As Jon Stewart and many others have already pointed out -Two of our closest allies just recently managed to announce and host national elections in a matter of weeks. It’s nothing short of absurd that we allegedly can’t even field a new candidate for a single party in the course of four months.
But historically, in the US, the candidate with the biggest war chest wins the election.
Biden has considerably more than Trump. Inertia alone is almost certain to guarantee that Trump loses with Biden on the ticket. That being said, one of the only times this wasn’t true meant Trump became president.
From what I read, she did have the bigger war chest. I am sorry if I was unclear. I was stating that Donald Trump is a rare candidate who has won without the larger funding base.
As Jon Stewart and many others have already pointed out -Two of our closest allies just recently managed to announce and host national elections in a matter of weeks. It’s nothing short of absurd that we allegedly can’t even field a new candidate for a single party in the course of four months.
I wish our system was theirs.
But historically, in the US, the candidate with the biggest war chest wins the election.
Biden has considerably more than Trump. Inertia alone is almost certain to guarantee that Trump loses with Biden on the ticket. That being said, one of the only times this wasn’t true meant Trump became president.
So you’re saying that Hillary Clinton losing to Trump was because she didn’t have as large of a war chest?
Or was that not part of history?
From what I read, she did have the bigger war chest. I am sorry if I was unclear. I was stating that Donald Trump is a rare candidate who has won without the larger funding base.
Precisely.
You have one candidate who beat the odds and won with less money. He will win with more money.
Kamala is the only path forward.
You can’t point out the most obvious example that proves money isn’t everything.
“Nooo, you can’t point to the very relevant counterpoint to what’s being claimed. That’s not fair.”