This bit of number-crunching from the post-Nate Silver NYT shows a couple of things: 

• Kay Hagan has tough, tough road ahead of her.
• Number-crunching without context is of limited value.

The voter-turnout analysis certainly looks grim for Hagan -- but the article ignores some key factors that might influence turnout.

Like, say, the long-running and highly-visible protest movement against the GOP regime in Raleigh, and the underlying ire upon which that movement is built. Hagan could well have a more motivated base in 2014 than is typical of off-year elections, and a sophisticated GOTV machine to activate it. 

Writer Nate Cohn seems to be looking at statistics in a vaccum (he also ignores factors like the extreme dysfunction of the NCDP, and the influence of outside money). The raw numbers tell a story, but they don't tell the whole story.

Comments

[Andrew Brod]

Here's a similarly pessimistic assessment of Hagan's chances.

[Fec]

Perhaps if you deigned to offend.

[Lex]

[[Hagan could well have a more motivated base in 2014 than is typical of off-year elections, and a sophisticated GOTV machine to activate it.]]

If she spends enough money the right way she can get a semblance of the latter, but the only way she gets the real deal is if she also has the former. But obtaining the former would require publicly embracing some of the ideals of the DFHs, and there's nothing in her background that says she's able, ready, and willing to do that. Indeed, I think she'd rather lose than do that.

I'd dearly love to be selling her short, but I don't think I am.