Cook Report moves GA Senate race to "Toss Up"

[ElectionsGuy]

Dubya's polling was 38 percent when he lost the senate. 2010 saw the GOP net 6 seats due to a tsunami in in House. Hopefully, his polls will come up. I was simply stating unlike in 2006, the Dems have runoffs in La or Ga if we need them should we go under 50 seats.

Runoffs in those states would help Nunn/Landrieu?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, but never say never either. Tyrell was defeated by Landrieu at the peak of Dubya's popularity. Obama's polling hopefully improves.

[free my dawg]

Dubya's polling was 38 percent when he lost the senate. 2010 saw the GOP net 6 seats due to a tsunami in in House. Hopefully, his polls will come up. I was simply stating unlike in 2006, the Dems have runoffs in La or Ga if we need them should we go under 50 seats.

If we're at 49 or 50, then runoffs are irrelevant. Localization becomes irrelevant and the main issue is "Do you want Barack Obama to have control of the Senate?"

And if you think that Louisiana is going to tip to Democrats in that situation, I have a bridge to sell you.

[Adam Griffin]

Dubya's polling was 38 percent when he lost the senate. 2010 saw the GOP net 6 seats due to a tsunami in in House. Hopefully, his polls will come up. I was simply stating unlike in 2006, the Dems have runoffs in La or Ga if we need them should we go under 50 seats.

If we're at 49 or 50, then runoffs are irrelevant. Localization becomes irrelevant and the main issue is "Do you want Barack Obama to have control of the Senate?"

And if you think that Louisiana is going to tip to Democrats in that situation, I have a bridge to sell you.

Dems can't win a run-off in GA, period, so no need to worry about that.

[Adam Griffin]

I'll also just say that people really underestimate Landroo. It's not as if she hasn't been subjected to years of hammering via every form of media already, on the same old tired issues they're gonna use in any general or potential run-off. There ain't anything else the Republicans can throw at her, save for more of the same. If anything, I think that works to her advantage; sooner or later, people start tuning out the things they hear over and over and over and over...

[moderatevoter]

Is there a run-off in KY? I was not under the impression there was?

[Adam Griffin]

Is there a run-off in KY? I was not under the impression there was?

Whoops, my bad. That's what I get for going off-topic.

[Adam Griffin]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

[Joshgreen]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

To say that Pryor is as likely to win as Nunn is ludicrous.

[JerryArkansas]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

To say that Pryor is as likely to win as Nunn is ludicrous.

I also find this ludicrous.  I would say maybe that she has a 40 to 45% chance of winning.  Pryor is done for.  Nunn can still win, and I expect her to win, based on my rating for the race.

[Adam Griffin]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

To say that Pryor is as likely to win as Nunn is ludicrous.

Not sure which way you're going with it, but they're both within the margin of error in every single poll released thus far. Silver's work is obviously heavy on polling and there's not a lot of that yet - and we know his 2012 Senate results changed considerably between spring and fall - but the guy has a 96% success rate on Senate seats thus far.

[Joshgreen]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

To say that Pryor is as likely to win as Nunn is ludicrous.

Not sure which way you're going with it, but they're both within the margin of error in every single poll released thus far. Silver's work is obviously heavy on polling and there's not a lot of that yet - and we know his 2012 Senate results changed considerably between spring and fall - but the guy has a 96% success rate on Senate seats thus far.

By that logic, he should have both of them with a greater chance of victory. Instead, he uses his questionable 'state fundamentals' variable which has helped him blow some close races (see 2012 MT/ND). A 96% success rate isn't impressive. Calling close races correctly is impressive.

[Adam Griffin]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

To say that Pryor is as likely to win as Nunn is ludicrous.

Not sure which way you're going with it, but they're both within the margin of error in every single poll released thus far. Silver's work is obviously heavy on polling and there's not a lot of that yet - and we know his 2012 Senate results changed considerably between spring and fall - but the guy has a 96% success rate on Senate seats thus far.

By that logic, he should have both of them with a greater chance of victory. Instead, he uses his questionable 'state fundamentals' variable which has helped him blow some close races (see 2012 MT/ND). A 96% success rate isn't impressive. Calling close races correctly is impressive.

At this time two years ago, both of those races were considered lost causes much more so than Pryor's seat is today. Berg was up by 10 in several polls, while Rehberg was 5 points ahead. Those races were ranked ~90% for the Republicans at the time. Why should a statistically-tied race enjoy anywhere near that level of confidence for the Republicans? If you think AR is going to be a blow-out, then you're using your own form of "state fundamentals" to come to that conclusion.

[Joshgreen]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

To say that Pryor is as likely to win as Nunn is ludicrous.

Not sure which way you're going with it, but they're both within the margin of error in every single poll released thus far. Silver's work is obviously heavy on polling and there's not a lot of that yet - and we know his 2012 Senate results changed considerably between spring and fall - but the guy has a 96% success rate on Senate seats thus far.

By that logic, he should have both of them with a greater chance of victory. Instead, he uses his questionable 'state fundamentals' variable which has helped him blow some close races (see 2012 MT/ND). A 96% success rate isn't impressive. Calling close races correctly is impressive.

At this time two years ago, both of those races were considered lost causes much more so than Pryor's seat is today. Berg was up by 10 in several polls, while Rehberg was 5 points ahead. Those races were ranked ~90% for the Republicans at the time. Why should a statistically-tied race enjoy anywhere near that level of confidence for the Republicans? If you think AR is going to be a blow-out, then you're using your own form of "state fundamentals" to come to that conclusion.

I don't think Arkansas should be ranked that low. In fact, Pryor is more likely to win than Nunn (atm) given his incumbency. Obviously things can change but, at the moment, Silver continues to demonstrate his questionably effeminate "neutrality".

[Adam Griffin]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

To say that Pryor is as likely to win as Nunn is ludicrous.

Not sure which way you're going with it, but they're both within the margin of error in every single poll released thus far. Silver's work is obviously heavy on polling and there's not a lot of that yet - and we know his 2012 Senate results changed considerably between spring and fall - but the guy has a 96% success rate on Senate seats thus far.

By that logic, he should have both of them with a greater chance of victory. Instead, he uses his questionable 'state fundamentals' variable which has helped him blow some close races (see 2012 MT/ND). A 96% success rate isn't impressive. Calling close races correctly is impressive.

At this time two years ago, both of those races were considered lost causes much more so than Pryor's seat is today. Berg was up by 10 in several polls, while Rehberg was 5 points ahead. Those races were ranked ~90% for the Republicans at the time. Why should a statistically-tied race enjoy anywhere near that level of confidence for the Republicans? If you think AR is going to be a blow-out, then you're using your own form of "state fundamentals" to come to that conclusion.

I don't think Arkansas should be ranked that low. In fact, Pryor is more likely to win than Nunn (atm) given his incumbency. Obviously things can change but, at the moment, Silver continues to demonstrate his questionably effeminate "neutrality".

Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting Pryor should be less-favored than Silver is showing him after the fact, but at first, I was:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[7,052,770]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

To say that Pryor is as likely to win as Nunn is ludicrous.

Not sure which way you're going with it, but they're both within the margin of error in every single poll released thus far. Silver's work is obviously heavy on polling and there's not a lot of that yet - and we know his 2012 Senate results changed considerably between spring and fall - but the guy has a 96% success rate on Senate seats thus far.

By that logic, he should have both of them with a greater chance of victory. Instead, he uses his questionable 'state fundamentals' variable which has helped him blow some close races (see 2012 MT/ND). A 96% success rate isn't impressive. Calling close races correctly is impressive.

Again, Silver doesn't call races. Period. That's just not what he does. The idea that he has a "96% success rate so far" is absolutely an incorrect way to look at his record.

He gives a probability of each winning.  What makes him good is that 75% of the candidates he says have a 75% chance of winning end up winning.  If everyone he gives a 75% to wins, he's not good.

There was nothing "wrong" with him "missing" the ND race in 2012. He needs to be "wrong" 1 out of every 12-13 times he gives a 92% chance or else his probabilities aren't very accurate.

[Joshgreen]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

To say that Pryor is as likely to win as Nunn is ludicrous.

Not sure which way you're going with it, but they're both within the margin of error in every single poll released thus far. Silver's work is obviously heavy on polling and there's not a lot of that yet - and we know his 2012 Senate results changed considerably between spring and fall - but the guy has a 96% success rate on Senate seats thus far.

By that logic, he should have both of them with a greater chance of victory. Instead, he uses his questionable 'state fundamentals' variable which has helped him blow some close races (see 2012 MT/ND). A 96% success rate isn't impressive. Calling close races correctly is impressive.

Again, Silver doesn't call races. Period. That's just not what he does. The idea that he has a "96% success rate so far" is absolutely an incorrect way to look at his record.

He gives a probability of each winning.  What makes him good is that 75% of the candidates he says have a 75% chance of winning end up winning.  If everyone he gives a 75% to wins, he's not good.

There was nothing "wrong" with him "missing" the ND race in 2012. He needs to be "wrong" 1 out of every 12-13 times he gives a 92% chance or else his probabilities aren't very accurate.

I hope your kidding. If you aren't, you just proved how useless Nate Silver is. What is the point of his model if not to "call" races. Why the hell have a model otherwise?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He has Mary Landrieu at 55 percent chance of losing. That speaks for itself.

[Flake]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

To say that Pryor is as likely to win as Nunn is ludicrous.

Not sure which way you're going with it, but they're both within the margin of error in every single poll released thus far. Silver's work is obviously heavy on polling and there's not a lot of that yet - and we know his 2012 Senate results changed considerably between spring and fall - but the guy has a 96% success rate on Senate seats thus far.

By that logic, he should have both of them with a greater chance of victory. Instead, he uses his questionable 'state fundamentals' variable which has helped him blow some close races (see 2012 MT/ND). A 96% success rate isn't impressive. Calling close races correctly is impressive.

Again, Silver doesn't call races. Period. That's just not what he does. The idea that he has a "96% success rate so far" is absolutely an incorrect way to look at his record.

He gives a probability of each winning.  What makes him good is that 75% of the candidates he says have a 75% chance of winning end up winning.  If everyone he gives a 75% to wins, he's not good.

There was nothing "wrong" with him "missing" the ND race in 2012. He needs to be "wrong" 1 out of every 12-13 times he gives a 92% chance or else his probabilities aren't very accurate.

I hope your kidding. If you aren't, you just proved how useless Nate Silver is. What is the point of his model if not to "call" races. Why the hell have a model otherwise?

So political parties know where to put their money when candidates run?

[Joshgreen]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

To say that Pryor is as likely to win as Nunn is ludicrous.

Not sure which way you're going with it, but they're both within the margin of error in every single poll released thus far. Silver's work is obviously heavy on polling and there's not a lot of that yet - and we know his 2012 Senate results changed considerably between spring and fall - but the guy has a 96% success rate on Senate seats thus far.

By that logic, he should have both of them with a greater chance of victory. Instead, he uses his questionable 'state fundamentals' variable which has helped him blow some close races (see 2012 MT/ND). A 96% success rate isn't impressive. Calling close races correctly is impressive.

Again, Silver doesn't call races. Period. That's just not what he does. The idea that he has a "96% success rate so far" is absolutely an incorrect way to look at his record.

He gives a probability of each winning.  What makes him good is that 75% of the candidates he says have a 75% chance of winning end up winning.  If everyone he gives a 75% to wins, he's not good.

There was nothing "wrong" with him "missing" the ND race in 2012. He needs to be "wrong" 1 out of every 12-13 times he gives a 92% chance or else his probabilities aren't very accurate.

I hope your kidding. If you aren't, you just proved how useless Nate Silver is. What is the point of his model if not to "call" races. Why the hell have a model otherwise?

So political parties know where to put their money when candidates run?

Political parties aren't relying on Nate Silver's joke model.

[SWE]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

To say that Pryor is as likely to win as Nunn is ludicrous.

Not sure which way you're going with it, but they're both within the margin of error in every single poll released thus far. Silver's work is obviously heavy on polling and there's not a lot of that yet - and we know his 2012 Senate results changed considerably between spring and fall - but the guy has a 96% success rate on Senate seats thus far.

By that logic, he should have both of them with a greater chance of victory. Instead, he uses his questionable 'state fundamentals' variable which has helped him blow some close races (see 2012 MT/ND). A 96% success rate isn't impressive. Calling close races correctly is impressive.

Again, Silver doesn't call races. Period. That's just not what he does. The idea that he has a "96% success rate so far" is absolutely an incorrect way to look at his record.

He gives a probability of each winning.  What makes him good is that 75% of the candidates he says have a 75% chance of winning end up winning.  If everyone he gives a 75% to wins, he's not good.

There was nothing "wrong" with him "missing" the ND race in 2012. He needs to be "wrong" 1 out of every 12-13 times he gives a 92% chance or else his probabilities aren't very accurate.

I hope your kidding. If you aren't, you just proved how useless Nate Silver is. What is the point of his model if not to "call" races. Why the hell have a model otherwise?

So political parties know where to put their money when candidates run?

Political parties aren't relying on Nate Silver's joke model.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=187008.0

[Joshgreen]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

To say that Pryor is as likely to win as Nunn is ludicrous.

Not sure which way you're going with it, but they're both within the margin of error in every single poll released thus far. Silver's work is obviously heavy on polling and there's not a lot of that yet - and we know his 2012 Senate results changed considerably between spring and fall - but the guy has a 96% success rate on Senate seats thus far.

By that logic, he should have both of them with a greater chance of victory. Instead, he uses his questionable 'state fundamentals' variable which has helped him blow some close races (see 2012 MT/ND). A 96% success rate isn't impressive. Calling close races correctly is impressive.

Again, Silver doesn't call races. Period. That's just not what he does. The idea that he has a "96% success rate so far" is absolutely an incorrect way to look at his record.

He gives a probability of each winning.  What makes him good is that 75% of the candidates he says have a 75% chance of winning end up winning.  If everyone he gives a 75% to wins, he's not good.

There was nothing "wrong" with him "missing" the ND race in 2012. He needs to be "wrong" 1 out of every 12-13 times he gives a 92% chance or else his probabilities aren't very accurate.

I hope your kidding. If you aren't, you just proved how useless Nate Silver is. What is the point of his model if not to "call" races. Why the hell have a model otherwise?

So political parties know where to put their money when candidates run?

Political parties aren't relying on Nate Silver's joke model.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=187008.0

You're not proving anything...political parties have their own much more sophisticated models to determine where to spend money, etc They don't need to rely on ambiguously effeminate Nate effin' Silver to tell them how to do their job.

[7,052,770]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

To say that Pryor is as likely to win as Nunn is ludicrous.

Not sure which way you're going with it, but they're both within the margin of error in every single poll released thus far. Silver's work is obviously heavy on polling and there's not a lot of that yet - and we know his 2012 Senate results changed considerably between spring and fall - but the guy has a 96% success rate on Senate seats thus far.

By that logic, he should have both of them with a greater chance of victory. Instead, he uses his questionable 'state fundamentals' variable which has helped him blow some close races (see 2012 MT/ND). A 96% success rate isn't impressive. Calling close races correctly is impressive.

Again, Silver doesn't call races. Period. That's just not what he does. The idea that he has a "96% success rate so far" is absolutely an incorrect way to look at his record.

He gives a probability of each winning.  What makes him good is that 75% of the candidates he says have a 75% chance of winning end up winning.  If everyone he gives a 75% to wins, he's not good.

There was nothing "wrong" with him "missing" the ND race in 2012. He needs to be "wrong" 1 out of every 12-13 times he gives a 92% chance or else his probabilities aren't very accurate.

I hope your kidding. If you aren't, you just proved how useless Nate Silver is. What is the point of his model if not to "call" races. Why the hell have a model otherwise?

I don't really know what else to tell you. No one is going to build a computer model that can pick winners of 50-50 tossup races with any level of accuracy. Silver's model just gives probabilities, and while there hasn't been enough of sample (that will take years) to say it's definitely a good model, there's been no reason to doubt it yet.

Again, if Silver wasn't "wrong" once every 12-13 times he said a candidate had a 92% chance of winning, the model would be bad.

[Joshgreen]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

To say that Pryor is as likely to win as Nunn is ludicrous.

Not sure which way you're going with it, but they're both within the margin of error in every single poll released thus far. Silver's work is obviously heavy on polling and there's not a lot of that yet - and we know his 2012 Senate results changed considerably between spring and fall - but the guy has a 96% success rate on Senate seats thus far.

By that logic, he should have both of them with a greater chance of victory. Instead, he uses his questionable 'state fundamentals' variable which has helped him blow some close races (see 2012 MT/ND). A 96% success rate isn't impressive. Calling close races correctly is impressive.

Again, Silver doesn't call races. Period. That's just not what he does. The idea that he has a "96% success rate so far" is absolutely an incorrect way to look at his record.

He gives a probability of each winning.  What makes him good is that 75% of the candidates he says have a 75% chance of winning end up winning.  If everyone he gives a 75% to wins, he's not good.

There was nothing "wrong" with him "missing" the ND race in 2012. He needs to be "wrong" 1 out of every 12-13 times he gives a 92% chance or else his probabilities aren't very accurate.

I hope your kidding. If you aren't, you just proved how useless Nate Silver is. What is the point of his model if not to "call" races. Why the hell have a model otherwise?

I don't really know what else to tell you. No one is going to build a computer model that can pick winners of 50-50 tossup races with any level of accuracy. Silver's model just gives probabilities, and while there hasn't been enough of sample (that will take years) to say it's definitely a good model, there's been no reason to doubt it yet.

Again, if Silver wasn't "wrong" once every 12-13 times he said a candidate had a 92% chance of winning, the model would be bad.

Again, anyone who knows an ounce about politics can call up to 90% percent of races. The whole point of models is to predict tossup contests, otherwise there would be no point.

[7,052,770]

The point is to say what the probability is.  Whether "anyone can call 90% of these races" or not is completely irrelevant, because Nate Silver's model is not trying to call races -- it is assigning a win probability to each race.