NV-PPP: Cortez-Masto +1

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Well, hope you enjoyed your chances while they lasted, Heck, since they're gone now.

Funny, I didn't know a one point deficit two months out was something you couldn't overcome.

Contrary to popular belief, the Democrats path to a real majority, 51-49, looks narrow. Unless you guys pull off an upset in FL, NC, AZ, MO, or LA, you have to sweep the six seats where you appear to have an advantage (IL, NV, WI, PA, IN, NH).

Yeah, this one is a pure Tossup. Could go either way.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Well, hope you enjoyed your chances while they lasted, Heck, since they're gone now.

Funny, I didn't know a one point deficit two months out was something you couldn't overcome.

Contrary to popular belief, the Democrats path to a real majority, 51-49, looks narrow. Unless you guys pull off an upset in FL, NC, AZ, MO, or LA, you have to sweep the six seats where you appear to have an advantage (IL, NV, WI, PA, IN, NH).

Yeah, this one is a pure Tossup. Could go either way.

When a one point deficit comes after you've held the lead in virtually every previous poll, and in a state where polling consistently overestimates your party, you're in trouble.

Historical polling errors don't always show up on election day, or may not show up across the board. In 2014, many believed M. Udall was safe because of a historical polling error in CO. While the polls were off for the governor's race (The RCP average underestimated Hickenlooper by 2.4%), the polling average was exactly right for the senate race. I'm not saying you can't use historical polling errors to construct ratings, but you shouldn't be all "HAHAH! Safe Masto!" based on that alone.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Well, hope you enjoyed your chances while they lasted, Heck, since they're gone now.

Funny, I didn't know a one point deficit two months out was something you couldn't overcome.

Contrary to popular belief, the Democrats path to a real majority, 51-49, looks narrow. Unless you guys pull off an upset in FL, NC, AZ, MO, or LA, you have to sweep the six seats where you appear to have an advantage (IL, NV, WI, PA, IN, NH).

Yeah, this one is a pure Tossup. Could go either way.

When a one point deficit comes after you've held the lead in virtually every previous poll, and in a state where polling consistently overestimates your party, you're in trouble.

Historical polling errors don't always show up on election day, or may not show up across the board. In 2014, many believed M. Udall was safe because of a historical polling error in CO. While the polls were off for the governor's race (The RCP average underestimated Hickenlooper by 2.4%), the polling average was exactly right for the senate race. I'm not saying you can't use historical polling errors to construct ratings, but you shouldn't be all "HAHAH! Safe Masto!" based on that alone.

I don't think anyone thought Udall was safe by the fall of 2014.

Invisible Obama thought he was right up to election day. And he wasn't trolling, he said it many times and very seriously. Even in the final days, the most he got to was something along the lines of "I know what this data is saying, but I just don't see it happening. The polls are always off.". There was also another guy who predicted on election day that the dems would actually end up with a net gain in the senate, but I'm not convinced he was actually being serious.