Pelosi/Soros-Backed Ossoff Loses GA Race (30 million+ down the drain)

[Rational Poster]

They are only close because you guys are spending record breaking amounts to try to get them. How is that hard to understand?

There is "Trump effect". Its just Dems pissing money away in a last desperate attempt to regain any voice in the government.

The race was close before any spending went into play lol.

SC 5th was practically ignored compared to GA 6th and it was even closer.

The money isn't making an effect, I agree, but they probably didn't need to spend this much and the result would have been the same or at least similar.

 

[Diamond Jim]

If last nights results mean the party is finally waking up and willing to drop Nancy then the results couldn't have been better.

 

[Teppodama]

They are going to push Kamala Harris in 2020 because she's black and a woman and democrats think that wins elections in 2017

She knows this too. It's why she's been working on those aggressive sound bytes and that bulldog persona from the Russia investigation. She'll be seen a real firebrand to whip up the Democrats. A fiery voice of change to rally around and throw money at, lots and lots of money. Oh, and celebrity endorsements. Lots and lots of celebrity endorsements.

As far as those celebrities I wonder if any of them have been having some trouble swallowing the fact that apparently people aren't willing to kiss their asses when it comes to their political choices...

 

[DoomPatrol]

Not surprised by this. Ossoff looks like he just graduated college and he went against an experienced Republican. The guy didn't even graduate until 2013. He simply doesn't have the experience that the district needs. Was a way closer race than anyone thought it would be.

 

[ripskater]

Pelosi's winning strategery is things like "tell 'em you're a Muslim"



So I wouldn't look to her and San Fran money to win you elections in Georgia.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

These are historically contested seats.. they're not even supposed to be this close.

How is that so hard to understand?

Republicans had same rep since 2004... incumbents typically do very well. This is first election in 14 years with no incumbent. That matters.

 

[Rational Poster]

Republicans had same rep since 2004... incumbents typically do very well. This is first election in 14 years with no incumbent. That matters.

ok?

It also matter that for 16 years or more prior to that it was an uncontested Republican seat then too.

 

[BEATINGu]

That must be why CNN and AJC was claiming he was going to win, and why Democrats put 50 million into this race in the first place...because they KNEW they were going to lose.

Poor liberals like @Rational Poster are too salty.

 

[BEATINGu]

Pelosi's winning strategery is things like "tell 'em you're a Muslim"



So I wouldn't look to her and San Fran money to win you elections in Georgia.

This is why SJW's are hated nationwide.
"Tell them you're a Muslim".

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Most of them do charitable work. Why don't you stop working and devote all your time to charity? See, it's pretty silly, right?

Democrats claim that one of their end goals is to help those in need.

$30,000,000 would have bought quite a few meals for the hungry. Think of all the homes for the homeless that could have been secured.

Instead of giving that money directly to causes that they believe in, Democrats Lobby the government to take money from others, so Democrats can claim to be charitable with other people's money, instead of their own.

Your last question is loaded and unfounded.

I'm afraid not.

When one sees another person in dire need, it elicits an emotional responses from most people. Many become filled with sympathy, empathy, and anxiety. Anxiety is not always a bad thing. A feeling of anxiety can be the pressure necessary to cause one to change their life.

This feeling of anxiety over those less fortunate causes many people to want to change the situation of those less fortunate.

However, rather than doing it themselves, Democrats outsource the easing of that anxiety to the American tax payer.

I'm afraid my argument is perfectly well founded.

 

[BEATINGu]

 

[KantoTerror]

If last nights results mean the party is finally waking up and willing to drop Nancy then the results couldn't have been better.

So what's better for the Dems now? Dropping Pelosi? Losing the election? Losing this election? Ossof is too young? You guys are running out of straws to grasp...

 

[DoomPatrol]

Democrats claim that one of their end goals is to help those in need.

$30,000,000 would have bought quite a few meals for the hungry. Think of all the homes for the homeless that could have been secured.

Instead of giving that money directly to causes that they believe in, Democrats Lobby the government to take money from others, so Democrats can claim to be charitable with other people's money, instead of their own.

I think a reasonable argument against that statement is that they know they can cause exponentially more good than that with people who have their interests in power. The right candidate can bring hundreds of millions worth of services to an area. Plus if their opponent is in power working to undo everything they are working for, it's a waste of money.

It's the same reason rich Republicans spend millions on campaigns instead of donating to causes close to them.

 

[kpt018]

Democrats claim that one of their end goals is to help those in need.

$30,000,000 would have bought quite a few meals for the hungry. Think of all the homes for the homeless that could have been secured.

Instead of giving that money directly to causes that they believe in, Democrats Lobby the government to take money from others, so Democrats can claim to be charitable with other people's money, instead of their own.

You keep saying that but as I explained that money was raised as political funding and legally can't be used that way.

I'm afraid not.

When one sees another person in dire need, it elicits an emotional responses from most people. Many become filled with sympathy, empathy, and anxiety. Anxiety is not always a bad thing. A feeling of anxiety can be the pressure necessary to cause one to change their life.

This feeling of anxiety over those less fortunate causes many people to want to change the situation of those less fortunate.

However, rather than doing it themselves, Democrats outsource the easing of that anxiety to the American tax payer.

I'm afraid my argument is perfectly well founded.

You're aware that Democrats participate in the system they are fighting for, right? It's weird that you guys keep saying stuff like this as if they're exempt from paying taxes or something.

 

[KantoTerror]

 

[Sir Galahad]

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

ok?

It also matter that for 16 years or more prior to that it was an uncontested Republican seat then too.

Yes. Things change over time. But once you have someone that will be an incumbent next time (assuming she doesn't suck) the numbers should swing back towards the republicans.

The reason they spent 30 mil was because they had a chance (no incumbent, political climate) ...in two years that will be different. There will be other races they will want to invest in vs. this district.


The lesson to dems should be..we spent 30 mil and still lost...let's move on.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

You keep saying that but as I explained that money was raised as political funding and legally can't be used that way.

I've been quite clear that that is not the argument that I'm making at all.

Again, you're doing all you can to purposefully misunderstand me.

You're aware that Democrats participate in the system they are fighting for, right? It's weird that you guys keep saying stuff like this as if they're exempt from paying taxes or something.

But because taxpayers subsidize it, the cost of easing your anxieties are cheaper for you than they would otherwise be if you had to pay for them on your own.

It's kind of like the way that we currently subsidized professional football here in America. People who are really big fans of football love the subsidies, because the level of football that they're currently enjoying is cheaper for them than it would otherwise have to be.

In the same way, people who want the less fortunate taken care of, but don't want to do anything personally about it, love the taxation and redistribution. A significantly larger portion of their anxiety is eased, at a significantly decreased cost to them personally.

 

[kpt018]

I've been quite clear that that is not the argument that I'm making at all.

Again, you're doing all you can to purposefully misunderstand me.

I'm not. YOu keep saying they should have donated the money they received to charity and I point out they can't. Then you say they should just do charitable work instead and I said they do charitable work. Then you bring up how much good the $30m would do to charity and I have to repeat myself.

But because taxpayers subsidize it, the cost of easing your anxieties are cheaper for you than they would otherwise be if you had to pay for them on your own.

It's kind of like the way that we currently subsidized professional football here in America. People who are really big fans of football love the subsidies, because the level of football that they're currently enjoying is cheaper for them than it would otherwise have to be.

In the same way, people who want the less fortunate taken care of, but don't want to do anything personally about it, love the taxation and redistribution. A significantly larger portion of their anxiety is eased, at a significantly decreased cost to them personally.

Silly argument with no proof.

 

[Rational Poster]

Yes. Things change over time. But once you have someone that will be an incumbent next time (assuming she doesn't suck) the numbers should swing back towards the republicans.

The reason they spent 30 mil was because they had a chance (no incumbent, political climate) ...in two years that will be different. There will be other races they will want to invest in vs. this district.


The lesson to dems should be..we spent 30 mil and still lost...let's move on.

So the close race has everything to do with there being no incumbent and nothing to do with Trump's historically low approval rating?