If Democrats lose control of the House, it won’t be due to a lack of money. Although I haven’t perused the latest totals, the second quarter fundraising reports showed Democrats raising almost as much money as Republicans for that quarter, and with more money in the bank. Of course, there may be greater partisan differences in individual races, and in how the money is used. Reportedly O’Donnell has received a huge cash influx in the wake of her Delaware primary victory. But I don’t see the Citizens United case having much impact, nor do I expect it to have one, given Dickinson’s Third Law of Politics: Money always finds its way to candidates. Trying to limit it is like trying to stop the incoming tide with a fork.

If I get a chance I’ll update the campaign fundraising picture.

As for the “new” 2011 Republicans being like the “old” 2001 Republicans – we in fact may see more hyperventilating if the Republicans gain control of the House on the basis of Tea Party-backed victories, and the Democrats retain the Senate (and the Presidency).

I just have to be blunt and say, to me, hyperventilating Congressional Republicans in 2011 will sound too much like hyperventilating Congressional Republicans did in 2001. Or am I missing something? (Do registered Republican voters never learn?)

Ugh!

By the way, have you spotted anything that indicates the Supreme Court’s ruling on campaign finance (Citizens United v FEC) is impacting the midterm odds? I’m drawing only the most patently obvious of inferences at the moment, by listening to Sen. McConnell’s predictable stance on leaving the Bush tax cuts for “the rich” in place.