- in texas, the democatic candidate has refused to criticize fossil fuel development or refuse money from oil companies. as a leftist, i would not vote for the democratic candidate if i lived in texas.
- in kansas, the democrats are running a bigoted christian pastor that thinks non-christians are all going to hell. as a leftist, i would not vote for the democratic candidate in kansas.
- in iowa, they democrats are actually running transphobic ads on tv and the republican candidate is clerly the less conservative option. if i was in iowa, i would vote for the republican candidate, because she's less conservative - because i'm a leftist.
- in michigan, they're running a muslim with a history of supporting right-wing social policies and extreme right, fascist groups in the middle east. if i was in michigan, i would not vote for the democratic candidate, as a leftist.
these aren't left-wing political candidates. they're on the moderate right to the far right.
i will reiterate that the data does not support the idea of a democratic "blue wave", which is an idea that is nonsensical in the american political system. the data says that a republican hold is overwhelmingly likely. an extremely good night for the democrats would be a two seat pickup.
however, if the democrats manage to win these seats - and you should not listen to nate silver. he's always wrong about everything. why does the media keep quoting this guy? he has the worst track record in polling that i've ever seen. his model sucks. you'd be better off asking a poli sci major. i've spent hours correcting him, debunking him and ripping him apart in this space - it's not reflective of some political shift to the left, it's because the democrats are moving hard to the right and picking up issues of concern to far right voters.
the senate election is not a single national election for one candidate. trump is almost irrelevant. the senate election is a series of independent experiments taking place in isolation of each other. the polling (which is low quality across the board. don't accept the label "high quality polling". that's right out of orwell.) does not support the projection that several unlikely to very unlikely events will happen at the same time.
when media messaging all focuses on a handful of talking points - which is what the democratic media s doing - it suggests an attempt to control a message and manufacture a narrative. that's actually a voter suppression tactic. what democratic media appears to be doing in projecting a landslide is attempting to suppress the vote. it's not based in reality, polling or science - it's nonsense, projection, faith and magical thinking.