In politics. I am still going with my prediction of 52-48 Democratic party which is weird to think that is a win for Democratic Party, but it is control of the Senate and a net lose of 3 seats.

Most states have some form of early voting and that begins around Oct. 1. In my state (AZ) most voters vote by mail and most do it quickly after receiving their ballots. So most will have voted by Oct. 4.

They made their tent smaller, not larger and they made two very big promises to their voters.

One. They will impeach President Obama.

Two. They will stop/repeal ACA.


The promise is now six years old for item one, four years old for item two.

Their voters are angry and all that the backers want is more wars for one side of the conservatives, more tax cuts, privatization and de-regulation for the other side of the conservatives.

The division is growing, and this is the year the Democratic could, if they jump right in with a big lour positive voice.

Have some fun, we are winning, and yes it will be a long war.

Actually the first one was make Obama a one term president, then it turned into impeachment.

They have failed miserably at both those.

The only thing they have done is completely fuck the government up.

Consider anything below 50% on the winning side or within 5% to be a tossup.

Without looking, there's a lot of tossups. I'm pretty sure we can pull out some of the ones we're not leading.

This OP caused me to look up my current favorite for an "at-a-glance" summart of the national race for the Senate. I was shocked... since things had improved slightly the last time I checked. Didn't I just read a "no wave appearing so far" analysis from a couple big names?

Nate Silver's latest Monte Carlo runs show the most likely results to be horrific (52 or even 53 R seats)... with a 62% chance of at least 51.

http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/comparisons.html

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/senate-forecast/

They do tend to lean right in their interpretation of the polling, trends and predictions though.

They're simply less credible than other analysts, including other analysts predicting the same things today like Nate Silver. They have a tendency to adjust their metrics late to correspond with the likely outcome; part of that is they weight Rasmussen more highly in their analysis than other pollsters and Rasmussen also tends to adjust late to correspond with the foreseeable result.

But again, they may well not. Let's hope Princeton's Sam Wang has it right--once again.

http://election.princeton.edu