Democratic donors have poured tens of millions of dollars into the most expensive test run in the history of House campaigns.
Some party strategists are likening Tuesday’s special election in Georgia’s 6th congressional district to an exhibition game before the 2018 midterms. In the abstract, the suburban area’s demographics and soft Republican leaning resemble the political terrain Democrats must capture next November to demote Speaker Paul Ryan. The matchup between their candidate, Jon Ossoff, and GOP nominee Karen Handel could provide them valuable intelligence.
Politico reports:
The election is more like a season-opener; it still counts toward the party split in the lower chamber. But the point is clear. Given the race’s peculiar circumstances and the stakes Democrats have raised for the outcome, it’s an odd one to make.
First, Ossoff, Handel, and outside groups have combined to spend more than $40 million on the open seat, which was vacated by Health and Human Services secretary Tom Price. Ossoff’s campaign has disbursed more than $22 million. In 2012, 2014, and 2016, the average House winner doled out just around $1.5 million. The Georgia 6th election will not be replicable next year—its extreme price tag is the highest ever for a House race by more than half already, and total expenditures exceeded $10 million in only five districts in 2016. (And that was a presidential election year.) This campaign has featured a unique level of spending, and the quantifiable factors that come with it, like volume of advertising and voter awareness or burnout.
The election also is taking place at a moment that might not be predictive in 18 months. How is any strategist supposed to develop a game plan for November 2018 when there is no evidence that America’s extreme political volatility will subside?
Second, while this campaign might be a simulation to “Democratic operatives,” it’s a major turning point to the party at-large and sympathetic activists. The media have echoed this perspective, doubtless in part because of the attention paid to it (both in money and eyeballs) by the left. “With a potential price tag exceeding $50 million, the most expensive House race in U.S. history has become a proxy for the nation’s political divides, offering another early test for Trump and the GOP’s monopoly in Washington. And it gives Democrats a chance to prove they can flip at least 24 GOP-held seats and reclaim a House majority in the 2018 midterm elections,” the Associated Press wrote Monday morning.
Politico wrote that Democrats “were gripped by anxiety about what happens if they fall short Tuesday,” when the 6th votes. That part’s easy to predict: Numerous headlines will ask where the Democrats can spring an upset if not here, chronicle their low morale, and speculate about their efforts to regroup. The second issue could have implications for next year; if donors spent all this money and voters made all this effort just to finish second, who knows how motivated they’ll be to open their wallets and visit ballot boxes next year.
It’s here where the dispassionate take of the Democrats’ data folks makes sense. During the campaign, conservatives learned that Nancy Pelosi was still an influential name to cite on the trail. Democrats are learning on the fly about the delicate balance between anti-Trump rhetoric and presentable moderate platforms in swing districts. This is information that could benefit both parties in 2018, when the nation’s focus expends far beyond the Atlanta suburbs.
