-Yes, that is a basic fact -- one which your party ignores. If it really -supported unions, which it does not, it would be constantly shouting that it -needs 60 pro-labor Senators in order to help ordinary people. It simply -doesn't care. It prefers to let half the population languish and fight it -out in so-called "red" states (you're tipping your captive technocratic hand -here, Nate) over who's more moderate and small-government and disinterested -in black people.
Michael, how many ways can you demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about?
National Democratic money for Senate this year is going overwhelmingly to "red states" like the Carolinas, Oklahoma, Alaska, Colorado. A few headlines:
"Knowles seemingly getting more help from party than Senate rival Murkowski" Kodiak Daily Mirror "The national Democratic Party pumped more than $1.5 million into Alaska this spring and summer, largely to help Knowles."
"DeMint to get more help from GOP" The State (South Carolina) "The National Republican Senatorial Committee has changed its mind about spending money in South Carolina. After indicating last week it would pull its ads on behalf of GOP U.S. Senate nominee Jim DeMint, the group will spend $1 million between now and Election Day, Nov. 2.. . That compares with more than $3 million in ads purchased by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on behalf of Inez Tenenbaum, said Terry Sullivan, DeMint 's campaign chairman."
"U.S. Senate in the balance" Charlotte Observer "the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. . . will spend about $3 million in South Carolina and $2 million in North Carolina." (more than what the GOP committee is spending)
So are you capable of admitting that the statement above is just complete horseshit?
Nathan Newman