This was a very entertaining race to watch, strange in many ways (couldn't resist). Strange had the full endorsement of Trump, money from his campaign, and a string of public appearances from the VP, along with a last day rally appearance by Trump himself. Didn't help. In fact, Strange's final vote total showed a 5% drop from his position in the polling data a week earlier. Trump lied that Strange "gained 25% in the polls" after he endorsed him. Not sure why he bothered to say that since those polls are always wrong ya know? Strange was pretty steady throughout the campaign at 46-48%, but dropped after Trump's endorsement and appearance and finished at just under 44%. Trump never really had enough support to "drag" any other candidates across the line, and he's lost enough at this point to be a liability for most Republicans, even in red states.
A few observations:
1. Democrats collectively spent about $1 million on special elections in Montana, Kansas and South Carolina, all deep red states, and all deep red districts. Republicans had won those districts in November by 60% or more of the vote. But the Democrats collectively gained 15% of the vote in all three, on virtually no money because the party basically had written them off. All three finished above 45%, with the Kansas race actually not being called for several days because the mail-in absentee ballots had to be counted to determine the winner. And the Republican candidates collectively outspent the Democrats 20 to 1.
2. It was amusing to watch the Republicans holler about all the "outside money" that Ossoff got in the Georgia race, while 80% of the money spent on Handel came from outside sources, and she spent about double what he did to eke out a very narrow victory in a district that was gerrymandered for Newt Gingrich. That just months after the election, when Mike Price picked up over 60% of the vote in the same district. Ossoff picked up right at 49% of the vote both times, in a district where only 35% of the voters identify as Democrats, and walked away with enough money to run again without having to raise any, a "victory" in that his ability to gather that kind of turnout and vote total was clearly a referendum against Trump in a deep red district in a deep red state.
3. Jon's not really interested in actual facts. But some others might be. There is a "Trump effect" at the polls in special elections, and it basically means big gains for Democrats almost all the way across the board.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de ... verywhere/Alabama could be interesting. It was an easy state to gerrymander, concentrating the African American population into gerrymandered districts, but this is a statewide election. I would guess one of the GOP "strategies" will be to figure out how to suppress the African American vote, and the growing Latino vote in the state. It's also a "turnout" election on, of all days, December 12. A special election in December traditionally does not draw voters to the polls in large numbers. Jones has some advantages. There is an anti-Moore element in Alabama among some white voters, particularly those who have some intelligence and education. The key will be turning out their base in a December election. They have the money, and will have PAC dollars too, since it's an off year. The DNC has plenty, and will most likely be willing to spend enough to make the GOP have to spend theirs too, and Moore has already spent a fortune. At any rate, it will give a couple of our board members a chance to share their in-state insights.