Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is running for president.

exGOPer said:
Now you are sounding like New York Times Pitch Bot.

First, the monetary difference was not addressed, the guy said there was 'underfunding' which is blatantly false.
More...

It wasn't? Article says Barnes outraised Johnson. The monetary difference made clear coming from outside (your billionaire) money.

exGOPer said:
Second, cue or no cue, everything other than the Wisconsin Truth Fund was business as usual, you can compare it to other races or previous cycles. Three billionaires outspent everyone else.
More...

Sounds like Barnes did great considering the unsurmountable monetary odds and post Kenosha shenanigans. Did dem miscalculate by not sending more to counter billionaire money or did they not care to have a prog in the senate?

exGOPer said:
Third, this Dem chair who you think knows more was elected in 2019 and has been a heavy prog long before he became the chair. Of course he offers conspiracies and lies to cover up his failure.
More...

Again, where is the conspiracy or the lie? If the funding I'm being sent is insufficient to counter billionaire money and I'm being outspent, how is this not underfunding?
 
Cuddles said:
It wasn't? Article says Barnes outraised Johnson. The monetary difference made clear coming from outside (your billionaire) money.
More...

Read the article again.The 'stunning advantage' was because of the three billionaires and Wikler was complaining how 'you wouldn't let Barnes be outspent' - like the Dem leadership after spending 25 million had control of Dem billionaires who would spend another 25 million. Why isn't he blaming outside prog billionaires to match the funding instead?

Barnes was buried by Johnson in spending by outside groups, where Johnson had a stunning $26.4 million edge. And those outside groups generally take their cue from party leaders.

“If you were going to allocate resources for maximum impact,” Mr. Wikler told the Times, “you wouldn’t let Mandela Barnes be outspent by $26 million on independent expenditures and lose by 26,000 votes” (out of more than 2.6 million votes cast).


Cuddles said:
Sounds like Barnes did great considering the unsurmountable monetary odds and post Kenosha shenanigans. Did dem miscalculate by not sending more to counter billionaire money or did they not care to have a prog in the senate?
More...

But why is it all dem fault, where were the prog billionaires on the issue?


Cuddles said:
Again, where is the conspiracy or the lie? If the funding I'm being sent is insufficient to counter billionaire money and I'm being outspent, how is this not underfunding?
More...

The conspiracy is Wikler saying that Dem leadership had a choice on Barnes being outspent, like they had an extra 25 million to spend on top of the existing 25 million. He isn't blaming the prog billionaires and millionaires who had money but held it back.
 
Cuddles said:
It wasn't? Article says Barnes outraised Johnson. The monetary difference made clear coming from outside (your billionaire) money.



Sounds like Barnes did great considering the unsurmountable monetary odds and post Kenosha shenanigans. Did dem miscalculate by not sending more to counter billionaire money or did they not care to have a prog in the senate?



Again, where is the conspiracy or the lie? If the funding I'm being sent is insufficient to counter billionaire money and I'm being outspent, how is this not underfunding?
More...

Just to add data here, Senate Dems SuperPAC raised 137 million and spent 41 million for Fetterman, 25 Million for Mark Kelly and 24.5 million for Barnes - that is in order of money spent. All three being progressive candidates.

But Dems were supposed to spend an extra 25 million to match the three billionaires? From where were they supposed to spend? They spent 90 million already on 3 races and there were more races to fund. Where were the prog billionaires on the issue?

https://www.opensecrets.org/politic...pacs//C00484642/independent-expenditures/2022
 
Cuddles said:
My money's on a MAGA fanbase, not progs.
More...


While he turned out to be too nutty for me some dems have told me they'll support an honest nut over a lying snake



giphy.gif
 
exGOPer said:
Just to add data here, Senate Dems SuperPAC raised 137 million and spent 41 million for Fetterman, 25 Million for Mark Kelly and 24.5 million for Barnes - that is in order of money spent. All three being progressive candidates.

But Dems were supposed to spend an extra 25 million to match the three billionaires? From where were they supposed to spend? They spent 90 million already on 3 races and there were more races to fund. Where were the prog billionaires on the issue?

https://www.opensecrets.org/politic...pacs//C00484642/independent-expenditures/2022
More...

sounds like dems should lobby to get money out of politics if they're not willing to dish out the cash....oh wait...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top