A Mass Shooting In Texas County, Missouri: More Guns Are Needed!

"I remember thinking that I had to listen very carefully and remember everything because, if someone got shot, I would have to be a witness." 

Eight people in four different residences were killed in unincorporated Texas County, Missouri, last night and earlier this morning.  The shooter then killed himself.

Crime scene investigators gather, from Local Fox tv

Too Common            

These stories are unfortunately very common in these United States, even though eight people killed in a house-to-house shooting is somewhat extreme.

My first thoughts were:  Why do we have so many guns in this country?  And:  This is probably an area in which people have many guns.  The guy killed people in four different houses in rural Missouri.  What are the chances that there were NO GUNS in those four homes?  We don't know for sure, but if some of those people had guns, those guns did not protect them from this guy who was intent, for whatever reason, on killing people.

They were family.

OK:  It now appears that the people that were killed were COUSINS of the shooter. Good chance they allowed this man into their home... because they knew him. So how does having a gun (even if that gun is right by your side, loaded and ready) prevent a relative or a friend, someone you know, from walking into your home, engaging you in some kind of conversation, and then, without warning, pulling out a gun and shooting? We don't know the details yet, but it is unlikely that the victims saw this man as an intruder... He was family.

The Gun Nuts square off against the Gun Control people...

The short first comment to the MSN story made reasonable sense to me, as I felt the same way: 

Have we had enough of this? Or do you NRA nut jobs still want your guns?

Of course, her comment was answered by dozens who insist that these kinds of events show that we need MORE guns, and that somehow the more guns, the safer we will be:

News like this only reinforces why law abiding citizens should have the right to bear arms.  If you want to be an easy, vulnerable target, be my guest, but I like to be able to protect myself.

If this man walked into your house, would you want to be an NRA nut job and protect your family and self, or be as it appears you are and stand there and watch the person kill your family and then you. No offense, but I am glad your not the mother of my children or grand-children.

And then a barely legible comment claiming that more people were killed with hammers than assault weapons.  (That might be true... but we're talking about GUNS here, not necessarily assault weapons.  And I still don't believe that more people intent on inflicting harm on others did so with hammers vs. guns.)

up yours moron in 2010 more people were killed with hammers than assault rifles. Its horrible when it does but if you look at countries that have outlawed guns the rate of violent crimes has increased. We are a country of 300 t0 330 million with about 300 million guns yesterday 299,999,999 were not used in this act. As for reality I have my guns and I will use them in self defense or offense if the need arises. Bottom line if you don't' like it just post a sign on your house saying, " no nasty guns in this house ", see if that makes you sleep any better.

There's not much more to say about this polarizing issue. Few people who insist that guns make this a safer country will ever change their minds.  The people who believe that easy access to guns make this a more dangerous country will probably also not change their minds.

The bottom line to me is always this, however:  

Unless you have that gun loaded and right at your side at all times and you are a trained (and good) marksman, you will not be protected against an unexpected home invader.  

Unfortunately, if that gun is loaded and right at your side, there is a much better chance that you or a family member will die from some kind of gun accident. And if you are not a trained (and good) marksman, even if you manage to get that gun into firing position, you will probably not be able to either pull the trigger or shoot the intruder... if indeed you have the time to figure out if the intruder is really an intruder and not just your drunken neighbor who somehow accidentally blundered into your home in a boozy fog.

I know men with guns.

My father was an auxiliary (volunteer) policeman when we were kids.  He was required to undergo regular and vigorous training in the use of his gun to continue his work.  He always had a gun in the house.  As soon as he came off of duty, he'd empty it and lock it into its case.  He did not feel safe until that gun was unloaded and locked away.  Only then could he relax and tell us what went on while he was on duty.  

My husband was a Gunner's Mate in the military.  He owned guns during much of his life, and he was trained in their use.  He hasn't had guns in his home for a long time, and we have no guns here.  He had a few bad dreams from which he awoke...and found himself, still half asleep, with a gun in his hands, about to off an enemy that existed only in his nightmares.  He got rid of his guns.

Fun With a Gun    

The closest I ever came to a gun "event" was back in the 70's.  A few friends and I were out in the clubs (we were young), we met another group of young people, and decided, after the clubs closed, to go back to the apartment of one of the young women to continue partying.  The young woman had told us earlier that she had recently broken up with her boyfriend who was a cop.  What we didn't know is that he was still staying with her and hadn't moved out.

So when we came trooping in, loudly, about eight people, in the middle of the night, in various stages of intoxication, he was in the bedroom sleeping, with his gun on the coffee table in the living room.  We were stunned when he came screaming and storming out of the bedroom, not in a good humor.  Most of us scattered out the door; party over.....  but his drunken (ex) girlfriend picked up the gun and aimed it at him.   "I'm going to shoot you," she said.

The next half hour was spent with the cop and another friend talking her into putting down the gun, which she eventually did.  I remember sitting outside her door on the steps, in a still-slightly inebriated haze, thinking that I had to listen very carefully and remember everything because, if someone got shot, I would have to be a witness.  (We didn't call the cops because:   1. No cell phones back then and no access to the phone in the apartment. 2. The guy was a cop and there was some concern that he would get into trouble... or that our friend would get into trouble for threatening him with his gun.)  

So...  I don't like guns very much.  If people want them for target-shooting or even hunting, that's fine... But the idea that somehow you are going to save yourself or a family member if you have an arsenal in your living room is ..... silly.  And the idea that background checks or controls that keep mentally ill people from having firearms will somehow interfere with your right to be a member of "a well-regulated militia" is... absurd.

Meanwhile, eight more people are dead in Missouri.  

    

The "Left" and the "Right": Living in Two Different Realities

Two Different Realities?

I know that some people attempt to purge their pages and friends lists of conservative/radical Republican/Libertarian types, but I think it is important to know what these conservative and libertarian people are thinking and talking about -- as long as they are not insulting or annoyingly repetitive. 

Unfortunately, it often seems as if we live in two different realties, perhaps even two parallel universes. To be honest, most of the stuff I find shared by my right-leaning friends from rightie blogs and news outlets is incomplete, misleading, oversimplified and/or outright wrong. But a glance through something like the Washington Examiner or a blog like "The GOP Daily Dose" is like taking a walk in a nightmarish hell that doesn't fit the reality in which most of us live. 

Found HERE.  I lightened the image so that the people cheering their Fearless Leader were more obvious.

It's easy to say that all of this is foolishness and it should be ignored by better-informed people, but millions of people believe the stuff that these right-leaning blogs spout.  They accept these writings and memes at face value and don't bother to even follow links or do some basic investigation.

And, of course, the rightie press and media has done such a complete job villainizing President Obama that those who "lean right" accept, without a second thought, anything that portrays the President as either an "incompetent who spends most of his time playing golf" or a totalitarian Big Brother.

Let's take the image above, found at a right-leaning blog HERE. It took me a lot of searching to try to put the whole story together, and I'm still investigating.

Now, there are two different stories here: 

The first is the absolute disconnect between the articles that Democrats/progressives/liberals post and publish and the articles that Republicans/righties/libertarians post and publish.  If you look at stories coming across your Facebook newsfeed from right-leaning friends or you look at articles on these right-leaning blogs and news venues, you won't even recognize that these right-wing authors are writing about the same issues in the same country.

The second is the story about the Federal Election Commission and what it is actually trying to do or not do.  Whether you agree with the Democrats or the Republicans on the FEC (and it is always an evenly divided commission in an attempt to be non-partisan), it should be ultimately clear that this is not about some kind of tyrant Big Brother Obama keeping people from reading whatever it is they want to read on the Internet-- Nor is it about Big Brother Obama getting ready to round up people who don't agree with the "Government" into some of those non-existent FEMA camps that some on the right like to promote.

I'm going to publish this article now, encouraging people to actually spend a few minutes (if you haven't recently done so-- and only if you have the stomach for it) looking at the articles published in right-leaning venues.  It's an important first step in understanding why our country is so divided.. and so divided on EVERYTHING, every issue it seems, more so than in the past.

Free Speech or Oligarchy?

Meanwhile, I'll track down the issues involved in the FEC controversy...  The Democrats on the FEC want to do SOMETHING to protect our democracy; while the Republicans on the FEC rail about "free speech" and feel that any kind of restrictions on the Fat Cats may interfere with our rights to "Free Speech".

How has the takeover of our democracy by the richest among us turned into an argument about "Free Speech"? Just ponder that for a minute or two or more.

And, for the record, I'm not getting a penny from anybody, right, left, or middle, to write this blog.  I do make some money from the ads and that's it.          

Congratulations Non-Voters Who Believe That "Both Parties are the Same"!

Found somewhere on Facebook.. I'll be happy to credit this if I can find the original.

On the occasion of the first week of the new, completely Republican Congress (January 2015):

In the first week of the new, completely Republican congress:

The Republicans Attack Social Security

On Day #1 of the new Congress:

(First written early January 2015.  Updated late April 2015.  See note at bottom of page.) 

While many of us were occupied by the horrendous terrorist attacks in France:
 

...The Republicans made a move that will hurt the disabled and the elderly more than any terrorist attack: They are playing games with Social Security that could result in an average cut of about $250/month to disabled former workers who now depend on Social Security (SSDI) starting sometime next year.

The Trust Fund for SSDI (not the Trust Fund for regular Social Security) will be emptied by the end of next year.  What has happened before when one of the Social Security Trust Funds has been emptied is that benefits have been paid from the other fund until the funds have been recouped.  This has happened almost automatically several times in the past without causing any recipient consternation or sleepless nights.  The Republican Congress passed a regulation to disallow this; you know, "fiscal responsibility", etc.   

Now that decrease of $250/month may be the difference between medications and no medications, between eating adequately and not eating, between keeping a decent roof over their heads and losing their homes or apartments.

It's YOUR fault!

Let's not forget Republican thinking: If you haven't been able to save enough for retirement and you need Social Security to live, it is YOUR FAULT and you deserve to live in abject poverty in a hovel.

If you haven't been able to save enough for retirement because you became disabled sometime before you retired, it is YOUR FAULT and you deserve to live in a hovel in abject poverty while you are disabled.  They've also been successful in some circles with promoting the idea that most disabled people are collecting fraudulently.  It's a long, hard process to get SSDI, as anyone who has had to turn to this program knows,-- despite what Republicans and Fox News try to tell us.

A scary portent of what is to come:

This should be very disturbing and frightening indeed for any of us who are (or soon will be) living on SS or SSDI and have very few additional resources.

Update 4/27/2015:  No update actually.  This is the way things stand.  This is not a bill; it is a change in a regulation pertaining to Social Security over which Congress has authority.  As a result, the Democrats cannot block this nor can President Obama veto it.  I have heard nothing about this for months now; no movement on it, no complaints about it.  It will stand until the last minute before it is to go into effect and then become an issue in the 2016 campaigns.  Meanwhile people living on SSDI are going to experience unnecessary misery and anxiety.   Thanks Republicans in Congress!

Ebola! ISIS! And the United States Senate..

What Really Cost the Democrats the Senate?

People are finger-pointing and complaining, complaining, and complaining MORE; threatening to leave the Democrats (as if to teach those Democrats a lesson... while THEY wind up suffering under Republican control, which is what happened in 2000.)  The abysmal voter turnout was a huge factor, of course.  But why was the voter turnout so abysmal?  

But I've been looking at poll numbers over the past few weeks until my eyes are ready to fall out of my head... After reading dozens of articles on the election results, I STILL believe the BIGGEST (but not only) factor in the Democratic loss of the Senate was the sensationalism of the ISIS and the Ebola crises.  These twin crises pushed the Republicans over the top to control of the Senate. 

From a cartoon copyright Lalo Alcaraz.  Found on Facebook

I

The Blithering Fool Ledger: Allen West Is Lying To You

The Blithering Fool Ledger:

Every day it is something else with these right wing people, and some are more idiotic than others.

Allen West found at ThinkProgress.org

A photo meme came across my newsfeed from a right-leaning friend based on a recent pronouncement by right wing nutjob Allen West.  It's a couple of weeks old, but still relevant.  West disparages Obama as a "charlatan" who has "ordered our military to enlist illegal aliens."

The garbage, found on Allen West's Facebook page, states:

"In other words, this charlatan has allowed those who have disrespected our Constitution and are not citizens to take an oath to support and defend the very document, our rule of law, of which they are in violation. Obama has no constitutional authority to make any laws or rules concerning naturalization as stated in Art I Sect 8 Clause 4. This is an... illegal order and should not be followed by our Military. As well, we are pink-slipping men and women in uniform, Americans, and Obama wants to enlist illegals. We are already outsourcing our national security to Syrian Islamists. This is intolerable and just another reason why we must flip the Senate and begin to reverse Obama's tyranny. Any Democrat supporting this illegal order needs to be voted out!"

71,000 people liked this comment on his FB page. 
71,000. 

76,000 people shared his idiocy. 
76,000. 

17,000 people commented. 
17,000. 

Except that his pronouncement isn't true. I'm not going to get into what IS true; you can read that at Snopes or at Politicususa. The article by Justin Baragona at PoliticusUsa is particularly informative.

Unfortunately the forces against intelligence and wisdom and reason in this country are very strong indeed.  The person sharing this is a good friend of mine, someone I respect, someone I worked with for years.  But there he is, sharing stuff from Allen West.

Here's a sample of what we are up against, written by a woman who replied to that lying Facebook post by West:

"I am totally baffled at how he (Obama) continues to disregard not only our constitution but our laws and I hear you speak out, Thankfully and on occasion a couple republicans. The R seem to just sit back too and do not scream loud enough. I am embarrassed at how he disrespects this country with everything he does. I have so much contempt for him It makes me ill. This woman, Nurse and American wants him thrown out on his head."

Interesting.  The woman writing that comment thinks that the Republicans do not "scream loud enough".

Sigh. Allen West is lying to you, you blithering rightie fools. He's probably making money off of you so that he can avoid getting a regular day job to pay his bills. Sigh again.

Can the Democrats Keep the Senate? (Summary, Tuesday Morning, Election Day, November 4)

It's still possible for the Democrats to hang on to the Senate.. by the skin of their teeth.  There are several races that are too close to call, just one or two points STILL separating the candidates.  

The paths for the Democrats to maintain control of the Senate do seem to be getting tougher as the election looms closer and closer.  Follow this column; as I check in with all of the major poll aggregators every day and aggregate their aggregations so you don't have to!

(Note:  I will update this article one more time, tomorrow morning, Election Day, November 4th, with any last minute polls or changes.  Latest information and changes will be marked in red with the word "UPDATE.")

*UPDATE Tuesday morning* This will be my last update of this article.  I'm not going to get into the exit polls or any last minute polls that may be released today (not sure if there will be.)  I will, however, mention the last aggregator projections.  Nate Silver's Blog 538 gives the Republicans a 76.2% chance of taking the Senate.  Sam Wang's Princeton Election Consortium believes the Dems will wind up with a caucus of 48 while the Repubs wind up with a caucus of 52.  Huffpost Pollster believes there is a 79% chance for the Republicans to take the Senate.  The New York Times gives the Republicans a 70% chance to win.  

Remember, however, that 5 races are crucial.  The Democrats lead in two of them, and the other three are in reach.  If you live in or have friends or family in North Carolina, New Hampshire, Alaska, Colorado, or Iowa, your vote is absolutely crucial!

Good luck, everybody.. and good luck to the United States of America!    

*UPDATE Monday afternoon*  Yes, hope does remain for the Democrats, and, because of runoff provisions in two states, we may not know who controls the Senate for weeks.  However, the poll aggregators believe that the Republicans have a 70% to 73% chance of taking the Senate. That means that the Democrats' chances of keeping the Senate are 30% or less.  But that doesn't mean that the Democrats have NO chance of keeping the Senate.

SIX states are polling within the 3 points generally considered as the margin of error:   Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina.   Only two of those tossup states are leaning towards the Democrats now, that is, New Hampshire and North Carolina. Two states, Georgia and Louisiana, are probably headed for a runoff as nobody will get 50%. 

The Democrats need five of those six states to keep the Senate.  OR they need four of those six states AND the Independent in Kansas to win and caucus with the Democrats (not sure how likely that is.)

The BEST ROUTE for the Democrats to keep the Senate is to win in New Hampshire and North Carolina, the two states in which they are ahead, and to pull out wins in Alaska, Colorado, and Iowa.  That avoids the problems of the runoff states and it does not depend on the outcome of the race in Kansas between the Independent and a Republican (see below).   

There were a few more polls this weekend in crucial states, both good and bad.  Alaska's latest polls seem to push the Democratic incumbent farther back, but there is some hope in Iowa and Colorado.   New Hampshire and North Carolina are holding for the Democrats.  Kansas is holding for the Independent; however, he said that he is going to caucus with the majority, so a win for the Independent may be meaningless unless the Democrats can manage to hold on to 4 to 5 toss up races.  It's unclear who he will caucus with if he is the Senator who decides the majority.  He's from Kansas; not good for the Democrats.

(The Republican candidates in Iowa and North Carolina are considered extreme by the Right Wing Watch HERE.)

Colorado is showing a bit of strength, but Kentucky seems fairly far behind.  Some aggregators and news sources have moved Kentucky and Arkansas out of the "Toss-up" list and onto the "Lean Republican" list.

Kentucky is important, however, because it is SO symbolic.  But Grimes is 5-10 points behind McConnell, and that gap is simply not closing.  Not one poll in the past two weeks has shown Grimes winning, and all polls show her falling farther behind McConnell.  That's really a shame.       

Right now the aggregators are STILL projecting 51 or 52 Republicans in the Senate and 48 or 49 Democrats or Independents.  This hasn't changed in a week.

Sunday, Nov 2:  From Nate Silver's 538 Blog HERE The chance of Republicans vs. Democrats to control the Senate.  The chance of the Republicans retaining the Senate has increased the past few days.  There is less time left before the election with no real change in any of the polls to show increased support for the Democrats who are in toss-up races.

For comparison:  This is the way the above chart looked on Friday, Oct 24.  Compare this with current projections above.

First a word about polls:

Any one poll can be off.. It makes no sense to pay any attention to polls unless they are 1) recent 2) weighted, as some polls are more reliable and neutral than others. The poll aggregators, Sam Wang, Nate Silver, Real Clear Politics, and Huff Pollster, all try to do this.  I'm merely summarizing the aggregators for those who don't want to plow through the poll numbers on four different sites every morning and evening.  I'm going to be updating this column every day or two between now and the election, every time there are new polls or new news.  So.. my interpretation of the latest polls and poll aggregations is below Sam Wang's graph.


Sam Wang and Princeton:

Sam Wang is an important and well-known aggregator, working out of Princeton.  As he doesn't look at specific Senate seats, I haven't mentioned his predictions, though I've been checking them everyday.  I've decided to include his latest Senate graph starting today.  He showed the Democrats as EXTREMELY close to the Republicans just a few days ago, but notice how closely the black line on his graph has trailed off the past week:

Sam Wang's Senate graph as of November 1, 2014.  Found HERE 

Fascinating article about Latino voters and their possible effect both on these elections and on polls in general.  From the article at Huffington Post:

Including Colorado, there are six states in which the Latino share of the eligible electorate is larger than the current polling margin between the two candidates: Colorado, Kansas, Alaska, Georgia, North Carolina and Iowa.

Hmmmm.... notice any similarity between this list and the list of Democratic target races? 

As of mid-October there were 12 CLOSE races.

The Democrats have two ways to keep the Senate: 1) To WIN SIX (6) of these close races, 2) Or to WIN FIVE (5) of these close races and have the INDEPENDENT in Kansas who is running against the Republican candidate WIN and CAUCUS with the Democrats.  ALL of these closely contested races (except the New Hampshire race) are in RED or PURPLE states.  The Republicans must win SEVEN (7) of these close races.

Now, one of these races is a fairly confident Democratic victory; that is, Gary Peters in MICHIGAN.  Peters is pulling away from his Republican opponent in recent polls and that race is not even in the "toss up" column any more.  He was up only about 5% two weeks ago; now he is up around 10%.  One of these races is a fairly confident Republican victory; that is, the three way race in SOUTH DAKOTA.  However, the scandal that erupted in South Dakota a week ago does not seem to have impacted this Senate race at all, which is disturbing. 

So... can the Democrats win five of these other ten races? About 7 of these races are STILL within 3-4 points of each other with only 5 days left until the election.

Here's the blow-by-blow of the ten races that were close as of mid-October:

ALASKA: *UPDATE Monday afternoon* The Republican challenger, Dan Sullivan, seems to be back in front.  Last weekend, polls seemed to indicate that the Democratic incumbent, Mark Begich, was making inroads with polls showing him up by 6-10 points.  But two of the last three polls show Sullivan again ahead by 2-4 points.  BUT..  one of these polls-- Moore-- is a poll commissioned by Republicans, and the other is Rasmussen, which always leans right in its polling.  The third recent poll, PPP, a Democratic poll, shows Begich up by 1 point.

The aggregators have Sullivan with a 66% to 72% chance of winning that Senate seat, with 2 to 4% more votes than Begich.  But this race is still anybody's race, considering the closeness of the polls and the sources of some of them.    

More about Alaska:  As was mentioned last week, there was a scandal that recently came to light about the Republican challenger Dan Sullivan.  You can read about it here at the Daily Kos.  Not sure how it will play with the people in Alaska or if any of the switch in these recent polls have anything to do with this scandal.  And here's an interesting article about the election in Alaska, published back at the beginning of October, that highlights the "on the ground" efforts, particularly in the Native American and remote villages. 

ARKANSAS: *UPDATE Monday* The Republican Tom Cotton is leading incumbent Democrat Mark Pryor by several points.  Most of the polls released in the last two weeks show Cotton leading Pryor with his lead increasing. The aggregators now have Pryor losing by 5-13 points, with a 69 to 91% chance of this seat going to the Republican.  Several pollsters have re-classified Arkansas from "Toss up" to "Leaning Republican".  However, one new poll was released Sunday (yesterday) which shows Pryor actually ahead of Cotton by 1 point.  As this poll was commissioned by Democrats and differs so from the other polls, it may be an outlier without any real significance.  I'm not counting on Arkansas in the Democrat's efforts to hang on to the Senate. 

COLORADO: *UPDATE Monday afternoon* Seven polls have been released in the past week.  One of those polls is a tie between the Democratic incumbent Tom Udall; in the other six, the Republican Cory Gardner was ahead by 1 to 7 points.  Most of the polls showed Gardner ahead by 2 or 3 points.  That would indicate that this state is still a tossup, though the advantage is clearly held by the Republican.

Even though the aggregators are calling this race for Gardner by about 2 points and they are giving Gardner a 66% to 81% chance of winning, this is still a toss up.  Don't count Udall out!   

GEORGIA: *UPDATE: Monday*  The Democratic candidate, Michelle Nunn, was leading by a hair last week, but now it appears that her Republican opponent, David Perdue, is leading by a couple of hairs.

Ten polls have been released within the last week.  Seven of those polls show Perdue up by 2 to 8 points, three have them tied.  All aggregators now have the Republican David Perdue ahead by 1 to 3.2 points, within the range of error.  Still anybody's race.  The aggregators also say that Perdue has a 63 to 74% of beating Nunn and about a 70% of ultimately winning that Senate seat after the runoff.

Another complicating factor is Georgia's runoff system:  Unless a candidate gets 50%, there will be a runoff.  There is a very good chance that there will be a runoff with a libertarian candidate Amanda Swafford polling 3-4%.  If those 3-4% break for Perdue in the runoff, that could be a big problem for the Democrats.    

IOWA: *UPDATE Monday*  This race continues to be extremely close, but the Republican Joni Ernst has the momentum. The most recent poll, from the DesMoines Register, shows the Republican Ernst up by 7 points, but it may be somewhat of an outlier, as all the other 9 recent polls in Iowa show a very, very close race with either a tie or a 1-2 point difference between the Republican Ernst and the Democrat Bruce Braley.  The Democrat Bruce Braley could certainly win this one with a good Democratic turnout, but the momentum is with the Republican right now.  

Now Ernst is considered an extremist, not a "regular" Republican (if there are any of them left); it would be great if more than a few Iowans started to realize that.  Brian Tashman at Right Wing Watch names Ernst as one of two potential Senators among the "Five Extreme GOP Candidates Who could be heading to Congress".

The aggregators have Ernst ahead by 1 to 2%, and they are giving her a 57 to 69% chance of winning, but this race is still a tossup. 

KANSAS: *UPDATE Monday* This is the race in which the Democratic candidate pulled out in favor of the Independent Greg Orman. I don't know much about the Independent, but if this man could beat the Republican Pat Roberts AND caucus with the Democrats, this would be very good for the Dems in the Senate indeed. Of course, what kind of concessions might this Independent want to support Democratic legislation?  This race continues to be a dead heat.  There seemed to be a swing to the Independent Orman over the past week, but recent polls are split between Orman and Roberts in the lead.  The most recent polls gives the edge to the Republican Roberts.  

The aggregators are split on this one; one has this race in the Independent column, three feel the race is dead even.

KENTUCKY:  *UPDATE Sunday 11/2* We all desperately want Alison Lundergan Grimes to beat turtle man Mitch McConnell, but she continues to be behind. The latest poll shows her 6-8 points behind.

I am hoping and praying that this race will be closer than it looks... 11 polls, going back to the first week of October, all of which show Grimes trailing by 1 to 9 points.  Even the Democratic-leaning PPP poll has her down by 8 points. 

Kentucky is a red state, only a touch of Blue..   This is one thing that the Republican sympathizers are forgetting... Most of these tight, heavy-duty Senate battles are in red or red-purple states; it's not surprising that the Democrats are struggling.  But if Grimes comes within 2-3 points of McConnell, the Republicans should start to worry.. It means that the Democrats ARE making headway in red/red-purple Kentucky.  

It would be great if Grimes could pull out a win.  That would really be an upset!  But she and the Democrats definitely have an uphill climb here.  I'm not counting this race as crucial for control of the Senate.  No momentum for Grimes.

The aggregators have Grimes down by 5-8% and they give McConnell an 82 to a 97% chance of keeping his seat. 

LOUISIANA:  *UPDATE Sunday 10/26* The Republican Bill Cassidy seems to be pulling away from long-time Democratic incumbent Mary Landrieu. The latest poll confirms previous polls in October, with the Republican up by about 4 points.  The recent polls do show the gap getting larger over the past month.

Can the Dems really close this gap?  Seems like a long shot.  Louisiana is another state which will hold a runoff if nobody gets more than 50% of the vote, but this shouldn't be as crucial to the Democrats maintaining control of the Senate as it will be in Georgia.  *UPDATE Monday afternoon*  There is no change in this race that would indicate any momentum on the part of Mary Landrieu.  All recent polls still show the Republican Bill Cassidy ahead by about 1-8 points.  However, Louisiana is a runoff state.  If no candidate gets 50% of the vote (which is highly unlikely), the two top candidates will runoff in December.  That means that Landrieu will likely meet Cassidy in the runoff, but when she is polled against only Cassidy, she loses by about 4%. 

NEW HAMPSHIRE: *UPDATE Monday afternoon*  Incumbent Democrat Jeanne Shaheen seems to be hanging on to a slim 1-3 point lead over carpetbagger Scott Brown. Not a big lead, but a solid lead, and she is ahead in 3 out of 6 new polls this week.  Those three polls show Shaheen ahead by 2 to 7 points.  In the other polls, she is tied in one, behind by 1 point in one poll, and behind by 4 points in a Republican poll, which actually weights to a +1 for Shaheen by Nate Silver's blog.  Why in the world New Hampshire would show so much support for Brown, who was the Senator from Massachusetts a few years back, is anyone's guess.

The aggregators continue to give Shaheen a 62 to 82% chance of beating Brown, but this is still a very tight race.   

NORTH CAROLINA: *UPDATE Monday afternoon*  The Democrat Kay Hagan had a fairly strong advantage in this race, but the recent polls show her just slightly ahead of challenger Thom Tillis or tied.  Hagan's lead was as much as 5-10 points back in September.

But there have been 9 polls in the past week, and all of them except the two polls commissioned by Republicans show Hagan ahead, but by only 1-3 points.  The "aggregators" all have Hagan up by .7 to 2 points, with a 56 to 74% chance of holding on to her Senate seat for the Democrats.  This is a must win seat for the Democrats.  Let's just hope that holds.  Tillis is another potential Senator highlighted as one of the extreme GOP candidates by Brian Tashman at Right Wing Watch HERE.

To Summarize:

The best chance for the Democrats is to win NEW HAMPSHIRE and NORTH CAROLINA and IOWA, COLORADO,  and ALASKA.  Remember that I said the BEST path, not the only path.  

Even though the Ebola fear seems to have abated somewhat due to prompt treatment and prompt protocols by the CDC, all of the Democrats are continuing to struggle.  Somehow the brainwashed public blames the President and the Democrats for anything that happens that is fearful.

I just came across THIS article written a couple of days ago by Steve Lesser.. He also talks about the way that the Democrats may keep the Senate.. and he gets into races for the governors as well.  Well worth a trip over to Steve's blog as he interprets and integrates some info that I don't get into.