i guess i'm looking past this. these same 2 guys are going to run again against each other in 3mo, right? the trajectory is pretty heavily toward o'connor. but he's probably not going to win tonight, and will that stall his advance? if so, then it stays red in november. if he keeps progressing, then he takes it in november, and none of this really matters until november 7th, or 8th, or whatever the day after election day is.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I'm just thankful that I will get to see both of their ads again.

O'Connor isn't even a very good candidate, not bad, but nothing special. He is only 31. Has one term as a County Recorder of Franklin County (Columbus). I live outside Franklin County and had never heard of him before he won the primary in May.

The Slowtwitch connection is that Balderson has apparently completed an IM. (Bite me BLeP)

But there was nothing in this election that would hamper the Republican. No scandals, no 14 year old girls or 18 year old boys. No whacky tweets. No KKK connections. Just your standard Congressional race in a deep red district. There hasn't been anything close to a close race here since 2000.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Well it looks like another Republican win that the Dems will claim is actually a loss.

Act like you've been there before! How about a little civility?

The same two fellows will square off against each other in November, right? In that sense, I don't think it was that big of a deal. But I also think Dan's correct about the winner of the special election coming out on top in November as well, especially after Democrats poured huge resources into winning the seat right now in hopes of bolstering the 'blue wave' narrative for November (to me, that's mostly the product of a lot of DNC press releases and no small amount of media wishcasting and hype), and unfortunately coming up just a bit short in a race the pollsters were pretty much spot-on in calling, to give that much-maligned career field its props, at least in this race.

I also don't know if Donny von Drumpf can rightfully claim any sort of coattails (he held a campaign-style rally in Ohio just this last week, and had Balderson up on stage to speak) -- mostly because these off-year elections are nothing but a giant collection of local races. "All politics is local," in other words, and never more so than when it comes to the House of Representatives. I guess Balderson proved, by a nose, to be more local than O'Conner. And while von Drumpf did win Ohio by a significant margin over Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit, I don't really see his election win transferring over to anyone in November.

Personally, I wouldn't kill myself or cry myself to sleep if the House fell into the hands of those crypto-commie Dems (hahahaha!) in November, with the Senate likely to remain in crypto-criminal 'Pub hands. ;-) Divided government is just fine with me.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

As a note. I think the gop spent around double as much money as the dems for this race (when including PACs). I think in the past dems didnt view this as a competitive race at all, so they spent nothing.

Yes, I saw a graphic showing the same. Also, the GOP stopped using an advert touting the tax cuts when the Dem candidate started talking about this issue and the fact that most lower income earners didn't notice any benefit from the cuts.

Round 2 in November will be interesting...

I'd read that Dems put in the resources, and more so than 'Pubs, but I'm not advocating for either party's bona fides, because I'm no fan of either party.

At any rate, if you look at the NYT voting breakdown, Franklin County nearly carried the day for O'Connor, where he garnered 46,345 votes to Balderson's 24,631. That's an overwhelming vote total for the Democrat O'Connor, who many media outlets say was running as a de facto Republican (I don't know the truth of that, however). Franklin is also home to the city of Columbus and several largish surrounding suburban commuter towns. No surprise that an urban area went for a Democrat. O'Connor lost every other county in the 12th district.

Leaving aside the fact this was a special election, where turnout across the board typically turns out to be lower than in actual elections, the 12th district result kind of reflected the 2016 national electoral voting breakdown, where Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit won urban and many suburban areas, for the most part, and Donny von Drump took rural, exurban and a healthy number of suburban areas, for the most part. Given that, I'd say we're still pretty much a 50/50 country, electorally speaking.

I'd also be curious to see the turnout model and whether or not Democrat voters came out in larger numbers than did 'Pub voters. There's no doubt the enthusiasm for November is on the side of Dems.

Edited to add: According to the WaPo's Dave Weigel, here's the spending breakdown by party (candidate, party, PACs):

"According to media buyers and party sources, Democratic nominee Danny O’Connor spent $2.4 million on the air, while Republican nominee Troy Balderson spent a bit less than $600,000. The National Republican Congressional Committee spent roughly $1.4 million, either on independent expenditures or in conjunction with Balderson; the DCCC spent roughly half as much. And the Congressional Leadership Fund, a PAC aligned with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, spent $2.7 million on ads and organizing.

At the same time, the Democratic National Committee reported spending $300,000 in Ohio, mostly on organizing the local Democratic Party, as well as $100,000 directly to O’Connor in donations from the DCCC’s email list."

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Yep, we get to do it all over again starting today.

I love election politics. If I am running strategy for November of course I am going to look at this race. You'd be a fool not to. I definitely agree that the Democrats need to get beyond declaring moral victories. A close loss is still a loss. But if I were running the GOP Congressional races I would be very worried about what we see here.

This was pretty much the prototype for generic candidates. Incumbent had resigned. Neither one was at all exciting or offensive and I don't think anyone but their mother's knew they existed before this race. The variable is this is a very red district extremely gerrymandered to be a safe GOP seat.

One other variable is this was a special election with only this on the ballot (and yeah, we spent a shit ton of money for a couple months of a seat). The vote count was less than half of 2016.

'especially after Democrats poured huge resources into winning the seat right now'

Except that is the opposite of reality. O'Connor spent more than Balderson because he was able to raise more. National GOP money was several times that of national Democratic money.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...m_term=.bc026d8c1787


According to media buyers and party sources, Democratic nominee Danny O’Connor spent $2.4 million on the air, while Republican nominee Troy Balderson spent a bit less than $600,000. The National Republican Congressional Committee spent roughly $1.4 million, either on independent expenditures or in conjunction with Balderson; the DCCC spent roughly half as much. And the Congressional Leadership Fund, a PAC aligned with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, spent $2.7 million on ads and organizing.
At the same time, the Democratic National Committee reported spending $300,000 in Ohio, mostly on organizing the local Democratic Party, as well as $100,000 directly to O’Connor in donations from the DCCC’s email list.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I cited Weigel's WaPo piece as well. It came out to about $3.5-odd million on O'Connor's part and behalf and about $4.659-million or so on Balderson's part and behalf. Any way you slice it, that's a huge amount of resources poured into both candidates for a seat in a special election that's only a few months away from the regular election. About $8 million in total for a relatively sleepy and backwater CD in Ohio. Meaning, both parties are going to fight the coming war (I mean, "election" ;-), district by district. Oh joy.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Yeah so based on that breakdown the GOP spent a little less than double than the dem candidate. (around 3 mil to 5 mil).

All i was getting at is your comment about how the dems spent a lot of money for a blue wave narritive, is kinda incorrect.

A statement such as "By spending less money than the GOP they moved 10 points in their direction" is much more accurate. (10 points is a lot). By comparison there was a 8-9 point swing in 2010 towards the GOP (this resulted in 60+ seat change).

How is spending millions upon millions of dollars, which Democrats and O'Connor did (when in the last election the Democrat candidate spent about $22,000), incorrect? There's no doubt Democrats -- and Republicans -- poured huge resources into what had once been a relatively unknown and kind of unremarked congressional district, is that not true?

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Hey Columbus is not backwater - it's the 13th largest city in the US!

That's an overwhelming vote total for the Democrat O'Connor, who many media outlets say was running as a de facto Republican (I don't know the truth of that, however).

He was certainly not running as a Democratic Socialist. His ads all talked about working with both sides. I don't recall any negative ads by him and I am not sure if he mentioned Trump at all. Balderson's campaign was mostly debunked attack ads. The local, and very conservative, Columbus Dispatch endorsed the Democrat saying there had to be a check on Trump. They also repeatedly tore apart Balderson's ads as being false.

Franklin is also home to the city of Columbus and several largish surrounding suburban commuter towns. No surprise that an urban area went for a Democrat. O'Connor lost every other county in the 12th district.



It was only small parts of Franklin County. And none of what you would call urban areas. It was virtually all suburban and very Republican areas. This wasn't the urban black population coming out to vote. The rest of the district is rural Ohio. If the GOP lost any of those other areas they may as well file for Chapter 7.

I'd also be curious to see the turnout model and whether or not Democrat voters came out in larger numbers than did 'Pub voters. There's no doubt the enthusiasm for November is on the side of Dems.


I am very curious about that as well. Even though turnout was high for a single vote special election, it was still less than half the count from 2016. Turnout was really key.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

My favorite ad was calling him "Dangerous Danny O'Connor, He will make Washington worse!".

Well, you were at best misleading.

Democrats poured huge resources


Sure. Demcorats did. Because he was able to out raise Balderson. So individual Democrats poured money in. But the national party gave him almost nothing.

On the other side Republicans poured even yooger, believe me, the yoogest, resources in to keep a seat that they won more than 2 -1 less than 2 years ago. And a very very large proportion of that money came from outside the district and was national Republican money.

If they have to spend that way to hold this district it is going to be a very expensive election cycle for them.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Dems spent 3.5 mil and the Reps spent 4.7 mil. That isn't close to a little less than double. Reps spent 34% more. If you are going to talk about an incorrect statement you should really make sure your numbers are correct.

 

Pop quiz: which of these is a real Trump tweet?

A:

"As long as I campaign and/or support Senate and House candidates (within reason), they will win! I LOVE the people, & they certainly seem to like the job I’m doing. If I find the time, in between China, Iran, the Economy and much more, which I must, we will have a giant Red Wave!"

B:

"The Republicans have now won 8 out of 9 House Seats, yet if you listen to the Fake News Media you would think we are being clobbered. Why can’t they play it straight, so unfair to the Republican Party and in particular, your favorite President!"

Not sure what or why you are asking.

just a bit of fun replying to the last post. can you tell which is a real Trump tweet?

How much did Russia spend?

Not that it matters, we all know that advertisements don't affect the outcome of election.

both.

ah, you're too clever by a half!

Pop quiz: which of these is a real Trump tweet?


A:


"As long as I campaign and/or support Senate and House candidates (within reason), they will win! I LOVE the people, & they certainly seem to like the job I’m doing. If I find the time, in between China, Iran, the Economy and much more, which I must, we will have a giant Red Wave!"


B:


"The Republicans have now won 8 out of 9 House Seats, yet if you listen to the Fake News Media you would think we are being clobbered. Why can’t they play it straight, so unfair to the Republican Party and in particular, your favorite President!"




It's a trick question.


A: can't be Trump as there are no spelling errors.


B: can't be Trump because he's talking more about the Republican Party than himself.