MS: Rasmussen: Rs favored either way

[Vosem]

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.

[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.