$30m on the democrats side. But it was an expected loss in a red district to replace a republican. The fact that it was close should worry Trump and co.
That's a good talking point but it wasn't really close, yes compared to the past where the incumbent wins by 20+% but special elections to replace an incumbent almost never have large percentages like the incumbents do. On top of that, you are talking 4% more votes, that will be a very large thing to overcome in 17 months because the area population probably isn't going to go up drastically in the next year.
Another $50 million spent for a losing campaign.
$30m on the democrats side. But it was an expected loss in a red district to replace a republican. The fact that it was close should worry Trump and co.
That's a good talking point but it wasn't really close, yes compared to the past where the incumbent wins by 20+% but special elections to replace an incumbent almost never have large percentages like the incumbents do. On top of that, you are talking 4% more votes, that will be a very large thing to overcome in 17 months because the area population probably isn't going to go up drastically in the next year.