Millions to Lose votes

[Avatar4321]

One number puts the Democrat loss in Georgia in stunning perspective – TheBlaze

In 2016 Democrats spent zero dollars for the GA06 campaign. They won 124,917 votes.

This year they spent over $23 million and won 124,893 votes.

That's a lot of money to lose 24 votes

That is little bang for your buck

 

[ColonelAngus]

I would have sold my vote for $1 million. No problem.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

One number puts the Democrat loss in Georgia in stunning perspective – TheBlaze

In 2016 Democrats spent zero dollars for the GA06 campaign. They won 124,917 votes.

This year they spent over $23 million and won 124,893 votes.

That's a lot of money to lose 24 votes

That is little bang for your buck

Same people that want to run your healthcare.....

 

[OKTexas]

One number puts the Democrat loss in Georgia in stunning perspective – TheBlaze

In 2016 Democrats spent zero dollars for the GA06 campaign. They won 124,917 votes.

This year they spent over $23 million and won 124,893 votes.

That's a lot of money to lose 24 votes

That is little bang for your buck

They've never been very good with money.


.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

One number puts the Democrat loss in Georgia in stunning perspective – TheBlaze

In 2016 Democrats spent zero dollars for the GA06 campaign. They won 124,917 votes.

This year they spent over $23 million and won 124,893 votes.

That's a lot of money to lose 24 votes

That is little bang for your buck

I don't know if you got the $23 million from the article. I heard it reported on TV that it was $31 million, though. And I believe that's the most any party has spent on a congressional election.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Chuck Todd actually spun this as "a moral victory" for the Democrats.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

One number puts the Democrat loss in Georgia in stunning perspective – TheBlaze

In 2016 Democrats spent zero dollars for the GA06 campaign. They won 124,917 votes.

This year they spent over $23 million and won 124,893 votes.

That's a lot of money to lose 24 votes

That is little bang for your buck

Yeah but it was a moral victory.

 

[Pogo]

One number puts the Democrat loss in Georgia in stunning perspective – TheBlaze

In 2016 Democrats spent zero dollars for the GA06 campaign. They won 124,917 votes.

This year they spent over $23 million and won 124,893 votes.

That's a lot of money to lose 24 votes

That is little bang for your buck

It's also weasel math. 2016 (a regular election year) had 326,005 votes, the special election yesterday only 259,488. That means the virtually-same number was worth ten points more in the smaller sample.

Did they not have math when you went to school?

The R candidate meanwhile went from 201,088 votes in '16 to 134595 yesterday, or 66,493 fewer.

Sooooo ..how much did that party spend to lose 66,493 votes? Versus a loss of .... 24?

 

[Avatar4321]

Chuck Todd actually spun this as "a moral victory" for the Democrats.

I hope they have many

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Chuck Todd actually spun this as "a moral victory" for the Democrats.

I hope they have many

How big is their participation trophy case?

 

[Avatar4321]

One number puts the Democrat loss in Georgia in stunning perspective – TheBlaze

In 2016 Democrats spent zero dollars for the GA06 campaign. They won 124,917 votes.

This year they spent over $23 million and won 124,893 votes.

That's a lot of money to lose 24 votes

That is little bang for your buck

It's also weasel math. 2016 (a regular election year) had 326,005 votes, the special election yesterday only 259,488. That means the virtually-same number was worth ten points more in the smaller sample.

Did they not have math when you went to school?

Yes. Every school I have been to says 124,917 is greater than 124,893.

Your attempt to spin doesn't change the math

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Chuck Todd actually spun this as "a moral victory" for the Democrats.

I hope they have many

How big is their participation trophy case?

Getting bigger all the time.

 

[Pogo]

One number puts the Democrat loss in Georgia in stunning perspective – TheBlaze

In 2016 Democrats spent zero dollars for the GA06 campaign. They won 124,917 votes.

This year they spent over $23 million and won 124,893 votes.

That's a lot of money to lose 24 votes

That is little bang for your buck

It's also weasel math. 2016 (a regular election year) had 326,005 votes, the special election yesterday only 259,488. That means the virtually-same number was worth ten points more in the smaller sample.

Did they not have math when you went to school?

The R candidate meanwhile went from 201,088 votes in '16 to 134595 yesterday, or 66,493 fewer.

Sooooo ..how much did that party spend to lose 66,493 votes? Versus a loss of .... 24?

Yes. Every school I have been to says 124,917 is greater than 124,893.

Your attempt to spin doesn't change the math

The math doesn't need to change. It needs its context put back after you forgot it.
I covered it, you're welcome.

By the way here's a bit more math: The Republican loss of 66,493 votes is exactly 33,246.5 times the Democrats' loss. If you wanna let me know how much each one spent I can get back to you with exactly how much each spent on "losing votes".

I have my own calculator.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

One number puts the Democrat loss in Georgia in stunning perspective – TheBlaze

In 2016 Democrats spent zero dollars for the GA06 campaign. They won 124,917 votes.

This year they spent over $23 million and won 124,893 votes.

That's a lot of money to lose 24 votes

That is little bang for your buck

It's also weasel math. 2016 (a regular election year) had 326,005 votes, the special election yesterday only 259,488. That means the virtually-same number was worth ten points more in the smaller sample.

Did they not have math when you went to school?

The R candidate meanwhile went from 201,088 votes in '16 to 134595 yesterday, or 66,493 fewer.

Sooooo ..how much did that party spend to lose 66,493 votes? Versus a loss of .... 24?

Dems spent $31 million for a "referendum on Trump" and failed.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Chuck Todd actually spun this as "a moral victory" for the Democrats.

Yes, but we all know that Democrats have no morals!

 

[Pogo]

One number puts the Democrat loss in Georgia in stunning perspective – TheBlaze

In 2016 Democrats spent zero dollars for the GA06 campaign. They won 124,917 votes.

This year they spent over $23 million and won 124,893 votes.

That's a lot of money to lose 24 votes

That is little bang for your buck

It's also weasel math. 2016 (a regular election year) had 326,005 votes, the special election yesterday only 259,488. That means the virtually-same number was worth ten points more in the smaller sample.

Did they not have math when you went to school?

The R candidate meanwhile went from 201,088 votes in '16 to 134595 yesterday, or 66,493 fewer.

Sooooo ..how much did that party spend to lose 66,493 votes? Versus a loss of .... 24?

Dems spent $31 million for a "referendum on Trump" and failed.

I uh, don't think Rump was running.
But I see they picked up ten points in a district they hadn't held since the 1970s.

Whatever, I'm just here to fix the weasel math. That got done.

 

[edthecynic]

It's also weasel math. 2016 (a regular election year) had 326,005 votes, the special election yesterday only 259,488. That means the virtually-same number was worth ten points more in the smaller sample.

Did they not have math when you went to school?

The R candidate meanwhile went from 201,088 votes in '16 to 134595 yesterday, or 66,493 fewer.

Sooooo ..how much did that party spend to lose 66,493 votes? Versus a loss of .... 24?

And the GOP spent $33 million doing it!

 

[Dale Smith]

One number puts the Democrat loss in Georgia in stunning perspective – TheBlaze

In 2016 Democrats spent zero dollars for the GA06 campaign. They won 124,917 votes.

This year they spent over $23 million and won 124,893 votes.

That's a lot of money to lose 24 votes

That is little bang for your buck

It's also weasel math. 2016 (a regular election year) had 326,005 votes, the special election yesterday only 259,488. That means the virtually-same number was worth ten points more in the smaller sample.

Did they not have math when you went to school?

The R candidate meanwhile went from 201,088 votes in '16 to 134595 yesterday, or 66,493 fewer.

Sooooo ..how much did that party spend to lose 66,493 votes? Versus a loss of .... 24?

Yes. Every school I have been to says 124,917 is greater than 124,893.

Your attempt to spin doesn't change the math

The math doesn't need to change. It needs its context put back after you forgot it.
I covered it, you're welcome.

By the way here's a bit more math: The Republican loss of 66,493 votes is exactly 33,246.5 times the Democrats' loss. If you wanna let me know how much each one spent I can get back to you with exactly how much each spent on "losing votes".

I have my own calculator.

So, give us your analysis of how this bodes well for leftards....was the race close because of the dissatisfaction of the candidate or Trump???? Or because people crave fabian socialism ?????

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Chuck Todd actually spun this as "a moral victory" for the Democrats.

I hope they have many

How big is their participation trophy case?

Getting bigger all the time.

They have what now? About 1200 second place trophies and an equal amount of moral victory ribbons? No wonder Obie needs such a large library.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

One number puts the Democrat loss in Georgia in stunning perspective – TheBlaze

In 2016 Democrats spent zero dollars for the GA06 campaign. They won 124,917 votes.

This year they spent over $23 million and won 124,893 votes.

That's a lot of money to lose 24 votes

That is little bang for your buck

Handel's money came indirectly, furtively, as all Republican campaigns do. Trump's from Russia, but Handel's from:
Home - Congressional Leadership Fund