While he may have had a number of small donors, he got lots of financial support from Pelosi, the national Democratic party & Hollywood types. I'm just glad all of the political ads are over.
You might consider starting your own thread.
Your post is only marginally connected to mine.
chrisscholbe wrote:
You might consider starting your own thread.
Your post is only marginally connected to mine.
Not sure my response post was only marginally connected to your link. This was said by Ossoff in the article you provided.
Grassroots politics, linking small-dollar fundraising to massive local volunteer organization, showed that it can rival the power of a right-wing machine comprising super PACs backed by entrenched interests and mega-donors. These outside groups were forced to spend nearly $20 million defending a seat gerrymandered never to be competitive.
The role of money has gotten so far out of hand...
Estimates are running up to $55MM spent just on the runoff election. Count the first election, it gets up to $70MM spent...
Over approximately 240,000 votes.
Almost $300 per voter...
For a House seat.
Spending on elections has been getting out of hand for some time now.
I think there is s "sweet spot" as to when you spend enough vs too much on any election.
We seem to think that all it takes is money to "buy" an election, when in fact, it is mostly just getting people out to vote.
As an "extreme" example.....I have NO problem if 100% of the registered voters voted....and elected "the other person".
My problem is calling any election a "mandate" when less than 30% of the voters actually vote.
IMHO
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.