I'll gladly concede that there are many who are more astute politically speaking than I am, but I simply refuse to accept so-called prognostic polls unless they provide contextual analysis.
Zogby is a perfect example. Pre-2000 his were fairly highly regarded (some would say peerless). Something partisan happened to him and he simply has no credibility anymore. His polls are a joke.
Someone (LS?) posted a thread a while back that did what these bozos like Novak are supposed to be doing - analysis race by race with context. Not just "X" is favored over "Z" but why one would make that claim.
I guess what I'm saying is once again FR is ahead of the curve!
It was the Freepers who did it. I wish I could find the thread, but basically, we asked every one who was in the states where USA Today had races involving "vulnerable" seats to chime in. Almost none thought the seat in their state was as "vulnerable" as USA Today made it seem. The we had Freepers identify vulnerable DEM seats, and came up with a good 8-10 that were truly competitive, 3-5 that were in danger.
As I recall the comments:
the two CT seats were fairly safe, despite being in a blue state. These people (Johnston and Shays) each won pretty handily last time, and have hewed "center" ever since.
Hostetler in IN always seems to be "in trouble" and always pulls out squeakers.
Hayworth in AZ is not, and never has been, in trouble
Heather Wilson in NM has taken some "moderate/lib" stands that enrage conservatives, but will probably insulate her from a lot of NM indies.
There are a couple of Dem seats in NC that, as I recall, were up for grabs, and Melissa Bean in IL is thought to be toast.
Ney was one of the seats in the USA Today "watch" list, but my GOP sources tell me that if it's Padgett on the ballot, which it now appears it is, she will win. All other Republicans in OH are safe.