Maybe. Problem is they are getting ridiculous loads of money from a lot of the same big corporations that like to donate ridiculous loads of money to the GOP. That funds their campaigns and allows them to play to lose--even if they lose an election, they get to be a rich lobbyist after their gig in Congress, if they toe the corporate line as long they're in there.

Speaking of which, Bill Nelson is now 5 points behind Rick Scott in Florida

This is surprising

I mean, duh? Why would any of those people even think about donating to a candidate who was running against the next speaker of the house in a primary?

I don't want to sound like a jaded dick here, and I'm happy she won, but that graph ain't gonna say $0 when she starts running for re-election in 2020.

12 million breaks down to over a thousand bucks per vote. Seems to call into question this myth of capitalist efficiency.

Don’t think Crowley spent any money on the primary.

he spent 1.5 million from what I read

Max is going to troll you with something like, "No, he didn't spend it, a PAC spent it" or "No, that was really spent in prep for the general and not the primary." Somehow he'll end up with "right, that's what I said." The maneuver might feel familiar to you.

Everyone know he spent more than 10 times as much as AOC. That's been in most of the articles on it.

she ran her campaign based on not taking money from wall street, lobbyists, big pharma, and defense contractors, which is what i hoped to convey by posting that chart. 70% of the $300k she raised was made up of donations $200 or less, basically the bernie model. so it would be a big betrayal to her voters if she started accepting money from these groups when she runs for re-election in two years.

https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/statu...40404879396865

She's a lock to be President someday

naw, he spent five times more than her. Also didn't try nearly as hard (or even at all), she probably put in like 2000 hours of her own time. So at like a standard 300 bucks an hour their expenditures were fairly close.

Hilary was a lock too.

Some context before you read the linked article (if you even bother): They don't actually *know* that this is going on, HOWEVER, what this appears to be is a new kind of campaign scumbaggery (which may not even be new for all I know), which is the GOP is "convincing" people to run as Dems to challenge other Dems in primaries. Apparently this guy has two homes, neither of which is actually in the district. He also had his wife notarize his paperwork, which is illegal, and the technical basis for the legal challenge to his candidacy.

In LC I posted that Democrats are doing that in NC Supreme Court races, but they're doing it because Republicans, an an attempt to mess with the races, did away with the primary which means filling the field can siphon off votes. It would seem to be a lot more effective in races without a primary. Presumably, unless the fake candidate really goes hard in the primary, the true party candidate should most likely win out and then there's only one candidate for the race.

Political parties suck and should be subverted. What's the point of them? To serve as a collection box and distribution center for influence?

I mean, I agree with this and I think most rational people at least see the point here, but if one side is organized into a bloc and the other isn't, the organized side wins every time in two-party systems like ours. Political parties are necessary evils even in non-two-party systems. Without a coalition you're just a guy on a street corner yelling for votes.

Which is why they should at present be subverted instead of ignored.

Aside from being female, AOC is the polar opposite of Hillary. She would actually be a good president, which is why she's a near lock never to become one.

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/tenness...-registration/

Dems up 10% generally, 12% in swing districts

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status...12655474171915

...but how does the R/D split in those votes compare to the 2014 GE?

Well, in the Rosen/Heller race in Nevada, a lot of new TV ads out - both candidates have gone negative (not surprising, sadly)

I think the new Rosen ads are pretty effective in painting Heller as a Trump tool - he's waffled enough in this area that he's definitely vulnerable and (in a good move) there's a lot less of Rosen and a lot of "genuine people" in the ads with the talking points. They still look like they were filmed in someones garage, though - I dunno if she's short on money.

Heller is pushing the standard business friendly/god fearing/my opponent is probably a commie/ line. He has exceptional hair, even for a politician. He slashed Pruitt pretty severely but only after he resigned - cynical even for a pol.

Overall, I think Rosen has upped her game - she just doesn't project well on TV and the new spots wisely minimize her screen time. If the dem turnout is above average she has a good chance. Neither one of them seems likely to have any significant skeletons in the closet that would help out the other candidate (meaning they're probably both crooked as hell) - but on balance I think there's a good chance the seat flips.

MM MD