Rasmussen: Maria Cantwell(D) looks stronger over challenger Mike McGavick(R)

[Alcon]

Yea, but you conservatives miss the fact that when the republicans held the lead on congressional ballot, then they beat the Dems. But now that the Dems have the lead on the congressional ballot, you say it is wrong.

What in the world does that mean?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am saying that you say that we should discount the congressional ballot because the Dems are ahead, but when the Republicans were ahead, everyone were predicting victory. I am saying the generic ballot test has never been wrong and if it is predicting a Dem victory, I am going to say the Dems will have a good election night. And by the way Rasmussen who predicted the election outcome rightt in 2004, said that Dems will have more Dems come out. So, I don't believe that other than MN and NJ, the Dems are in trouble.

[Alcon]

I am saying that you say that we should discount the congressional ballot because the Dems are ahead, but when the Republicans were ahead, everyone were predicting victory. I am saying the generic ballot test has never been wrong and if it is predicting a Dem victory, I am going to say the Dems will have a good election night. And by the way Rasmussen who predicted the election outcome rightt in 2004, said that Dems will have more Dems come out. So, I don't believe that other than MN and NJ, the Dems are in trouble.

It has never been wrong?  Prove this.  And what generic congressional test?  And what does this have to do with the Senate?

You quote statistics upon convenience.  Before, 2004 didn't matter, but races years ago did.  Now, Rasmussen is ultra-accurate because they did 2004 right.  What gives?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am saying the Dems have as good of a chance as anyone to gain seats in the Senate because they have a 10 point lead on the generic ballot test stated by Rasmussen and Bush is at Nixonian approval ratings and the Dems will win races. And the Dems aren't going to lose WA.

[Alcon]

I am saying the Dems have as good of a chance as anyone to gain seats in the Senate because they have a 10 point lead on the generic ballot test stated by Rasmussen and Bush is at Nixonian approval ratings and the Dems will win races. And the Dems aren't going to lose WA.

I envy your magical foresight powers.

Personally, I would never call any remotely close race in August.  It's stupid.  But feel free.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I didn't say I am calling a close race. But I am saying that the Dems have a better chance than ever before to gain alot of seats because they have a 10 point lead on the congressional ballot. And the Bush Nixonian approval ratings.

The trends for the Dems is picking up seats, not losing seats. And it is perfectly fine to predict that because most pundits have Dems picking up seats.

[HardRCafé]

Yea, but you conservatives miss the fact that when the republicans held the lead on congressional ballot, then they beat the Dems. But now that the Dems have the lead on the congressional ballot, you say it is wrong.

Yes, that Alcon is such a Conservative hack.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

All I am saying is that we are in good position to win seats, the Dems.  Just like the republicans were in the same position due to the Clinton poll numbers in 1994. If the Bush numbers were above 50%, I can see the Dems not winning a whole lot of seats, but with the economy is back being terrible and with the Iraq war dragging, the Dems are going to pick up seats.

And as far as the conservative comment, since Alcon is an independent, I was referencing that he is more conserv than I am.

[HardRCafé]

Right, Independent means dead center between Democrat and Republican.  Like Bernie Sanders.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Again, I didn't mean to imply that he wasn't a conserv, I meant to imply he was more to the right than I am being a liberal. He isn't a Republican, he is simply to the right of me, so he isn't going to see things the same way I am.

[Alcon]

Dude, for the last time.

My political views have NOTHING to do with my predictions.  Why?  It is pointless to predict that candidates I like will win because I'm much more interested in being right than optimistic.

If my political orientation had so much to do with it, why did my prediction for 2004 end up spot-on?  I was very liberal back then.  The answer is simple.  I try to see races for what they are.  I could be an extreme conservative, liberal, communitarian -- whatever.  It would not change my current predictions in any meaningful way.

And, by the way, the statement "since Alcon is an independent...he is more conservative than I am" does not follow.  Anyone can be an independent.  And, for the last time, it's clear from my 2004 prediction that "I'm a liberal" isn't a valid excuse for overestimating Democratic support.  Optimism is hopefulness; skewing the facts to fit your ideology is something different entirely!

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I said that the trends right now shows that the GOP are going to lose seats. But there is no wave yet to sweep them out of office. I feel that I can predict like everyone on this site that the Dems will be able to win seats.

[Alcon]

I said that the trends right now shows that the GOP are going to lose seats. But there is no wave yet to sweep them out of office. I feel that I can predict like everyone on this site that the Dems will be able to win seats.

Am I arguing that you should be unable to make these predictions?  No.  I am arguing that they are intellectually dishonest.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They aren't dishonest. They are well thought out like most people on this site. How can my predictions be intellecually be dishonest and most pundits say the same thing that the Dems will gain seats but don't have control of the Senate yet. That isn't dishonest to me.

I am not calling any races, I am predicting trends. You think I am calling races I am not.

[Alcon]

They aren't dishonest. They are well thought out like most people on this site. How can my predictions be intellecually be dishonest and most pundits say the same thing that the Dems will gain seats but don't have control of the Senate yet. That isn't dishonest to me.

I am not calling any races, I am predicting trends. You think I am calling races I am not.

You have contradicted yourself on what polls you take.  At first, performance years ago is important; then it's 2004, depending on what helps.  You accept Elway while ignoring his obvious faults.

Oh, and this isn't a call?

And the Dems aren't going to lose WA.

Sure sounds like one.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I just said that WA is a very liberal state and just like it is hard for Dems to win TN and MO, it is hard for Republicans to take away NJ or WA. That is all I am saying. And by the way, I have contradicted myself, because the political climate has changed due to the war in Israel. Wars always favor Republicans, and the Dems would of faired much better had this war not taken place.

[Alcon]

I just said that WA is a very liberal state and just like it is hard for Dems to win TN and MO, it is hard for Republicans to take away NJ or WA. That is all I am saying. And by the way, I have contradicted myself, because the political climate has changed due to the war in Israel. Wars always favor Republicans, and the Dems would of faired much better had this war not taken place.

There's no real way to argue against that, because there's no real way to prove that what you say is true or untrue.

Kerry won Washington by 7 points.  It is not very liberal; only moderately so.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It all depends on the way you poll, registered voters or likely voters as well. And depending on the sample as well.

[Alcon]

It all depends on the way you poll, registered voters or likely voters as well. And depending on the sample as well.

Yes, MoE should be taken into consideration.  RV/LV matters too.  But Elway has screwed up in the fast and has not shown how he has changed his methodology, so he deserves no trust.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

His sample of 400 people isn't large enough to get a very accurate reading. That's why most people don't take hime seriously.

[Alcon]

His sample of 400 people isn't large enough to get a very accurate reading. That's why most people don't take hime seriously.

Do you understand how Margin of Error works?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes, I do understand how margin of error works. I am saying that his samples are too small to get good reading on the race. That's why he isn't reliable. Maria Cantwell will have no problem in this race, she will win by the same margin as John Kerry got electied. The republicans will not get above 46% in the state. Most Dems pick up the support of the previous presidential candidate does. And I don't see her losing it in this political climate.

This state isn't even on the Republicans top targeted list, MN and NJ is. And Cantwell is the right person to win this race. And her approval ratings aren't bad enough to lose at this time. She has good approval ratings. Not like DeWine or Santorum or Conrad Burns.

I guess what I am saying is that until McGavick takes the lead, like Kean has done in the Quinnipiac poll, I don't think he will win. In order to win you should at least take the lead at least some part of the campaign. And until he has done so, I am not going to consider him able to win this race. And he hasn't done so in none of the polls.

[Alcon]

Yes, I do understand how margin of error works. I am saying that his samples are too small to get good reading on the race. That's why he isn't reliable. Maria Cantwell will have no problem in this race, she will win by the same margin as John Kerry got electied. The republicans will not get above 46% in the state. Most Dems pick up the support of the previous presidential candidate does. And I don't see her losing it in this political climate.

In that case, why are you just ignoring high-MoE polls, as if they had no use whatsoever?

I guess what I am saying is that until McGavick takes the lead, like Kean has done in the Quinnipiac poll, I don't think he will win. In order to win you should at least take the lead at least some part of the campaign. And until he has done so, I am not going to consider him able to win this race. And he hasn't done so in none of the polls.

So far, Cantwell has polled within the MoE several times.  Mathematically, that means her losing is indeed possible.  Explain to me how McGavick not being up in the polls means his winning is impossible.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am not ignoring the margin of error. I said that the Dems usually pick up the support of the winning presidential candidate in the state. And Cantwell's approval ratings aren't bad enough to lose at this time. Right now this race leans Democratic, but yes Cantwell is vulnerable. But until her approval ratings go down I am not going to predict that she is losing.

And right now Bush is at record disapproval rating in Wa, and it makes me think twice about McGavick winning. She has polled by some polls not all the polls inside the margin of error. She can lose but not at this time she will lose. She polled outside the margin of error in Rasmussen and he got every race right in 2004.

And also, Zogby has had Maria Cantwell outside the margin of error for a long time, that's why I don't think McGavick will win. That's why I think Cantwell will win.  And there are more registered Dems in WA that's why I think Cantwell will win. And Bush polling in Wa is at 36% that's why I think Cantwell will win. All of those factors are going for Cantwell.

And like I said Elway was off because you have to factor in LV/RV and WA is hard to predict like most battleground states. And this is a senate race, it is easier to predict than a governors race. And Bush carried Rossi alot more because the republican turnout was higher than average.

[Alcon]

I am not ignoring the margin of error. I said that the Dems usually pick up the support of the winning presidential candidate in the state. And Cantwell's approval ratings aren't bad enough to lose at this time. Right now this race leans Democratic, but yes Cantwell is vulnerable. But until her approval ratings go down I am not going to predict that she is losing.

The first sentence of your paragraph has nothing to do with the rest of it, and can you prove that what you say about increased support relative to the Presidential candidate is true?  And what relevance does that have to the polling?

And right now Bush is at record disapproval rating in Wa, and it makes me think twice about McGavick winning. She has polled by some polls not all the polls inside the margin of error. She can lose but not at this time she will lose. She polled outside the margin of error in Rasmussen and he got every race right in 2004.

What do you think should be used as a better indicator of how a race is going: polling on that race, or Bush's approval ratings?

And also, Zogby has had Maria Cantwell outside the margin of error for a long time, that's why I don't think McGavick will win. That's why I think Cantwell will win.  And there are more registered Dems in WA that's why I think Cantwell will win. And Bush polling in Wa is at 36% that's why I think Cantwell will win. All of those factors are going for Cantwell.

So, you are ignoring Zogby's poor 2004 showing why again?  Also, we do not have party registration.  And, these factors may be going for Cantwell, but polling from reliable pollsters indicates that it is still close.  You don't take polling results and then adjust them according to other factors; the polling includes these factors, obviously.

And like I said Elway was off because you have to factor in LV/RV and WA is hard to predict like most battleground states. And this is a senate race, it is easier to predict than a governors race. And Bush carried Rossi alot more because the republican turnout was higher than average.

1. How do you factor in LV/RV?
2. Washington is NOT hard to predict.  Look at 2004.
3. What does Senate being easier to predict have to do with anything?
4. What does Bush/Rossi have to do with anything?  How do you know that Washington Republicans had better turnout than Washington Democrats?  This information is not public.