Skip to main content

Smoothed trendlines for Alaska Senate race
We're back with another look at the Daily Kos Elections Poll Explorer. If you missed our debut on Monday, Daily Kos Elections, in collaboration with Drew Linzer, has developed a model that looks at the odds on whether or not the Democrats can maintain control of the Senate, and also whether they can gain gubernatorial seats.

If you want to know precisely how it works, we have a full explanation, but the short version is that we calculate smoothed trendlines for each race, based on all polls this cycle, and then run Monte Carlo simulations to find how likely various outcomes are. That, unfortunately, means the model is only as accurate as the polls themselves, but the hope is that, by November, there will be enough polls accumulated that their sheer volume will overcome any individual polls' biases or errors.

The overall Senate picture hasn't changed much; in fact, it probably won't ever change much in one half-week interval, given how many moving parts are present in the model. It would take a pretty big game-changing poll to really move the needle in one race, and even if the needle did move a lot in one race (as we'll see shortly, in Alaska), there are still so many races factored into the overall equation that that jump would only have an impact of a few percentage points overall.

The big mover, again, is Alaska, where Mark Begich's odds of victory fell from 82 percent to 58 percent. Frankly, the 58 percent mark feels more right, intuitively; although most analysts would agree that Begich has a slight upper hand here, it's still a red state at the presidential level, one which he barely won in 2008, and he's facing a credible opponent.

What happened here is, in one word, Rasmussen. There's been very little polling of Alaska, compared to the other major Senate races, and the polls have been dominated lately by a good run of PPP polls for Begich and a too-good-to-be-true YouGov poll that put him up by 11. Rasmussen Reports, however, came out with a poll on Monday that put Dan Sullivan up, 47-45, the first public poll to give Sullivan a lead. Add that to the very small pile of polls in Alaska, and that all averages out to a much closer race than before.

No doubt some of you are objecting that that's just more evidence that we should be banning, or at least downweighting, Rasmussen, if they can just barge into a race and skew the whole thing. Well, that's not the way poll aggregating works, especially since Rasmussen can giveth just as much as they taketh away. Case in point is Rasmussen's Wednesday poll in Arkansas, which moved the needle there quite a bit, boosting Democrat Mark Pryor's odds from 37 percent to 49 percent. Rasmussen's poll, giving Pryor a 44-43 edge, is actually the first public poll to give Pryor a lead since May. (The battle in Arkansas has mostly been waged through leaked internal polls, and a number of recent Democratic internals also gave Pryor a lead. Bear in mind, though, that we do downweight polls released by campaigns or their supporters, on both sides of the aisle.)

Iowa is the other Senate race making a move. It's not a big move, from 51 percent to 45 percent odds for Bruce Braley, but it is an important psychological barrier, in that he now has less than a 50 percent shot. In fact, he now has slightly worse odds than either of the endangered red-state incumbents, Pryor and Mary Landrieu—though perhaps that's fitting, since, historically, open seats have proven much easier to flip than beating an incumbent. Interestingly, this small drop happens despite Braley not actually trailing in either of the two polls that came out this week (a PPP poll where he led 41-40, and a Suffolk poll that was tied 40-40), but they're both so close that throwing them on the pile diminished his small previous edge.

In terms of overall odds, this combination pushed the Dems' chances of controlling the 50 seats needed to hold the Senate from 47 percent to 45 percent, as Begich's move down seems to outweigh Pryor's move up. The median number of seats resulting from all those Monte Carlos is still 49, while the modal number of seats is still 50. In other words, Senate control is still a complete and utter coin flip; in the grand scheme of things, a slight flicker between 45 and 47 percent odds does very little to alter the fundamental coin flip-ness of the Senate situation.

The governor's race situation just got noticeably better, though, and we'll discuss that over the fold:

We'll start with Arizona, where a new PPP poll released on Tuesday shook up the race; it has Democrat Fred DuVal, and Republican Doug Ducey (who secured the GOP's nomination in Tuesday's primary), tied at 35 apiece, with a Libertarian candidate drawing a startlingly large 12 percent. This has been a very thinly polled general election (probably because it was hard to tell, until a few weeks ago, who would emerge from the overcrowded GOP field). With this race suddenly on the map, DuVal's odds here rose from a paltry 2 percent before, to 35 percent now (which puts him ahead of several endangered Dem incumbents!).

Another big mover in the gubernatorial races is Michigan, where Democratic ex-Rep. Mark Schauer is facing Republican incumbent Rick Snyder. On paper, this has always looked like a top-tier pickup possibility for the Democrats, since it's a light-blue state, and Snyder dinged up his moderate veneer by signing right-to-work legislation.

The polling hasn't cooperated though, with Schauer often coming within low-single-digits of Snyder but not actually leading at any point since a Dem internal in February. On Wednesday, however, EPIC-MRA (one of the better among the many dubious Michigan-only pollsters) released a poll showing Schauer leading, 45-43. That juiced Schauer's odds quite a bit, from 25 percent to 41 percent. This is one of those cases where we'd want another poll to confirm before getting too optimistic, but, if correct, Schauer's peaking at just the right time.

Who would've expected, earlier this year, that we'd be talking about good odds of picking up the state house in Kansas? Paul Davis continued his run of strong polls against Republican incumbent Sam Brownback, though, with a SurveyUSA poll on Tuesday that gave Davis a 48-40 lead. Brownback countered with an internal poll giving him a 43-42 lead over Davis, but that's weak sauce: our model downweights internals so that's effectively a poll with a two-point Davis lead. That self-inflected one-two punch boosted Democratic odds here from 63 percent to 76 percent.

Finally, there's Wisconsin, where the Mary Burke surge appears to be real, too. This race was essentially deadlocked in our trendlines, with Burke having 52 percent odds against Republican incumbent Scott Walker, but on Wednesday, Marquette Law put out a poll with Burke leading Walker 49-47 among likely voters. The poll also gave Walker a small lead among registered voters (which is unusual, especially in a midterm, but it shows that Democrats are actually winning the enthusiasm gap in Wisconsin), but our model privileges LVs where they're available. That served to break the deadlock, pushing Burke's odds up to 57 percent.

Cumulatively, those four improved states pushed Democratic odds of gaining governorships up from 41 percent to 52 percent overall. And for the first time since we started the model, the median number of Dem-held governorship ticked up to 22 instead of 21. They currently hold 21, so that would be a net gain of one.

If you want to delve into greater detail about the previous polls this cycle, please check out Steve Singiser's polling database, which provides all the data our model draws on. We'll provide another written update next Monday, but the polling database, and the permanent Senate and gubernatorial pages of the model, are updated every day, so please check back frequently to see the battle unfolding.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 06:30 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos Elections.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I know better than to make blanket predictions (5+ / 0-)

    But right now, the governors' races are more important to pick up than the Senate races. And Democrats--if they play things right--can pick up several of these.

    I'm still pulling for Wendy Davis myself . . .

    And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

    by Pale Jenova on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 06:44:29 AM PDT

  •  Kay Hagan (16+ / 0-)

    I'm hoping NC pulls through and re-elects incumbent Kay Hagan.

    NC is more blue than red, the horrible gerrymandering is the problem in NC, that won't apply in state wide race.

    "Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens." -Jimi Hendrix

    by Four of Nine on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 06:49:35 AM PDT

    •  I wouldn't say (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chitown Kev, TrueBlueDem, pademocrat

      NC is more blue than red.  It's more of a straight up purple.  Under Democratic gerrymanders Democrats did great and under Republican Gerrymanders they do great.  

      33/D/M/NY-01/SSP&RRH: Tekzilla

      by Socks The Cat on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 06:56:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  NC (7+ / 0-)

        Between 1870 and 2012 NC had a Dem majority General Assembly, and had only two republican governors in that era prior to McCrory. Jim Holshouser served one term, elected 1972 and Jim Martin served one term, elected in 1988.

        2012 marked the election of the first  solid republican state government since Reconstruction/

        "Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens." -Jimi Hendrix

        by Four of Nine on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 07:05:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

          And all those years there were Democratic gerrymanders.  And in 2012 there was a Republican one.

          Look at statewide results, especially lately much more mixed.

          33/D/M/NY-01/SSP&RRH: Tekzilla

          by Socks The Cat on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 07:10:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I understand your point (4+ / 0-)

            but I would argue that Democratic Party drawn redistricting in prior decades wasn't the blatant sort of gerrymander the republicans committed after the 2010 census.

            Add to that the fact that the hard right policies pursued by the current regime are deeply unpopular.

            It's an open question as to whether there are enough rural brain dead zombie republican voters to override an energized Dem party base.

            "Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens." -Jimi Hendrix

            by Four of Nine on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 07:15:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  NC is tricky to look at (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              The re-alignment of the Democratic South becoming Republican ended with the 2010 elections, I'd say, making it butt heads with NC metro centers being some of the fastest growing areas in the country, which is making them powerful centers of Democratic votes.  You both seem right.  Previously, Dems ruled because they just needed some tweaking in the map, and the state has the right political geography to make it Dem.  Re-alignment ended, Republican control, so now we're talking a 50-50 state that can be gerrymandered at will.  A very great comparable would be FL, another swing state that can be gerrymandered to be 2/3 majorities by either party.  It's about the number of metropolitan areas and how you can spread the districts out to make enough seats just blue enough.  Or for the GOP, pack them as tightly as possible.

        •  Correction (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Zack from the SFV
          Jim Martin served one term, elected in 1988.
          Martin served two terms.  He was first elected in 1984 and reelected in 1988.

          “I believe all Southern liberals come from the same starting point--race. Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything.” ― Molly Ivins

          by RoIn on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 07:23:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The big think in NC (4+ / 0-)

      Does the third-party candidate get more than 5%? If so, Hagan wins.

      Last year everyone dismissed the 3rd party guy in VA governor, but he got a decent result.

  •  Did you hear Schauer is beating (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, Four of Nine, Stude Dude

    Snyder in the polls?    First time.  

    I will not vote for Hillary..... #38067

    by dkmich on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 06:55:15 AM PDT

  •  Dems should pick up FL Gov (6+ / 0-)

    Crist is gonna win that one.

    I'd sure like to see a poll of the Montana Senate race now that Amanda Curtis is the Democratic candidate. It's an uphill battle, but Democrats have a long history of winning Senate seats there.

    Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

    by bear83 on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 07:00:30 AM PDT

  •  if the (11+ / 0-)

    GOP takes the Senate 51-49, and it's because Maine reelects Susan Collins, that would be an interesting dynamic. Democrats should press that point whenever Susan votes with her party, calling her the 51st vote every time.

    "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

    by JackND on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 07:06:46 AM PDT

    •  Well, if so (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bananapouch1, slakn1

      Collins will (probably) run for reelection in 2020. And by 2020 it will be long forgotten...

      Very Independent minded. Moderate. Extremely cynical (main principle: don't easily believe anyone, but himself).

      by Ragmod on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 07:43:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  great diary on how LGBTQ group raises funds for (7+ / 0-)

      anti-gay Senators.

      Susan Collins: Leadership HyPACrisy

      If you're Susan Collins (R-ME), you quietly collect money for your PAC. You hit up some of your most loyal corporate partners, like General Dynamics and Raytheon. And you welcome help from organizations that appreciate the rosy veneer of bipartisanship you can provide, like the Human Rights Campaign.

      Then you quietly dole that money back out to some surprising recipients. The kind of Republicans your supporters back home might not associate with your carefully groomed "moderate" image.

      Not-so-moderate Republicans like Mike Enzi. And James Inhofe. And that guy you'll vote for as Majority Leader if, with your help, your party takes over the Senate next year: Mitch McConnell.

      Collins ain't no moderate when she votes, and I don't expect her to be any better if the R's take control. She isn't managing to bring anyone else along with her when it counts ( or even show up herself when it would change the outcome).

      Her progressive challenger Shenna Bellows is making some waves and is now being backed with a big ad buy (for Maine) from DFA.   View ad here

      Bellows for Senate link

      •  I used to be pretty high on Bellows (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bananapouch1, Rob Dapore

        I thought it was very possible she'd manage to close the gap with the hyper-partisan state the country's in, but she hasn't even been close in any polling so far.  She's certainly making some waves in the progressive community online, but there's been no evidence of waves in Maine.  I'd love it if she were able to make this race competitive, but that just hasn't been the case.  

        •  Actually, there's been notable movement (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slakn1, George3

          in this race in the past few weeks:

          But, it indicated that 64 percent of Democrat respondents said they planned on voting for her. That may not seem like a big deal, but it’s 20 points more than Bellows was polling with Democrats in a June poll commissioned by the Portland Press Herald/UNH, which showed Bellows pulling in only about 44 percent of her own party.
          As for the 24 pt. spread, that's just 2 points more than Rep. Tom Allen lost by in '08. For a challenger with very low name recognition to come this close to Collins, 2 months out, has got to be causing some heartburn at Collins headquarters.

          Bellows will keep up the pressure, and outside buys should help (as long as they don't go too negative). This seat is too important to hand over gift-wrapped.

          Support a Progressive Dem from Maine for US Senate! Bellows for Senate

          by Illegitimi non carborundum on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 01:38:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not that I don't think it's worth trying for (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I think anyone in Maine who wants to volunteer their time or anyone who's inspired by Bellows to donate certainly should.  I just think it's far-fetched that that kind of margin can be made up for two months out against a popular incumbent.

            We need this seat long term, which means a solid fight is always important, but I think people are deluding themselves based on the awful poll numbers.

          •  Who gets heartburn over a 24% difference? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Daily Kos is the only place I have ever heard Bellows name.  I read plenty of political news.  This race isn't mentioned anywhere, at all.  I spose I may find an article about some organization wasting a bunch of money in Maine within the next few days...

        •  If Rep. Allen couldnt do it in 2008 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen

          then why Bellows?  That poor guy.  Everyone thought we had a tier 1 candidate, that it would be a top race with shit tons of money involved, Obama at the top of the ticket, we can do it!  Nope, not even close.  Worse result than 2002.  Collins is there until she retires or dies.

    •  Democrats have got to go after Collins (5+ / 0-)

      Really start attacking the "moderate" visage that continues to prop her up.  

      Plus, while certainly no Vermont or Rhode Island, Maine is a pretty blue state.  That alone should be reason to go after Collins.

      •  Instead, we have left-of-center groups... (5+ / 0-) the environmental community supporting Collins.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 11:15:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Same dynamic (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          as the Cuomo endorsements.

          Maine has a big brain drain of young people. I suspect this really favors incumbents. Look at how Nelson killed in FL even when the GOP was riding high. (It's okay, I think "Connie" "Mack" was looking forward to retiring in CA anyway.)

        •  some are. and Labor is split, with most of the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Meteor Blades, petral

          unions across the spectrum backing Democrat Shenna Bellows.
           and the naval shipyard's coming out for Republican Collins (they actually endorsed her last fall before Bellows was even in the race).

          Bellows has earned the respect of those who meet her, and the growing list of unions and organizations that are endorsing her are doing so in the face of the machine that an incumbent can bring to bear. Bellows'  "Walk with ME for Jobs and the Economy", a 350 mile walk across Maine from Canada to NH border has grabbed people's attention, but there are still a lot of folks who don't know about her candidacy. With 5 debates scheduled for October this could change in a hurry.

        •  The LGBT groups too (0+ / 0-)

          Drives me nuts.  Everyone loves some moderate cred, even if it hurts our causes.

        •  But some good news today! (0+ / 0-)

          Climate Hawks has endorsed Shenna Bellows:

          Shenna Bellows has earned our endorsement. She will seek limits on carbon emissions. She opposes the Keystone XL pipeline. And - unlike Collins - she’s taken a firm stand on an issue important to Maine voters and the larger climate community: she’s opposed the proposed Portland Montreal Pipeline Reversal, a plan to re-engineer an existing pipeline to carry carbon-intensive tarsands from Canada to Portland, Maine and then to the global marketplace.  Maine needs to elect Shenna Bellows to the Senate.   As with prior races, we’re backing up our endorsement with organizing on the ground.  Past successes include winning nominations for Brian Schatz, Hawaii-Senate, and Ruben Gallego, Arizona-07.  

          Support a Progressive Dem from Maine for US Senate! Bellows for Senate

          by Illegitimi non carborundum on Fri Aug 29, 2014 at 09:15:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I am hopeful about Arizona. (7+ / 0-)

    From Blog For Arizona

    Top 10 Reasons Doug Ducey Is Too Extreme for Arizona Voters:

    10- Ducey is a sexist who is a long-term member of two all-male clubs.

    9- Ducey panders to and parties with law-breakers like tax-evader Cliven Bundy.

    8- Tea Party darling Sarah Palin and convicted felon Dinesh D’souza are coming to Arizona on Sept 4 to campaign for Ducey.

    7- Ducey is backed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio; Cathi “fetal personhood” Herrod of the Center for Arizona Policy; the anarcho-capitalist Koch Brothers; Tea Party wing-nut and US Senator Ted Cruz; Palin; and millions of dollars of his own money. (He put $3 million into winning the primary. Being governor of a purple state must be pretty lucrative if a capitalist will lay down that kind of cash to win.)

    6- Ducey is too conservative for Governor Jan Brewer. (Think about that for a moment! Brewer signed the anti-immigrant SB1070 and the omnibus voter suppression bill HB2305, you know.)

    5- Ducey is against raising the minimum wage.

    4- Ducey believes that poor people should pay more taxes.

    3- Ducey believes that Social Security is a “ponzi scheme” and a middle class entitlement.

    2- Ducey supports “religious freedom” and the Hobby Lobby decision which allowed corporate people with deeply held religious beliefs to deny birth control coverage to employees.

    1- Ducey supports the rights of fetal persons over the rights of women.

    It is ridiculous to pretend that firing teachers based on student test scores, starting charter schools, giving out vouchers or implementing merit pay will overcome the challenges facing a child living in poverty. -Jersey Jazzman

    by Desert Rose on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 07:09:50 AM PDT

    •  I agree that it would be (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      much more difficult against Smith, but Arizona is still republican-leaning state. Add to this usual midterm drop-off among, probably, the most important Democratic constituency in this state (Hispanics) and - .....

      Very Independent minded. Moderate. Extremely cynical (main principle: don't easily believe anyone, but himself).

      by Ragmod on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 07:45:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Race is tied right now, and Fred is pretty (0+ / 0-)

        much an unknown, so that's pretty good.

        It is ridiculous to pretend that firing teachers based on student test scores, starting charter schools, giving out vouchers or implementing merit pay will overcome the challenges facing a child living in poverty. -Jersey Jazzman

        by Desert Rose on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 08:09:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If the Republicans take over the Senate as well as (12+ / 0-)

    continue to hold the House, midterm voters in this nation would have given the keys of governance totally to Republicans who got us into two major wars, wrecked the economy, shut down the government, continue to deny suffering people in red states healthcare, killed every jobs bill that have been proposed to put people back to work, took food out of the mouths of children, refused to vote for infrastructure bills, well needed since our bridges and roads are crumbling, and they would have kept in office a political party with approval ratings barely out of single digits.

    The talk is they would have done this horrible thing because they despise Barack Obama who turned around the US economy from where the Republicans sent it careening into a second Great Depression, saved the US car industry, and gave tens of millions of people access to healthcare.

    Yes, hating the black guy must be a marvelous thing....

    •  I disagree. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It's not the color of his skin, it's the "D" next to his name, and all the other "D"s that are actually on all of these ballots. These are state elections, not national, and even though some nation-wide events and laws play a part, so few federal laws have been passed since 2009 that I don't think they play a great part. If all politics are local, we can't blame the race of the President for losing state elections. If the government had done all these wonderful things, then people wouldn't be in such a foul mood as to vote in people representing a party they despise. (Of course, the fact that they despise the other party almost as much tells that tale. Regardless of what you think the Dems have done, so few voters in this many states agree with you as to make it meaningless what has been accomplished.)

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 08:35:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure, it's not about race, ask Kentucky. They (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ChadmanFL, ColoTim, Theodicy, askew, pademocrat

        just happen to love their state healthcare plan when it's called Kentucky Kynect and despise it when it's called Obamacare.

        Not about race at all....

        •  Still not necessarily race. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I'm not disputing racism. But you have to realize that a) Obama isn't on any ballot anywhere, and b) almost all of them have non-A-A Dems that in too many cases, are losing. The common element is the "D", not the race.

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 09:15:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You mean the non A-A Dems that are being painted (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Stude Dude, ColoTim, Theodicy, askew

            as being Obama? Mitch McConnel isn't running against Allison Grimes, he is running against "bogeyman" Obama!

            Grimes pushed back against Mitch McConnell’s efforts to align her with President Obama by calling herself a Clinton Democrat. Besides being true, this was also a wise political decision. The Clintons are much more popular in Kentucky than President Obama, and Sen. McConnell’s entire campaign is centered around running against President Obama.
            Not sure this could be any clearer....

            And in Arkansas?

            Mitt Romney Casts Cotton-Pryor Senate Race as Way to Fight Obama

            Though Romney didn't mention Pryor by name, [Tom]Cotton used the appearance to portray his Democratic rival as too closely aligned with the president. He derided Pryor as a "loyal foot soldier" for Obama.

            "Arkansans did render their judgment on the Obama agenda two years ago when they voted for Gov. Romney. They do have a chance to render that judgment and make it effective in 2014 by retiring Mark Pryor," Cotton said.

            This is what you say:


            Obama isn't on any ballot anywhere, and b) almost all of them have non-A-A Dems that in too many cases, are losing.
            Your non-A-A Dems are being portrayed as the incarnation of "bogeyman" Obama. The man that turned around the economy and gave them access to healthcare. Some of them for the first time in their lives.... But, who cares? He's a "monster" in their estimation.....

            I think I'll rest my case here....

        •  This is such painfully bad logic (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I don't know where to begin.  

          "You think Republicans dislike Obama because of the "D" instead of his name.  Well, when healthcare is called 'Obamacare' they like it much worse than not.  See it must be about race."

          Um, no, it could be that Republicans just (irrationally) dislike a health plan that is supported by a democratic president, whether or not he is African American.  Again, your example does nothing to show it's about the "black" rather than about the 'D."  We're supposed to be the reality/logic based party.  Remember?    

          •  Reality logic like the Republicans blocking this (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ColoTim, Theodicy, askew

            President's nominees more than any other President in history? Presidents in a pool consisting of both Democrats and Republicans?

            "In the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents."
            And what about Republicans pledging to block, obstruct, or sabotage this President before he even sat foot in the oval office? Which other President has seen this?

            I'm sure your reality logic can do wonders here....

            •  Thomas Jefferson (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              got it from the Federalists, who had been accusing him of planning to burn down all of the churches, and worse. In 1815 the Federalists won their last important election, and the Democratic-Republicans had government to themselves for 18 years, the Era of Good Feelings.

              Lincoln got it from the South.

              FDR got it from the bankers.

              It's nothing new.

              Godless, Gritless Liberals, Then and Now

              Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

              by Mokurai on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 01:18:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I repeat.... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                askew, petral

                The Republicans blocked the President's nominees more than any other President in history, since the beginning of this nation.

                "In the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents."
                this is fact.....
            •  Bill Clinton, to name one... (0+ / 0-)

              and the next-most-recent Democrat to hold the office, no less.

              I heard right-wing radio talkers calling for his impeachment on election night in 1992... not to mention "Travelgate", "Whitewatergate", "Blowjobgate", and a whole encyclopedia of other made-up non-scandal bullshit... to say nothing of the impeachment farce.

              Hell, they even tried to blame Bill for 9/11, even after he had retired to make millions on the lecture circuit.

              Just in case you've forgotten... Bill Clinton is a white dude.

              Are there racists who hate Obama because he's black? Of course there are. But those same people would hate him even if he was white, because (a) he's a Democrat and (b) they've been told to by the AM radio actors they worship, even as those same hosts laugh all the way to the bank. (Limbaugh, for example, doesn't believe a word that he says on the air, and never has... he even copped to it back in 1992. It's all an act.)


              "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
              "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

              by Leftie Gunner on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 06:38:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

        I don't think he's a major factor at all as a two-year lame duck (in most states). Incumbents have to run on their records.

      •  It is both, but race is a big factor (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ColoTim, askew

        They opposed Clinton, but not with the virulence with which they oppose and vilify Obama.  The presence of a black man in the White House (think about that) has literally sent some GOPsters over the edge.  They will not work with him at all, not on anything.  

        If you live in a "normal" place, a blue state or urban area, you don't see it, but when the rocks in red areas are turned over, what crawls out is not pretty.

        And sure our voters, who are generally less well off and younger, with less settled lives, don't vote as much as older, more well off people, and that has to be addressed.  There are plenty of potential voters if we get better organized and so the hard work of voter outreach in the midterms.

        Don't bet your future on 97% of climate scientists being wrong. Take action on climate now!

        by Mimikatz on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 09:04:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They opposed Clinton with just as much, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Zack from the SFV, nimh

          if not more virulence, I'd say. So much so that they slandered, libeled, and just about voted in a complete moron just to spite Clinton's VP.

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 09:16:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  who opposed Clinton? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            he won Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Arizona in 1996. He had a different coalition of voters than Obama. Some people who supported Clinton didn't support Obama, and not just because some of them died (though that's also a factor, because Democrats in some of those states are literally dying out).

            We no longer ask if a man has integrity, but if he has talent. - Rousseau, Discourse on the arts and sciences

            by James Allen on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 11:09:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NedSparks, petral

              There are long time Dem strongholds which lost their ever-loving minds when Obama was elected. If that's not about race I don't know what is.

              Not to mention that Clinton was tagged as a n-----lover, almost as bad as a n-----, so some of the obstructionism he received was certainly about that. This is probably why he was so awful on welfare and so on, to try to present himself and the Democratic party as brown-people-thrashers. (He was awful for a lot of other reasons too, which is why I just shake my head when young people bitch about Obama. You don't even know.)

          •  I've lived through both eras. Clinton, even with (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mokurai, NedSparks

            the Impeachment, endless investigations by a Republican Congress with unlimited funds, never faced the personal animosity and attacks on his character that Obama has.

            Granted, the eras were a little different - there were still Republicans who wanted to get things done and who were able to compromise without being voted out of office by people looking for someone ever-more off the cliff than they are, but I'll argue the reason the Tea Party exists and is so strong is because there are many, many racists who've been given voice by powerful Republicans, amongst them some very racist characters who are willing to use whatever lies they can concoct (Muslim, Kenyan, etc) to keep that base stirred up.

            Hillary will be the target of that huge hatred if she chooses to run, because the racists probably also include many mysogonists who would be more than happy to have women back in their places - barefoot and pregnant while only speaking when their husbands give them permission.  She's someone who's strong enough and been hardened by fire enough to survive all that.  My concern is that I don't like her 3rd way and militaristic foreign policy, but I have a feeling those who hate Obama and didn't hate (or were too young) to hate the Clintons will team up with those who hate Democrats and this Obama era will seem relatively peaceful compared to 2016-2024.

  •  Braley is blowing it really. (6+ / 0-)

    I mean if Landrieu or Pryor can hold on and Dems lose the Senate because of Braley...

    I still think Mary will pull it out - too much power for Lousiana Power brokers/interests to give up.  Pryor will probably lose by a bigger margin than expected though.  I do think Senate balance will come down to Braley.  Dems need to send their A-Team Election Brain Trust there to try and clean up his mess.  

    Glenn Greenwald promotes far-right fringe extremist group The Oath Keepers -

    by Jacoby Jonze on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 07:29:14 AM PDT

    •  He really doesn't seem to get what is needed (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rob Dapore, Midwesterners, ColoTim

      Joni Ernst is a trainwreck and how he can not be putting her crackpot positions on TV every night is beyond me.  He is a disappointment as a campaigner, but there is still time if he accelerates after Labor Day.

      Don't bet your future on 97% of climate scientists being wrong. Take action on climate now!

      by Mimikatz on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 09:07:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's an open seat (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      In a purplish state that nevertheless has many teabaggers who voted for the likes of Huckabee, Santorum etc.

    •  Why is Braley not exposing Ernst's Extremism? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stude Dude, Theodicy, ColoTim, pademocrat

      I agree, Braley is one of the biggest disappointments of this entire election cycle--and his need to win this Senate seat could not be more crucial.  Like many Dems and Progressives outside of Iowa, I have sent money since the beginning of 2014 to help him get elected.  What the heck is the Braley campaign doing with our donations?  They certainly are not exposing Ernst as the Extremist and Corporate Puppet that she is.

      I know Braley--and even his wife--made a bunch of missteps earlier this year with comments on farmers and neighbors' chickens.  But it is tragic that the new Braley staff--after the shakeup that occurred several weeks ago--can't seem to get this race off the ground either.  Right now, too many Iowa voters still believe Ernst's "narrative" that she keeps spinning--portraying herself as a middle class native daughter and solider.  Braley has totally failed to expose her lunatic and harmful positions on so many issues, even on farming.  Braley should have made this clear by now!

      •  He has (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It's a rare open seat senate race in the state.  I continue to believe he will win it.

        "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

        by Paleo on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 11:57:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks, although doesn't show her craziness at all (0+ / 0-)

          Yes, thank you for posting this link.  And you are right that the word "Extreme" is used throughout the ad.  But I wish that the Braley campaign would show just how truly wing-nutty and way out there Ernst is--in a Michelle Bachmann kind of way. (There are many possibilities --or material-- for this.)

          Sadly, many folks would see Ernst's opposition to raising the minimum wage as something that even a moderate would believe in--and would not see her opposition to raising it as anything "Extreme" at all.  

          Anyhow, yes I hope Braley pulls it off.  It's too bad he had such a rough start.   Do you have any idea if Tom Harkin is going to start seriously stumping for Braley?

      •  Moveon has a TV ad out on her thanks to the Kochs: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        “The universe is big. It’s vast and complicated and ridiculous. And sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles.” -The Doctor

        by KingofSpades on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:14:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow, that's more like it!!! Thank you Moveon!! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Well, thank you for linking me to this!  This is more like it.  I will donate to Moveon (again) before I give to Braley's campaign any more.  I read here at Daily Kos and on TPM about this "secret" meeting Ernst had with the Koch Addicts.  I was hoping that Braley would expose it.   I hadn't seen the Moveon ad until you put the link above.  Thank you!  We need more of this type of ad!

  •  Hawaii is somewhere between Lean and Likely D (8+ / 0-)

    A 16% chance Dems hold HI-Gov?  No, not even close.  Ige isn't impressive at all but it's extremely unlikely the state will vote in a conservative republican in Duke Aiona over him.

    The % chance of Dems holding CT-Gov, IL-Gov and winning FL-Gov also appear to be BADLY understated.  I'd have to put the over/under on net Dem gains in Governorships at around +2.5 at this point.  My best guess at this stage is Dems lose AR and IL and gain PA, ME, FL and KS with WI and MI being 50/50 Tossups.

    •  Black turnout (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ChadmanFL, TrueBlueDem, pademocrat

      I think will be higher than expectations for IL and FL wins. Might affect GA as well.

      •  You might be right on IL-Gov (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Outside of HI I think IL is the furthest off the mark on this aggregator.  That 10% figure seems to be skewed considering all the polls I've seen for some time have been either GOP internals or GOP-biased polls.  If I were to assign a % I'd probably give Quinn a 40-45% chance of winning.  The voters may despise him but this is IL we're talking about and Quinn has surprised people in the past.  

        In 2010 every poll after mid-October I can find has Quinn losing by mid-high single-digits.  He ended up winning that race.

        •  Right on IL (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TrueBlueDem, ChadmanFL

          Can't imagine HI or CT going Republican, but I think the model reflects how hard it is to poll Hawaii, and how little polling's been done there.  

          Just to note--the IL polls will start to get closer, but the key is African-American turnout. In 2010, Quinn won 4 of the 62 counties in the state, and squeaked out a win at the same time that the Dem nominee for Senate was losing. Durbin is a much stronger ticket-mate, and every day there seems to be a new revelation about Rauner, so I suspect Quinn can do so again, although it might not be reflected in the model until very late. It also helps that it's pretty universally acknowledged that, should he win, this will be Quinn's last term.

        •  And no left-wing protest candidates (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ChadmanFL, rayspace

          Like the ones who hoovered up 6% in 2010. Quinn is very much alive if he and the DGA carpet-bomb Rauner nonstop until election day.

          The sinners are much more fun...

          by TrueBlueDem on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 10:59:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Ferguson will definitely juice black turnout (0+ / 0-)

        The sinners are much more fun...

        by TrueBlueDem on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 10:57:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  i know this (3+ / 0-)

    is a poll aggregation but i still don't buy Braley has less off a shot than Pryor or Landrieu

  •  Wasn't Hawaii supposed to be competative in 2010.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zack from the SFV, Theodicy

    ...and then Abercrombie won by 17 points?  So what's the point of even trying to predict that state with official odds/polls/etc?  

    •  The polls in Hawaii are often completely wrong (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TrueBlueDem, Theodicy, David Jarman

      Sometimes by "only" 10 points, sometimes by 30 points.  Almost always understating Democrats.

      Ige should win comfortably.  He's very popular, and is consolidating support after trouncing the incumbent in the primary.  The Republican candidate is a repeat from 2010 (Aiona), and hasn't even started running ads yet...doesn't have a lot of money.  The independent (Hannemann) is socially conservative and will probably pull a bunch of Republicans too.  I'm currently predicting a 55-35-10 finish between Ige, Aiona, and Hannemann, but at worst it could end up 50-45-5 perhaps.  Don't see any way Aiona actually wins.

  •  i think losing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the senate for two years might make the pres election in 2016 a more successful one and bring in more left of center candidates up & down the ticket.

    let the gop run rough shod over the nation with the house & senate in their control but without a pres assuming obama will fight and that is debatable, maybe that will wake up the uninterested voters into finally dealing a blow to the deniers and racists on the right republican & dem alike.

    •  Not likely. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheUnknown285, Stude Dude, Theodicy

      2006-8 we were in even worse shape, and despite giving Dems as many levers of power as they had had in decades, so little was accomplished that nobody believes they have anything to offer. The GOP "[ran] roughshod over the nation" for 6 years (at a bare minimum) and after only 2 years the nation gave back to them the only power they needed. If they aren't even in as much control now as they were then, why would that stimulate a greater response?

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 08:40:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't see that happening. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim, nimh

      We would still have a Democratic president, so blame would end up getting shared between Obama and the Republicans.  Political science research has shown that credit/blame tends to get spread especially in divided government.

      I also question if it would actually bring out more liberals.  I could easily see it being used as an excuse to drift farther right in search for the non-existent center.

  •  What do y'all think of this? (5+ / 0-)

    This forecast gives Dems a 70% chance of controlling the Senate.

    "I'm a Christian because I prefer God's righteousness to my own. I'm a Democrat because I prefer common sense to the Republican Party." -unknown Former Babka winner.

    by Zeitgeist9000 on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 08:09:43 AM PDT

  •  PPP says we can take the House, though (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude

    I always thought we would squeak by in the Senate but GOP would keep the House. Now maybe it's the reverse. I don't know. Polls seem to be all over the place.

    A village can not reorganize village life to suit the village idiot.

    by METAL TREK on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 08:09:59 AM PDT

  •  In the AK Senate race aggregator -- (0+ / 0-)

    8 GOP polls (including Rasmussen) vs 3 Dem polls (all PPP).
    I'm guessing Begich is way far ahead and your aggregator is getting skewed by all the GOP numbers your including.

  •  Rasmussen is not identified as a GOP pollster in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    your polling database, yet PPP is tagged as a Democratic one. So when you count up all the GOP polls in your database, you get a low number if you don't know to include Rasmussen in your tally.

    •  The problem there (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Zack from the SFV, NMLib, nimh

      is that PPP does internal polling for Democratic politicians, in addition to their own on-their-own-behalf polls, hence the (D) in the database. (You can tell whether it's a public poll or an internal poll, if you look at the database, because the internal polls will list the client in the column next to the D.) However, most people would agree that Rasmussen has a GOP bias in their house effects, but they don't do any internal polling on behalf of other clients, hence no (R).

      Editor, Daily Kos Elections.

      by David Jarman on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 09:10:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is necessary to find ways to make not as (0+ / 0-)

        easy for pollsters like Rasmussen to avoid the R label. I mean scientific ways. Your way is very common between the poll agregators and for me, this is one example of how easy is for a pollster to find the position that they want in the polling agregators, having the chance to know all the details about the methodology of the polling agregators.

        Looking at the DKE Poll Explorer, if you see, when I published this winter, the first version of my rating chart, and I had HI-Gov as Lean R, thanks to the first polls of the race, then still in a two ways race, my work was not too well regarded. Also I have been this year in need of cutting the influence of a clear narrative creator in Illinois.

        I see you are facing the same troubles now. I'm sure you will find an scientific way to fix these little troubles.

  •  I think we keep the Senate. (6+ / 0-)

    Neither party is that popular, nor is there a huge backlash against one part or the other like in 2006 or 2010.  So I don't expect a wave either way.  Right now, it looks more like anti-incumbent (party) sentiment than anything, something I expect to be mitigated by partisanship once late-deciders really start paying attention.

    Republicans need a net gain of six seats to take the Senate.  They're at 45 right now, but a pick up of five is still a Democratic Senate due to Biden breaking the tie.

    Republicans pick up Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia.

    My guess is that Democrats will hold on to Iowa, Michigan, Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, Virginia, and New Hampshire due to their blue leans.

    Kentucky and Georgia will stay red.

    That means it comes down to Alaska, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Arkansas.  Republicans would need three out of four to win the Senate.  

                 - Now, all four did go for Romney, but North Carolina is a swing state, so not a whole lot of help to the Republican candidate there from partisanship.  

                 - Alaska continues to get more and more Democratic with every election (albeit still quite a ways away from being majority blue).  

                 - Arkansas and Louisiana still have a good share of people with split party loyalties (being Democratic on a local and state level and more Republican the higher up the ballot you go).  That's shaky ground admittedly but still would be of more help than people who identify as Republicans through and through.

                 - All four races feature incumbents.  While, again, I feel that there may be an anti-incumbent sentiment, incumbency in general is a plus for candidates.  

                             - Additionally, these are incumbents from the majority party and can say that that fact makes them better able to bring home the bacon than someone from the minority party.  This advantage would seemingly become even stronger if it starts to become clearer that the Republicans won't take the Senate.

    NOTE: I'm rather sleep-deprived, so I apologize for anything that might be incoherent or leaving out something.

    •  Unless King switches, that is. (0+ / 0-)

      Possible, but short sighted of him. (Of course, the next time a modern pol acts in his/her long-term interest will be the first time.)
      You are arguing against the polling, of course, as is your right, but the fact that 49-50 seats is the probable outcome shouldn't be denied. Even you have to argue that 3 of 4 Romney states have to reverse their most recent party affiliation/voting tendencies and their longer-term trends just to keep the Senate. To me that sounds like more of a longshot than challengers beating incumbents.

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 08:46:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Arguing against the polls (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        well if the polls are utter shit as many have been in say AR for example then that's a good argument to make.  

        You argue for trends but discount the fact that trends in AK and NC have been going bluer for a while now with some minor blips into red territory.  AR and LA as going redder but the other two are not.  

        As for King, he's not going to switch.  The GOP is looking at having 7 to 11 competitive races in 2016, a good number of which they could lose.  There is no way they keep the majority beyond 2016.  For King, and independent, to affiliate himself with the GOP so he could be in the majority for 2 years would be beyond stupid.  He'd be looking at not only being in the minority in 2017 but doing it as an independent which means he would be a minority of 1 with no party and no power whatsoever.  

        This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

        by DisNoir36 on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 09:09:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  NC is whipsawing back/forth. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I wouldn't say they are going bluer when they just voted in an entirely red legislature and governor, iIrc. AK may be going bluer, but they started from such a red place that it could be seen as a statistical regression to the mean instead of an actual shift.
          Yes, it doesn't make sense of King to switch, but would you really be surprised to see a pol making a short term move like this? Arlen Specter did this exact same move in reverse for even less of a gain. Nothing would stop King from switching back after 2016, after all.

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 09:20:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Arlen Specter lost. (3+ / 0-)

            That's the part you seemed to miss.  He made a calculated move to save his own political hide and he lost anyway.  I suspect the voters of Maine would not like to have a politician who flips based on which way the wind blows.  

            NC has been trending bluer and bluer.  They had a bad election which unfortunately will cost them for a decade because of extreme gerrymander.  But that's the ONLY reason the GOP will hold power in NC.  The GOP is despised more than cockroaches in NC and Tillis is the poster boy for the GOP in NC and a very big target for their hatred.  Hagan will win by 5% or more.   Recent non partisan polls have had her up.  No reason to believe otherwise.  Same for Begich.  He's run a very effective and smart campaign.  AK tend to be redder but they rely on federal pork and Begich is in a position to deliver it.  It'll be close but in the end he'll likely pull it out by a wide enough margin where we won't have to wait a week to find out who won.  


            This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

            by DisNoir36 on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 09:37:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I didn't miss that. (0+ / 0-)

              King might, though. Name me one pol who doesn't think s/he is so exceptional that s/he wouldn't think s/he won't suffer the same fate.
              And why wouldn't Maine vote for someone like that? They already did!

              "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

              by bryduck on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 09:52:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Agree but I want KY or GA (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG, ColoTim

      I really hope that isn't out of the realm of possibility.  I think we lose MT. SD and WV, all incumbents survive except maybe Pryor or Landrieu and it comes down to IA.  Braley needs to get himself in gear and go after Joni Ernst's crackpot positions.  Wining KY would be so sweet.  GA would be nice.  I think we will only lose 4 at most.

      Don't bet your future on 97% of climate scientists being wrong. Take action on climate now!

      by Mimikatz on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 09:17:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  no, no, no (0+ / 0-)

      Kentucky and Georgia go blue.

  •  I think Begich holds on in Ak, Udall in CO as well (5+ / 0-)

    Mi is a blue state as seen by the fact the Schauer is now leading Synder. WI is a tie right now, with an edge to Ds on likely voters.If Burke does well in the two debates she likely wins.

  •  My own guesstimates on the Senate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If I were to assign a % chance of Dems winning each of the competitive Senate seats I'd go with...

    Dem-Held Seats:
    SD (Open) - 5%
    MT (Open) - 5%
    WV (Open) - 5%
    AR (Pryor) - 45%
    LA (Landrieu) - 55%
    AK (Begich) - 60%
    NC (Hagen) - 60%
    IA (Open) - 70% (Obviously I don't buy the Ernst hype and think her nuttiness will eventually become evident to voters)
    CO (Udall) - 75% (Gardner is another GOP candidate who I'm confident will see a drop in poll numbers by election day)
    MI (Open) - 85%
    NH (Shaheen) - 90%

    Rep-Held Seats:
    KY (McConnell) - 40%
    GA (Open) - 20%
    KA (Roberts) - 10%

    I'd put the most likely range at GOP gains of 4-6 seats.

  •  Speaking of Kansas...Could the senate and gov. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    both go Democratic? There's that SurveyUSA poll:
    Roberts 37 Taylor 32 Orman 20. If the D drops out, and an anti-Bropwnback wave holds, how about Kansas and Kentucky going blue in the senate?

  •  So we feel good about holding RI-GOV? (0+ / 0-)

    That race has worried me a bit. Tough Dem primary, held pretty late in the year, and  GOP candidate Allan Fung seems like he could be a strong candidate.

    Although I dont know if he will be the nominee. The last poll of the primary had Ken Block leading, back in April.

    And there hasnt been a poll of the general in a while either.

    •  If it's Pell or Taveras (0+ / 0-)

      Raimondo might cause a lot of progressives and state workers to sit on their hands.  Although she'd probably end up winning.

      "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

      by Paleo on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:02:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  About that Begich poll. (0+ / 0-)

    Rasmussen polls in Alaska are rigged to the max for the rethugs. Because there are not many polls this is what happens. Now Dittman will come in and verify Rasmussen and the wingers will be happy. They know who to call to give them the results they want.

  •  better prediction (0+ / 0-)

    Here's a website with a better prediction:

    Democrats have a 31% chance of holding the Senate.

    Don't agree with this prediction?  Put up some money.

  •  Hawaii Gov will stay D (0+ / 0-)

    "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

    by Paleo on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 11:59:03 AM PDT

  •  frankly I think the Democrats will gain (0+ / 0-)

    Senate & House seats

  •  I don't agree with you. (0+ / 0-)

    I expect the Dems to keep the Senate. I've never had any doubts about it. And after the audio was released of McConnell stating he was only helping rich people, absolutely the Dems will keep the Senate.

  •  No way in hell (0+ / 0-)

    Democrats have a 97% of holding the Governor's seat in Massachusetts. I'd expect tighter polling to emerge soon after the primary next week.

    “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

    by fenway49 on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 09:38:22 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site