Woah, I know Drew Linzer personally (brother in-law to a good friend of mine). I had no idea that his models are used widely now.

New Ranges, shift, and cause for movement.

House: D+3 - R+7 - [Shift: ->] (NY-21)
Senate: R+0 - R+7
Governors: D/I +6 - R+1

House: Good news for the GOP: The Conservative Party of New York took advantage of a gimmick in state law that allows parties to replace nominees on the ballot by nominating them to a judgeship. The CP nominated Matt Doheny for a post in Brooklyn which allowed them to replace him on the ballot with Republican nominee Elise Stefanik. This will prevent Republican votes from being split, which gives Stefanik a big advantage. Now the bad news for the GOP: Their nominee Carlos Curbelo in tossup FL-26 was caught on video declaring that Medicare and Social Security are ponzi schemes. That could really cost the GOP a district that they really need if they're to run up the score. The Republican Party of NH made life harder on NH-01 nominee Frank Guinta yesterday by adding a "personhood" plank to their platform. NH-01 is another critical district and if Guinta supports the measure it will be heavily used against him. Finally, the NRA endorsed another semi-vulnerable Democratic incumbent, this time John Barrow in GA-12. Republicans hoped to flip this deep-red district but they're conceding that it's a heavy lift this year.

A strong polling day for Senate Republicans.

PPP polled Republican Challenger Dan Sullivan 3 points ahead in Alaska,
Another PPP poll puts Tom Cotton a whopping 6 points ahead of 'Talking Snake guy' in Arkansas.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll put McConnell 4 points ahead of Grimes in Kentucky. Its the latest in a long line of polls showing him with a lead there.

Meanwhile in Michigan, Rasmussen has Terri Lynn Land closing the gap to just 2 points in her race against Gary Peters, who still remains likely to keep that seat blue.
Its the latest in a slew of polls this past week that have pointed towards this being a closer race than before, suggesting A 2-5 point gap instead of 5-10.
(all of which will surely come under attack in this thread in the coming day or so for having republican biases, which actually isnt necessarily untrue in this case)

Courtesy of 538:



Glad the +0 remains in his range while anything above +7 is not.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Sep 23 2014 08:44pm

USA Today/Suffolk* Cotton 43, Pryor 45 Talking Snake Guy +2
SurveyUSA* Perdue 46, Nunn 45 Perdue +1
Both polls typically skew D a bit

HuffPo model after these polls are factored in:
The probability that Cotton will beat Pryor is 57%.
The probability that Perdue will beat Nunn is 70.2%.
58% chance that Republicans will take control of the Senate

The Democrats need to win Arkansas and Alaska, turn those socialist states around.

Those seats are blue right now and the Republicans are running partly on limiting federal spending, not that I have any real confidence that they will take steps I would consider adequate in that department.

Consider this a warning: Do not update this thread again.

I regularly compile updates on the year's important races for people who have genuine questions about the state of play. There is absolutely zero tolerance in this thread for purely factually incorrect information, which you have posted in your recent posts as well as most of the others you have made. I have no inherent issue with your posts and the copious factual errors that each one contains because they're useful for determining what's incorrect about many races, but I have no interest in the information in this thread sending mixed messages because several people consult it regularly. If you wish to undertake a similar thread with a similar purpose then you are free to make a separate thread yourself.

Saying things like both Suffolk and SurveyUSA's recent Arkansas polls "skew Democratic a bit" is simply entirely factually incorrect. Once again, there's zero tolerance for this. SUSA for its part had a slight but distinct Republican bias in final 2012 presidential polling [See: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0] so characterizing it in the fashion you did is not only flatly wrong but it's also misleading. That doesn't even begin to account for the fact that the specific sample acquired in SUSA's poll actually skewed Republican, based upon historical data. This thread is reserved for factual analysis. If you're unable or unwilling to contribute that and only that then find somewhere else to post.

Now, for some notable developments. Nothing that amounts to a change in dynamic of a particular race (yet), but interesting nonetheless.

Senate: Absentee ballots are starting to be requested and returned in Iowa. It's very, very early and in-person early voting hasn't started yet (begins tomorrow) but soon there will be tealeaves to read. In Kansas, the Supreme Court refused the Kobach-backed phony lawsuit from a fake Democrat in the effort to force the KDP to name a replacement nominee on the ballot. For now it's still Republican vs. Indy vs. Libertarian.

Governors: It looks like the "John Doe" investigation in Wisconsin is back on [See: https://twitter.com/sbauerAP/status/514868549564002304]. It will be interesting to see if local media coverage about a investigation that revolves around Walker's team (but not him specifically) has any noticeable impact on the race. The only other happening in the news has been a former campaign consultant of Mary Burke's recycling policy work from previous campaigns he's worked on and it's not clear if that's had any impact one way or the other.

House: Independent expenditure filings are making the rounds and they could have predictive value for what seats will be seriously contested the rest of the way. Both parties have spent in support of candidates in 16 seats (12 Democratic and 4 Republican). Notably the Democrats have gone without an ad in AZ-02 and WV-03 for over a week, perhaps signaling that they're about to triage them, and have also stopped spending in AZ-01, FL-02, and MI-01. In the case of the first race it's because their incumbent has a massive cash edge, but in the others it may just be because the extra money won't make any difference. I would say in about a week from now we'll be able to piece together which seats will be seriously contested for the rest of the cycle.

You are free to create a blog. Pard is not your personal blog. You do not own this area.

Yes there is eidence for that, as Huffpo has measured house effects. Throughout the senate polling timeline, those polls have in FACT skewed slightly towards the democrats.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Sep 24 2014 03:08pm

Proof:




http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2014/senate-outlook