mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 18,043
- 10,224
- 136
The article stated the reasons they didn't have a candidate.
Really? I just gave the article a quick once-over and this is the closest bit I could find to your assertion:
Chicago Sun Times said:Republicans didn’t bother to muster a credible candidate because the district is so Democratic. There is always a debate if parties should recruit candidates to run races they are highly likely to lose.
What the article states here is not a reason but an observation coupled with an opinion. Such an observation on its own is as valid a reason as a Democrat saying "I won't run for President because the current President is a Republican".
At this point, your opinion for the underlying reason for them not fielding their own candidate is a valid hypothesis and my opinion of yours and such a motivation is equally valid.
Still no response as to why comparing US and UK politics is invalid until you say it isn't though.
Last edited: