It is a significant event if a Democrat wins in a red district in these special elections

[still_one]

However, the same significance does not extend to a republican who wins in that red district, quite simply because, red districts give the advantage to the republican.

A Democratic win in a red district should not be viewed with the same weighting as a republican win in that red district. A Democratic win is far more telling.

That is why I find myself scratching my head when critics come out to assign "blame" for the Democratic loss in Montana against Gianforte, in a very red district, as though it was unexpected.

The Georgia 6th district, on the other hand, is already a big deal. This is a very red district, and the polls are essentially a dead heat.

[sheshe2]

1. K&R

[onecaliberal]

2. I agree which is precisely why we should NOT listen to the conventional wisdom of the

"Liberal Media".

[still_one]

4. You spelled Liberal Media wrong ------, its, "Liburrrrral Media"

[GBizzle]

3. People seem to forget, we lost ALL the special elections before 2006...

And then won both houses of Congress.

Trump picked people like Zinke, Mulvaney, Pompeo and Price because they came from "safe" seats that weren't ever really in play - the fact that the GOP has to waste time and money on these districts, only to win by a much smaller margin, is itself a victory.

And Price's seat, which I'd like to point out was once Newt Gingrich's seat, looks like it will probably go blue.

[still_one]

5. Excellent points GB