Don’t know what that means, and Maine is no swing state. And Washington’s 5th district is no blue district. It’s always been more red than blue, even when Foley occupied it.
…yet they elected him to Congress 15 times. Right.
And Maine elected Collins and Snowe. Some candidates can buck a district or state’s partisan trend. And the longer an incumbent is in office, the harder he is to beat barring a tsunami election, which Tom Foley ran smack into in 1994.
Plus your argument that Republicans are not the same now is meaningless, since the district is STILL represented by a Republican.
Well you are an expert on meaningless arguments so I guess I’ll leave it at that.
As of today, the Republicans now lead in enough Senate races to capture the Senate:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/2014_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html
Mighty thin, Rasmussen-heavy database there.
Let’s leave Rasmussen out then:
IA-last two polls show a tie and an Ernst lead.
AK- Only Republican firms + rasmussen are polling that race, which is just… weird. Of course, we’ll get all the polls we can stand in the fall.
LA-PPP shows a tie. Rasmussen actually gives Landrieu better results.
So, okay, it’s still thin. FiveThirtyEight did an op-ed a few days ago that said the GOP will gain anywhere from +2 to +10, which is a pretty wide range.
We might be able to call it +8 GOP soon: Quinnipiac just released a poll showing Gardner over Udall by 2:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/co/colorado_senate_gardner_vs_udall-3845.html
Udall still leads by 1 in the RCP average.
Polls don’t mean squat this early, in my view. I’m especially leery of polls cited by RCP, which is a quite right-leaning site.
They cite them all. Regardless of RCP’s political leanings, they compile polls just like the other sites do, and since they don’t adjust them, it’s hard to accuse them of bias.