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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[KCDem]

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.

Hahahahaha...no.

A slim majority of American's disapprove of the President, but to say that a majority think it has been "a disaster" is preposterous and ludicrous.

[KCDem]

BUMP

My, my, my; how the consensus has changed

Nope, still not favored. If anything, Democrats have improved their position from late August.

[KCDem]

It's hard to say we are favorites when we can't even sure up Kansas, South Dakota, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana (even though Louisiana is looking good for the runoff), North Carolina or Georgia.

This exactly. The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.