FL: Dem Poll Show Rubio and Murphy in a Dead-Heat

[Frodo]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294546-dem-polling-shows-rubio-in-a-dead-heat

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If a democratic internal can only find Murphy ahead by 1, RIP Murphy. I'll wait for PPP before changing my rating though.

[Xing]

Ah, the great debate, dost thou unskew thy internals, or tosseth them hence?

Anyway, this may mean Rubio is ahead by a bit, but let's wait for PPP's poll.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems will win 51 seats for sure even without NV, IN, NH, Pa, WI &IL.

[Vosem]

Dems will win 51 seats for sure even without NV, IN, NH, Pa, WI &IL.

It's very hard for me to see Democrats reach 51 seats if they lose all those races; they would need 6 pickups elsewhere. I guess AZ, NC, MO, FL, and OH are obvious, but what the sixth pickup? Which of GA/IA/LA is a certain Democratic victory?

Sure it does. That being said, White Trump/Murphy voters are the worst.

Aren't they basically nonexistent outside of ChairmanSanchez?

[Figueira]

Are there a lotof non-white Trump/Murphy voters?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Dems will win 51 seats for sure even without NV, IN, NH, Pa, WI &IL.

It's very hard for me to see Democrats reach 51 seats if they lose all those races; they would need 6 pickups elsewhere. I guess AZ, NC, MO, FL, and OH are obvious, but what the sixth pickup? Which of GA/IA/LA is a certain Democratic victory?

Sure it does. That being said, White Trump/Murphy voters are the worst.

Aren't they basically nonexistent outside of ChairmanSanchez?

I'm pretty sure OC meant with those and without Florida

[Kingpoleon]

Sure it does. That being said, White Trump/Murphy voters are the worst.

... Violent Socialist/Asian Nazi, is that you?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The GOP have to win FL, if the Dems have a surplus of Senators, it won't hold well for them in 2018, with open GOP gov seats.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Sure it does. That being said, White Trump/Murphy voters are the worst.

[Classic Conservative]

https://mobile.twitter.com/PoliticoKevin/status/773282820802347008

It looks like the DSCC is cancelling ads for Murphy for a week.

[Heisenberg]

https://mobile.twitter.com/PoliticoKevin/status/773282820802347008

It looks like the DSCC is cancelling ads for Murphy for a week.

Good. It looks like they have a little doubt right now, will wait for more polling (like the PPP POLL) to see which races to target. Out of all the Democratic challengers, Murphy is the one I especially don't want to win. His ambition is probably to be President Pro Tempore someday, and the GOP really needs to win this seat. If they lose this year, I fear Murphy could become entrenched.

[Xing]

Sure it does. That being said, White Trump/Murphy voters are the worst.

Are they really any worse than Trump/Bayh or Trump/Justice voters?

[Kingpoleon]

Sure it does. That being said, White Trump/Murphy voters are the worst.

Are they really any worse than Trump/Bayh or Trump/Justice voters?

Maybe it's just me, but I think a "Stein/anybody non-third party in statewide elections" sounds like the actual worst of the worst.

[Figueira]

Giving up on FL is definitely premature, but waiting for more polls is wise.

[JerryArkansas]

Why the hell give up now. PPPhas Rubio only up 3.

[Blair]

Agree that it's a stupid decision- whilst it's wise to give up on Ohio (Dems were always going to lose one of WI, IL,Oh,PA, FL, IL) it seems stupid to give up on 2

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^ For a long time, Democrats assumed that people would think Republican Senator = Trump and vote straight dem. But now it's clear that people realize that when you're an elected official, it's your duty to vote for your party's nominee. Period. There's essentially a legal obligation to do it. Even if you hate them, it's your duty to the party. Yeah, Kirk gets a pass because no one thinks he can win, Graham gets a pass because everyone knows he's favored to lose the 2020 primary regardless, Rigell gets a pass because he's retiring, a few others (Ros-Lethinen, Reichert) can get away with anything since they're long-time incumbents in Safe R seats. But the clear majority just have to suck it up and get in line (unless they just don't care about their career/committee assignments). It would be the same if Democrats had nominated Sanders - many wouldn't want to endorse him, but would do it because it's their duty as an elected official.

At this point, Democrats are best just taking the path of least resistance (NV, IL, WI, PA, NH, IN) and leaving it at that. That's a real majority, 51-49 (I don't consider 50-50 a real majority).

[Xing]

Taking the path of least resistance in a year like this, when they have an opportunity to do much better than a bare bones 51-49 majority, would be foolish. A 51-49 majority has little to no chance of lasting beyond 2018, and if the Democrats did manage a 53-47 majority or larger (which is definitely not out of the question), they could call this election a mandate, and say that people didn't merely reject Trump, but specifically wanted to elect Democrats. While it makes sense to move resources out of races like Ohio (at least for now), which is looking like a longshot, Florida is definitely not out of play. Should Republicans give up on trying to win Ohio in 2018 if Sherrod Brown is ahead by 3-4 points, and they don't need it to take back the majority?

[Heisenberg]

^ For a long time, Democrats assumed that people would think Republican Senator = Trump and vote straight dem. But now it's clear that people realize that when you're an elected official, it's your duty to vote for your party's nominee. Period. There's essentially a legal obligation to do it. Even if you hate them, it's your duty to the party. Yeah, Kirk gets a pass because no one thinks he can win, Graham gets a pass because everyone knows he's favored to lose the 2020 primary regardless, Rigell gets a pass because he's retiring, a few others (Ros-Lethinen, Reichert) can get away with anything since they're long-time incumbents in Safe R seats. But the clear majority just have to suck it up and get in line (unless they just don't care about their career/committee assignments). It would be the same if Democrats had nominated Sanders - many wouldn't want to endorse him, but would do it because it's their duty as an elected official.

At this point, Democrats are best just taking the path of least resistance (NV, IL, WI, PA, NH, IN) and leaving it at that. That's a real majority, 51-49 (I don't consider 50-50 a real majority).

Wulfric: I agree that talhat is a good path for the seems to take, North Carolina also being in play. It kind of makes sense for seems to triage Florida, Rubio will really overperform Trump with Hispanics (for obvious reasons) and now there's this FEC investigation going on with Murphy. Plus Florida is large and expensive to campaign in, they could use that money for two other races (and have some left over). If Clinton wins, Virginia of course will be a wildcard in 2017.

[Virginiá]

Taking the path of least resistance in a year like this, when they have an opportunity to do much better than a bare bones 51-49 majority, would be foolish. A 51-49 majority has little to no chance of lasting beyond 2018, and if the Democrats did manage a 53-47 majority or larger (which is definitely not out of the question), they could call this election a mandate, and say that people didn't merely reject Trump, but specifically wanted to elect Democrats. While it makes sense to move resources out of races like Ohio (at least for now), which is looking like a longshot, Florida is definitely not out of play. Should Republicans give up on trying to win Ohio in 2018 if Sherrod Brown is ahead by 3-4 points, and they don't need it to take back the majority?

The problem is wealthy GOP donors are pouring huge amounts of money into Senate races. Democrats can't seem to match it, so they have to be more strategic with what they do have. If more money keeps flowing in and makes even more of a difference, Democrats will have blown a clear shot to take back the Senate with a buffer big enough to make sure they at least don't get completely obliterated in 2018.

Coincidentally this is why Democrats have every reason to work to weaken/overturn CU and SpeechNow! - we clearly can't compete with the likes of Rove, the Koch brothers and other big GOP donor networks.

[Virginiá]

Yes, but wealthy Democratic donors are doing the same. Most Republican Senate candidates are being outspent by their Democratic opponents. And don't forget the endless amount of money Clinton is spending in those states.

For the record, I was talking about outside spending. Huge figures are popping up in various states such as New Hampshire and previously, Ohio, from groups like One Nation (Rove) and others. Are Democrats outspending Republicans on that front? If they are, no one seems to be reporting that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/us/politics/souring-on-donald-trump-republicans-pour-money-into-senate-races.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The net gains in support seem to favor Republicans quite heavily. I don't think Democrats need to outspend or even match Republicans evenly, but they can't let themselves be outspent by gaping margins either.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Rubio and McCain are gonna win. It's best to go after Toomey instead.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Translation: Rubio beating Murphy.