This isnt Predictit, these arent bets on who is going to win. This forum is a combination of hot take and in depth analysis.
It's a turn of phrase; people are too bullish on Democratic wins in a variety of races. I appreciate you explaining to me what Atlas Forum is about, though. It's not as if I've been a member for going on 15 years.
Georgia-The 50%+1 is a dilemma for Abrams, she either has to win on election day or win the runoff. The thing is that, everything is going her way in the state. The Rs are scandal plagued, the Ds had great turnout in the primaries, and she is leading both candidates in polling(though it is her internals). The runoff gifting the election to the R may not be true. Runoffs usually help the less enthused/more likely to vote faction. This has been the Rs for most of the 21st century, but this is 2018. The state has a slight lean to the right compared to 2008, and the Democrats have done better in the runoffs so far, not to mention the Ds are highly enthused. Its a problem for Stacy, but not an impossible challenge.
Even if we ignore
this and especially
this at face value, there's still the little matter of the specific claim that "runoffs are going to help the more enthusiastic party". Surely you're not going to argue that 2008 wasn't a wave year for Democrats with lots of enthusiasm, nor that the runoff result was indicative of high Democratic enthusiasm? The runoffs obviously take place after the fact; after the energy has blown its load. By the time/result of the runoff in 2008, you'd be forgiven if you thought it was already 2010.
Especially if Democrats come close in GA (let alone win with a plurality) or take back either/both chambers in Congress, the GOP will be crawling across hot coals to vote in the state - and the coalitions that comprise the Democratic vote-bloc in GA are not comparable to many other states (bluntly, it's not a heavily-white and old electorate). They disproportionately do not turn back out in low-turnout and/or runoff situations.
Not to mention/if you need further evidence of the above:
[/quote]
LA is incomplete and very well might look different with all the data available (but I'd point out that it too is a heavily-black Democratic electorate). Connecticut is obvious; the state Democratic Party is horribly unpopular there and is experiencing a backlash. GA is the only real anomaly there, but it's not an anomaly because GA Democrats as a whole are terrible at turning out in specials, run-off and low-turnout elections.
Ohio- Ohio polling has shown this race as a tossup, with even Corday leading in the average of polling. The victory by Sherrod Brown could also provide coattails for him. The state has 3 regions with disadvantages, yes, but there are advantages if the Dem can capitalize. This doesnt even consider that Mike Dewine is a rather below average candidate who even Kaisich wont endorse.
Brown's a lock, but to think he's going to generate massive coat-tails for the downballot is dubious at best in such a swingy state. OH statewide and down-ballot Democrats might as well be an extension of the FDP; they have been flubbing it for over a decade and tend to significantly underperform. Cordray isn't exactly Mr. High-Energy, either.
Arizona- I think you missed why there are no 3rd party candidates for the Gubernatorial race.The AZGOP literally tried every trick in the book to have them removed. Now, Ill pose a question. If the race in Arizona was guaranteed for the incumbent, why go to all the trouble? The answer: This race is close. The current governor, Doug Ducey has low approvals, and the state has been hit with Liberal movements such as the teacher protests. The state is also trending D, and the environment favors the likely Democratic nominee, Garcia. And with Sinema, who has been averaging in the high single to double digits in polling, and you have the recipe for an upset.
And I'll pose one back to you: if that maneuver wasn't likely to deliver them the results they wanted, why go to all the trouble?
Poll
