The tightness of Abdul’s primary kinda has me worried. Apparently, there was an amount of Republicans who signed into the open Democratic primary to try to tank his chances. I don’t think we have the numbers for how many yet, but it will be concerning if it is only a small portion.
Current evidence says otherwise in regards to who the ‘weaker’ candidate is, but that doesn’t mean the fearmongering won’t activate enough R voters in the general to out vote the progressive’s momentum.
Echelon Insights suggested that Republican-leaning voters may have helped Stevens in the Detroit metro area.
Evidence implies there is proof and ‘Echelon Insights suggested that Republican-leaning voters may have helped Stevens in the Detroit metro area’ is definitely not proof.
We’ll see if the same tactics used to win NYC work in rural counties.
Here’s to hoping!
The tightness of Abdul’s primary kinda has me worried. Apparently, there was an amount of Republicans who signed into the open Democratic primary to try to tank his chances. I don’t think we have the numbers for how many yet, but it will be concerning if it is only a small portion.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the republicans voted for him knowing he’d be the easier target to defeat.
Much the same as Trump wanting to run against Sanders every election.
Current evidence says otherwise in regards to who the ‘weaker’ candidate is, but that doesn’t mean the fearmongering won’t activate enough R voters in the general to out vote the progressive’s momentum.
https://decisiondeskhq.substack.com/p/michigan-senate-el-sayed-stevens-rogers-primary-missouri-kansas-washington-virginia-tennessee-august
Evidence implies there is proof and ‘Echelon Insights suggested that Republican-leaning voters may have helped Stevens in the Detroit metro area’ is definitely not proof.
Volunteer count: Abdul had 10k people sign on to help with the campaign.
Polls: Abdul constantly led in the polls.
Democracy: Michigan Democrats believe he is the strongest candidate, so the majority voted for him.
None of that is proof of what you claimed was evidence.
Ah, my bad, I misread that as proof of which D candidate was stronger.
I said current evidence of which candidate the Republicans were potentially supporting. Is that source not evidence? Is it just fake news?
Nowhere did I say hard proof.
I guess we will see. :)