What the fuck do you know? He is the future of the human race and is intellectually superior to every Christian on the forum.

I will smash the imbecile's post because it's essentially just a retread of the previous post, but before doing so here are responses to all the other posts:



It's definitely not surprising, as the NRA likes to throw endorsements to strong Democratic incumbents (usually ones who aren't facing competitive challengers) to fool low-information people into thinking that it's not a rabidly-partisan organization. The endorsement does carry some significance electorally though because it means that a portion of the NRA's massive announced ad buy won't be directed towards Rahall and the others they have endorsed. WV-03 is a top pickup opportunity for the GOP so if one of its major outside group supporters is kneecapping its candidate then it suggests a level of dissatisfaction with the competitiveness.



In reality Larry Sabato has only been "very accurate" because he routinely shifts his ratings towards the Democrats each cycle, away from overly optimistic predictions (that favor the GOP) earlier in cycles because he has readership to consider. He and every other well-known forecasters prioritize their readership because they need clicks to keep their websites solvent, and the "business" side of those websites is well known. The prioriti-zation of clicks over quality is what leads to articles like this [See: http://blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/elections-2014-stu-rothenberg-senate-republican-gains/?dcz=] where Stu Rothenberg says he smells a wave coming even though his own forecast doesn't suggest that at all.

The Republicans posting a net gain of zero is not beyond a joke, to anyone who understand how elections work at least, because currently they have just as many vulnerable seats (3) as seats that they can be reasonably sure will lean towards them from now up to and through Election Day. Competition is alive and well in these seats. There's simply a very real possibility that the Republicans could lose seats in Georgia, Kansas, and Kentucky while only winning seats in West Virginia, Montana, and Louisiana/Arkansas to offset them. Anyone who doesn't understand that that is a distinct possibility at this stage simply isn't aware of how the campaigns and races are playing out. There are still six weeks to go before Election Day and so, so much can happen in these races.

That said, Sabato's "Outlook" is not measuring the same thing that my outcome ranges are; he is predicting what the most "likely" outcome is while I am measuring the entire range of likely outcomes. It would appear your shit reading comprehension has reared its ugly head again.



That's actually not it at all, we're merely measuring different things. And to be completely honest I am actually more certain in my assessment of where the races currently stand than people like Sabato are because they get their information from people like me. The difference is the product of the two of us measuring two different things. As we get closer to Election Day our models will move towards one another because on the eve of the election we will both be measuring the exact same thing: what's likely to happen the following day.



It isn't silly, it's simply a fact. The Republicans cannot afford to lose their seat in Kansas if they want to be confident about gaining a majority. The fact remains that a net gain of 6 seats is incredibly difficult and it is only really possible this year because so many of the races are occurring in deep-red states. If you allow for a loss in one of those states (Kansas) then that means they need 7 wins to offset it, and they are currently not performing well enough to feel reasonably confident that they could get that many wins. This is especially true considering what that loss in Kansas would mean: two of the seats that the Republicans can feel pretty good about, in Georgia and in Louisiana, will probably not be decided on Election Day. Losing in Kansas could have severe repercussions for their odds in those two races that they otherwise will perform strongly in.

and yet again, you fail to admit the distinction between 'slightly less confident' and 'kissing away any chance they had'


If you are holding onto your own Democrat pipedream that has an infinitesimally small chance of happening, why is +7 the max range of Republicans according to you?

Even after accounting for the shift of Kansas as more likely independent than not, almost all models have a Republican majority as still being the favorite.
They also say there is a FAR more significant chance that they end up with MORE than 52 seats than they do of picking up 0 seats.

I accurately described your hackery as extremely favorable and loose ranges for Democrats while squeezing republicans on the other end.

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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

To put it simply: there's no evidence to suggest that a net gain of 8 seats is possible for the Republicans at present. To constitute an 8-seat gain the GOP would need to hold all three of their vulnerable seats while at the same time winning Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alaska, North Carolina and one additional seat such as Iowa, Colorado, New Hampshire, or so on.

That's not going to happen under these current conditions. On the other hand it's very possible that the Republicans fail to win anything beyond MT/WV/SD, while at the same time dropping all 3 of their seats, because the current fundamentals hold that the races are so incredibly competitive that the smallest shift to the advantage of the Democrats could produce victories.

Lets see where our buddy Nate and the others put the race:



Im real sorry I routinely slam your falsehoods in your own thread, but I feel it had to be done.

Hows that Grimes lead shaping up? 80+% to McConnell?








Go to huffpo right now and use the sliders.
Put KS at 100% democrat and tell me what you see.

Hint: Its 50% Republican Majority, not 0%




No my argument was EXPLICITLY that they are competitive even WITHOUT relying on the outlier.
The Suffolk/USA today poll put Gardner ahead a point a day after the Quinnipiac poll came out and he was only down 2 points in Both the Myers poll and Rasmussen.
Polling out of Iowa has been even closer.


So events cant have technicalities?
Technicality: a point of law or a small detail of a set of rules.
What is swinging the race is a judge throwing someone off the ballot. As I've said numerous times now, that is NOT indicative of a national swing in the electorate.

The Republicans do not have to be ahead in Iowa or Colorado to have a chance at the majority.


538 puts it at a 89/11 proposition.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Sep 21 2014 07:50pm

You cite the huffpo model all the time.
You should try looking at it.

Even if you scale Kansas 100% blue huffpo puts a 53+ seat Republican Majority at over 18%, while the Republicans having 45 or fewer seats is less than 1%.
The 18+% chance is not worthy of your range. The 1% is.

Fair and balanced, surely.

In actuality you don't do anything but embarrass yourself with your copious errors that are the product of poor reading comprehension. Invoking that post from 538 only reinforces what I've said myself countless times: that the odds have bounced around a 50%-50% outcome for months. Humorously there's absolutely nothing in that post that says anything different. The marginal difference, as I demonstrated, is the work of the outlier polling that I identified. Case in point: the HuffPo model had the Democratic chance of a majority at 53% prior to the Quinnipiac polls, the only notable recent change. You didn't help yourself at all with that, you only validated my long-held position.



And that, again, is dependent on the outliers. Perhaps your shit reading comprehension failed you again, but that was an important factor that I cited multiple times in establishing what the GOP's odds would be re: taking a majority without Kansas. As I said at the time: moving CO/IA (as well as NH but that's not required) back to their pre-Quinnipiac standing demonstrates the necessity for the GOP to carry Kansas. The chance of a GOP majority is not 50% under those conditions, it starts dropping into the low 30s and gets lower and lower the more outliers and fake polls (see: Alaska) that you choose to remove. You only did half of the exercise, and as a result the outliers are bailing out your inaccurate claims.



Then that's a terrible argument based on the evidence. The Democrats, despite having their voteshare underrepresented historically in Colorado polling, have owned a small but stable lead in the aggregate outside of the Quinnipiac outlier. The GOP freely admits they're behind there (and in the other states I noted). Even still, no one argued that the Republicans weren't competitive in those states. I only noted, correctly, that the GOP can't reasonably expect to win states like that if they lose Kansas. That's simply a function of the universal swing. Not likely to win, and not competitive, are obviously two entirely different things. Chalk up another failure to your poor reading comprehension.



You're beating a dead horse, and it's only serving to show that you're clueless regarding why what happened in Kansas happened.

Beyond that: you can keep saying it, but doing so proves precisely nothing because it simply isn't true based on the fundamentals of the race as outlined: a Republican incumbent vs. a de facto Democrat who is running as an Independent. They are going to pull support from the predictable areas and as such the two-party voteshare is going to match up with historical data. If you legitimately don't think that the results in Kansas won't fall squarely within the universal swing then you're even dumber than you project, honestly.



No, but they do have to win somewhere. Losing KS, in addition to IA/CO, would require victories in KY/GA/WV/MT/SD/LA/AR/AK/NC to obtain a majority. It's as simple as that. If you think that's anything other than very unlikely then you're either foolish or clueless. Once again your argument has essentially been reduced to "well anything is possible!!!1111one"

It's a bad one based on the available information.



And, again, the inherent volatility of the race cannot just magically be ignored. The model anticipates that all 4 candidates stay on the ballot and win a high percentage of their polling share. That's the expectation, but 4-person fields are extremely unpredictable and can change dramatically by a single event. 538 thinks Rounds is that likely to win because they think that Pressler won't fade. If all four candidates perform as currently expected then Rounds will likely win in predictable but underwhelming fashion, as I've said repeatedly, but people would be silly to bank on the race breaking as expected due to how volatile it is. Like I said weeks ago, Rounds' lead is narrow based on the prevailing climate. If the climate stays the same then he wins, and the climate staying the same is exactly what 538 is banking on.

Some very useful polling is about to drop in the next couple of days to help assess where the critical races stand at present.

House: Siena has Democratic incumbent Dan Maffei leading his challenger 50%-42% in NY-24. Not a great firm, but this district is getting attention now thanks to a surprising $1 million ad buy from the NRCC. The buy was questionable because Maffei was not thought to be seriously vulnerable and the NRCC is trailing the DCCC in the money race pretty badly. The NRCC just announced that it's eyeing a $20 million line of credit though so it looks like they're going all-in to try to juice their numbers in 2014 at the possible expense of 2016.

Senate: PPP polled the AR and AK races over the weekend. A DSCC internal shows Pryor leading in AR 46%-43%, identical to his previous margin from the same pollster in August. The polls coincide with a brutal writeup on Tom Cotton from one of the best political journalists in the country, The Atlantic's Molly Ball [See: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/the-making-of-a-conservative-superstar/380307/]. Expect PPP's poll to show a narrow lead for Cotton. Anything better or worse, if later corroborated, could show a late break in the race. Ipsos polled the KY race and found McConnell leading 46%-42% among Likely Voters, while Grimes leads 38%-36% among Registered Voters.

Governors: Well-known Republican shill WeAskAmerica went into IL and MI and they must hate what they see: endangered Democratic incumbent Pat Quinn is only trailing 41%-44% while vulnerable incumbent Republican Rick Snyder is tied 43%-43%. Quinn's standing improved 10 points since WAA's last survey of IL, and their newest survey in MI matches the consensus that has found Snyder's long-held lead completely evaporating. WAA is a bad firm but if they are corroborated here then their clients are not going to be happy.

This post was edited by Pollster on Sep 22 2014 10:05am