The NY Times tells us District 6 was a "nail-biter." It was not.

New York Times:

Georgia's Special Election Comes to a Nail-Biting Finish  —  ATLANTA — Tuesday's runoff between Karen Handel and Jon Ossoff in Georgia's Sixth Congressional District will decide what has become the most expensive House campaign in history — and quite possibly the most consequential special election since Watergate.

Note:  As long as the Left pretends that they are still in the game,  via silly headlines as the above, they will continue to have no serious solutions to the fact that they have been left standing out in the cold,  when it comes to winning elections, beginning back in 2010.  

Notes:  The NY Times admits what its network "competitors" refuse to admit,  that Georgia 6th is a consequential election.  The nation's media enemies want you to believe that Georgia would have been "consequential" only if the Dems had won.  Here is why the 6th is critically important:  Reason #1, the 27 million dollars the Dems spent on this election.  Reason #2 ,  the fact that Trump won the district by 1.5 points six months ago,  making is possible if not probable,  that the Dems could take this district for House Democrat support.  Instead,  of the five special elections this season,  the 6th District was the most one sided.  "They" got their collective butt kicked to the curb.  Reason #3,  the Dems made this election a national referendum against Trump.  That is why 90% of all money spent by the Dems,  came from the Left and Right coasts and radical Democrat constituency that owns those regions.  Reason #4,  Democrat leadership has taken their party to a point of no return.  It must back off its anti-God, anti-Constitution, anti-free speech, anti "blood in the streets"  radicalization of that party.  The blue collar folks are not supportive of this rhetorical crap and are leaving the Democrat Party in droves.  The Dems have time to reel these folks back into the fold,  but only if it can reverse its religious agenda (redistribution in the name of "climate change"),   shut down its open tent attitude for those who would murder our people and destroy our nation), and return to a jobs first policy for the blue collar class.  

In fact,  this last note,  "jobs first policy for the blue collar class," is the very opposite of Obama's eight years assault on the Blue Collar folks,  ignoring them in general elections beginning with the 2010 midterms, and pursuing a radical climate change agenda on the backs of the working class.  Both Barack and Hillary bragged about taking away coal jobs without first putting into place a viable jobs-replacement program.  When you extend this policy to fossil fuel supplies in general,  cutting hundred of thousands of jobs dependent on fossil fuels,  you have an Administration  (Hillary and Obama's) that did not give a damn about Blue Collar folks except at election time.  

Unless and until the Dems can accept the fact that their agenda will not be well received by a Working Class that must pay for Democrat policy excesses.