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

[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.

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.

[Never]

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.

[Vega]

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.

Yeah, you summed this up pretty well. This is how I feel.

[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.

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.

[DrScholl]

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.

[Lief 🗽]

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.

[GaussLaw]

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.

I can't speak for Freedomhawk, but I don't believe in unskewing polls.  I'm just using the projection models available as well as Sabato/Rothenberg.  This is a lot different than the "unskewing" of the 2012 elections.  Here, the Dems have the burden of proof to show that the polling average + fundamentals mix is inaccurate for all the major models out now, not the other way around. 

[Maxwell]

Republicans are perfectly capable of screwing things up, which is why the GOP could win 51 seats, but I think it's more likely that it will be 50-50, with Biden deciding stuff.

[smoltchanov]

Republicans are perfectly capable of screwing things up, which is why the GOP could win 51 seats, but I think it's more likely that it will be 50-50, with Biden deciding stuff.

Exactly my forecast NOW. It may change (my final forecast will be no sooner then Nov. 1st)))

P.S. And i am neither Republican nor right-winger)))

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

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.

[KCDem]

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.

[eric82oslo]

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.

[Niemeyerite]

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.

Hahaha, no.

[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.

[eric82oslo]

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.

[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.

[eric82oslo]

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.

That's probably most to do with them not considering Orman a Dem, which is true. However, if he were to win, he'd almost certainly caucus more with Dems than the GOP.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

This thread is ludicrous.

[Never]

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.

That's probably most to do with them not considering Orman a Dem, which is true. However, if he were to win, he'd almost certainly caucus more with Dems than the GOP.

Not that I generally trust what a political candidate says on their campaign website, but if we take Orman's word at face value, it looks like he'll caucus with whichever party controls the Senate (which is problematic if the body had 49 senators caucusing with Democrats and 50 senators caucusing with Republicans - since he would decide control in that case):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Taking Orman at his word, a seven-seat Republican gain in the Senate, with Orman being the only person to flip a Republican seat, would result in Orman caucusing with the Republicans.

[Frodo]

I see everyone ignored my question in the other thread, so let's try again:

With President Obama set to issue an executive order unilaterally legalizing millions of undocumented immigrants, how do you think this will impact the midterm elections this November, especially in the South?  Will this give the GOP the edge they need to win races in close contests in North Carolina, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Louisiana? 

[eric82oslo]

I see everyone ignored my question in the other thread, so let's try again:

With President Obama set to issue an executive order unilaterally legalizing millions of undocumented immigrants, how do you think this will impact the midterm elections this November, especially in the South?  Will this give the GOP the edge they need to win races in close contests in North Carolina, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Louisiana? 

Probably not because he ain't gonna execute those orders until November the earliest.

[JerryArkansas]

I see everyone ignored my question in the other thread, so let's try again:

With President Obama set to issue an executive order unilaterally legalizing millions of undocumented immigrants, how do you think this will impact the midterm elections this November, especially in the South?  Will this give the GOP the edge they need to win races in close contests in North Carolina, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Louisiana? 

Depending on how it's played and how reaching it is, it could flip all of the competitive races either way.  Really it just depends on how the general electorate for 2014 takes it.

[Joe Biden 2020]

The Republicans have to have a very good night in order to take the Senate.  I think they are more than likely to, but it's by no means a guarantee.  Anything can happen in the next two months.  Most Americans feel that Obama has been a complete disaster in his second term so that should help the Republicans, but then again Obama is not on the ballot nor will he be in 2016, although that's a different topic for a different board.  I agree with an earlier poster on this thread saying that the national mood doesn't favor one party over the other very strongly.  I'd give the edge to Republicans in that arena, but that's only because of the catastrophe that's occupying the White House.  Another poster also rightly mentioned that the Republicans have a very gifted talent to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  Romney had the 2012 election almost in the bag, but he made a few too many 4th quarter gaffes that were insurmountable.

One also has to consider that it really doesn't matter who controls the Senate come January as the margin will be so small that nothing will get done.