I have no doubt that it's competitive but I also think the modeling of polls in Nebraska has to be nearly impossible given that it's been so long since they've had a competitive race. I hope to be wrong but my fear is that this race will track like both of the last two Oklahoma Governor races, where "tied" polls quickly yielded to double-digit Republican wins.
Why are you choosing those races to compare it to? Aside from them being red states they really don’t have much in common. Not to mention you’re comparing a federal election to a state election, and a race with no Dem to a traditional two party race.
I mean, if you’re going to do that, then why wouldn’t you compare it to a neighboring state, KS? The last two Governor races in KS showed competitive races which weren’t too far off from the final result, with the Dem winning of course. Yes, in 2022 the final result was closer than the final polls showed, but not so much that it pointed to a polling failure.
Editing to add that the Osborne campaign has also released polls showing Presidential and Sen Special numbers that are right where one would expect. If there is a fundamental polling error, which I don’t deny is possible, then it is specific to this race and the most likely explanation would be the presence of an Independent instead of a Dem, not any modeling issue due to a lack of recent competitive races.
You did dance around one good point in that Oklahoma and Nebraska might not be the best comparisons in terms of poll modeling because there are so many more former Democrats in Oklahoma compared to Nebraska whose current partisan allegiance would probably be harder for pollsters to pin down.
Kansas seems like a more natural comparison on the surface but since there have been multiple close races in the state in the last decade, pollsters' modeling is undoubtedly more refined. Kansas polling was way off in 2014 for the same reason I have my doubts as Nebraska polling in 2024....it'd been forever since the last close race there and the modeling was out of date. Since then, there have been two close gubernatorial races and a Senate seat on the periphery of competitiveness in 2020. Pollsters have been in the field there and have been able to update their models. When was the last time the same thing happened in Nebraska? Maybe 2012 when they dusted off Bob Kerrey and ran him again. And as you said, the polling of an independent candidate throws up even more ambiguity.
All speculation of course. I could be wrong. I hope I am. I'm not even plugged onto what I assume is a nagging question of who Osborn intends to caucus with. If it's the Democrats, I gotta figure that will cost him in the end.
NE-2 has been competitive for a decade and the polling has been reasonably close there. Sure, it’s much less rural than the rest of state, but data and experience from there can still be extrapolated. There’s always the possibility that the polls are off, but considering the response from the Fisher team and the numbers from other races that easily pass the sniff test and it seems like you’re having to dig pretty hard to support pre conceived notions in spite of all the data.
Clearly the Fischer campaign is scrambling around for messaging (imo they will resort to good old fashioned race baiting; the tried and true Republican tactic since Nixon)
I’d be inclined to agree were it not for available polling showing Ricketts winning by about the margin you’d expect a GOP Senator to, on same tests as Osborn beating Fischer. So something specific to Osborn is happening where he’s winning over Ricketts voters.
I have said for decades now that Democrats can win almost any state federally (except in the Deep South) if:
They pull their candidate/s, have an independent run and secretly (not the whole DSCC is investing in x race or ActBlue donation links that would activate partisanship) support them with an innocent sounding or state centric pac. This is exactly what’s happening in NE-Sen.
Why we haven’t started doing this when we know Democrats can’t win these very red states federally drives me absolutely insane. It’s such a simple formula and it works! Get a Democrat or left/centrist indie to run as an Independent, not a Democrat. Boost behind the scenes. Makes it a way closer race than any D running and who knows, maybe they even win!
The only argument against doing so is that there’s a party loyalty so even if they know they’ll lose, they still run as Democrats because that’s their party. Or that Dem voters want to vote for a Democrat. Which, I mean, great, but I’d rather an Indie come within 5-10 then a Democrat guaranteed to lose by 20.
They can run completely on the Dem platform and have an I next to their name and still gets votes they couldn’t as a Democrat. I’d even go as far to say a more progressive I than Democrats are as a whole, would do better than a Democrat. It’s the I that gets the votes. That’s all that’s needed.
Or Kentucky, West Virginia or the Dakota's at this point. But it could work in Kansas and Nebraska, and in states like Utah, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, and Alaska. I think Tester might be doing better had he made a big deal of switching to independent, maybe piggybacking Sinema, and concern trolled about the Democratic party to signal to low education older ex Dem voters that he was still worth backing over a corporatist out of state hack like Sheehy. Democrats could create a whole, small caucus of these "Common Sense American Party" types.
NE Senate. Osborn internal has him up 50-44.
https://x.com/NenoNicolosio/status/1846164591237029916
And even if that 6% undecided all went to Fischer, which seems unlikely, that would make it a tied race.
Interesting if true.
Don’t believe it.
It's clearly a competitive race(the Republicans would not be spending money if it weren't)
I have no doubt that it's competitive but I also think the modeling of polls in Nebraska has to be nearly impossible given that it's been so long since they've had a competitive race. I hope to be wrong but my fear is that this race will track like both of the last two Oklahoma Governor races, where "tied" polls quickly yielded to double-digit Republican wins.
Why are you choosing those races to compare it to? Aside from them being red states they really don’t have much in common. Not to mention you’re comparing a federal election to a state election, and a race with no Dem to a traditional two party race.
I mean, if you’re going to do that, then why wouldn’t you compare it to a neighboring state, KS? The last two Governor races in KS showed competitive races which weren’t too far off from the final result, with the Dem winning of course. Yes, in 2022 the final result was closer than the final polls showed, but not so much that it pointed to a polling failure.
Editing to add that the Osborne campaign has also released polls showing Presidential and Sen Special numbers that are right where one would expect. If there is a fundamental polling error, which I don’t deny is possible, then it is specific to this race and the most likely explanation would be the presence of an Independent instead of a Dem, not any modeling issue due to a lack of recent competitive races.
You did dance around one good point in that Oklahoma and Nebraska might not be the best comparisons in terms of poll modeling because there are so many more former Democrats in Oklahoma compared to Nebraska whose current partisan allegiance would probably be harder for pollsters to pin down.
Kansas seems like a more natural comparison on the surface but since there have been multiple close races in the state in the last decade, pollsters' modeling is undoubtedly more refined. Kansas polling was way off in 2014 for the same reason I have my doubts as Nebraska polling in 2024....it'd been forever since the last close race there and the modeling was out of date. Since then, there have been two close gubernatorial races and a Senate seat on the periphery of competitiveness in 2020. Pollsters have been in the field there and have been able to update their models. When was the last time the same thing happened in Nebraska? Maybe 2012 when they dusted off Bob Kerrey and ran him again. And as you said, the polling of an independent candidate throws up even more ambiguity.
All speculation of course. I could be wrong. I hope I am. I'm not even plugged onto what I assume is a nagging question of who Osborn intends to caucus with. If it's the Democrats, I gotta figure that will cost him in the end.
FWIW, Nebraska's tied for the third-longest active streak of one party hitting at least 55% in every partisan statewide presidential-year race:
1) NY 1992 pres+sen
2) ID 1996 pres
3) NE 2000 sen, TN 2000 pres
NE-2 has been competitive for a decade and the polling has been reasonably close there. Sure, it’s much less rural than the rest of state, but data and experience from there can still be extrapolated. There’s always the possibility that the polls are off, but considering the response from the Fisher team and the numbers from other races that easily pass the sniff test and it seems like you’re having to dig pretty hard to support pre conceived notions in spite of all the data.
Clearly the Fischer campaign is scrambling around for messaging (imo they will resort to good old fashioned race baiting; the tried and true Republican tactic since Nixon)
Since Goldwater.
I’d be inclined to agree were it not for available polling showing Ricketts winning by about the margin you’d expect a GOP Senator to, on same tests as Osborn beating Fischer. So something specific to Osborn is happening where he’s winning over Ricketts voters.
Not that I think Osborn is going to win, mind
Misogyny might be good for a few critical percent in play here
If Deb Fischer's re-election is actually competitive, that implies that with the right candidate and strategy we could put any Senate race on the map.
I have said for decades now that Democrats can win almost any state federally (except in the Deep South) if:
They pull their candidate/s, have an independent run and secretly (not the whole DSCC is investing in x race or ActBlue donation links that would activate partisanship) support them with an innocent sounding or state centric pac. This is exactly what’s happening in NE-Sen.
Why we haven’t started doing this when we know Democrats can’t win these very red states federally drives me absolutely insane. It’s such a simple formula and it works! Get a Democrat or left/centrist indie to run as an Independent, not a Democrat. Boost behind the scenes. Makes it a way closer race than any D running and who knows, maybe they even win!
The only argument against doing so is that there’s a party loyalty so even if they know they’ll lose, they still run as Democrats because that’s their party. Or that Dem voters want to vote for a Democrat. Which, I mean, great, but I’d rather an Indie come within 5-10 then a Democrat guaranteed to lose by 20.
They can run completely on the Dem platform and have an I next to their name and still gets votes they couldn’t as a Democrat. I’d even go as far to say a more progressive I than Democrats are as a whole, would do better than a Democrat. It’s the I that gets the votes. That’s all that’s needed.
Not Wyoming, Idaho, Oklahoma, Arkansas...
Or Kentucky, West Virginia or the Dakota's at this point. But it could work in Kansas and Nebraska, and in states like Utah, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, and Alaska. I think Tester might be doing better had he made a big deal of switching to independent, maybe piggybacking Sinema, and concern trolled about the Democratic party to signal to low education older ex Dem voters that he was still worth backing over a corporatist out of state hack like Sheehy. Democrats could create a whole, small caucus of these "Common Sense American Party" types.
Missouri seems about on the edge of conceivable, but yes.