MS: Rasmussen: Rs favored either way

[DrScholl]

Let's put it like this, Childers has about as much chance of winning as the overrated Terri Lynn Land and the extra overrated Scott Brown. Not impossible, but not likely under regular circumstances. Republicans are far more confident about winning blue state seats that Democrats are about winning red states.

Uh, no. Childers needs lightning to strike in several ways to win. All those Republicans need is a mildly good year.

They need more than a good year, they need their opponents to make some very serious errors. It's not like they are running against badly flawed candidates.

[IceSpear]

Oh, no! McDaniel only up by twelve! TOSS UP!

But you think Corbett has a good chance of winning and he's down 20 in the latest poll, so...?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

You're a fool if you think this poll is reflective of what the race will look like in October/November...

But all the polls indicating that Hillary will win in a landslide more than 2 years out are clear proof that she will be our next President.

[Joshgreen]

You're a fool if you think this poll is reflective of what the race will look like in October/November...

But all the polls indicating that Hillary will win in a landslide more than 2 years out are clear proof that she will be our next President.

I have never said so.

[SWE]

Let's put it like this, Childers has about as much chance of winning as the overrated Terri Lynn Land and the extra overrated Scott Brown. Not impossible, but not likely under regular circumstances. Republicans are far more confident about winning blue state seats that Democrats are about winning red states.

Childers is not as strong as Land and nowhere near as weak as Brown

[Joshgreen]

Let's put it like this, Childers has about as much chance of winning as the overrated Terri Lynn Land and the extra overrated Scott Brown. Not impossible, but not likely under regular circumstances. Republicans are far more confident about winning blue state seats that Democrats are about winning red states.

Childers is not as strong as Land and nowhere near as weak as Brown

LOL

Childers has an actual track record of winning in red turf in a hyper-partisan race. Land is a joke candidate who has held minor joke office.

[7,052,770]

Let's put it like this, Childers has about as much chance of winning as the overrated Terri Lynn Land and the extra overrated Scott Brown. Not impossible, but not likely under regular circumstances. Republicans are far more confident about winning blue state seats that Democrats are about winning red states.

Childers is not as strong as Land and nowhere near as weak as Brown

I don't know enough about Land to judge that statement, but Childers is the 2nd strongest candidate the Mississippi Democrats could possibly have (behind Hood). That may not be enough, but at least we're actually trying to win a seat for once.

[Nichlemn]

You're being ridiculously hackish to equate MI and MS. Like, okay, some polls in 2008 overestimated Republicans in Michigan, so that just blows out all the other evidence we have? That nearly every election in the past 20+ years supports the idea that MS is substantially more Republican than MI is Democratic? That polls in MI indicate a close race but polls in MS don't? That even in the same year where MI's polls were supposedly crappy, MS polls also underestimated Republican strength? That all of the prognosticators strongly disagree with you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democrats winning strongly in MI Senate seats in recent years is totally consistent with it being more elastic. The past few Senate races have been in Democratic years with strong Democrats and/or weak Republicans, so it's not surprising that Democrats would win big then. In Republican years like 2010, Republicans won big (there wasn't a Senate seat up then, but there's no reason to believe it couldn't have been competitive when Republicans swept the rest of the Midwest that year).

[Joshgreen]

You're being ridiculously hackish to equate MI and MS. Like, okay, some polls in 2008 overestimated Republicans in Michigan, so that just blows out all the other evidence we have? That nearly every election in the past 20+ years supports the idea that MS is substantially more Republican than MI is Democratic? That polls in MI indicate a close race but polls in MS don't? That even in the same year where MI's polls were supposedly crappy, MS polls also underestimated Republican strength? That all of the prognosticators strongly disagree with you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democrats winning strongly in MI Senate seats in recent years is totally consistent with it being more elastic. The past few Senate races have been in Democratic years with strong Democrats and/or weak Republicans, so it's not surprising that Democrats would win big then. In Republican years like 2010, Republicans won big (there wasn't a Senate seat up then, but there's no reason to believe it couldn't have been competitive when Republicans swept the rest of the Midwest that year).

Stop bro. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

[DrScholl]

Let's put it like this, Childers has about as much chance of winning as the overrated Terri Lynn Land and the extra overrated Scott Brown. Not impossible, but not likely under regular circumstances. Republicans are far more confident about winning blue state seats that Democrats are about winning red states.

Childers is not as strong as Land and nowhere near as weak as Brown

Land's strength is overrated, since Secretary of State is anonymous and might as well be non-partisan. She's never actually won on really hostile territory like Childers.

[DrScholl]

You're being ridiculously hackish to equate MI and MS. Like, okay, some polls in 2008 overestimated Republicans in Michigan, so that just blows out all the other evidence we have? That nearly every election in the past 20+ years supports the idea that MS is substantially more Republican than MI is Democratic? That polls in MI indicate a close race but polls in MS don't? That even in the same year where MI's polls were supposedly crappy, MS polls also underestimated Republican strength? That all of the prognosticators strongly disagree with you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democrats winning strongly in MI Senate seats in recent years is totally consistent with it being more elastic. The past few Senate races have been in Democratic years with strong Democrats and/or weak Republicans, so it's not surprising that Democrats would win big then. In Republican years like 2010, Republicans won big (there wasn't a Senate seat up then, but there's no reason to believe it couldn't have been competitive when Republicans swept the rest of the Midwest that year).

Stop with the name calling, okay? All this calling people hacks because you disagree is unnecessary. The fact that Land hasn't cracked more than 42% in polling is not suggestive of a probable win, judging from the fact that Romney polled the same way in 2012 and went on to lose. Yes, Michigan is less Democratic than Mississippi is Republican, but that doesn't mean that Michigan will automatically elect Land. The people calling it Lean R are being way too optimistic. I'm not even suggesting Childers will win, but some GOPer's here already have Land in the Senate.

[Nichlemn]

You're being ridiculously hackish to equate MI and MS. Like, okay, some polls in 2008 overestimated Republicans in Michigan, so that just blows out all the other evidence we have? That nearly every election in the past 20+ years supports the idea that MS is substantially more Republican than MI is Democratic? That polls in MI indicate a close race but polls in MS don't? That even in the same year where MI's polls were supposedly crappy, MS polls also underestimated Republican strength? That all of the prognosticators strongly disagree with you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democrats winning strongly in MI Senate seats in recent years is totally consistent with it being more elastic. The past few Senate races have been in Democratic years with strong Democrats and/or weak Republicans, so it's not surprising that Democrats would win big then. In Republican years like 2010, Republicans won big (there wasn't a Senate seat up then, but there's no reason to believe it couldn't have been competitive when Republicans swept the rest of the Midwest that year).

Stop with the name calling, okay? All this calling people hacks because you disagree is unnecessary. The fact that Land hasn't cracked more than 42% in polling is not suggestive of a probable win, judging from the fact that Romney polled the same way in 2012 and went on to lose. Yes, Michigan is less Democratic than Mississippi is Republican, but that doesn't mean that Michigan will automatically elect Land. The people calling it Lean R are being way too optimistic. I'm not even suggesting Childers will win, but some GOPer's here already have Land in the Senate.

When did I suggest Land had a "probable win" or that it was "Lean R?" All I'm disputing is what you said earlier, "Childers has about as much chance of winning as the overrated Terri Lynn Land and the extra overrated Scott Brown", in particular with respect to the former. The races are just not in the same league, and virtually all data and predictions support that.

[Vosem]

The insanity is ridiculously strong here. Mississippi is Likely R, bordering on Safe. For Childers to win would require McDaniel to be nominated, firstly (not a particularly likely event), and then to blunder (also not a certainty). Michigan is Tossup/slight Tilt R. Land has won every statewide election she has competed in and has a consistent, albeit narrow lead in the polls; Peters has only competed in one and lost that one, but Michigan usually leans Democratic on the federal level, so there is probably an opening for Peters. It is Peters whose campaign has to outcompete Land's if he wants to win; it is Peters who needs the status quo to shift. It can be argued that, for different reasons, it is likely that he achieves this; but there is no logical way you can come to the conclusion that he is favored by any significant amount without a blindfold covering your eyes. I would reply to individual posts but I see no need to waste my time.

[DrScholl]

The past couple of polls have shown a Peters lead, and even one of the poorer pollsters that tends to show Republicans doing better than they actually do showed a drop for Land.

Michigan is not Tilt Republican, it's not a Toss-up, it's Lean Democratic. As I have said, Secretary of State is a fairly anonymous office and may as well be non-partisan, it's not the same thing as a Senate seat. Second, Land's leads look just like Romney's early in the 2012 cycle, and are from the same very inaccurate pollsters.

Again, I never said Childers will win, because I think it's too difficult for him to do so, I'm just saying that Republicans are guilty of over-hyping certain candidates.

[Keystone Phil]

Oh, no! McDaniel only up by twelve! TOSS UP!

But you think Corbett has a good chance of winning and he's down 20 in the latest poll, so...?

I never, ever said that so now you're just resorting to flat out lying. Very pathetic.

[Joshgreen]

The insanity is ridiculously strong here. Mississippi is Likely R, bordering on Safe. For Childers to win would require McDaniel to be nominated, firstly (not a particularly likely event), and then to blunder (also not a certainty). Michigan is Tossup/slight Tilt R. Land has won every statewide election she has competed in and has a consistent, albeit narrow lead in the polls; Peters has only competed in one and lost that one, but Michigan usually leans Democratic on the federal level, so there is probably an opening for Peters. It is Peters whose campaign has to outcompete Land's if he wants to win; it is Peters who needs the status quo to shift. It can be argued that, for different reasons, it is likely that he achieves this; but there is no logical way you can come to the conclusion that he is favored by any significant amount without a blindfold covering your eyes. I would reply to individual posts but I see no need to waste my time.

Seek professional help.

[Miles]

New Poll: Mississippi Senator by Rasmussen on 2014-03-29

Summary: D: 31%, R: 48%, U: 12%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[IceSpear]

Oh, no! McDaniel only up by twelve! TOSS UP!

But you think Corbett has a good chance of winning and he's down 20 in the latest poll, so...?

I never, ever said that so now you're just resorting to flat out lying. Very pathetic.

So you admit Corbett is doomed?

[tmthforu94]

Good, hopefully McDaniels wins here. We need a REAL conservative representing Mississippi, not the two clowns currently in there.

[Niemeyerite]

Good, hopefully McDaniels wins here. We need a REAL conservative representing Mississippi, not the two clowns currently in there.

I hope you're being ironic, and I'm sure you are, because Cochran = Lugar.

[windjammer]

I hope you're being ironic, and I'm sure you are, because Cochran = Lugar.

Lugar was more moderate than him, wasn't he?

EDIT: According to the National Journal 2010 Vote Ratings: Cochran was the 25th most conservative senator, while Lugar was the 37th most conservative senator.

[Keystone Phil]

Oh, no! McDaniel only up by twelve! TOSS UP!

But you think Corbett has a good chance of winning and he's down 20 in the latest poll, so...?

I never, ever said that so now you're just resorting to flat out lying. Very pathetic.

So you admit Corbett is doomed?

So this was set up as an idiotic gotcha question? 

Here's a piece of knowledge for you: not thinking Corbett is in "good shape" (which you should admit was an outright lie that I ever thought that during this cycle) doesn't necessarily mean one thinks a dramatic comeback is out of the question. Doesn't mean I think that will happen either but your point was that never saying he's in good shape means he's doomed. It doesn't work that work. 

[IceSpear]

Oh, no! McDaniel only up by twelve! TOSS UP!

But you think Corbett has a good chance of winning and he's down 20 in the latest poll, so...?

I never, ever said that so now you're just resorting to flat out lying. Very pathetic.

So you admit Corbett is doomed?

So this was set up as an idiotic gotcha question? 

Here's a piece of knowledge for you: not thinking Corbett is in "good shape" (which you should admit was an outright lie that I ever thought that during this cycle) doesn't necessarily mean one thinks a dramatic comeback is out of the question. Doesn't mean I think that will happen either but your point was that never saying he's in good shape means he's doomed. It doesn't work that work. 

Well, if we're going to play the "act obnoxious over a single poll without considering any other factors" game, then Childers has a higher chance of beating McDaniel AND Cochran than Corbett does of beating Wolf. That was my point.

Besides, literally nobody has ever said it would be a toss up if McDaniel won, per the responses in the other topic you yourself made.

[morgieb]

Good, hopefully McDaniels wins here. We need a REAL conservative representing Mississippi, not the two clowns currently in there.

I hope you're being ironic, and I'm sure you are, because Cochran = Lugar.

Did you seriously believe he was legit? Isaac is the definition of the establishment.

[Keystone Phil]

Oh, no! McDaniel only up by twelve! TOSS UP!

But you think Corbett has a good chance of winning and he's down 20 in the latest poll, so...?

I never, ever said that so now you're just resorting to flat out lying. Very pathetic.

So you admit Corbett is doomed?

So this was set up as an idiotic gotcha question?  

Here's a piece of knowledge for you: not thinking Corbett is in "good shape" (which you should admit was an outright lie that I ever thought that during this cycle) doesn't necessarily mean one thinks a dramatic comeback is out of the question. Doesn't mean I think that will happen either but your point was that never saying he's in good shape means he's doomed. It doesn't work that work.  

Well, if we're going to play the "act obnoxious over a single poll without considering any other factors" game, then Childers has a higher chance of beating McDaniel AND Cochran than Corbett does of beating Wolf. That was my point.

Besides, literally nobody has ever said it would be a toss up if McDaniel won, per the responses in the other topic you yourself made.

..."literally" nobody said it would be a toss up? Seven people voted "yes" to "Do you really think the Dems would pick up MS if McDaniel is the nominee?"

Learn what literally means, dude.