How can anyone say the GOP isn't favored to win the Senate?

[backtored]

I tend to agree, Del.  The GOP is clearly favored in LA, GA, and AR, although I concede that any one of those could go Democratic.  And IA, CO, NC, and AK are all pretty close to 50/50--and the GOP only needs one.  It isn't over yet, but it would really take something extraordinary for Democrats to sweep the field and keep their majority.

My hunch is actually that it really could be a stunningly good night for the GOP.  Instead of two years ago when we were all marveling at how well Obama did in places like Florida and Virginia, I suspect that we'll be talking about the GOP doing exceptionally well in places that a lot of people thought they'd lose.

[backtored]

Make of this what you will, but Upshot now says the GOP has a "moderate edge" in taking back the Senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/

Of course, we all know NYTimes is a knuckle-dragging right-wing fog machine.

So Grimes and Nunn both have less than a 20% chance of winning their respective races? And Pryor has a 34% chance?

Yes, that's correct.  I think they overestimate Tillis, Ernst, and Sullivan more than they should, but they also underestimate Gardner, almost entirely because of the NYT's own YouGov poll.

The Upshot is much more about polling data and other analytics and less about "conventional wisdom."

[backtored]

Make of this what you will, but Upshot now says the GOP has a "moderate edge" in taking back the Senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/

Of course, we all know NYTimes is a knuckle-dragging right-wing fog machine.

No just idiotic conventional wisdom, like the rest of the punditocracy. So Grimes and Nunn both have less than a 20% chance of winning their respective races? And Pryor has a 34% chance? Give me a break...upshot is a joke.

So weighting polls and taking house effect into consideration, and adding in fundamentals is "conventional wisdom"? 

KCDem Logic:  Perdue and McConnell have both developed consistent polling leads recently in deeply Republican states.  Clearly not Republican favored. 
Udall is in a tossup state in which the polls are moving back and forth consistently  Clearly Democrat favored. 
Pryor and Landrieu both have slight polling deficits in most polls, but the incumbent effect clearly helps them, while McConnell is going to lose because I say so.

I've said none of these things. You really are a dense one, aren't you? I've said that both Perdue and McConnell are favored, but it's certainly not inconceivable for them to lose. Udall is in a strong position because Colorado is a lean Democratic state. You can bloviate all you want, and you're entitled to your own opinion but certainly not to mine. And try some reading comprehension exercises before you misquote me again.

Whatever, bro. Get back to me when Republicans elect a United States senator in Colorado. The burden of proof is on them. The fact of the matter is that Colorado is a state that is more favorable to the Democratic party rather than the Republican one. You can send all the GIFs you want, but you're only fooling yourself.

Don't worry.  You won't have to wait long.

[backtored]

There's no use arguing with them. If things don't go their way, they will just disappear like several overconfident Republicans posters did after 2012. Or they will claim the Republican candidates that they praised were just crappy or not conservative enough to win.

^^^exactly. Every election we get a wave of new right-wing hack posters on this forum who think the Republicans are going to win every race, that Colorado is still a tossup swing-state, this forum is full of Democratic hacks, etc. And then the election comes, it turns out they were completely wrong, and they never post here again.

Colorado is still a swing state. The republicans would have won there in 2010 if they hadn't been so stupid in nominating Ken Buck. Hillary Clinton is statistically tied in early polling, even trailing in some cases. Both Hickenlooper and Udall are in toss-up races.

Prove it. And Obama was tied in early polling in 2012 as well, he won comfortably.

It is 90% certain that Cory Gardner would have beaten Michael Bennett.  Ken Buck was an unknown district attorney from a generally rural eastern county who knocked off the establishment candidate in the primary.  Buck had never even run a political race outside of Weld County and he still nearly defeated an ostensibly incumbent and incredibly well-funded Democrat in an expensive statewide race.  Even more amazingly, he was consistently up in the polls until the last couple weeks of the campaign when things tightened up. That is not exactly the sort of campaign or election that you see in Oregon or Illinois or other blue states where candidates like Ken Buck are even too conservative for their own Republican Party.  

Colorado is a consummate bellweather and the reason Obama did well in the state is the same reason that he did well across the country.  A lot of Democrats believed that Colorado had gone blue, at last, and that it was okay to pass gun controls, submit tax hikes to voters, and generally take a center-right state to the left.  That's why Democrats are in such trouble here.  That's why two state senators were recalled in historic elections and another resigned to avoid her own recall.  It's why John Hickenlooper's school tax was defeated by a 2:1 margin in another historic election loss.  It's why Hickenlooper is struggling in the polls.  It's why Udall is reduced to spending millions on a televised conga-line of women waxing on and on and on and on and on and on about birth control because he literally doesn't have any other way of defeating Gardner.  It's why PPP--PPP, not Rasmussen--showed Republicans with a 7-point lead recently on the generic legislative ballot.

So perhaps you'll take solace in knowing that much of the Democratic Party agrees with you about Colorado.  But what solace will that be after what is coming in November?

[backtored]

With Kansas, South Dakota, Kentucky and Georgia all potentially going independent or Democratic, that would leave the GOP with 10 seats to make up, not just 6. Clearly Republicans would need a landslide, not just favorable winds, to make such a thing happen. Expect at least one of those four to not rally behind the Republican candidate in the end.

I mean, you're basically making Del's point for him.  If you're counting on Kansas or South Dakota this year to save the Senate for your party, then you can be sure that you're going to lose the Senate.  That reminds me of Republicans in 2012 talking about Minnesota and Michigan as potential substitutes for a loss in Ohio.

At some point you simply have to acknowledge the reality that the field favors Republicans even if that makes you uneasy or even upset.

[backtored]

With Kansas, South Dakota, Kentucky and Georgia all potentially going independent or Democratic, that would leave the GOP with 10 seats to make up, not just 6. Clearly Republicans would need a landslide, not just favorable winds, to make such a thing happen. Expect at least one of those four to not rally behind the Republican candidate in the end.

I mean, you're basically making Del's point for him.  If you're counting on Kansas or South Dakota this year to save the Senate for your party, then you can be sure that you're going to lose the Senate.  That reminds me of Republicans in 2012 talking about Minnesota and Michigan as potential substitutes for a loss in Ohio.

At some point you simply have to acknowledge the reality that the field favors Republicans even if that makes you uneasy or even upset.

According to The New Yorker (who I believe are quoting The New York Times), Democrats right now are the 55% favourites to retain the Senate majority, which would increase to 85% in the case that the Democratic candidate would drop out from the Kansas race, elevating Orman to perhaps an insurmountable opponent for Roberts. In the latest PPP poll, Orman has a 10% lead over Roberts in a two-horse race.

The New York Times actually gives the GOP a 66% shot at winning the Senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/

The give Republicans a 99% shot at winning both Kansas and South Dakota.  So either the New York Times' political team is going to be epic-ly wrong or else the GOP is probably going to take the Senate.