You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
14 points

And it was supposed to be a safe Republican seat.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

That’s the real story here.

The guy who lost by a razor-thin margin against an incumbent in a district projected to be safely on the R+10 - R+20 range saw the race com down to 536 votes.

That was in a midterm, where turnout is always lower. Boebert is in trouble here, I think. Polls and projections have had a hard time finding a model that works in the last few cycles, but fundraising still seems to be a great indicator of sentiment, and seeing someone consistently out-raise the other candidate by such strong margins is telling. Seeing it against an incumbant should have Boebert sweating bullets.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

She’s definitely in trouble, but I’d wager that most of Frisch’s haul has come from out of the district. He certainly seems like a good candidate, but I think higher turnout in a presidential race will give boebert a good shot at it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yeah except that also that meant that she was doing jack shit for her constituents because it mostly didn’t matter either way. I think that was enough of a warning shot that she’ll make a meaningful effort this time and will probably improve turnout

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Eh I’m always skeptical how much a congressman actually does specifically for their district, vs the broader “own the libs”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I really liked when Jared Polis (current CO governor) was my congressman because we aligned reasonably well politically and since he didn’t need to do fundraising (.com millionaire) he actually directly responded to constituents. Like you could tag him on reddit and he’d reply.

From what I can tell boebert does jack shit for her district (and i do spend a little time there)

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 473K

    Comments