Montana Senate Race

[Governor PiT]

I'd vote for Tester, but the race will is still to close to call.

[gorkay]

I'm beginning to think that Burns is going to win. In a race that's a dead heat four days before the election, the incumbent usually has the advantage, especially if, like Burns, he has been closing the gap steadily.

I'd vote for Tester, though.

[Torie]

Steele and Burns win, Allen and Talent lose. I just feel it. I have a gift.

[Eraserhead]

I would vote for Tester and Tester will win. It will be close though.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Burns/Burns

[WalterMitty]

Burns/Burns

[J. J.]

Burns/Burns.

[Rob]

Tester/Tester.

Burns/Burns

Republican.  Because ethics and integrity matter.

What a joke.

[nclib]

Tester/Tester

[Frodo]

In spite of my disagreements with him over the Patriot Act and other civil liberties-related issues, I would rather vote for Jon Tester given the opposition, and he will likely win. 

[Gabu]

Burns win

Burns/Burns

Burns/Burns

Burns/Burns.

You guys are awfully confident despite the fact that no poll since April has shown Burns leading, and despite the fact that, ignoring outliers, there has been no movement in the polls since the start of October (regardless of the unsubstantiated statement going around for whatever reason that Burns is continually getting closer...).

If you look at Tester's numbers, they've been totally constant since, like, forever.  The only reason that Burns appears to be getting closer is because the undecideds are going to Burns, who were probably already leaning that way (given that it's Montana).

[Eraserhead]

Burns win

Burns/Burns

Burns/Burns

Burns/Burns.

You guys are awfully confident despite the fact that no poll since April has shown Burns leading, and despite the fact that, ignoring outliers, there has been no movement in the polls since the start of October (regardless of the unsubstantiated statement going around for whatever reason that Burns is continually getting closer...).

If you look at Tester's numbers, they've been totally constant since, like, forever.  The only reason that Burns appears to be getting closer is because the undecideds are going to Burns, who were probably already leaning that way (given that it's Montana).

You mean you don't trust Zogby like they do?!?! (Joking of course.)

[nclib]

In spite of my disagreements with him over the Patriot Act and other civil liberties-related issues, I would rather vote for Jon Tester given the opposition, and he will likely win. 

Is Tester for or against the PATRIOT act?

[© tweed]

In spite of my disagreements with him over the Patriot Act and other civil liberties-related issues, I would rather vote for Jon Tester given the opposition, and he will likely win. 

Is Tester for or against the PATRIOT act?

Tester favors scrapping it.

[Eraserhead]

In spite of my disagreements with him over the Patriot Act and other civil liberties-related issues, I would rather vote for Jon Tester given the opposition, and he will likely win. 

Is Tester for or against the PATRIOT act?

Jon Tester=Freedom Fighter. He wants to repeal the entire thing.

[Gabu]

You mean you don't trust Zogby like they do?!?! (Joking of course.)

Even Zogby had Tester leading and at 47%, in fact.

And even if you did trust Zogby, you'd have to then distrust Rasmussen, who came out a day later with the result of Tester +4.

[Torie]

Burns win

Burns/Burns

Burns/Burns

Burns/Burns.

You guys are awfully confident despite the fact that no poll since April has shown Burns leading, and despite the fact that, ignoring outliers, there has been no movement in the polls since the start of October (regardless of the unsubstantiated statement going around for whatever reason that Burns is continually getting closer...).

If you look at Tester's numbers, they've been totally constant since, like, forever.  The only reason that Burns appears to be getting closer is because the undecideds are going to Burns, who were probably already leaning that way (given that it's Montana).

You number cruncher you.  I just feel it. Tester is just a bit too liberal for Montana, and when the voters go to the voting booth, just enough will go for the rube. Of course one would not admit they support Burns in polite company. That would be like admitting you have donuts for breakfast.

The above opinion is invalid and inoperative if wrong, and cannot be relied upon by consenting adults in any manner without the permission of the author.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Tester/Tester

Note that even a majority of Republicans in the Montana State Legislature are opposed to the Patriot Act.

[Eraserhead]

Burns win

Burns/Burns

Burns/Burns

Burns/Burns.

You guys are awfully confident despite the fact that no poll since April has shown Burns leading, and despite the fact that, ignoring outliers, there has been no movement in the polls since the start of October (regardless of the unsubstantiated statement going around for whatever reason that Burns is continually getting closer...).

If you look at Tester's numbers, they've been totally constant since, like, forever.  The only reason that Burns appears to be getting closer is because the undecideds are going to Burns, who were probably already leaning that way (given that it's Montana).

You number cruncher you.  I just feel it. Tester is just a bit too liberal for Montana, and when the voters go to the voting booth, just enough will go for the rube. Of course one would not admit they support Burns in polite company. That would be like admitting you have donuts for breakfast.

The above opinion is invalid and inoperative if wrong, and cannot be relied upon by consenting adults in any manner without the permission of the author.

What the heck is wrong with donuts for breakfast?

[Torie]

[/quote]

What the heck is wrong with donuts for breakfast?
[/quote]

You must live upstate, probably Buffalo.

And there you have it.

[Eraserhead]

What the heck is wrong with donuts for breakfast?
[/quote]

You must live upstate, probably Buffalo.

And there you have it.
[/quote]

Nah. I'm from the Bronx originally and although I do live upstate now, I am not even remotely close to Buffalo.

[elcorazon]

I think there's something to the theory that there are some candidates so vile that even the supporters won't admit it to a pollster.  This happened in 1984 with Jesse Helms.  Hunt was ahead in the polls and ended up losing fairly handily, actually.

[Torie]

What the heck is wrong with donuts for breakfast?

You must live upstate, probably Buffalo.

And there you have it.
[/quote]

Nah. I'm from the Bronx originally and although I do live upstate now, I am not even remotely close to Buffalo.
[/quote]

OK, time for plan B. What is the life expectancy in the Bronx, and then connect the dots to donuts, and the roschat blot becomes clear.

Yes, I know, a little spam is chic retro, a lot is gluttony. All things in moderation.

[J. J.]

In a word, "Momentum."  In an acronym, "GOTV."

Two weeks ago, I had this as a Tester win.  The polls ares shifting to Burns.  While the GOTV drive is not going to work miracles, it will make a difference in close races.  This is the one.

[Gabu]

The polls ares shifting to Burns.

But they're not.  Look at the link I posted above.  There is no evidence of Tester losing ground whatsoever.  He's stayed constant around the 50% mark the entire campaign and is still where he's always been.