Funny. These districts (including IA-4) didn’t magically become competitive. It’s just the “Official Democrats” have been mostly ignoring them, and thus blind to the intense grassroots effort underway. So they didn’t get much polling. And then there’s a poll and everyone’s
.https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1059126010292195329 …
I followed the whole PA-11 saga, before redistricting and through Hartman, so you're not right at all. King raised all that money in spite of, not with the help of, the official party. If it weren't for those efforts, there'd be no viable if still long-shot candidate in PA-11.
-
-
The official party tried hard to re-nominate Hartman, who may be a wonderful person, but ran & lost before *and* underperformed even Clinton in 2016. After redistrcting PA-11 got tougher, so Hartman bolted to run elsewhere again with support of party, but even botched signatures!
-
She may well lose, given how tough a district that is for a D, but that is part of my point... Look how close someone got, even there, a +22 R district, once they tried. Meanwhile, re-nominating the person who lost, and with such a giant margin, was the official plan.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's my point. The parties aren't very important in '18. Who gives a crap about what DC thinks. Heck I am in the swingy part of Allegheny County and our county party is useless. Didnt stop us. We are going to help Lamb win on Tues and likely flip a couple of state leg seats.
-
The central party matters though—but I agree much less so. Allocating effort, money, attention, strategic planning. The point of my thread was that more seats are at play because they matter less, so we seem to agree.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.