You side used the bad guys, but you want Chronos to “prove it” that the Dems didn’t? :dubious:
So many good replies to that tweet!
Requiring the proof of a negative? Surely you jest!
The sun did not explode yesterday.
The proof? Today.
The question is why someone would believe it to be True.
He claimed they did independent checking - I would like to see a cite for that.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually I said that maybe they did that. It’s certainly one explanation for why the Republicans keep ending up cozying up to James Bond villains and the Democrats don’t. But if you have some other explanation for how that keeps on happening, I’d be happy to hear it.
Will say that, looking at that picture, now there appears to be even more of Ted Cruz to hate, at least 20-30 pounds more.
Houston radio host Michael Berry does not appreciate the woman who trolled Ted Cruz, calls her a “little tramp.”
Big movement toward Cruz in this race on PredictIt today.
A quick Google news search didn’t reveal anything. Anyone have any idea why?
These are the money statements:
Ted skirted under the radar for many years. He was very much magnified during the 2016 run and now everyone has caught up to his ugly side. As Al Franken says, “Ted Cruz is the guy who microwaves fish at your office.”
O’Rourke is someone to keep an eye on. He could rise quickly.
More on fundraising…
5 things Beto O’Rourke’s eye-popping fundraising reveals
Here are the five reasons. Details at the link.
- Democratic donors hate Cruz
- O’Rourke has a much higher $$$ ceiling
- PAC money is overrated
- O’Rourke isn’t a creation of the national Democratic Party
- This is a real race
The whole red state / blue state thing makes people act like there’s no Republicans in California and no Democrats in Texas - but of course that’s nonsense. There’s lots of Democrats in Texas, we’re just outnumbered, and lots of other politicians get Texas Democratic money. Beto is the first chance we’ve had in decades to make a real race out of it, so it makes sense that he’s getting donations. That’s still a hell of a lot of money though.
I still figure he’s got maybe a 5% chance at best to win - but the Democratic candidate has had about a 0% chance in a Senate race for decades now so it’s the best game in town. People are talking about it a little differently, too. I think that Doug Jones’ victory in Alabama may prove enormously important in the long run - I hear many people bringing that up around here. Knowing that a thing is possible is important in any political race.
Yeah, engagement counts for a lot, and knowing that a thing is possible will lead to more engagement. I suspect that there’s no state in the country that couldn’t be flipped, if the minority party (including leaners) managed to get 100% turnout.
CA and NY. No chance either of those will go red in the foreseeable future.
Hm, you appear to be correct, at least about California (I didn’t check New York). I was expecting California (being a solid-colored state) to have low turnout, but it looks like they got 58.73% in 2016. That wouldn’t be enough to overcome the nearly 2 to 1 advantage Democrats have. It still could, though, in a midterm year, when turnout is lower.