Changes at the RNC...guess who's weighing in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The best part of this is that they may win the battle and lose the war. By investing all of the money into Trump, and neglecting down ballot races, they may find that they elect Trump, but end up with a fully Democratic Congress. There are candidates in both chambers running for election that are in close races and without national party support, some borderline candidates may lose.

This is exactly what happened to Obama after winning in 2008, he controlled the operation and moved it to Chicago and while he was re-elected, everything downballot imploded. You’d think some of these people would watch and learn.

Hmm, I don’t remember that but I’m pretty sure that Obama didn’t treat it like his own personal kitty like Trump is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The best part of this is that they may win the battle and lose the war. By investing all of the money into Trump, and neglecting down ballot races, they may find that they elect Trump, but end up with a fully Democratic Congress. There are candidates in both chambers running for election that are in close races and without national party support, some borderline candidates may lose.

This is exactly what happened to Obama after winning in 2008, he controlled the operation and moved it to Chicago and while he was re-elected, everything downballot imploded. You’d think some of these people would watch and learn.

Uh, no, this isn't what happened under Obama (or Hillary)

Obama campaign: Chicago, DNC, DC.
Hillary campaign: Brooklyn, DNC, DC.

In neither case were the operations completely consolidated as to be a single entity. And in neither case, was the party HQ moved away from DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Woman with no experience nominated for co-chair can’t even say the word co-chair

And thinks there are 81 states