Philosophy on tossups?

[Gabu]

For me, "tossup" does not mean "I have no clue whatsoever where it is", but rather, "the advantage one candidate has over the other is minimal".  Conversely, "lean" means that one candidate has a significant lead, and "strong" means "I really can't see this candidate losing".

I think that the prediction itself is better to look at than the confidence, given that everyone has a different definition of "strong", "lean", and "tossup".

[Gabu]

If you want a good example of what I mean, I recently flipped Minnesota in my gubernatorial prediction from Tossup Republican to Tossup Democrat.  The reason for this is that I had initially thought the Republican had a slight advantage, but now I believe that the Democrat has a slight advantage.

[Gabu]

I don't use tossups.  They're a copout.

It's a copout to call a race as it is?  You still have to declare a winner even if you use "tossup".

[Gabu]

and for EVERY SINGLE race you can't call for sure you end up predicting the Democrats, then I think there is something wrong with your objectivity.

Well, to be fair, in every one of those races save for Illinois, pretty much all polls have shown the Democrat with a small lead.  There isn't a rampant number of cases like you're asserting where the Democrat is consistently behind but it's predicted for the Democrat.  Pretty much only Illinois.  There's also California, but it's been a long time since we've seen a poll from there, and polls have shown both Schwarzenegger and the Democrats leading at one point, so it's not exactly a stretch to say that the former might lose.

Anyway, I have both Illinois and California as Republican on my map, so I've already done my part.