But this hurricane really helps Scott in Florida. He has a real talent for jumping in front of a camera and taking credit for work that other people have done.

Of course that assumes that the damage is not so bad as to affect turn out in areas of the State that would be strong for him.

The majority in Florida is absolutely sick of him.

To blow red tide all the way to Mississippi.
Id keep showing piles of dead fish and remind voters
Who was Governor.

Breathing it is bad enough. Breathing the organism causes bronchoconstriction.

karelia braves = red tide organism produces toxic chemicals that effects the nervous system just like pesticides.

And don't forget the mega maggots on the dead fish.

Lots of people did not evacuate - it's going to be really bad. Trump is still deciding if he is going to go to his rally. Trump is in la la land.

The storm looks a lot worse than it did yesterday when I made that post. It seems to be 20-30 mph stronger than they were anticipating and that makes a huge difference. 150mph is a whole different kind of storm than 120mph.

As someone who lived through Andrew and has seen a lot of devastation, I fear for them.

It is still too early to tell how this effects Scott politically but that is immaterial right now when citizens are in real danger.

A hot bed of GOP voters and their voting infrastructure may be screwed up?

I know there were shenanigans, but still...

Kind of sucks...

He said her odds were 70%. That was much much lower than anyone else and he even caught flack at the time for being too conservative and promoting a horserace while others like Sam Wang said her chances were 99.9% and promised to eat bugs if she lost.

Plus I think that number was his REVISED version after he came out with his "I wasn't really wrong article.

Regardless, if the election wasn't straight (and I don't believe it was) poll numbers are wrong.

We found that out the hard way.

Nate took a lot of flack for having it at 70/30... but he was closer than most others.

Like playing BlackJack with marked cards. Odds become meaningless

IIRC he said something to that effect a few years ago - his model worked on national elections, but wasn't as accurate for state elections.
He also has a tendency to frame things to where he's always right, regardless of the outcomes.

This never meant that she was predicted to get 70 percent of the vote. This was the result of simulations that gave her an overall probability of winning at 70%. That meant that Trump had a 30 percent chance of winning. Odds of 7 out of 10 is NOT a guarantee.

I think the meaning of his analytical model result was misunderstood by many who considered it to be like polling results -- where you would be very correct that someone getting 70 percent would be extremely unlikely to lose without any major event impacting the race. While I would prefer to have the 70 percent probability, it was not a sure thing. Two things that were concerning were that the trend was against us. The other thing was that Silver pointed out that in a wave, states tend to break in the same direction.

The results actually came close to the final national polling. She was about 3 percent ahead -- which was where she actually was.

538 is just noise.

And they're certainly not wrong about it being unlikely that we'll gain control of the Senate. We have to win almost every single one of the 10 races mentioned in the OP.

Period.

but 538 thinks it is.

We need to control the Senate to control court nominations.

It is more probable that we lose Senate seats.

Just think how bad the Republicans have been the last two years and yet they can still pick up seats.

It has been going down an average of almost 1% per day.

Once it gets closer to election day the polling takes on more significance, and not the purported wave aspect that was baked into the original 34.3% number on 538, which was frankly a joke. Other mathematical markets were in the 16-22% range when Nate posted that 34.3%.

The Tennessee race looks to be much more lopsided than conventional wisdom preferred. If other polls match the CBS poll and now the New York Times ongoing poll, that race will shift out of the toss-up category, where it probably never was to begin with. Blackburn was always the betting favorite despite Bredesen leading in the polls.

I’m in Blackhearts district and there are a lot of Republicans planning to vote for Bredesen. I think we’ve got a better shot than Beto

The polls are shifting in her favor, unfortunately.

We have many seats in red or purple areas that we won in 2012.

I hope we DO win the Senate -- and if we do, we likely keep it through the next two cycles - as those are the ones from 2014 and 2016 - when we lost seats we should have won.

That's a really tall order.

I thought we saw the last of that moron Romney when he got his ass handed to him in 2012!

it's just not going to happen.

Members of the cult will vote accordingly.

Barely...at 19.9%

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=midterms-header

But I don't mind today's overall sample because the House rose from 73.8% on 538 all the way up to 78.3%. I'd prefer to solidify the House than keep flimsy hopes toward the senate.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/?ex_cid=midterms-header

Our chances went down this morning...

from 2/7 to 1/5. Their modeling suggest the houses with go in different directions... Dems pick up seats in house, Reps pick up seats in senate.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whats-behind-democrats-shrinking-senate-odds/

Yes, Nate looks at trends...and they aren’t good for us now....but, it’s possible....27 days...and still could do it....kind of like drawing to an inside straight though

...

I think we are saying the same thing.
I posted Real Clear because it is more optimistic for the Dems just seeing the raw data.

believe 538.

I realize nobody wants to look at it that way, but it is a reasonable goal. The next two cycles set up favorably.

If we could walk out of 2018 with 49 I would be thrilled, given what it looked like from a big picture perspective, and considering how many seats we would have lost if Hillary had been president.

Not that I would trade that presidential loss for senate situation. But it is ultimate denial not to realize the devastating losses we would have suffered this cycle if Hillary had won. The senate probably would have been gone for the foreseeable. That's what you give up by winning three consecutive terms and allowing the other side to have free swings in the subsequent midterm each time.