General Discussion

customerserviceguy

(25,406 posts)

37. Nobody can, of course

Sun Jun 25, 2017, 02:30 AM

Jun 2017

But money is not an infinite commodity, at least not for our side. The rich, who buy Congress seats all the time have almost unlimited resources to do so, that we do not. Money spent on a lost cause is money that is not available for a future fight where it could possibly make a meaningful difference.

Let's see how things go in 2018, and we can use 20-20 hindsight to see which close races could have benefited from a few extra percentage points that this year's money could have bought.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

They had to spend 25 million to hold a republican seat in a red district. [View all] ehrnst Jun 2017 OP

That's the fifty state strategy. Make em fight for every seat. Iggo Jun 2017 #1

AND even then it was by a much smaller spread than in the past. WePurrsevere Jun 2017 #2

Yes it is mcar Jun 2017 #3

Make that to hold the seat. L. Coyote Jun 2017 #4

Correct - I have updated the headline. (nt) ehrnst Jun 2017 #7

K & R L. Coyote Jun 2017 #14

That's A Stunning Number, No? ProfessorGAC Jun 2017 #5

I think it was called the most expensive House race in history NewJeffCT Jun 2017 #6

And we spent the same to lose it customerserviceguy Jun 2017 #8

Ours came from many small donations. Is your answer to not compete everywhere? Bad idea. LBM20 Jun 2017 #11

My answer is to put the money where it will do some good customerserviceguy Jun 2017 #34

So... you want to tell all those individual voters not to donate to a Democratic candidate ehrnst Jun 2017 #44

I'm not telling anybody to do anything customerserviceguy Jun 2017 #45

You said that money spent on Ossoff would have been better spent elsewhere. ehrnst Jun 2017 #46

I would ask people customerserviceguy Jun 2017 #53

So you're saying that we should not fight in a heavily red district that elected DT by only 1% ehrnst Jun 2017 #54

dward Lasker realized the value of the Bishop Sacrifice in 1911. LanternWaste Jun 2017 #63

We didn't lose it as we didn't have it in the first place. Kaleva Jun 2017 #19

And my point is customerserviceguy Jun 2017 #35

Can you tell us what % of money that Ossoff raised ehrnst Jun 2017 #21

Nobody can, of course customerserviceguy Jun 2017 #37

Most of it was from out of state - I doubt that money was reserved for another campaign. ehrnst Jun 2017 #41

Of course it was for other campaigns FBaggins Jun 2017 #51

a lot of his money came from california democrats and other blue state democrats JI7 Jun 2017 #36

And they could have used that money customerserviceguy Jun 2017 #38

they were small donations. stop trying to control people who want to help democrats. JI7 Jun 2017 #39

I can't control anybody customerserviceguy Jun 2017 #40

Well if "we" hadn't supported an anti-choice mayoral candidate in Nebraska... moda253 Jun 2017 #48

And who determines those battles? (nt) ehrnst Jun 2017 #61

Suggestions often seem more valid when objective numbers and evidence are used to support them LanternWaste Jun 2017 #64

Every dollar of Democratic outside spending sucked up $2.50 of R outside spending krispos42 Jun 2017 #47

Aye this wasnt really much of a win due to the amount they had to spend to hold onto that seat. cstanleytech Jun 2017 #9

Absolutely! We made HUGE progress and THIS is the 50 state strategy everyone wants. LBM20 Jun 2017 #10

Roughly $200 were spent per vote cast. Xipe Totec Jun 2017 #12

And it changed nothing. The Rs were drained yuuugely just to hang onto what they had before. L. Coyote Jun 2017 #13

Not if that $25M is the difference in repealing the ACA... JoeStuckInOH Jun 2017 #15

Can you explain how that takes away from fighting the ACHA? ehrnst Jun 2017 #16

Russia enid602 Jun 2017 #17

Progress would be winning the seat oberliner Jun 2017 #18

Perhaps this graphic will put it into perspective for you. ehrnst Jun 2017 #20

Ossoff got fewer votes than Rodney Stooksbury oberliner Jun 2017 #22

Special elections, like midterms, generally have much lower turnout than presidential ehrnst Jun 2017 #23

True, but this special election received an inordinate amount of attention and fundraising oberliner Jun 2017 #25

So, what do you think was the cause of "not flipping the 6th?" ehrnst Jun 2017 #42

Good question oberliner Jun 2017 #49

I'm so proud of Jon Ossoff.. those who want Cha Jun 2017 #24

It is progress. But I have a problem with his running from outside LuvLoogie Jun 2017 #27

He grew up there, and moved near Emory to be near his fiance. ehrnst Jun 2017 #29

That's sweet and all that, but not politically relevant, nor astute. It's like driving LuvLoogie Jun 2017 #30

Clearly you're not mad at him. That's sweet. ehrnst Jun 2017 #31

I'm not mad. And I doubt that's the main reason he lost. LuvLoogie Jun 2017 #33

How do you get that 11,000 votes were "lost" due to his address? ehrnst Jun 2017 #43

Yup. mac56 Jun 2017 #26

Had to? Sanity Claws Jun 2017 #28

I don't think that they would spend money that they didn't think they had to. (nt) ehrnst Jun 2017 #62

It sure is. We need to field good strong candidate and fuck the republicans up. nt Blue_true Jun 2017 #32

Osoff's heart was in the right place, but he wasn't a strong candidate TexasBushwhacker Jun 2017 #52

She has experience in Voter suppression. And he did Damn good: ehrnst Jun 2017 #56

He did do well and Handel was lucky to win TexasBushwhacker Jun 2017 #59

Any suggestions? (nt) ehrnst Jun 2017 #60

WE MUST DEREGULATE COAL AND OIL IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!1!! Orrex Jun 2017 #50

?? (nt) ehrnst Jun 2017 #55

It would have been funnier if I'd posted it in the correct thread. Orrex Jun 2017 #57

OK. ehrnst Jun 2017 #58