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

[Never]

I would say that the GOP is more likely to win based on a narrow lead in the polls.
However, many races are close and we could have a situation where control depends
on one seat that isn't finally called for days or even weeks.

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.