billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,653
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 29, 2014 14:36:34 GMT -5
Yeah, the filibuster is why 55 last year will be relevant next year. yeah. why is that puzzling to you?Not puzzled at all. I have a good handle on it. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/smiley.png) I think with a majority in both that the Republicans would modify the rules to get presidential vetoes for them to use in the 2016 presidential campaign (even with the fact that Obama will not be the Democratic nominee). i think that a rules change (the "nuclear option") would be a complete disaster for the GOP. do you want me to explain why? No, not particularly.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 29, 2024 2:28:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2014 14:38:35 GMT -5
Yeah, the filibuster is why 55 last year will be relevant next year. yeah. why is that puzzling to you?I think with a majority in both that the Republicans would modify the rules to get presidential vetoes for them to use in the 2016 presidential campaign (even with the fact that Obama will not be the Democratic nominee). i think that a rules change (the "nuclear option") would be a complete disaster for the GOP. do you want me to explain why? You people are behind.
www.mediaite.com/online/senate-democrats-vote-to-change-filibuster-rules/
Reid drove the nails in the Dumbcrats coffins with this stupid move. Now when the Republicans regain the Senate aren't they going to have fun?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 29, 2014 14:47:47 GMT -5
not at all. that is only for judges. the Democrats will have to live with that. edit: they will probably find it easier to live with given that they have packed the judicial branch with appointees during this session. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png) what bills is talking about is ACROSS THE BOARD. Democrats didn't do that. they would be complete idiots to do that. so would the GOP. seriously- i would bet my life's savings on the fact that the GOP will not TOUCH the rules. if they win, they can block judicial appointments, and Democrats will have to live with that, but the GOP would be INSANE to expand that rule change. if you don't know why, i will explain that.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 29, 2014 15:37:10 GMT -5
I think they would do it if they had the white house- they have threatened to before.
I am interested in why you think they wouldn't (and for arguments sake pretend there is a GOP president)
I know it would be pointless when the vetos loom.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,653
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 29, 2014 15:40:32 GMT -5
... I know it would be pointless when the vetos loom. I know there would be a point with the looming veto.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 29, 2014 17:33:25 GMT -5
I think they would do it if they had the white house- they have threatened to before. they might.I am interested in why you think they wouldn't (and for arguments sake pretend there is a GOP president) because their odds of winning the House, Senate and Presidency in 2016 is basically NIL. i know that seems counterintuitive. after all, they are polling so well this year. but if you look at how the 2016 elections are shaping up- who is running, what the turnout is likely to be, etc, the odds are very very very long that the GOP will win all three branches. the odds are less than 50/50 that they will win ANY branch, in fact. if the GOP changes the rules now, Obama would veto everything right up to 2017, and then, if Democrats win the WH in 2016, the GOP would be in an IMPOSSIBLY BAD position, unable to fight ANYTHING and 100% to blame for that fact. now, they COULD change the rules early next year, then change them BACK in early 2016. that's possible. but again, i think it is quite unlikely, and quite foolhardy.I know it would be pointless when the vetos loom. that is the other reason- the more obvious one.
|
|
marvholly
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 6,540
|
Post by marvholly on Oct 30, 2014 5:29:01 GMT -5
I am sure many of the polls are inaccurate and/or within the statistical margin(s) of error. I am in IL where the gov race is VERY neck & neck. I have literally hung up on at least 3 if not 5 pollisters in the past 2 weeks.
IMHO congressional gridlock WILL continue for at least the next 2 years. There will be filibusters & vetoes. The republicans will NOT have a large enough majority to override the vetoes. Also, HRC is DUMB if she does run. It is just going to be battle after battle with NO big win for anyone and a LOT of blame for everyone.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 30, 2014 8:08:01 GMT -5
I am sure many of the polls are inaccurate and/or within the statistical margin(s) of error. I am in IL where the gov race is VERY neck & neck. I have literally hung up on at least 3 if not 5 pollisters in the past 2 weeks. i hear this a lot, and it is totally inaccurate. it doesn't matter how many people hang up on the pollsters, only how many people ANSWER THE PHONES. around 95% of all scientifically polls conducted are within MOE.
that having been said, RCP thinks that Democrats are going to win the governors race in IL, but my own analysis says that the race favors the GOP by about a 6:5 margin. i don't really care for RCP's methodology. they don't weight polls, and as a result, they tend to over factor polls that are of extremely low quality and outliers.
edit: i should probably mention that the GOP lead this race by 11% in JUNE, and has squandered it, so if anything, this race is "trending Democratic". if they win it, it will be one of the more surprising upsets this year.
IMHO congressional gridlock WILL continue for at least the next 2 years. There will be filibusters & vetoes. The republicans will NOT have a large enough majority to override the vetoes. Also, HRC is DUMB if she does run. It is just going to be battle after battle with NO big win for anyone and a LOT of blame for everyone. i don't think that anyone that runs for president is dumb. it is a tough job, but there are a lot of percs, not the least of which is being set for life when you are done.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 30, 2014 8:21:37 GMT -5
another day of polling, and most of the polling favored the GOP.
Republican solid : 49 Democrat solid: 47
Leaning Republican: IA, AK Leaning Independent: KS
Tossup: GA
DISCUSSION:
none of the "solids" have changed in the last two days, but the polls have shifted away from Democrats in all four undecided races plus NC and NH, though not enough in the latter two to put them into play. the last five polls in GA show David Perdue even or ahead. the poll in IA showing Ernst ahead is beyond polling error. on Tuesday, Sullivan got a favorable poll in Alaska showing him with a 4% lead- but with 20% undecided. with 20% undecided, it is a pretty low quality poll, but this close to election, it is all i have. polling in Alaska is notoriously low quality. there has only been one poll in the last week in KS, and it shows Ormon up by 2%. he is leading in four of the last five polls in that state, and i am reasonably certain he will win it, so i am moving that state to leaning Independent.
given this burst of strength, particularly in Iowa, i am putting the GOP back to 2:1 favorite to win the Senate as of today. expect DAILY updates from this point out, as the polls flood in. i suspect we will have good quality polls going forward everywhere other than Alaska. i am going to remain uncertain there until probably right up to election.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Oct 30, 2014 11:44:17 GMT -5
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,082
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 30, 2014 12:06:19 GMT -5
In the GA govenor's race, republican incumbant Nathan Deal is slightly ahead against Jason Carter.
Deal got in trouble for a scheme to have one of his companies selected to do the emissions testing in several areas of GA -just getting those areas outright, without having to submit a bid. Then he fired the accountant whistleblower who pointed this out.
Deal claimed it was important for his company to get the contract because otherwise 'illegal immigrants' might do the work if it wasn't given to him - classic Republican response, frighten people with the illegals ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png)
Once the system was fixed and all the contracts had to be won by bidding, he declined to submit a bid.
Also some illegal handling of campaign contributions, directing them towards relatives and his own personal business.
newstimes.augusta.com/opinion/2014-10-29/nathan-deal-and-the-scandal-that-wont-go-away
Also a giant homophobe. And yet he's winnning over Carter.
Yea us. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/sad.png)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 30, 2014 12:06:46 GMT -5
b2r: that may be a joke, but his nutty personhood crap, and his position on IUD's is 100% real.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 30, 2014 12:08:09 GMT -5
In the GA govenor's race, republican incumbant Nathan Deal is slightly ahead against Jason Carter.
Deal got in trouble for a scheme to have one of his companies selected to do the emissions testing in several areas of GA -just getting those areas outright, without having to submit a bid. Then he fired the accountant whistleblower who pointed this out.
Deal claimed it was important for his company to get the contract because otherwise 'illegal immigrants' might do the work if it wasn't given to him - classic Republican response, frighten people with the illegals ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png)
Once the system was fixed and all the contracts had to be won by bidding, he declined to submit a bid.
Also some illegal handling of campaign contributions, directing them towards relatives and his own personal business.
newstimes.augusta.com/opinion/2014-10-29/nathan-deal-and-the-scandal-that-wont-go-away
Also a giant homophobe. And yet he's winnning over Carter.
Yea us. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/sad.png) hard to say what is going to happen in GA. that state and Kansas are weirdville this year.
|
|
Icelandic Woman
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 4, 2011 22:37:53 GMT -5
Posts: 4,850
Location: Colorado
Favorite Drink: Strawberry Lemonade
|
Post by Icelandic Woman on Oct 30, 2014 12:10:26 GMT -5
In the GA govenor's race, republican incumbant Nathan Deal is slightly ahead against Jason Carter.
Deal got in trouble for a scheme to have one of his companies selected to do the emissions testing in several areas of GA -just getting those areas outright, without having to submit a bid. Then he fired the accountant whistleblower who pointed this out.
Deal claimed it was important for his company to get the contract because otherwise 'illegal immigrants' might do the work if it wasn't given to him - classic Republican response, frighten people with the illegals ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png)
Once the system was fixed and all the contracts had to be won by bidding, he declined to submit a bid.
Also some illegal handling of campaign contributions, directing them towards relatives and his own personal business.
newstimes.augusta.com/opinion/2014-10-29/nathan-deal-and-the-scandal-that-wont-go-away
Also a giant homophobe. And yet he's winnning over Carter.
Yea us. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/sad.png) hard to say what is going to happen in GA. that state and Kansas are weirdville this year. I think you are going to have to lump CO in the weirdsville category too since latest poll shows the ass that accused the Governor of murder is up again? Unbelievable
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 30, 2014 12:27:47 GMT -5
hard to say what is going to happen in GA. that state and Kansas are weirdville this year. I think you are going to have to lump CO in the weirdsville category too since latest poll shows the ass that accused the Governor of murder is up again? Unbelievable yeah, i think that CO was not really supposed to be competitive for the GOP this year. it is amazing what the personal fortunes of a couple of mega billionaires can do in a relatively small state. edit: when i said weirdsville, i meant for the GOP. Kansas has not voted for Democrats since before WW2. GA was the last state to fall to the Southern Strategy in 2000, and had been trending GOP. CO is kinda the opposite situation. it has been trending Democrat for the last two presidential terms. the fact that the GOP is competitive there, especially considering what they are up against (good quality candidates) is, to say the very least, surprising.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 29, 2024 2:28:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2014 13:07:20 GMT -5
Still want to go with the 9:1 on Pryor in Arkansas?
talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/poll-tom-cotton-mark-pryor
I've got $10k laying around if you want to give the 9 to 1 on a bet?
See what most Arkansans know that you don't is this one singular thing that has stuck in our crawls and will send pretty boy Pryor home and it's this recent statement from a Dumbcrat voter in a interview:
Pryor ran on his daddy's name and his dad was a pretty good man and would have never sold out Arkansans on that health bill.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,082
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 30, 2014 13:09:56 GMT -5
I think you are going to have to lump CO in the weirdsville category too since latest poll shows the ass that accused the Governor of murder is up again? Unbelievable yeah, i think that CO was not really supposed to be competitive for the GOP this year. it is amazing what the personal fortunes of a couple of mega billionaires can do in a relatively small state. edit: when i said weirdsville, i meant for the GOP. Kansas has not voted for Democrats since before WW2. GA was the last state to fall to the Southern Strategy in 2000, and had been trending GOP. CO is kinda the opposite situation. it has been trending Democrat for the last two presidential terms. the fact that the GOP is competitive there, especially considering what they are up against (good quality candidates) is, to say the very least, surprising. It's all that pot they smoke.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 30, 2014 13:25:51 GMT -5
yeah, i think that CO was not really supposed to be competitive for the GOP this year. it is amazing what the personal fortunes of a couple of mega billionaires can do in a relatively small state. edit: when i said weirdsville, i meant for the GOP. Kansas has not voted for Democrats since before WW2. GA was the last state to fall to the Southern Strategy in 2000, and had been trending GOP. CO is kinda the opposite situation. it has been trending Democrat for the last two presidential terms. the fact that the GOP is competitive there, especially considering what they are up against (good quality candidates) is, to say the very least, surprising. It's all that pot they smoke. actually, that might be not far off the mark. about 50% of Colorado is apparently opposed to legalization, now. this could be REACTIONARY POLITICS.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 30, 2014 13:29:24 GMT -5
nfw. i have Pryor at 1:9, not 9:1. sorry. i got it backwards. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/unwell.png)
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,082
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 30, 2014 13:36:24 GMT -5
It's all that pot they smoke. actually, that might be not far off the mark. about 50% of Colorado is apparently opposed to legalization, now. this could be REACTIONARY POLITICS. Hmm, that's interesting. I wonder why they turned against it? DH and I visited CO in September and saw three pot stores in the small town we were staying at, but only saw one guy smoking a joint out in public, didn't seem to me like the state had gone to hell just because they started smoking pot legally. Didn't see anyone actually in any of the three stores when we passed them. I hope by the time I retire GA has legalize pot sales, I understand it's popular with older people for joint pain.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 30, 2014 13:43:37 GMT -5
they'll never get to 61, let alone 67.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 30, 2014 13:44:41 GMT -5
actually, that might be not far off the mark. about 50% of Colorado is apparently opposed to legalization, now. this could be REACTIONARY POLITICS. Hmm, that's interesting. I wonder why they turned against it? reactionary politics. part of it is that people don't like how change really is as much as the like how it sounds. also- Colorado is purple. it has a lot of very red rural areas.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 29, 2024 2:28:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2014 14:37:38 GMT -5
actually, that might be not far off the mark. about 50% of Colorado is apparently opposed to legalization, now. this could be REACTIONARY POLITICS. Hmm, that's interesting. I wonder why they turned against it? DH and I visited CO in September and saw three pot stores in the small town we were staying at, but only saw one guy smoking a joint out in public, didn't seem to me like the state had gone to hell just because they started smoking pot legally. Didn't see anyone actually in any of the three stores when we passed them. I hope by the time I retire GA has legalize pot sales, I understand it's popular with older people for joint pain. Now that will be interesting? Georgia like Arkansas in the deep south sitting around smoking joints? Put them with those NRA renegades and man woooooooo Nellie! ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/grin.png)
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Oct 31, 2014 9:20:15 GMT -5
I think you are going to have to lump CO in the weirdsville category too since latest poll shows the ass that accused the Governor of murder is up again? Unbelievable yeah, i think that CO was not really supposed to be competitive for the GOP this year. it is amazing what the personal fortunes of a couple of mega billionaires can do in a relatively small state. edit: when i said weirdsville, i meant for the GOP. Kansas has not voted for Democrats since before WW2. GA was the last state to fall to the Southern Strategy in 2000, and had been trending GOP. CO is kinda the opposite situation. it has been trending Democrat for the last two presidential terms. the fact that the GOP is competitive there, especially considering what they are up against (good quality candidates) is, to say the very least, surprising. We are in Kansas City Missouri this week. I thought the Illinois ads were bad as far as vile political potshots, but here the Kansas ads are as bad or worse for the Governor and Senate races. Almost makes the Illinois Governor race look like a reasonable campaign. Surprised at the vitriol level in Kansas. And they are advertising the Kansas Senate race as pivotal for running the Senate for the next two years, by both candidates, as if what happens in other states do not mean anything.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 31, 2014 10:05:49 GMT -5
yeah, i think that CO was not really supposed to be competitive for the GOP this year. it is amazing what the personal fortunes of a couple of mega billionaires can do in a relatively small state. edit: when i said weirdsville, i meant for the GOP. Kansas has not voted for Democrats since before WW2. GA was the last state to fall to the Southern Strategy in 2000, and had been trending GOP. CO is kinda the opposite situation. it has been trending Democrat for the last two presidential terms. the fact that the GOP is competitive there, especially considering what they are up against (good quality candidates) is, to say the very least, surprising. We are in Kansas City Missouri this week. I thought the Illinois ads were bad as far as vile political potshots, but here the Kansas ads are as bad or worse for the Governor and Senate races. Almost makes the Illinois Governor race look like a reasonable campaign. Surprised at the vitriol level in Kansas. And they are advertising the Kansas Senate race as pivotal for running the Senate for the next two years, by both candidates, as if what happens in other states do not mean anything. fascinating! this sort of activity drives up participation, which is bad for the GOP.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 31, 2014 10:16:03 GMT -5
no changes today, except NC is now "leaning Democrat" rather than solid. i am going to drop the solid % to 65 tomorrow. that will probably put everything out of the tossup category.
update: new poll moves NC back to "solid Democrat", and it is likely to stay there with my standards dropping 5% tomorrow. actually, i think i will eliminate the "leans" category, as well. over 65% will be "solid" and under will be "tossup".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 31, 2014 10:29:36 GMT -5
i just noticed something interesting in ALL of the polling i reviewed.
the polls that show the LEAST amount of undecided voters show the MOST support for Democrats.
i don't know what that means other than that GOP voters have made up their minds to vote GOP, but i will think about it.......
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 1, 2014 1:19:33 GMT -5
a couple quick footnotes before the end of Halloween.
Scott Brown just got a devastating poll in NH. several days ago, the UOH poll came out that showed Shaheen up 7%. however, as i have explained before, an "outlier poll" from a relatively unknown agency is something i don't put much stock in....unless there is a confirming poll. and that is what happened today. Rasmussen, which is a right leaning poll, came up with precisely the same number. given that this is 4 days in front of the election, i don't think there is any possible way that Scott Brown will NOT make history by losing to three women candidates in three tries at a Senate seat. he's toast.
moving down the list to NC, Kay Hagan had been clobbering Tillis until the 7th of October, when all the sudden, some polls came out that showed Tillis leading. and from that point, the polls have GENERALLY showed her leading, but Gravis and Vox Populi showed her trailing outside of polling error. now, however, she has put three polls in a row together that show her leading, and the lead seems to be growing (although it is still within polling error). given the demographics of this state, so long as the vote is not suppressed on election day, i am reasonably confident that Hagan is going to win this one.
in Kansas, Orman is back on a winning streak. four of the last five polls show him leading. again, i think that barring anything wild, weird or unforseen, he is going to win KS.
in Georgia, the news is way better for Republicans. they are leading or tied in all five of the latest (7) polls. however, all but one (Monmouth) is withing polling error, and in the PREVIOUS (7) polls, the opposite was true: the Democrat was either leading or tied. so, as of tonight, i am calling GA "tossup, trending GOP".
IA is the mirror image of NC. Ernst is leading or tied in most of the polls, but the trend is flat here. in other words, a small blip would either cause Ernst to thump her lackluster opponent, or a slip on the part of Ernst would put this totally in play. this state is not trending for either party, but it is "tossup, advantage GOP".
AK finally got a "good" (as in major) poll today in the form of Rasmussen which shows Sullivan up by 5%, beyond polling error. so, as of tonight, i am shifting this one from tossup to leaning Republican, but as of tomorrow, it will come off the table completely, as it is better than 2:1 odds at this point that the GOP takes it.
if it all pans out, the GOP will end up with 53, as Orman has vowed to caucus with the majority. however, i would caution that there are THREE tossup states in that mix tonight. the GOP only needs to win ONE of them to have a majority, and they lead in two, so their odds remain 2:1 GOP.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 1, 2014 1:37:26 GMT -5
i want to add one more note for our interested poster in Colorado. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png) although Gardner is polling ahead of Udall, i don't think the margin is all that great. both candidates have lead in four of the last nine poll, and been tied in one. by that absolute measure, this is a dead heat. but it is even stranger than that. in all but ONE of these polls, both candidates are within polling error. the exception is a poll done by Quinnipack that shows Gardner up by 5%, but here is the problem with that poll: it shows 15% undecided. generally speaking, the late polls break for the incumbent, as undecided voters (esp in blue states) tend to vote for incumbents rather than newcomers. if the breakdown on that last minute swing is 2:1 for Udall, this race might be much closer than it is polling right now. tonight, i am rating this one "GOP favored". i probably won't comment on it further, other than what i said above. but although i give the GOP a better than 80% chance of winning this one, i might add that i gave them a better than 80% chance of winning in the last senate race in Colorado, and they lost by 0.9% in that race, Buck was showing a 3% lead in polls, and Gardner is showing +2.4% now. so, if it happens again, it won't be without precedent. i said i wouldn't comment on this race, but it really is a very interesting race at a number of levels, so i thought i would just say my piece. although it doesn't change my perspective, which is poll driven, i acknowledge that i might be wrong about this one.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 1, 2014 16:18:20 GMT -5
no change since last time around, but i am deleting the "leaning" category, and moving all the 65%+ probabilities to their respective parties
Republican solid : 50 Democrat solid: 47
Tossup: GA, KS, IA
DISCUSSION:
there are (2) races that are "near tossup". one is Alaska, where Sullivan is leading Begich by a narrow margin, and the other is NC where Hagan is leading Tillis by a narrow margin. the difference is the quality of the polling. i am way more confident in Hagan's lead than i am Sullivan's- but i am not going to argue with the polls, so there you have it.
Georgia polling is trending toward the GOP, but still a tossup. IA is not trending at all. the last TEN POLLS there are all within MOE. most favor Ernst slightly. KS is actually not really a tossup, imo. i think Orman is going to win it. but ONE poll shows the GOP ahead. hence, "tossup".
so, this means that the battle for the Senate comes down to IA and GA. if Democrats win BOTH, they retain control, and if they lose BOTH, they will lose control. that is all there is to it. and, on the strength of Ernst, the GOP is favored to win the Senate: 3:2.
more conclusive polling over the next several days would help clarify what is going on, but that is how she stands today.
NOTE: the fundamentals also favor the GOP. Obama's approval is skirting a six year low, and the GOP is doing well in generic polling (though not nearly so well without FOX and Rasmussen). i think that the generic polling is surprisingly good for Democrats, candidly. normally, in an off year election, the party in power takes a beating in this poll (like...10% one way or another). this year, the GOP leads, but it is small. but that is not "good news" for them- just not as bad as it could be. one other thing has gone well for Democrats, and that is that consumer confidence is at a 7 year high. that number is generally a good indicator for last minute undecideds, but we really just have to see at this point.
as i have stated before, if these survey numbers indicated a reason for more confidence, i would be expressing it. a lot of my liberal friends are worried about losing the Senate, and many of my conservative friends are gleeful about gaining it, but i really don't think it matters much. the filibuster is going to rule the Senate no matter who is in charge. i think this is mostly INTERESTING from a political standpoint, not so much in terms of policy.
|
|