Now you're even further undermining your original premise (though amusingly I don't think you even realize it), but I don't honestly know what to credit for how you managed to accomplish that.

I understand that you want an explanation that is ideologically satisfying to you. Put simply: you're not going to find one given the available information that we have. It is beyond obvious that the GOP's edge in big money was a major factor in mitigating their losses, it might have even been so large as to completely outweigh every advantage the Democrats had collectively. Trying to argue around that point or explain away its significance is just foolish.

Circling back: precinct and county-level data is trickling out now, useful for fitting the presidential race alongside the other modern presidentials and seeing the trends that developed over time. More interesting is still the Senate and House races, since we're getting as close to "complete" information as we can get in the age of dark money.

While I was on vacation, the final FEC report of the 2016 cycle was released (the one that highlights the leadup to Election Day, when big-money groups especially are hoping for a flood of donations and spending they can conceal from voters until after Election Day). Like I noted after Election Day in the first part of this post, the GOP had an overwhelming advantage when it came to Super PAC and other billionaire-financed spending. At the time I noted that the GOP relied "almost exclusively" on it down the stretch, but the last FEC report showed that the GOP's advantage in big/dark money was even more staggering than people originally thought: it was definitely enough to offset virtually every other advantage the Democrats had created throughout the cycle. This article goes into some detail, and if you care to browse the actual report you'll see some familiar names of future Cabinet Secretaries and other Swamp Creatures that the PEOTUS claimed to despise when he was campaigning/projecting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-super-pac_us_5849eb76e4b0bd9c3dfc03cd and http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00571703/1133046/sa/ALL

can a mod close this?

No.

lmao

Thread contains political content and regardless of its accuracy/hackuracy, it's a better thread than almost 100% of the threads on the top page because it actually has numbers and links and is on topic.

mostly joking, but are we going to carry this until next fall so it can be relevant again?

if i had the option to perma-close any thread it would be the "how to get to heaven" thread

I'm sorry, does substantive information and discussion hurting your tiny brain? When I've requested past outdated threads of mine to be closed, such as the 2016 primary thread, the official answer I was usually given by every new member of the Moderator team is that there's no reason to close a thread because if there's a lack of interest it will simply fall off the front pages. That's the answer they give because they like to keep as many threads open as they can, because it helps the overall board stats when hurr durrs post memes or otherwise useless content.

So go cry about it in a corner.

like you on November 9th? why would he do that?
obligatory: thanks for another fucking laugh

you revived a months old thread, i made a joke at your expense. deal with it