that Dems could have won the seat if the national party invested more in it. But that proceeds from the assumption that more money spent, more national party involvement, whatever, would lead to more votes. That may have been true in the old world of politics. Not sure it's true in the world we live in now.
 
I meant what I posted above. Dems recouped 65% of their votes from 5 months ago. Pubs recouped 35%.

It's fair to ask if and how more national party involvement would have helped. I can't see how $20K for mailers would have hurt.
 
I meant what I posted above. Dems recouped 65% of their votes from 5 months ago. Pubs recouped 35%.

It's fair to ask if and how more national party involvement would have helped. I can't see how $20K for mailers would have hurt.

Definitely fair to ask. I just don't think we should proceed under the assumptions that what worked before will work now. Maybe the people who used to be convinced by mailers don't need mailers anymore because Trump is in the White House. Maybe mailers from the Democratic Party would have alienated Republicans who voted for Thompson (data suggests that there were not insignificant numbers who did). Maybe not. The answer is that we don't know.

The national Democratic Party needs to put some effort into figuring out what works to connect with people outside of the traditional Dem base who are disenchanted with Trump. I don't think you can just play the same game you played before.
 
Sure. But that's just it. The DNC should have been doing that in KS-4 for the last 3 months and executed a plan to get Thompson elected.
 
Sure. But that's just it. The DNC should have been doing that in KS-4 for the last 3 months and executed a plan to get Thompson elected.

Mostly agree, though I don't fault them for not having figured everything out in however many months it's been since Tom Perez was elected. All of this is going to be a learning experience. Hopefully they learn from these special elections, even if they don't win them.
 
So how does the fact the DNC has been focused on Tom Price's seat factor into this? They see more light in GA than KS?
 
yeah ga-6 looked/looks way more winnable than ks-4. and in the end estes did win by 11 points, 54-43. this is still significant in that its +19 D from the presidential just months ago but i don't buy that the DCCC missed a huge opportunity by focusing on ga-6. there is a sizable dem faction angry about not attacking the race harder, but that's kind of a stretch imo.

the real test comes with ga-6, as they've poured money and effort there and on paper should be much more winnable than ks-4. win there and gripes about this race should be quelled.
 
sorry was looking at a pre 100% projection and didn't realize it. though 7 points instead of 11 doesn't change the thrust of the point. i'm not assuming unlimited resources or else no decisions regarding time/energy/money are ever needed to be made. if you go in hard on kansas and lose by 2 instead of 7 and then lose ga in a squeaker people are gonna complain about the strategy there too. it's always so much easier in hindsight, and if they lose ga-6 too, which is usually very safe R, the DCCC will get hammered again.

there is an underlying factor to griping in that the kansas dem is more in the mold of bernie populism and the ga-6 dem is more business friendly type dem so the bernie faction sees that as why one got much more support. i think it's clearly more to do with kansas not being at all competitive in that district in decades (despite the noise about this race, it was almost like you'd have to see it to believe it) and georgia turning purple in general.

anyway i think complaining about not being more aggressive in a district that was +27 R in november is a step in the right direction, and they'll be more help when this same race happens in 2018... and in general if the trend in these special elections holds up in 2018 then it's gonna be a bloodbath for Rs, long way to go though.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top