Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They did it in California, got in trouble with the election commission, and successfully sued to get them back.Kind of like the idea
The term "conspiracy theorist" was coined by the CIA in 1967 so that they had a way to insult people who were critical of the things they were doing. The fact that we the people use it to mudsling each other is very sad.
"MAGA can't win elections"
Yeah, they won't if they keep getting sabotaged by GOP leadership.
BOSD
Just research how many DA's backed by Soros have won in the past 4 years
BOSD
Just research how many DA's backed by Soros have won in the past 4 years
It's as if spending money (or not spending) has an effect on elections. Imagine that.
And yet it doesn't seem to bother either of you that Trump pushed to nominate a bunch of these guys and then basically ditched them after the primaries even though he had a huge amount of money to work with. He made the same calculation McConnell did.
It's not Trump's job to support these people. These MAGA people were tied or ahead in every poll and McConnell didn't spend money on them. On top of that McCarthy and McConnell spent money to OPPOSE them.
The first responsibility is on the candidates themselves to raise money. Nobody is obligated to help them, including McConnell and Trump, but you treat McConnell's supposed obligation to throw money at any GOP nominee as though it absolves Trump of supporting the candidates he initially backed. Don't you wonder about it? Why give money to a bunch of candidates and then throw them under the bus after the primary? If you actually believe in the candidates and want them to win, it makes no sense.
It is McConnell's job to help the senate candidates. Instead, he bad mouthed them and provided a paltry amount in close races. He gave 9 million to help a RINO beat a MAGA person. You're defending the indefensible.
One can argue that McConnell should have given more money. However, his rationale made sense. He didn't believe in these candidates, so it made sense that he wouldn't throw a lot of money their way. Trump's rationale doesn't make sense. He presumably did believe in these candidates. Why cut them off after the primary? Again, regardless of what you think of McConnell, don't you wonder why Trump hung them out to dry?
there may be a ton of money involved in today's politics but i see scant evidence that all this crazy money being spent is actually moving the voting needle in most races.
One can argue that McConnell should have given more money. However, his rationale made sense. He didn't believe in these candidates, so it made sense that he wouldn't throw a lot of money their way. Trump's rationale doesn't make sense. He presumably did believe in these candidates. Why cut them off after the primary? Again, regardless of what you think of McConnell, don't you wonder why Trump hung them out to dry?
As John McEnroe was fond of saying, You cannot be serious!!!?
Back to garmel's point. Why send 9 million to Murkowski, trying to beat another republican? Please explain
Yes, Trump spent 20 million on his candidates so he did spend money. Do you want to compare the size of Trump's and McConnell's war chests (no dirty thoughts, Deez. lol)?
McConnell runs the show and he blew it. Trump's not in charge of the republican war chest, McConnell is. Maybe the Turtle should have spent more money on close races than on his buddies
Neither of you really have an answer other than to redirect to McConnell, so we let's assume for the sake of argument that McConnell should have done more for Trump's candidates and shouldn't have helped Murkowski despite what he thought of those candidates and their chances. Trump (who supposedly was a big believer in these candidates). Why didn't he do more for them in the general election? Second question, why don't you care?
It just seems odd that Trump said, "don't listen to Cocaine Mitch. Nominate my guys." The party goes along, but when the candidates needed his help, the response is, "that's not my MFin job. Go ask the guy whose candidates I told you to reject." It's weird, and it's weird that you all not only have no no criticism of it, you aren't even curious about it.
Neither of you really have an answer other than to redirect to McConnell, so we let's assume for the sake of argument that McConnell should have done more for Trump's candidates and shouldn't have helped Murkowski despite what he thought of those candidates and their chances. Trump was supposedly was a big believer in these candidates. Why didn't he do more for them in the general election? Second question, why don't you care?
It just seems odd that Trump said, "don't listen to Cocaine Mitch. Nominate my guys." The party goes along, but when the candidates needed his help, the response is, "that's not my MFin job. Go ask the guy whose candidates I told you to reject." It's weird, and it's weird that you all not only have no no criticism of it, you aren't even curious about it.
Trump picked some idiot candidates. McConnell observed that the reason some who should win (Walker, Oz?) were weak. They were Trump’s responsibility. Walker? PleaseYes, Trump spent 20 million on his candidates so he did spend money. Do you want to compare the size of Trump's and McConnell's war chests (no dirty thoughts, Deez. lol)?
McConnell runs the show and he blew it. Trump's not in charge of the republican war chest, McConnell is. Maybe the Turtle should have spent more money on close races than on his buddies.
Again, neither of you have an explanation other than to misdirect back to McConnell.
Because McConnell is the one with all of the cash, not Trump.