Others are quality candidates that have almost no chance of winning due to the Republican lean of some of these districts
That part concerns me less, personally. The lynchpin of the contest-them-all strategy is finding candidates who can at least put up a fight. Quality candidates willing to throw themselves into improbable contexts bespeaks high morale. And, as always, there's the issue of diminishing Republican candidates' ability to siphon campaign money toward more vulnerable colleagues.
TX-02, which is Beaumont/Port Arthur / Northeastern Houston Suburbs
I gather from a quick web search that the Democratic challenger there, Gary Binderim, is an environmental scentist and local Dem activist. And I gather from your note that he lacks street cred. when it comes to this race. Yes?
Nothing demonstrates the disparity more crisply than deep red Texas, where Democrats just achieved challengers for all but one of 20 Republican-held House seats, and yet only 4 of 11 Democrats have challengers, if the Texas GOP's website is to be believed (see also this cautionary note - but more than 24 hours after the deadline, I'm inclined to suspect that the list is correct other than that one omission.)
Recognizing that challengers aren't the same as high-quality challengers, there's nonetheless a smell of change in the air.
But you know what - if you want me to, I'll hide this comment which started this whole thread, thereby hiding everything underneath it from view, including the screen shot. I can't see how that makes a difference, since you've provided links to the editorial signed under your real name twelve times - including once where you very expicitly claimed credit for writing it - and I don't have the capacity to hide each one of those.
Baloney. YOU disclosed YOUR OWN NAME with this comment, where you wrote:
Here is a Letter to the Editor I submitted to the Chicago Sun-Times, where I exhort fellow Chicagoans to denounce Duckworth and Emanuel's intervention in the sixth district.
YOU also disclosed YOUR OWN E-MAIL ADDRESS on your MyDD user profile, before you suddenly changed it for the sake of claiming you are not the "metonym" who was recently banned. I don't have administrative access to this site; I'm only capable of getting that screen shot because it was publicly available.
And not only does that e-mail address identify the institution at which you study, you REPEATEDLY and very publicly stated that institution in your former MyDD handle as "metonym." All your comments are now deleted, but see this comment for a few excerpts.
There's not a thing here I had to research. EVERY last piece of information was public. I clicked on the links you provided. The only thing I linked to that you had not directly provided was the very first page that comes up in a google search of the e-mail address you published.
And you know what? I noticed all this after your very first comment under this new handle. I didn't bring up your dual identity until you started google bombing the site, and I didn't compile the public information into a comment until you lied about it and accused me of "hallucinating."
So, if a site administrator thinks I've stepped over the line, they're welcome to delete my comments. But don't give me this wounded, invaded privacy crap. You got caught lying, period, end of story.
The sudden change to the user profile gives the troll away. For anyone who has doubts, compare ilyayavitz's current user profile with this screen shot, which reflects the user's profile as of just a few hours ago (although the screen shot was taken earlier than that, since I expected this).
Also compare the author name on the editorial the troll relentlessly promotes, as well as the e-mail in the screen shot, to this publicly available page at the University of Chicago.
Yes, remember metonym, who spoke at great length about his erudition as a University of Chicago art history graduate student before disrupting MyDD for several weeks before he was banned? He's back to this "wasteland" he so despised.
Still, you gotta find this lack of overt outrage a little depressing, don't you? Were people this passive during the lead up to Watergate? (a genuine question, not a rhetorical)
I've got to tell you, it's harder every year for me to explain anything to my friends overseas. They also say that 9/11 seems to have driven the American public insane, in the literal, off-your-rocker sense of insane. It's hard for me to marshall an argument to disagree with that.