Presumably he wants Fetterman to be examined by a doctor who makes no political donations. The underlying premise being that anyone who donates must surely be a partisan hack. This feels like an “every accusation is a confession” kind of thing.
Chuck holds forth:
Sounds like reverse psychology, sort of. Probably deep down he’s more worried about Pennsylvania than Georgia, but for Georgia it’s more about getting out the vote (so, need to sound the alarm), while in Pennsylvania it’s more about reassuring those that will vote anyway, that Fetterman is still capable (so, need to sound confident).
And in the Granite State:
Hey I’ll go with jib-cut.
Chen is Fetterman’s family doc.
Fetterman’s neurologist may not be better informed, but I’m thinking that doc is at least equally informed, and is better qualifed to interpret what’s in the, I hope, soon-to-be-senator-elect’s, chart.
Do I think that Chen is on the same page here with Fetterman’s neurologist and cardiologist? Yes. I’m sure they all cleared him to return to work. As to why the letter came the family medicine physician, that’s speculation. But I suspect the routine bloodwork numbers, in that letter, were much less likely to risk harm to the patient’s career than the function tests the neurologist may have given.
A letter from a doctor, who has cleared the patient to work, and is written knowing that their patient’s career depends on the content, will likely follow the do not harm principle. And the way to avoid harm to this patient, in writing the letter, is to bend towards the optimistic parts of the picture. In that sense, I think the campaign contribution is irrelevant. Republican family medicine letter writers do the same.
I hope John Fetterman wins. I like how he thinks a lot better than how Oz thinks, regardless of who is more articulate. But I see no reason to, on a board like this, minimize Fetterman’s challenges.
Do you think that’s what I’m doing?
I assure you I am not.
The three most recent Pennsylvania Senate polls show Oz with a (very slight) lead over Fetterman.
And all non-partisan, likely voter polls. Not great.
Part of me wants to believe that likely voter screens will be way off this year and Dems will beat polling in most cases. The Kansas abortion amendment makes me think this is still possible.
But I don’t want to start unskewing polls. Down that road lies madness.
The latest NYTimes/Siena poll shows PA D+6, AZ D+6, NV toss-up, GA D+3.
Actually your link shows Fetterman at 47.1% and Oz at 45.6%.
Unless there’s been a crazy swing in the last six or so hours.
It does, but I think that @flurb is referring to the three most recent polls (rather than 538’s model) on that page, all of which have Oz with a 2 to 3 point lead.
Ah, fair enough. 
And then there’s this:
For the first time since July, the 538 Deluxe Model has Republicans favored to win the Senate 51-49.
In Arizona, the Libertarian candidate, Marc Victor, drops out of the Senate race and endorses Republican Blake Masters.
Libertarian Senate candidate Marc Victor drops out of race (abc15.com)
There is hope. Joe O’Dea is a non-Trump Republican and favors same-sex marriage and abortion up to 24 weeks. Now he is climbing the polls. He probably won’t beat Michael Bennet but it shows some backing for moderate Republicans in Colorado.
Michelob. Ultra. Over. Ice.
Also, not really climbing in the polls.
These are a day old.
This one isn’t great.
PredictIt leans more red than 538 except where 538’s underconfidence comes into play. Keep in mind that PredictIt beat 538 hands down in 2020.
What is “debiased”? Does that mean one’s bias is surgically removed??