If I can be confused, then senators and congressmen will be confused.

Legislators who are confused will not vote for the "black horse", but for the certainty of the status quo ante...

...and Jupiter 232 is STILL smaller than Ares V and has fewer engines. Either it IS more efficient, or it ISN'T, but the comparison is deeply suspicious. You don't get something for nothing in the space lift business, but it's easy in politics.

Ares V has more tankage, more engines, more mass. How the hell does it get less payload to orbit.

Rephrase that. Jupiter 233 has less mass, less tankage, fewer engines. Some proof is called for...

Are the payloads somehow better optimised? are the engines DRAMATICALLY more efficient?

How is it that a tank 20% wider in diameter and length (over 60% larger in capacity) is somehow less capable?