Jump to content

2024 Senate Elections

Ghost of LL

By Ghost of LL
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Js1

Js1 85341

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

At the least, they are making Republicans spend money that they don't have on seats that should have been safe.

It’s also because they kinda have to. They have tons of money, their incumbents outside of Tester look good polling wise and money wise, and their open seats in AZ and MI also look good. Gotta play some offense now to find seat #50 and they can’t spend in Nebraska because Osborn is not running as a Dem

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 895
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HenryJames
HenryJames
Horn Under a Bad Sign
Horn Under a Bad Sign

This is a brilliant political commercial.          

cactusflinthead
cactusflinthead

This applies here too.  

Posted Images

Js1

Js1 85341

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Sheehy’s demeanor is simply that of a smug prick. 

Basically 75% of the requirements to be a GOP recruit. The other 25% is your bank account 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15531

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

You offer all of them whatever they want. 

And there is something of a prisoners' dilemma, isn't there?  We'd only need one vote.  Who's going to be the one to supply it?  Because we're only making this deal with one person.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85341

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And there is something of a prisoners' dilemma, isn't there?  We'd only need one vote.  Who's going to be the one to supply it?  Because we're only making this deal with one person.

Murkowski. 100%

I don’t trust Collins at all 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Js1 said:

I don't know if i believe it -

Bullfinch

Osborn (I) 47, Fischer 42 - Nebraska, 10 undecided

breakdown was 49% GOP, 26% D, 25% I

@Tuco

Got me.  

Tom Osborne endorsed Fischer, so that's not helpful.  I figured he would stay out of it.  After Tom retired, he served as a Congressman one or two cycles.  Pissed off the party because he wouldn't spend 40 hours a week fundraising.  Then he ran for governor, losing the primary in part because he supported in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants.  I haven't paid that close of attention, but I figured he was generally turned off by the current Republican politics.   Unfortunately, his endorsement will affect a lot of Nebraskans.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

If those young men and women rip out their guts and eat them, wouldn't they bleed out on the battlefield and do us no good?

Come On What GIF by MOODMAN

Cry havoc and let slip the self cannibals of war?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85341

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

So it currently projects to 49-48-2?

51-49 with the GOP picking up MT and WV. But that 51 is tenuous if they lose MT, TX, FL, NE and Harris/Walz wins 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13512

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

I haven't seen the polls recently but Tester wrecked shop in that debate.  Is he really behind?

Polls show Tester behind when polls at roughly the same time in 2018 had him up by a few points. Tester ultimately won a close election.

my bet is that most Montanans see/hear Tester and pretty much agree with him.  But there’s the (D) after his name, so no.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85341

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

I haven't seen the polls recently but Tester wrecked shop in that debate.  Is he really behind?

Well that debate was like 4 days ago. No polling yet. He is behind, but so was Susan Collins 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burt

Burt 4080

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Polls show Tester behind when polls at roughly the same time in 2018 had him up by a few points. Tester ultimately won a close election.

my bet is that most Montanans see/hear Tester and pretty much agree with him.  But there’s the (D) after his name, so no.

I saw more and more Tester signs, and few Sheehy signs in my travels across Eastern MT this past week. This area is usually dead red. It'll stay red, but if it sways a couple of points left of where it typically is, it'll damn sure heĺp!

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85341

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Cook does some weird shit

Cook LOVES to move races to tossup the month before the election. Easier to say you’re right when everything is a tossup. “Well it could have gone either way!”

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Js1 said:

Cook LOVES to move races to tossup the month before the election. Easier to say you’re right when everything is a tossup. “Well it could have gone either way!”

I've followed Cook pretty closely for a couple of years now, and there seems to be some obvious bias (towards conservative candidates) to it as well.  I know it's billed as being non partisan, but it sure seems slanted.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
babysdaddy

babysdaddy 2724

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I've followed Cook pretty closely for a couple of years now, and there seems to be some obvious bias (towards conservative candidates) to it as well.  I know it's billed as being non partisan, but it sure seems slanted.  

I can assure you this is not even in the realm of being remotely true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, babysdaddy said:

I can assure you this is not even in the realm of being remotely true.

Charlie Cook openly writes articles about how Trump has everything he should need to win.  That's actually the premise of his most recent article, and for two years he's written nearly the same article repeatedly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85341

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

I can assure you this is not even in the realm of being remotely true.

I don't think they have a conservative bias. I just think they like to throw everything remotely "close" into tossup category the month before the election.  They seem to be giving the poll they commissioned (Baldwin +2) the most weight, despite her not trailing in a single public poll. 

RCP loves to cherry pick polls that give the GOP an edge and even they can't square that. Marquette is literally A+ and  is based in Wisconsin and don't see Baldwin being in a close race. 

image.thumb.png.6a8b6c75957ec424e5c04097e9ae2391.png

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
babysdaddy

babysdaddy 2724

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Charlie Cook openly writes articles about how Trump has everything he should need to win.  That's actually the premise of his most recent article, and for two years he's written nearly the same article repeatedly. 

That's analysis, not bias.  Amy and Kathryn own and run the website and they are both decidedly not conservative.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

That's analysis, not bias.  Amy and Kathryn own and run the website and they are both decidedly not conservative.

Perhaps bias isn't the correct word.  They seem to me, especially Amy Walter, to buy and sell the doomcast narrative (which probably isn't the correct description, but they are doing analytical work).  I've just noticed, they constantly move every Dem candidate from likely to lean, and very rarely does that happen on the Republican side of the isle.  Perhaps that's happenstance, but after a while it looks well beyond that.  I'd note they did the same thing with the "Red Wave" of 2022 that didn't happen.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32861

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

That's analysis, not bias.  Amy and Kathryn own and run the website and they are both decidedly not conservative.

I mean I think you're right but that first sentence is nonsensical. Analysis is frequently biased. It's one of the main places you see bias. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
babysdaddy

babysdaddy 2724

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

I mean I think you're right but that first sentence is nonsensical. Analysis is frequently biased. It's one of the main places you see bias. 

Agreed.  My opinion is they do better than anyone else covering politics to remove their bias in their analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
quigley

quigley 1563

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Cook does some weird shit.  Don't think I've seen a single poll with Baldwin behind.

 

 

Sorry. This was supposed to be a response to one of @BamaATL 's posts.

 

I've stated this in the presidential race thread, but it bears remembering here too: the low response rates of current polling make the margin of error HUGE. Anticipate a "polling error" * this year.

Problem is, we won't know direction of error, but the direction is likely correlated amongst states with similar demographics. The magnitude of the error is likely to vary considerably amongst states.

Battleground states OUTSIDE of polling error (538):
AZ --> D + 7, Gallego > 50%
WI --> D + 5, Baldwin > 50%
NV --> D + 9, Rosen 49%
PA --> D + 5, Casey 48%
MI --> D + 4, Slotkin 48%
MT --> R + 6, Sheehy 49%


Battleground states WITHIN polling error:
TX --> R + 3, 47 - 44
NE --> R + 3, 43 - 40
OH --> D + 3, 47 - 44
FL --> R + 4, 46 - 42

Dems need to hold Ohio, which is a pretty good bet unless Trump over-performs and has a coattail effect. If this happens, we're screwed anyway.

Sadly Tester's probably toast. He's a great dude, but probably the last Dem from MT for many years. I'd trade MT for FL or TX. I'd prefer FL because I think Mucarsal-Powell is more progressive than Allred. NE seems like a hard hold also, but if that's what we get, we gladly take it to get to 50 - 50.

 

* It isn't really a polling "error." Polls are predictive devices. Predictions have assumed error. The potential for error is increased with greater deviation from ideal samples. Samples so small that they can't reflect the voting population have greater potential for error.

Edited by quigley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chainsaw

chainsaw 9869

Posted
Posted

Gets me thinking if Allred would have had a better chance running as I instead of D. It's much different since TDP sort of does its own thing and the primary process feels like it matters for fundraising and momentum. In smaller states you don't need as much of a party apparatus to get your name out there.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...