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.

[DrScholl]

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.

Michigan polling is notoriously bad, some of those polls were very off in 2008. I'm talking probability, and as far as Senate seats go, Michigan hasn't been more elastic than Mississippi. The past few Senate elections in Michigan have been big blowouts for Republicans.

I'm not the hack here, don't project, kid.

[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.

[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.

[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.