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.
