It's actually not very surprising that you'd get a candidate in a normally rock solid area that turns out not to be a very skilled politician. Dems probably don't need to be talented politicians to win in Massachusetts and the skills you need to rise to the top in a dominant party machine are very different to the skills you need to win competitive elections.

Sassenach wrote:It's actually not very surprising that you'd get a candidate in a normally rock solid area that turns out not to be a very skilled politician. Dems probably don't need to be talented politicians to win in Massachusetts and the skills you need to rise to the top in a dominant party machine are very different to the skills you need to win competitive elections.

True, but you think the Party might turn on the woman who couldn't beat Scott Brown. I mean, c'mon--Ed Markey beat him! Markey has all the political skills of a guinea pig. The machine cranked out the votes and he droned his way to victory.

She still could win. It just looks bleak--and she has performed terribly.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:He is currently ahead of the polling averages on RCP, and 538 has them at 50-50. I think it's not at all easy for you to call it. After all, you were convinced two years ago that Obama would lose, so I won't set much stall on that prediction, if you don't mind.

No problem. What you are ignoring: 1) Roberts was locked in a bitter primary. As an independent, Orman had no primary; 2) Kansas trends pretty red; 3) Obama is very unpopular in KS, so if Orman is believed to want to caucus with the Democrats, the late-deciders will go for Roberts; 4) The chicanery to remove the Democrat will move some small number of voters. I think it will be close, but I think Roberts will win.

1) On the other hand, a primary gives a candidate a lot of publicity at the point they are announced. That Roberts' was bitter may mean there's ammunition against him.
2) Yes. so a 50-50 position is quite unusual and there must be a reason for it. You yourself said you dislike Roberts, so perhaps there are a number of Republicans who see Orman as a better bet.
3) This explains the consistent "Orman is a Democrat" line from the Roberts campaign and others. (as does (2))
4) The Democrat candidate dropped out nearly two months ago. It took a while to establish that a non-standing candidate could be taken off the ballot, but now that is done it's not likely to have more to the tale.

I'm not 'ignoring' these factors - I'm looking at the polls that are taken in the last week or so and which already 'price in' many of them. It's neck and neck, but Roberts has not has a consistent lead over Orman so far.

As for the second part, well he will if the Democrats have 48. If the Republicans are on 51 or more, let's see. What would you wager?

Whatever you like. He's a Democrat.

How about $10?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:No problem. What you are ignoring: 1) Roberts was locked in a bitter primary. As an independent, Orman had no primary; 2) Kansas trends pretty red; 3) Obama is very unpopular in KS, so if Orman is believed to want to caucus with the Democrats, the late-deciders will go for Roberts; 4) The chicanery to remove the Democrat will move some small number of voters. I think it will be close, but I think Roberts will win.

1) On the other hand, a primary gives a candidate a lot of publicity at the point they are announced. That Roberts' was bitter may mean there's ammunition against him.

Yes, there is ammo. He's part of the institutional problem, which is why a Tea Party type was aiming to take him down. However, when it's putting the old crook back or enabling Harry Reid, eventually many of the more conservatives voters (like me) will pull the lever for Roberts. We despise Reid more than we loath Roberts.

2) Yes. so a 50-50 position is quite unusual and there must be a reason for it. You yourself said you dislike Roberts, so perhaps there are a number of Republicans who see Orman as a better bet.

I'd say the odds, based on polls alone, are 60/40 in Orman's favor. However, I think the distaste for Obama and Reid will bring many Republicans "home."

I'm not 'ignoring' these factors - I'm looking at the polls that are taken in the last week or so and which already 'price in' many of them. It's neck and neck, but Roberts has not has a consistent lead over Orman so far.

And, incumbents as low as Roberts are not likely to close the deal.

How about $10?

Sure.

Doctor Fate wrote:

How about $10?

Sure.

Loser pays Redscape?

Bet applies:

1) If Orman wins
2) If his caucus makes the difference, or if the Republicans are a majority (so if Republicans on 50+ Senators)

If he caucuses with the Democrats, you win. If he does not, I win. If neither (1) and (2) apply.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

How about $10?

Sure.

Loser pays Redscape?

Bet applies:

1) If Orman wins
2) If his caucus makes the difference, or if the Republicans are a majority (so if Republicans on 50+ Senators)

If he caucuses with the Democrats, you win. If he does not, I win. If neither (1) and (2) apply.

Deal.

Noted

Slightly off topic: The re-election of Barbara Mikulski and Benjamin Cardin as Maryland's senators every time they're up for re-election, is a foregone conclusion if you live in this state. And the data from the app I have on my iPad gives both of them vote with the party 99% of the time. How's that for polarization?

I know this is slightly off topic, again but, living in Maryland, I found it fascinating that, right after Obama comes to campaign for Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, Hillary comes the next day (or a little while after that) and campaigns for him. Maybe to limit the damage done by Obama's presence in support of Brown?

There is a possibility (I know we are talking about the senators not governors) that Hogan might actually be elected. Even the normally-Democratic voters in some places are p_____ off that the O'Malley bunch have taxed....everything. Not so much the rate of tax but what they've levied individual taxes on. Hogan has his work cut out for him but there's at least a slim chance he'll get it.

What does this have to do with Senate races? When the Democratic Party's de facto leader appears in support of a gubernatorial race in a [relatively] small blue state, and the Democratic candidate in question has to upstage the former's presence with the appearance of a Democrat who is more popular than the president in question (to repair the damage as I said above) then you know the Democrats are screwed for this election. Not in the state elections in Maryland (Gov. O'Malley's recent gerrymandering plan has seen to that) perhaps, but the U.S. Senate, definitely. Just to throw a guess, it could even go as high as 55 seats, for all we know. I doubt it'll exceed 53, but the possibility is there.

JimHackerMP wrote:Slightly off topic: The re-election of Barbara Mikulski and Benjamin Cardin as Maryland's senators every time they're up for re-election, is a foregone conclusion if you live in this state. And the data from the app I have on my iPad gives both of them vote with the party 99% of the time. How's that for polarization?

I know this is slightly off topic, again but, living in Maryland, I found it fascinating that, right after Obama comes to campaign for Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, Hillary comes the next day (or a little while after that) and campaigns for him. Maybe to limit the damage done by Obama's presence in support of Brown?

There is a possibility (I know we are talking about the senators not governors) that Hogan might actually be elected. Even the normally-Democratic voters in some places are p_____ off that the O'Malley bunch have taxed....everything. Not so much the rate of tax but what they've levied individual taxes on. Hogan has his work cut out for him but there's at least a slim chance he'll get it.

What does this have to do with Senate races? When the Democratic Party's de facto leader appears in support of a gubernatorial race in a [relatively] small blue state, and the Democratic candidate in question has to upstage the former's presence with the appearance of a Democrat who is more popular than the president in question (to repair the damage as I said above) then you know the Democrats are screwed for this election. Not in the state elections in Maryland (Gov. O'Malley's recent gerrymandering plan has seen to that) perhaps, but the U.S. Senate, definitely. Just to throw a guess, it could even go as high as 55 seats, for all we know. I doubt it'll exceed 53, but the possibility is there.

Well, I understand there were empty seats for Hillary. I think this is more a case of trying to motivate the base than anything else. This is also on display in some of the rhetoric and advertising by Democrats. Some of them are referring to Ferguson and making other race-based appeals to gin up the base. It's pretty shameful, but politics ain't beanbag.

Btw, the President of the Senate has an opinion on Orman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23-UXzAlqac

“We have a chance of picking up, you know, an independent who will be with us in the state of Kansas.

Now, he could be incredibly coy about the word "chance," but Harry Reid didn't invest heavily on a "chance" this guy will be a Democrat.

Doctor Fate wrote:Btw, the President of the Senate has an opinion on Orman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23-UXzAlqac

“We have a chance of picking up, you know, an independent who will be with us in the state of Kansas.

Now, he could be incredibly coy about the word "chance," but Harry Reid didn't invest heavily on a "chance" this guy will be a Democrat.

This is not really news.

danivon wrote:This is not really news.

I disagree. Orman had maintained he was willing to go both ways, erm, so to speak. Biden outed him. I'd say that's news.

It's moot: the crook won; the liar lost.

Georgia: no run off. Perdue wins.
Kentucky: McConnell wins.
Kansas: Roberts wins.
Colorado: Gardner wins.
Arkansas: Cotton wins.

This thing is over.

BBC reports 52 seats to the GOP. I think that's what I guessed, 52 at least, no more than 54, did I say? I think most of us were at least fairly close.

And of course, the House of Representatives majority increased as well I think didn't it? BBC.com says 233 seats to the GOP in the House of Rep's; but I do not recall exactly how much of an increase that is.