I mean it'd be a nice experiment I suppose. Do Republicans ask why they don't have well-funded candidates running in CA-40 or whatever?
-
-
I mean think about it. What's "adequate funding"? There's 241 GOP districts. Say, IDK, 150 of them are almost certainly safe R. If "adequate funding" means, like, $1 million per race, that's $150 million on moonshots.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @xenocryptsite @rfilmyer
don’t think of it as moon shots, but capacity building. Long-shot districts are a valuable political laboratory
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Do you think Republicans are missing out on capacity building by not contesting safe Democratic districts?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @xenocryptsite @rfilmyer
I think “safe” red districts are different in kind. Dems have lost the capacity to talk to rural voters
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I remember when Democrats ran dozens of well-funded candidates in a lot of tough districts. It was 2010, they were called "incumbents", and they mostly lost. IDK if any capacity was built.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @xenocryptsite @rfilmyer
there are open seats in R+5 districts in Ohio where the Democrats have no one viable running. It’s not getting done
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I mean. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/23/2018-fundraising-democrats-house-races-244044 …pic.twitter.com/gMKPkq0krY
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @xenocryptsite @rfilmyer
I’m asserting there are winnable districts that are not seeing this funding. I’ve been out fundraising for them
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
if the candidates can't raise the money maybe they are not quite as good as you think they are tho
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
it’s possible. But it’s also possible that poor, rural districts like CA-8 or NM-2 don’t have much money
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.