but you're for the legalization of it with respect to when you do it?
but you're for the legalization of it with respect to when you do it?
The Dems have less resources than the Republicans, so spending a dollar to force the Republicans to spend a dollar is a losing formula (not to mention the fact the Dems need to spend well into the tens of millions to make Texas compe ive before the Republicans need to even start spending extra money to keep the state). For all the stupid talk from pizzagate re s about the power of the Clintons or about George Soros, the Dems don't have the oligarch money flowing in that the Republicans have (Sheldon Adelson alone drops $100 million pretty much every election cycle). The numbers about Clinton's campaign having double what Trump had are misleading because they don't include PAC money. This time around it'll be even worse, Trump will have a 9 figure head start on fundraising without having to spend on a primary.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hill...ry?id=43356783
Wisconsin was a simple case of her losing because she didn't visit the state or do anything to try and win it, and losing Michigan was at least partially due to how little she visited it, but she visited Pennsylvania 15 times between nomination and election. She lost PA because her campaign did nothing to appeal to white voters in places like Harrisburg or Erie.
They have more campaign-raised money but that doesn't include PAC money. The numbers you're looking at that show the Dems having more money don't include the hundreds of millions of dollars that Charles Koch or Sheldon Adelson funnel into campaign ads.
Regardless, spending money in a state you have no chance at winning just to force the other side to spend money in the state is maybe the dumbest strategy I've ever heard in terms of political campaigning.
No no no, Joey is an independent you spineless ing got.
I would agree. I disagree that Texas is one of those states we have "no chance" of winning.
No. In marketing terms "differentiation" is how you make your brand different.
I got the impression that there isn't a whole lot of money that is going to be shifted here, but enough to make it more compe ive.
"win at all costs, no matter how immoral" simply provides the "both sides" argument with unneeded validity.
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/12...2018-midterms/Four years after Texas ranked near the bottom in voter turnout in the country, the state saw a double-digit percentage point increase in that figure for the 2018 midterms.
But that wasn’t good enough to get Texas out of the bottom half of states, as it still lagged behind the national average and trailed all but 10 states this year, according to the United States Elections Project, which tracks the turnout rate of eligible voters nationwide.
Voter turnout in the 2018 Texas midterm elections increased by 18 percentage points compared with the previous midterms, the country's sixth-highest increase. Nationwide, turnout increased by 13 percentage points from 2014 to 2018.
Out of the voting-eligible population in Texas, 46.3 percent voted in 2018. Nationwide, turnout was 50.1 percent.
“Texas simply has not had particularly compe ive elections, and the change in compe ion made a difference this year,” said Michael McDonald, a professor at the University of Florida who runs the United States Elections Project.
Increasing turnout has benefitted Democrats, and will continue to do so.
There is a case to be made here.
not at all... i don't care either way.
nah, sounds like a guy who doesn't want more idiot types from the likes of california and other far left states. they're already ing up austin and coming down to satx.
cough cough ROBERT O'ROURKE.
you're truly the only got on this board tbh. dispute the park photo i posted yesterday while running it through the metadata website for its timestamp!
According to you everyone but your republican butt buddies are gots Joey.
The first thing Kori does when he gets off work is goes on Spurstalk to whine and cry about others
What a fantastic life you must live tbh.
I see you can't dispute a timestamped photo... guess you've been officially outed as the ass that you truly are and that we all knew you to be. Keep calling me names but i was man enough to meet up with you when you asked. At the end of the day you're a ass and it's truth.
Yo ass bd24 you gonna suck yourself off now with your alt(s)? Lmao
Your dumb ass thinking it’s my alt
Honestly I wish I could claim it was mine because it gets you so worked up. Unfortunately I can’t claim credit for someone else’s work
koriwhat is all for legalization of pot unless democrats do it
honestly idc if it is your alt or not but i'm sure you have a few here anyhow because that's what es like yourself love playing make believe.
again, dispute that timestamped photo and show us how hardcore you truly are ya ing !
keep on crying
lmao at the stupidity that makes you you.
the funny thing is believing i give a about the legality of it in the first place and an end to its prohibition. where'd you come up with this bs?
btw, in the words of all you loser trolls, pot good now?
Your keep on crying line is irony at its finest, you are the one who comes here day after day to whine and complain about other posters.
You are the one that cares so much about this place that you bought a domain to collect the IP addresses of other users
You are the one that cares so much about this place that you waited in a park for half an hour on your day off because a poster online made you mad
You are the one that cares so much about this place that you respond to every " ty troll"
I'm sure there is plenty of other examples, but I think you get the point.
Why you are so insecure is beyond me, you may need to look inward for that.
and yet you still can't dispute that timestamped photo.![]()
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)