When your opponent burns money on too-late media that no one sees, strategically placing signs in the most populated county in the state may be enough to win. We'll see. I don't think it's disputed that the money Stiglich raised hasn't really gone to effective advertising. Where has it gone? No idea.

@ 11:57: I agree with you that the hate machine needs to be stopped (historical reference: see Germany (1928-1934)). I, however, disagree that the current entity using the name "Republican Party" is the same entity that produced some of the nation's greatest leaders. Somehow, somewhere the GOP was hijacked and is now controlled by individuals that do not share the historic beliefs and values of the GOP.

The opposition party is no better choice. The greatest hope for the nation is for either the individuals of the former GOP to grow a backbone and retake their party, restoring it to its time honored beliefs and values, or break-off as a group forming a "new" party representing those beliefs. As the other side was also taken over by it's extreme margin, I would believe that a portion of that party would join the "new" party, giving it enough votes to be relevant.

I will say that the Democrats are as clueless about who should Democratic leaders as Republicans are. If the Democrats put Nancy Pelosi and Stenny Hoyer back in leadership and think that was the mandate from the people that is coming down tomorrow, they did not listen very closely and should not even unpack those boxes because their stay in the majority will be short. The mandate coming tomorrow is not for Democratic gridlock as we have known it; it will be for change.

I, for one, am voting strictly Republican so that Pete Davidson fails in his quest to lead our great country.

Not 12:36 but I blame Karl Rove. All goes back to this obsession with campaigning on single issues like addition.

@ 4:27; That is a tough question to answer as I believe it was the end result of factional infighting that occurred over more than a generation, resulting in a series of takeovers for limited duration by various factions. All of the factions effectively used essentially the same tactic, the use of narrow wedge issues to divide and conquer the party to achieve majority status.

Looking back, the party was generally homogeneous until the 1964 election with the Goldwater splinter. The existing party power structure survived that challenge but it gave rise to the use of wedge issues.

The party tried move to a compromise footing with consensus type candidates, until Reagan again resurrected a large coalition to govern. Part of that coalition included Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority (an organization dedicated to specific wedge issues). Reagan was committed to the concept of a tent big enough to house all groups, however, the various factions over time became committed to a zero-sum strategy resulting in factional infighting.

Reagan was able to hold his grand coalition together, but during the H.W. Bush era, the factional fighting became uncontrollable. Groups like the Moral Majority were so committed to their specific wedge issues (social issues) that they decided that if they could not control those issues they would rather destroy the Republican vehicle than to allow a compromise on their specific issues. That decision ultimately cost H.W. Bush re-election as the vast number of that faction simply stayed home and refused to vote rather than supporting H.W. without their agenda items becoming policy. A side note: The 3rd party candidacy of Ross Perot further harmed H.W.'s re-election as it siphoned additional votes from him, however, Perot actually represented a different faction of the Republican coalition than the Moral Majority faction.

In the 1996 election, the traditional Republican leadership attempted rebuild the party with an eye towards minimizing the factionalism. They nominated an elder statesman, Bob Dole, as a compromise candidate. The effort failed.

In 2000, the factionalism again broke-out into the open. This time, however, the use of wedge issues became to politics of first choice, both intra-party, as well as, against the opposing party. Karl Rove was the master of the use of wedge issues to divide and conquer groups, setting them to battle against each other. He also mastered the use of low blows and deceptive tactics (e.g. Willie Horton ads). The playbook devised by Karl Rove, as it has evolved by the next generation of political consultants, is unfortunately what has been adopted as the norm in current political trends.

Following the Rove playbook, the Republican party was then overtaken by the Tea Party faction (primary focus of fiscal restraint). The takeover continued the break-up of the party along faction lines. During the Tea Party movement era, a separate faction also developed and splintered off from the Reagan coalition, the Ron Paul faction (Libertarian focused).

Donald Trump successfully recognized the factional nature of the party, the factional nature of the nation following the Great Recession with it's extended and anemic economic recovery and the pent-up anger among the population. That anger was related to many causes, socially, economic, generational, societal, etc. He then used the Rove playbook to develop wedge issues to set the various factions and interest groups to war with each other using racial, class, generational and other wedge issues as the flashpoints.

In his efforts, he also adopted many of the same tactics used in Germany in the 1929-1934 period (scapegoat targets, false allegations, etc.)

While the how of the takeovers is fairly easy to answer the who is a more complex question that is not easily answered as it has been a fluid concept as various factions gain the upper-hand in control of the party, rather than the coalition concept that preceded the infighting.

6:50 here. Why not?

I can only tell you what I've seen of them from the other side. There are a couple of partners there who are decent enough to deal with as OC. There are others who are horrible/borderline psycho. In general it seems like a sweatshop for associates. Think Alverson, Taylor.