Current Events > Majority of Louisiana House and Senate races uncontested.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/1703191638732919088

The DNC needs to stop ignoring the South. That's what caused Texas to be in the shape it's in right now.

The DNC isn't interested in fixing the problem and as soon as we get rid of the GOP they're next.

They don't want to waste money on campaigns that have zero chance of winning

RuneterranSnap posted...

The DNC isn't interested in fixing the problem and as soon as we get rid of the GOP they're next.

We can't rely on the DNC to fix the problem?

VGAddict90 posted...

We can't rely on the DNC to fix the problem?

Does it look like they're trying to fix the problem now?

Because we have Texas and Florida both openly violating federal law, failing their duties, and endangering their citizens and the DNC sits on its ass.

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

They don't want to waste money on campaigns that have zero chance of winning

Whether they have any chance of winning isn't the point. The point is the DNC needs to stop just rolling over and letting Republicans run unopposed. Make the RNC spend money on red state races instead of more competitive races.

VGAddict90 posted...

Whether they have any chance of winning isn't the point. The point is the DNC needs to stop just rolling over and letting Republicans run unopposed. Make the RNC spend money on red state races instead of more competitive races.

But thats also forcing the DNC to spend money that could be put towards more competitive races, so what advantage does that create?

VGAddict90 posted...

Whether they have any chance of winning isn't the point. The point is the DNC needs to stop just rolling over and letting Republicans run unopposed. Make the RNC spend money on red state races instead of more competitive races.

The RNC wouldn't even need to spend money to win those races though

VGAddict90 posted...

Whether they have any chance of winning isn't the point. The point is the DNC needs to stop just rolling over and letting Republicans run unopposed. Make the RNC spend money on red state races instead of more competitive races.

Why would the DNC get involved in state-level races?

That'd be the responsibility of the Louisiana Democratic Party

Tenlaar posted...

But thats also forcing the DNC to spend money that could be put towards more competitive races, so what advantage does that create?

The DNC should at least have a presence in every state.

VGAddict90 posted...

The DNC should at least have a presence in every state.

That doesnt answer the question I asked about what advantage this creates for Democrats in competitive states. Forcing Republicans to spend money in states that arent in question also forces Democrats to spend money in states that arent in question.

This is on the local party. The DNC can't give support to candidates that don't exist.

Tenlaar posted...

That doesnt answer the question I asked about what advantage this creates for Democrats in competitive states. Forcing Republicans to spend money in states that arent in question also forces Democrats to spend money in states that arent in question.

You never know. A good candidate could win. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

VGAddict90 posted...

You never know. A good candidate could win. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

Okay, you clearly didnt out any thought into what you said and are now refusing to acknowledge it.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Even the reddest of red states have a significant number of Dems in them. You might be surprised.

I guess the focus is on people like Boebert and Santos. Which lets these little things fly under the radar despite adding up if this happens in other states were DNC doesn't try. Isn't that how we got Santos in first place DNC and nobody cared to do any background check while he was running lol.

Doesn't Louisiana have the same problem as Georgia, where people who wanted to run in certain contests were harassed and threatened by supporters of the incumbent and decided it wasn't worth it?

BlueTigerLion posted...

I guess the focus is on people like Boebert and Santos. Which lets these little things fly under the radar despite adding up if this happens in other states were DNC doesn't try. Isn't that how we got Santos in first place DNC and nobody cared to do any background check while he was running lol.

It doesn't work that way. The local party has to make the first move. You start with discussion groups on certain issues (abortion/environment/labor/health care), then clubs, then "sacrificial lamb" candidates (some of whom get elected), then stronger candidates who get DNC/DCCC-DSCC and PAC money.

Unless there's a celebrity candidate (ha!), that's how it works.

VGAddict90 posted...

Even the reddest of red states have a significant number of Dems in them. You might be surprised.

And these are the ones that need to get things started. Democracy works from the bottom up, not the top down. It can't be imposed, as history has proven.

Tenlaar posted...

But thats also forcing the DNC to spend money that could be put towards more competitive races, so what advantage does that create?

A disadvantage.

Even if they are going to lose, there should be someone to vote for.