FIFTY. MILLION. DOLLARS. That's an absurd amount of money

>>130826489
Bump

>>130826489
well they just made a serious mistake. their fund raising is terrible so they put all their chips on the table for what (1 month ago) was a sure win in GA.
With a win there they would show that fundraising works and they can reclaim republican districts.
The problem was that the race tightened really quickly after they went all in on the referendum on trump so they put themselves in a position where they absolutely had to win or their fund raising gets even worse. They tried to guarantee the win the only way Dems know how which is throwing money at a problem and it backfired spectacularly

Heavy repub district that's been changing blur for awhile. Wrong candidate, first off. He's a white, younger obama. Who can't even vote for himself. Guy is like 30 for fucks sake vs. a well known republican in the area.

The first smell test people do for who they're voting for is "Is this person one of us" Guy didn't stand a shot. The return of investment would've always been horrible, even if he somehow eeked out a victory.

Dems and Repubs as a whole are fracturing. Dems learning the wrong lesson "We need to have more purity tests for out purple congressmen! That'll fix it!" and repubs hold all the levers of power and can't do a thing.

>>130826489
Why aren't more Democrats observing this trend of an absurd amount of money, which pours in from a variety of (((sources))) but somehow doesn't make a difference? I mean hell, Hillary spent somewhere around 1 BILLION DOLLARS and lost. Shouldn't these Democrats, who care so much about giving back to society that they force us all to do it by passing legislation, be concerned about where this money comes from and why it's wasted? Bernie Sanders brought that shit up, but conveniently stopped talking about it after he "lost" the primaries and was gifted a vacation home

>>130826489
The fifty million was the total spend.

It was just over 30 million for Ossoff and just over 20 million for Handel. It's not like it was one-sided.

Also, the district has been R held since 1979 and the last Republican won it by 23.4%, at this election the Republican candidate won it by 3.8%. It's a loss, but it was expected. If the rest of the country sees a swing of 19.6% to Dems then that's a big deal.

Don't be complacent.

>>130826489
All it prove is that money doesn't mean you'll win. Another reason to shit on libcucks who cry about money in politics