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

[Free Bird]

This forum has more Democrats than Republicans. Therefore, they/it has a way too optimistic outlook for Democrats. Just as Breitbart and Redstate overstate Republican possibilities.

[Free Bird]

This forum has more Democrats than Republicans. Therefore, they/it has a way too optimistic outlook for Democrats. Just as Breitbart and Redstate overstate Republican possibilities.

This forum on the whole underestimated Barack Obama's performance in 2012: https://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/PRESIDENT/2012/pred.php

Democrats in the 2012 US Senate: https://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/SENATE/2012/pred.php

Democrats in the 2010 US Senate: https://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/SENATE/2010/pred.php

and Barack Obama's performance in 2008: https://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/PRESIDENT/2008/pred.php

So, no, the forum on the whole does not have "a way too optimistic outlook for Democrats."

By default they are because there's more Democrats. And I think they underestimated Obama because everyone thought Romney would win Florida.

[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.

[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.

[Free Bird]

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.

A fair point. My thing is that the numbers are really good. You basically have 3 seats locked down, and 2 that are locking up. That leaves 1 more for a majority, and to lose all of the remaining competitive races would require serious mess ups and Democratmentum. A Republican congress wouldn't mean anything since Obama is too partisan to sign anything they would pass, but the point of it would be to make him a lame duck- so that he can't just go stomping over the Constitution using Reid as his attack dog.