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

[KCDem]

Seriously.  Republicans are favored at this point to win in MT, SD, AR, LA, and WV.  That put them up to 50 seats, with them only having to pick-up one seat between NC, IA, CO, and AK (which seem like the most promising pickup opportunities).  Moreover, Republicans are heavy favorites to retain seats in GA and KY. 

No, and no. Your's is an opinion (and not really backed up by data I might add), and if we're just dealing in opinions...well that gets us nowhere.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Seriously.  Republicans are favored at this point to win in MT, SD, AR, LA, and WV.  That put them up to 50 seats, with them only having to pick-up one seat between NC, IA, CO, and AK (which seem like the most promising pickup opportunities).  Moreover, Republicans are heavy favorites to retain seats in GA and KY. 

How can anyone say that the GOP isn't favored to win in 2014 with a map and electorate that is heavily in their favor as well as a strong class of candidates poised to avoid the same pitfalls of 2012?

Yes, they are favored to win the five races you mentioned, though in AR and LA they are not strongly favored, and in LA they are barely favored at all, as my averages show a rather small lead for Cassidy of only 0.75%. You seem to treat AR and LA as if they are close to Safe R, but they are not anywhere near that rating.

Also, republicans have not really obtained the status of heavy favorite in GA at this point, and in KY, McConnell's chance of victory is somewhere between 3 in 5 and 2 in 3 - not exactly 'heavy favorite' status....

Yes, I am predicting that the republicans would regain the senate if the election were held today, picking up 7 seats. But the democrats shouldn't be counted out on actually retaining it come November - a bad night for the GOP could easily yield a GOP net gain of as little as 3 seats. Similarly, a particularly good night for the GOP could easily yield a GOP net gain of 10 seats, possibly even 11 or 12.

 

[Never]

There was a Republican internal just released that showed Landrieu leading, so I would call that Republican favored.

RRH might be a better site for you, they have very favorable ratings for Republicans, they even have Michigan as Lean Republican, I think.

I know you're joking a little bit on this, but regarding Red Racing Horses, are you sure you're not mixing them up with another site? They have Michigan as lean Democrat. While the site is operated by conservatives, they don't seem to let that cloud their perception of the races.

To be fair, it's not at all a crazy idea to have Michigan as Lean Democrat. I mean, I think almost every site has it as that. Overall though they seem to be quite a okay site.

Exactly, I think RRH is pretty solid for the most part, though Michigan is probably closer to being a Likely Democrat race as the election nears. I just don't like seeing reasonable views of elections being written off. 

[Del Tachi]

A couple of points:

1) The national mood certainly favors the GOP going into the midterms.  Obama's approval rating sits at around 43% in the most recent polls, his ratings are actually worse than George W. Bush's were at a similar point in 2006 before Republicans lost both the House and Senate that year.  Moreover, Obama's brand remains particularly detrimental to Democrats' chances in states like Alaska, Iowa and North Carolina where he often sports disapproval ratings of over 50%.  Arkansas, Louisiana and West Virginia are actually among some of the worst states for Obama in terms of approval polling.  Some people would say that 2014 doesn't look a lot like 2006 in terms of political composition, but the President's approval ratings, continued economic woes and trouble on the horizon overseas seem to indicate otherwise. 

2) Moreover, Republicans will be looking at a much friendlier electorate voting for a much more palatable slate of candidates in 2014 than they were in 2010 or 2012.  2014 has been the year that the Tea Party withered, and no Tea Party candidates seemed poised to deny Republicans victories in contested Senate elections.  The enthusiasm gap is an issue that cannot be ignored this cycle, and so far the GOP holds a 47-40 advantage among those who are "more enthusiastic than usual" about voting.

3) How can I be criticized for calling Cotton and Cassidy "favored" by a poster who then contends that Braley should be "favored" in Iowa in the very next sentence?  Democratic hacks on this site argue that undue what is given to "fundamentals" in states like Louisiana and Arkansas, yet jump over to another post on another thread (or maybe even the same thread) and you'll see the same posters arguing about how fundamentals in the form of "changing demographics" or "traditional Democratic strength" will save the Democrats in states like Colorado and Iowa even when polling doesn't indicate either candidate in those races as favorites. 

[King]

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.

Only Republican hacks were marveling at how well Obama did in Virginia. It was obvious he was going to win there.

Obama's pre-election average lead there, per RCP, was a pathetic 0.3%. Far from 'obvious winner' in my opinion. True, he greatly outperformed the polling on election day, but before the polls closed, Obama was not the 'obvious winner' in virginia.

I didn't think Romney would win Florida. My prediction of the election, like 99% of non-troll/hack Atlas posters was 100% correct because we believe in polls over voodoo.

The RCP polling average showed Romney winning FL by 1.4%.....this was the one state where the polls as a whole got the winner wrong. Heck, Obama's campaign as a whole was so much in belief that FL was likely to go to Romney that they were trying to get Obama to give up on FL in the final weeks. Instead, he essentially said "No, let's keep running ads there, I'll send Biden there, at least we can keep Romney spending time and money there.", and ended up winning FL by about 70,000 votes, mainly due to Romney having a terrible GOTV operation that broke down on election day.

Well, you also have to show discernment on polls. Many of us were also knowledgeable enough to dump known garbage like Gravis, Insider Advantage, and Rasmussen. Focusing mainly on PPP, Ipsos, and Quinnipiac it was clear that Florida was Obama +1 and Virginia was Obama +4, as it was.

[dmmidmi]

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.

Only Republican hacks were marveling at how well Obama did in Virginia. It was obvious he was going to win there.

Obama's pre-election average lead there, per RCP, was a pathetic 0.3%. Far from 'obvious winner' in my opinion. True, he greatly outperformed the polling on election day, but before the polls closed, Obama was not the 'obvious winner' in virginia.

I didn't think Romney would win Florida. My prediction of the election, like 99% of non-troll/hack Atlas posters was 100% correct because we believe in polls over voodoo.

The RCP polling average showed Romney winning FL by 1.4%.....this was the one state where the polls as a whole got the winner wrong. Heck, Obama's campaign as a whole was so much in belief that FL was likely to go to Romney that they were trying to get Obama to give up on FL in the final weeks. Instead, he essentially said "No, let's keep running ads there, I'll send Biden there, at least we can keep Romney spending time and money there.", and ended up winning FL by about 70,000 votes, mainly due to Romney having a terrible GOTV operation that broke down on election day.

Maybe you shouldn't take your cues from a website that will willingly include Republican internals, but discard Democratic internals.

[Mr. Reactionary]

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The GOP maxed out their gains in the first midterm in 2010. But unlike 1994, they did not get the senate.

The Dems will get the House back, but not yet, it is likely we hold our own and gain govs seats, which we are having dual elections in tough races, MI sen and gov, and IL gov and HI gov.

[KCDem]

3) How can I be criticized for calling Cotton and Cassidy "favored" by a poster who then contends that Braley should be "favored" in Iowa in the very next sentence?  Democratic hacks on this site argue that undue what is given to "fundamentals" in states like Louisiana and Arkansas, yet jump over to another post on another thread (or maybe even the same thread) and you'll see the same posters arguing about how fundamentals in the form of "changing demographics" or "traditional Democratic strength" will save the Democrats in states like Colorado and Iowa even when polling doesn't indicate either candidate in those races as favorites. 

Because Pryor and Landrieu are incumbents? Also Democrats always underperform in Colorado polling and this year's vote-by-mail will boost left-leaning turnout. As to Iowa, Sarah Palin isn't getting elected in a blue-leaning swing state. Full stop. Period. Please think before posting nonsense.

[Badger]

Simple. The odds of the GOP taking 2 out of 3 of LA, NC, and AK is roughly 50/50, 60/40 tops. Despite a flawed dem candidate in IA and a decent GOP candidate in CO, it'll be an uphill battle to win either state. The comparison to LA and AR is misleading as those states have incumbent Democrats. Our candidate in IA is Jodi Ernst (erg), not Chuck Grassley.

And mind you this analysis doesn't even include the unlikely, but still not unrealistic combined possibility of either Pryor hanging on or even an upset in KY.

[Never]

3) How can I be criticized for calling Cotton and Cassidy "favored" by a poster who then contends that Braley should be "favored" in Iowa in the very next sentence?  Democratic hacks on this site argue that undue what is given to "fundamentals" in states like Louisiana and Arkansas, yet jump over to another post on another thread (or maybe even the same thread) and you'll see the same posters arguing about how fundamentals in the form of "changing demographics" or "traditional Democratic strength" will save the Democrats in states like Colorado and Iowa even when polling doesn't indicate either candidate in those races as favorites. 

Because Pryor and Landrieu are incumbents? Also Democrats always underperform in Colorado polling and this year's vote-by-mail will boost left-leaning turnout. As to Iowa, Sarah Palin isn't getting elected in a blue-leaning swing state. Full stop. Period. Please think before posting nonsense.

Simply put, contenders can be favored against incumbents. It's a bit simplistic to say that we can't argue Pryor and Landrieu are at a disadvantage this year just because they're sitting U.S. senators...

I'd like to hear some better reasons from you about why we shouldn't call Pryor and Landrieu "favored." There are some stronger arguments out there regarding why they're both very much keeping their races alive.

[KCDem]

3) How can I be criticized for calling Cotton and Cassidy "favored" by a poster who then contends that Braley should be "favored" in Iowa in the very next sentence?  Democratic hacks on this site argue that undue what is given to "fundamentals" in states like Louisiana and Arkansas, yet jump over to another post on another thread (or maybe even the same thread) and you'll see the same posters arguing about how fundamentals in the form of "changing demographics" or "traditional Democratic strength" will save the Democrats in states like Colorado and Iowa even when polling doesn't indicate either candidate in those races as favorites. 

Because Pryor and Landrieu are incumbents? Also Democrats always underperform in Colorado polling and this year's vote-by-mail will boost left-leaning turnout. As to Iowa, Sarah Palin isn't getting elected in a blue-leaning swing state. Full stop. Period. Please think before posting nonsense.

Simply put, contenders can be favored against incumbents. It's a bit simplistic to say that we can't argue Pryor and Landrieu are at a disadvantage this year just because they're sitting U.S. senators...

I'd like to hear some better reasons from you about why we shouldn't call Pryor and Landrieu "favored." There are some stronger arguments out there regarding why they're both very much keeping their races alive.

Dude. Do I need to spell it out for you and walk you across the street to school? Comparing Pryor to Lincoln is idiotic and should single-handedly get you laughed off this forum. The fact is Lincoln polled terribly all of 2010 while Pryor has been competitive in polling and hasn't been triaged (which Lincoln most certainly was). Further, Pryor has a deep connection to the state via his father that Lincoln never had. As to Landrieu, she has her family name and has run excellent races and pulled through with tough odds before. This all goes without saying. Before trying to perfunctorily swat away someone else's point, try to maybe read between the lines? This isn't politics 101. I would expect people on this site to have a basic understanding of what separate incumbent senators like Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu from freakin' Blanche Lincoln.

[Never]

3) How can I be criticized for calling Cotton and Cassidy "favored" by a poster who then contends that Braley should be "favored" in Iowa in the very next sentence?  Democratic hacks on this site argue that undue what is given to "fundamentals" in states like Louisiana and Arkansas, yet jump over to another post on another thread (or maybe even the same thread) and you'll see the same posters arguing about how fundamentals in the form of "changing demographics" or "traditional Democratic strength" will save the Democrats in states like Colorado and Iowa even when polling doesn't indicate either candidate in those races as favorites. 

Because Pryor and Landrieu are incumbents? Also Democrats always underperform in Colorado polling and this year's vote-by-mail will boost left-leaning turnout. As to Iowa, Sarah Palin isn't getting elected in a blue-leaning swing state. Full stop. Period. Please think before posting nonsense.

Simply put, contenders can be favored against incumbents. It's a bit simplistic to say that we can't argue Pryor and Landrieu are at a disadvantage this year just because they're sitting U.S. senators...

I'd like to hear some better reasons from you about why we shouldn't call Pryor and Landrieu "favored." There are some stronger arguments out there regarding why they're both very much keeping their races alive.

Dude. Do I need to spell it out for you and walk you across the street to school? Comparing Pryor to Lincoln is idiotic and should single-handedly get you laughed off this forum. The fact is Lincoln polled terribly all of 2010 while Pryor has been competitive in polling and hasn't been triaged (which Lincoln most certainly was). Further, Pryor has a deep connection to the state via his father that Lincoln never had. As to Landrieu, she has her family name and has run excellent races and pulled through with tough odds before. This all goes without saying. Before trying to perfunctorily swat away someone else's point, try to maybe read between the lines? This isn't politics 101. I would expect people on this site to have a basic understanding of what separate incumbent senators like Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu from freakin' Blanche Lincoln.

Whoa, I never said that. I think you're overreacting a tad bit. Before I say anything further, let me ask, did you read everything I said, particularly the second paragraph?

Other than that, I think you have a better explanation than before. I just wanted to get across the point that incumbency is not an automatic adavantage. It's easy to misread someone who is calling other people's posts nonsense. And no, I wasn't swatting away your post, I simply wouldn't have responded in that case.

I have at least a basic understanding of how politics works, and I know why I think Louisiana and Arkansas are competitive. I just wanted to ask a simple question to see the lens from which you were viewing both races, but if you don't think I'm up at your level, so be it.

[GaussLaw]

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.

[KCDem]

3) How can I be criticized for calling Cotton and Cassidy "favored" by a poster who then contends that Braley should be "favored" in Iowa in the very next sentence?  Democratic hacks on this site argue that undue what is given to "fundamentals" in states like Louisiana and Arkansas, yet jump over to another post on another thread (or maybe even the same thread) and you'll see the same posters arguing about how fundamentals in the form of "changing demographics" or "traditional Democratic strength" will save the Democrats in states like Colorado and Iowa even when polling doesn't indicate either candidate in those races as favorites. 

Because Pryor and Landrieu are incumbents? Also Democrats always underperform in Colorado polling and this year's vote-by-mail will boost left-leaning turnout. As to Iowa, Sarah Palin isn't getting elected in a blue-leaning swing state. Full stop. Period. Please think before posting nonsense.

Simply put, contenders can be favored against incumbents. It's a bit simplistic to say that we can't argue Pryor and Landrieu are at a disadvantage this year just because they're sitting U.S. senators...

I'd like to hear some better reasons from you about why we shouldn't call Pryor and Landrieu "favored." There are some stronger arguments out there regarding why they're both very much keeping their races alive.

Dude. Do I need to spell it out for you and walk you across the street to school? Comparing Pryor to Lincoln is idiotic and should single-handedly get you laughed off this forum. The fact is Lincoln polled terribly all of 2010 while Pryor has been competitive in polling and hasn't been triaged (which Lincoln most certainly was). Further, Pryor has a deep connection to the state via his father that Lincoln never had. As to Landrieu, she has her family name and has run excellent races and pulled through with tough odds before. This all goes without saying. Before trying to perfunctorily swat away someone else's point, try to maybe read between the lines? This isn't politics 101. I would expect people on this site to have a basic understanding of what separate incumbent senators like Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu from freakin' Blanche Lincoln.

Whoa, I never said that. I think you're overreacting a tad bit. Before I say anything further, let me ask, did you read everything I said, particularly the second paragraph?

Other than that, I think you have a better explanation than before. I just wanted to get across the point that incumbency is not an automatic adavantage. It's easy to misread someone who is calling other people's posts nonsense. And no, I wasn't swatting away your post, I simply wouldn't have responded in that case.

I have at least a basic understanding of how politics works, and I know why I think Louisiana and Arkansas are competitive. I just wanted to ask a simple question to see the lens from which you were viewing both races, but if you don't think I'm up at your level, so be it.

I apologize if I mistook what you were trying to say.  I was responding to Del Tachi's rubbish post about Cotton and Cassidy being favored. I'm not really sure what your position is vis-a-vis who is favored, but suffice it to say that I view both of those races as tossups.

[KCDem]

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.

[Never]

3) How can I be criticized for calling Cotton and Cassidy "favored" by a poster who then contends that Braley should be "favored" in Iowa in the very next sentence?  Democratic hacks on this site argue that undue what is given to "fundamentals" in states like Louisiana and Arkansas, yet jump over to another post on another thread (or maybe even the same thread) and you'll see the same posters arguing about how fundamentals in the form of "changing demographics" or "traditional Democratic strength" will save the Democrats in states like Colorado and Iowa even when polling doesn't indicate either candidate in those races as favorites. 

Because Pryor and Landrieu are incumbents? Also Democrats always underperform in Colorado polling and this year's vote-by-mail will boost left-leaning turnout. As to Iowa, Sarah Palin isn't getting elected in a blue-leaning swing state. Full stop. Period. Please think before posting nonsense.

Simply put, contenders can be favored against incumbents. It's a bit simplistic to say that we can't argue Pryor and Landrieu are at a disadvantage this year just because they're sitting U.S. senators...

I'd like to hear some better reasons from you about why we shouldn't call Pryor and Landrieu "favored." There are some stronger arguments out there regarding why they're both very much keeping their races alive.

Dude. Do I need to spell it out for you and walk you across the street to school? Comparing Pryor to Lincoln is idiotic and should single-handedly get you laughed off this forum. The fact is Lincoln polled terribly all of 2010 while Pryor has been competitive in polling and hasn't been triaged (which Lincoln most certainly was). Further, Pryor has a deep connection to the state via his father that Lincoln never had. As to Landrieu, she has her family name and has run excellent races and pulled through with tough odds before. This all goes without saying. Before trying to perfunctorily swat away someone else's point, try to maybe read between the lines? This isn't politics 101. I would expect people on this site to have a basic understanding of what separate incumbent senators like Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu from freakin' Blanche Lincoln.

Whoa, I never said that. I think you're overreacting a tad bit. Before I say anything further, let me ask, did you read everything I said, particularly the second paragraph?

Other than that, I think you have a better explanation than before. I just wanted to get across the point that incumbency is not an automatic adavantage. It's easy to misread someone who is calling other people's posts nonsense. And no, I wasn't swatting away your post, I simply wouldn't have responded in that case.

I have at least a basic understanding of how politics works, and I know why I think Louisiana and Arkansas are competitive. I just wanted to ask a simple question to see the lens from which you were viewing both races, but if you don't think I'm up at your level, so be it.

I apologize if I mistook what you were trying to say.  I was responding to Del Tachi's rubbish post about Cotton and Cassidy being favored. I'm not really sure what your position is vis-a-vis who is favored, but suffice it to say that I view both of those races as tossups.

No hard feelings. I started trying to look where you were coming from, but I thought you made sense.

To clear things up, I think Louisiana is definitely a tossup (at least in November - I don't know if we can say the same for the runoff, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there), and that Pryor is being somewhat underestimated. So both races are definitely going to be very competitive to the end.

Del Tachi is pretty bullish on Republican chances, and I'm more pessimistic, but I thought he made some fair points... I don't really want to argue about that if possible; I am friends with Del, and I don't think he's being acutely hackish or anything regarding this.

[Free Bird]

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.

And this is why I ignore a lot of Democrats

[Free Bird]

3) How can I be criticized for calling Cotton and Cassidy "favored" by a poster who then contends that Braley should be "favored" in Iowa in the very next sentence?  Democratic hacks on this site argue that undue what is given to "fundamentals" in states like Louisiana and Arkansas, yet jump over to another post on another thread (or maybe even the same thread) and you'll see the same posters arguing about how fundamentals in the form of "changing demographics" or "traditional Democratic strength" will save the Democrats in states like Colorado and Iowa even when polling doesn't indicate either candidate in those races as favorites.  

Because Pryor and Landrieu are incumbents? Also Democrats always underperform in Colorado polling and this year's vote-by-mail will boost left-leaning turnout. As to Iowa, Sarah Palin isn't getting elected in a blue-leaning swing state. Full stop. Period. Please think before posting nonsense.

[DrScholl]

Feingold refused to run a proper campaign, the same can't be said of Landrieu and Pryor. Besides, Republicans are going into panic mode in Louisiana and threatening Landrieu with legal action, which definitely doesn't not scream "favored".

[GaussLaw]

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.

[KCDem]

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.

[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."

[KCDem]

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."

Whatever you need to tell yourself...

[GaussLaw]

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.

Well, you made it sound like calling GA/KY heavy Republican favorites was inaccurate.  But for now, both have a string of consistent polling leans (discounting the heavily outlier Landmark for Perdue) and partisan inclinations deeply in their favor. 

Colorado is a tossup state as it was at the national average in 2012.  Plus, Obama is far less popular now and CO has shifted to the right in state Senate elections, recalls, etc. 

I was just saying that you use the incumbent effect only when it benefits you but ignore it when it doesn't.  That's just hypocrisy. 

Also, Arkansas and Louisiana both have reasonable probabilities IMO.  I think a 2 in 3 chance for Cotton is reasonable given that the fundamentals favor him and he leads in a majority (though not all) polls.  Remember, there's still a 1 in 3 chance of him losing.

And I don't see how you could discount Sullivan, Ernst, and Tillis completely when all are polling quite competitively.  The chances that 1 of them wins is pretty high.  Even if you say each only has a 25% chance of winning, the chances 1 of them wins is 1-(.75)^3 = 58%.  And I know these aren't independent events, but for toss-up races, it's not too crazy of an assumption.   If you throw in a victory here, plus a possible Gardner victory, then the math begins to look more in the GOP's favor. 

I'm not saying the GOP is going to win the Senate.  I am just saying that the vast majority of forecasters are right in saying that they are favored to do so.  Of course, you can choose to ignore the signs (just as the GOP did in 2012), but you do so at your own peril.