A Different Take on the Georgia Special E******n
Jun 28, 2017 09:37:56 #
NO question....the Democrat LOST the e******n.
But, maybe, Democrats gained something, as well.
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/syndicated-columnists/article158450859.html
But, maybe, Democrats gained something, as well.
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/syndicated-columnists/article158450859.html
Jun 28, 2017 10:02:16 #
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.
Jun 28, 2017 11:31:04 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
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.
Don't forgot this one.. "Planned Parenthood spent $734,000 in failed Georgia race"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/21/planned-parenthood-spent-734000-failed-georgia-rac/
Jun 28, 2017 12:34:26 #
EyeSawYou wrote:
Don't forgot this one.. "Planned Parenthood spent $734,000 in failed Georgia race"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/21/planned-parenthood-spent-734000-failed-georgia-rac/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/21/planned-parenthood-spent-734000-failed-georgia-rac/
You might consider starting your own thread.
Your post is only marginally connected to mine.
Jun 28, 2017 13:24:35 #
chrisscholbe wrote:
You might consider starting your own thread.
Your post is only marginally connected to mine.
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.
Jun 28, 2017 13:31:25 #
chrisscholbe wrote:
You might consider starting your own thread.
Your post is only marginally connected to mine.
Your post is only marginally connected to mine.
Lets not forget that the Dems spent a whole hell of a lot more money on this e******n than the Reps. http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/06/19/the-race-for-georgias-6th-district-now-costs-more-than-50m/
Jun 28, 2017 13:56:42 #
The role of money has gotten so far out of hand...
Estimates are running up to $55MM spent just on the runoff e******n. Count the first e******n, it gets up to $70MM spent...
Over approximately 240,000 v**es.
Almost $300 per v**er...
For a House seat.
Estimates are running up to $55MM spent just on the runoff e******n. Count the first e******n, it gets up to $70MM spent...
Over approximately 240,000 v**es.
Almost $300 per v**er...
For a House seat.
Jun 28, 2017 14:03:34 #
Spending on e******ns 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 e******n.
We seem to think that all it takes is money to "buy" an e******n, when in fact, it is mostly just getting people out to v**e.
As an "extreme" example.....I have NO problem if 100% of the registered v**ers v**ed....and elected "the other person".
My problem is calling any e******n a "mandate" when less than 30% of the v**ers actually v**e.
IMHO
I think there is s "sweet spot" as to when you spend enough vs too much on any e******n.
We seem to think that all it takes is money to "buy" an e******n, when in fact, it is mostly just getting people out to v**e.
As an "extreme" example.....I have NO problem if 100% of the registered v**ers v**ed....and elected "the other person".
My problem is calling any e******n a "mandate" when less than 30% of the v**ers actually v**e.
IMHO
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.