New Cook Gov Rankings

[Gass3268]

Iowa: Likely R -> Toss Up
Massachusetts: Likely R -> Solid R
New Hampshire: Lean R -> Likely R
Ohio: Lean R -> Toss Up
Pennsylvania: Lean D -> Likely D
Vermont: Likely R -> Solid R

Other Notes:
- Georgia is still Solid R (lol)
- Illinois is still rated a Toss Up (lol)
- Minnesota is still a Toss Up
- Oklahoma is still rated Solid R
- Wisconsin is still rated Lean R (lol)

They are essentially saying that Bruce Rauner has a better chance of reelection than Scott Walker does of losing...

Source

[ON Progressive]

You missed two other dumb ratings: GA as Solid R, and MN as a Tossup. I would argue those two are the worst Cook gubernatorial ratings right now.

[Gass3268]

You missed two other dumb ratings: GA as Solid R, and MN as a Tossup. I would argue those two are the worst Cook gubernatorial ratings right now.

Added those

[Skye]

I'm OK with this.

[Sir Mohamed]

I agree with the changes they made, but: GA is lean R, OK likely R, MN lean D and IL likely D (closer to safe). And WI is a toss-up as well. Sure, there is just one poll so far, but if a virtually unknown dude leads Walker 59-45% it's not lean R in this political climate.

[Gass3268]

I agree with the changes they made, but: GA is lean R, OK likely R, MN lean D and IL likely D (closer to safe). And WI is a toss-up as well. Sure, there is just one poll so far, but if a virtually unknown dude leads Walker 59-45% it's not lean R in this political climate.

But muh 3 elections in 4 years!

[KingSweden]

Georgia and Wisconsin are the real headscratchers

[ON Progressive]

Georgia and Wisconsin are the real headscratchers

Apparently they're waiting until the GOP primary runoff ends to change their rating, which is ridiculous to me. The winner of the primary wouldn't change the race enough that they'd need to wait 40 days to get it out of Solid R.

[Nyvin]

IL, MN, and ME should not be tossups.

GA should not be solid.

[ON Progressive]

IL, MN, and ME should not be tossups.

GA should not be solid.

ME being a tossup is perfectly reasonable thanks to the fact ME likes to have a ton of left leaning independents on the ballot to let Republicans win on pluralities (see: 2010 and 2014), but I agree with you otherwise.

[mcmikk]

I agree with the changes they made, but: GA is lean R, OK likely R, MN lean D and IL likely D (closer to safe). And WI is a toss-up as well. Sure, there is just one poll so far, but if a virtually unknown dude leads Walker 59-45% it's not lean R in this political climate.

But muh 3 elections in 4 years!

But muh WI GOP machine!

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

AZ-Tossup
IL-Likely D
Iowa-Tossup
WI-Leans D
Ohio-Leans D

[Xing]

None of the changes of bad, but plenty of Cook's ratings are nonsense. He's not alone with the Wisconsin nonsense, though, since EVERY major prognosticator has it as Lean R, and arguably Rothenberg is worse, since he has WI-SEN as "Tilt D." That's right, Baldwin is more likely to lose than Walker. At least Cook considers Baldwin more likely to win.

KS as Likely R is also very questionable.

[Gass3268]

None of the changes of bad, but plenty of Cook's ratings are nonsense. He's not alone with the Wisconsin nonsense, though, since EVERY major prognosticator has it as Lean R, and arguably Rothenberg is worse, since he has WI-SEN as "Tilt D." That's right, Baldwin is more likely to lose than Walker. At least Cook considers Baldwin more likely to win.

KS as Likely R is also very questionable.

I guess I kind of get waiting until the primary before chaning ratings, but still some of these are nonsense.

[Politician]

None of the changes of bad, but plenty of Cook's ratings are nonsense. He's not alone with the Wisconsin nonsense, though, since EVERY major prognosticator has it as Lean R, and arguably Rothenberg is worse, since he has WI-SEN as "Tilt D." That's right, Baldwin is more likely to lose than Walker. At least Cook considers Baldwin more likely to win.

KS as Likely R is also very questionable.

That's completely wrong. It should be SAFE R

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It should be obvious that Cook's ratings are garbage across the board.

IL, MN, WI and ME are only ones not rated correctly

[Sestak]

It should be obvious that Cook's ratings are garbage across the board.

[ON Progressive]

It should be obvious that Cook's ratings are garbage across the board.

IL, MN, WI and ME are only ones not rated correctly

GA is not Solid R.

[IceSpear]

It should be obvious that Cook's ratings are garbage across the board.

[Skunk]

How the hell are GA and OK Solid R while IA is a toss-up? GA and OK are probably more competitive than IA, to be honest.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He didn't change OH from LR to tossup, he only changed Iowa to tossup

[Tartarus Sauce]

It should be obvious that Cook's ratings are garbage across the board.

[wesmoorenerd]

Georgia and Wisconsin are the real headscratchers

Apparently they're waiting until the GOP primary runoff ends to change their rating, which is ridiculous to me. The winner of the primary wouldn't change the race enough that they'd need to wait 40 days to get it out of Solid R.

That's hilarious, Cagle and Kemp are both awful candidates in their own unique ways. Cagle has just about as many scandals brewing as Silvio Berlusconi and Kemp is about as palatable to Atlanta as Cam Newton.

[smoltchanov]

Georgia and Wisconsin are the real headscratchers

Apparently they're waiting until the GOP primary runoff ends to change their rating, which is ridiculous to me. The winner of the primary wouldn't change the race enough that they'd need to wait 40 days to get it out of Solid R.

That's hilarious, Cagle and Kemp are both awful candidates in their own unique ways. Cagle has just about as many scandals brewing as Silvio Berlusconi and Kemp is about as palatable to Atlanta as Cam Newton.

Nevertheless - both are likely to win an election against Stacey Abrams. I can't fathom Georgia electing Black Democratic woman right now. In 10 years - yes. But - not now.

[Nyvin]

IL, MN, and ME should not be tossups.

GA should not be solid.

ME being a tossup is perfectly reasonable thanks to the fact ME likes to have a ton of left leaning independents on the ballot to let Republicans win on pluralities (see: 2010 and 2014), but I agree with you otherwise.

Doesn't RCV make independents kinda irrelevant though?   I can't imagine many people voting for Terry Hayes and then "not" voting for the Dem as second choice.