Electoral-vote.com suddenly moved about three seats over from the Republican side to the Democratic side overnight. Nothing in its news section highlights any particular reason for this.
What happened? I guess there were a bunch of new polls yesterday? Have people written anything about the swing?
There are a bunch of Senate races that are really close (Mass, Wis, VA, etc) so they tend to jump back and forth a lot. I’m not sure I’d read too much into it, as when things are close to tied the polls are going to occasionally come up looking good for one side or the other just by chance.
I’m not following you, Frylock. The Senate page there says:
No net change, IOW.
The main page does say that:
When was the last time you checked?
I think I checked yesterday, but I was basing my judgment of a swing on the difference between the present report and the previous report.
Present report says 52/2/46, while previous report says 49/3/48.
I don’t mean a swing from the present Senate makeup, I mean a swing in the projected results.
Electoral-vote.com just goes by the last poll, IIRC, whatever it might be. Try RealClearPolitics’ Senate page instead.
RCP has the Senate at 48-46 Dem, with 6 tossups. Unlike EV.com, they’re treating Maine as safe Dem, rather than a tie.
No, he averages over the last weeks worth of polling. Which makes the Presidential map pretty stable, but a lot of Senate races are only polled once or twice a week, so they end up being more “jumpy”.
It’s worse than that: most Senate races are lucky to get polled once a month. So the difference between averaging the last week’s worth of polling, and taking the last poll, is usually zip.
The Rasmussen-free page has it 53-2-45. Annoyingly, one of the 2 is Angus King in ME, an Indy who’s more likely to caucus with the Dems than the Pubs, especially if they’re in the majority. The only tie EV shows is in CT, and that poll is old. Anyway, the odds of the Dems holding the Senate as well as the White House look pretty good today.
I’d still like to see a good House compendium site, though. Anybody got a recommendation?
Just tripped over a pretty good one a couple days ago, put together by David Jarman of Daily Kos Elections. Here’s the link. It’s certainly better than anything else I’ve seen so far.
Great, thanks. Wish he had a rollup, though - I’m less interested in individual races and ideologies than in simple party control of the House. Will the Dems have control of the agenda there or not?
The places I check into a pretty psyched that Tammy Baldwin is pulling even or ahead of Tommy Thompson, which had previously been looking like a rout. And of course Mass. has gotten a lot tighter. Go, Lizzy Warren, Go! And I’m not saying that just because she is so hot!
I hope the Conservative Tea Bagging drag on Government get a Royal Can of Whoop Ass on their collective taint this November. The bastards BLOCKED a bi-partisan bill to help Jobless Veterans
How is that not amazingly stupid, even from a purely cynical viewpoint of realpolitik? Its like shoving a hand grenade up your Nixon and pulling the pin.
Yep. Nothing like getting together to just offer opportunity for people who were ready to give up their lives for country. But the Tea Baggers just won’t do it.
It’s hard to know which is worse, both morally and politically: (a) if they blocked it because they would otherwise be for it, but decided that denying the Dems anything resembling a victory was more important than helping veterans find jobs, or (b) if, as Sen. Sessions suggested, they regarded $1 billion as too much money to spend to help Iraq/Afghanistan veterans, after having dumped trillions of dollars into the wars themselves.
Either way, the GOP has turned into a morally loathsome outfit. Would you want your daughter to marry one?
They blocked it because there are already federal programs that do the same thing the bill purported to do. There are $200 billion worth of duplicative federal programs. Democrats apparently feel that we aren’t wasting enough money on feel good measures.
And oh, bTW, the program also would have busted through the spending caps. If Democrats truly think the program is vital, they can cut someone else to pay for it. LIke one of the other six programs that do the same thing this bill does.
I would hope Dopers would know better than to just assume that every bill with either veterans, puppies, equality, or patriotism on the heading must be passed. Without knowing the cost, what is actually needed, or how the bill would work, or even if there are already federal programs doing what the bill does, it’s senseless to support it.
Do you know which programs it would have been duplicative of?
Like The Patriot Act?
Tom Coburn says it duplicates other programs and he’d be in a position to know given that he’s the Senator who requested the GAO report on duplicative programs.
We’re proposing another job program for veterans without having done the serious work of how we invest $1 billion. Now, the other thing that we should know is we’re spending $1 billion a year right now on veteran job training programs. This bill has $1 billion over five.
It’s an election year feel good measure, which tends to be the source of a lot of duplication in the government. Gotta show support for various interest groups every so often, even if it doesn’t actually help anyone. Congress shows support by appropriating money.