So, you have a debate, and you mention a fact, and then they're like, I want to see your sources right now, and you say, you know, I don't have the source, I looked it up ten years ago, right, I know that it's generally true, I can look it up right now, no, if you can't give me a source, then you don't know, you have to look it up now, you know, it's fucking ridiculous, I do think that we should have our sources, but, you know, here it is, Joe, Joey.

I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea that typically it is the case that candidates with the most resources tend to do better and tend to have a better chance at winning their congressional seat. I think the point that I was making is that it's hard to tell whether or not that's simply correlative to money or has more to do with the incumbency advantage or name recognition that comes along with having the most amount of resources. It's hard to isolate.

Well, this graph is not correlating incumbency or name recognition, however, the more money you have, obviously you're going to be able to afford more exposure, more signs, billboards, airtime, campaign strategy, advertisement to get your name out there, so it costs money.

But you did explicitly state that that is nonsense and that it is not true at all, you know And then everybody laughed and agreed with you So they could have Googled it themselves, right So, I don't know it's just kind of felt a little attacked even though it's not like I was speaking nonsense man like these things are Understood by a lot of people and there is evidence to back it up