Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: The Numbers

“There’s a wider problem here though.”

The explanation is in the post #145.

In the past the dems didn’t spend any money trying to win this district. But in this special election they overspent the gop and saturated the tv with ads.

But they still lost.

Scott Brown managed to pull off a win in that Massachusetts special election years ago without any help. Obama was just that toxic.


161 posted on 04/19/2017 5:59:59 AM PDT by Helicondelta (Deplorable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]


To: Helicondelta

Scott Brown managed to pull off a win in that Massachusetts special election years ago without any help. Obama was just that toxic.


Well, Martha Coakley was an awful candidate.


170 posted on 04/19/2017 6:29:07 AM PDT by outpostinmass2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies ]

To: Helicondelta

Ossoff’s advertising budget doesn’t explain why Trump only won the district by 1 point from Clinton when every previous R nominee had won by 20+ points.


171 posted on 04/19/2017 6:29:20 AM PDT by The Numbers (God, Family and Country is Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies ]

To: Helicondelta

That’s is a good comparison. 8 million for a primary/runoff is astounding. I did rough math on this and even in a bad year, the Pub candidate can get 140k (up to 200k+ on a good year). Even in their best year, the dem candidate can only muster 124k; been that way for awhile.


198 posted on 04/19/2017 8:48:30 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson