The Democrats need to run someone in every local race in every city in the US, even the reddest of red areas. Why? So the people who live there can see that the Democrats do care and listen and want to help and can push back on the firehose of lies the country is about to get over the next 4 years. We've given up on way too many red areas and need to start the work to get them back.
The Democrats need to run someone in every local race in every city in the US, even the reddest of red areas. Why? So the people who live there can see that the Democrats do care and listen and want to help and can push back on the firehose of lies the country is about to get over the next 4 years. We've given up on way too many red areas and need to start the work to get them back.
Unfortunately (as a Dem living in a deep red district in Kansas), the money is not there. We get a Democratic House seat challenger here in the Big First about every 4-6 years, and they never do better than 30-35%, so the state party doesn't think it's worth it to spend the money. Which I can understand, but it is frustrating.
The Democrats need to run someone in every local race in every city in the US, even the reddest of red areas. Why? So the people who live there can see that the Democrats do care and listen and want to help and can push back on the firehose of lies the country is about to get over the next 4 years. We've given up on way too many red areas and need to start the work to get them back.
Unfortunately (as a Dem living in a deep red district in Kansas), the money is not there. We get a Democratic House seat challenger here in the Big First about every 4-6 years, and they never do better than 30-35%, so the state party doesn't think it's worth it to spend the money. Which I can understand, but it is frustrating.