Quote (Santara @ Jun 1 2014 06:25pm)
Listen stupid, I didn't say Franken's seat was in danger, I said the path got a tiny bit rougher. McFadden has bankroll, which means he can at least make a public case for himself, unlike the rest of the candidates who lack cash. You didn't contradict what I said, so stop with your epically moronic "Lol, noes."
But
it didn't get any rougher, because McFadden was always expected to be the challenger. The only electoral impact that the convention
might have had on the race is that Franken's path to reelection could have gotten
even easier had Dahlberg forced the race to August. No one expected anyone to supplant McFadden as the likely nominee and the fact that no one did does not change the electoral calculus in any way. Franken was the overwhelming favorite before, he remains the overwhelming favorite. One could even make the argument that based on the way events transpired at the convention, Franken's odds
actually improved despite him drawing the challenger he was always likely to draw.
I didn't say that you said Franken's seat is in danger, your electoral commentary is so irrelevant and inaccurate that it's barely even worth responding to. This thread is primarilly about the overall state of play and how it is characterized by popular media. My second paragraph addressed the larger narrative that's been supported frequently over the first half of 2014, which the Minnesota election is a part of, that contended that safe Democratic seats held by popular Democratic incumbents were magically going to be competitive this year because the GOP had allegedly recruited capable candidates. That fairytale didn't pan out, and it's one of the primary causes for the recent projections listed in the OP to be less GOP-friendly than the projections made at the beginning of the year.
Because you have a history of offering such mind-bogglingly poor electoral analysis, you can safely assume in the future that I am addressing the commentary offered by people who hold actual influence (rightly or wrongly) over how the election cycle is being perceived by the public, and not your commentary individually. If there's any confusion, it should be cleared up pretty easily by taking note of the same writing style used in the preceding post: separating different arguments into separate paragraphs. The first paragraph in the post addressed your incorrect claim, the second addressed the overall electoral argument being perpetuated by the media that remains off-base.
This post was edited by Pollster on Jun 2 2014 03:04am