No. Hickenlooper is in good shape mostly because he has a lot of money, Coloradans' views of the economy in their state are ridiculously positive, and because his opponent is deeply flawed based on what Republicans need in a candidate who can actually win statewide. Udall's prospects are slightly worse than his but he is still the favorite in his race because his opponent is also deeply flawed and the debate is being waged entirely on Udall's terms. He has Gardner trapped in a box, having already flip-flop-flipped on his support for "personhood" legislation and ballot measures and always trying to out-maneuver his long record on having extreme positions on abortion. Up to this point the entire race has been about social issues, specifically abortion, and that's the last issue that Gardner wants to talk about.

There's a strong argument that Udall effectively killed Gardner's candidacy in the crib, though that will likely never be borne out by the numbers because the final outcome will probably be in the mid-single digits and everyone will consider a Udall victory to be "close" even though it wasn't so much. Udall needs something big to win this race; a large anti-Democratic wave to form out of nowhere or some massive Udall gaffe or some billionaire bankroller to parachute into the state and prop him up with limitless money or something.



It isn't a surprise that McConnell is leading in polling, he's supposed to. Every single time a poll comes out that finds the race within the margin of error speaks to how imperiled McConnell is despite the fact that he's five-term incumbent Senate Leader running in Kentucky in a midterm of the opposite party's second presidential term, having started campaigning two full years earlier than most incumbents do.

The only thing that's shocking is McConnell's vulnerability. He's run a far poorer race than Grimes, she has beaten him in fundraising consistently, he is afraid to debate her or even appear at events with her, and he has committed more gaffes in this one race than he has in all of his previous campaigns combined. This should be a Safely Republican seat and yet it's a tossup, and it's not even clear if he's even leading.

1. its NOT within the margin of error.
2. you were just fighting tooth and nail against anyone who thought McConnell was likely to win and you said he was narrowly losing.. now its not a "surprise", "hes supposed to" be winning.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Aug 12 2014 03:32pm

It would appear your shit reading comprehension has caused you some embarrassment again. No one said that the most-recent PPP poll was within the margin of error. Most polls, though, have been within the margin of error. Humorously even this poll is likely to be within the margin of error had PPP not introduced its Likely Voter screen for the first time in the race, but we'll never know that, and it can't be determined at this time if said screen is accurate or not. Perhaps you should bump up your reading comprehension to or near a 1st grade level and you wouldn't struggle so mightily in this fashion.

Yes, I refuted the characterization that the Republicans were unlikely to lose in Kentucky (and Georgia) because currently they are as equally likely to lose as they are to win, as borne out by available evidence. Furthermore, someone actually winning a race is not the same thing as being someone who is supposed to win a race. Accurately refuting the claim that McConnell is likely to win the race has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he's supposed to win. He is supposed to win, though right now there's little evidence that he even has a real lead. McConnell is supposed to lead in every poll, his leads are supposed to be well outside the margin of error if not amounting to double-digit margins, and he is supposed to be reelected comfortably based on fundamentals that are static and that will not change between now and Election Day. The current state of the race is radically different from what the state of the race is supposed to be, and that's why McConnell remains no better than a coin-flip to win.

I never said you did.

Nice "Shit reading comprehension" you have there.

A 3rd party reader might have believed it was within the margin, as you brought it up almost immediately in a discussion about the recent poll, so I pointed out that it wasn't in the margin of error.




According to you, but not the poll(s).

Surely someone who so adamantly argued that McConnell was losing or tied should have been a little surprised when McConnell has a lead in the polls.
But nope you said "It isn't a surprise that McConnell is leading in polling". you're just full of shit.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Aug 12 2014 04:00pm

So what we can take away from this:

1. McConnell is (slightly) more likely to win that not, as we've said.
2. You don't like it very much.

Why would somebody be surprised that a close race switched? Nobody should be surprised if he wins or if he loses

I just told you why.

He insisted he was narrowly losing and had a massive shitfit when people claimed he was more likely to win.
Polling from the very same time period shows he is winning.
Then he comes on and says "it isn't a surprise"

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Aug 12 2014 04:13pm

He doesn't understand how polling works. Though the race hasn't switched from anything to anything. The individual survey, which should never be used to make any sort of prediction, falls almost perfectly in line with both the state of the race and the state of the race as has been outlined here.



Except that I didn't. The sentence that immediately preceded it spoke about polling in the aggregate.



Well, yes, it is according to the polls. Any competent individual can look at a polling aggregate (there are several) and regardless of the aggregate's record of accuracy realize that the two races are pure tossups. If a person is more than competent, with respect to actually being able to comprehend polling and analyze it critically, then they would come to a similar conclusion but one that is even more indicative of the competitiveness of the races: neither candidate in either race has a real lead at this point.



Well, except not, because that's not how polling works. Polls are not a guarantee of where a race stands, especially single polls. Based on the evidence that I provided, that the parties are equally as likely to win or lose in each race, it's quite clear that the individual PPP survey falls well within the current expectation of a race: a firm that had roughly a 2 point average bias towards Republican candidates in 2012 has McConnell with a lead of 4 points in its first poll of the cycle with a Likely Voter screen. That survey measures almost exactly where the race actually is at the current time.

In a pure tossup race, as was accurately described, both candidates are likely to lead in individual polls here and there. If a candidate wasn't supposed to be found with a marginal lead in a single poll then they wouldn't be locked in a tossup race, they'd be losing definitively.

Liar. Anyone can go look at it above.
It was the 2nd sentence you typed to me.

I deemed a clarification was warranted. Deal with it.

Theres no need to make all sorts of personal claims and insults just because I mentioned it wasn't in the margin.





A small lead is NOT "no lead"
A small lead does not mean "they are as equally likely to lose as they are to win"

Do you know what equal means?
How about the word "no"?

I'll give you a minute so you can pull up a dictionary.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Aug 12 2014 04:20pm

Tuesday, August 12th 2014.

So hes leading in the polling, but its worthless, because hes a republican.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Aug 12 2014 04:25pm