There’s another special election that’s been flying under the radar: the race for Mick Mulvaney’s vacated seat in SC-5. It looks like polls are tightening and the Democratic candidate, Archie Parnell, sounds solid. The election takes place on June 20. You can give money to Parnell below.
Reader Interactions
53Comments
Comments are closed.
Spider-Dan
Getting kind of tired of this unending string of “bellwether” special elections, where we take the pulse of the districts of the most insane wingnuts that were promoted to the Trump Administration, then use that information to reinforce the narrative that “the goddamn Dems can’t do anything right” because they couldn’t win an R+20 district.
It would be nice if we could stop pointing at these extremely conservative districts and setting a blue victory as the bar for determining, “Is Our Democrats Learning?”
Doug!
@Spider-Dan:
All the specials so far are brutal districts for Dems, all are R+9 or more. So I wouldn’t expect to win many of them. But…you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.
TenguPhule
@Doug!:
But make sure you have a Plan B in case Plan A doesn’t work.
The Moar You Know
@Doug!: This. Contest every election. You may only win a couple per cycle. Keep going and in twenty years suddenly you own the House.
It took the GOP from 1932 until 1994 to get the House back, and it wasn’t for lack of trying. You gotta do what they did, which was NEVER STOP. Look how it’s paid off for them!
Either you fight every race or you go out and buy a good rifle and several thousand rounds of ammo and start preparing for Stage 2 of the Republicaning, which I suspect will involve real “death panels” and I guarantee you will be a lot more unpleasant that Stage 1 has been so far. I’d REALLY like to avoid it if possible.
Spider-Dan
I certainly hope these candidates can pull off a victory. But it seems like every race is being framed as A Referendum On Trump, which is a dumb idea for our side. Donating lots of money to these candidates and raising the profile of the election only to hand Trump one of his few-and-far-between victories. These special elections are entirely symbolic and will not flip the House, so let’s not overstate their importance when that really only hurts us.
Now, come 2018, it’s a different story. If you want to do a donation bomb for red-district candidates then, by all means! We need to win everywhere. But in this symbolic races, we are just setting up a maze of rakes to run through.
Doug!
@Spider-Dan:
The specials have gone extremely well so far. Hard to argue with outperforming the November election by double digits.
The Moar You Know
@Spider-Dan: I’m sure you are. The GOP loves them, however, and does everything they can to force any kind of election into a “special” election.
The reason is easy: they win them because Dems can’t be bothered to show up and vote. So we need money, a LOT of money, to get those fucking Dems out to vote.
Served
Hello! I don’t want to totally threadjack, but this seems as good a place as any to ask a pet question. I adopted a beautiful yellow lab on Thursday. I got her medical papers and vaccine info today so that I could register her info with the city, and I saw that her heartworm test indicated she was “Borderline Positive” and there’s a note that they did a Witness test which came back negative.
The rescue never said anything about this test result, and I’m not sure how worried I should be over it. She’s going to the vet on the 8th for her post-spay checkup, but I’m trying to get any info I can ahead of time.
Other than this hiccup, she has naturally taken to her crate and gotten over some initial nerve and change anxiety housebreaking issues. She is literally the sweetest, gentlest dog I’ve ever met, and with a little leash training and treat-taking practice (my poor fingers), she’ll be a model citizen.
The Moar You Know
@Spider-Dan: That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard in my life. There is no such thing in a democracy as a “symbolic” election, not even the one for my damned condo board, which for me personally is actually the most important election I’ll be seeing until 2018.
No shit, Sherlock. That’s not the goal. Even if there’s twenty of these and we win only one, well, that’s one better than we were. Don’t think in terms of “2018”. More like “2066”. Flipping this mess will take decades. You do so one seat at a time.
p.a.
‘Specials’ are special since any win is compounded by incumbency (although short term fills are tough to hold) and it means the Rethugs have to use resources to take it back. Beware Trojan Horse PutinGreen candidacies!
SatanicPanic
@The Moar You Know:
Or maybe there just aren’t enough Democrats in those districts? It’s not always the fault of Democrats or their voters, some things are just not going to happen.
debbie
@Spider-Dan:
I don’t see why. Chain these clowns to the Trump policies which will prove to be harmful to his supporters. Use very, very heavy chains and lose the key.
Every single election, special or regular, between 2009 and last November was framed as a referendum on Obama. In hindsight, this seems to have helped the GOP. Why you’d proceed differently is beyond my understanding.
The Moar You Know
@Served: Means she’ll probably have to be de-wormed, not a pleasant process but it happens. also means that this is likely (if at all) an early infection, so little damage done. Your lovely lab (our last was a lab, best dogs ever) should be good to go for years to come. After de-worming, they will recommend monthly heartworm meds. DO IT. And the flea meds too.
Baud
@The Moar You Know: More to the point, we need to re-institutionalize the elections process, and that means rebuilding organizations. Pop-up campaigns do not work over the long haul.
If people are already tired of hearing about special elections in red districts, imagine how hard it is for the Dems to recruit quality candidates in those areas.
Yutsano
@Spider-Dan:
FWIW Osoff in GA-06 is hammering healthcare and how his opponent won’t debate him openly.
dmsilev
All of these specials so far are cherry-picked to be deep deep red; these are all to replace people who were brought into Trump’s administration and he wasn’t exactly looking for moderates or even “moderates”. So yes, things are tilted badly against us in this wave of specials, but doesn’t mean that they aren’t worth fighting for.
JMG
If nothing else, these elections give Democrats a viable campaign infrastructure in those districts for next year. I assure you that D. Trump is the only Republican who thinks winning Montana by six points is a huge win. The others in Congress see it as another indicator of a difficult 2018.
Another Scott
@Served: It looks like it takes 6 months or so for an infection by the mosquito to be detected. Read all the details here and talk things over with your vet. It sounds to me like you’ve encountered a common situation and as long as you follow the recommended treatments you and your new pooch shouldn’t have any issues – but I’m not a vet.
Good luck and enjoy your new member of the family!
Cheers,
Scott.
Another Scott
@dmsilev: Indeed.
Showing that the GOP cannot count on easily winning in a +15 or +20 district means that they will have to campaign harder, they will have to think about their voting patterns, and they won’t be so easily bullied by Donnie, Mitch, and Paul. Even if we don’t win every one of these races, the battle makes things better for us – and the country – going forward.
Fight!
Cheers,
Scott.
schrodingers_cat
@SatanicPanic: BS bots and doom and gloomers have to blame Democrats for everything, whether or not they deserve the blame.
bupalos
Yeah, “we’re not going to win the seat so these elections only help the Trumpublicans” is not really the way to look at it. There are a lot of Republicans making decisions on how to vote on bills in the next few months that are in districts or states that are more like R+3, R+7, etc. They may not be up for reelection this second, but you can bet when they see lock-step Trumpublicans winning R+20 districts by 4 points, they look at that next house or senate vote they are going to cast differently. And you may pick off one or two of these while you’re at it. Being that we’re on defense trying to save as much Obama stuff as we can, it might be MORE important legislatively to send this “symbolic” message now than it will be to have have the house turn over to some bare majority in ’18.
geg6
We have to give the GOPee a fight in every. Single. District. That’s the only way to make progress. It’s what they did and they were patient enough that it worked. It takes time, but seeing the numbers in the ones we’ve had so far, we are gaining in double digits even if we aren’t winning yet. A sustained effort will eventually get us some of these seats. It’s the only way.
Mnemosyne
@Spider-Dan:
One more thing I don’t think anyone else has said yet: one of the reasons these keep getting touted as potential bellwether elections is that the MSM and the Republican Party know that Trump and the Republican Party are deeply unpopular, and they’re nervously watching these elections (and having their billionaires pour millions into them) because they’re very nervous.
I think that keeping the Republicans nervous is a good thing in and of itself, even if we only win one or two seats from these elections. Forcing them to defend those “safe” seats is a good thing.
Oatler.
Maybe GOP will use Gianforte bodyslam audio to fundraise in robocalls.
dmsilev
Another thing: The GOP vote on the healthcare bill was razor-thin in its margin. Knock off a couple of Rs and suddenly Paul Ryan has to convince some previous ‘no’ vote to change. Even one or two votes different could end up being a Really Big Deal.
trollhattan
@Served: A happy Lab is the best antidote to a bad day I can name. Good luck chasing down the heartworm to a verifiable resolution and enjoy your new girl. Our neighbor’s yellow female recently turned fifteen and will still chase that darn ball! Happiest doggie I know.
eclare
@Served: I don’t know what a Witness test is, but I adopted my dog, and he tested negative at that time. Six months later, he was positive. Vet said the infections can take a while to show up. I will warn you, the treatment is expensive, although if your dog does test positive in a few months, maybe you could ask where you got her if they know of any reduced cost vets. My dog sailed through, not as bad as I thought, and I adopted another dog who basically went through the same thing, again, no problems.
And a coworker of mine had a dog that tested positive, and she did research that indicated if you get your dog on the preventive a lot of the time that will take care of the infection. She lives out in the country though, and I think her vet was more laid back than those that deal with uptight city dwellers. Dog was fine after a few months.
Best of luck to you and your dog, glad things are working out so well! Keep us posted.
ETA> I’m the uptight city dweller, was not implying you were!
SatanicPanic
@bupalos: This, plus the more we contest, the more Christine O’Donnell/Todd Akin type of wins we potentially rack up.
Spider-Dan
@The Moar You Know:
Not really, since we have to run that race again in 2018 when it matters.
I reject the idea that “well, we lost, but it was closer this time” is a convincing statement of victory. When Gianforte won, the narrative was not “but look how close it was!”; the narrative was “Republicans win again, even with a candidate that assaults the media.”
Stop shining spotlights on longshot Democrats in heavily Republican districts. Save your spotlights for 2018, when Democratic victories can lead to actual control of the House.
JMG
@Spider-Dan: The only election or elections going on will always have a spotlight on them regardless of what Democrats do. So might as well play to win as hard as possible.
HinTN
@SatanicPanic: No, that’s not the case. The way the 2010 gerrymander worked is they put almost equal (albeit slightly tipped to R) numbers of R and D in districts where they could count on R philosophy being valued sand HUGE numbers of D where they had to in order to stash the inherently larger numbers of D leaning voters. IF WE VOTE WE CAN WIN!
HinTN
@Baud: This, too.
Spider-Dan
@JMG: I don’t think playing to win necessarily involves the national left repeatedly saying “This election is a referendum on Trump” in districts that are extremely difficult for the GOP to lose.
Let the SC-5 Dem candidate make his case in SC-5 to its voters. But we don’t need to help promote these far right districts as the measuring stick of whether Trump is doing well.
HinTN
@Spider-Dan: Not to start a flame war or anything uncivilized, but please go to hell and fuck yourself on the way there. We don’t need no nattering nabobs of negativity dragging this thing down. Thanks for your attention to this PSA.
HinTN
@Spider-Dan: I do agree that each candidate MUST have their own unique message. That doesn’t negate the efficacy of tying them to Trump.
Mnemosyne
@Spider-Dan:
Except that the R candidate in SC-5 has millions of dollars available to him from the Kochs and Mercers, while the D candidate has far, far fewer resources available, because the Dems don’t have crazy billionaires pumping money into every special election. That’s why we need to take that place and try to provide a more fair election than would be available if it was not nationalized.
The Kochs and Mercers have already nationalized every local and state election. We’re just trying to catch up.
gene108
@debbie:
And 1994 was a referendum on Bill Clinton and 2006 was a referendum on Bush, Jr.
The only downside to being anti-Trump all the time, is Democrats are not able to focus on what they will do.
And I’ve met enough people, who are getting turned off by the negativity from everywhere, and want to know what the Democrats will do and where they stand on things.
People have a pretty clear idea – love them or hate them – of where Republicans are regarding policy, or at least think they have a clear idea of where Republicans are (some folks don’t really grok how regressive Republicans are), but they don’t have similarly clear idea of where Democrats are.
I’m not sure, if Democrats can cut through the right-wing media machine and define themselves clearly to the public. Even successful Democrats, like Obama and Bill Clinton, have gotten defined by the right-wing media machine, to some extent.
gene108
@Spider-Dan:
I kind of agree with this.
Trying to win heavily R+ districts, may not be the best use of resources.
On the other hand, what’s the point of sitting on cash for a year and half? The party’s going on in SC-5 and GA-06, so might as well blow it while the shit’s going on. You never know, you might get lucky.
Spider-Dan
@Mnemosyne: Then perhaps a special election in a heavily Republican district isn’t the best place to make your donations.
I understand, and agree with, a 50-state strategy where we attempt to compete in every state… in a general election. But expending a lot of money and eyeballs for a special election in the House (which we’ll have to win again anyway in 2018) in a heavily Republican district seems like a poor strategy. We’re just inflating the importance of a seat that a) won’t flip the House and b) stands a very good chance of going to Trump anyway.
In short: moral victories (that are still losses) are not particularly helpful at this stage, so let’s not get out of breath broadcasting them.
Uncle Cosmo
I wonder to what extent “double-digit gains” in these special elections are a result of simply not having Hillary Clinton at the top of the Democratic ticket to prod rank&file Rethugs to the polls. (Kind of like the way the land under a glacier rises after the weight of the ice is removed.)
I wonder to what extent that might be due to general misogyny & to what extent to the simmering 25-year stew of HRC-hatred. (I wonder about that in particular when I read that the GOP is spending bigly on ads trying to staple our candidates to Nancy Pelosi. I wonder if she hasn’t been ID’d by the likes of Frank Luntz [may he burn in hell for eternity] as yet another strong Democratic woman who infuriates their base enough to show up at the polls.)
I wonder if we shouldn’t look at the R vs D in these districts in the last 4-6 elections (Presidential as well as Congressional) to get a more accurate idea of what’s really going on before we pat ourselves too hard on the back. I wonder if we wouldn’t find that the turn against Trump accounts for no more than half of those “gains.”
Served
@eclare:
I ama VERY uptight and anxious city dweller. No offense would ever be taken. Thank you for the advice and experience!
Mnemosyne
@Spider-Dan:
Why not? Chipping away at the Republican narrative that they’re beloved by all and no one opposes them is worth it in the long run. Presenting the Democratic arguments to deep red districts is worth it in the long run. Running candidates to get them better name recognition for 2018 is worth it in the long run.
Your strategy is short-sighted. We need to play the long game and work the entire run-up to 2018, not hold back and hope for the best.
Served
@The Moar You Know: thank you!
Laura
@Served: you’re going to love that dog so much, and be loved in return so much more, you won’t believe the depth and breadth of your capacity for loving.
Follow the vet’s advice and cross your fingers and get busy loving your labradog!
You lucky lab owner you!
Spider-Dan
@Mnemosyne: But you can still do all of those things without shining a national spotlight on the race.
We aren’t going to be able to stop the Kochs et al. from spending millions when this is the only federal race on the docket that day. But they won’t be able to spend the same amount on every House race in 2018.
Are you of the opinion that the KS-4 and MT-AL special elections were ultimately positive results that we should broadcast far and wide? Should we run James Thompson and Rob Quist again in 2018? If the answer to either of those questions is “no,” then it seems to me that we should be more selective in which races we call out nationally.
edit: And by “we,” I mean the left. We can’t control what the media does, but we can avoid own goals.
Mnemosyne
@Spider-Dan:
Of course they can. They’ve been doing it since Citizens United was decided in 2010. Were you unaware that the reason the Republicans have been winning House and statewide races was because they have unlimited funding from the Kochs? This has been common knowledge for, what, 7 years now?
Yes, those were positive results that are well worth highlighting.
Probably not Quist, but I’d need more information about Thompson. Here in CA, Doug Applegate is fully planning to run against Darrell Issa again since Applegate came within a few thousand votes of winning. Are we supposed to throw away a good candidate with name recognition because he was unable to beat an incumbent.
I disagree. We should call all of the races out nationally, because that’s what the Republicans do.
Serious question: why do you think Republicans use Nancy Pelosi as a boogey monster in all of their campaign materials? Is it because they’re avoiding nationalizing every election?
Spider-Dan
@Mnemosyne: I find it difficult to believe that the Kochs would spend no more on the only federal race on the docket than they would when there are hundreds and hundreds of races simultaneously.
If you think that a closer-than-usual loss is something worth broadcasting, agree to disagree. And Darrell Issa represents an R+1 district; his is PRECISELY the kind of race we should be spotlighting, not an R+15 hail mary like KS-4.
As for Republicans and Pelosi: I live in a D+5 district (CA-3) and I can’t remember any GOP candidate here running against Pelosi. I’m sure she’s a useful bogeyman in red districts, and maybe some purple ones, but the last thing a Republican in a blue district wants to do is tie himself to the national party. However, that wasn’t really my point about nationalizing the race; I am against nationalizing the race because I think it’s counterproductive to inflate the importance of a race that is already heavily stacked against Team Blue when even a win wouldn’t have a whole lot of legislative impact.
Emphasizing the importance of these special elections as an allegory for Trump job approval is not unlike the old “Dow Jones approval rating” that the GOP used to try to hammer Obama with; the impact is more symbolic than practical, but more importantly, it’s a terrible idea if you still lose it anyway (as the GOP did when the market just kept climbing).
Mnemosyne
@Spider-Dan:
Why? I’m serious. You keep making this claim, but you’re not explaining why it’s so awful for a Democrat to lose a +20 Republican district by 4 points.
Revrick
Okay, I threw in a hundred. Two bucks a week to make the GOP work harder than they should have to kind of amuses me.
Spider-Dan
@Mnemosyne: Easy:
That’s pretty much it in a nutshell. The whole “we were expected to lose by a larger margin than we did” talk is useful for same-team internal dialogue about general trends, but as far as narrative setting, if that’s the best you can do then you should not be cheering the results. I think it’s fair to say that if some Republican came to me in 2013 bragging about how “Romney did much better than McCain did,” I would laugh him out of the room. Winning is winning, losing is losing, and I am not of the opinion that losing, but by smaller margins is something to brag about.
I want to see Democrats spotlighting special elections that they then WIN (which is not the same thing as spotlighting EVERY race, no matter how challenging). That entails either a) doing a better job of winning or b) doing a better job of identifying winnable races. I’m perfectly happy with either, but the former is a lot harder than the latter.
mainmata
@The Moar You Know: Well, not exactly. Yes, there was always the hard core GOP conservatives, exemplified by Robert Taft but he would be considered a moderate, Susan Collins by today. Todays “conservatives” are radical extremists to the right of Goldwater and are just Dixiecrats. Yes, always contest every election if only because the rural districts are getting funkier and less predictable and because Trump is a disaster for Rethugs.
Another Scott
@Spider-Dan: I fail to see how making the Teabaggers fight to keep their seats is a bad thing.
Cheers,
Scott.
Spider-Dan
I’m not saying we should stop trying to win those seats. I’m saying we should be more judicious in which of these special elections we elevate to “EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION: This will be an unprecedented repudiation of the Trump Administration by his most devoted supporters” status, followed by a GOP win.
Because the current criteria for identifying which special election qualifies for that kind of bravado appears to be “all of them,” no matter how red the district is.