It's pretty much been all over the news but.....
https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2017...ide-groups-in-georgia-special-house-election/
Last edited:
Is CA sending 7,000 donations to the GA Dem meddleing? Russia comes to mind!
- Thread starter SlugSlinger
- Start Date
It's pretty much been all over the news but.....
https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2017...ide-groups-in-georgia-special-house-election/
Seems some Democrats are taking a more realistic point of view.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-seethe-after-georgia-loss-‘our-brand-is-worse-than-trump’/ar-BBCZnbn?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-seethe-after-georgia-loss-‘our-brand-is-worse-than-trump’/ar-BBCZnbn?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp
Thanks. It wont let me look at the whole article, but the part i can see says "Georgia Democrat Jon Ossoff raised a staggering $23.9 million for his special election today – nearly five times the contributions to his GOP opponent, Karen Handel. Yet total spending on the race is near parity, thanks to supportive Republican groups..."
if you have the full text, i'd love to see it. From what i've seen the money the 'candidate' spent fits your numbers, but that is just a fraction of the spending on both sides. When you include money that didn't flow through the candidate, it becomes a much closer number.
Here is an excerpt from from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, talking about outside groups spending money on the race. (http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/06/19/the-race-for-georgias-6th-district-now-costs-more-than-50m/)
"In all, left-leaning groups and Ossoff combined for about $2 million more in ad spending than Handel and conservative allies during the runoff phase.
On the GOP side, two groups accounted for the lion’s share of spending.
The National Republican Congressional Committee shelled out more than $6.7 million on ads in the race. And the Congressional Leadership Fund – a super PAC with ties to Speaker Paul Ryan – spent about $5 million on airtime. The group said it spent another $2 million on other costs, including a field operation aiming to target 300,000 voters by Tuesday.
Two other conservative groups – America First Policies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – each chipped in at least $1 million more."
Again, i'm not saying it was a huge victory for the dems, but it wasn't a crushing defeat, either. Both sides spent a lot money (which came from a variety of places) and it was a fight all around to hold onto a previously solid GOP seat.
A look at the early voting reaults will also make you wonder wth. Probably lots of voter fraud goin on with the early votes.
What would you call an 0 for 4 post Trump election record? I call it a shellacking, seeing as how all the leftist media outlets keep saying a GOP loss will be a 'referendum" on the unpopularity of Trump.
Democrats on the street understand this, even if the media elites, party honchos and antifa fools don't.
A 4% margin in a district that usually sees something much wider? I'd say it's a significant improvement for them over recent historical patterns...certainly not the drubbing you're suggesting.What would you call an 0 for 4 post Trump election record? I call it a shellacking, seeing as how all the leftist media outlets keep saying a GOP loss will be a 'referendum" on the unpopularity of Trump.
What would you call an 0 for 4 post Trump election record? I call it a shellacking, seeing as how all the leftist media outlets keep saying a GOP loss will be a 'referendum" on the unpopularity of Trump.
Democrats on the street understand this, even if the media elites, party honchos and antifa fools don't.
I thought it was 0 for 5.
I'm talking about the fact that the Dems have spent HUGE on several elections since Trump won and they haven't won a single one of those contests.
It's fun to take the piss out of liberals, but that county has been Republican since 1979. It was close, but definitely predictable. Money can have an effect but it doesn't make the message you're sending out more palatable to voters than it was before.
