To: SoConPubbie
These are all incumbents and do not need Trumps endorsements. 😆
2 posted on
07/30/2022 6:18:48 PM PDT by
Destroyer Sailor
(Revenge is a dish best served cold.)
To: Destroyer Sailor
To: Destroyer Sailor
These are all incumbents and do not need Trumps endorsements. 😆
Maybe, but now, they are at least somewhat beholden to President Trump.
It just might give him leverage in the future when he is back in the Catbird seat!
4 posted on
07/30/2022 6:20:57 PM PDT by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: Destroyer Sailor
Not just incumbents but utterly safe ones at that. Funny that he skipped over the 1 incumbent who may not be as safe (Wagner). He also skipped the 2 open seats which may have contested primaries and therefore no obvious winner. Can’t risk the winning percentage?
Why skip the chance to make a meaningful endorsement?
6 posted on
07/30/2022 8:12:24 PM PDT by
PermaRag
(We have SO many targets, and -- for now -- the means to see they get what they deserve.)
To: Destroyer Sailor
Jason Smith has gone swampy and was my rep up until this year when redistricting happened. There’s only one person running against him, a libertarian with zero money and no name recognition so Smith is a safe bet.
No endorsement for Blunt’s potential replacement I notice. Not a safe bet.
What a stupid game.
13 posted on
07/31/2022 5:58:11 AM PDT by
Pollard
(If there's a question mark in the headline, the answer should always be No.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson