Cook Report moves GA Senate race to "Toss Up"

[Adam Griffin]

Thus far, we've seen it shift from Likely Republican to Lean Republican and now Toss Up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

Runoffs, especially on GOP turfs are iffy.

Very much so. She needs 50% + 1 on 11/4 to win.

We should be focused on winning our 50th on AK and ARK, aside from CO and NC. Nunn's polls have been on a downward spiral.

Not sure where this is coming from - she's been statistically tied or ahead since August. And Arkansas is gone.

[Adam Griffin]

Dubya's polling was 38 percent when he lost the senate. 2010 saw the GOP net 6 seats due to a tsunami in in House. Hopefully, his polls will come up. I was simply stating unlike in 2006, the Dems have runoffs in La or Ga if we need them should we go under 50 seats.

If we're at 49 or 50, then runoffs are irrelevant. Localization becomes irrelevant and the main issue is "Do you want Barack Obama to have control of the Senate?"

And if you think that Louisiana is going to tip to Democrats in that situation, I have a bridge to sell you.

Dems can't win a run-off in GA, period, so no need to worry about that.

[Adam Griffin]

I'll also just say that people really underestimate Landroo. It's not as if she hasn't been subjected to years of hammering via every form of media already, on the same old tired issues they're gonna use in any general or potential run-off. There ain't anything else the Republicans can throw at her, save for more of the same. If anything, I think that works to her advantage; sooner or later, people start tuning out the things they hear over and over and over and over...

[Adam Griffin]

Is there a run-off in KY? I was not under the impression there was?

Whoops, my bad. That's what I get for going off-topic.

[Adam Griffin]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

[Adam Griffin]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

To say that Pryor is as likely to win as Nunn is ludicrous.

Not sure which way you're going with it, but they're both within the margin of error in every single poll released thus far. Silver's work is obviously heavy on polling and there's not a lot of that yet - and we know his 2012 Senate results changed considerably between spring and fall - but the guy has a 96% success rate on Senate seats thus far.

[Adam Griffin]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

To say that Pryor is as likely to win as Nunn is ludicrous.

Not sure which way you're going with it, but they're both within the margin of error in every single poll released thus far. Silver's work is obviously heavy on polling and there's not a lot of that yet - and we know his 2012 Senate results changed considerably between spring and fall - but the guy has a 96% success rate on Senate seats thus far.

By that logic, he should have both of them with a greater chance of victory. Instead, he uses his questionable 'state fundamentals' variable which has helped him blow some close races (see 2012 MT/ND). A 96% success rate isn't impressive. Calling close races correctly is impressive.

At this time two years ago, both of those races were considered lost causes much more so than Pryor's seat is today. Berg was up by 10 in several polls, while Rehberg was 5 points ahead. Those races were ranked ~90% for the Republicans at the time. Why should a statistically-tied race enjoy anywhere near that level of confidence for the Republicans? If you think AR is going to be a blow-out, then you're using your own form of "state fundamentals" to come to that conclusion.

[Adam Griffin]

Silver currently sees GOP with 70% chance of winning GASen. That's better than KY and tied with AR.

To say that Pryor is as likely to win as Nunn is ludicrous.

Not sure which way you're going with it, but they're both within the margin of error in every single poll released thus far. Silver's work is obviously heavy on polling and there's not a lot of that yet - and we know his 2012 Senate results changed considerably between spring and fall - but the guy has a 96% success rate on Senate seats thus far.

By that logic, he should have both of them with a greater chance of victory. Instead, he uses his questionable 'state fundamentals' variable which has helped him blow some close races (see 2012 MT/ND). A 96% success rate isn't impressive. Calling close races correctly is impressive.

At this time two years ago, both of those races were considered lost causes much more so than Pryor's seat is today. Berg was up by 10 in several polls, while Rehberg was 5 points ahead. Those races were ranked ~90% for the Republicans at the time. Why should a statistically-tied race enjoy anywhere near that level of confidence for the Republicans? If you think AR is going to be a blow-out, then you're using your own form of "state fundamentals" to come to that conclusion.

I don't think Arkansas should be ranked that low. In fact, Pryor is more likely to win than Nunn (atm) given his incumbency. Obviously things can change but, at the moment, Silver continues to demonstrate his questionably effeminate "neutrality".

Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting Pryor should be less-favored than Silver is showing him after the fact, but at first, I was:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

Again, anyone who knows an ounce about politics can call up to 90% percent of races. The whole point of models is to predict tossup contests, otherwise there would be no point.

I'm not sure you understand what he's saying or what Silver does. His job isn't to call who is going to win or lose; his job is to determine the statistical likelihood of a candidate winning or losing an election. If he was just going to call the races, then he'd do it the same way that Cook, Sabato and Rothenburg do it by just guessing. Instead, he uses a series of data-sets and weights to project a confidence factor.

It makes more sense if you think about running each race in a simulation of sorts (which is what Silver and the Obama campaign both were doing to determine the likelihood of victory for one party or another in each state). So in May 2012, the GOP had a 70% chance of winning, according to Silver. That means if you ran the simulation 1000 times, the GOP would win 700 times and the Dems would win 300 times. Now obviously, you can't simulate such events in real life and there is only one election, but that doesn't matter in the context of how this data is supposed to be interpreted.

Yes, most races were off the table for one party or another, which is why those races had a 99%+ confidence factor - 18 Senate races, to be exact. North Dakota, in contrast, had a 70% likelihood of going to the GOP in May and a 80% chance in September. The final projection was 92.5% for the GOP in ND, and only 66% in MT - far cries from 99%+ confidence.

[Adam Griffin]

If Broun or Gingrey win, this race would easily shift to Likely Dem, and Michelle Nunn would probably end up a shoo-in

As much as I'd love to think that, I don't think that will ever be a reality. Georgia could be the Indiana of 2012, and Joe Donnelly only won by five-ish points. Georgia's too red for any Dem to be a "shoo-in."

You might cite McCaskill's 16 point win in 2012 Missouri, but I think it's slightly different than 2014 Georgia because they had an incumbent running in a state where it's actually possible for Democrats to win statewide. Unless you're Evan Bayh in Indiana, no Democrats typically win statewide there or GA.

I could also see Georgia as more receptive to a Libertarian candidate, but that will only work to make the path to 50%+1 for Nunn more difficult. If it goes to a runoff, she's toast.

Any statewide Libertarian can expect around 3% of the vote in Georgia, which means that Nunn really can't win unless she's ahead of Broun by 3 points or more. When you add that Georgia is much less elastic than Indiana or Missouri, the pathways to victory become much more difficult.

Maybe I'm being a bit facetious, but I think Broun could pull a Goatse with a cross in a 30-second spot and air it in every media market throughout the state and probably lose by no more than 5 in the general.

I don't even buy that someone like Gingrey is toxic enough to provide an opportunity for victory; many people forget that he has represented most of the northern swing electorate of metro Atlanta at one point or another. I think even a gaffe-riddled Gingrey wouldn't lose by more than 3 or so and would present only a small chance of a Nunn victory, and even then, we can't be for sure that disaffected voters won't just vote for the Libertarian in November.

I've maintained all along that Kingston is the most dangerous, and not because of his money. Perdue can be painted as a hack-and-slash business type who's cousin was once Governor. Handel can be painted as being an uneducated socon. Nobody in the general is going to care if Jack is a Washington insider (if/once he has the R nomination), and the guy is really likable. In GA-1, he regularly scores anywhere from 15-20% of the black vote. Still, I think any of these Republicans can win, simply because we have run-offs. Nunn has a damn good shot of winning a plurality against any of them, but like I said, she needs to beat the Republican by at least 3 if she wants to actually win.

[Adam Griffin]

Oh, and in a follow-up on what I said above in regards to the potential margin and likelihood of crossing 50%+1:

I attended a training seminar with the campaign back in January. Since this was disclosed to a group of a few dozen people in a public setting, I see no harm in sharing the broader information.

The campaign's goal in Georgia was described as hitting 52% on Election Night; obviously that seems like a bit of an overshoot, but such a number wouldn't be stated if it weren't possible. It's a bit more than what I think is possible with a worst-case scenario for the Republicans, but you don't want to aim for 50% and then fall short. I also don't have the same experience running campaigns.

I wouldn't have put much stock in it, except for the fact that the person who disclosed this has been involved with the DSCC, is one of Nunn's campaign managers and was the person responsible for the campaign that re-elected Tester in 2012.

EDIT: Haha, a quick search found this person doing the same run-through more or less in the public domain for DFA. The 52% for campaigns is referenced here, and you'll hear the goal being referenced as different than the win number here. Makes sense.

[Adam Griffin]

Palin just endorsed Karen Handel. Wowwww.

No surprise. Here's the FB post.

Handel is a Georgian Palin.

Yeah, honestly the only surprise here is that it took her this long to do it. I had just assumed that she already had and that I'd missed it.

[Adam Griffin]

Still, I think any of these Republicans can win, simply because we have run-offs. Nunn has a damn good shot of winning a plurality against any of them, but like I said, she needs to beat the Republican by at least 3 if she wants to actually win.

When did they start doing run-offs? Didn't Max Cleland win with a plurality in the 90's, why didn't that go to a run-off?

Run-offs have always existed in Georgia. Democrats -sensing their inevitable downfall - moved the threshold to avoid a run-off to 45%+1 after 1992; the Republicans moved it back to 50%+1 once they took power in 2004.

[Adam Griffin]

538 has adjusted its rating for the GA Senate race, giving Nunn a better chance of winning than Landrieu, Hagan, Pryor, Grimes or Begich.

You must be logged in to read this quote.