Saturday, November 3, 2012

Senate Update - Gut Feelings

I really don't have much new information, but my feelings about the overall state of turnout results in some movement in these percentages.

Here is my opinion on all 16 of the current Senate races I am following.
  • Nebraska 100% -  With GOP enthusiasm where I think it is, Kerrey has no chance of winning this race.  He was close in one poll, but that poll assumed Democrat enthusiasm that isn't there.
  • Indiana 50% - I still think Mourdock will win this, but there was a new poll that showed Donnely up 11.  I don't buy that poll, but it is enough to make me cautious.  So no change in this one.
  • Nevada 100% - Heller remains well ahead, even with Obama leading in the polls there.  This race is still over.
  • Wisconsin 90% - Romney is looking very strong in this state, and is confident of winning it.  That means Thompson will win too.  I'm raising these odds to 90%.
  • Montana 60% - No change here.
  • Massachusetts 60% - A new poll came out with Brown up 2.  I'm getting a lot more confident on this race, moving it up to 60% for now.
  • Virginia 80% - Romney is winning this state, no question about it.  Allen will win too.  I'm moving this up to 80%.
  • Florida 20% - I'm dropping this one to 20%.  Romney is running very strong, but Mack has run about the worst campaign I've ever seen.  He has no ads up.  The only way he wins is with a huge GOP turnout.
  • Ohio 75% - After looking deeply into Ohio yesterday, I think Mandel will win this race.  The polls are just not telling the true story, and Brown needs the early votes just like Obama does.  Those votes aren't there.
  • New Mexico 10% - No change, I think Wilson will lose.
  • North Dakota 90% - Moving this back up to 90%.  With GOP turnout, Berg will win this.
  • Missouri 60% - Similar to what is going on elsewhere, I think Akin will win this.  Romney holds a commanding lead in the polls, McCaskill is really disliked in the state, and the evangelicals are going to turn out.
  • Michigan 10% -  No polling, but I see no reason to believe Hoekstra can win.
  • Maine 10% - The Independent will win this race.  He could decide to caucus with the GOP, especially if it means being in the majority.
  • Pennsylvania 60% - New polling shows Romney and Smith ahead.  I think both will win this state given last weekend enthusiasm.  Romney going to Bucks County is a big deal.
  • Connecticut 20% - Dropping the odds to 20% here.  I'm seeing no evidence that McMahon is going to close the deal.  And she could end up with Dems and Independents voting against her to keep the Senate out of GOP hands.

Odds of at least a tie in Senate = 95.9%
Odds of winning the Senate = 89.1%

25 comments:

  1. >>Romney is running very strong, but Mack has run about the worst campaign I've ever seen. He has no ads up. The only way he wins is with a huge GOP turnout.<<

    Even worse than McCain '08? :-) How did Mack end up the nominee there? I've forgotten. I hope not finding a stronger candidate in a race we should win in that state doesn't come back to haunt us re: taking back the Senate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you miss the line "odds of taking the Senate, 89.1%"? *grin*

      Nelson started beating Mack like a red headed stepchild before he had even won the nomination, then Mack never responded to the negative ads. I haven't even seen one ad with Mack talking. He clearly isn't Rubio.

      The good news is that Nelson is an opportunist. Once Reid is no longer running the Senate, Nelson will go along with legislation to fix the economy.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I saw the 89.1%. I'm just trying not to get all happy and jinx things.

      Actually, Nelson strikes me as the sort who could be persuaded/bribed to change parties if the price was right.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  2. So, what about our chance of flipping Manchin afterwards? ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I actually wondered if Manchin would rather be a Republican when this is all done.

      Delete
  3. The idea that we could lose two easy Senate seats (and possibly not be able to repeal ObamaCare) over basically the same clumsy gaffe makes me sick to my stomach. After Akin, how could Mourdock have been so stupid?

    Note to conservatives: if a reporter asks an abortion question, just say you're pro-life and walk away.

    I think we will get at least 50 in the Senate, but the GOP needs to be better about recruiting quality candidates. We should have an easy 60 seats in the Senate purely because there's far more "red" states than blue states.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't be surprised if Akin did pull this out. I live in St. Louis. I got three calls the other day. Two robo-calls for Akin, one actual person for McCaskill (but it got disconnected, I had to *69 the number and traced it to the Missouri Dem headquarters). I have seen a few television ads for Akin too.
      Somewhere they finally admitted to themselves that Akin won the game of campaign chicken and he is getting support. They are acting like this is winnable and I've seen recent polls that resemble many Obama polls--McCaskill with sub-50 percent, Akin only a couple points behind.
      McCaskill is hated by many, and I can tell you guys that a lot of people will hold their nose (or act like they held it) and vote for Akin regardless of his dumb comments. I live in St. Louis city and the yard signs and stuff like that are almost all Democrat no matter what, so that is no help in prognosticating. At this point I would bet a tiny sum of money that Akin wins because I think his chances are decent. Maybe ten dollars? I'm not much of a gambler.

      Delete
  4. I agree with "unknown".. our lack of control of senate has been/would be due to a series of "own goals" .. angle, mcdonnel and now akin, murdouck... we need to exhibit some semblance of "realpolitik", politics is not always about purity of ideology :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Democrats are so much better about getting rid of loser politicians, they never would have let candidates like Sharon Angle or Christine O'Donnell blow easy Senate wins.

      The very first question Republican primary voters need to ask themselves is "Can this person actually win?" because ideological purity means nothing if you can't win. I really don't buy the idea that our biggest problem in the Senate is Republicans are too moderate, our biggest problem is Harry Reid is Majority Leader.

      Also, conservatives can't assume "this state is so Republican, we can nominate any extreme candidate we want",we've seen races in Missouri and Indiana have turned that theory on its head.

      Delete
    2. I meant O'Donnell ..thanks for catching that :)

      Delete
    3. I am an Asian American...and a staunch conservative and republican. However, most of my community leans democratic. Given their values - focus on family, community and faith - and behavior that is fiscally conservative.. they should be "natural" republicans. The same issues (except for illegal immigration) applies to hispanics. The only reason, these emerging and increasingly important ethnic groups are not leaning republican is because republican party is perceived to be more controlled by such ideological extremists. Republicans have to work hard to break this perceptions - with real action - otherwise, we cannot win elections when 75-80% of these emerging groups are voting democratic by default. I hope Romney - after his win - works hard on changing this perception...with policies and action.

      Delete
    4. Here's the problem with your argument. Marco Rubio.

      Or would you rather have Senator Crist?

      Delete
    5. Exactly Dave. A good candidate is a good candidate. They can win in places where the electorate isn't necessarily a perfect match for them.

      Delete
    6. I think the difference was, Marco Rubio was actually a quality candidate, in fact he was a better candidate than Crist. And Marco Rubio is hardly on the fringes of the Republican Party, in fact, I'm downright uncomfortable with his liberal positions on illegal immigration and Amnesty.

      I'm not making the case that we should always pick the more moderate Republican in the primary, but I can name about 5 Senate seats in the this cycle and the last that were easy "lay ups" that we've thrown away because of quixotic bids for purity, and almost all of them were killed because they held views that even many social conservatives would call extreme.

      It's a combination of viability and ideology that I look, but anyone with half a brain could have seen a mile away that Republicans like Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, Ken Buck, Todd Akin, etc were going to be tough sales when a more "reasonable" candidate could have been nominated and won and would have had 99% of the same voting record.

      Delete
    7. Bullshit. Have you forgotten 2004-2008 already? Apparently so. More importantly, Buck didn't lose because of his positions, but because he turned out to be crap under pressure. Ditto Akin, if he loses.

      And this is primary season/November 7 talk. Can it until Wednesday.

      Delete
    8. Ken Buck lost because of his position on abortion, he also held the "no rape exception" and proudly proclaimed on video.

      His Democrat opponent made it the cornerstone of his campaign. It worked.

      Delete
  5. Just an aside. It is never correct to say something like "the odds of event A occurring = 89.1%". We should say something like "The probability of event A occurring is 89.1%". If the probability of event A occurring is 89.1%, then the odds of event A occurring are about 8 to 1. The terms "odds of" and "probability of" are not interchangeable, despite the fact that we, lazily, tend to use the terms interchangeably.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Look at this from Cuyahoga County Ohio,

    http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/2012/2008_2012InHouseVotingDailyComparison.pdf

    Early voting off 14% from 2008. This seems like a very big deal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, it's a big deal. Obama banked about 200,000 votes from Cuyahoga in 2008. That's a loss of 30,000 votes from that count alone.

      Delete
  7. seems like a good proxy for the liberal urban centers. Everything points to a big win ..... except for the pesky state polls.

    What about the theory that these swing state voters are getting contacted so often by the O campaign and the pollsters that they simply say anything to get them off their back? "Yes I already voted for Obama!, click"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. State polls were Kerry's great hope in 2004 too.

      Delete
  8. Dave, do you have any blog stuff prepared for election night?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wilson is tied in the latest 46/46.
    The Abq. paper endorsed her.
    The downside is: Abq.--where 1/3 of vote in NM are cast--exceeded the early votes of 2008 by 19%. EV in Abq. went 66/34 for the JEF. Bush lost early voting there 51/47.
    We need a Bush turnout in NM to win--Romney wrote it off way too soon.

    ReplyDelete