>>So Nate Silver (who said that HRC was a shoo-in) says that the Senate is 6 to 1 to stay red and the House is 6 to 1 to turn blue.
>>
>>The HRC blooper excepted- quite an exception, I know- Nate has been spot on with his calls.
>>
>>Not a boring election, that's for sure.
>
>Aside from HRC he's been pretty accurate -- but perhaps the HRC thing was a sign of the times when it comes to these polls in the current environment. I think part of the flaw from the Trump election was that these polls did not accurately show how people were going to vote because many of those that voted for Trump did not want to admit it (understandable I suppose). Now the republican party seems to of gone off the wack-a-doodle deep end over the past couple of years so I bet that a lot of people that are going to vote for republicans won't want to admit it (again understandable).

The dems have plenty of wack-a-doodle's too.
I think it's less about party than it is about candidates.
Here in the NJ senate race, we're faced with a choice between two slime balls. No matter which lever I pull, I'll have to hold my nose.
Where the dems have fielded good candidates for previously guaranteed repub seats they're looking good.
In my local congressional district the long time incumbent repub is a hard working representative of all the people here.
I'll vote for the dem because that kind of entrenchment is not a good idea, but I think the repub will win because he's a better candidate than the dem.