NBC/WSJ/Marist Senate polls IA/ PA/ OH McGinty Leading, Ohio Tied, Grassley +10

[IceSpear]

Lmao at Gass practically declaring this race over because of one poll. Toomey will win, and I will laugh in Gass's face.

So you're laughing at him declaring the race over...then declare the race over?

[Gass3268]

Lmao at Gass practically declaring this race over because of one poll. Toomey will win, and I will laugh in Gass's face.

I've only declared it Lean D, obviously things can change.

[Ebsy]

That the usual suspects have built up Toomey to be some unbeatable candidate is both mystifying and not at all surprising considering their track records.

[Maxwell]

The PA poll is probably an outlier (in terms of PA polls both Presidential and Senate-wise), but extrapolating from its results shows Toomey running ahead of Trump by 6 points.

[Higgs]

Lmao at Gass practically declaring this race over because of one poll. Toomey will win, and I will laugh in Gass's face.

So you're laughing at him declaring the race over...then declare the race over?

It certainly isn't over, but I think Toomey has the edge. That's just my personal opinion, it could definitely go either way. It's just funny seeing Toomey have a consistent lead and then after one poll with McGinty leading by 3, some say that's Toomey's grave.

[Kevin]

I don't get this "If Hillary is winning PA by more than 3, Toomey is toast" talk. If that was true, Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly, Jon Tester and Claire McCaskill all wouldn't be Senators today. The only reason Clinton is dominating the presidential race is because Trump is an absolute garbage candidate who is undeperforming a generic R by several points. No voter is going to change their mind on who to vote for in the Senate race based on that. Bold prediction: If McGinty is winning, Democrats will have already won IL, WI, OH, IN, MO, NC, FL, NV, CO and NH.

The Senate race has nothing to do with the presidential race.

Grassley will be re-elected, but possibly within single digits and almost certainly in the closest race of his career. There's too much ticket splitters with misguided loyalty to him to dislodge the old fart. I think even in a mega landslide he'd only get Warner'd.

That's the problem in almost every state, though. Swing voters vote for a Senate candidate based on his personality/looks, not ideology. That's why we have so many fake moderates in Congress. Sad.

Agreed wholeheartdly!

IMO like others have said the Dem's are far more likely to win say IN, FL, NH or even OH, then PA(assuming they win IL and WI).

McGinty is a low profile 3rd-tier candidate who is only the nominee because the Democrats didn't have many better options. Kathleen Kane was burned in terms of having any politcal future, Joe Sestak is a volatile has been, and John Fetterman was way too far left to win statewide. And someone like Patrick Murphy didn't take the plunge.  

Also PA has a strong history of ticket splitting even under difficult circumstances. EX. Specter eeked out a win in 1992 despite Clinton carrying the state by nearly 9 points. Likewise Santorum won comfortably in 2000 despite Gore Carring PA by 4.

Specter also won reelection handily in 2004 despite Kerry narrowing winning.

The last incumbent Senator to lose in PA was in 1968 and that was a Democrat who ironically lost despite his party's standard bearer Hubert Humphrey carrying Pennsylvania that year.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I don't get this "If Hillary is winning PA by more than 3, Toomey is toast" talk. If that was true, Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly, Jon Tester and Claire McCaskill all wouldn't be Senators today. The only reason Clinton is dominating the presidential race is because Trump is an absolute garbage candidate who is undeperforming a generic R by several points. No voter is going to change their mind on who to vote for in the Senate race based on that. Bold prediction: If McGinty is winning, Democrats will have already won IL, WI, OH, IN, MO, NC, FL, NV, CO and NH.

The Senate race has nothing to do with the presidential race.

Grassley will be re-elected, but possibly within single digits and almost certainly in the closest race of his career. There's too much ticket splitters with misguided loyalty to him to dislodge the old fart. I think even in a mega landslide he'd only get Warner'd.

That's the problem in almost every state, though. Swing voters vote for a Senate candidate based on his personality/looks, not ideology. That's why we have so many fake moderates in Congress. Sad.

Agreed wholeheartdly!

IMO like others have said the Dem's are far more likely to win say IN, FL, NH or even OH, then PA(assuming they win IL and WI).

McGinty is also a low profile 3rd-tier candidate who is only the nominee because the Democrats didn't have many better options. Kathleen Kane was burned in terms of having any politcal future, Joe Sestak is a volatile has been, and John Fetterman was way too far left to win statewide. And someone like Patrick Murphy didn't take the plunge. 

Also PA has a strong history of ticket splitting even under difficult circumstances. EX. Specter eeked out a win in 1992 despite Clinton carrying the state by nearly 8 points. Likewise Santorum won comfortably in 2000 despite Gore Carring PA by  the State by 4.

Specter also won reelection handily in 2004 despite Kerry narrowing winning.

The last incumbent Senator to lose in PA was in 1968 and that was a Democrat who ironically lost despite his party's standard bearer Hubert Humphrey carrying Pennsylvania that year.

Actually the last incumbent senator to lose in PA was Specter in 2010, who lost the D primary to Sestak. If you meant "last incumbent who lost in the GE", the answer is Santorum in 2006. Even if you meant "last losing democrat incumbent in the GE", that would be Harris Wofford in 1994. To get back to 1968, you'd have to use the criteria of "last losing non-appointed democrat incumbent in the GE".

[Kevin]

I don't get this "If Hillary is winning PA by more than 3, Toomey is toast" talk. If that was true, Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly, Jon Tester and Claire McCaskill all wouldn't be Senators today. The only reason Clinton is dominating the presidential race is because Trump is an absolute garbage candidate who is undeperforming a generic R by several points. No voter is going to change their mind on who to vote for in the Senate race based on that. Bold prediction: If McGinty is winning, Democrats will have already won IL, WI, OH, IN, MO, NC, FL, NV, CO and NH.

The Senate race has nothing to do with the presidential race.

Grassley will be re-elected, but possibly within single digits and almost certainly in the closest race of his career. There's too much ticket splitters with misguided loyalty to him to dislodge the old fart. I think even in a mega landslide he'd only get Warner'd.

That's the problem in almost every state, though. Swing voters vote for a Senate candidate based on his personality/looks, not ideology. That's why we have so many fake moderates in Congress. Sad.

Agreed wholeheartdly!

IMO like others have said the Dem's are far more likely to win say IN, FL, NH or even OH, then PA(assuming they win IL and WI).

McGinty is also a low profile 3rd-tier candidate who is only the nominee because the Democrats didn't have many better options. Kathleen Kane was burned in terms of having any politcal future, Joe Sestak is a volatile has been, and John Fetterman was way too far left to win statewide. And someone like Patrick Murphy didn't take the plunge. 

Also PA has a strong history of ticket splitting even under difficult circumstances. EX. Specter eeked out a win in 1992 despite Clinton carrying the state by nearly 8 points. Likewise Santorum won comfortably in 2000 despite Gore Carring PA by  the State by 4.

Specter also won reelection handily in 2004 despite Kerry narrowing winning.

The last incumbent Senator to lose in PA was in 1968 and that was a Democrat who ironically lost despite his party's standard bearer Hubert Humphrey carrying Pennsylvania that year.

Actually the last incumbent senator to lose in PA was Specter in 2010, who lost the D primary to Sestak. If you meant "last incumbent who lost in the GE", the answer is Santorum in 2006. Even if you meant "last losing democrat incumbent in the GE", that would be Harris Wofford in 1994. To get back to 1968, you'd have to use the criteria of "last losing non-appointed democrat incumbent in the GE".

I'm actually going more so by the criteria of last incumbent PA Senator from of ether party to lose in a Presidental election year.

[SWE]

LOL@PA. Junk poll!

What's junk about Toomey running +6 of Trump? You think it's more than that? Unlikely.

I don't believe Clinton +8 will be the case on election day.

Yeah, the margin will probably be wider.