mtutiger

The Dane numbers (if coupled with high turnout in Milwaukee) are a necessity, but I don't know if it's enough based on how the rest of the state votes / how turnout is. Similar question as Pennsylvania, but Wisconsin was also much closer in 2020. Right now, Nevada seems pretty shaky, Ralston's winning streak might be up.

I'll take the under, unfortunately...

Wow

I'm not sure Florida is a great state to extrapolate nationally to in this cycle.

One part of 2020 that feels underdiscussed is how college campuses are back in session in person for the most part... wonder how that affects turnout in college communities.

That's definitely true in Philadelphia, which is gonna be an 80-20 type breakdown. It wasn't gonna all be mail ballots there.

It's hard to put into too much context without knowing what turnout is like in other parts of the Commonwealth, but Philly showing up and voting at similar to 2018 levels is important. But have to see if it continues into the day

Not that I expect Texas to be very close, but I would be surprised if it weren't closer than Florida this cycle.

She was down by a fraction of a percent in a Trafalger poll this AM.... but it's Trafalger, and they did overestimate Trump last cycle in MI

They are invested in the narrative, for sure. We'll know one way or another after tonight.

I'm not sure that starting from a conclusion and working backward is the most sound methodology when making race predictions. The background here being that they put Nevada into the blue column and, apparently, had to move PA to red to keep R number greater than 50. The Rs have a pretty good shot at winning the Senate, but forecasters in this cycle are making some weird decisions at times, and seemingly based on very little data. Or less than one would expect them to have.

I haven't been following Michigan closely, but my prior would be that Whitmer is gonna outrun most of the rest of the D ticket. So if she loses, they all lose IMO. Definitely can see Slotkin losing, although that's a house race and independent of state races.

The poll is probably an outlier, but it wouldn't be the first time this season where an outlet wrote an article looking to dismiss its own polling result. Kind of bizarre tbh

Law is really good at what he does, but when you are a national figure covering 30 teams, it's fair to question how much his finger is on the pulse of the micro moves the Tigers have made.

Seems like a good hire... I wonder if he bumps Juan Nieves or if he comes on as an additional member of the coaching staff

There are teams included in rumors and rumblings this year, such as the Dodgers, Cubs, Mariners, and Orioles (it makes more sense than you think!), who were not players for Correa last offseason. That's for starters. There will be competition for his services... and just as the fact that people "assume" the other shortstops not named Correa will resign and that assumption may not hold, one shouldn't assume there won't be a market for Correa as well. I know that it will be an unsatisfactory answer, but it looks like a pipe dream to me for this team in this situation

He can still win, but he always has a knack for reminding folks he isn't from the Commonwealth

I'm probably more worried about Nevada than either Georgia or Arizona tbh. I agree with you on PA; Fetterman (partly for reasons outside of his control) has had issues as a candidate, but Oz has terrible favorables and isnt a good candidate in how own right *and* he's sharing a ballot with Mastriano. It'll be close, but I think Fetterman wins. I get why these guys are inclined to caveat everything, people have been hard on the polling/prognosticating industry the past few years. Sometimes without reason. But the constant caveating (based on conventional wisdom, what others are thinking or showing) is how people fall into groupthink as well, and that isn't necessarily a good thing if you are in the business of figuring out public opinion.

My problem with all of it is that nobody seems to want to stand behind their work... You have Nate Cohn at the NYT commissioning polls showing a relative neutral environment (House polls in KS, NM, NV, Senate polls in PA, NV, AZ, WI) and the writeups are about how they may all be wrong. You have RCP building a model which deducts share based on previous polling misses in the last three cycles, yet still is willing to project a different result than what the model shows (see MI Gov). And then you have Nate Silver, who built a website based on modeling this stuff yet basically seems more interested in punditry and, similar to Cohn, looks for reasons to doubt his own work. None of this matters obviously, Tuesday will come and go and very little that these guys do or don't do will change any of it. But the lack of spine to stand behind their work is kind of pathetic IMO.

I think it will be a Red House, dont know on what the gains will be. 15-30ish? 50/50 Senate is my guess. Some states will be better or worse than others based on geography, individual situations.

I stopped reading or following 538 after the last election, and I doubt I'm less informed for it

For context, this is potentially a rerun of the Kentucky Governor's race in 2019. Stitt has pissed off the tribes and has leaned hard into vouchers which has had a sizable impact in Rural OK school districts. Schools north of the border had challenges before he became Governor, to be clear, but we are now in a world where a number of districts in the rural part of the Oklahoma are now only offering classes four days per week out of necessity. If Hofmeister wins (or even comes close) and it is an otherwise not great night for Ds, there may be a lesson to come out of Oklahoma and how to appeal to the broader group cross section of voters.

I mean, Trafalgar put out polls that were off by over 15 points in the California Recall and have thus far lived to see the other side.