From Josh Keefe, Raw Story via International Business Times:
Ossoff’s loss will likely fuel criticism by the party’s Sanders-led progressive wing that the Democratic establishment is too corporate and conservative to serve as a viable alternative to Republicans, and that only by presenting a progressive platform can the party regain relevance.
Ossoff explicitly campaigned against single-payer healthcare and tax increases for the rich, and was rewarded by Democratic donors with $24 million in donations and another $8 million in outside spending. By contrast, Democratic special election candidates in Montana and Kansas campaigned on more progressive platforms and were outspent by large margins.
Ossoff, a 30-year-old former Democratic party staffer who once led a documentary film company, has no political record to speak of, but his policy positions have led some to describe him as a “ mild-mannered, centrist candidate,” who, according to his opponent, Karen Handel, “ talks like a Republican.” Two of the Democrats in this year’s other special elections, Rob Quist in Montana and James Thompson in Kansas, held much more liberal positions -- both advocated for single-payer healthcare -- and were rewarded for those stances by Sanders, who campaigned with Quist and endorsed Thompson, but not by the party apparatus or its donors.
And from Charles Bethea, The New Yorker:
I spoke to Ossoff on Friday, as he headed to a rally for millennials. A recent pollhas him leading his Republican opponent, Karen Handel, a former Georgia secretary of state who has failed in prior bids to become governor and a state senator, by less than two points. Handel has had Trump, along with Vice-President Mike Pence and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, give local speeches on her behalf. (Trump told her, “You’d better win.”) But the many moderate Republicans in the district—which encompasses the mostly wealthy and mostly white suburbs north of Atlanta, and which opted for Marco Rubio in the Republican Presidential primary last year—aren’t necessarily true believers in Trump or Handel. Even so, Ossoff tends to bite his tongue a bit when speaking about the President. In our conversation, he referred to “the atmosphere of chaos and scandal and disarray in Washington,” but he declined to use the word “impeach”—“I don’t think we’re there yet,” he said—and told me that he hoped to avoid provoking “extreme partisanship.” In April, when “Hardball” ’s Chris Matthews pressed him to characterize Trump, Ossoff finally allowed, after much baiting, “I don’t have great personal admiration for the man.” He would go no further.
This approach—and Ossoff’s more moderate policy positions, such as his disinclination to raise taxes on the wealthy or to move toward single-payer health care—has led some to wonder whether, as a recent article in The New Republic put it, he is a “moderate Republican” or a “serious progressive dressed up as a centrist.” In that same appearance on “Hardball,” last April, Matthews asked Ossoff, “Are you a moderate or a progressive? Which word would you prefer?” “I try to shy away from labels and focus on the issues,” Ossoff replied. Matthews pressed him: “Give me a label.” “I’m pragmatic,” Ossoff said.
Ossoff stuck to those talking points when we spoke. I asked, for instance, if he fit in the Hillary Clinton or the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. (Sanders has endorsed Ossoff, but would not call him a “progressive.”) “There’s unprecedented unity in the Sixth District,” Ossoff responded, “and we’ve built a coalition that includes Democrats, independents, and Republicans who are committed to politics and focussed on improving quality of life, rather than partisan intrigue.” After I repeated the question, he went on, “Voters here want to see a federal government that wastes less money, that sets the right priorities—like higher education, infrastructure, high-tech research, to grow metro Atlanta’s economy—that’s working to make health care more accessible and affordable and that isn’t getting drawn into the partisan swamp. That’s focussed on results and responsibility.”
And this:
2018 is looking problematic if this is the political stance of the candidates preferred by the national Democratic Party.
Addendum: Adam Gabbatt (with David Smith), Guardian:
Corbin Trent, co-founder of Brand New Congress, which trains progressive candidates to run for office, said the Ossoff race was emblematic of “a decade” of Democratic failure.
“Have a distinction. Have a reason to vote for them,” Trent said. “Basically, he was saying, ‘I’m not Handel.’ That was his campaign. ‘I’m a Democrat. I’m not her.’ It’s the same thing Hillary Clinton did in her campaign: ‘I’m not Trump.’
“Well, what we’re seeing is that does not work. Just not being a Republican or not being something is not enough. People want to know what you’re for, what they do, how it’s gonna make your lives better if they vote for you.”
Georgia’s sixth district has an affluent, suburban electorate but Trent said a Sanders-style message on investing in green energy would have appealed to voters. “We’ve seen populism is basically becoming popular in American politics,” Trent said. “We can invest in this country, we can invest in infrastructure, we can invest in renewable energy.”
But given the money and attention on the race, Trent said Ossoff should have won. There is one ray of light, however, he said. “We’re going to see more candidates that are going to be running on a Sanders-style platform in the 2018 election,” Trent said. “Even though we’re not seeing results in the special elections yet, I think the tide is in our direction and we’re going to see a sweep election.”