Midknight Review -- new and revised: Winners and losers in the House elections for 2014 are . . . . . . . . . .

Our first Chart is taken from the dailykos.com; This lists the 22 most competitive House elections, for 2014 as judged by early fund raising reports. Of course, the funding raising for each district contest is in its earliest stages. As a consequence, fundraising for some districts do not represent final projected and final totals and are fairly worthless for that reason. But, this chart does demonstrate the advanced determination of the Socialist/Progressives in winning back the House from the GOP. They lead in every Republican held district. Problem: only 12 of the listings are held by Republicans and the Socialists need to win 17 net seats -- which means they cannot lose any of the seats they now hold, not one, and must take back 17 seats held by the GOP, a most unlikely scenario.

Understand that all "incumbents" are "incumbents" because they won their 2012 elections, including those held in more liberal districts such as those in Colorado and New York. The GOP was out-spent in those districts, yet they won their elections.

Nate Silver at PPP, a dedicated Socialist in his own right, wants you to believe that his list, shown below, presents a more problematic picture for the House Republicans. Of the 24 closest help contests (in his polling opinion), no more than 4 are showing favorable approval ratings for GOP House members. If that polling data proves accurate, the House would, indeed, return to the Socialists.

Problem(s): Understand two things, however: First, for Obama to gain control of the House does not mean that his agenda moves forward during his last two years as our so-called "president." Think about this - his party had no legislative opposition during 2009/2010 and, yet, they only passed Dodd/Frank (a huge finance bill that is not fully written or implemented, three years after its passing) and ObamaCare, another bill still be written, its implemtation, a mess -- and all this with super majorities in the House and Senate. I would not be all that concerned if "they" did take back the House. They have already proven what they can do with super-majorities. What will be their record with contested decisions in the House and Senate?

Secondly, Nate Silver and Public Policy Polling (PPP), while dead-on in calling the 2012 election results, are typically screwed to the Left, in reporting survey numbers. At this point in time, Silver's conclusions cannot be taken to mean "doom and gloom" for the GOP. It is simply far too early to be predicting such outcomes. On the positive side, most observers do not believe the House is in danger of flipping to the Socialists.

But much can happen in the next 13 months, the least of which is the continuing disaster that is ObamaCare. While the Socialists are touting "gains" made because of the GOP's stand on the shutdown, the continuing and overwhelming influence in the 2014 elections will be the success or perceived failure of ObamaCare. The shutdown battle will be long forgotten by November of 2014; not so much for ObamaCare.

The Stated Nonsense from the Left now includes these Progressive goals:

July 2, 2008, Obama had this to say: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

MICHELLE OBAMA: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."

“ . . . . . . they have become a generation of activists possessed with that most American of ideas – that people who love their country can change it.” -- Obama the Radical

On September 30, Van Jones told MSNBC "I think everybody should hold onto your seats. October is going to be the turning point when it comes to the progressive fight back."