IA-Sen: Bruce Braley criticizes Grassley as ‘a farmer from Iowa’

[Never]

She's a decent B-lister. Certainly not "awful." Only Pub who could've won this is Latham IMO.

Joni Ernst seems like an analogue to Chuck Grassley. They are both strong conservatives  who had to take down someone who seemed like the establishment candidate. This race probably tilts in Braley's favor, but I think Ernst can still win this if she plays her cards right.

At best, Latham would probably be tied with Braley or behind by a point, meaning the dynamics of this race might look more like those in Colorado.

[Never]

Here's a Des-Moines Register write-up of how the race looks now that the primaries are over.

[Never]

She's a decent B-lister. Certainly not "awful." Only Pub who could've won this is Latham IMO.

Joni Ernst seems like an analogue to Chuck Grassley. They are both strong conservatives  who had to take down someone who seemed like the establishment candidate. This race probably tilts in Braley's favor, but I think Ernst can still win this if she plays her cards right.

At best, Latham would probably be tied with Braley or behind by a point, meaning the dynamics of this race might look more like those in Colorado.

A better analogue is the Sara Palin of Iowa.

It's Sarah with an "h", and Ernst seems more qualified than Palin. Although Ernst is playing up her farming roots, she is also the commander of the largest battlion in the Iowa National Guard. That is a serious job. People don't get promoted to Lieutenant Colonel in the Army without proving themselves.

[Never]

Apparently besides supporting a Personhood Amendment that prohibits abortion in all cases and supporting a Federal Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment, I found out Ernst also backs abolishing the Dept. of Education, still believes Iraq had WMDs in hand (and then took it back), and then her moment on the debate stage involving her offensive UCSB comments.

Yeah....so given the fact that she certainly qualifies as a gaffer, the fact that she's a woman and has establishment/Tea Party support won't be able to get her across the finish line. IA and MI could have been made competitive, but putting up female GOP nominees is only a small baby step for the party. Being awful, far-right conservatives automatically cancels out that woman advantage in these 2 races and really, Ernst and Land are treating these races as if they'll be cakewalks for them against Braley and Peters. Both IA and MI are somewhere in between lean D and likely D at this point.

I don't see the problem with abolishing the Dept. of Education. Neither did Reagan and the Republican Party as a whole until 1996 or so. Granted, you probably think that the majority of Republicans are extremists anyway. Education is not outlined in the Constitution as a specific responsibility of the federal government, and based on that, Ernst is on solid ground in arguing that the department should cease operation.

Nevertheless, most of the races this year seem like they will be decided on fiscal rather than social issues, which should benefit Ernst. Braley hasn't been without his share of  gaffes either.

Based on how so many people here are writing off Ernst's chances, I could see a lot of people with egg on their face in November. She already overperformed in the primaries, she is one of the few Republican candidates of this cycle who has proven that she can straddle the line between the establishment and the Tea Party, but most importantly, it seems like she is a feisty, hardworking campaigner. Contrary to what you wrote, I don't believe that she is treating her campaign like it will be a cakewalk.

[Never]

What an elitist idiot.

Republicans will play this thing 24/7 until the election.

Another competetive race, because Braley's favorables will drop and the eventual Republican candidate will become better known over the next months.

The Republican outside-groups will do the rest to make it competetive.

You guys are delusional if you think this comment will make the race competitive. It's March and no one is paying attention. As someone said, there are more lawyers than farmers in Iowa and every urban dweller secretly likes these comments because it sticks it to the rurals.

Let's hope then that I won't have to bring up your quote again in Aug./Sep./Oct. ...

The next polls will show what impact it had. But I stick with it: This race could become highly competetive over the summer.

Sry, but I have to bring it up much earlier than I thought:

IA is now projected to be an R pickup:

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2014/polls.php

One is from an R-biased firm, another is from a completely unreputable R firm that I wouldn't be surprised if it was cooking numbers, and the third's sample is too conservative.

Could we ask Leip to take the Loras and Vox Populi polls out of the algorithm?

Whoa there. I don't believe that Ernst is leading by the margins that Loras and Vox Populi are indicating, but polling is not a concrete science, and odds are that we will soon see more reliable pollsters come in and give us a clearer picture of the Senate race in Iowa. It seems rash to take polls out of algorithms with such fervor.

[Never]

What an elitist idiot.

Republicans will play this thing 24/7 until the election.

Another competetive race, because Braley's favorables will drop and the eventual Republican candidate will become better known over the next months.

The Republican outside-groups will do the rest to make it competetive.

You guys are delusional if you think this comment will make the race competitive. It's March and no one is paying attention. As someone said, there are more lawyers than farmers in Iowa and every urban dweller secretly likes these comments because it sticks it to the rurals.

Let's hope then that I won't have to bring up your quote again in Aug./Sep./Oct. ...

The next polls will show what impact it had. But I stick with it: This race could become highly competetive over the summer.

Sry, but I have to bring it up much earlier than I thought:

IA is now projected to be an R pickup:

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2014/polls.php

One is from an R-biased firm, another is from a completely unreputable R firm that I wouldn't be surprised if it was cooking numbers, and the third's sample is too conservative.

Could we ask Leip to take the Loras and Vox Populi polls out of the algorithm?

Whoa there. I don't believe that Ernst is leading by the margins that Loras and Vox Populi are indicating, but polling is not a concrete science, and odds are that we will soon see more reliable pollsters come in and give us a clearer picture of the Senate race in Iowa. It seems rash to take polls out of algorithms with such fervor.

^^

The whole system is going to go downhill if we start picking and choosing which polls should be entered based on whether we like the results they give. Personally I like everything being displayed for informational purposes, even though it sometimes leads to false perceptions (Louisiana Senate).

It's not because I don't like the result, it's bad methodology. Vox Populi's results from OR-Senate and OR-Governor have completely turned me off from them personally. But then again, they're an unproven quantity, so they might be able to stay, but Loras at the very least should be completely disregarded because they only sampled voters who voted in 2010.

I'm surely not being a hack, if that's what you're implying. I just don't think that polls that make a preconceived assumption about the electorate should be included in here.

Well, in that case, I think there is a solution at hand. How about a proposal to split the averages: one with all of the polls, and another with the partisan polls excluded? That might give us a better idea of what to expect when the actual election occurs, though it would mean that we couldn't include PPP, a Democratic-affiliated polling firm that is one of the most reliable players in the game.

On the other hand, there are legitimate concerns about Loras College. They are very new at this, having only started polling this year, but hopefully they improve over time.

Btw, I didn't assume you were a hack, I just had concerns with your proposal, that's all

[Never]

What an elitist idiot.

Republicans will play this thing 24/7 until the election.

Another competetive race, because Braley's favorables will drop and the eventual Republican candidate will become better known over the next months.

The Republican outside-groups will do the rest to make it competetive.

You guys are delusional if you think this comment will make the race competitive. It's March and no one is paying attention. As someone said, there are more lawyers than farmers in Iowa and every urban dweller secretly likes these comments because it sticks it to the rurals.

Let's hope then that I won't have to bring up your quote again in Aug./Sep./Oct. ...

The next polls will show what impact it had. But I stick with it: This race could become highly competetive over the summer.

Sry, but I have to bring it up much earlier than I thought:

IA is now projected to be an R pickup:

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2014/polls.php

One is from an R-biased firm, another is from a completely unreputable R firm that I wouldn't be surprised if it was cooking numbers, and the third's sample is too conservative.

Could we ask Leip to take the Loras and Vox Populi polls out of the algorithm?

Whoa there. I don't believe that Ernst is leading by the margins that Loras and Vox Populi are indicating, but polling is not a concrete science, and odds are that we will soon see more reliable pollsters come in and give us a clearer picture of the Senate race in Iowa. It seems rash to take polls out of algorithms with such fervor.

^^

The whole system is going to go downhill if we start picking and choosing which polls should be entered based on whether we like the results they give. Personally I like everything being displayed for informational purposes, even though it sometimes leads to false perceptions (Louisiana Senate).

It's not because I don't like the result, it's bad methodology. Vox Populi's results from OR-Senate and OR-Governor have completely turned me off from them personally. But then again, they're an unproven quantity, so they might be able to stay, but Loras at the very least should be completely disregarded because they only sampled voters who voted in 2010.

I'm surely not being a hack, if that's what you're implying. I just don't think that polls that make a preconceived assumption about the electorate should be included in here.

Well, in that case, I think there is a solution at hand. How about a proposal to split the averages: one with all of the polls, and another with the partisan polls excluded? That might give us a better idea of what to expect when the actual election occurs, though it would mean that we couldn't include PPP, a Democratic-affiliated polling firm that is one of the most reliable players in the game.

On the other hand, there are legitimate concerns about Loras College. They are very new at this, having only started polling this year, but hopefully they improve over time.

Btw, I didn't assume you were a hack, I just had concerns with your proposal, that's all

That might be a good idea (don't know if Leip has the capability to do that). Maybe we could just exclude PPP's internals and only use their non-commissioned firms?

FTR I have no issue with your comments.

If those get taken out then the ridiculous AR polls should be removed too. They had Pryor up by double digits lol.

False analogy. NYT/Marist aren't making assumptions about the electorate like Loras is.

I think I'll go to the Atlas discussion thread and see if anyone bites on my proposal.

I'm glad we're on good terms brah.

Arkansas (and Louisiana for that matter) are evidence that polling can fail to give us an accurate picture, regardless of the reputability of the organization carrying out the poll.

[Never]

I feel like we had this discussion earlier, about South Carolina in 2012. There were only 3 polls of the state (a couple Marist and an Ipsos). The Ipsos and one of the Marists was R+6, while the other Marist was D+3, so the state was listed as a tossup on our polling map. We didn't take any action to 'fix' it then.

I remember seeing that when I looked at some information about the 2012 election on this site recently. It was unusual.