Just consider this:
Low Investment:
SC-5: Trump 57-39, Norman 51-48 (D + 15)
KS-4: Trump 60-33, Estes 53-46 (D + 20)
Medium Investment:
MT-AL: Trump 57-36, Assaulterforte 50-44 (D + 15)
Maximal Investment:
GA-6: Trump 48-47, Handel 52-48 (R + 3)
While the democrats found success with low or medium Investment, maximal Investment clearly hurt them. Democrats should have spent notably less in GA-6 - it probably would have helped.
This is buffoonish. Compare Congressional races to past Congressional races, not the Presidential.
The previous Dem congressional candidates in 3 of these 4 races were total nobodies. Plus, your party was touting the gains over Clinton in the other 3 races as a sign a wave was coming, but now that that stat isn't in your favor, it's suddenly worthless? Give me a break.
Gains were certainly touted, but, to Chickenhawk's point, different Dems have touted different metrics. I am, at least, completely consistent in saying Congressional results should be compared to Congressional results, not Presidential ones.
And yes, 3 out of 4 prior Congressional candidates were jokes. That's sort of the point. Democrats need to be trying everywhere. 50 state, 435 congressional district, 3,114 county, 350,00 municipality strategy, etc., etc.
