OFF TO THE RACES

Democrats Find It’s Risky to Poke the GOP Elephant

The party’s all-out effort in Georgia’s special election drew Republicans to the polls, while an understated campaign in South Carolina almost gave them a stunning upset.

Republican Ralph Norman (left) celebrates with his wife, Elaine, on Tuesday after winning the special election in South Carolina's 5th Congressional District.
AP Photo/Chuck Burton
Charlie Cook
Add to Briefcase
Charlie Cook
June 22, 2017, 8 p.m.

There’s an old say­ing that close only counts in horse­shoes and hand gren­ades, and that’s cer­tainly how Demo­crats must feel after los­ing their third and fourth at­tempts of the year to wrestle away Re­pub­lic­an-held seats in spe­cial con­gres­sion­al elec­tions. In fair­ness, the first two shouldn’t fully count against them since the Demo­crat­ic Con­gres­sion­al Cam­paign Com­mit­tee was pretty much forced (or shamed) by the lib­er­al net­roots to play in the Kan­sas 4th and Montana at-large con­tests. Party pros saw both races as ex­tremely chal­len­ging giv­en their largely rur­al pop­u­la­tions, which have been the toughest dis­tricts for Demo­crats to crack over the last dec­ade.

Tues­day’s spe­cial elec­tion in Geor­gia’s 6th Dis­trict was the fight Demo­crats hoped to win, even though it’s a Re­pub­lic­an strong­hold. Mitt Rom­ney in 2012 and Tom Price, who held the seat for 12 years, won this up­scale At­lanta sub­urb by two dozen points, but Don­ald Trump beat Hil­lary Clin­ton by only a point and a half there in Novem­ber.

The not-so-secret sauce for Demo­crats is that polls show their party mem­bers are agit­ated and angry about Trump’s elec­tion, and are mo­tiv­ated to do something about it. The Demo­crats thought they would have an ad­vant­age be­cause turnout tends to be lower in midterm and spe­cial elec­tions, and highly mo­tiv­ated voters are more apt to make it to the polls.

A tight race was ex­pec­ted, but the GOP nom­in­ee, former Geor­gia Sec­ret­ary of State Kar­en Han­del, beat Demo­crat Jon Os­soff, a 30-year-old former con­gres­sion­al staffer, by nearly 4 per­cent­age points, 51.9 per­cent to 48.1 per­cent. It turned out that Clin­ton per­formed bet­ter than Os­soff. So what happened?

The blame game is well un­der­way. Some Demo­crats pin the tail on House Minor­ity Lead­er Nancy Pelosi, who was the tar­get of a lot of Re­pub­lic­an ads in the race. Amy Wal­ter of The Cook Polit­ic­al Re­port cites fig­ures from the ad-track­ing firm CMAG Kantar Me­dia that show 4,653 anti-Pelosi TV ads in the race between April 19 (the start of the run­off cam­paign) and the June 20 bal­lot­ing, at a cost of ap­prox­im­ately $4.7 mil­lion.

Oth­er Demo­crats point to their can­did­ate, a re­l­at­ively un­re­mark­able former Hill staffer who doesn’t live in the dis­trict. He might not have been the best can­did­ate, but of­ten in sur­prise spe­cial elec­tions (Price va­cated the seat sud­denly when Pres­id­ent Trump ap­poin­ted him to his Cab­in­et), parties end up run­ning who­ever walks in the door, and there aren’t a lot of Demo­crat­ic elec­ted of­fi­cials and ex­per­i­enced can­did­ates in the heav­ily Re­pub­lic­an 6th.

Both of these post­mortems have an ele­ment of truth to them. Many on the Left com­plain that Os­soff ran a re­l­at­ively nonideo­lo­gic­al cam­paign that did not con­front Trump or em­phas­ize health care, two po­ten­tial lines of at­tack that would have hit Re­pub­lic­an vul­ner­ab­il­it­ies. In hind­sight, it seems ob­vi­ous that Os­soff could have drawn sharp­er con­trasts, though his cam­paign plaus­ibly thought they would have been in­ef­fect­ive in a largely con­ser­vat­ive dis­trict.

Dav­id Wasser­man, House ed­it­or of The Cook Polit­ic­al Re­port, sug­gests there is an­oth­er reas­on that could be im­port­ant as well. Wasser­man points out that on the same night, just one state to the east in South Car­o­lina’s 5th Dis­trict spe­cial elec­tion, Demo­crat­ic tax law­yer Arch­ie Par­nell ran a “sim­il­arly con­cili­at­ory, post-par­tis­an mes­sage” yet “shock­ingly came with­in three points of Re­pub­lic­an Ral­ph Nor­man in a dis­trict that Trump car­ried by 18 points last Novem­ber.” Wasser­man notes that “Par­nell’s near-miss has promp­ted out­rage from act­iv­ists on the Left who be­lieve he got short shrift from the [Demo­crat­ic Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee], DCCC, and party hier­archy. If only the DCCC had para­chuted in­to Sumter in­stead of At­lanta, the think­ing goes, Demo­crats might have ac­tu­ally gained a House seat by now. But the real­ity is Par­nell, much like Demo­crat James Thompson in Kan­sas-04, out­per­formed polls and ex­pect­a­tions pre­cisely be­cause the race flew un­der the radar, not des­pite it.”

Wasser­man goes on to ob­serve that “the di­ver­gent res­ults in Geor­gia-06 and South Car­o­lina-05 prove sat­ur­a­tion-level cam­paigns can back­fire on the party with a baseline en­thu­si­asm ad­vant­age—in this case, Demo­crats. The Geor­gia-06 elec­tion drew over 259,000 voters, an all-time turnout re­cord for a stand-alone spe­cial elec­tion and an amaz­ing 49,000 more than par­ti­cip­ated in the 2014 midterm there. The crush of at­ten­tion mo­tiv­ated GOP voters who might have oth­er­wise stayed home, help­ing Han­del to vic­tory.”

In the South Car­o­lina spe­cial elec­tion, by con­trast, only about 88,000 voted. In short, the great­er Demo­crat­ic in­tens­ity ad­vant­age we see in the polls these days is off­set when voter turnout goes sky-high. Wasser­man points out that Re­pub­lic­ans, led by the Na­tion­al Re­pub­lic­an Con­gres­sion­al Com­mit­tee and the GOP lead­er­ship’s Con­gres­sion­al Lead­er­ship Fund, were able to neut­ral­ize Os­soff’s spend­ing ad­vant­age, drive up his neg­at­ives, and push up turnout, des­pite Trump’s ap­prov­al rat­ings sit­ting in the low 40s in the dis­trict—bet­ter than the na­tion­al av­er­age but still an­em­ic. Han­del’s poll­ster Whit Ayres says the les­son is that “Re­pub­lic­ans can win in a chal­len­ging en­vir­on­ment when they nom­in­ate good can­did­ates and run strong, loc­al­ized cam­paigns. The pres­id­ent struc­tures the over­all en­vir­on­ment, but he does not de­term­ine the out­come of par­tic­u­lar races.“

Tues­day’s res­ults show that the bot­tom has not fallen out for Re­pub­lic­ans, as some had sug­ges­ted. At the same time, Demo­crat­ic spe­cial-elec­tion can­did­ates are out­per­form­ing nor­mal Demo­crat­ic vot­ing pat­terns by 7 to 12 per­cent­age points, something that should alarm Re­pub­lic­ans run­ning for reelec­tion in com­pet­it­ive dis­tricts and states. When a pres­id­ent’s ap­prov­al rat­ing is run­ning un­der 40 per­cent, it’s no time for a party to get com­pla­cent.

What We're Following See More »
WEDNESDAY?
Judiciary Committee Counteroffers on Ford Appearance
1 hours ago
THE LATEST
INSPECTOR GENERAL WILL REVIEW FIRST
Trump Backtracks on Document Dump
4 hours ago
THE LATEST
THIS WILL NOT HELP
Trump Says Ford Should Have Filed Charges 36 Years Ago
5 hours ago
THE LATEST
DOESN'T WANT TO BE NEAR KAVANAUGH
Ford Would Like to Testify on Thursday
17 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault in the 1980s, is reportedly willing to publicly testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee next Thursday. Lawyers for Ford told committee staffers during a call Thursday evening to negotiate details of a potential hearing that she wanted Kavanaugh to testify before her and she does not want to be in the same room as him, according to multiple reports."

Source:
PER LETTER TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Kavanaugh WIll Testify Monday
20 hours ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login