IN-WTHR/HPI: Young +5

[Xing]

Sad that people think Bayh deserves to lose, but that Flawless Beautiful Marco 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.)

[Xing]

Sad that people think Bayh deserves to lose, but that Flawless Beautiful Marco deserves to win. Double standard much?

The "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.)

[Xing]

A major difference is that Missouri is a very red state while WI and FL are is a swing state and WI is a light blue state who are each represented by 1 conservative and 1 liberal Senator.

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.

[Xing]

A major difference is that Missouri is a very red state while WI and FL are is a swing state and WI is a light blue state who are each represented by 1 conservative and 1 liberal Senator.

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.

Either way, moderate Senators aren't really a thing these days. I can think of maybe 3 or 4 Senators that I would consider moderate, but certainly not more. You can't call people like Heidi Heitkamp and Jon Tester moderates but then bash Pat Toomey and Marco Rubio for being partisans, for example.

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."

[Xing]

Tester and Heitkamp are certainly more moderate and less partisan than Toomey and Rubio, even if they're not "true centrists."

That is very arguable.

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.