General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt was said tonight that without Ryan running
it looks like the right is giving up on retaining the House and that now donors are less likely to spend money on House races.
Does that also mean that less money will be spent in trying to steal 2018 elections?
Why throw good money after bad?
Skittles
(153,182 posts)cpamomfromtexas
(1,247 posts)Dollars there.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)irisblue
(33,019 posts)They won't quit.
Kochs are working from libertarian political philosophy.
oasis
(49,401 posts)magicarpet
(14,164 posts)Must be "Going Commando" I guess ?
Snackshack
(2,541 posts)That republicans are going to just give up a majority in the House or Senate for that matter. I dont believe that for a second. They are going to do everything they can fair or foul to remain in power.
leftstreet
(36,111 posts)That's their favorite thing to do!
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)I am unconvinced that the Republicans are going to retain control of the House, and further, that they even care about retaining control of the House. Certainly all the Republicans running for re-election want to win, but many of them aren't going to. Paul Ryan's "safe" seat (now in play) was looking shaky, and I think he made the decision that a tough re-election campaign was not going to be a lot of fun when the likely prize was to be the House minority leader. And he was still going to be stuck with the Tea Baggers fucking up his caucus. Who needs it?
The real action for the Republicans is retaining control of the Senate, where they can install federal judges at will. It's a horrible year for Democrats, in that of the 35 Senate seats up for election (33 regular, plus 2 specials), 26 of them are currently held by Democrats. That's where Republicans will concentrate their electoral fire in 2018.