They haven't reclaimed it yet, my friend, and there are several key races that are toss-ups. There are bound to be several recounts as well. Even if they do take back the senate, it's likely that it will be so narrow a majority that they won't be able to accomplish what they'd like. So hold your horses.
The big difference between the GOP and the Democrats at this point is that while the GOP has a huge campaign war chest, they have nothing planned for after election day. The Democrats do. You're going to see a hell of a lot of recounts this year because of that.
They haven't reclaimed it yet, my friend, and there are several key races that are toss-ups. There are bound to be several recounts as well. Even if they do take back the senate, it's likely that it will be so narrow a majority that they won't be able to accomplish what they'd like. So hold your horses.
52 is the likely basement after runoffs. Not sure where you're continuing to be optimistic at this point - North Carolina has been stubborn and Kansas is in disarray, but Iowa and Colorado and New Hampshire have more than made up for it.
The big difference between the GOP and the Democrats at this point is that while the GOP has a huge campaign war chest, they have nothing planned for after election day. The Democrats do. You're going to see a hell of a lot of recounts this year because of that.
Still have no idea where you come up with this stuff.
But Iowa and Colorado and New Hampshire have more than made up for it.
New Hampshire. (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2014-new-hampshire-senate-brown-vs-shaheen) Oh really? The other races you cited are extremely close. And in close races, historically, Democratic voters are underestimated in polling. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/upshot/why-polls-tend-to-undercount-democrats.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1)
In 2010, the polls underestimated the Democrats in every competitive Senate race by an average of 3.1 percentage points, based on data from The Huffington Post’s Pollster model. In 2012, pre-election polls underestimated President Obama in nine of the 10 battleground states by an average of 2 percentage points.
But the reasons to think that today’s polls underestimate Democrats are not based on just the last few years of results. They are also based on a fairly diverse set of methodological arguments, supported by extensive research, suggesting that many of today’s polls struggle to reach Democratic-leaning groups.
Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium has written about this as well. (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119844/2014-midterm-predictions-republicans-not-guaranteed-win-senate)
Yes, really. New Hampshire, in case you missed it, has become competitive. Considering that I wasn't a believer in any of those three a few months ago, the Republicans have performed fairly admirably in making them races worth looking at closer.
The other races you cited are extremely close. And in close races, historically, Democratic voters are underestimated in polling.
Well, we'll see, won't we? The Republicans definitely have 5 in the bag by the time it all shakes out (holding GA and KY, picking up MT, WV, SD, LA, AK) it's more a question as to how many more they can grab out of IA, CO, NH, NC, and KS. Getting 3 of those is likely, 4 possible if Orman caucuses with Republicans in a victory, and all 5 are certainly up for grabs.
Colorado, by the way, appears to be the only state that's in question that has also shown a Republican "bias," as it were, if you're into these things, and even Sam Wang is saying 51 seats for the Republicans as of today, a pretty firm difference from the 70% chance of the Democrats holding the Senate a few months ago.
Well, so much for hoping you'd enthrall us all with your acumen. In that reply, you've ignored all the caveats raised in the polling; and just recited the situation as of today. Zzz.
And even Sam Wang is saying 51 seats for the Republicans as of today, a pretty firm difference from the 70% chance of the Democrats holding the Senate a few months ago.
Well considering Sam Wang had put a caveat on his own numbers (with links to two of the leading websites on the subject:: and Sam Wang himself has written extensively on several issues with polling and missing Democratic leaning voters in such polls in races that are pretty close.
For what was supposed to be such a electoral banner year for Republicans controlling the Senate, it's coming down to a whisker. And it's starting to look like in a close election in any one of those critical states, with recounts and runoffs possible, it's not so crazy pants to suggest we may not know who wins control of the Senate on the day after the election.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I don't believe we'll have the results on several races until well after election day. The Democrats have planned for this and have a huge war chest built up to support those recounts.
Exactly. Considering that the GOP was expecting to take these states with no problem, it's turned out to be quite a challenge for them. Hence all their crazy ads trying to win voters.
Well, so much for hoping you'd enthrall us all with your acumen. In that reply, you've ignored all the caveats raised in the polling; and just recited the situation as of today. Zzz.
There's not too much to say. The Republicans are in a great spot to take the Senate, and the question is basically not "will they take it" but rather "how many seats will they end up with."
You want to talk caveats that don't appear to matter? That's fine. I'm more interested in how Kansas will pan out, whether Georgia ends up in a runoff, whether Scott Brown works his magic again, whether we're seeing a wave that can push Tillis over.
For what was supposed to be such a electoral banner year for Republicans controlling the Senate, it's coming down to a whisker
No, it really isn't. The polls need to be extremely wrong or something significant needs to happen in the next 5 days for the Republicans to lose the Senate at this point.
it's not so crazy pants to suggest we may not know who wins control of the Senate on the day after the election.
It's pretty crazy pants with the caveat that Georgia and Louisiana are runoff states that will just end up going Republican once it's down to two candidates.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-10-29 08:43 am (UTC)Actually I like the tea party movement - entirely for the crippling effect it's having on the GOP >:)
no subject
Date: 2014-10-29 11:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-29 10:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-30 06:11 am (UTC)The big difference between the GOP and the Democrats at this point is that while the GOP has a huge campaign war chest, they have nothing planned for after election day. The Democrats do. You're going to see a hell of a lot of recounts this year because of that.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-30 10:48 am (UTC)52 is the likely basement after runoffs. Not sure where you're continuing to be optimistic at this point - North Carolina has been stubborn and Kansas is in disarray, but Iowa and Colorado and New Hampshire have more than made up for it.
The big difference between the GOP and the Democrats at this point is that while the GOP has a huge campaign war chest, they have nothing planned for after election day. The Democrats do. You're going to see a hell of a lot of recounts this year because of that.
Still have no idea where you come up with this stuff.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-30 07:10 pm (UTC)New Hampshire. (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2014-new-hampshire-senate-brown-vs-shaheen) Oh really? The other races you cited are extremely close. And in close races, historically, Democratic voters are underestimated in polling.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/upshot/why-polls-tend-to-undercount-democrats.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1)
Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium has written about this as well. (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119844/2014-midterm-predictions-republicans-not-guaranteed-win-senate)
no subject
Date: 2014-10-30 09:09 pm (UTC)Yes, really. New Hampshire, in case you missed it, has become competitive. Considering that I wasn't a believer in any of those three a few months ago, the Republicans have performed fairly admirably in making them races worth looking at closer.
The other races you cited are extremely close. And in close races, historically, Democratic voters are underestimated in polling.
Well, we'll see, won't we? The Republicans definitely have 5 in the bag by the time it all shakes out (holding GA and KY, picking up MT, WV, SD, LA, AK) it's more a question as to how many more they can grab out of IA, CO, NH, NC, and KS. Getting 3 of those is likely, 4 possible if Orman caucuses with Republicans in a victory, and all 5 are certainly up for grabs.
Colorado, by the way, appears to be the only state that's in question that has also shown a Republican "bias," as it were, if you're into these things, and even Sam Wang is saying 51 seats for the Republicans as of today, a pretty firm difference from the 70% chance of the Democrats holding the Senate a few months ago.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-30 10:16 pm (UTC)Well, so much for hoping you'd enthrall us all with your acumen. In that reply, you've ignored all the caveats raised in the polling; and just recited the situation as of today. Zzz.
And even Sam Wang is saying 51 seats for the Republicans as of today, a pretty firm difference from the 70% chance of the Democrats holding the Senate a few months ago.
Well considering Sam Wang had put a caveat on his own numbers (with links to two of the leading websites on the subject:: and Sam Wang himself has written extensively on several issues with polling and missing Democratic leaning voters in such polls in races that are pretty close.
For what was supposed to be such a electoral banner year for Republicans controlling the Senate, it's coming down to a whisker. And it's starting to look like in a close election in any one of those critical states, with recounts and runoffs possible, it's not so crazy pants to suggest we may not know who wins control of the Senate on the day after the election.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-30 10:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-30 11:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-30 11:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-31 02:55 am (UTC)There's not too much to say. The Republicans are in a great spot to take the Senate, and the question is basically not "will they take it" but rather "how many seats will they end up with."
You want to talk caveats that don't appear to matter? That's fine. I'm more interested in how Kansas will pan out, whether Georgia ends up in a runoff, whether Scott Brown works his magic again, whether we're seeing a wave that can push Tillis over.
For what was supposed to be such a electoral banner year for Republicans controlling the Senate, it's coming down to a whisker
No, it really isn't. The polls need to be extremely wrong or something significant needs to happen in the next 5 days for the Republicans to lose the Senate at this point.
it's not so crazy pants to suggest we may not know who wins control of the Senate on the day after the election.
It's pretty crazy pants with the caveat that Georgia and Louisiana are runoff states that will just end up going Republican once it's down to two candidates.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-30 10:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-31 02:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-31 03:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-31 03:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-31 07:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-11-05 12:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-29 01:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-29 04:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-29 05:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-29 09:41 pm (UTC)also bootstraps.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-30 11:13 am (UTC)I died! :,)