Blake Dowling: 2018 is coming, time to tighten up voter tech
Only in the world of politics can an election take place with both sides claiming they got the W. In college football, it’s simple; you win or you lose — unless you are a Tennessee fan, then you get to be a “champion of life.” I am sure Tennessee Coach Butch Jones meant well when he muttered those words last year, but come on man. Back to politics. The special election (Karen Handel versus Jon Ossoff) in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District this week had everyone chattering. Democrats say it was a close race in the heart of a deep-red district, meaning great things for 2018. Republicans say they won even though they were outspent 5-1. Regardless of your position, the Republican Party did “Handel” the competition. (Nice name, Karen; campaign slogans are endless.) If I were her campaign manager, we would fire up crowds with the Black Crowes’ “Hard to Handle” blasted before every event. However, one thing unheard (for once) is technology interfering with the election. Apparently, Russia doesn’t care about what goes on in Georgia. A ZDNet headline this week said this: “198 million Americans hit by ‘largest ever’ voter records leak.” Which is interesting because the potential exposure was discovered by a security expert and locked down before the information was leaked or stolen. Was this a fake news headline, pure clickbait? Here’s what went down. A company named Deep Root Analytics tracks voter information — not just names and addresses, but how the voter feels about issues — compiled using specific social engineering software (see my next column in INFLUENCE Magazine for a trip down that rabbit hole). Deep Root had a terabyte of data sitting on an Amazon server that was potentially easy to breach. That was bad. On the bright side, it was good that the breach was discovered by a white-hat hacker before that info spilled. Keep in mind, however, in states like Ohio you can already access every voter (names, addresses, etc.) in the state without needing to hack anything. So, another massive leak was avoided (maybe). Our voter tech is behind, as is everything else we are plugging into the internet without giving it much thought. This is called the “Internet of Things.” For example, on the homefront: “Good news, Mrs. Wife! I can control our air conditioning through my iPhone!” Is it password protected? No? FAIL. You just created another vulnerability making both you and your data a big target. We, as Americans, regardless of political opinion or party affiliation, must band together to put a massive defensive strategy in place to keep the really bad guys out when 2018 rolls around. Old voting machines … exposed servers in the cloud … external hard drives with unencrypted data … using free Wi-Fi without passwords … ransomware … threats are everywhere and we must “Handel” this situation with care. HAHAHA! ___ Blake Dowling is CEO of Aegis Business Technologies. His heroes are Bill Murray and Megan Fox and can be reached at dowlingb@aegisbiztech.com.
Analysis: Dem loss in Georgia underscores party challenges
Republicans just got a big argument for sticking with President Donald Trump and pushing forward with dismantling former President Barack Obama‘s health law. And Democrats are struggling to translate the energy of their core supporters into actual election victories. Tuesday night’s outcome in a special House race in Georgia was a triumph for the GOP, and the most recent and devastating illustration of the Democrats’ problems – from a weak bench and recruiting problems to divisions about what the party stands for today. Instead of a win or even a razor-thin loss by Democrat Jon Ossoff that many had expected, Republican Karen Handel ended up winning by a relatively comfortable 4 percentage point margin in the wealthy suburban Atlanta district previously held by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. That followed another recent Democratic disappointment in Montana, where the Republican candidate won even after last-minute assault charges, and an earlier loss for the Democrats in Kansas. Rep. Rick Nolan, D-Minn., said Democrats are not as good on delivering a winning message to voters as they should be. “Harry Truman said it best, if you want to be Republican-lite, people will vote for the real thing every time,” Nolan told reporters Wednesday. Indeed the best news Democrats got Tuesday night was that a different special House race, in South Carolina, ended up closer than the Georgia contest even though it had drawn little national attention. Republican Ralph Norman beat Democrat Archie Parnell by around 3 percentage points in South Carolina, closer than expected and a warning sign to the GOP not to take any seat for granted. But for Democrats, having failed to unseat a Republican in four special House elections in a row despite an extremely energized base, it’s now a time for soul-searching – and finger-pointing. Ossoff ran a careful campaign and shied away from talking about Trump, and some groups on the left wasted no time in insisting that Democrats must draw brighter contrasts with the GOP. “Defeating Republicans in districts that they have traditionally held requires doing something drastically different than establishment Democrats have done before – specifically, running on a bold progressive vision and investing heavily in direct voter contact,” said Jim Dean, chair of Democracy for America. The Georgia race was the most expensive House race in history, with many millions spent on both sides. The fact that that level of investment failed to pay off with a win against a Republican candidate widely viewed as uninspiring left Democrats frustrated and dispirited heading into the 2018 midterm elections. Democrats will need to pick up 24 House seats to take back the majority. The outcome “better be a wake-up call for Democrats – business as usual isn’t working,” Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., said on Twitter. “Time to stop rehashing 2016 and talk about the future.” House Democratic leaders tried to play down the loss ahead of time, pointing out that the Georgia race took place on GOP-friendly terrain, as did the other recent special elections. Rep. Joe Crowley of New York, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said that there are 71 districts that will be more favorable for Democrats to contest than the one in Georgia. Democrats face gerrymandered districts after the last census combined with Trump selecting lawmakers for his administration from districts the GOP should hold. “They pick people in safe and tough districts for Democrats to win,” Crowley said Wednesday. But for Republicans from the president on down, it was time to celebrate. Trump sent supporters a text message crowing, “Congrats to Karen Handel on a HUGE win in GA! Democrats lose again (0-4). Total disarray. The MAGA Mandate is stronger than ever. BIG LEAGUE.” As the results rolled in Tuesday, AshLee Strong, spokeswoman to House Speaker Paul Ryan, mused over Twitter, “Remember when they told us we’d be punished in the special elexs for following through on our promise to #RepealAndReplace #obamacare?” Indeed the string of special election wins, especially in Georgia, sent a powerful message to Republicans that they must be doing something right, even though Trump’s approval ratings are low by historical standards and the GOP has yet to notch a single major legislative accomplishment on Capitol Hill. Far from rethinking their support for Trump or their plans to undo former President Barack Obama’s health care law, Republicans seem likely to stay the course. “It shows us that people are wanting some of the things we’ve been talking about, President Trump’s been talking about – less government, more power to the folks. Tax reform. That’s the kind of things we’ve got to get done. They believe in us being better able to do it rather than the other side,” said Rep. Roger Williams, R-Texas. And as for the Democrats, they, clearly, are doing something wrong. What exactly it is, and whether they can fix it, will be debated in the weeks and months ahead. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Breaking down the results of the Georgia special election
The last month has been filled with media coverage of yesterday’s special election in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District. One would think this was the most significant race in the history of Congress. Why has this race dominated the media, while another special election in neighboring South Carolina has received almost no attention? Both the Georgia and South Carolina districts feature resignations by Republicans Congressmen who took positions in the Donald Trump administration. In Georgia, Tom Price resigned to become Secretary of Health and Human Services, while in South Carolina, Mick Mulvaney gave up his seat to become Director of the Office of Management and Budget. One reason for the attention on the Georgia race may be that the seat was previously held by Newt Gingrich before Price took over, and it has been a Republican district since 1979. That hardly explains the attention on the Georgia district and the neglect of the South Carolina district. Many viewed the election as a referendum on the Trump administration. Mitt Romney won the district by 23 percent in 2012; Trump won by only 1.5 percent in 2016. Many saw this as an opportunity for Democrats and a sign of Republican dissatisfaction with Trump as party leader. The Democratic candidate in District 6 was Jon Ossoff, a 30-year-old political activist who did not even live in the district. Although the Constitution does not require House candidates to live in the district where they run, not doing so is usually a fatal blow. Handel constantly reminded voters that Ossoff could not vote in the election because he did not reside there. Ossoff raised over $25 million for his campaign, and his Republican opponent, Karen Handel, raised a similar amount making this the most expensive House race in congressional history. Conspicuously lacking was any discussion, especially by Democrats, of the corrupting influence of money in congressional campaigns. The media focused great attention on Ossoff, but comparatively little focus on his Republican opponent Handel. We knew that Ossoff worked for a number of Democratic causes and candidates, and considered himself to be a progressive. Ossoff had the backing of the progressive establishment, including John Lewis, an icon in both congressional and civil rights history. The lack of focus on Handel may be due to the fact Ossoff received 48 percent of the vote in the blanket primary, compared to only 20 percent for Handel. It should be remembered that Republican candidates collectively received 51 percent of the primary vote. We also know that the Ossoff campaign had 12,000 volunteers, a number seldom reached by statewide candidates. He was clearly a political juggernaut, as his $25 million dollars in campaign funds demonstrated. During the campaign, one of the candidates posted on their website that the country needs to “cut the wasteful spending. Reduce the deficit so the economy can keep growing.” The site also suggested that the minimum wage be adjusted “at a pace that allows employers to adapt their business plans.” The above policy pronouncements sound like something from Herbert Hoover, Ronald Reagan or Handel. They were actually from Ossoff. Hardly progressive sentiments. Did Ossoff’s attempt to moderate his progressive views actually “turn off” progressive voters? Republican strategy was to tie Ossoff to Nancy Pelosi, a common strategy, but one that many felt was no longer effective. One ad asked voters to “Say ‘No’ to Pelosi’s ‘Yes Man.’” Another ad called Ossoff a “rubber stamp for Pelosi’s failed agenda.” Ossoff lead by as much as 7 points only a month ago and never trailed Handel until the day before the election when she led by a single point. The polls indicated that Ossoff’s support came from voters from 18 to 64, where he lead by 8 to 15 points; Handel led among voters over 65 by a margin of 62 to 36. Males supported Handel 52.6 to 45.7 percent while women supported Ossoff by almost exactly the same margin. White voters preferred Handel 55.8 to 43.2 percent while African-Americans favored Ossoff 88.7 to 9.4 percent for Handel. Why did Handel win and what does it mean? There are several reasons why Handel won and Ossoff lost. Perhaps most damaging was the outsider label, which effectively damaged the Ossoff campaign. Not being able to vote for yourself in such an important campaign put Ossoff in a difficult position. Carpetbaggers in politics have seldom fared well. Another part of the outsider problem was self-imposed by Ossoff. In an attempt to negate the outsider charge, Ossoff said he lived “a few blocks outside District 6. In fact, it was found that he lived 3.2 miles outside the district. A final part of the outsider charge related to campaign contributions. Although Ossoff raised over $25 million, most of the contributions came from outside the district. He received fewer than 1,000 donations from District 6 residents, but got over 7,200 contributions from California residents. It is too early to know for sure, but I am guessing senior voters turned out at very high rates, while younger voters supported Ossoff, but turned out at a far lower rate. We cannot forget that this was a Republican district and the results reflected typical voting patterns. Democrats are clearly going to be demoralized after expecting to win this seat almost from the beginning. Ossoff did lead almost the entire campaign, but momentum is everything in politics. A seven-point Ossoff advantage a month out from the election completely vanished by election day. Neither party should read too much into the election results. A Handel victory is no more an endorsement of Trump than an Ossoff victory would have meant that Trump and the Republicans were doomed.
