2018 Congressional Generic Ballot/House Polls Megathread 2 - no debates please

[wesmoorenerd]

I'd be more interested in the opinions of Scott Wallace, TJ Cox and Leslie Cockburn here if there were actual hard evidence or polling data to back up these assertions.

Speaking of polling data

https://twitter.com/Politics1com/status/1027643048392617984

For Cox, Valadao got over 60% of the vote in the jungle primary in June. That is a big sign. I'm pretty sure I've seen Wallace doing poorly in some polls too.

True with Valadao/Cox but that was a couple months ago.  I looked on Wallace and that doesn't seem to be true.  It wouldn't surprise me if all the negative comments here about Scott Wallace have led people to believe that his polling must be bad.  According to Real Clear Politics, the only published poll is from Monmouth from May 31-June 3 and it showed

Fitzpatrick 48%
Wallace 47%

The poll even pointed out that Fitzpatrick was personally popular, so the anecdotal stories on this race since that have mentioned 'Fitzpatrick is in strong shape because he's personally popular' were already been taken into account by this poll.

Among all potential voters, 53% have a favorable view of Fitzpatrick compared to just 22% who
have an unfavorable view, with 25% expressing no opinion. The challenger Wallace is seen favorably by
32% of voters and unfavorably by 15%, with 53% having no opinion. It is worth noting that 21% of
Wallace voters actually have a favorable opinion of the Republican incumbent.
“Fitzpatrick would be a shoe-in if he was running in a political vacuum. But he’s not. President
Trump changes the entire complexion of this race,” said Murray.

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_pa_060418.pdf/

This was a small sample of only 254 likely voters and the registered voter sample of 451 people did give Fitzpatrick a larger lead of 49-42% However, this is the only independent poll of the race (a DCCC poll during mid may showed a similar 48-46% Fitzgerald lead.)  So, there are no polls that show Wallace performing poorly. This poll result is comparative with many other polls that show very close races between incumbent Republicans and Democratic challengers, for instance, Bruce Poliquin vs Jared Golden in Maine.  However, for some reason, I don't see anybody posting that Jared Golden is a poor candidate.

I have to go back to to what I wrote earlier, the reason there is this frequent refrain that Scott Wallace and Leslie Cockburn are 'bad candidates' seems to be entirely related to the right wing Jewish activists who refer to them as 'Anti Semitic' and that seems to have been picked up on here.

I don't know if it's the same people, but according to a number of posters here, Joshua Svaty was a lock to win the Democratic nomination for Governor in Kansas.  Without actual data or qualitative evidence, I think it would be wise to just pass on the personal opinions of who is and isn't a poor candidate.

For Cox: the top two primary is generally pretty accurate in terms of predicting how the final outcome will go. The fact that Cox trailed by like 26 in a D+5 district is a pretty clear sign he's a bad candidate, to me. He's an inherently bad fit for his district, which if I recall correctly he doesn't even live in. He's objectively a bad candidate.

For Wallace: his polling may be alright, but he's objectively not compelling in the slightest. It takes some serious suckage to get outraised by over 100K in such a competitive district as a Democrat this cycle, but he only managed to raise 300K last quarter to Fitzpatrick's 400K. He's bland and has few positives, which is terrible for enthusiasm. That's not even getting into the allegations of antisemitism.

For Cockburn: she has received nothing but negative press since day one. Antisemitism allegations, controversies about her career, Bigfoot erotica... the fact that her opponent was literally exposed as a connoisseur of Bigfoot erotica and Cockburn somehow came out of the situation worse is impressive. She's the opposite of charismatic and really comes across as spiteful. She's so bad that the DCCC is barely even supporting her. They haven't added her to Red to Blue despite plenty of less competitive districts being on there.

To be totally honest, all three have a chance to win, but if you're trying to argue that all three aren't bad candidates, that's just blatant apologism.

[136or142]

I'd be more interested in the opinions of Scott Wallace, TJ Cox and Leslie Cockburn here if there were actual hard evidence or polling data to back up these assertions.

Speaking of polling data

https://twitter.com/Politics1com/status/1027643048392617984

For Cox, Valadao got over 60% of the vote in the jungle primary in June. That is a big sign. I'm pretty sure I've seen Wallace doing poorly in some polls too.

True with Valadao/Cox but that was a couple months ago.  I looked on Wallace and that doesn't seem to be true.  It wouldn't surprise me if all the negative comments here about Scott Wallace have led people to believe that his polling must be bad.  According to Real Clear Politics, the only published poll is from Monmouth from May 31-June 3 and it showed

Fitzpatrick 48%
Wallace 47%

The poll even pointed out that Fitzpatrick was personally popular, so the anecdotal stories on this race since that have mentioned 'Fitzpatrick is in strong shape because he's personally popular' were already been taken into account by this poll.

Among all potential voters, 53% have a favorable view of Fitzpatrick compared to just 22% who
have an unfavorable view, with 25% expressing no opinion. The challenger Wallace is seen favorably by
32% of voters and unfavorably by 15%, with 53% having no opinion. It is worth noting that 21% of
Wallace voters actually have a favorable opinion of the Republican incumbent.
“Fitzpatrick would be a shoe-in if he was running in a political vacuum. But he’s not. President
Trump changes the entire complexion of this race,” said Murray.

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_pa_060418.pdf/

This was a small sample of only 254 likely voters and the registered voter sample of 451 people did give Fitzpatrick a larger lead of 49-42% However, this is the only independent poll of the race (a DCCC poll during mid may showed a similar 48-46% Fitzgerald lead.)  So, there are no polls that show Wallace performing poorly. This poll result is comparative with many other polls that show very close races between incumbent Republicans and Democratic challengers, for instance, Bruce Poliquin vs Jared Golden in Maine.  However, for some reason, I don't see anybody posting that Jared Golden is a poor candidate.

I have to go back to to what I wrote earlier, the reason there is this frequent refrain that Scott Wallace and Leslie Cockburn are 'bad candidates' seems to be entirely related to the right wing Jewish activists who refer to them as 'Anti Semitic' and that seems to have been picked up on here.

I don't know if it's the same people, but according to a number of posters here, Joshua Svaty was a lock to win the Democratic nomination for Governor in Kansas.  Without actual data or qualitative evidence, I think it would be wise to just pass on the personal opinions of who is and isn't a poor candidate.

For Cockburn: she has received nothing but negative press since day one. Antisemitism allegations, controversies about her career, Bigfoot erotica... the fact that her opponent was literally exposed as a connoisseur of Bigfoot erotica and Cockburn somehow came out of the situation worse is impressive. She's the opposite of charismatic and really comes across as spiteful. She's so bad that the DCCC is barely even supporting her. They haven't added her to Red to Blue despite plenty of less competitive districts being on there.

1.Wallace has the ability to self fund.  I don't see that as a big deal.

2.There has been no polling on the race, so I have no idea what evidence you have to support your assertion that Cockburn came out of the Bigfoot erotica situation looking worse than Riggleman.  Again, it seems to be nothing more than your own personal opinion.  Not to be cold myself, but I really don't care about your own personal opinion.

[wesmoorenerd]

I'd be more interested in the opinions of Scott Wallace, TJ Cox and Leslie Cockburn here if there were actual hard evidence or polling data to back up these assertions.

Speaking of polling data

https://twitter.com/Politics1com/status/1027643048392617984

For Cox, Valadao got over 60% of the vote in the jungle primary in June. That is a big sign. I'm pretty sure I've seen Wallace doing poorly in some polls too.

True with Valadao/Cox but that was a couple months ago.  I looked on Wallace and that doesn't seem to be true.  It wouldn't surprise me if all the negative comments here about Scott Wallace have led people to believe that his polling must be bad.  According to Real Clear Politics, the only published poll is from Monmouth from May 31-June 3 and it showed

Fitzpatrick 48%
Wallace 47%

The poll even pointed out that Fitzpatrick was personally popular, so the anecdotal stories on this race since that have mentioned 'Fitzpatrick is in strong shape because he's personally popular' were already been taken into account by this poll.

Among all potential voters, 53% have a favorable view of Fitzpatrick compared to just 22% who
have an unfavorable view, with 25% expressing no opinion. The challenger Wallace is seen favorably by
32% of voters and unfavorably by 15%, with 53% having no opinion. It is worth noting that 21% of
Wallace voters actually have a favorable opinion of the Republican incumbent.
“Fitzpatrick would be a shoe-in if he was running in a political vacuum. But he’s not. President
Trump changes the entire complexion of this race,” said Murray.

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_pa_060418.pdf/

This was a small sample of only 254 likely voters and the registered voter sample of 451 people did give Fitzpatrick a larger lead of 49-42% However, this is the only independent poll of the race (a DCCC poll during mid may showed a similar 48-46% Fitzgerald lead.)  So, there are no polls that show Wallace performing poorly. This poll result is comparative with many other polls that show very close races between incumbent Republicans and Democratic challengers, for instance, Bruce Poliquin vs Jared Golden in Maine.  However, for some reason, I don't see anybody posting that Jared Golden is a poor candidate.

I have to go back to to what I wrote earlier, the reason there is this frequent refrain that Scott Wallace and Leslie Cockburn are 'bad candidates' seems to be entirely related to the right wing Jewish activists who refer to them as 'Anti Semitic' and that seems to have been picked up on here.

I don't know if it's the same people, but according to a number of posters here, Joshua Svaty was a lock to win the Democratic nomination for Governor in Kansas.  Without actual data or qualitative evidence, I think it would be wise to just pass on the personal opinions of who is and isn't a poor candidate.

For Cockburn: she has received nothing but negative press since day one. Antisemitism allegations, controversies about her career, Bigfoot erotica... the fact that her opponent was literally exposed as a connoisseur of Bigfoot erotica and Cockburn somehow came out of the situation worse is impressive. She's the opposite of charismatic and really comes across as spiteful. She's so bad that the DCCC is barely even supporting her. They haven't added her to Red to Blue despite plenty of less competitive districts being on there.

1.Wallace has the ability to self fund.  I don't see that as a big deal.

2.There has been no polling on the race, so I have no idea what evidence you have to support your assertion that Cockburn came out of the Bigfoot erotica situation looking worse than Riggleman.  Again, it seems to be nothing more than your own personal opinion.  Not to be cold myself, but I really don't care about your own personal opinion.

1. Fundraising numbers aren't just useful to determine a candidate's ability to campaign, they're also a useful gauge of enthusiasm on the part of the candidate's supporters. Wallace's poor fundraising betrays a serious lack of enthusiasm on the part of his base, which makes sense considering the guy isn't exactly compelling.

2. Cockburn was clearly portrayed in a bad light in the news after the Riggleman story broke. Riggleman was portrayed as weird but Cockburn was demonized for focusing on the scandal instead of the issues. It's not too hard to determine whether or not a story in the media is bad for a particular candidate. Not my opinion, it's just facts. Don't worry, for the record, I couldn't care less about your opinion either.

[136or142]

I'd be more interested in the opinions of Scott Wallace, TJ Cox and Leslie Cockburn here if there were actual hard evidence or polling data to back up these assertions.

Speaking of polling data

https://twitter.com/Politics1com/status/1027643048392617984

For Cox, Valadao got over 60% of the vote in the jungle primary in June. That is a big sign. I'm pretty sure I've seen Wallace doing poorly in some polls too.

True with Valadao/Cox but that was a couple months ago.  I looked on Wallace and that doesn't seem to be true.  It wouldn't surprise me if all the negative comments here about Scott Wallace have led people to believe that his polling must be bad.  According to Real Clear Politics, the only published poll is from Monmouth from May 31-June 3 and it showed

Fitzpatrick 48%
Wallace 47%

The poll even pointed out that Fitzpatrick was personally popular, so the anecdotal stories on this race since that have mentioned 'Fitzpatrick is in strong shape because he's personally popular' were already been taken into account by this poll.

Among all potential voters, 53% have a favorable view of Fitzpatrick compared to just 22% who
have an unfavorable view, with 25% expressing no opinion. The challenger Wallace is seen favorably by
32% of voters and unfavorably by 15%, with 53% having no opinion. It is worth noting that 21% of
Wallace voters actually have a favorable opinion of the Republican incumbent.
“Fitzpatrick would be a shoe-in if he was running in a political vacuum. But he’s not. President
Trump changes the entire complexion of this race,” said Murray.

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_pa_060418.pdf/

This was a small sample of only 254 likely voters and the registered voter sample of 451 people did give Fitzpatrick a larger lead of 49-42% However, this is the only independent poll of the race (a DCCC poll during mid may showed a similar 48-46% Fitzgerald lead.)  So, there are no polls that show Wallace performing poorly. This poll result is comparative with many other polls that show very close races between incumbent Republicans and Democratic challengers, for instance, Bruce Poliquin vs Jared Golden in Maine.  However, for some reason, I don't see anybody posting that Jared Golden is a poor candidate.

I have to go back to to what I wrote earlier, the reason there is this frequent refrain that Scott Wallace and Leslie Cockburn are 'bad candidates' seems to be entirely related to the right wing Jewish activists who refer to them as 'Anti Semitic' and that seems to have been picked up on here.

I don't know if it's the same people, but according to a number of posters here, Joshua Svaty was a lock to win the Democratic nomination for Governor in Kansas.  Without actual data or qualitative evidence, I think it would be wise to just pass on the personal opinions of who is and isn't a poor candidate.

For Cockburn: she has received nothing but negative press since day one. Antisemitism allegations, controversies about her career, Bigfoot erotica... the fact that her opponent was literally exposed as a connoisseur of Bigfoot erotica and Cockburn somehow came out of the situation worse is impressive. She's the opposite of charismatic and really comes across as spiteful. She's so bad that the DCCC is barely even supporting her. They haven't added her to Red to Blue despite plenty of less competitive districts being on there.

1.Wallace has the ability to self fund.  I don't see that as a big deal.

2.There has been no polling on the race, so I have no idea what evidence you have to support your assertion that Cockburn came out of the Bigfoot erotica situation looking worse than Riggleman.  Again, it seems to be nothing more than your own personal opinion.  Not to be cold myself, but I really don't care about your own personal opinion.

1. Fundraising numbers aren't just useful to determine a candidate's ability to campaign, they're also a useful gauge of enthusiasm on the part of the candidate's supporters. Wallace's poor fundraising betrays a serious lack of enthusiasm on the part of his base, which makes sense considering the guy isn't exactly compelling.

2. Cockburn was clearly portrayed in a bad light in the news after the Riggleman story broke. Riggleman was portrayed as weird but Cockburn was demonized for focusing on the scandal instead of the issues. It's not too hard to determine whether or not a story in the media is bad for a particular candidate. Not my opinion, it's just facts. Don't worry, for the record, I couldn't care less about your opinion either.

Pennsylvania 1st fundraising totals:

Scott Wallace (D)   $5,379,968   $3,678,327   $1,701,641   06/30/2018
Brian Fitzpatrick (R) • $2,313,762   $807,445   $1,652,086   06/30/2018

You think Scott Wallace having already raised over $5 million might (likely mostly self funded) might have had something to do with his second quarter fundraising figures?

$300,000 raised over a quarter would translate to over $1 million over a year if the candidate was able to raise consistently, which in normal political circumstances is actually very solid fundraising figures for a U.S House challenger.  In this case, that Wallace has already pumped so much money into the race (assuming it's self funded) would also clearly suggest he isn't concentrating on fundraising and so, either way, your assertion that he is a 'boring candidate who isn't firing up his base' (or whatever you wrote) is not at all supported by his fundraising totals.

Leslie Cockburn. Not hard to determine who looked bad based on what?  Based on the biases of journalists, based on your own personal bias?

Were you one of those who assured all of us here that Joshua Svaty was a lock to win the Democratic nomination?

[wesmoorenerd]

-snip-
Pennsylvania 1st fundraising totals:

Scott Wallace (D)   $5,379,968   $3,678,327   $1,701,641   06/30/2018
Brian Fitzpatrick (R) • $2,313,762   $807,445   $1,652,086   06/30/2018

You think Scott Wallace having already raised over $5 million might (likely mostly self funded) might have had something to do with this second quarter fundraising figures?

Leslie Cockburn. Not hard to determine who looked bad based on what?  Based on the biases of journalists, based on your own personal bias?

Last quarter, in terms of raw total contributions (so not including self-funding or loans, just purely contributions from outside influences) Wallace raised $303,938.61 to Fitzpatrick's $424,739.53. For an affluent, politically aware district, those are absolutely pathetic numbers for Wallace. Not only should he be outraising Fitzpatrick, he should be breaking 500K without a sweat. His base isn't enthusiastic for him, and to claim otherwise is ignorant of the facts.

Dude, with all due respect, we're clearly not going to see eye to eye on Cockburn. From my perspective every shred of reporting I saw on the Bigfoot situation cast her in an objectively terrible light. I'm not going to be able to convince you of that, so I'm going to stop trying.

[136or142]

-snip-
Pennsylvania 1st fundraising totals:

Scott Wallace (D)   $5,379,968   $3,678,327   $1,701,641   06/30/2018
Brian Fitzpatrick (R) • $2,313,762   $807,445   $1,652,086   06/30/2018

You think Scott Wallace having already raised over $5 million might (likely mostly self funded) might have had something to do with this second quarter fundraising figures?

Leslie Cockburn. Not hard to determine who looked bad based on what?  Based on the biases of journalists, based on your own personal bias?

Last quarter, in terms of raw total contributions (so not including self-funding or loans, just purely contributions from outside influences) Wallace raised $303,938.61 to Fitzpatrick's $424,739.53. For an affluent, politically aware district, those are absolutely pathetic numbers for Wallace. Not only should he be outraising Fitzpatrick, he should be breaking 500K without a sweat. His base isn't enthusiastic for him, and to claim otherwise is ignorant of the facts.

Dude, with all due respect, we're clearly not going to see eye to eye on Cockburn. From my perspective every shred of reporting I saw on the Bigfoot situation cast her in an objectively terrible light. I'm not going to be able to convince you of that, so I'm going to stop trying.

Please don't continue to try.  That you don't realize the significance of Wallace having already raised over $5 million with nearly $1.75 million cash on hand doesn't suggest positive things about you.  A great deal of candidate fundraising is done personally by the candidate, and I suspect Wallace hasn't done any of that.

Cockburn.  You have your opinion, the journalists have their opinions, whether the voters in the district share those opinions or not is an entirely different matter.  That you base your opinion based on the biases of journalists also doesn't suggest positive things about you.

[wesmoorenerd]

-snip-
Pennsylvania 1st fundraising totals:

Scott Wallace (D)   $5,379,968   $3,678,327   $1,701,641   06/30/2018
Brian Fitzpatrick (R) • $2,313,762   $807,445   $1,652,086   06/30/2018

You think Scott Wallace having already raised over $5 million might (likely mostly self funded) might have had something to do with this second quarter fundraising figures?

Leslie Cockburn. Not hard to determine who looked bad based on what?  Based on the biases of journalists, based on your own personal bias?

Last quarter, in terms of raw total contributions (so not including self-funding or loans, just purely contributions from outside influences) Wallace raised $303,938.61 to Fitzpatrick's $424,739.53. For an affluent, politically aware district, those are absolutely pathetic numbers for Wallace. Not only should he be outraising Fitzpatrick, he should be breaking 500K without a sweat. His base isn't enthusiastic for him, and to claim otherwise is ignorant of the facts.

Dude, with all due respect, we're clearly not going to see eye to eye on Cockburn. From my perspective every shred of reporting I saw on the Bigfoot situation cast her in an objectively terrible light. I'm not going to be able to convince you of that, so I'm going to stop trying.

Please don't continue to try.  That you don't realize the significance of Wallace having already raised over $5 million with nearly $1.75 million cash on hand doesn't suggest positive things about you.  A great deal of candidate fundraising is done personally by the candidate, and I suspect Wallace hasn't done any of that.

Cockburn.  You have your opinion, the journalists have their opinions, whether the voters in the district share those opinions or not is an entirely different matter.  That you base your opinion based on the biases of journalists also doesn't suggest positive things about you.

Your ignorance is astounding. Wallace having raised over $5 million is great, but that doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of that is from self-funding. Last quarter, Wallace raised $303,938.61 from voters, while he self-funded $2,334,000.00. A candidate can pour as much money has they want into a campaign and still be a terrible candidate. His base has no enthusiasm, stop trying to use purposefully misleading statistics to make your point.

Again, I'm not going to bother arguing about Cockburn here. Feel free to continue to act like other people don't have the right to their own perspectives on an issue. One minor caveat: people will continue ignoring you if you continue to be an asshole.

[136or142]

-snip-
Pennsylvania 1st fundraising totals:

Scott Wallace (D)   $5,379,968   $3,678,327   $1,701,641   06/30/2018
Brian Fitzpatrick (R) • $2,313,762   $807,445   $1,652,086   06/30/2018

You think Scott Wallace having already raised over $5 million might (likely mostly self funded) might have had something to do with this second quarter fundraising figures?

Leslie Cockburn. Not hard to determine who looked bad based on what?  Based on the biases of journalists, based on your own personal bias?

Last quarter, in terms of raw total contributions (so not including self-funding or loans, just purely contributions from outside influences) Wallace raised $303,938.61 to Fitzpatrick's $424,739.53. For an affluent, politically aware district, those are absolutely pathetic numbers for Wallace. Not only should he be outraising Fitzpatrick, he should be breaking 500K without a sweat. His base isn't enthusiastic for him, and to claim otherwise is ignorant of the facts.

Dude, with all due respect, we're clearly not going to see eye to eye on Cockburn. From my perspective every shred of reporting I saw on the Bigfoot situation cast her in an objectively terrible light. I'm not going to be able to convince you of that, so I'm going to stop trying.

Please don't continue to try.  That you don't realize the significance of Wallace having already raised over $5 million with nearly $1.75 million cash on hand doesn't suggest positive things about you.  A great deal of candidate fundraising is done personally by the candidate, and I suspect Wallace hasn't done any of that.

Cockburn.  You have your opinion, the journalists have their opinions, whether the voters in the district share those opinions or not is an entirely different matter.  That you base your opinion based on the biases of journalists also doesn't suggest positive things about you.

Your ignorance is astounding. Wallace having raised over $5 million is great, but that doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of that is from self-funding. Last quarter, Wallace raised $303,938.61 from voters, while he self-funded $2,334,000.00. A candidate can pour as much money has they want into a campaign and still be a terrible candidate. His base has no enthusiasm, stop trying to use purposefully misleading statistics to make your point.

Again, I'm not going to bother arguing about Cockburn here. Feel free to continue to act like other people don't have the right to their own perspectives on an issue. One minor caveat: people will continue ignoring you if you continue to be an asshole.

Wallace, purposely misleading statistic?  I mentioned every time that his large fundraising totals were likely due to self funding.  It seems you can't even read properly either.  For most challengers, raising over $300,000 from voters in a single quarter is very good to excellent depending on the district.  

Cockburn, you have a right to your own perspective.  Stating your perspective as if it's fact is quite another matter.

[wesmoorenerd]

-snip-
Pennsylvania 1st fundraising totals:

Scott Wallace (D)   $5,379,968   $3,678,327   $1,701,641   06/30/2018
Brian Fitzpatrick (R) • $2,313,762   $807,445   $1,652,086   06/30/2018

You think Scott Wallace having already raised over $5 million might (likely mostly self funded) might have had something to do with this second quarter fundraising figures?

Leslie Cockburn. Not hard to determine who looked bad based on what?  Based on the biases of journalists, based on your own personal bias?

Last quarter, in terms of raw total contributions (so not including self-funding or loans, just purely contributions from outside influences) Wallace raised $303,938.61 to Fitzpatrick's $424,739.53. For an affluent, politically aware district, those are absolutely pathetic numbers for Wallace. Not only should he be outraising Fitzpatrick, he should be breaking 500K without a sweat. His base isn't enthusiastic for him, and to claim otherwise is ignorant of the facts.

Dude, with all due respect, we're clearly not going to see eye to eye on Cockburn. From my perspective every shred of reporting I saw on the Bigfoot situation cast her in an objectively terrible light. I'm not going to be able to convince you of that, so I'm going to stop trying.

Please don't continue to try.  That you don't realize the significance of Wallace having already raised over $5 million with nearly $1.75 million cash on hand doesn't suggest positive things about you.  A great deal of candidate fundraising is done personally by the candidate, and I suspect Wallace hasn't done any of that.

Cockburn.  You have your opinion, the journalists have their opinions, whether the voters in the district share those opinions or not is an entirely different matter.  That you base your opinion based on the biases of journalists also doesn't suggest positive things about you.

Your ignorance is astounding. Wallace having raised over $5 million is great, but that doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of that is from self-funding. Last quarter, Wallace raised $303,938.61 from voters, while he self-funded $2,334,000.00. A candidate can pour as much money has they want into a campaign and still be a terrible candidate. His base has no enthusiasm, stop trying to use purposefully misleading statistics to make your point.

Again, I'm not going to bother arguing about Cockburn here. Feel free to continue to act like other people don't have the right to their own perspectives on an issue. One minor caveat: people will continue ignoring you if you continue to be an asshole.

Wallace, purposely misleading statistic?  I mentioned every time that his large fundraising totals were likely due to self funding.  It seems you can't even read properly either.  For most challengers, raising over $300,000 from voters in a single quarter is very good to excellent depending on the district.  

Cockburn, you have a right to your own perspective.  Stating your perspective as if it's fact is quite another matter.

"A great deal of candidate fundraising is done personally by the candidate, and I suspect Wallace hasn't done any of that." Now you're literally walking back things you said less than an hour ago. Don't try and rewrite history here, and definitely don't accuse me of not reading your very clear statements properly.  Anyway, raising over $300,000 from voters in a single quarter is usually alright, but not in this case. This is an affluent, competitive, suburban district that should theoretically be one of the most competitive of the cycle. When you also take into consideration that the national environment has led to monstrous Democratic fundraising totals this cycle, Wallace's totals are a clear and noticeable anomaly. That clearly says something about him as a candidate.

There's a strong consensus that Cockburn is the weakest Democrat in any competitive district this cycle. That's a shared perspective. There's no real way to quantify a candidate's strength when there hasn't been polling, so the best thing we can go off of is qualitatively evaluating a candidate's strengths and weaknesses. Ask any election nerd worth their salt and a majority of them will agree Cockburn is the weakest Dem candidate of the cycle. That's been clear to me personally for a long time. You can feel free to disagree, but you're in the minority and there's no real objective way to quantify these things.

[136or142]

-snip-
Pennsylvania 1st fundraising totals:

Scott Wallace (D)   $5,379,968   $3,678,327   $1,701,641   06/30/2018
Brian Fitzpatrick (R) • $2,313,762   $807,445   $1,652,086   06/30/2018

You think Scott Wallace having already raised over $5 million might (likely mostly self funded) might have had something to do with this second quarter fundraising figures?

Leslie Cockburn. Not hard to determine who looked bad based on what?  Based on the biases of journalists, based on your own personal bias?

Last quarter, in terms of raw total contributions (so not including self-funding or loans, just purely contributions from outside influences) Wallace raised $303,938.61 to Fitzpatrick's $424,739.53. For an affluent, politically aware district, those are absolutely pathetic numbers for Wallace. Not only should he be outraising Fitzpatrick, he should be breaking 500K without a sweat. His base isn't enthusiastic for him, and to claim otherwise is ignorant of the facts.

Dude, with all due respect, we're clearly not going to see eye to eye on Cockburn. From my perspective every shred of reporting I saw on the Bigfoot situation cast her in an objectively terrible light. I'm not going to be able to convince you of that, so I'm going to stop trying.

Please don't continue to try.  That you don't realize the significance of Wallace having already raised over $5 million with nearly $1.75 million cash on hand doesn't suggest positive things about you.  A great deal of candidate fundraising is done personally by the candidate, and I suspect Wallace hasn't done any of that.

Cockburn.  You have your opinion, the journalists have their opinions, whether the voters in the district share those opinions or not is an entirely different matter.  That you base your opinion based on the biases of journalists also doesn't suggest positive things about you.

Your ignorance is astounding. Wallace having raised over $5 million is great, but that doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of that is from self-funding. Last quarter, Wallace raised $303,938.61 from voters, while he self-funded $2,334,000.00. A candidate can pour as much money has they want into a campaign and still be a terrible candidate. His base has no enthusiasm, stop trying to use purposefully misleading statistics to make your point.

Again, I'm not going to bother arguing about Cockburn here. Feel free to continue to act like other people don't have the right to their own perspectives on an issue. One minor caveat: people will continue ignoring you if you continue to be an asshole.

Wallace, purposely misleading statistic?  I mentioned every time that his large fundraising totals were likely due to self funding.  It seems you can't even read properly either.  For most challengers, raising over $300,000 from voters in a single quarter is very good to excellent depending on the district.  

Cockburn, you have a right to your own perspective.  Stating your perspective as if it's fact is quite another matter.

"A great deal of candidate fundraising is done personally by the candidate, and I suspect Wallace hasn't done any of that." Now you're literally walking back things you said less than an hour ago. Don't try and rewrite history here, and definitely don't accuse me of not reading your very clear statements properly.  Anyway, raising over $300,000 from voters in a single quarter is usually alright, but not in this case. This is an affluent, competitive, suburban district that should theoretically be one of the most competitive of the cycle. When you also take into consideration that the national environment has led to monstrous Democratic fundraising totals this cycle, Wallace's totals are a clear and noticeable anomaly. That clearly says something about him as a candidate.

There's a strong consensus that Cockburn is the weakest Democrat in any competitive district this cycle. That's a shared perspective. There's no real way to quantify a candidate's strength when there hasn't been polling, so the best thing we can go off of is qualitatively evaluating a candidate's strengths and weaknesses. Ask any election nerd worth their salt and a majority of them will agree Cockburn is the weakest Dem candidate of the cycle. That's been clear to me personally for a long time. You can feel free to disagree, but you're in the minority and there's no real objective way to quantify these things.

"A great deal of candidate fundraising is done personally by the candidate, and I suspect Wallace hasn't done any of that." Now you're literally walking back things you said less than an hour ago. Don't try and rewrite history here, and definitely don't accuse me of not reading your very clear statements properly. 

I can see your point, however you should have been confused since that clearly contradicts what I wrote that 'much of his $5 million is likely self funded.'

What I meant by that is that a great deal of fundraising is done by the candidate personally calling on the phone and asking for donations.  Since Wallace has the ability to fund, I doubt that he has done any of that.  Obviously that reduces the amount that he has raised from non personal sources and that needs to be taken into account when judging his non self funded fundraising totals.

Strong consensus from who and where that Cockburn is the 'weakest candidate'?

[wesmoorenerd]

-snip-
Pennsylvania 1st fundraising totals:

Scott Wallace (D)   $5,379,968   $3,678,327   $1,701,641   06/30/2018
Brian Fitzpatrick (R) • $2,313,762   $807,445   $1,652,086   06/30/2018

You think Scott Wallace having already raised over $5 million might (likely mostly self funded) might have had something to do with this second quarter fundraising figures?

Leslie Cockburn. Not hard to determine who looked bad based on what?  Based on the biases of journalists, based on your own personal bias?

Last quarter, in terms of raw total contributions (so not including self-funding or loans, just purely contributions from outside influences) Wallace raised $303,938.61 to Fitzpatrick's $424,739.53. For an affluent, politically aware district, those are absolutely pathetic numbers for Wallace. Not only should he be outraising Fitzpatrick, he should be breaking 500K without a sweat. His base isn't enthusiastic for him, and to claim otherwise is ignorant of the facts.

Dude, with all due respect, we're clearly not going to see eye to eye on Cockburn. From my perspective every shred of reporting I saw on the Bigfoot situation cast her in an objectively terrible light. I'm not going to be able to convince you of that, so I'm going to stop trying.

Please don't continue to try.  That you don't realize the significance of Wallace having already raised over $5 million with nearly $1.75 million cash on hand doesn't suggest positive things about you.  A great deal of candidate fundraising is done personally by the candidate, and I suspect Wallace hasn't done any of that.

Cockburn.  You have your opinion, the journalists have their opinions, whether the voters in the district share those opinions or not is an entirely different matter.  That you base your opinion based on the biases of journalists also doesn't suggest positive things about you.

Your ignorance is astounding. Wallace having raised over $5 million is great, but that doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of that is from self-funding. Last quarter, Wallace raised $303,938.61 from voters, while he self-funded $2,334,000.00. A candidate can pour as much money has they want into a campaign and still be a terrible candidate. His base has no enthusiasm, stop trying to use purposefully misleading statistics to make your point.

Again, I'm not going to bother arguing about Cockburn here. Feel free to continue to act like other people don't have the right to their own perspectives on an issue. One minor caveat: people will continue ignoring you if you continue to be an asshole.

Wallace, purposely misleading statistic?  I mentioned every time that his large fundraising totals were likely due to self funding.  It seems you can't even read properly either.  For most challengers, raising over $300,000 from voters in a single quarter is very good to excellent depending on the district.  

Cockburn, you have a right to your own perspective.  Stating your perspective as if it's fact is quite another matter.

"A great deal of candidate fundraising is done personally by the candidate, and I suspect Wallace hasn't done any of that." Now you're literally walking back things you said less than an hour ago. Don't try and rewrite history here, and definitely don't accuse me of not reading your very clear statements properly.  Anyway, raising over $300,000 from voters in a single quarter is usually alright, but not in this case. This is an affluent, competitive, suburban district that should theoretically be one of the most competitive of the cycle. When you also take into consideration that the national environment has led to monstrous Democratic fundraising totals this cycle, Wallace's totals are a clear and noticeable anomaly. That clearly says something about him as a candidate.

There's a strong consensus that Cockburn is the weakest Democrat in any competitive district this cycle. That's a shared perspective. There's no real way to quantify a candidate's strength when there hasn't been polling, so the best thing we can go off of is qualitatively evaluating a candidate's strengths and weaknesses. Ask any election nerd worth their salt and a majority of them will agree Cockburn is the weakest Dem candidate of the cycle. That's been clear to me personally for a long time. You can feel free to disagree, but you're in the minority and there's no real objective way to quantify these things.

"A great deal of candidate fundraising is done personally by the candidate, and I suspect Wallace hasn't done any of that." Now you're literally walking back things you said less than an hour ago. Don't try and rewrite history here, and definitely don't accuse me of not reading your very clear statements properly. 

I can see your point, however you should have been confused since that clearly contradicts what I wrote that 'much of his $5 million is likely self funded.'

What I meant by that is that a great deal of fundraising is done by the candidate personally calling on the phone and asking for donations.  Since Wallace has the ability to fund, I doubt that he has done any of that.  Obviously that reduces the amount that he has raised from non personal sources and that needs to be taken into account when judging his non self funded fundraising totals.

Strong consensus from who and where that Cockburn is the 'weakest candidate'?

Fair enough, but even among wealthy candidates there's a clear anomaly with Wallace. It's really impossible to know how much of an effect that has.

Here on Atlas, on Election Twitter, pretty much any place there's free discussion on elections, there's been something of a consensus that Cockburn is the weakest candidate. In fact, I posted a thread about weak Dem house candidates and Cockburn was on every list. If we got third opinions here the answer would be the same.

[136or142]

-snip-
Pennsylvania 1st fundraising totals:

Scott Wallace (D)   $5,379,968   $3,678,327   $1,701,641   06/30/2018
Brian Fitzpatrick (R) • $2,313,762   $807,445   $1,652,086   06/30/2018

You think Scott Wallace having already raised over $5 million might (likely mostly self funded) might have had something to do with this second quarter fundraising figures?

Leslie Cockburn. Not hard to determine who looked bad based on what?  Based on the biases of journalists, based on your own personal bias?

Last quarter, in terms of raw total contributions (so not including self-funding or loans, just purely contributions from outside influences) Wallace raised $303,938.61 to Fitzpatrick's $424,739.53. For an affluent, politically aware district, those are absolutely pathetic numbers for Wallace. Not only should he be outraising Fitzpatrick, he should be breaking 500K without a sweat. His base isn't enthusiastic for him, and to claim otherwise is ignorant of the facts.

Dude, with all due respect, we're clearly not going to see eye to eye on Cockburn. From my perspective every shred of reporting I saw on the Bigfoot situation cast her in an objectively terrible light. I'm not going to be able to convince you of that, so I'm going to stop trying.

Please don't continue to try.  That you don't realize the significance of Wallace having already raised over $5 million with nearly $1.75 million cash on hand doesn't suggest positive things about you.  A great deal of candidate fundraising is done personally by the candidate, and I suspect Wallace hasn't done any of that.

Cockburn.  You have your opinion, the journalists have their opinions, whether the voters in the district share those opinions or not is an entirely different matter.  That you base your opinion based on the biases of journalists also doesn't suggest positive things about you.

Your ignorance is astounding. Wallace having raised over $5 million is great, but that doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of that is from self-funding. Last quarter, Wallace raised $303,938.61 from voters, while he self-funded $2,334,000.00. A candidate can pour as much money has they want into a campaign and still be a terrible candidate. His base has no enthusiasm, stop trying to use purposefully misleading statistics to make your point.

Again, I'm not going to bother arguing about Cockburn here. Feel free to continue to act like other people don't have the right to their own perspectives on an issue. One minor caveat: people will continue ignoring you if you continue to be an asshole.

Wallace, purposely misleading statistic?  I mentioned every time that his large fundraising totals were likely due to self funding.  It seems you can't even read properly either.  For most challengers, raising over $300,000 from voters in a single quarter is very good to excellent depending on the district.  

Cockburn, you have a right to your own perspective.  Stating your perspective as if it's fact is quite another matter.

"A great deal of candidate fundraising is done personally by the candidate, and I suspect Wallace hasn't done any of that." Now you're literally walking back things you said less than an hour ago. Don't try and rewrite history here, and definitely don't accuse me of not reading your very clear statements properly.  Anyway, raising over $300,000 from voters in a single quarter is usually alright, but not in this case. This is an affluent, competitive, suburban district that should theoretically be one of the most competitive of the cycle. When you also take into consideration that the national environment has led to monstrous Democratic fundraising totals this cycle, Wallace's totals are a clear and noticeable anomaly. That clearly says something about him as a candidate.

There's a strong consensus that Cockburn is the weakest Democrat in any competitive district this cycle. That's a shared perspective. There's no real way to quantify a candidate's strength when there hasn't been polling, so the best thing we can go off of is qualitatively evaluating a candidate's strengths and weaknesses. Ask any election nerd worth their salt and a majority of them will agree Cockburn is the weakest Dem candidate of the cycle. That's been clear to me personally for a long time. You can feel free to disagree, but you're in the minority and there's no real objective way to quantify these things.

"A great deal of candidate fundraising is done personally by the candidate, and I suspect Wallace hasn't done any of that." Now you're literally walking back things you said less than an hour ago. Don't try and rewrite history here, and definitely don't accuse me of not reading your very clear statements properly. 

I can see your point, however you should have been confused since that clearly contradicts what I wrote that 'much of his $5 million is likely self funded.'

What I meant by that is that a great deal of fundraising is done by the candidate personally calling on the phone and asking for donations.  Since Wallace has the ability to fund, I doubt that he has done any of that.  Obviously that reduces the amount that he has raised from non personal sources and that needs to be taken into account when judging his non self funded fundraising totals.

Strong consensus from who and where that Cockburn is the 'weakest candidate'?

Fair enough, but even among wealthy candidates there's a clear anomaly with Wallace. It's really impossible to know how much of an effect that has.

Here on Atlas, on Election Twitter, pretty much any place there's free discussion on elections, there's been something of a consensus that Cockburn is the weakest candidate. In fact, I posted a thread about weak Dem house candidates and Cockburn was on every list. If we got third opinions here the answer would be the same.

I don't mean to be glib on Cockburn but the same posters here also told us that Joshua Svaty was a lock.  I don't know what or who you read on Twitter.  I think there is no question, as I posted above, that many of the political pundits (if that's who you are reading on Twitter) have been unduly influenced and biased by the claims that Cockburn is Anti Semitic. So, I don't really care about their biases or their own personal opinions all that much. 

[wesmoorenerd]

-snip 2.0-
I don't mean to be glib on Cockburn but the same posters here also told us that Joshua Svaty was a lock.  I don't know what or who you read on Twitter.  I think there is no question, as I posted above, that many of the political pundits (if that's who you are reading on Twitter) have been unduly influenced and biased by the claims that Cockburn is Anti Semitic. So, I don't really care about their biases or their own personal opinions all that much. 

I mean, sure, but for the record I was arguing against the Svaty surge the whole time.

Keep this in mind: the average voter isn't in tune with politics as much as Twitter pundits or Atlas posters. If the perspective of the media and the pundits is that Cockburn is antisemitic, then the public is going to believe that Cockburn is antisemitic. If all the pundits are buying into claims that Cockburn is antisemitic, for electoral purposes, she might as well be antisemitic. If people believe it, then it might as well be true. Those biases and personal opinions reflect directly onto the opinions of voters, and Cockburn hasn't done nearly enough to dispel those rumors and allegations.

[136or142]

-snip 2.0-
I don't mean to be glib on Cockburn but the same posters here also told us that Joshua Svaty was a lock.  I don't know what or who you read on Twitter.  I think there is no question, as I posted above, that many of the political pundits (if that's who you are reading on Twitter) have been unduly influenced and biased by the claims that Cockburn is Anti Semitic. So, I don't really care about their biases or their own personal opinions all that much.  

I mean, sure, but for the record I was arguing against the Svaty surge the whole time.

Keep this in mind: the average voter isn't in tune with politics as much as Twitter pundits or Atlas posters. If the perspective of the media and the pundits is that Cockburn is antisemitic, then the public is going to believe that Cockburn is antisemitic. If all the pundits are buying into claims that Cockburn is antisemitic, for electoral purposes, she might as well be antisemitic. If people believe it, then it might as well be true. Those biases and personal opinions reflect directly onto the opinions of voters, and Cockburn hasn't done nearly enough to dispel those rumors and allegations.

Regarding Cockburn, that's only the case if the people in her district are aware of what the pundits say and if they have a positive view of the pundits.  I appreciate that 'if a lie is told enough times...'  but given the general negative attitude that seems to exist on both sides towards political pundits, I'm not sure that the views of these pundits is going to have much of an impact.  I also don't know that she hasn't 'done nearly enough' to dispel the allegations.  I think it's fair to say these same pundits aren't going to give her any benefit of the doubt no matter what she says or does.

From taking a further look, there are political journalists who are defending Cockburn, so it could just be the people you read. Forward Magazine rebutted the claim that she is Anti Semitic and a columnist who agreed that Riggleman's 'bigfoot porn' was too kinky to be acceptable for a prospective House Member.  Again, I think it's important to keep in mind that many Republicans seem to regard 'odd behavior' as unacceptable.  Dr Ben Carson's claim to have been involved in a knife fight when he wasn't seemed to be the thing that caused his Presidential campaign to implode even though it also had nothing to do with actual policy.

I think the obvious way to go after this politically, is to call out the media's sexism.  For instance, you wrote: "She's the opposite of charismatic and really comes across as spiteful."  I don't know that lacking charisma is bad in a politician, but it's interesting how women are accused of being 'spiteful' when men are often called 'forceful' for the same type of behavior.  Since this seems to be 'the year of the women' at least with Democratic voters, if I were her and if I felt a need to, that's how I'd address the media criticism.  

[wesmoorenerd]

-snip 2.0-
I don't mean to be glib on Cockburn but the same posters here also told us that Joshua Svaty was a lock.  I don't know what or who you read on Twitter.  I think there is no question, as I posted above, that many of the political pundits (if that's who you are reading on Twitter) have been unduly influenced and biased by the claims that Cockburn is Anti Semitic. So, I don't really care about their biases or their own personal opinions all that much.  

I mean, sure, but for the record I was arguing against the Svaty surge the whole time.

Keep this in mind: the average voter isn't in tune with politics as much as Twitter pundits or Atlas posters. If the perspective of the media and the pundits is that Cockburn is antisemitic, then the public is going to believe that Cockburn is antisemitic. If all the pundits are buying into claims that Cockburn is antisemitic, for electoral purposes, she might as well be antisemitic. If people believe it, then it might as well be true. Those biases and personal opinions reflect directly onto the opinions of voters, and Cockburn hasn't done nearly enough to dispel those rumors and allegations.

Regarding Cockburn, that's only the case if the people in her district are aware of what the pundits say and if they have a positive view of the pundits.  I appreciate that 'if a lie is told enough times...'  but given the general negative attitude that seems to exist on both sides towards political pundits, I'm not sure that the views of these pundits is going to have much of an impact.  I also don't know that she hasn't 'done nearly enough' to dispel the allegations.  I think it's fair to say these same pundits aren't going to give her any benefit of the doubt no matter what she says or does.

From taking a further look, there are political journalists who are defending Cockburn, so it could just be the people you read. Forward Magazine rebutted the claim that she is Anti Semitic and a columnist who agreed that Riggleman's 'bigfoot porn' was too kinky to be acceptable for a prospective House Member.  Again, I think it's important to keep in mind that many Republicans seem to regard 'odd behavior' as unacceptable.  Dr Ben Carson's claim to have been involved in a knife fight when he wasn't seemed to be the thing that caused his Presidential campaign to implode even though it also had nothing to do with actual policy.

I think the obvious way to go after this politically, is to call out the media's sexism.  For instance, you wrote: "She's the opposite of charismatic and really comes across as spiteful."  I don't know that lacking charisma is bad in a politician, but it's interesting how women are accused of being 'spiteful' when men are often called 'forceful' for the same type of behavior.  Since this seems to be 'the year of the women' at least with Democratic voters, if I were her and if I felt a need to, that's how I'd address the media criticism.  

I mean, I personally don't have a problem with Cockburn, I'd like to make that clear. She'd be an infinitely better representative than Riggleman and I'd like to see her representing VA-05. But from an academic, electoral standpoint, she's not a particularly good candidate.

It's important to keep in mind that the electorate is flawed and has bias. Let me be clear: I don't believe Cockburn is a bad person by any stretch of the imagination, I believe she's a weak candidate. The fact is, she does come across as spiteful. That claim doesn't necessarily have merit or reflect on her as a person in reality, but we don't have an electorate that's magically free of sexism and double standards. I do think that if she's going to go about fighting those double standards, she needs to focus on the positive messages of her campaign, which she clearly hasn't done.

If a lie is told enough times, it indeed might as well be true. It remains to be seen to what extent the allegations and views maligning Cockburn are going to stick, but I think a candidate with as much baggage as Cockburn is going to have trouble regardless.

[136or142]

-snip 2.0-
I don't mean to be glib on Cockburn but the same posters here also told us that Joshua Svaty was a lock.  I don't know what or who you read on Twitter.  I think there is no question, as I posted above, that many of the political pundits (if that's who you are reading on Twitter) have been unduly influenced and biased by the claims that Cockburn is Anti Semitic. So, I don't really care about their biases or their own personal opinions all that much.  

I mean, sure, but for the record I was arguing against the Svaty surge the whole time.

Keep this in mind: the average voter isn't in tune with politics as much as Twitter pundits or Atlas posters. If the perspective of the media and the pundits is that Cockburn is antisemitic, then the public is going to believe that Cockburn is antisemitic. If all the pundits are buying into claims that Cockburn is antisemitic, for electoral purposes, she might as well be antisemitic. If people believe it, then it might as well be true. Those biases and personal opinions reflect directly onto the opinions of voters, and Cockburn hasn't done nearly enough to dispel those rumors and allegations.

Regarding Cockburn, that's only the case if the people in her district are aware of what the pundits say and if they have a positive view of the pundits.  I appreciate that 'if a lie is told enough times...'  but given the general negative attitude that seems to exist on both sides towards political pundits, I'm not sure that the views of these pundits is going to have much of an impact.  I also don't know that she hasn't 'done nearly enough' to dispel the allegations.  I think it's fair to say these same pundits aren't going to give her any benefit of the doubt no matter what she says or does.

From taking a further look, there are political journalists who are defending Cockburn, so it could just be the people you read. Forward Magazine rebutted the claim that she is Anti Semitic and a columnist who agreed that Riggleman's 'bigfoot porn' was too kinky to be acceptable for a prospective House Member.  Again, I think it's important to keep in mind that many Republicans seem to regard 'odd behavior' as unacceptable.  Dr Ben Carson's claim to have been involved in a knife fight when he wasn't seemed to be the thing that caused his Presidential campaign to implode even though it also had nothing to do with actual policy.

I think the obvious way to go after this politically, is to call out the media's sexism.  For instance, you wrote: "She's the opposite of charismatic and really comes across as spiteful."  I don't know that lacking charisma is bad in a politician, but it's interesting how women are accused of being 'spiteful' when men are often called 'forceful' for the same type of behavior.  Since this seems to be 'the year of the women' at least with Democratic voters, if I were her and if I felt a need to, that's how I'd address the media criticism.  

I mean, I personally don't have a problem with Cockburn, I'd like to make that clear. She'd be an infinitely better representative than Riggleman and I'd like to see her representing VA-05. But from an academic, electoral standpoint, she's not a particularly good candidate.

It's important to keep in mind that the electorate is flawed and has bias. Let me be clear: I don't believe Cockburn is a bad person by any stretch of the imagination, I believe she's a weak candidate. The fact is, she does come across as spiteful. That claim doesn't necessarily have merit or reflect on her as a person in reality, but we don't have an electorate that's magically free of sexism and double standards. I do think that if she's going to go about fighting those double standards, she needs to focus on the positive messages of her campaign, which she clearly hasn't done.

If a lie is told enough times, it indeed might as well be true. It remains to be seen to what extent the allegations and views maligning Cockburn are going to stick, but I think a candidate with as much baggage as Cockburn is going to have trouble regardless.

That to me is the point though.  There seems to be a major push back this cycle on the rampant sexism.  To be sure, it's mostly just in the primaries, but I think we are also seeing a large gender gap in the special elections that have been held.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Ipsos/Reuters, August 5-9, 1379 registered voters

D: 45 (+1)
R: 36 (nc)

[Arkansas Yankee]

Ipsos/Reuters, August 5-9, 1379 registered voters

D: 45 (+1)
R: 36 (nc)

What goes with Ipsos/Reuters.

  We have results above. These results are based on a 5 day rolling average.

Then we have the following results at the RCP site with the following link:

         https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/reuters-ipsos-data-core-political-2018-08-08
           Dates 8/3/18 to 8/7/18

           D 41
           R 39

I guess the difference can result because one is a rolling average and the other is g3 day poll.  But why does Ipsos/Reuters put out two such different polls without comparing them?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Ipsos/Reuters, August 5-9, 1379 registered voters

D: 45 (+1)
R: 36 (nc)

What goes with Ipsos/Reuters.

  We have results above. These results are based on a 5 day rolling average.

Then we have the following results at the RCP site with the following link:

         https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/reuters-ipsos-data-core-political-2018-08-08
           Dates 8/3/18 to 8/7/18

           D 41
           R 39

I guess the difference can result because one is a rolling average and the other is g3 day poll.  But why does Ipsos/Reuters put out such two different polls without comparing them?

No idea.  The ones I post are the 5-day rolling averages as used by the 538 database.

[LimoLiberal]

So, from what I gather, it has been a good couple of polling weeks for the Democrats. Lots of good internals being released.

[YE]

So, from what I gather, it has been a good couple of polling weeks for the Democrats. Lots of good internals being released.

That explains why you weren’t posting.

[Politician]

OH NO HE'S BACK

[LimoLiberal]

So, from what I gather, it has been a good couple of polling weeks for the Democrats. Lots of good internals being released.

That explains why you weren’t posting.

Nah, I was without technology for 3 weeks out of the country.

[Landslide Lyndon]

OH NO HE'S BACK

It was nice while it lasted.

[Bumaye]

OH NO HE'S BACK

It was nice while it lasted.

Bagel has been a worthy substitute.