Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 467577909133967370
@zakattack04 yikes
@๐Boo-ton๐ yeah I know, We won Wisconsin by luck
Was pure luck because the democrats stayed home
And Trump turned out basically all their republicans left in the state lol
But he did get less votes than Romney :/
@๐Boo-ton๐ Wow I've finally learned about the Democrats' stupid "drumpf is a vote suppressor who won through low turnout less votes than Romney" bullshit
thanks
it's not necessarily pure luck because part of the Trump campaign's message helped drive down turnout for Hillary @zakattack04
how
pushing the fact that she's an establishment shill who screwed Bernie over, for one
yeah but they won't make the same mistake again.
it's still luck
it's not a mistake though ๐
that's a jewish face if i've ever seen one
Sheโs gay as well I think
Indeed. She is a lesbian atheist.
"The nervousness stems from flashbacks to that 2016 loss and to the belief that Baldwin will again emerge as a top target for late outside spending. Russ Feingold, the former Democratic senator who ran for his old seat in 2016, led Johnson by nearly double digits before a spectacular collapse in the final weeks of the race, triggered in part by a massive influx of conservative dollars. Democrats responded much too late."
I don't think it was "conservative dollars" as much as it was Trump's coattails
100% agree.
Feingold's opponent (Ron Johnson) getting a lot of money in the last few weeks doesn't mean much, especially in a Presidential year. What would he have done with it? Spend more money on ads when most of the attention was on Hillary vs Trump?
I've noticed that a lot of online discussions about the midterms involve this one argument "(red state democrat) can easily beat (Republican opponent) because (red state democrat) has amassed so much more money"
Yeah that's stupid.
Like they think the reason that Obama won his Senate seat was money to some extent but in reality the reason he defeated Alan Keyes was that they were running in fucking Illinois
Though Obama's funding advantage was probably insurmountable for most swing states
Another example is that other black guy in Florida, Alan West I think
Funny they're both named Alan actually
Obabo won because nigger
He had way more money than the Democrat who challenged him but still lost because of Obama's coattails.
Oh no, Obama won all of Illinois, even the most Republican regions.
And his opponent was black
He basically ran as a Mark Kirk tier moderate and used the largest funding advantage in history to win like that though.
@Nuke I was reading up on the 2004 Senate elections the other day, and even watched this 10 hour vid of the election night coverage from CNN on the day of the 2004 election
(coincidentally)
I didn't even know Alan Keyes ran against him in 04 during Obama's run for the Senate in IL. Apparently it was because the Republican candidate dropped out shortly before the election and the GOP needed a replacement, so they went with another black guy
Obama got over 70% of the vote and won many downstate rural counties
Yep.
Obama had an enormous funding advantage.
I wonder how much will money play a part this year
Six weeks later, the Illinois Republican State Central Committee chose former Diplomat Alan Keyes to replace Ryan as the Republican candidate. The election was the first for the U.S. Senate in which both major party candidates were African American. Obama's 43% margin of victory was the largest in the state history of U.S. Senate elections. The inequality in the candidates spending for the fall elections โ $14,244,768 by Obama and $2,545,325 by Keyes โ is also among the largest in history in both absolute and relative terms.[1]
If it's boring establishment candidate vs boring establishment candidate, then money definitely will make the difference
Arguably money was how Rick Scott managed to eke out a win in 2010 despite his shady background