Surprise pick(s)?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 18, 2024, 09:32:36 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Surprise pick(s)?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: Surprise pick(s)?  (Read 7940 times)
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: November 02, 2010, 12:02:21 AM »

Does anyone think that Linda McMahon could pull off an upset? Polls have been moving towards her in the past few days, and she claims her internals show a dead heat.

Haha, no.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,815


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: November 02, 2010, 12:17:59 AM »

I'll put down McAdams and Feingold for my surprise picks.

Bennett in Colorado

Fiorina in Kal-E-FORN-Ya

If I knew I'd get both....I'd be happy to support that trade.

Anybody with an IQ higher than a basketball would make that trade Smiley

So only basketballs are against having their job offshored?
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,313


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: November 02, 2010, 05:35:55 AM »
« Edited: November 02, 2010, 05:45:02 AM by sbane »


Ya but it's a three way deal, getting Fiorina IN means Boxer is OUT Smiley

I'd trade Buck to get rid of Boxer.....

Fiorina would be unbearable.  I'd rather have Buck.

She's be a party line vote for the most part....but that's worth it to get rid of Boxer, IMO.

Except for maybe abortion rights, what else is so extreme/bad about her?

Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: November 02, 2010, 06:01:24 AM »

If I were a betting man, I'd put some money on Scott McAdams winning, possibly after a lengthy court battle over Murkowski's votes.

He faces long odds, but I'd probably take them.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,313


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: November 02, 2010, 06:15:47 AM »

A pro-lifer winning statewide in California would disturb me.

I'm not aware that either of the major party candidates (for governor or senate) is pro-life.

They both are.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: November 02, 2010, 07:19:05 AM »

In the Senate, there really are no "likely" surprises, except for certain folks under- or over-performing.

For Governor, I'd watch NH and SC for reasonably large shockers.  Lesser shockers would include CO, MA (Patrick has had a pretty clear ceiling at 47% and Indys tend to underperform) and RI (where the polls never work properly).

In the House, there will always be a few shockers based on the power of the wave, presuming one occurs (though it seems almost certain now).
Logged
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,030
Czech Republic


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: November 03, 2010, 08:20:39 AM »

A pro-lifer winning statewide in California would disturb me.

I'm not aware that either of the major party candidates (for governor or senate) is pro-life.

They both are.

Who? I know that Meg Whitman and Barbara Boxer are both pro-choice, and I don't know about either of their opponents, but I'm sure they are as well.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.219 seconds with 10 queries.