What I wrote was incredibly straightforward; if you actually had difficulty comprehending it then that really suggests a problem (a pretty significant one at that) on your end. An incumbent senator can't credibly claim to be "an outsider." If he feels like he needs to hide his service from voters because his record is shit then fine, that's his business, but he can't laughably attack the person he replaced in an institution as an insider when he himself has been on the inside of it these past 6 years, while his opponent has been outside of it.

Rather than taking the message and trying to work backwards fitting it to a specific person, all that's really needed is the simple acknowledgement that this is a message cultivated with many people in mind, in this case: every Republican incumbent in a seat that could not be gerrymandered and who now has to go before voters with little/nothing to show for their time in office. Maybe you simply weren't aware of this fact, and that's perfectly fine, but there's no pretending basic facts are just "spin."

i stopped reading when you got dumb again. Say's who? the guy who has an interest in discrediting such a claim or someone objective? because when you have someone who's fairly new to politics and new to Washington compared to his peers going up against a career politician with plenty of contacts in Washington i'd say its pretty clear he means he's the outsider candidate in his own race, but its quite fair to make the argument that Johnson fits the definition of outside inherently. If 100 people had to label one of the two an outsider it would be 99 honest people and 1 shill.

People who know the meaning of the words being used? I guess if you aren't capable of competently discussing these things, I should at least thank you for keeping me entertained all the same with all the ad hominem and the constant projection with whining "spin." So: you have my thanks.

@Topic -- First House update sometime within the next week, depending on what the tech pulls together.

Quick recap before the 1st debate. I've been too busy working with House races to pull together a broad look at such a large playing field (~35 GOP-held seats, ~12 Dem-held) but what's going on in both the House/Senate is basically a repeat of 2014's fundraising dynamic: Democrats are dominating in committee fundraising, raising more money from more people, causing Republicans to rely on a small number of millionaires to bail them out. And rather than wait until September like in 2014, conservative mega-donors started dumping dark money in early August; Sheldon Adelson became the latest bankroller to try to save the GOP's majorities, committing $40 mil. http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/19/politics/sheldon-adelson-2016-spending/

In the PRES race the most important data is new voter reg. #s. Clinton/Dems made key gains in VA/FL/NC/CO/NV/PA/AZ, which you can already start to see them focusing on compared to OH/IA/WI/NH (the latter 2 because Clinton believes she can hold them with less involvement). The Trump campaign announced their intention for a $100 mil TV ad buy (plus $40 mil for digital). People are skeptical since Trump's campaign has a pattern of over-promising and under-delivering when it comes to their media buys, but they say they've paid for the first $15 mil of it already. They'll target the four states Trump's basically betting it all on (FL/NC/OH/PA), 7 other battlegrounds (CO/IA/MI/NH/NV/VA), plus 3 new states no one has spent in (ME/NM/WI). http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-ups-ad-spending-to-140m-expands-into-3-more-states/

Quick Senate update.

Was past time to reorder the Battlegrounds. The Democrats are pulling more and more money out of their OH reservation and spending it in NC and MO as those two get more competitive, and to help protect their lead in IN. The GOP's big-money advantage is causing the Democrats to intensely focus on the top 8 races, which is causing incumbents like McCain, Grassley, and even Rubio to see little committee/outside spending even though they're all facing challenging reelection races. Here's the new order, with some tiers inserted to illustrate competitiveness.

Senate Battlegrounds - Ranked in order of likeliest to flip parties
IL.
WI.
<steep dropoff after these two, which the Dems expect to be able to pickup>
IN.
PA.
NH.
NV.
NC.
MO.
FL.
<another dropoff after these 7, they're on the knife's edge>
AZ.
IA.
GA.
OH.
<step droffoff after these, every race below here is seeing virtually $0 in committee/outside group advertising>
AR.
CO.
KY.

Quick Senate update:

The Dems are still steamrolling towards Election Day in hopes of retaking their Senate majority. 2016 is set to be a replay of 2014 when 10+ seats were on the table right up until the final day of the cycle; the Democrats are looking to expand beyond pickups of IL/WI to a net gain that's as large as potentially +9/+10 if Trump drags his party all the way down with him. The GOP had a massive spending advantage in August/September (NRSC's $31 mil/9 states vs. DSCC's $13 mil/7 states, in addition to an outrageous funding edge provided by outside groups), but from early October onward the Dems (at least currently) have much more TV time reserved ($44 mil/11 states vs. $10 mil/10 states). The NRSC was the first to take a line of credit, borrowing $15 mil, and they've got to hope that GOP outside groups continue to pour in millions in dark money just like they've been doing.

Here's a look at just DSCC/NRSC reservations from 10/11-Election Day:

WI: Dems $4 mil, GOP $1.9 mil
PA: Dems $17.2 mil, GOP $8.5 mil
NH: Dems $15.8 mil, GOP $12.3 mil
IN: Dems $7 mil, GOP $4.3 mil
MO: Dems $8.1 mil, GOP $6.4 mil
NC: Dems $11.9 mil, GOP $9.3 mil
NV: Dems $12.5 mil, GOP $12.2 mil
FL: Dems $4.2 mil, GOP $9.6 mil -- this was before the DSCC announced before the first Murphy/Rubio debate that they'd cancel what was left of their reservation (last week of the election), so expect the Dems' number here to basically plummet to $0 and the money to shift to NC/MO.

A quick peel back of the curtain, and what could constitute a House update.

The "NetBoard" has become the newest tool in campaign land, shorthand for measuring/comparing the Democrats' chances of retaking the House as Trump's campaign continues to plummet. The formatting is simple (which is why it might look a little confusing here, but I'm not going to go through and change everything). Basically you have a state abbreviation, what the Dems' need to try to shoot for as a realistic net change, quick notes (if any) on the key races. You delete all the lines for states that the GOP gerrymandered to a ridiculous degree and for states that the Dems are already maxed out in. This board for example has the Dems picking up 26 seats, just short of winning back the majority:

AK +1 - Strong recruit, incumbent is years past his prime.
AZ +0 - AZ-2 was possible with a better candidate and may fall in a wave anyway. AZ-1 will be a tough hold but manageable.
CA +2 - Must hold CA-24. Dems have a golden opportunity with CA-10, CA-21, CA-25, CA-49 all tossups.
CO +2 - CO-6 is a must-win, CO-3 would greatly help their cause, it’s a “Majority Maker.”
FL +2 - Trades FL-2 for FL-10. Must pick up FL-13 and FL-26. FL-18 will be a tough hold but manageable. FL-7 would be a “Majority Maker.” FL-27 would fall in a massive wave.
IL +1 - IL-10 is a must-win. IL-12 probably falls in large-enough wave but needed a much better candidate in any event. IL-13 would fall in a wave without a Dem-as-Indy.
IN +1 - IN-9 is fluke possibility. IN-2 might fall in a wave and would make their path much easier.
IA +2 - IA-1 is a must-win. IA-3 is only slightly-less important.
KS +0 - KS-3 is a fluke possibility, only possible due to Trump being hilariously disliked.
ME +1 - ME+1 is a must-win.
MI +1 - MI-1 and MI-7 are “Majority Makers,” Dems need at least one. MI-8 would be in same category if weren’t relying on emergency candidate. MI-11 could fall in a wave.
MN +1 - MN-2 is a must-win. MN-3 will fall in a wave. MN-8 will be a tough hold but always manageable.
MT +0 - Juneau a terrific candidate with proven electoral record, Zinke is a fluke winner despite his strong bio. MT-AL is a “Majority Maker” so the Dems need it if they’re going to retake the House.
NE +0 - NE-2 always a tough hold but definitely manageable with weak GOP candidate and Clinton organizing in Omaha for the EV.
NV +2 - NV-4 is a must-win. NV-3 is only slightly-less important.
NH +1 - NH-1 is a must-win with all of Guinta’s baggage.
NJ +1 - NJ-5 is only race worth watching, Dems fielded terrible candidates in NJ-2 and NJ-3.
NM +0 - NM-2 could fall in a wave but needs a way better candidate.
NY +2 - NY-19 and NY-22 are “Majority Makers.” NY-1, NY-23, and NY-24 would take strong Clinton coattails. NY-21 will have to wait until next cycle with stronger recruit and no Green, and NY-11 would need a T1 recruit too.
NC +0 - Too Gerrymandered (GOP). NC-13 could fall in a wave due to fluke circumstances but otherwise the whole state can be ignored.
OH +0 - Too Gerrymandered (GOP). OH-6 and OH-14 could have fallen in a wave if Dems had better candidates.
PA +1 - PA-8 is a “Majority Maker.” PA-16 falls in a wave. PA-6 and PA-7 need better candidates.
SC +0 - Too Gerrymandered (GOP). Fran Person a great challenger (SC-5), if Clinton overperforms it could fall in a wave.
TX +1 - Too Gerrymandered (GOP). TX-23 is the only competitive district in the entire state, and it’s a “Majority Maker.”
UT +1 - Owens came close in 2014 of all years, Trump is historically weak, Love is a terrible fit.
VA +2 - Picks up VA-4 for free. VA-10 is tough but a “Majority Maker.” VA-5 could be a steal.
WI +1 - WI-8 is a “Majority Maker.” Both WI-6 and WI-7 could have fallen in a wave with better candidates.

PRES update:

Clinton's obvious path to victory is holding the six states of MI/WI/PA/CO/VA/NH for 272 EVs. There were 69 October polls in those states and Clinton led in 68 of them (the remaining poll was a tie from fraud firm Gravis). As far back as August, Trump began putting everything he had into a 4-state strategy that relied on winning FL/NC/OH/PA to reach 272 EVs (provided he could hold AZ/UT). Trump is looking at the early voting numbers (in FL and NC especially) and realizing those key states are way too close to count on, so now he's having to resort to campaigning in blue states MI/WI/NM. Clinton hasn't spent anything on ads in those states over the entire campaign.

Trump claims his final TV ad buy will cover $25 million in CO/FL/IA/ME/MI/NC/NH/NM/NV/OH/PA/VA/WI; he also has a radio ad featuring Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. that's targeting evangelical Christian communities in a couple of other states (including AZ). Clinton's main advertising is going to AZ/FL/IA/NC/NH/NV/OH/PA, and she's going back on the air in CO for the first time since July ($500k buy in Denver), and doing the same in VA. Clinton's Super PAC, PUSA, is spending $11 mil during the final week mostly in FL/PA/OH. The NRA has six-figure buys in the same states, the "Stop Hillary PAC" has a six-figure buy in AZ/CO, and Trump's "Rebuilding America Now" PAC is spending $700k in the Philadelphia media market.

Some key races in the Senate are coming down to the wire: Indiana, New Hampshire, Missouri and Nevada. McGinty looks favored to take Pennsylvania for the Democrats and Burr is favored to take North Carolina for the GOP.

It's approximately a 50-50 shot that either party takes control of the Senate. Republicans have a slightly higher chance of getting 51 seats, but if it's a 50-50 Dem/Rep split, the VP will break the ties.

The Senate is the underrated part of this election. If HRC wins the White House and it's a 50-50 split, we will see Kaine break a lot of ties, including nominations for the Supreme Court.

MN-01 defending Democrat Tim Walz is neck and neck at 70% of precincts in. Guy does really well in a Republican district year after year.