Message from @zakattack04
Discord ID: 442483935461638144
even if it was 2
It's a dumb idea.
have the primary pick the person
and there were 3 Rs in this one
and be done with it, unless it is at the utmost urgency that the person put through the primary is a problem.
it's honestly stupider to run 1 R in that district than 2
my point is it sets a bad precedent.
That republicans can just run if they don't win the nomination.
Imgaine if they did this with a Senate or a US House seat.
Or even a state house seat.
dude it's a state legislature
It's a problem that should be condoned
shoudln't*
In this district, we should
Even if a dem got higher in the polling, a runoff would destroy the dem
alright
A runoff generally does very much harm the Democrat in these solid red races. It increases turnout and can drain voters from the Democrat.
I'm just saying like in GA-06
Hi just saying like in GA-06, I'm Dad!
It's not anything like that
This bot is a rat.
no
Oh my gosh FLanon
It is nothing like that now, but we need to consider the possibility that it can.
There is not a chance in hell, read my words, that a democrat will get over 50% in this district
YES
The is true!
but in OTHER districts it is possible.
What precedent is there to set exactly?
And if Republican candidates see this as a fine behavior.
This is a spot that shows it would vote for 2 Rs over 1R and 1D
nvm, you have your opinion set.
It is absolutely harmless
And aren't listening.
I doubt this will be reviewed as precedent. This is not a high profile race.
It's a low profile race in an extremely red area that no one expects to flip.
Obviously the strategists in California would take a much higher priority than running 40 different R candidates
It's a sense of consistency, my argument is it is generally, a bad idea to split your votes
Across the board,. this stupid and lets avoid it in the future if possible.