Montana Senate Race

[Eraserhead]

I would vote for Tester and Tester will win. It will be close though.

[Eraserhead]

Burns win

Burns/Burns

Burns/Burns

Burns/Burns.

You guys are awfully confident despite the fact that no poll since April has shown Burns leading, and despite the fact that, ignoring outliers, there has been no movement in the polls since the start of October (regardless of the unsubstantiated statement going around for whatever reason that Burns is continually getting closer...).

If you look at Tester's numbers, they've been totally constant since, like, forever.  The only reason that Burns appears to be getting closer is because the undecideds are going to Burns, who were probably already leaning that way (given that it's Montana).

You mean you don't trust Zogby like they do?!?! (Joking of course.)

[Eraserhead]

In spite of my disagreements with him over the Patriot Act and other civil liberties-related issues, I would rather vote for Jon Tester given the opposition, and he will likely win. 

Is Tester for or against the PATRIOT act?

Jon Tester=Freedom Fighter. He wants to repeal the entire thing.

[Eraserhead]

Burns win

Burns/Burns

Burns/Burns

Burns/Burns.

You guys are awfully confident despite the fact that no poll since April has shown Burns leading, and despite the fact that, ignoring outliers, there has been no movement in the polls since the start of October (regardless of the unsubstantiated statement going around for whatever reason that Burns is continually getting closer...).

If you look at Tester's numbers, they've been totally constant since, like, forever.  The only reason that Burns appears to be getting closer is because the undecideds are going to Burns, who were probably already leaning that way (given that it's Montana).

You number cruncher you.  I just feel it. Tester is just a bit too liberal for Montana, and when the voters go to the voting booth, just enough will go for the rube. Of course one would not admit they support Burns in polite company. That would be like admitting you have donuts for breakfast.

The above opinion is invalid and inoperative if wrong, and cannot be relied upon by consenting adults in any manner without the permission of the author.

What the heck is wrong with donuts for breakfast?

[Eraserhead]

What the heck is wrong with donuts for breakfast?
[/quote]

You must live upstate, probably Buffalo.

And there you have it.
[/quote]

Nah. I'm from the Bronx originally and although I do live upstate now, I am not even remotely close to Buffalo.

[Eraserhead]

I think there's something to the theory that there are some candidates so vile that even the supporters won't admit it to a pollster.  This happened in 1984 with Jesse Helms.  Hunt was ahead in the polls and ended up losing fairly handily, actually.

Helms had Reagan's coattails to help pull him through as well. It was a very good year for the GOP nationally; this year is going to be an excellent Democratic year.

If Burns does pull it off it would probably be the biggest comeback win since Helms in 1984.

If 1984 had been a 2006 like environment, there is no way Helms would've won.

I would look more at the Helm's 1990 and 1996 analogy.  Gann suffered from the Tom Bradley effect as well, but this one it seems Burns is gaining momentum.. RealClear Politics agrees.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/mt/montana_senate_race-11.html

They would.

[Eraserhead]

People declaring a Burns victory already need to remember he hasn't had a lead in any poll since god knows when. Tester will still pull off a narrow victory (which is good enough for me).

[Eraserhead]

I've changed my mind; Burns is going to win. Tester is a f***ing awful candidate.

Uh, what's so terrible about him? He's a liberal running in an intensely Republican state, yes... but given that, it's amazing that he's doing so well. Even against a piece of shit like Burns.

Maybe he isn't the greatest candidate to run in a state like Montana but he will make one hell of a U.S. Senator.