Fifty Million Plus Dollars Later

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print



Republicans are now 4 for 4 in special House elections since Trump took office:


Republican Karen Handel has won Georgia’s record-breaking special congressional election, dashing hopes by Democrats to pull off an upset in the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections.

Seen as an early proxy for whether Democrats can flip certain Republican-leaning districts in the President Donald Trump era, Tuesday’s election drew national attention and record cash from around the country. Democrats have aimed to leverage Trump’s dismal approval rating and opposition to the Republican health-care bill into winning Republican seats and potentially taking control of the House in 2018.

The race for Georgia’s 6th District for the seat vacated by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price pitted Handel, 55, the former Georgia secretary of state, against Democrat Jon Ossoff, a 30-year old former congressional aide. Fueled by a rush of donors from around the U.S., Ossoff pushed for an upset in the suburban Atlanta district that Price repeatedly won easily.


He came up short, as Handel won by about 5 percentage points, according to incomplete returns.

The two campaigns and outside groups supporting and opposing the candidates shelled out at least $36 million as of May 31, including more than $22 million from Ossoff’s campaign. The election easily set a record for spending in a House race, according to NBC News.


Go here to read the rest.  Democrats are learning the limitations of the politics of hate.  Trump is hated by more Democrats than any Republican President before him, with the exception of Lincoln, with their more frenzied advocates, Mark Shea that is your cue, having convinced themselves that Trump is the reincarnation of Hitler and/or Stalin.  Such hate can stimulate activists,  but it can also foster the illusion that the voters are just itching to go to the polls to throw the hated rascal out.  The Republicans suffered from such illusions in 2012 in reference to Obama.  Now the Democrats have flushed more than 36 million down the toilet in a special House race backing a 30 year old neophyte who doesn’t live in the Republican leaning district against a seasoned, albeit uninspiring, Republican pol.  Predictably the Republican won.  The way the out of power party wins one of these special elections is with stealth, taking the other party by surprise with a sudden surge at the polls, not by turning the race into a national crusade, which alerts the in-power party to a maximum effort, which is what the Democrats did.  Good hate, but bad politics.


More to explorer


  1. I am glad the Dems lost again. I hope this continues.

    That said, I remained surprised that my company – a nuclear one which normally should favor Republicans – has management which openly despises Trump. I think I have figured out the reason. This company is home-based in a blue State which overwhelmingly voted for Hildebeast. And that State did a lot to oppose Trump’s executive orders on immigration. And young spoiled brat millennial whelps rioted and burned and looted in that State because they didn’t get their way in the last election. So guess what? That compnay isn’t going to get ANY DOE funding from Perry in the future because Perry works for Trump and Trump knows who loves him and who hates him. Realizing that subconsciously, and realizing Trump isn’t being suckered into the climate change fear mongering being used by nuclear and renewable advocates alike, management never misses an opportunity to say some snide remark, or let some ridicule loose.

    You freaking LOST, idiots! Get over it! We don’t want Democrats in power period, so change or shrivel up and die.

  2. Seriously?!? They ran a 30 year-old, wet behind the ears “congressional aid” against a former secretary of state and expected to win? Either the Dem bench is ridiculously shallow, or they were not all that serious.

  3. Yet again the polls have been shown to be laughably inaccurate, and the
    pundits and presstitutes who gravely informed us that voters were turning
    away from Handel have been shown to be confusing their own wishful
    thinking for objective journalism.

    And it’s interesting that up until the election, we were breathlessly told
    that the Georgia 6th race represented a referendum on Trump, that a
    loss by Handel meant a rejection of Trump by the nation as a whole.
    But today? The Democrats this morning all sound like the old Saturday
    Night Live character Emily Litella: “Never mind!”

  4. Here is what I have been told:

    “What scares me is that the ordinary American is a really dumb, ignorant fool. Trump was elected because he preyed on the uneducated and took them for a ride. Such people are so gullible that they wiillingly accept the fear mongering hat Trump disseminates. I love news headlines that even today read something similar to the following: ‘Trump’s core base still supports him!'”

    Most everyone in my company who is anyone believes exactly what you see written above. They despise Trump as an ignorant buffoon, and equally, they despise their fellow Americans who differ with them. And God help you if you are a Trump supporter.

    PS, I note with irony the fear mongering part. What the hell is the apocalypse of anthropogenic global warming but fear mongering incarnate?

  5. Seriously?!? They ran a 30 year-old, wet behind the ears “congressional aid” against a former secretary of state and expected to win? Either the Dem bench is ridiculously shallow, or they were not all that serious.

    The Democratic cognoscenti in 2007 came up with the idea of running Barack Obama against Rudolph Giuliani / Mitt Romney / Mike Huckabee / John McCain / Ron Paul. Sometimes, it’s like selling Spam.

  6. As was the case when a democratic supporter shot Republicans and now a Republican has won, the media very quickly moves on. The total opposite would had taken place if it had been a Republican shooter and a Democratic win. We would have heard about it endlessly with projections and fear mongering, on and on and on..
    Big Media ratings may be up, but I don’t think Big Media realizes how far their credibility sank into the toilet. No one, not even the most die hard progressive, seriously thinks Big Media is real news anymore, just entertainment, propaganda, but certainly not news. But I guess Big Media really doesn’t care about credibility anymore.

  7. Stephen Miller: “The only thing Democrats won recently was the congressional baseball game, while the only way Democrat voters can seem to get Republicans out of Congress is by shooting them. And they can’t even do that right.”

    Instapundit: “Until the party can admit to itself that Barack Obama was the worst party leader perhaps ever, and that Hillary Clinton was the least-capable standard-bearer since Mike Dukakis, then they’re going to have to continue pinning the blame for their losses on racist, sexist, phobic American voters.”

  8. First, I really like Clinton’s “presstitutes”.
    Next, David’s comment is so right: the ‘media’ has moved on, now that the GA 6th district decision didn’t fall their way—but also they were inordinately grateful to take their squirrel-length attention-span off of the fact that Steve Scalise is still in serious condition with scores of bullet fragments in his body, thanks to the James K. Hodgkinson (D) party.

    Now, the Hodgkinson Party, Nancy Pscyhosi, Bernie “the Red” Sanders, Elizabeth (“The Scream”, apologies to Edvard Munch) Warren, and Charles Sleazy Schumer, are all about the healthcare of the American populace, right? Imagine what $50 mil dumped into a 3rd-party administrator trust HSA administrated by the State of GA for its citizens, especially on a means-tested basis, could do for healthcare? Naw, it’s all about POWER!! What am I thinking…

    Also: Did anyone else note that the Hodkinson Party always says they understand women, and they especially targeted women voters supposedly in Fulton and DeKalb counties—by selecting supposedly an “eye-candy” (you cant argue he had any substance) candidate. So, when push encounters shove, it is always patronizing to its identity groups, even women. (“Let’s put Ossoff in there, they’ll be panting for him like we all were for James “Comely” Comey—another empty suit, and 6′ 8″ of it at that.)

  9. As for why they picked Ossoff, have any of you heard him speak? His speaking style impersonates Obama. I kid you not. As if he were channeling him. I guarantee you those idiots believed themselves to be paving the way for the next Obama.
    Seriously, why else would all those Hollywood types go to Georgia to campaign on his behalf? it’s one thing to send a lot of money. It’s quite another thing to get personally involved.
    I’m telling you, I believe the left was infatuated with Ossoff on a near-Obama-like level. They viewed him as potentially the Democrats’ great Southern white hope.

  10. “…but I don’t think Big Media realizes how far their credibility sank into the toilet…”
    If they did they would have fired Martha Raddatz for her near breakdown as Trump racked up the electoral votes. The woman nearly broke out into tears than night, but hey, she’s a professional, right, not like those people exposing PP and thus deserving prosecution – oh wait:

  11. I apologize in advance.

    Seen on the net. “I’m laughing my ossoff.”

    Also, seen. An observation on the proclivity of brave, strong feminists to burst into tears.

    I am sincerely sorry.


    If you say so, Jay. What I notice is less the stylistic resemblance to BO than his affection for humbug (“about you”, “extraordinary community”, and that prog-trash staple “make a statement”).

    One thing I’d like to see is a constitutional amendment elaborated upon by statutory legislation which among its provisions the following: (1) candidates for supralocal public offices must be between the ages of 39 and 72 years of age on the day of the election or referendum in question; (2) positions in the judiciary subject to election or retention-in-office referenda shall carry a term of four years or a whole-number multiple of four years; all other positions shall carry a term of four years; (3) judicial positions excepted, no person shall hold an elected office for more than 10 years in any bloc of twelve, or stand for election should it be the case that he would reach this limit in the middle of his term; (5) all judges (elected or no) must retire by the close of the calendar year in which they reach the age of 76, with their term of office truncated accordingly; (6) any person in a tainted occupation standing for a seat on a conciiliar body (judicial panels excepted) must run with an understudy (listed on his petitions or nominated with him at caucuses and conventions) who is not tainted. Should the outcome of caucuses, conventions, primary elections, and petition campaigns leave a political party with a corps of candidates for a given concilar body of whom more than 20% are tainted, lots must be drawn to replace a sufficient number of tainted candidates with their respective understudies in order to bring the share of tainted candidates down to 20%. The tainted occupations are ‘member of the bar’ and ‘public employee (elected officials excepted)’. Should one hold a tainted occupation, one will retain the taint for a period of time after relinquishing said occupation. The time one retains the taint shall equal one month for every four months one held the occupation in question. (7) the foregoing applies to all elective offices and to federal offices without fail; however, any state may, via referendum, opt to follow different standards and practices for its own offices or for local office under its aegis. However, any such alternative must be reconfirmed in a referendum at least once every 30 years; if the option has not been considered in the previous 30 years, the standards and practices delineated above shall be re-instituted.

    I think if we did that, we’d see few candidates for Congress whose previous preparation for the position was a stint as a congressional aide.

  13. ….Eyecandy? He looks like the Avengers’ Spider Man, but without the charm.
    Maybe going for a young, fresh face thing? Not like they’ve got a lot of mid-range folks….

    Saw a funny: Democrat demanding where all these rich, white guys who want to destroy America keep coming from, and a Marine I know commented “I don’t know, but another one lost to a strong, qualified woman last night.”

Comments are closed.