Quote (cambovenzi @ Sep 19 2014 11:31am)
50/50 does certainly not turn to 0 on the back of 1 seat that was already a toss up when so many states are in play.
You were wrong. Admit it.
Well, yes, they pretty much do. I demonstrated why that is with the HuffPo sliders. It's not
impossible for the Republicans to lose Kansas but gain a majority but once again it's extremely unlikely due to the universal swing and their current level of performance. There have been a couple of points in this thread where people talked about betting on outcomes and I replied that it's too early in the cycle for that. This hypothetical though is about as close to a sure thing as you can find this early though: it's very, very unlikely that the Republicans can lose KS but get to 51.
Quote
Except not and I clearly told you why. A judge throwing someone off the ballot is not indicative of a swing in the countries electorate.
You didn't, though, and fortunately your incapacity or inability to correctly analyze events doesn't constitute a convincing. A Republican incumbent vs. an Independent who is the de facto Democratic nominee is going to reflect the atmosphere broadly, the only difference being Orman's unique strength and the benefit of running on the Independent line rather than the Democratic line. We'll know this after the election when the two-party voteshare matches up very cleanly with historical data.
Quote
It isnt a technicality? Google what that means please. I already explained to you in clear and unwavering terms why that could easily be the case.
The republicans can certainly take 51 without Kansas as well. The Math is right in front of you.
No, it's not a technicality. The events are what they are, it's as simple as that.
In reality you didn't demonstrate how or why the Republicans could lose an incumbent in one state while winning in a state that's much more hostile to them beyond the simple fact that anything is possible. Your "argument" could charitably be summarized as "Republicans are competitive in Colorado and Iowa because of one massive outlier from Quinnipiac." As I noted that's a really poor "argument" because
the Republicans themselves openly concede they are behind in those states. There's simply no evidence and no cause for belief that the Republicans can offset a crushing loss in Kansas with a win in a much bluer state.
Such a win would be extremely unlikely. It's possible, but that's all it is. For the third time there's a degree of universal swing in elections that cannot be ignored simply because you don't like it or because you don't know how it works. If the Republicans lose Kansas then they're probably losing Iowa because the degree to which races move together. If the Republicans win Iowa then they probably will win Kansas.
Quote
Montana, WV and SD turn red whether you stomp your feet or not.
They need 4 more seats after that.
R are more than 2-1 favorites to take Arkansas and Louisiana according to some models. Less so in other models, but a lead nonetheless. (61% and 52% on huffpo)
Thats 6.
Once again there's positively
nothing about the race in South Dakota that makes it a guaranteed win for the Republicans. As I demonstrated the current lead in polling is built on the dynamic of the 4-person field. That polling has shown that a head-to-head matchup, if Pressler faded, would be a MoE race. If Pressler does not fade then Rounds will end up with a predictable but underwhelming victory but it's simply too early to count South Dakota out as being uncompetitive. 4-person races are understandably volatile.
And actually, adding Arkansas and Louisiana to South Dakota, Montana, and West Virginia gets you to
five, not
six. But again it doesn't matter: Louisiana will not be decided on Election Day and will therefore be heavily influenced by what happens in November. Not only is Landrieu very competitive in her own right (and Pryor, for that matter), but if the Democrats actually constructed a majority on Election Day then that would arguably make Landrieu a favorite in the December runoff based on how corporations will rally around her to save her chairmanship. That, again, is why Kansas is so important to the GOP.
Quote
That means they need to win 1 measly seat in any of the tossups which include Alaska, Iowa and Colorado as the most likely suspects.
In those states both parties are withing a single point of each other according to the huffpo model.
And, again, that's a product of the outlier polling. For the fourth time: the Republicans openly concede they are behind in all of those races. They are much better off winning Kansas, where they at least protest that they are in a dead-heat if not that they are a slight favorite, than winning in races where they believe that they are behind. Even if your math above was correct, the Republicans are not in a good position to win in Iowa or Colorado particularly. It's very likely that both states deliver a modest Democratic win of about 5 points.
Quote
I know you'd certainly like to throw out all discouraging results and pretend the democrats are winning or even in these states, but its simply not the case.
SD is extremely likely Republican. 90% on 538. Its an overwhelmingly Republican state with double digit leads in the polls.
Well, no, I simply discount the outliers because they're meaningless. The Democrats
are winning in Alaska based upon the actual
polls, and the margin in Georgia is what it is. Again, the dynamics of these races matter. The fact that Louisiana (and likely Georgia) is going to a runoff matters. As far as South Dakota goes: see above. The polling lead is the product of Pressler in the race and pinching votes from Weiland. If Pressler stays in the race and wins his polling share on Election Day then Rounds will win a pretty boring and predictable victory, but there's no guarantee that things will happen like that.
Quote
I didnt say LA was a lock. I said it was going in that direction. Cassidy is crushing the democrat heads up in the most recent polls and it is very significantly more likely to turn red than not.
Well I myself said that it's moved towards the Republicans, but it is not "leaning significantly" in their direction based once again on the runoff dynamic. The polling status is no such thing; it's a MoE race outside of a ridiculous Faux News poll that
historically undersells the level of Democratic support in the state. Landrieu has a
floor of about 44% win, lose, or draw, and in knowing that basic bit of knowledge there should be no reason to cling to the outliers. For the tenth time: what happens on Election Day will determine what happens in the December runoff. Thinking that this race is about anything else is silly, if not totally moronic.
Quote
You cannot rightly say "hey these outliers are skewing the models thats why they show this" while simultaneously saying the model doesn't show it.
Actually that's not what I did, but it was very easy to show how the models do not support your claims. And yes, you can use the models' current standing to demonstrate how your claims are inaccurate because
even with the benefit of the outliers skewing things towards the Republicans the state of the races don't line up with your claims.
And thanks for the laugh moron, but as I've noted several times it's
the Republicans who concede that they're behind in such states [See:
https://twitter.com/amyewalter/statuses/510465313495085057]. Outright lying about who I invoked just makes your post drop in quality from "mostly full of dogshit" to "absolute dogshit." It isn't the Senate Majority Pac who is saying (seriously idiot, thanks for the laugh on that) anything. The GOP is playing the expectation game because their operatives and their supporters know that they've fallen behind in the state. [See:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/2014-elections-iowa-spending-democrats-110916.html?hp=f1]
No one said that states like Iowa and Colorado weren't in play. I noted, correctly, that the Republicans are behind and that matters greatly for the reasons outlined.
Quote
You're back into your fairyland rhetoric of black swans and prayers.
Their hopes of a majority do not vanish completely without Kansas, no matter how many times you say it.
Their chances worsening without Kansas is NOT the same thing as being wiped out completely.
Well, no, the math is what it is. When you sacrifice what is close to a must-win seat then you're down to needing a statistical miracle in the form of a Black Swan event to make up for it. That's simply reality. The same predicament would be true for the Democrats if they lost a seat of similar need, such as New Hampshire or Michigan. That's how valuable Kansas is to the GOP. As I was able to demonstrate it is near a necessity for the Republicans to hold onto their seats, whether it's Kansas or any others. The percentages bear out the analysis with regards to the difference between +6 and +7. You don't have to like the analysis but it's very clearly accurate.
This post was edited by Pollster on Sep 21 2014 07:38pm