ADVERTISEMENT

The left wing machine loses more elections!

UCFKnight85

UCFKnight85

GOL's Inner Circle
Gold Member
May 6, 2003
99,673
105,246
113
Every left wing celebrity or pundit with a deep bank account flooded money into Georgia to support the 14 year old kid that Democrats wheeled in from out of state to run. They dumped $35M on this guy and he still got beat comfortably in a district that Trump barely won by 1%.

Lulzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I can only imagine how many tears are being shed in mansions throughout California this morning, knowing their money was totally wasted.
 
Liberals care so much about helping the poor, disadvantaged and starving children that they waste $35M to pay for a bunch of TV ads and robocalls for a seat that will be up again in little more than a year. So much compassion. How much women's "healthcare" could that have paid for?
 
Bob the Knight said:
Liberals care so much about helping the poor, disadvantaged and starving children that they waste $35M to pay for a bunch of TV ads and robocalls for a seat that will be up again in little more than a year. So much compassion. How much women's "healthcare" could that have paid for?
Click to expand...

The seat usually goes AT LEAST +20 Republican. They both spent similar amounts of money, albeit from different sources.

You know what...it's not even worth getting into it with you all.
 
bqknight said:
The seat usually goes AT LEAST +20 Republican. They both spent similar amounts of money, albeit from different sources.

You know what...it's not even worth getting into it with you all.
Click to expand...

Ossof outspent the Handel 7 to 1... I guess a 7 sort of looks like a 1. Trump only beat Killary by one point in the same district.
 
bqknight said:
The seat usually goes AT LEAST +20 Republican. They both spent similar amounts of money, albeit from different sources.

You know what...it's not even worth getting into it with you all.
Click to expand...

Yes, because Rep Price had been there for years and years and had respect and credibility on both sides in a totally purple district.

Price was winning huge but as I said, Trump won the district by barely 1%.

Lefties dumped money into this district because they saw this as their best way to stick Trump in the eye and prove that RESIST! is real. Yet in the end a fairly vanilla GOP candidate won the election comfortably where there's basically a 50/50 partisan split.

Don't try to short sell this- it's another huge embarrassment for the Democrats.
 
Liberals are just stupid. They could have won that seat if they actually put up a candidate that had credibility. Osoff is 30 years old and has never had a real job. He attended a private high school and then Georgetown. Serious, what in common does he have with many people? Liberals think the people care more about education than experience.

Maybe it's me but I get it. Put someone in the race that is real, that has a story people can understand. Put up someone that went to a state university, that has worked in the real world, that has had student loans and been late on a credit card payment. That person would have won easily but dems just don't understand anyone not in the northeast or west coast.
 
bqknight said:
The seat usually goes AT LEAST +20 Republican. They both spent similar amounts of money, albeit from different sources.

You know what...it's not even worth getting into it with you all.
Click to expand...
The Democrats went all in on this district. I think the R Candidate only got 3 mil of GOP money?

While Trump is very unlikable and unpopular..... Democrat policies remain even more unpopular, especially in upper middle class suburbs. Bernie Sanders being the face of 'the resistance' is doing more harm than good on the national level.
 
The moment when CNN Liberals were stunned at the soon to be GOP win...I laughed my Ossoff!

 
4 special elections, and Dems lose all 4. Maybe they need to rethink their message/strategies? Bad.
 
KnightrousOxide said:
4 special elections, and Dems lose all 4. Maybe they need to rethink their message/strategies? Bad.
Click to expand...

They were all in districts they weren't likely to win so it's not all that surprising. What is surprising is that they used their same old tired tactics that got Trump elected. I would have thought they would at least try something new since they most likely weren't going to pick up anything anyway.
 
Bob the Knight said:
They were all in districts they weren't likely to win so it's not all that surprising. What is surprising is that they used their same old tired tactics that got Trump elected. I would have thought they would at least try something new since they most likely weren't going to pick up anything anyway.
Click to expand...

Not really true. Georgia 6 was a totally purple district that Trump won by just 1%.

It was open for the D's and they got smoked.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
Not really true. Georgia 6 was a totally purple district that Trump won by just 1%.

It was open for the D's and they got smoked.
Click to expand...

Georgia 6 is not a purple district, come on now. It hasn't been blue since 1974. It's a red seat that doesn't like Trump.
 
bqknight said:
Georgia 6 is not a purple district, come on now. It hasn't been blue since 1974. It's a red seat that doesn't like Trump.
Click to expand...

It's a growing diverse suburban district that voted heavily for Rubio in the primaries and BARELY went to Trump in the General. That means a lot of right leaning people cast votes for Hillary or Gary Johnson.

There's a reason the left wing activists poured their fortunes into THIS race. It was a seat they felt they could win and poke Trump in the eye with.
 
I love how the libtards totally changed their position. Just 2 days ago, all you heard these idiots say were that this seat was "prime to be taken"; "referendum on trump", "start taking back congress now", "we're going to win." Now that they have lost, the spin is that they knew they wouldn't win this red district and just wanted to have a moral victory to shake up Congress. Yeah right ... then why did you spend so much damn frickin money on just a "moral victory." Libtards still don't get it. They cannot fathom that a majority of folks do NOT agree with their policies. Nothing to do with race, gay rights, etc. Its just that most hard working ppl have had it with paying for everyone else who wont do their share. But continue on libtards: keep blaming everything under the sun instead of your failed policies.
 
Planned Parenthood sunk $700K into this race- but they totally need taxpayer funds guys! They'd have to close their awesome life saving doors if they didn't have it!
 
[roll][roll][roll][roll][roll]





1282645267_grandma-riding-bike-faceplants-in-the_mud.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fabknight and btbones
Dems spent $30M, Reps spent $24M. Both parties spent a crapton of money on a relatively local election, that wouldn't have changed a f*cking thing in terms of Congressional majority or power. Think of what good that money could have really done if it was spent on something worthwhile or charitable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
CommuterBob said:
Dems spent $30M, Reps spent $24M. Both parties spent a crapton of money on a relatively local election, that wouldn't have changed a f*cking thing in terms of Congressional majority or power. Think of what good that money could have really done if it was spent on something worthwhile or charitable.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the left wing poured money in at a 5-1 ratio to begin with. The conservative PACs this and panicked and started spending at that point.

It was simple- the Democrats desperately needed a win to prove that RESIST! is real and that people hate Trump.

0-4
 
UCFKnight85 said:
To be fair, the left wing poured money in at a 5-1 ratio to begin with. The conservative PACs this and panicked and started spending at that point.

It was simple- the Democrats desperately needed a win to prove that RESIST! is real and that people hate Trump.

0-4
Click to expand...
Which makes it even more bullshit. One district doesn't mean a damn thing.
 
CommuterBob said:
Dems spent $30M, Reps spent $24M. Both parties spent a crapton of money on a relatively local election, that wouldn't have changed a f*cking thing in terms of Congressional majority or power. Think of what good that money could have really done if it was spent on something worthwhile or charitable.
Click to expand...
The $54M were spent on ads, paying staff, mailers, town halls (I think), and other marketing. The stupid politicians at least injected $54M from rich people (somebody said from California) into the (hopefully) local economy.
I love it when campaigns spend millions of dollars (or billion for presidential elections) especially when money is coming from millionaires.
 
UCF11and1 said:
The $54M were spent on ads, paying staff, mailers, town halls (I think), and other marketing. The stupid politicians at least injected $54M from rich people (somebody said from California) into the (hopefully) local economy.
I love it when campaigns spend millions of dollars (or billion for presidential elections) especially when money is coming from millionaires.
Click to expand...
I'd be willing to bet the vast majority (if not all) of those marketing/ads/mailers expenses were not spent on local firms. None of that has to be done locally.
 
This isn't my district, so I didn't really follow it. I'm kind of shocked that he didn't pull it off though. Ossoff had a constant stream of commercials, starting back months and months ago. Handel even tried to hand him the election with some stupid gaffe where she said in a debate "I'm not for a living wage" when the subject of minimum wage was discussed. And she still won.
 
barrister1602 said:
I love how the libtards totally changed their position. Just 2 days ago, all you heard these idiots say were that this seat was "prime to be taken"; "referendum on trump", "start taking back congress now", "we're going to win." Now that they have lost, the spin is that they knew they wouldn't win this red district and just wanted to have a moral victory to shake up Congress. Yeah right ... then why did you spend so much damn frickin money on just a "moral victory." Libtards still don't get it. They cannot fathom that a majority of folks do NOT agree with their policies. Nothing to do with race, gay rights, etc. Its just that most hard working ppl have had it with paying for everyone else who wont do their share. But continue on libtards: keep blaming everything under the sun instead of your failed policies.
Click to expand...

Libtard, libtard, libtard...... don't you know we like to be called Dumbocrats?
 
  • Like
Reactions: barrister1602
Not being for a living wage is pretty much a GOP staple. "Living wage" is their propaganda for $15 an hour, similar to calling baby killing "healthcare".
 
  • Like
Reactions: barrister1602
SublimeKnight said:
This isn't my district, so I didn't really follow it. I'm kind of shocked that he didn't pull it off though. Ossoff had a constant stream of commercials, starting back months and months ago. Handel even tried to hand him the election with some stupid gaffe where she said in a debate "I'm not for a living wage" when the subject of minimum wage was discussed. And she still won.
Click to expand...

It was only a "huge gaffe" to the Democrats who tried to make it more than it was. In context, she was referring to a question about government mandated minimum wages and the debate about raising them even more.

Not to mention that "living wage!" is just left wing code word for some asinine federal $15 min wage.
 
Bob the Knight said:
Not being for a living wage is pretty much a GOP staple. "Living wage" is their propaganda for $15 an hour, similar to calling baby killing "healthcare".
Click to expand...
I get that, but the way she said it, came across as pro-sweatshops. I found the youtube clip, she says "I'm against a livable wage"


Personally I think we should abolishing the minimum wage all together. Right now there's an expectation in the marketplace that someone should accept a job that pays minimum wage. In a way having one is a market manipulation that benefits businesses, not the workforce.
 
I didn't take it that way, I'm sure the lefties faux raged about it, but I doubt that quote scared off anyone that was already voting for her, they took it the way she meant it. Moot point at this time though.
 
SublimeKnight said:
I get that, but the way she said it, came across as pro-sweatshops. I found the youtube clip, she says "I'm against a livable wage"
View embedded media


Personally I think we should abolishing the minimum wage all together. Right now there's an expectation in the marketplace that someone should accept a job that pays minimum wage. In a way having one is a market manipulation that benefits businesses, not the workforce.
Click to expand...

No, it crushes small businesses and it's been proven time and time again. Any incremental mandate for higher minimum wage only forces small businesses into shitty decisions on how to allocate their capital. They are suddenly forced to pay people more for no changes in the market and no greater productivity. They then must choose between firing, not hiring, scaling back investments, and/or reconsidering growth plans.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
No, it crushes small businesses and it's been proven time and time again. Any incremental mandate for higher minimum wage only forces small businesses into shitty decisions on how to allocate their capital. They are suddenly forced to pay people more for no changes in the market and no greater productivity. They then must choose between firing, not hiring, scaling back investments, and/or reconsidering growth plans.
Click to expand...
So getting rid of minimum wage, so that you let the marketplace determine what a job is worth, is bad?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back