Talk Elections

51/38 with full field.

54/41 in head-to-head.

Land has 35/50 favorability.

Peters has 46/32 favorability.

Looks like Peters will win by a bigger margin than Warner and Franken.

How embarrassing for Land that she's probably going to lose by a bigger margin than Romney did, despite her initially leading in the polls and it being a much better climate for Republicans than 2012.

Yasss, Gary, read her for filth.

Glorious news! TLL will get a hard spanking on Tuesday :D

She'll probably lose by even more once it all comes down to it.

What did Land do to be so unpopular in Michigan? That is ridiculous, especially considering she was leading in the polls early on.

Outside of Pat Roberts, she has to have been the worst GOP candidate this year.

I think Land's issue isn't so much what she did as what she didn't do :P

For one thing, she disappeared from the campaign for weeks at time. What really did her in was when she flubbed up at a Chamber of Commerce event and wouldn't answer any press questions. After that, she pretty much stayed anonymous.

Land was never really leading, it was probably residual name ID pegging her around the GOP baseline. Question now is whether she stays above 40.

TLL hasn't been on the campaign trail in weeks. So much GOP money wasted lol

New Poll: Michigan Senator by Public Policy Polling on 2014-11-02 (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2014/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=26220141102108)

Summary: D: 51%, R: 38%, I: 4%, U: 6%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/MIResults.pdf)

This poll makes no sense. Land gave 650,000 dollars of her own money to her campaign (http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/10/senate_candidate_terri_lynn_la.html) just last week. Are you saying that was a colossal waste of money?

Not as bad as the $5.8 million the RGA gave Corbett.

Peters is the future of the Democratic Party #whitepeople

Peter's has had a pretty consistent 10-15 point advantage over Land throughout the past few weeks. Land is just keeping up appearances since the NRSC and AfP have cut off her funding.

Are you seriously asking a question about Republicans and fiscal restraint? :P

Welcome to the Senate, Levin, Jr.


I'll defer to another poster, since this is the correct answer:


In regards to her dismal popularity, this speaks to it:


but, I will add this: the "Really?" ad is a perfect lens through which to see her entire campaign, for the following reasons:

-She begins the ad with mentioning claims made by Gary Peters--effectively making this race a referendum on him, as if he was the incumbent (you could argue that this is sort of true--there won't be much of a difference between Levin and Peters)
-Peters made a (you could argue dubious or flimsy due to insufficient evidence, but that's splitting hairs at this point) nuanced argument that Terri Lynn Land would vote on policies that negatively impact women--whether or not you agree with Peters' assertion, his campaign framed this based on Terri Lynn Land's own statements
-Instead of refuting this claim, she assumes that voters will reject Peters' assertion as ridiculous, based on the very fact that Terri Lynn Land has a vagina--all the while saying nothing in the process

Instead of common sense, this came across as incredibly condescending. Michigan voters aren't stupid.

Subsequently, she showed that she has zero grasp of basic policy issues, and had difficulty taking a stance on even the most basic of current affairs. In her controlled campaign environments, she said nothing of substance (just like the ad) and figured that Michigan voters would assume that she couldn't possibly support policies that negatively impact women (just like the ad).

On the other hand, Peters spoke to Michiganders like they're adults, and repeatedly demonstrated his mastery of complex policy issues. While we may not be absolutely crazy about Peters (we never are about any politicians), he positioned himself as acceptable, likeable enough, and well-qualified for the office.


Yes.