Talk Elections

Article. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2014/mississippi/election_2014_mississippi_senate)

Cochran (R)- 48%
Childers (D)- 31%

McDaniel (R)- 47%
Childers (D)- 35%

Amusing that Cochran and Childers are both under 50%. McDaniel is still generic R. That will change if he wins the primary.

Childers probably won't win, but there's no reason Cochran should be under 60%, let alone 50%.

This is Rasmussen...
Seriously, Childers isn't going to underperform Obama if it's Mcdaniels.

That's fair, though what if Childers underperforms due to low black turnout because of midterms?

I know black turnout will drop, but by 2-3% at worst? And Childers still has support from his former district. I guess it would be relatively easy for him to get 45% in a run-off against Mcdaniels. Winning the election is unfortunately unlikely for him.

No Cochran vs. McDaniel numbers?? That's all that even matters right now!

Oh, no! McDaniel only up by twelve! TOSS UP!

YOU GUYS ARE GONNA LOSE FOREVER BECAUSE OF DEMOGRAPHICS HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

OMG do you not get that young people are LIBERAL on social issues? JEEZE!

Lolz.

I'm not saying he will win, but it has the potential to be somewhat competitive.

You're a fool if you think this poll is reflective of what the race will look like in October/November...

You're a fool if you think that we believe that you're a serious poster.

This race is not a tossup.  Everythig would have to go wrong for Republicans for the Democrats to win MS.  That isn't going to happen.

Quit being thick. I never said that this race is a tossup. What I said was that polling will be very different in the fall if McDaniel wins the primary. You should practice your reading comprehension, it might help you on your next book report.

You think Democrats could pick up MS, you said it in the other thread:



My reading comprehension?  Well, there's no point in reading if the writer is just going to contradict himself. 

The fact that the Democrats have a chance of picking up the seat doesn't make the race a tossup. So I'm not contradicting myself and I again urge you to practice reading comp.

Let's put it like this, Childers has about as much chance of winning as the overrated Terri Lynn Land and the extra overrated Scott Brown. Not impossible, but not likely under regular circumstances. Republicans are far more confident about winning blue state seats that Democrats are about winning red states.

Yes, a candidate with a 2-point lead ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/mi/michigan_senate_land_vs_peters-3820.html ) clearly has the same chance of winning as a candidate with a 17-point deficit against his likeliest opponent and an average 9-point deficit against a less-likely opponent ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/mississippi_senate_race.html ). Your hackishness is starting to get tiresome.


Michigan and Mississippi are not comparable intensities of strength; Massachusetts and Mississippi are, but I don't see any Republicans thinking they'll beat Ed Markey.

If Republicans had gotten Brown to run against Markey, keyboards across the country would have need a good wipe down.

You're annoying.

That may very well be. So is one's conscience.

Uh, no. Childers needs lightning to strike in several ways to win. All those Republicans need is a mildly good year.

Lynn Land wouldn't win in a good year for Republicans. It's Michigan 'nuf said

Michigan polling is notoriously bad, some of those polls were very off in 2008. I'm talking probability, and as far as Senate seats go, Michigan hasn't been more elastic than Mississippi. The past few Senate elections in Michigan have been big blowouts for Republicans.

I'm not the hack here, don't project, kid.

They need more than a good year, they need their opponents to make some very serious errors. It's not like they are running against badly flawed candidates.

But you think Corbett has a good chance of winning and he's down 20 in the latest poll, so...?

But all the polls indicating that Hillary will win in a landslide more than 2 years out are clear proof that she will be our next President.

I have never said so.

Childers is not as strong as Land and nowhere near as weak as Brown

LOL

Childers has an actual track record of winning in red turf in a hyper-partisan race. Land is a joke candidate who has held minor joke office.

I don't know enough about Land to judge that statement, but Childers is the 2nd strongest candidate the Mississippi Democrats could possibly have (behind Hood). That may not be enough, but at least we're actually trying to win a seat for once.

You're being ridiculously hackish to equate MI and MS. Like, okay, some polls in 2008 overestimated Republicans in Michigan, so that just blows out all the other evidence we have? That nearly every election in the past 20+ years supports the idea that MS is substantially more Republican than MI is Democratic? That polls in MI indicate a close race but polls in MS don't? That even in the same year where MI's polls were supposedly crappy, MS polls also underestimated Republican strength? That all of the prognosticators strongly disagree with you?


Democrats winning strongly in MI Senate seats in recent years is totally consistent with it being more elastic. The past few Senate races have been in Democratic years with strong Democrats and/or weak Republicans, so it's not surprising that Democrats would win big then. In Republican years like 2010, Republicans won big (there wasn't a Senate seat up then, but there's no reason to believe it couldn't have been competitive when Republicans swept the rest of the Midwest that year).

Stop bro. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

Land's strength is overrated, since Secretary of State is anonymous and might as well be non-partisan. She's never actually won on really hostile territory like Childers.

Stop with the name calling, okay? All this calling people hacks because you disagree is unnecessary. The fact that Land hasn't cracked more than 42% in polling is not suggestive of a probable win, judging from the fact that Romney polled the same way in 2012 and went on to lose. Yes, Michigan is less Democratic than Mississippi is Republican, but that doesn't mean that Michigan will automatically elect Land. The people calling it Lean R are being way too optimistic. I'm not even suggesting Childers will win, but some GOPer's here already have Land in the Senate.

When did I suggest Land had a "probable win" or that it was "Lean R?" All I'm disputing is what you said earlier, "Childers has about as much chance of winning as the overrated Terri Lynn Land and the extra overrated Scott Brown", in particular with respect to the former. The races are just not in the same league, and virtually all data and predictions support that.

The insanity is ridiculously strong here. Mississippi is Likely R, bordering on Safe. For Childers to win would require McDaniel to be nominated, firstly (not a particularly likely event), and then to blunder (also not a certainty). Michigan is Tossup/slight Tilt R. Land has won every statewide election she has competed in and has a consistent, albeit narrow lead in the polls; Peters has only competed in one and lost that one, but Michigan usually leans Democratic on the federal level, so there is probably an opening for Peters. It is Peters whose campaign has to outcompete Land's if he wants to win; it is Peters who needs the status quo to shift. It can be argued that, for different reasons, it is likely that he achieves this; but there is no logical way you can come to the conclusion that he is favored by any significant amount without a blindfold covering your eyes. I would reply to individual posts but I see no need to waste my time.

The past couple of polls have shown a Peters lead, and even one of the poorer pollsters that tends to show Republicans doing better than they actually do showed a drop for Land.

Michigan is not Tilt Republican, it's not a Toss-up, it's Lean Democratic. As I have said, Secretary of State is a fairly anonymous office and may as well be non-partisan, it's not the same thing as a Senate seat. Second, Land's leads look just like Romney's early in the 2012 cycle, and are from the same very inaccurate pollsters.

Again, I never said Childers will win, because I think it's too difficult for him to do so, I'm just saying that Republicans are guilty of over-hyping certain candidates.

I never, ever said that so now you're just resorting to flat out lying. Very pathetic.

Seek professional help.

New Poll: Mississippi Senator by Rasmussen on 2014-03-29 (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2014/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=28220140329016)

Summary: D: 31%, R: 48%, U: 12%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2014/mississippi/election_2014_mississippi_senate)

So you admit Corbett is doomed?

Good, hopefully McDaniels wins here. We need a REAL conservative representing Mississippi, not the two clowns currently in there.

I hope you're being ironic, and I'm sure you are, because Cochran = Lugar.

Lugar was more moderate than him, wasn't he?

EDIT: According to the National Journal 2010 Vote Ratings: Cochran was the 25th most conservative senator, while Lugar was the 37th most conservative senator.

So this was set up as an idiotic gotcha question?  ::)

Here's a piece of knowledge for you: not thinking Corbett is in "good shape" (which you should admit was an outright lie that I ever thought that during this cycle) doesn't necessarily mean one thinks a dramatic comeback is out of the question. Doesn't mean I think that will happen either but your point was that never saying he's in good shape means he's doomed. It doesn't work that work. 

Well, if we're going to play the "act obnoxious over a single poll without considering any other factors" game, then Childers has a higher chance of beating McDaniel AND Cochran than Corbett does of beating Wolf. That was my point.

Besides, literally nobody has ever said it would be a toss up if McDaniel won, per the responses in the other topic you yourself made.

Did you seriously believe he was legit? Isaac is the definition of the establishment.

..."literally" nobody said it would be a toss up? Seven people voted "yes" to "Do you really think the Dems would pick up MS if McDaniel is the nominee?"

Learn what literally means, dude.

7 people. Out of 63. Clearly not some widespread attitude that must be countered. I'm sure you could get a few votes for Wyoming being a Dem pickup or Rhode Island being a Republican pickup solely due to joke votes, troll votes, or accidentally clicking the wrong button.

Seven people out of 63 =/= "no one" and one person was strongly arguing the point that it would be a competitive race if you bothered to read the thread that you chose to cite. But I love this justification you're using. "Hey, some people might have accidentally hit that button!"

And this is your convoluted way of excusing your idiotic, false point that I said Corbett had a good chance at winning? You should have just owned up to it and admitted that you wrongly thought I argued something that I didn't. Please. You lost this one. Give it up. Stop digging.

Competitive =/= toss up. A "lean" race would still be competitive. And wow, ONE person? I'm astonished. You can find one person who believes anything. Should we start obnoxiously ranting every time some piece of evidence proves a flat earther wrong?

As for "good chance", that was just poor wording. But you clearly think there's a path to victory for Corbett, despite him trailing Wolf even worse than Childers does against McDaniel AND Cochran (which I'm assuming is a race you consider safe R no matter who is the nominee, judging from your other thread and comments here). By the way, it's probably not a safe bet to start gloating over a SINGLE POLL, especially when it's f'ing Rasmussen.

Keep moving those goal posts! You've gone from saying "literally" no one said MS would be a toss up to saying some people voted for that option accidentally but no one argued the point in the thread to finally saying, "Oh wow. One person did. Big deal." Can you get your argument straight before moving forward? Thanks.

Next you'll equate saying Corbett has a 1% chance of victory to saying he has a "path to victory." Saying I said Corbett had a good chance wasn't "just poor wording" on your part. You fundamentally changed/made up something I've said.

Do you really think a Republican victory, even with a weak incumbent like Corbett, in PA is as realistic as a Dem picking up an MS Senate seat in 2014? You're the one using one poll as a gold standard, dude. You're not taking into account the elasticity of both states. Go ahead and point to other polls when they come out that show Childers closing in. At the end of the day, the chances of him winning in his state given this climate are slim to none. Corbett at least has a more favorable state, incumbency and political climate in his favor.

So, is IceSpear picking up where Flyers left off?

I was obviously only using the "one poll as a gold standard" because you were doing the same. Besides, at least Quinnipiac is a decent pollster, unlike Rasmussen.

I'd say both Corbett winning re-election and Childers beating McDaniel have very low odds, probably ~5% for each. Right now, McDaniel is "generic R" and will probably fall a bit more if he actually beat Cochran in the primary and voters started to learn about his neo-Confederate ties, opposition to Katrina aid, etc. etc. He'd still win, but I could see it taking him into single digits.

On the other hand, Corbett is already known (and hated) with an approval rating in the 20s or 30s. His only hope would be if the Democrat becomes more hated, which would be near impossible to achieve barring some type of scandal.

Not that it really matters since both of their chances are pretty negligible, but yes, I'd say Childers has a slightly higher chance of beating McDaniel than Corbett does of beating Wolf.