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

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Zogby was the most accurate pollster in 1996 and 2000. And Rasmussen had 2004 right and all of them are showing Cantwell ahead right now. Outside the margin of error.

And if you go by the pundits if the generic ballot test translates into election victory, the Dems will not lose seats.

Look, I can root for my candidate and you can root for yours and we will see who is right on elections day.

Right now the Bush poll numbers in the state at 36% doesn't translate into a republican victory at this time.

Yea, you say that Republican registraints and Democratic registraints aren't public yet but as a whole, because WA is a Democratic state, there are alot more Democratic registraints than republican registraints.

As far as LV/RV, you get a different result if you use either one. Usually, Dems usually do better on likely voters than do registered voters. It all depends on turnout and I think that because Wa is a Democratic state and it is unfavorable to Bush you will get Cantwell winning. This race is going to be close.

As for the presidential level, the same people that voted for Kerry are not going to drop their support and vote for McGavick. Anyway Dems outnumber Republicans in the state so with party registration in the state I give the edge to Cantwell.

And Strategic Vision usually go by the more conservative sample and Zogby go by the more liberal sample. It all depends on where you poll in the state. And just like Zogby was off Strategic Vision had its bad points as well.

[Alcon]

Zogby was the most accurate pollster in 1996 and 2000. And Rasmussen had 2004 right and all of them are showing Cantwell ahead right now. Outside the margin of error.

And after 2004, with no real change in Zogby's methodology, why should we trust him again?

I am not disputing that Cantwell is probably ahead, so why do you argue that?  I am saying that Cantwell is not undefeatable.

And if you go by the pundits if the generic ballot test translates into election victory, the Dems will not lose seats.

I trust individual race polls for individual races more than generic ballot tests.  Why shouldn't I?

Look, I can root for my candidate and you can root for yours and we will see who is right on elections day.

I am a Cantwell supporter, and for the last time, that is, and should be, irrelevant to my interpretation of the polling.

Right now the Bush poll numbers in the state at 36% doesn't translate into a republican victory at this time.

Nor does it translate into a Democratic victory, necessarily.

Yea, you say that Republican registraints and Democratic registraints aren't public yet but as a whole, because WA is a Democratic state, there are alot more Democratic registraints than republican registraints.

And Oklahoma has more Democrats, yet Coburn won.

As far as LV/RV, you get a different result if you use either one. Usually, Dems usually do better on likely voters than do registered voters. It all depends on turnout and I think that because Wa is a Democratic state and it is unfavorable to Bush you will get Cantwell winning. This race is going to be close.

Do you have proof for Democrats doing better with LV than RV?  I often hear it is the opposite, as moderate to moderate-high voting turnout tends to help the GOP.

As for the presidential level, the same people that voted for Kerry are not going to drop their support and vote for McGavick. Anyway Dems outnumber Republicans in the state so with party registration in the state I give the edge to Cantwell.

You forget the Green.

And Strategic Vision usually go by the more conservative sample and Zogby go by the more liberal sample. It all depends on where you poll in the state. And just like Zogby was off Strategic Vision had its bad points as well.

But their methodology is not as basely flawed as Zogby's.  Where has Strategic Vision screwed up as much as Zogby?  Provide citations.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Oklahoma has conservative Dems. And you say Registered voters favor Dems, then why is DeVos ahead of Granholm among registered voters and among likely voters Granholm is ahead. And Oklahoma has consevative Dems and WA has more liberal Dems. And Oklahoma conservative Dems will be happy to vote for a conservative republican as president. So, WA registration among Dems is very accurate to predict her winning more likely than Oklahoma who has more conservative republicans who would be happy to vote for a conserv Republican as senator and as president. And also Coburn had more money than Brad Carsen. Cantwell has more money than McGavick.

[Alcon]

Oklahoma has conservative Dems.

Yes, and Kerry probably won independents.  Washington has a roughly equal number of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, and very few of both.   And McGavick is not the kind of candidate who loses liberal Republicans anyway.

And you say Registered voters favor Dems, then why is DeVos ahead of Granholm among registered voters and among likely voters Granholm is ahead.

One case does not represent all cases, the majority of cases, or anything other than one case.

And Oklahoma has consevative Dems and WA has more liberal Dems. And Oklahoma conservative Dems will be happy to vote for a conservative republican as president. So, WA registration among Dems is very accurate to predict her winning more likely than Oklahoma who has more conservative republicans who would be happy to vote for a conserv Republican as senator and as president. And also Coburn had more money than Brad Carsen. Cantwell has more money than McGavick.

This is foolish.  Races in Washington are controlled by independents and moderate Democrats (fairweather suburban Democrats from the east side of Lake Washington).  If your prediction methology was true, Republicans would never win because there are more Democrats.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, I said with the money advantage that Coburn had over Carsen and Cantwell has over McGavick combined with more registered liberal or moderate Dems then I think Cantwell has the edge right now. McGavick will have to raise alot more money to catch up to Cantwell. Likewise in OK, Brad Carsen didn't have the money advantage of Coburn so it didn't matter about more Registered Dems.

I said more money and more registered Dems give them the edge not never beat them.

[Alcon]

No, I said with the money advantage that Coburn had over Carsen and Cantwell has over McGavick combined with more registered liberal or moderate Dems then I think Cantwell has the edge right now. McGavick will have to raise alot more money to catch up to Cantwell. Likewise in OK, Brad Carsen didn't have the money advantage of Coburn so it didn't matter about more Registered Dems.

I said more money and more registered Dems give them the edge not never beat them.

I don't disagree with Cantwell having the advantage and never have.   I disagree with your certainty of predicting her victory.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

She may not have the advantage, but being ahead in the polls right now, she is in better position to win than McGavick does. It is better to be ahead in the polls right now than not being ahead.

[Alcon]

She may not have the advantage, but being ahead in the polls right now, she is in better position to win than McGavick does. It is better to be ahead in the polls right now than not being ahead.

...Uh, well, obviously.