IтАЩm slowly becoming a believer. ThereтАЩs a lurker on here who works on the campaign, and sorry for not remembering your name, but you mentioned this race just before the site switch and then again soon after. Would really like to hear your thoughts now.
What really opened my eyes though was a late August poll which showed Osborne down 1, but Ricketts up 17 in the special. That mitigates any challenges to a polling error imo. Combined with increased spending for Fischer IтАЩm starting to re-think seats 50+. Originally it was MT>TX/FL>NE/MO but latest evidence seems to be TX>NE>FL/MT>MO. To use a betting analogy, IтАЩd put about even odds on a +52 Senate for either party at this point.
I am a gambler but I am staying away from betting on the Senate;(I am betting on Harris and a Democratic House); but, I can actually see a 50\50 Senate shaping up here, if Florida and Texas and Nebraska(!!) are truly in play; I know very little about Deb Fischer, but definitely Scott and Cruz are unpopular politicians, which brings me hope
Why would we want to hear from a campaign worker? Their job is to build up their candidate in order to make us donate to them and/or vote for them. They wonтАЩt give us any real answers.
Just because information comes from someone with a bias doesnтАЩt mean itтАЩs not true. I donтАЩt recall the level of involvement with the campaign, they could have been an enthusiastic volunteer, but they did draw attention to it before anyone else did and have, thus far, been correct.
Polls aside, I'm a believer if for no other reason than that we shouldn't concede any elections. Moreover, it's also a matter of reaching out to voters with a progressive platform, or at least an alternative to the toxicity that MAGAs offer. If folks like Osborn don't bother to reach out to these voters in places like Nebraska, then they will continue to be exposed only to disinformation and toxicity from the GOP and their corrupt allies, while Democrats continue to ignore and neglect them. Like with Lucas Kunce in Missouri, you have to start somewhere if you ever hope to reach out to voters.
Nebraska and Kansas have the ability to support liberal policies and conservative policies. Neither has gone nearly as insane as, e.g., Missouri - and even MO is showing signs of recovery. Moreover, if you just think back over (relatively) recent NE senators, you see Democrats who were certainly better from our perspective than replacement-level backbenchers like Fischer (Exon, Zorinsky, Kerrey) and even some Republicans who were the same (Hagel, and Sasse on many issues, at least early on). Fischer is pretty bland and has of course accomplished almost nothing; Nebraskans may be interested in a more ambitious Senate delegation than her and Ricketts.
Thanks. 400 LVs. Shows Trump up by 11.
Correct but can we really believe that NE-Senate?(I'd love it to be true, but damn, that's a lot of wishful thinking)
IтАЩm slowly becoming a believer. ThereтАЩs a lurker on here who works on the campaign, and sorry for not remembering your name, but you mentioned this race just before the site switch and then again soon after. Would really like to hear your thoughts now.
What really opened my eyes though was a late August poll which showed Osborne down 1, but Ricketts up 17 in the special. That mitigates any challenges to a polling error imo. Combined with increased spending for Fischer IтАЩm starting to re-think seats 50+. Originally it was MT>TX/FL>NE/MO but latest evidence seems to be TX>NE>FL/MT>MO. To use a betting analogy, IтАЩd put about even odds on a +52 Senate for either party at this point.
I am a gambler but I am staying away from betting on the Senate;(I am betting on Harris and a Democratic House); but, I can actually see a 50\50 Senate shaping up here, if Florida and Texas and Nebraska(!!) are truly in play; I know very little about Deb Fischer, but definitely Scott and Cruz are unpopular politicians, which brings me hope
Why would we want to hear from a campaign worker? Their job is to build up their candidate in order to make us donate to them and/or vote for them. They wonтАЩt give us any real answers.
Just because information comes from someone with a bias doesnтАЩt mean itтАЩs not true. I donтАЩt recall the level of involvement with the campaign, they could have been an enthusiastic volunteer, but they did draw attention to it before anyone else did and have, thus far, been correct.
Polls aside, I'm a believer if for no other reason than that we shouldn't concede any elections. Moreover, it's also a matter of reaching out to voters with a progressive platform, or at least an alternative to the toxicity that MAGAs offer. If folks like Osborn don't bother to reach out to these voters in places like Nebraska, then they will continue to be exposed only to disinformation and toxicity from the GOP and their corrupt allies, while Democrats continue to ignore and neglect them. Like with Lucas Kunce in Missouri, you have to start somewhere if you ever hope to reach out to voters.
I hope it's not a progressive platform, because if it is, it won't succeed in Nebraska.
Nebraska and Kansas have the ability to support liberal policies and conservative policies. Neither has gone nearly as insane as, e.g., Missouri - and even MO is showing signs of recovery. Moreover, if you just think back over (relatively) recent NE senators, you see Democrats who were certainly better from our perspective than replacement-level backbenchers like Fischer (Exon, Zorinsky, Kerrey) and even some Republicans who were the same (Hagel, and Sasse on many issues, at least early on). Fischer is pretty bland and has of course accomplished almost nothing; Nebraskans may be interested in a more ambitious Senate delegation than her and Ricketts.
All of the Democratic senators you mention were quite conservative for Democrats.
Even odds on 52 for the Democrats? That's very bold!