OFFISHAL OHIO Special Electshon Thread


#299

Thats only your opinion, nothing based upon the facts of the case.

How come his involvement and endorsement didnt work in PA-18. That was a close election too…

I usually comes down to turnout with a race this close.

Dems came out but it only made it close.

The dems and r’s both threw money at the race.
The have run a candidate in 12

Last time there was an election in 2016

it was 66-30. R.

dems made huge inroads.

Rematch in November.

Allan


#300

There is nothing but opinion in regards to Trump assisting or stifling Balderson’s run. But he was trending down, in some polls losing, Trump stepped in, and he pulled out a win. Sure looks like assisting to me.


#301

Indeed you would.

I wonder if anyone did?


#302

Then what happened in PA-18. same scenario.close election. Trump comes in at the last minute, only that was a loss.

Allan


#306

Democratic gerrymandering.


#307

lol

ten char


#308

Repeating yourself doesnt make you right.

The Lamb vs Saccone PA-18 special election had NOTHING to do with the new map.

Sorry I have to point out the facts to you.

Better get yourself a new news feed.

yours is wrong.

Allan


#309

Who’s saying this again?

Not seeing it in my news feed.


#310

Aside from Sean Hannity, who else is saying this?


#311

Lol. You’re right. It was because he was against single payer and wouldn’t support Pelosi.


#312

He’s a politician. Its McCarthy v Pelosi for speaker in January 2019.

Dems hold a narrow 218-217 edge in the new House.

and Lamb will be voting McCarthy instead of Pelosi. LOL

Not a chance.

Alan


#313

Yes. The good news is that he’s likely to do that.


#314

So who won?


#315

Rush Limbaugh. But WildRose apparently doesn’t watch these people.

The topic of dems calling for impeachment follows the Alinsky and Maxine Waters trend: I only ever read about these topics when a rightwing extremist is talking about it—or them—on this forum.

The cartoon news has infiltrated his thinking through osmosis, I guess. Somehow Rush says it, and WildRose, without hearing Rush say it, magically hears Rush say it anyway.


#316

Aside from right-wing radio using it as a scare tactic for why this is the most important election of our lifetime, I pretty much haven’t heard about it either. I could of course be in a filter bubble but most of the liberals I interact with are pretty happy with Mueller’s pace in their investigation, and some of my liberals friends are even okay with Trump for the full term to give Republicans a chance to show what their policies really do for the country and demonstrate how effectively they can lead (hopefully good right!).

There’s of course the general crazy news sites that both sides have. dailykos? ugh


#317

Most likely Balderson 50-49

Allan


#318

I’d be surprised if Balderson didn’t win even after the provisional ballots. I do wonder what this means in terms of strategy in three months… do Democrats keep spending money or give up on this seat?


#319

Why would they give up on a seat if they lost by 1%?


#320

Both sides will spend a lot less. its a swing district now which this election means it gets some money from both sides. But a lot less than a special election.

Allan


#321

Because campaigns cost money. Also, if you’ve happened to work for any campaign, the goal isn’t to win by a wide margin. That’s just a happy side effect if it happens, since it’s a binary victory. You want to optimize the amount of money spent such that you will gain the margin necessary to win. There are logistical reasons why this doesn’t happen exactly but ideally this would be how a party should make investments. There are other factors like PR where you would want to violate this as well.

So you could argue that the GOP spent pretty much the right amount of money. They didn’t need +20% or +10%, you simply need to beat the other candidate.

I actually am not sure if there is really a blue wave. I think political campaigns in general have gotten much better at analytics.