Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Massachusetts

hughee99

(16,113 posts)

6. It could be,

Reply to MADem (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 19, 2012, 05:30 PM

Feb 2012

I didn't think he had needed any more, though I just googled quickly and can't see that he's done the initial turn in either. Some grumblings about a teabagger candidate running against him in a primary as well, but no one's declared yet.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why does Scott Brown need signatures to get on the ballot? [View all] TheCowsCameHome Feb 2012 OP

As the republican nominee for the Senate race, he shouldn't need signatures to be on the ballot. hughee99 Feb 2012 #1

Yes he does--he needs ten thousand of them. MADem Feb 2012 #3

I was under the impression he already submitted them a few weeks ago. hughee99 Feb 2012 #4

Maybe some of the signatures were invalidated? MADem Feb 2012 #5

It could be, hughee99 Feb 2012 #6

Yup, even Kennedy needed them back in his last.. MarkCharles Feb 2012 #10

I signed for him and was pleased to do it. nt MADem Feb 2012 #11

Nope. If you want on the ballot, you have to prove that people want you there. MADem Feb 2012 #2

I signed one for Elizabeth Warren yesterday MannyGoldstein Feb 2012 #7

I'd sign one for her, TheCowsCameHome Feb 2012 #9

And that is the way it should be for every election. RC Feb 2012 #8