Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 19, 2019, 04:34:36 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, Virginiá)
  2019 - 2020 Candidate news/polls/fundraising/ballot initiatives megathread
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Print
Author Topic: 2019 - 2020 Candidate news/polls/fundraising/ballot initiatives megathread  (Read 17552 times)
Virginiá
Virginia C
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,191
Ukraine


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 25, 2018, 03:12:42 pm »
« edited: December 12, 2018, 04:45:21 pm by Virginiá »

I'm going to give this a try and see if it goes anywhere. This will be a thread for all things related to:

  • Random news pertaining to gubernatorial/executive/legislative candidates
  • Scandals
  • Fundraising
  • Ballot initiative news
  • Whatever else you think is noteworthy but maybe doesn't need its own thread

My thought on this was not actually to cut down on threads on this board, but rather to try and encourage people to post things that they otherwise wouldn't have made a thread for.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia C
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,191
Ukraine


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2018, 03:14:01 pm »

Democratic group will spend $5 million to elect secretaries of state, the latest front in ‘voting wars’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/01/25/democratic-group-will-spend-5-million-to-elect-secretaries-of-state-the-latest-front-in-voting-wars/

Quote
The left-leaning ballot access group iVote will spend at least $5 million across swing states to elect Democratic secretaries of state — the latest front in the “voting wars” that Democrats worried they have been losing.

“Republicans have understood the importance of the office,” said iVote president and founder Ellen Kurz. “There isn’t a single Democratic swing state secretary of state. And dozens of states have taken away opportunities to vote, purged voter rolls and disenfranchised certain voters every year.”

This year, iVote will focus on electing Democrats as the chief election officials in seven states: Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico and Ohio. Only one of those states, New Mexico, has a Democratic secretary of state.

Two of the states, Arizona and Michigan, have not elected Democrats to the office since the 1990s; Colorado has not elected a Democratic secretary of state since John F. Kennedy was in the White House.

Quote
Kurz’s iVote is not the first Democratic group designed to win secretaries of states’ offices. In the run-up to the 2006 elections, some wealthy donors funded a 527 group, the Secretary of State Project, to boost Democrats in races where their candidates had been struggling to raise money. (iVote is structured as a 527 group, and is not required to disclose donors. Kurz would not say who donated to the new $5 million campaign.)
Logged
LimoLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,452


Political Matrix
E: -3.71, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2018, 03:41:28 pm »

There's some state legislative generic ballots floating around, so I'll post them here cause they really don't need whole threads. Thanks Virginia.

PPP; NC: 46-41 D+5
Glengariff; Michigan: 42-31 D+11

https://www.scribd.com/document/369748990/January-Statewide-Survey
https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/955833420927700992
Logged
KingSweden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,285
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2018, 08:15:06 pm »

Democratic group will spend $5 million to elect secretaries of state, the latest front in ‘voting wars’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/01/25/democratic-group-will-spend-5-million-to-elect-secretaries-of-state-the-latest-front-in-voting-wars/

Quote
The left-leaning ballot access group iVote will spend at least $5 million across swing states to elect Democratic secretaries of state — the latest front in the “voting wars” that Democrats worried they have been losing.

“Republicans have understood the importance of the office,” said iVote president and founder Ellen Kurz. “There isn’t a single Democratic swing state secretary of state. And dozens of states have taken away opportunities to vote, purged voter rolls and disenfranchised certain voters every year.”

This year, iVote will focus on electing Democrats as the chief election officials in seven states: Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico and Ohio. Only one of those states, New Mexico, has a Democratic secretary of state.

Two of the states, Arizona and Michigan, have not elected Democrats to the office since the 1990s; Colorado has not elected a Democratic secretary of state since John F. Kennedy was in the White House.

Quote
Kurz’s iVote is not the first Democratic group designed to win secretaries of states’ offices. In the run-up to the 2006 elections, some wealthy donors funded a 527 group, the Secretary of State Project, to boost Democrats in races where their candidates had been struggling to raise money. (iVote is structured as a 527 group, and is not required to disclose donors. Kurz would not say who donated to the new $5 million campaign.)

Has this lady not heard of Steve Simon or Elaine Marshall?
Logged
Young Conservative
youngconservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,489
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2018, 12:17:40 am »

Democratic group will spend $5 million to elect secretaries of state, the latest front in ‘voting wars’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/01/25/democratic-group-will-spend-5-million-to-elect-secretaries-of-state-the-latest-front-in-voting-wars/

Quote
The left-leaning ballot access group iVote will spend at least $5 million across swing states to elect Democratic secretaries of state — the latest front in the “voting wars” that Democrats worried they have been losing.

“Republicans have understood the importance of the office,” said iVote president and founder Ellen Kurz. “There isn’t a single Democratic swing state secretary of state. And dozens of states have taken away opportunities to vote, purged voter rolls and disenfranchised certain voters every year.”

This year, iVote will focus on electing Democrats as the chief election officials in seven states: Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico and Ohio. Only one of those states, New Mexico, has a Democratic secretary of state.

Two of the states, Arizona and Michigan, have not elected Democrats to the office since the 1990s; Colorado has not elected a Democratic secretary of state since John F. Kennedy was in the White House.

Quote
Kurz’s iVote is not the first Democratic group designed to win secretaries of states’ offices. In the run-up to the 2006 elections, some wealthy donors funded a 527 group, the Secretary of State Project, to boost Democrats in races where their candidates had been struggling to raise money. (iVote is structured as a 527 group, and is not required to disclose donors. Kurz would not say who donated to the new $5 million campaign.)

Has this lady not heard of Steve Simon or Elaine Marshall?
I'm not sure Minnesota counts, but it is perplexing that they were so emphatic about having no secretary of states in swing states, when they have the NC secretary.
Logged
KingSweden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,285
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2018, 10:05:29 am »

Democratic group will spend $5 million to elect secretaries of state, the latest front in ‘voting wars’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/01/25/democratic-group-will-spend-5-million-to-elect-secretaries-of-state-the-latest-front-in-voting-wars/

Quote
The left-leaning ballot access group iVote will spend at least $5 million across swing states to elect Democratic secretaries of state — the latest front in the “voting wars” that Democrats worried they have been losing.

“Republicans have understood the importance of the office,” said iVote president and founder Ellen Kurz. “There isn’t a single Democratic swing state secretary of state. And dozens of states have taken away opportunities to vote, purged voter rolls and disenfranchised certain voters every year.”

This year, iVote will focus on electing Democrats as the chief election officials in seven states: Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico and Ohio. Only one of those states, New Mexico, has a Democratic secretary of state.

Two of the states, Arizona and Michigan, have not elected Democrats to the office since the 1990s; Colorado has not elected a Democratic secretary of state since John F. Kennedy was in the White House.

Quote
Kurz’s iVote is not the first Democratic group designed to win secretaries of states’ offices. In the run-up to the 2006 elections, some wealthy donors funded a 527 group, the Secretary of State Project, to boost Democrats in races where their candidates had been struggling to raise money. (iVote is structured as a 527 group, and is not required to disclose donors. Kurz would not say who donated to the new $5 million campaign.)

Has this lady not heard of Steve Simon or Elaine Marshall?
I'm not sure Minnesota counts, but it is perplexing that they were so emphatic about having no secretary of states in swing states, when they have the NC secretary.

I suppose MN is arguable, but yes. Marshall is the bigger omission.
Logged
KingSweden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,285
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2018, 04:10:29 pm »

Per Politico, sounds like Tancredo is OUT in Colorado
Logged
The Saint
TheSaint250
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,833


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2018, 04:35:31 pm »

Per Politico, sounds like Tancredo is OUT in Colorado

For a guy who split the right-wing vote in 2010 (which didn’t really matter in the end), he sure shows awareness about him losing.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia C
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,191
Ukraine


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2018, 03:22:08 pm »
« Edited: January 31, 2018, 03:34:57 pm by Virginia »

Federal District Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Barring NC Legislature’s Elimination of Partisan Primaries for Electing State Appeals and State Supreme Court Judges

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10tu98Ev5YuncO5CsoiHGehGCL4o3eJnQ/view

Quote
   Further, the character and magnitude of S.L. 214’s burden is more substantial for appellate judges than for local judges. These judges run statewide, and in 2018 these partisan races will lead the statewide ticket.10 The legislature has decided that judicial races should be partisan, but by giving candidates complete control over party designation, abolishing primaries of any kind, and failing to provide another mechanism for reducing the number of candidates on the general election ballot, the partisan political parties are restricted in their ability to support a particular candidate for these statewide offices and to disassociate at the general election stage from candidates who are not reflective of the parties’ goals in judicial elections. See Doc. 14-1 at ¶¶ 10-12.

    This burden is not hypothetical. In 2014, when a vacancy on the court of appeals was decided without a primary, 19 candidates were on the general election ballot. Doc. 14-1 at ¶ 16. After the 2014 general election, the State Board of Elections issued a report on voter wait times, Doc. 14-6 at ¶ 3, which among other things indicated significant problems with voter confusion in the court of appeals race; in counties with certain kinds of voting machines, this confusion and the long ballots were contributing factors to delays. Id. at 8 (noting that the spoilage of ballots resulting from voter confusion over the court of appeals race as contributing to the need to change paper rolls more often, thus removing a voting machine from availability, and, later, noting the long ballot contributed to voter wait times). The winner in that race received only 23% of the vote, just as had happened in 2004 when there were eight candidates for a supreme court seat. Doc. 14-1 at ¶ 16.

For those no privy to what North Carolina GA Republicans did - they passed a bill eliminating judicial primaries, so that all candidates would just run on the same ballot. They said this was to give them time to redraw the judicial districts, and while this was partly true, obviously it means they wanted time to gerrymander the districts. Further, by eliminating the primaries, this would mean backed up lines at polling places and with such a long list of candidates, the incumbent and more well-known judges would gain an advantage. This means Republicans gain an advantage.

There are 2 state Supreme Court seats up this year, and one is a Republican. Knowing NC, even a wave environment doesn't guarantee anything, but Democrats should have a decent shot at it.

https://ballotpedia.org/North_Carolina_Supreme_Court_elections,_2018
Logged
PragmaticPopulist
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,765
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2018, 03:25:17 pm »

For those no privy to what North Carolina GA Republicans did - they passed a bill eliminating judicial primaries, so that all candidates would just run on the same ballot. They said this was to give them time to redraw the judicial districts, and while this was partly true, obviously it means they wanted time to gerrymander the districts. Further, by eliminating the primaries, this would mean backed up lines at polling places and with such a long list of candidates, the incumbent and more well-known judges would gain an advantage. This means Republicans gain an advantage.

There are 2 state Supreme Court seats up this year, and both I believe are held by conservatives. Knowing NC, even a wave environment doesn't guarantee anything, but Democrats should have a decent shot at picking up at least one seat.

https://ballotpedia.org/North_Carolina_Supreme_Court_elections,_2018
Democracy still holds in NC... for now.
Logged
Unbeatable Titan Ralph Abraham
Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,742
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.00, S: -4.00

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 03, 2018, 03:36:55 pm »

Federal District Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Barring NC Legislature’s Elimination of Partisan Primaries for Electing State Appeals and State Supreme Court Judges

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10tu98Ev5YuncO5CsoiHGehGCL4o3eJnQ/view

Quote
   Further, the character and magnitude of S.L. 214’s burden is more substantial for appellate judges than for local judges. These judges run statewide, and in 2018 these partisan races will lead the statewide ticket.10 The legislature has decided that judicial races should be partisan, but by giving candidates complete control over party designation, abolishing primaries of any kind, and failing to provide another mechanism for reducing the number of candidates on the general election ballot, the partisan political parties are restricted in their ability to support a particular candidate for these statewide offices and to disassociate at the general election stage from candidates who are not reflective of the parties’ goals in judicial elections. See Doc. 14-1 at ¶¶ 10-12.

    This burden is not hypothetical. In 2014, when a vacancy on the court of appeals was decided without a primary, 19 candidates were on the general election ballot. Doc. 14-1 at ¶ 16. After the 2014 general election, the State Board of Elections issued a report on voter wait times, Doc. 14-6 at ¶ 3, which among other things indicated significant problems with voter confusion in the court of appeals race; in counties with certain kinds of voting machines, this confusion and the long ballots were contributing factors to delays. Id. at 8 (noting that the spoilage of ballots resulting from voter confusion over the court of appeals race as contributing to the need to change paper rolls more often, thus removing a voting machine from availability, and, later, noting the long ballot contributed to voter wait times). The winner in that race received only 23% of the vote, just as had happened in 2004 when there were eight candidates for a supreme court seat. Doc. 14-1 at ¶ 16.

For those no privy to what North Carolina GA Republicans did - they passed a bill eliminating judicial primaries, so that all candidates would just run on the same ballot. They said this was to give them time to redraw the judicial districts, and while this was partly true, obviously it means they wanted time to gerrymander the districts. Further, by eliminating the primaries, this would mean backed up lines at polling places and with such a long list of candidates, the incumbent and more well-known judges would gain an advantage. This means Republicans gain an advantage.

There are 2 state Supreme Court seats up this year, and one is a Republican. Knowing NC, even a wave environment doesn't guarantee anything, but Democrats should have a decent shot at it.

https://ballotpedia.org/North_Carolina_Supreme_Court_elections,_2018
North Carolina Republicans should be smacked in the head with a baseball bat.
Logged
Progressive Pessimist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,659
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 03, 2018, 06:59:52 pm »

Federal District Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Barring NC Legislature’s Elimination of Partisan Primaries for Electing State Appeals and State Supreme Court Judges

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10tu98Ev5YuncO5CsoiHGehGCL4o3eJnQ/view

Quote
   Further, the character and magnitude of S.L. 214’s burden is more substantial for appellate judges than for local judges. These judges run statewide, and in 2018 these partisan races will lead the statewide ticket.10 The legislature has decided that judicial races should be partisan, but by giving candidates complete control over party designation, abolishing primaries of any kind, and failing to provide another mechanism for reducing the number of candidates on the general election ballot, the partisan political parties are restricted in their ability to support a particular candidate for these statewide offices and to disassociate at the general election stage from candidates who are not reflective of the parties’ goals in judicial elections. See Doc. 14-1 at ¶¶ 10-12.

    This burden is not hypothetical. In 2014, when a vacancy on the court of appeals was decided without a primary, 19 candidates were on the general election ballot. Doc. 14-1 at ¶ 16. After the 2014 general election, the State Board of Elections issued a report on voter wait times, Doc. 14-6 at ¶ 3, which among other things indicated significant problems with voter confusion in the court of appeals race; in counties with certain kinds of voting machines, this confusion and the long ballots were contributing factors to delays. Id. at 8 (noting that the spoilage of ballots resulting from voter confusion over the court of appeals race as contributing to the need to change paper rolls more often, thus removing a voting machine from availability, and, later, noting the long ballot contributed to voter wait times). The winner in that race received only 23% of the vote, just as had happened in 2004 when there were eight candidates for a supreme court seat. Doc. 14-1 at ¶ 16.

For those no privy to what North Carolina GA Republicans did - they passed a bill eliminating judicial primaries, so that all candidates would just run on the same ballot. They said this was to give them time to redraw the judicial districts, and while this was partly true, obviously it means they wanted time to gerrymander the districts. Further, by eliminating the primaries, this would mean backed up lines at polling places and with such a long list of candidates, the incumbent and more well-known judges would gain an advantage. This means Republicans gain an advantage.

There are 2 state Supreme Court seats up this year, and one is a Republican. Knowing NC, even a wave environment doesn't guarantee anything, but Democrats should have a decent shot at it.

https://ballotpedia.org/North_Carolina_Supreme_Court_elections,_2018
North Carolina Republicans should be smacked in the head with a baseball bat.

They really might be worst.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia C
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,191
Ukraine


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 15, 2018, 01:37:38 pm »

Will Missouri GOPers Be First To Pounce On Trump’s Census Citizenship Gambit?

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/missouri-citizen-redistricting-ballot-iniative

Quote
State-level Republicans are pouncing on the Trump administration’s move to add a citizenship question to the Census as a way to boost their electoral advantage in the next round of redistricting.

Missouri Republicans last week advanced a measure that would put on November’s ballot a constitutional amendment to require state legislative districts to be drawn using the number of citizens, rather than total population. Two Republicans defected from the otherwise 90-34 party line House vote.

Asked during a Friday floor debate over how Missouri would implement the requirement, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Dean Plocher (R), pointed specifically to the fact that the citizenship question will be on the next Census.

“We hope, we expect, I expect to have that question on there,” Plocher said, when Rep. Pat Conway (D) brought up the possibility that the citizenship question, which faces numerous lawsuits, might not ultimately make it to the decennial survey.

Separately, a bill in Nebraska that also would draw districts based on citizens was introduced in January by a Republican lawmaker but did not get far.

Quote
They also see the Missouri measure as a way to undermine a separate ballot initiative known as “Clean Missouri,” which aims to make it harder to gerrymander and reduce the influence of money in state politics. Clean Missouri would tap a “non-partisan state demographer” to draw legislative maps, while imposing various restrictions on lobbying in the state and on campaign contributions.

Clean Missouri is the result of a petition-drive that collected nearly 347,000 signatures. It has bipartisan support, but is still vehemently opposed by many Republicans in the statehouse.

Quote
The desire by Republicans to draw legislative districts based on number of citizens rather than total population has simmered on the fringes for years. But it was thrust front-and-center by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s March decision to add the citizenship question to the 2020 Census, despite it being very late in the planning process and over the objection of Censes experts. The Trump administration said the move was in response to a Justice Department request for more data for Voting Rights Act enforcement.

But civil rights advocates fear that it will spook immigrant communities from participating in the Census, creating an undercount that would shift political power and federal funding away from those populations. Election law observers also have raised the possibility that the new citizenship data could lead some states to switch to drawing state legislative districts based on citizenship rather than population, as the Missouri measure would do.

Exactly like I was saying in ths Ross/citizenship census question thread - that Republicans are not being honest about why they are adding the question, and that it's primary purpose is to give Republicans a way to draw maps that favor their party even more:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=291954.msg6203971#msg6203971

Meanwhile, their supporters love it mostly because it's a middle finger to undocumented immigrants / pro-immigration advocates, while establishment/partisan hacks love it because they want to game the system however they can because all that matters anymore to them is winning elections and holding power, no matter what it takes.
Logged
Speaker YE
YE
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,609


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2018, 06:59:01 pm »

http://acasignups.net/18/05/29/medicaid-expansion-officially-ballot-idaho-and-utah

Quote
A Medicaid expansion proposal has passed the signature threshold, officials confirmed on Thursday, but said further review is needed before it gets on the November ballot.

Quote
The medical cannabis act, independent redistricting commission, and Utah decides healthcare act of 2018 initiatives all gathered enough signatures to be on the November ballot.

Quote
As a reminder, Utah has an interesting situation re. Medicaid: The state government has already passed and signed into law a partial expansion of the program, but the ballot proposal, if successful, would trump (no pun intended) the new law, expanding Medicaid to twice as many people without any work requirement strings attached:

Good to see the working class may be able to get healthcare in the potato and beehive states.
Logged
GeorgiaModerate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,913


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2018, 07:34:50 pm »

Amusing:

Logged
KingSweden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,285
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 31, 2018, 07:48:54 pm »

Amusing:



How the VT gOP has fallen
Logged
#Kavanaugh For Prison
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,605


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2018, 05:45:04 pm »

Amusing:



How the VT gOP has fallen

I know, Republicans in the past had built up a century long streak of statewide victories at the presidential level in the state.
Logged
Arch
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 13, 2018, 12:54:39 am »

Amusing:



How the VT gOP has fallen

I know, Republicans in the past had built up a century long streak of statewide victories at the presidential level in the state.

That was a different Republican party.
Logged
Arkansas Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 909
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 13, 2018, 11:50:14 am »

GOP nominates a legal pimp in a Strong GOP district.  He defeated an incumbent, who is a hospital administrator.
Logged
KingSweden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,285
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 13, 2018, 02:40:27 pm »

GOP nominates a legal pimp in a Strong GOP district.  He defeated an incumbent, who is a hospital administrator.

Not that he’ll lose but yeesh
Logged
Tartarus Sauce
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,940
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 13, 2018, 08:05:22 pm »

GOP nominates a legal pimp in a Strong GOP district.  He defeated an incumbent, who is a hospital administrator.

Not that he’ll lose but yeesh

Who is this and what district?
Logged
wjx987
Full Member
***
Posts: 151
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 14, 2018, 11:11:55 am »

GOP nominates a legal pimp in a Strong GOP district.  He defeated an incumbent, who is a hospital administrator.

Not that he’ll lose but yeesh

Who is this and what district?
Dennis Hof, AD-36, I think. Matt Isbell has an article on it:
http://mcimaps.com/nevada-hd36-the-moderate-vs-the-brothel-owner/
Logged
Interlocutor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 731


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 17, 2018, 05:10:21 pm »
« Edited: June 19, 2018, 02:09:03 pm by Interlocutor »

I'm honestly surprised it took this long for Atlas to take note of Hof's win
Logged
Young Conservative
youngconservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,489
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 17, 2018, 09:31:14 pm »

GOP nominates a legal pimp in a Strong GOP district.  He defeated an incumbent, who is a hospital administrator.

Not that he’ll lose but yeesh
The fact that a pimp accused of sexual harassment won't lose because of the partisan lean of an area makes me want to screech.
Logged
Badger
badger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,607
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2018, 11:09:12 am »

GOP nominates a legal pimp in a Strong GOP district.  He defeated an incumbent, who is a hospital administrator.

Not that he’ll lose but yeesh
The fact that a pimp accused of sexual harassment won't lose because of the partisan lean of an area makes me want to screech.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC