From the article:
Let’s start with an obvious caveat: there is a lot we don’t know. Precinct level data is still outstanding in most states, and exit polls are notoriously finicky. Votes are still being counted out west. We’re still ignorant about a lot. But any effort to blame Trump—or McConnell for that matter—ignores a major structural advantage for Democrats: money. Money is how candidates fund the all-important advertising that reaches swing voters, and it’s how candidates fund turnout operations. And in every marquee national race, Republicans got crushed financially.
The reason is ActBlue. ActBlue is the Democrats’ national fundraising platform, where 21 million individual donors shovel small donations into every marquee national race. ActBlue is why my opponent ran nonstop ads about how much he “agreed with Trump” during the summer. It is why John Fetterman was able to raise $75 million for his election.
Republican small dollar fundraising efforts are paltry by comparison, and Republican fundraising efforts suffer from high consultant and “list building” fees—where Republicans pay a lot to acquire small-dollar donors. This is why incumbents have such massive advantages: much of the small-dollar fundraising my own campaign did went to fundraising and list-building expenses. If and when I run for reelection, almost all of it will go directly to my campaign. Democrats don’t have this problem. They raise more money from more donors, with lower overhead.
Go here to read the rest. You can learn a lot from a defeat. Republican election funding is broken. Small donors need a low over head centralized secure source to donate to which will provide substantial funding to Republican challengers in winnable races. The Republican get out the vote effort in many parts of the country is pathetic and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, making effective use of modern technology to stay in constant touch with voters. The current ineffective informal Republican boycott of early voting and voting by mail is disastrous. Bank as many votes by election day as possible. Candidates need to be trained in politics 101 before running, especially fundraising and building get out the vote operations. Too many GOP operations are filled with parasites who are in it only for the grift and could care less as to whether Republican candidates win. These and a hundred other lessons are clear to those with eyes to see and brains to think. 2022 may be a blessing in disguise. Cure these problems and the realignment underway could be sealed with a resounding victory in 2024.
The thing is, until we can do something about the obvious fraud, it won’t matter if we get more people out to vote. Just look at the numbers in 2020, voter numbers blew any previous record out of the water. Too many people (in the right positions) involved in the vote-counting process are corrupt. Too many coincidences over the last several elections for it to be anything but fraud.
Fraud only matters if it is close. Make certain it is not close. Use their rules against them. Waiting for some good fairy to come along and end vote fraud is not a strategy.
Steve Schmitt and Nichole Wallace are two such parasites pointed out by Vance.
Interestingly enough, the Republicans received about six million more votes than the Democrats. Yet, if not for Lee Zeldin running such a strong campaign in New York, Pelosi would still be Speaker.
What Vance did not point out is the sorry state of several state Republican parties. Pennsylvania and Michigan are two examples of this.
For quite a while now, Arizona has been a “swing” state. Contaminated by the McCain machine, Hobbs isn’t the first Democrat to get elected governor there. Napolitano was the governor there a while back. Flake was a libertarian nitwit Senator and a huge disappointment.
“Fraud only matters if it’s close.”
I have to wonder about that. The early-voting numbers from Arizona are eye-opening:
https://www.upliftcampaigns.com/azballotreturns
Counter to the popular narrative, Republicans and Democrats were practically even in early voting–only about 20K separated the two–and Lake obliterated Hobbs in Election Day-voting.
And yet, somehow, Hobbs and the Democrats were able to overcome that and “win.”
If that race wasn’t lopsided enough for fraud not to be a factor, no possible Republican lead is safe.
Counter to the popular narrative, Republicans and Democrats were practically even in early voting–only about 20K separated the two–and Lake obliterated Hobbs in Election Day-voting.
How the independents broke likely was the decisive factor, along with how many Republican voters were McCain Republicans who voted against Lake.
I guess it depends on what your definition of “close” … In 2020, the state of New York “accidentally” mailed out 150,000 unrequested absentee ballots to the wrong people before correcting their error and mailing out another 150,000 to the correct recipients.
… That’s a lot of potential votes is all I’m sayin’
The size of what “close” means every year fraud is successful and unpunished. In 2008 “close” might have been a few hundred votes, now elections within tens of thousands can certainly be swayed.
But even if it really was only “very close” elections that could be swayed, it would be dumb to not do anything about it. That would be like playing in a baseball league where you lost all ties and even all games where you actually were up by a run and saying “well, we should always have at least a two run lead in the first place.” If you lose ties and narrow victories than you can only maintain victory over your opponents if they are pathetically poor players. And say whatever else you will about the dems, they know how to play politics.
We have to understand that mail-in voting isn’t the only way we’ve made it easier for voters. Easier registration and early voting also have effects. It’s long been the case that increased turnout favors Democrats, so there’s no surprise that easier voting favors them. And it’s part of the process now. Any proposed restriction would be opposed by everyone who finds the current process more convenient.
Fundraising, though: as far as I recall, the Republicans have traditionally led in small donors. If they’ve fallen behind in the necessary technology, they need to fix it. I always hear talk of grifters, but I don’t know who’s who (not that I’d send money to anyone other than a specific campaign anyway). And the tech that can better target fundraising should also be able to better target GOTV campaigns.
One other caveat. When a bunch of campaigns fail by small amounts, it’s easy to blame every fundraising operation for every loss. But to some extent, it’s a shot in the dark.
How the independents broke likely was the decisive factor, along with how many Republican voters were McCain Republicans who voted against Lake.
Lake won 70% of the Election Day vote. If I have my numbers correct, roughly a million people voted in person on Election Day, which would translate to a 400K-vote advantage. Every single independent voting Hobbs would still have needed Republican help to put her over the edge.
Do you really think that in this environment, independents broke that strongly for Hobbs, and there were that many McCain Republicans?
and there were that many McCain Republicans?
Lake ran about six percent behind the Republican congressional candidates in Arizona, and that would probably be the McCain Republicans. I would encourage Lake to file an election challenge, but the result might not be based upon fraud, other than fraud at the margins.
Seems the Dems had and has millions of money to pay off election workers courtesy of FTX.