don’t worry guys the 14 people in her district will still vote for her
Maybe this money should be used to move 15 democratic voters to her district.
What an odd title, not naming the democratic guy with the better fundraiser. I guess Boobert is good click beat over the pond?
It’s because the general consensus is the same as trump/Biden, on a smaller scale. It’s not a vote for that guy, it’s a vote for “not Boebert”.
I’d like it to be about that guy, but the fact is, it isn’t.
Honestly, I feel like this focus on “vote against the opponent” is a misstep by the DNC and will become a major hindrance in a few years. The DNC should be promoting candidates that will push a popular progressive agenda rather than “I’m not them”. I get why they’re doing it, but it will come back to bite the DNC
Districts who vote for people like Boebert aren’t going to vote for a candidate running on “popular progressive agenda”, because they aren’t progressive. You won’t be able convince the MAGA crowd not to vote for a nut-job. But if you can showcase how insane some candidates are, the more moderate conservatives (which is a massive % of US voters) might just be turned-off enough that they don’t vote at all.
But it’s the choice between pushing someone who isn’t your opponent and maybe getting elected vs pushing “popular progressive agenda” and not getting elected. This is the district that elected Boebert twice. They don’t want progressive. It’s only through the sheer awfulness that Boebert is that there’s even a chance.
Hope it’s enough. She barely made it last election, so I’ve got hope her constituents are getting tired of her bs.
According to the article, it’s the same guy (Adam Frisch) that challenged her last time. The margin of loss was also crazy thin. 536 votes, 0.5%
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.
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
redacted
Wouldn’t it be nice if the person who fit the role and deserved the job based on their commitment to progress got the job instead of who raised the most money?
Why not just skip the middle man and determine the winner automatically by whoever raises the most cash by a set date.
