nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Apr 16, 2020 11:02:46 GMT
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Apr 16, 2020 11:33:09 GMT
The GOP could lose Kansas if they're dumb enough to nominate Kris Kobach. "Q3 If the candidates for US Senate this November were Democrat Barbara Bollier and Republican Kris Kobach, who would you vote for? Barbara Bollier 44% Kris Kobach 42% Not sure 13%" www.politico.com/f/?id=00000171-7d10-d92d-a5ff-fd3a416c0000Undecideds would likely lean Kobach, but it could be quite close. Kobach is tied in the polls with Congressman Roger Marshall, who would win easily, but Kansas Republicans are split in a radical and a moderate wing and Kobach has a good chance of winning the nomination.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Apr 16, 2020 11:42:56 GMT
The GOP could lose Kansas if they're dumb enough to nominate Kris Kobach. "Q3 If the candidates for US Senate this November were Democrat Barbara Bollier and Republican Kris Kobach, who would you vote for? Barbara Bollier 44% Kris Kobach 42% Not sure 13%" www.politico.com/f/?id=00000171-7d10-d92d-a5ff-fd3a416c0000Undecideds would likely lean Kobach, but it could be quite close. Kobach is tied in the polls with Congressman Roger Marshall, who would win easily, but Kansas Republicans are split in a radical and a moderate wing and Kobach has a good chance of winning the nomination. Which of course is why McConnell spent so much energy on trying to persuade Pompeo to quit the State Department and run for Senate
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 16, 2020 16:06:59 GMT
The GOP could lose Kansas if they're dumb enough to nominate Kris Kobach. "Q3 If the candidates for US Senate this November were Democrat Barbara Bollier and Republican Kris Kobach, who would you vote for? Barbara Bollier 44% Kris Kobach 42% Not sure 13%" www.politico.com/f/?id=00000171-7d10-d92d-a5ff-fd3a416c0000Undecideds would likely lean Kobach, but it could be quite close. Kobach is tied in the polls with Congressman Roger Marshall, who would win easily, but Kansas Republicans are split in a radical and a moderate wing and Kobach has a good chance of winning the nomination. That would certainly be a fun election for the Forum to comment on. Let it be so.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 16, 2020 16:16:15 GMT
The GOP could lose Kansas if they're dumb enough to nominate Kris Kobach. "Q3 If the candidates for US Senate this November were Democrat Barbara Bollier and Republican Kris Kobach, who would you vote for? Barbara Bollier 44% Kris Kobach 42% Not sure 13%" www.politico.com/f/?id=00000171-7d10-d92d-a5ff-fd3a416c0000Undecideds would likely lean Kobach, but it could be quite close. Kobach is tied in the polls with Congressman Roger Marshall, who would win easily, but Kansas Republicans are split in a radical and a moderate wing and Kobach has a good chance of winning the nomination. The breakdown is probably similar to that Kobach faced in his last race, but I agree he'd be favoured because of greater polarisation in presidential years and at the federal level. PPP is pretty reliable for a Democratic outfit, but if they were keen on the party taking the Senate seat, they shouldn't have polled here until Kobach was nominated. That said, given that Kobach is favoured in a GE anyway, perhaps they're not keen on engineering the nomination of their weakest opponent because the likely result would be the Republican they hate most getting the seat (shades of 2016, but the fundamentals would lean much further in Kobach's favour than Trump's).
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 17, 2020 12:22:19 GMT
Multiple polling firms are now indicating that Cunningham, the frontrunner for the Democratic Senate nomination in NC, may well be a few points ahead of Biden. Perhaps the DCCC hasn't picked a bad candidate here. PPP (Apr 14-15) - Cunningham 47, Tillis 40; Biden 48, Trump 47 Harper Polling (polling for a conservative firm) (April 5-7) - Tillis 38, Cunningham 34; Trump 49, Biden 42 No state split their senate/presidential vote in 2016 and polarisation should ensure the gaps between federal tickets narrow as November draws closer. All the same, this state may be the most likely to offer a split ticket besides KS with Kobach, MT and AZ, though it will probably be very finely balanced compared to AK. Though this has previously been dismissed, I think there's a realistic chance of the Democrats narrowly taking back the Senate while losing the presidency. The following seems credible credible: flipping MI at the presidential level and holding the senate seat, flipping ME and CO's senate seats while winning at the presidential level, ticket-splitting in NC and AZ - or ticket splitting in one of these states while winning at both levels in the other - ticket-splitting in MT, and winning a runoff election in GA-S due to increased Democratic turnout after a Trump re-election. That would leave the Senate (assuming a Democratic loss in AL) as 52D - 48R, so there's even a bit of room for error, such as Susan Collins clinging on. Edit: thanks to CatholicLeft, I have corrected the erroneous PPP figure above (in addition to being wrong, the swapped numbers contradicted my wider point).
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,265
Member is Online
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Apr 17, 2020 16:10:12 GMT
Multiple polling firms are now indicating that Cunningham, the frontrunner for the Democratic Senate nomination in NC, may well be a few points ahead of Biden. Perhaps the DCCC hasn't picked a bad candidate here. PPP (Apr 14-15) - Tillis 47, Cunningham 40; Biden 48, Trump 47 Harper Polling (polling for a conservative firm) (April 5-7) - Tillis 38, Cunningham 34; Trump 49, Biden 42 No state split their senate/presidential vote in 2016 and polarisation should ensure the gaps between federal tickets narrow as November draws closer. All the same, this state may be the most likely to offer a split ticket besides KS with Kobach, MT and AZ, though it will probably be very finely balanced compared to AK. Though this has previously been dismissed, I think there's a realistic chance of the Democrats narrowly taking back the Senate while losing the presidency. The following seems credible credible: flipping MI at the presidential level and holding the senate seat, flipping ME and CO's senate seats while winning at the presidential level, ticket-splitting in NC and AZ - or ticket splitting in one of these states while winning at both levels in the other - ticket-splitting in MT, and winning a runoff election in GA-S due to increased Democratic turnout after a Trump re-election. That would leave the Senate (assuming a Democratic loss in AL) as 52D - 48R, so there's even a bit of room for error, such as Susan Collins clinging on. You have the figures for Tillis and Cunningham the wrong way round in the PPP Cunningham 47, Tillis 40.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Apr 20, 2020 23:26:18 GMT
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Apr 21, 2020 0:34:16 GMT
My current take is that a lot depends on the national picture and presidential race. If Biden wins comfortably I can easily see a 50-50 senate and maybe them picking 1 or 2 of the long shot races. If Biden wins narrowly then chances are all the long shot races will be misses and there is good chance that at least one of Collins or Tillis survive. If Trump wins the GOP likely retain the Senate.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Apr 21, 2020 0:41:38 GMT
My current take is that a lot depends on the national picture and presidential race. If Biden wins comfortably I can easily see a 50-50 senate and maybe them picking 1 or 2 of the long shot races. If Biden wins narrowly then chances are all the long shot races will be misses and there is good chance that at least one of Collins or Tillis survive. If Trump wins the GOP likely retain the Senate. Yes, and at this moment I’d say Collins is more likely to survive partly because Tillis has never really had the personal popularity she’s had, but also when I saw figures at the end of last week Governor Cooper’s approval numbers were pretty stratospheric and - big if - they stayed somewhere close to them he might be the one with coattails other races can ride on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 16:33:40 GMT
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Apr 27, 2020 13:58:19 GMT
The Kansas GOP is trying to give Kobach "the Sanders treatment". Let's see if Wagle and Lindstrom are as obedient as Klobuchar and Buttigieg. Morning Digest: Kansas GOP asks Senate candidates to drop out to unify primary field vs. Kris Kobach"In an unusual move, Kansas GOP chair Mike Kuckelman sent letters on Thursday to two Senate candidates, state Senate Senate President Susan Wagle and Kansas Turnpike Authority chair Dave Lindstrom, that asked them to drop out of the August primary in order to "to allow our Party to coalesce behind a candidate who will not only win, but will help Republicans down the ballot this November."
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Apr 29, 2020 1:10:01 GMT
Kweise Mfumi has unsurprisingly won the Special Election for Maryland CD07, replacing the late Elijah Cummings who replaced him when he resigned to head the NAACP. (This was an all mail ballot).
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 30, 2020 15:07:26 GMT
Larry Sabato and the Cook Political Report have (wrongly, in my view) moved the SC Senate race from safe to likely R because of fundraising and Graham moving in a more partisan direction. This is despite SC being relatively inelastic and Graham previously having a problem attracting the Trump base because of his vocal opposition to the man, and also despite the fact that the fundraising may have more to do with Graham's partisan shift than any additional merit to Jaime Harrison's candidacy. This has put SC in the same category as Georgia, which is a bit ridiculous.
Sabato has also moved the Alaska Senate race from Safe to Likely R; here, fundraising is a little bit more indicative of Al Gross’ stronger candidacy.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Apr 30, 2020 15:44:25 GMT
Larry Sabato and the Cook Political Report have (wrongly, in my view) moved the SC Senate race from safe to likely R because of fundraising and Graham moving in a more partisan direction. This is despite SC being relatively inelastic and Graham previously having a problem attracting the Trump base because of his vocal opposition to the man, and also despite the fact that the fundraising may have more to do with Graham's partisan shift than any additional merit to Jaime Harrison's candidacy. This has put SC in the same category as Georgia, which is a bit ridiculous. Sabato has also moved the Alaska Senate race from Safe to Likely R; here, fundraising is a little bit more indicative of Al Gross’ stronger candidacy. I can see the logic with SC, they’re just basically saying Graham has got a harder race than normal, but still wins it. He may lose the “never Trump” Republicans because since McCain’s passing he’s become a Trump shrill and given they seem to be predominantly women his rant during the Kavanaugh hearing will further alienate them. Harrison being African American might just nudge turnout up a notch in that community who usually feel there’s little point voting. And he looks like he’ll have the money to match Graham, unlike some previous challengers who’ve been massively overwhelmed financially. All of which just eats into Graham’s majority ever so slightly.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 30, 2020 17:27:23 GMT
Larry Sabato and the Cook Political Report have (wrongly, in my view) moved the SC Senate race from safe to likely R because of fundraising and Graham moving in a more partisan direction. This is despite SC being relatively inelastic and Graham previously having a problem attracting the Trump base because of his vocal opposition to the man, and also despite the fact that the fundraising may have more to do with Graham's partisan shift than any additional merit to Jaime Harrison's candidacy. This has put SC in the same category as Georgia, which is a bit ridiculous. Sabato has also moved the Alaska Senate race from Safe to Likely R; here, fundraising is a little bit more indicative of Al Gross’ stronger candidacy. I can see the logic with SC, they’re just basically saying Graham has got a harder race than normal, but still wins it. He may lose the “never Trump” Republicans because since McCain’s passing he’s become a Trump shrill and given they seem to be predominantly women his rant during the Kavanaugh hearing will further alienate them. Harrison being African American might just nudge turnout up a notch in that community who usually feel there’s little point voting. And he looks like he’ll have the money to match Graham, unlike some previous challengers who’ve been massively overwhelmed financially. All of which just eats into Graham’s majority ever so slightly. Trump himself won SC rather easily and 2018 indicates that his coalition is still strong enough to shut out the Democrats, having polled ~10% ahead Congressionally and ~8% ahead in the gubernatorial election. SC isn't prone to wild swings, doesn't have much willingness to split tickets down ballot relative to other states (e.g. AK, MT), and is almost certainly trending Republican (the Democrats may change that if they make up ground in as-of-yet stubbornly Republican suburbs, but the black population is declining as a % of the total population faster than anywhere else except DC and it's unlikely that suburban voters in the especially polarised deep south are as willing to switch parties as e.g. those in the midwest). The only polls show Harrison within 10% of where Graham is are internals (and even they have Harrison losing by 4-7%) and a Change Research poll showing him 2% behind with ~8% undecided. 'Likely R' should indicate that Graham can actually lose rather than 'he'll get a McConnell margin at worst'. I can see why one might think this race was Likely R, especially if they had a different definition of what that meant (though I disagree), but it doesn't seem sensible that this race and Georgia's are in the same category. Mind you, Harrison's fundraising also doesn't seem sensible given the relatively weak fundraising in the GA races.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,854
|
Post by jamie on Apr 30, 2020 20:17:26 GMT
' Likely R' should indicate that Graham can actually lose rather than 'he'll get a McConnell margin at worst'. I can see why one might think this race was Likely R, especially if they had a different definition of what that meant (though I disagree), but it doesn't seem sensible that this race and Georgia's are in the same category. Mind you, Harrison's fundraising also doesn't seem sensible given the relatively weak fundraising in the GA races. This. Calling a race as anything other than ‘Safe’ should indicate you see a race as winnable in circumstances short of a Roy Moore style scenario. And as you say, South Carolina is not remotely on the same level of competitiveness as Georgia.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 30, 2020 22:16:19 GMT
McConnell is doing a bit of self-dealing, both factions are sleeping on GA and avoiding AK (the latter potentially because big, outside money may backfire there), and IA is getting targeted because the money goes further in a small state (I'd guess TX funding has been lacking for the opposite reason). Presumably, KS is being avoided by both teams unless and until Kobach is the Republican nominee, but I would have expected the NRSC to have sunk some $ into preventing that.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on May 1, 2020 0:10:26 GMT
' Likely R' should indicate that Graham can actually lose rather than 'he'll get a McConnell margin at worst'. I can see why one might think this race was Likely R, especially if they had a different definition of what that meant (though I disagree), but it doesn't seem sensible that this race and Georgia's are in the same category. Mind you, Harrison's fundraising also doesn't seem sensible given the relatively weak fundraising in the GA races. This. Calling a race as anything other than ‘Safe’ should indicate you see a race as winnable in circumstances short of a Roy Moore style scenario. And as you say, South Carolina is not remotely on the same level of competitiveness as Georgia. They don’t use that definition though. Broadly “safe” is when one Party has a >90% chance of winning, “likely” is broadly >75%, “leans” >55% and “toss up” anything in the 50-55% range. So in this case they are probably arguing that Graham has a 85-90% chance whereas Georgia, presumably Loeffler more than Perdue, is closer to 65-75%. Don’t forget as well this is based on one internal GOP poll showing Graham only +4%, but this far out such polls are pretty vague, and as The Crystal Ball noted, in the same poll a generic Republican beat a generic Democrat by double digits, so it’s very likely if there’s more polling between now and November it’ll be moved back to Safe R pretty quickly.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on May 1, 2020 0:16:13 GMT
This. Calling a race as anything other than ‘Safe’ should indicate you see a race as winnable in circumstances short of a Roy Moore style scenario. And as you say, South Carolina is not remotely on the same level of competitiveness as Georgia. They don’t use that definition though. Broadly “safe” is when one Party has a >90% chance of winning, “likely” is broadly >75%, “leans” >55% and “toss up” anything in the 50-55% range. So in this case they are probably arguing that Graham has a 85-90% chance whereas Georgia, presumably Loeffler more than Perdue, is closer to 65-75%. Don’t forget as well this is based on one internal GOP poll showing Graham only +4%, but this far out such polls are pretty vague, and as The Crystal Ball noted, in the same poll a generic Republican beat a generic Democrat by double digits, so it’s very likely if there’s more polling between now and November it’ll be moved back to Safe R pretty quickly. Thanks for the info about their ratings - are those guidelines shared by the Cook Political Report, Politico etc.? That was an internal Harrison poll, not a Graham poll. The last Republican internal projected Graham 54%-Harrison 37%.
|
|