Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All we can say for sure is that it will be close. Nevada or Pennsylvania wouldn't surprising me, but Arizona would.
Mark Kelly is a great candidate, the incumbent and I've not heard any concrete criticism of his performance. From the article:
"In Arizona, Republican Senate nominee Blake Masters actually trails by 4.1 points to incumbent Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ). Not a single one of the seven polls used for the average has the Republican leading. Still, RCP predicts the race as a GOP pick-up."
I think the best the Republicans can hope for is to pick up one seat ( Nevada ) and hold onto Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, thus giving them a majority. Unless Democratic turn out is awful, I don’t see Kelly or especially Warnock losing. The Republican primary voters selected some very poor candidates in a year that should have been easy for them.
I think the best the Republicans can hope for is to pick up one seat ( Nevada ) and hold onto Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, thus giving them a majority. Unless Democratic turn out is awful, I don’t see Kelly or especially Warnock losing. The Republican primary voters selected some very poor candidates in a year that should have been easy for them.
It could turn out to be that Kari Lake and Brian Kemp pull their respective Senate nominees over the finish line. I cannot envision someone voting for Kari Lake and then voting for Senator Kelly.
I'm curious on what RCP's methodology for their projections are.
I believe they are using the polling errors from previous cycles and taking that into account, which, of course, provides issues because this is not 2020.
I believe they are using the polling errors from previous cycles and taking that into account, which, of course, provides issues because this is not 2020.
They might be taking it into an account to an extent, but they have other methodology figured into which doesn't appear to be transparent. For example they are showing Kelly up an average of 4.1, with polls in recent cycles underestimating the GOP by 2.2. The chart they have shows the adjusted poll average (once the errors from previous cycles are taking into account) as Kelly up by 1.9, but the projection is Masters winning.
FWIW, while I do think Kelly will win, I'm not arguing against their projection. With that said the stat and math geek in me wants to know the methodology and/or formula they are using to arrive at their projection.
They might be taking it into an account to an extent, but they have other methodology figured into which doesn't appear to be transparent. For example they are showing Kelly up an average of 4.1, with polls in recent cycles underestimating the GOP by 2.2. The chart they have shows the adjusted poll average (once the errors from previous cycles are taking into account) as Kelly up by 1.9, but the projection is Masters winning.
FWIW, while I do think Kelly will win, I'm not arguing against their projection. With that said the stat and math geek in me wants to know the methodology and/or formula they are using to arrive at their projection.
The link below explains the RCP methodology. For instance, in the PA Senate race, the average of the polls shows a 3.7% lead for Fetterman. But they are estimating (based on the 2016 and 2020 races) that polls about one month prior to Election Day tend to over-estimate Democrats in PA by 5.9%. So they adjust the margin rightward by 5.9%, and thus are estimating a 2.2% win for Oz as the final outcome in the race.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.