Talk Elections

46/41. Buh-Bayh. (http://www.wthr.com/article/exclusive-wthrhpi-poll-young-pulls-ahead-of-bayh-in-senate-race)

Yeeeeeeeeeeeees! :D Bayh-bayh!

Welp...

Yup, it's over. RIP HP.

Good news, folks! With liberal Evan Bayh as senator, the good people of Indiana would have to kiss their guns bye bye (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIyQ-GYuexk), but with Todd Young they can keep 'em! Great success!

Bayh is pro-second amendment.

People over re-act on Atlas way to much. This race is not over yet. I find it disgusting that the GOP is taking advantage of the "email scandal" which is not really a scandal.

Clinton was careless but it does not meet the burden for criminal charges.

Bayh voted against pro-second amendment justices Alito and Roberts and for anti-second amendment justices Kagan and Sotomayor. Not good!

If it helps the senate candidates while not electing Trump, I'm all for it!

As I stated before, I do not care about the Supreme Court, as it is impossible to know how justices will vote 10, 15 or 20 years down the road.

Look at Bayh's Senate record on the second amendment.

Yes, because that's the only issue that has to be considered when picking a scouts justice.

B- pollster with a D+0.1 bias according to 538.

Given the media boner for Bayh so far (and I'd say rightfully so?) and the resulting polls, I'd say at best this is still a toss-up but it seems more likely now that Young ekes out a small win.

Also, maybe worth noting but this pollster had Bayh only +1 in early October while others subsequently had him up by +6. But, then again, Monmouth was one of those +6's and they had it tied last week, soooo..!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/senate/in/indiana_senate_young_vs_bayh-6003.html

yessss

Indiana and New Hampshire have made some 180's here in the past few days.

This one is going to be a squeaker

Sad that people think Bayh deserves to lose, but that Flawless Beautiful Marco <3 <3 <3 deserves to win. Double standard much? Anyway, this race isn't quite over yet, but Democrats should definitely hope for other races like NH and NC to get a majority (and I'd much rather have Senators like Ross than Senators like Bayh.)

Easiest path to a Democratic "majority" is IL, WI, PA, and NH, and holding NV. If we want a real majority, I think IN, MO, and NC are all possibilities, but the Republicans are currently favored in all of those.

The implied "senators in swing states should vote as moderates" line of reasoning is the most Atlas ever. Of course GOP partisans (like myself) think Bayh deserves to lose and FBM<3 should win, and of course Dem hacks want Bayh and Murphy to win.

I'm not talking about what partisans "want." Of course conservatives prefer Young and Rubio. It's just that when people argue that Bayh is an opportunist who deserves to lose, but praise Rubio for jumping back into the race... or complain about how Senators like McCaskill are more liberal than Missouri as a whole, but seem to have no problem with Senators like Johnson and Rubio being much more conservative than Wisconsin and Florida, I have to shake my head. I'll admit that I prefer Bayh to Young, but I'll also admit that Bayh is an opportunist, and I don't like him much at all. I'll also admit that someone like, say, Deborah Ross is pretty liberal for North Carolina. But I'm not going to claim that I want Johnson/Rubio to lose because they don't "represent" their state. I want them to lose because I want a more progressive Senate that won't block anything Clinton proposes (not that Murphy is progressive, but he's closer to one than Rubio.)

The people of Indiana should be ashamed of themselves. Completely uneducated morons smh.

FTFY. Either way, Senators aren't just impacting their own state, so the argument that they should "represent" the partisan lean of their state (especially in a body where WY has the same "representation" as CA) is flawed.

I love how just like Montana in 2014 democrats using shady tactics to try to get an advantage ends up biting them in the a$$

It's not just a case of someone being a moderate or not, though. Tester and Heitkamp are certainly more moderate and less partisan than Toomey and Rubio, even if they're not "true centrists."

Bayh is pretty bad, so cant say I'm unhappy seeing him lose.  Though considering how rare Indiana is polling, i dont think this is over yet.

Bayh is the Charlie Crist of this election. Useless twat.

Being more moderate than Rubio describes the majority of the Senate. Toomey is perceived as being less partisan because of his role in the Toomey-Manchin bill, but he's generally quite conservative. I'm not saying that Tester/Heitkamp don't usually vote with the Democrats, but they definitely split from their party a noticeable amount of the time.

But back on topic, if more polls confirm this, then Democrats clearly did make a mistake putting so much money in this race.

This pollster's record, is, um, very, very bad.

Links?

I don't know how bad this pollster is but someone mentioned that it's a Republican pollster who among others works for Young's campaign.
Is this true?

Definitely not.

New Poll: Indiana Senator by Public Opinion Strategies on 2016-11-03 (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2016/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=18320161103014)

Summary: D: 41%, R: 46%, I: 6%, U: 7%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details (http://www.wthr.com/article/exclusive-wthrhpi-poll-young-pulls-ahead-of-bayh-in-senate-race)

John Gregg would agree! (http://us11.campaign-archive1.com/?u=89fb3de929a99eecb88e6fb27&id=86112cd977&e=d67580d536)