Readability

Four out of four

The CNN crew was morose last night when they real­ized that the Dem lost the most expen­sive House cam­paign ever:

Some of their talk­ing heads claim “moral vic­to­ries,” but the LA Times notices that “moral vic­to­ries” mean los­ing:

Democ­rats are claim­ing “moral vic­to­ries” after los­ing two spe­cial con­gres­sional elec­tions in heav­ily Repub­li­can dis­tricts. Those results from votes in Geor­gia and South Car­olina on Tues­day fol­low two other moral vic­to­ries — also known as losses — in bat­tles for House seats in Mon­tana in May and Kansas in April. Many more results like these and the Demo­c­ra­tic Party will be out of business.

The debate is on as to what this means for either party in next year’s con­gres­sional elec­tions, since Georgia’s Karen Han­del won by “only” 5 points over Jon Ossoff (even when she got a clear majority).

Paul Kane at the WaPo claims that Ossoff lost because he chose civil­ity. I say that Ossoff lost because he did not care to be in his dis­trict and the vot­ers noticed.

Charles Glasser points out that

Ossoff raised $23.6 mil­lion to make a sym­bolic run against Pres­i­dent Trump, most of it from Marin County, Cal­i­for­nia and Martha’s Vine­yard in Massachusetts.

Geor­gia vot­ers were bom­barded with Ossoff media ads and junk mail.

The Democ­rats ran a pajama boy-​looking can­di­date who appar­ently could not decide whether he was lib­eral or con­ser­v­a­tive, and who does not live in that district.

That is, Ossoff could not even vote for himself.

Adding to the ridicu­lous­ness, when asked, Ossoff replied that he lives just “down the street” from the dis­trict. Brent Scherr braved the Geor­gia heat and found that “down the street” meant 3.2 miles on foot.

Repub­li­cans can not afford to be com­pla­cent. The Democ­rats are hell-​bent on winning.

But Andrew Kla­van sum­ma­rizes in one tweet what the Dems don’t get from yesterday’s Geor­gia vote:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz writes in U. S. and Latin Amer­ica at Fausta’s blog.

The CNN crew was morose last night when they realized that the Dem lost the most expensive House campaign ever:

Some of their talking heads claim “moral victories,” but the LA Times notices that “moral victories” mean losing:

Democrats are claiming “moral victories” after losing two special congressional elections in heavily Republican districts. Those results from votes in Georgia and South Carolina on Tuesday follow two other moral victories — also known as losses — in battles for House seats in Montana in May and Kansas in April. Many more results like these and the Democratic Party will be out of business.

The debate is on as to what this means for either party in next year’s congressional elections, since Georgia’s Karen Handel won by “only” 5 points over Jon Ossoff (even when she got a clear majority).

Paul Kane at the WaPo claims that Ossoff lost because he chose civility. I say that Ossoff lost because he did not care to be in his district and the voters noticed.

Charles Glasser points out that

Ossoff raised $23.6 million to make a symbolic run against President Trump, most of it from Marin County, California and Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts.

Georgia voters were bombarded with Ossoff media ads and junk mail.

The Democrats ran a pajama boy-looking candidate who apparently could not decide whether he was liberal or conservative, and who does not live in that district.

That is, Ossoff could not even vote for himself.

Adding to the ridiculousness, when asked, Ossoff replied that he lives just “down the street” from the district. Brent Scherr braved the Georgia heat and found that “down the street” meant 3.2 miles on foot.

Republicans can not afford to be complacent. The Democrats are hell-bent on winning.

But Andrew Klavan summarizes in one tweet what the Dems don’t get from yesterday’s Georgia vote:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz writes in U. S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog.