Atlas memes aside, this is probably fool's gold although it's still worth spending some money on the race. Iowa and even Montana are far better pickup opportunities.
It bewilders me that people on this forum continually refuse to look at data and just go off their priors. The polls are pretty much a dead heat for this race, so how is it "fools gold"?
Also, no one said you can't do all 3 at once?
First off, I literally said that while this race was probably fool's gold, it was still worth spending money here. Probably =\= definitely and I've long distinguished between this race and the special (the latter of which is definitely fool's gold at best).
While I expect Osoff to be leading by a few points in the initial GE, he needs 50% +1. I don't see that happening and while it won't be nearly as bad as in the past, Republicans have a major advantage in Georgia's post-election day runoffs. Realistically, Osoff needs to win outright on the regular election day. That could happen and as such it's definitely worth the DSCC spending some money here, but it's highly unlikely compared to our odds of flipping the Iowa or Montana Senate seats (where we're narrowly ahead and narrowly behind, respectively).
As for Iowa, I am looking at the data. Ernst has been trailing pretty consistently for a while now - although it's hardly a sure thing, not even close - and this is probably seat 51 if things remain as they are. Montana - which currently looks like seat 52 - has always been really competitive ever since Bullock got in and while Daines seems to be slightly ahead at the moment, this one could also easily go either way.
