WASHINGTON National Democrats woke up Wednesday morning with bleary eyes and low morale.
On one hand, they were wondering "what went wrong" in a special election in Georgia, where their party spent millions of dollars to boost their candidate only to see him lose Tuesday night.
But when it came to the special election race in South Carolina, where Democrats spent just a fraction to help Archie Parnell, the question was mostly, "What if?"
What if Democrats had invested more heavily in the state's 5th Congressional District? What if they had established a stronger ground game earlier in the cycle?
Would Parnell have lost by an even slimmer margin than 3.2 percent? Would he have actually defeated Republican Ralph Norman in the seat left vacant by now-White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney?
Ultimately, there's no way to know.
"Hindsight is always 20/20," said Scott Huffmon, a political scientist at Winthrop University in Rock Hill.
Nobody could have rationally expected Parnell to perform so well, Huffmon said. The district is as red as can be, and its Democratic operation has been in disarray since the 2010 defeat of Democrat John Spratt, who coasted to reelection for years on name recognition and constituent service before Mulvaney won.
National Republican Congressional Committee Executive Director John Rogers was pleased at the outcome, saying the final result is what matters for the GOP's numbers on Capitol Hill, not how ugly or pretty it was.
"Were in the business of winning races, not ... landslides," he said. "We did exactly what we had to do to get things done."
But it didn't stop Democrats from pondering what might have been after Norman enjoyed a 44,906-42,072 vote win (a 51-48 margin), with three lesser candidates getting a few hundred votes each, according to unofficial results.
"There wasn't enough juice on the ground for (get out the vote efforts), there wasn't enough push at the end," said U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan, an Ohio Democrat who campaigned with Parnell the weekend before Election Day. "I don't think we should have made it a big deal, because then we would have had a money war, but there were a lot of people in the Congressional Black Caucus saying 'We need to get money in, stealth money, for a turnout operation.' "
U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn the S.C. delegation's lone Democrat, third most senior member of his party's leadership and highest-ranking black lawmaker in Congress agreed more resources were needed.
"I dont think we had the campaign that was designed to win," said Clyburn. "If we had gotten the resources, I think we would have won."
Smart Politics, a political news site tied to the University of Minnesota, noted Wednesday the 3.2-point victory margin in the 5th District special election was the third most closely decided out of the last 393 contests in the state since the turn of the 20th century.
Clyburn was among those who made a direct plea to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to invest in the district by targeting black constituents, who count for almost 26 percent of the voting age population.
The DCCC put $275,000 into the 5th District for the Parnell campaign to hire additional staffers and boost voter turnout, placing volunteers in black communities like churches and doing ad buys in black media markets.
DCCC regional press secretary Cole Leiter in a statement gave Clyburn and former S.C. Democratic Party Chairman Jaime Harrison direct credit for their "strategic guidance" in getting the party within "striking distance" of victory.
Not everyone agrees that was enough, or that it came through in enough time to make a difference.
"If we had had a scintilla of those resources, the outcome of this election ... would have been different," said current S.C. Democratic Party Chairman Trav Robertson. "When you compare what Archie Parnell and his team ... were able to do in such a short time span compared with the $40 million that was spent in Georgia, it is absolutely remarkable."
Harrison, who now has a leadership role at the Democratic National Committee, told The Post and Courier that he, Clyburn and Robertson all "had a conversation" with Parnell after the special election primary to talk strategy.
"You can't put all the money into broadcast TV," Harrison said they told him.
This was one mistake Democrat Fran Person made in his bid to unseat Mulvaney in 2016, which he lost by 20 points. The brain trust told Parnell that grassroots investments were the way to go, and Parnell agreed.
Many of the other things that went well for Parnell might have been specific to the circumstances. He was running in an open special election rather than against a popular incumbent like Mulvaney. His background as a tax attorney and his economic messaging resonated with moderates.
Harrison said he hoped Parnell challenges Norman to a rematch in 2018: "Hes now on the radar screen for a lot of Democrats. National Democrats. And maybe then we can get the national investments."
If Republicans were having any anxiety behind closed doors on Wednesday, they downplayed it publicly.
S.C. GOP Chairman Drew McKissick attributed the close race to low voter turnout, acknowledging that "Republicans have got accustomed to winning."
But he added it also proved that Democrats opting to focus on "the vitriolic hatred of Donald Trump, won't win elections."
Maya T. Prabhu and Andrew Brown contributed to this report.
Read the original:
After close South Carolina special election race, Democrats wonder 'what if?' - Charleston Post Courier