Thanks for the laugh. I knew I could count on you to launch into a well rehearsed diatribe that speaks much and says little. gg

This post was edited by Santara on Oct 16 2014 05:58pm

House fundraising reports from Q3 are out and as usual they're loaded with key information. Daily Kos Elections routinely compiles this information every quarter, located here [See: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/16/1337020/-Daily-Kos-Elections-3Q-2014-House-fundraising-reports-roundup]. Three main takeaways:

1) The story in the House is still all about the key 14 races outlined in this post last month. Little has changed. Almost the entirety of the swing, however big it is, will be decided by these races. The good news for Democrats is that they dominated the campaign-related money game here: they both outraised and outspent opponents in 8 of the 14 races, outspent in 2, outraised in 1, and only trailed 3 opponents in both areas. The bad news for Democrats is that:

2) Outside money, particularly supporting Republicans, is playing a large role as expected and is erasing the large fundraising advantage Democrats built up over most of the cycle. Most of the key districts, as well as many districts that make up a second tier of competitive races, are being flooded by GOP outside money. DCCC chair Steve Israel is sounding the alarm that GOP outside groups are outspending Democrats 2:1 in House races down the stretch [See: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/steve-israel-dccc-house-candidates-111908.html] so Democrats have two choices, neither of them ideal: get outspent considerably in the final 3 weeks and let the GOP juice its pickup total, or pay exorbitant rates to make late-game ad buys to try to push spending towards parity.

3) The Democrats succeeded in their goal of gaining marker data for 20-30 districts that they'll contest in 2016 in what is likely to be more favorable conditions. This is a frequent tactic in House elections when the minority party knows taking back the majority is unlikely. It's always overlooked but has many times led to the party regaining the majority the very next cycle (Republicans did it in 1992 while Democrats did it to historic effect in 2004). If the Democrats take back the House in 2016, thanks possibly to sizable presidential win by Hillary Clinton, few people will recognize that a lot of the credit for their House wins will go to what was done in many districts this year. More on this after Election Day.



In reality it firmly discredits the silly claim made at the outset as well as the silly claim you stupidly made in support of it. Amusingly the only reason why you'd believe such a thorough rebuke says little is because you happen to have little understanding of the subject matter, and that's being charitable.

No, it sure doesn't. It's in your head. Old schticks repeated ad nauseum aren't remotely relevant to anything I actually said.

Yes sorry, it clearly does. This is understandably what happens when an argument that's supported by data, mine, collides with a claim that is completely unsupported by factual evidence, his/yours. Every single thing written in the post is not only relevant to the silly claim, obviously, but it completely refutes it by invoking factually-supported information. Once again the only reason you'd believe such a thorough response says little is because you simply lack the capacity to understand the subject matter.

This is of course completely unsurprising, but the ignorance is an unwelcome distraction. It's so much more preferable when electoral commentary is firmly grounded in reality. Though nothing about the copious information that was presented was an "old schtick." The people who I regularly discuss these subjects with would never offer such a plainly ridiculous theory (ebola's potency as a galvanizing or organizing issue) that so obviously clashes with the facts, so I would never have the need to recall or repeat the information used to discredit the claim when it was made here.

Thanks for the laugh. Once again trying mightily to spin. No matter how much uber-repetitive shin you spew, you can't get away from the simple fact that the executive branch party bears the brunt of the public's displeasure. You're free to call it reality, but it's only your reality - like usual.

As usual, your pathetic attempts at projection are not going to work here. No one's spinning anything. As always I've merely invoked factual evidence that completely smashes your claims. If you're incapable of raising your commentary to a level that passes the basic smell test of adhering to widely-available information then take the know-nothing nonsense elsewhere. Once again: there's not a single piece of evidence that support your claims. Amusingly every single piece of available information undermines them instead. Not only is the public not displeased with the president himself over the issue (the data points presented earlier point to the exact opposite conclusion), but the public isn't displeased with the president's party over the issue, either. These are just facts. You don't have to like them but they're not going anywhere.

The only recent poll to really dive into the issue, an ABC/WaPo survey that happened to oversample conservatives, found almost identical support and opposition to how Obama himself is handling the issue [See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/10/14/National-Politics/Polling/release_366.xml]. Fewer people are worried about contracting Ebola than there were fearing the swine flu as a comparative issue, which should tell you how incendiary it is at present. Views coincide almost exactly with the wider partisan preference that will actually dictate how these elections are decided [See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/upshot/the-partisan-divide-on-ebola-preparedness.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1], meaning it is largely forgettable as an organizing issue because Republicans, who were always going to vote Republican, are overly concerned about an epidemic in the U.S. while everyone who isn't manipulated by Faux News imbecility is skeptical.

In addition to these data that refute your claims, there's also the tone of political coverage to consider. It has been generally favorable due to the White House canceling political events in order for Obama to take on a more visible role in managing the response. Not only is there cause to believe that this will play an outsized role in determining how opinions are shaped, which is a net positive for them, but it could restore an overarching theme that has benefited Democrats and not Republicans throughout the election cycle: that the GOP is more interested in politicizing issues than addressing them earnestly. The House lawsuit, the unnecessary government shutdown, and the Bachmann-King immigration messaging bill are just a few redirections that has kept the unfavorable theme alive and Ebola could restore it.

I'll say it again: if you're not able to clear the very low bar of requiring your commentary on electoral politics be informed by basic, agreed-upon facts then take your shit commentary elsewhere. Informed people read this thread, there's no appetite for the distraction that your fact-free babble creates.

You mean Obama's pocket media machine is going to play him in a favorable light like always? No fucking way, broken record man!

Only poll to dive into it doesn't matter when the issue is just coming to a head in the US, seeing as we just got our first cases. Give it time bro.

Lol, "informed people read this thread." Like usual, your opinion of yourself is vastly overrated.

Your quote just said it's not going to move the needle, and you interpret that as it's going to move the needle. You literally just ignored the first half of what you quoted, and extrapolated the second half to meen what they specifically said WOULDN'T happen

"Move the needle in specific races" is what it said, and I quoted it that way precisely because I wanted it understood that I get that. The idea is more about the general sense of the public's trust in the government, currently headed by a Muslim Donkey.

Distrust in government hurts the Republicans just like it hurts Democrats. Neither party's numbers are very high. You're just hiding behind vagueness when you say "general sense of the public's trust in government". If you want to claim that it's going to have an adverse effect, quote some polls, give some evidence. Like I always say, have a bit of skepticism for once in your life instead of just grabbing onto anything that suits your ideas. Distrust in government hurts Republicans AND Democrats approval ratings since they both control areas of the government. Obama could just as well go on the attack about how Republicans are holding up the appointmnet of the surgeon general. He could flip it based on budget cuts to the CDC, or any other Democrat group. Saying it's going to move the needle against a group requiers evidence.