The Democrats have won the EB-5 debate.
I didn't say that. If I did, I still wouldn't put it in the present perfect. Present progressive—are winning—sure, but not have won.
Jon Schaff said it. Conservative political science professor and former Joop Bollen campus-mate Jon Schaff said it. The good professor breaks a far too long blog silence to add some context to his now politicized assessment that "Rounds is in trouble" in the U.S. Senate race.
Professor Schaff does not retract his "trouble" comment. Nor does he say that reporter Denise Ross somehow warped its meaning. He simply posts the entire e-mail response that he sent to Ross to inform her September 19 report and says "I stand by everything" in it. Here is point #6 from that e-mail:
Rounds is in trouble. He is relying on Pressler and Weiland splitting the non-Rounds vote. It is not good that now in multiple polls have 55-60% of voters supporting someone other than Mike Rounds. The Democrats have won the EB-5 debate and will continue to beat Rounds with this. Rounds will likely have to get aggressive. We’ll see if Kristi Noem and John Thune come to his rescue. I’d be interested if those to politicians agree to campaign with Rounds or appear in ads with him. Weiland has run an almost perfect campaign and Rounds will have to work hard to win, which I still think he will [Jon Schaff, e-mail to Denise Ross, quoted in Jon Schaff, "My Thoughts on the Senate Race," South Dakota Politics, 2014.09.21].
"Weiland has run an almost perfect campaign and Rounds will have to work hard to win." One could not pen a more explicit rejection of the GOP's wishful assertion that Weiland is an awful candidate. The GOP's persistent fabrication of their preferred narrative may be leading them to ignore the fact that Mike Rounds cannot coast to victory. He actually has to work, something he's not used to.
Lest we Democrats fall into a Rounds-like complacency, Schaff's comment makes clear that "Democrats have won the EB-5 debate" does not equal "Democrats have won the Senate seat." Schaff still thinks Rounds will win. Democrats could indeed win on all the facts on corruption and mismanagement in Mike Rounds's Office of Economic Development, and Mike Rounds could still million-dollar-buffalo a winning plurality of South Dakota voters into sending his forced smile to Washington.
Democrats have a winning argument in EB-5, but they still have to work five times as hard as Rounds to sell the fundamental character argument that EB-5 raises about Rounds's fitness for office. On top of that, they still have to beat Rounds on the issues and show that their agenda makes more South Dakota common sense than any of Rounds's false platitudes.If we have won the EB-5 debate, we have to make sure everyone knows we've won, and explain why that victory matters enough to vote for Rick Weiland instead of Mike Rounds. Keep working, Dems!