MS: Rasmussen: Rs favored either way

[Joshgreen]

Amusing that Cochran and Childers are both under 50%. McDaniel is still generic R. That will change if he wins the primary.

[Joshgreen]

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

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

[Joshgreen]

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

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

You're a fool if you think that we believe that you're a serious poster.

This race is not a tossup.  Everythig would have to go wrong for Republicans for the Democrats to win MS.  That isn't going to happen.

Quit being thick. I never said that this race is a tossup. What I said was that polling will be very different in the fall if McDaniel wins the primary. You should practice your reading comprehension, it might help you on your next book report.

[Joshgreen]

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

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

You're a fool if you think that we believe that you're a serious poster.

This race is not a tossup.  Everythig would have to go wrong for Republicans for the Democrats to win MS.  That isn't going to happen.

Quit being thick. I never said that this race is a tossup. What I said was that polling will be very different in the fall if McDaniel wins the primary. You should practice your reading comprehension, it might help you on your next book report.

You think Democrats could pick up MS, you said it in the other thread:

Yes (non-hack)

If Illinois could be a Republican pickup, then Mississippi can be a Democratic pickup. Is it likely? No. Is it possible? Absolutely.

My reading comprehension?  Well, there's no point in reading if the writer is just going to contradict himself. 

The fact that the Democrats have a chance of picking up the seat doesn't make the race a tossup. So I'm not contradicting myself and I again urge you to practice reading comp.

[Joshgreen]

Let's put it like this, Childers has about as much chance of winning as the overrated Terri Lynn Land

Yes, a candidate with a 2-point lead ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/mi/michigan_senate_land_vs_peters-3820.html ) clearly has the same chance of winning as a candidate with a 17-point deficit against his likeliest opponent and an average 9-point deficit against a less-likely opponent ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/mississippi_senate_race.html ). Your hackishness is starting to get tiresome.

Republicans are far more confident about winning blue state seats that Democrats are about winning red states.

Michigan and Mississippi are not comparable intensities of strength; Massachusetts and Mississippi are, but I don't see any Republicans thinking they'll beat Ed Markey.

If Republicans had gotten Brown to run against Markey, keyboards across the country would have need a good wipe down.

[Joshgreen]

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

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

You're annoying.

That may very well be. So is one's conscience.

[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.

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

Lynn Land wouldn't win in a good year for Republicans. It's Michigan 'nuf said

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.