Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Great, more Democrats. The party that says America is not exceptional, the party that says America can not compete, the party who thinks every other country is superior to us. Yeah, just what we need
What's wrong with being humble? The first thing you do to fix a problem is ADMIT you have a problem...
There are plenty of cases when someone running for Congressional office doesn't live in the district from both parties. In this case Ossoff lives about 10 minutes from the district.
I would never vote for someone that didn't live in district.
if you have anything to support your shameless 'corruption" claim i suggest you post it. Otherwise the shame is on you. NOBODY out there even the Rs are talking corruption.
I used to think this provision was a wrong thing to put in the Constitution, but after seeing abuses like gerrymandering - especially the post-2000 redistricting which put four incumbents in two Michigan districts - it makes sense to me.
If an incumbent gets redistricted, why shouldn't they be allowed to run where their constituents are - even if redistricting put those constituents in a different district?
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilcart
Ossoff, lives 10 mins away because his partner goes to school there... when she is done shortly he plans to move back.
i am sure most of the "r"s here know this but want to foster the lie that Ossoff is somehow not legit.
whether or not he can run in a particular district depends on STATE LAW, and not the constitution. remember all elections are local elections.
and state election laws can be interesting indeed. for instance my uncle was allowed to be on both the democrat and republican primary ballots based on a quirk in pennsylvania election laws, as well as the local election laws where he ran for city council. if ossoff wins, then more power to him.
Great, more Democrats. The party that says America is not exceptional, the party that says America can not compete, the party who thinks every other country is superior to us. Yeah, just what we need
I think you are thinking Republicans. "Make America Great Again" implies exactly that.
Ok, please no partisan stupidity in response to this question (I know I'm asking for the impossible, sigh).
Why are the democrats pushing this hard in uphill district fights for house seats where the repubs have a pretty big margin?
I mean a Senate seat would be a much bigger deal given the margin there being small.
Are they just flush with donations from the backlash of losing the Presidential election or is the candidate "well connected" or is there some other underlying story?
I ask because usually neither party p*sses away a ton of money on what are seen as long-shots unless there is something else in play.
I will try and answer as requested.
Ossoff was originally going to be ignored to avoid a early conflict that the loss of which would damage long term enthusiasm. (Stupid idea...but hey). Then Maddow, and...KOS? I think? got involved. And he got a TON of small donations. Suddenly it WAS competitive, and it was felt that putting money into this would send a message, and maybe make the Republicans realize that they don't have the mandate they thought, and that pushing too hard could cost them their jobs.
Basically its a mixture of KOS pushing it, and a political message.
And some folks think the Democrats really need to start pushing back everywhere. Trump has truly energized folks on the left.
Oh and the Kansas results kind of indicated that maybe the Republican hold on their districts was no longer nearly as strong. Hard to say for sure if thats just because of Kansas's unique issues though.
Well, looks like Ossoff is going to fall short of 50 percent, so it will be a runoff with Karen Handel.
Another $8.3M wasted by unhinged leftists. At least they can't spend it on competitive races.
Yep! And if he ends up getting in the 40-42% range, don't expect a runoff victory as it would mean that his opposition won close close to 60% of the vote in a conservative district.
I knew he wasn't doing so hot when CNN, despite yapping about this race all day long, didn't focus on it after polls closed.
Yep! And if he ends up getting in the 40-42% range, don't expect a runoff victory as it would mean that his opposition won close close to 60% of the vote in a conservative district.
I knew he wasn't doing so hot when CNN, despite yapping about this race all day long, didn't focus on it after polls closed.
I really don't get why the left is throwing their money at races like this. They are facing a GOP supermajority in the Senate in 2018. Seems like that's what they should be concerned with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
