Am I better at this than the experts? At least I'll commit to each race. No toss-ups. You're always right (and wrong) if you pick it a toss-up.
Democratic to Republican (59 seats)
Arizona 1
Arizona 5
Arkansas 1
Arkansas 2
California 11
California 20
Colorado 3
Colorado 4
Florida 2
Florida 22
Florida 24
Florida 8
Georgia 2
Georgia 8
Illinois 11
Illinois 14
Illinois 17
Indiana 8
Indiana 9
Kansas 3
Louisiana 3
Maine 1
Maryland 1
Michigan 1
Mississippi 1
Nevada 3
New Hampshire 1
New Jersey 3
New Mexico 2
New York 19
New York 20
New York 29
North Carolina 2
North Carolina 8
North Dakota
Ohio 1
Ohio 15
Ohio 16
Ohio 18
Oregon 5
Pennsylvania 10
Pennsylvania 11
Pennsylvania 3
Pennsylvania 7
Pennsylvania 8
South Carolina 5
South Dakota
Tennessee 4
Tennessee 6
Tennessee 8
Texas 17
Texas 23
Virginia 11
Virginia 2
Virginia 5
Washington 3
West Virginia 1
Wisconsin 7
Wisconsin 8
Republican to Democratic (4 seats)
Delaware
Hawaii 1
Illinois 10
Louisiana 2
Net: 55 seats
Republicans: 234
Democrats: 201
The following is a list of 20 seats that'll flip is it's a big tsunami. I'm not hedging my bet. The picks are the picks. But if 5 of my next 10 flip I think I deserve credit. If it's #5, #11, and #19 I don't.
1. Mississippi 4
2. New Hampshire 2
3. Colorado 7
4. Arizona 8
5. Michigan 7
6. Connecticut 4
7. Connecticut 5
8. Alabama 2
9. Massachusetts 10
10. New York 23
11. Washington 9
12. Michigan 9
13. Ohio 6
14. Illinois 8
15. Virginia 09
16. Mississippi 2
17. Minnesota 1
18. Minnesota 8
19. New York 24
20. North Carolina 7
That'd be a 79 seat gain. It's possible Republicans could pick up seats not on this 79. All the forecasters have more seats than I do that are "Lean Democratic" or better. Real Clear Politics lists 135 Democratic seats potentially in play. I'll stick with my list.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Chaffetz Gets It
I want to give an enormous shout out to Jason Chaffetz. I had the pleasure of meeting Jason before he was elected and again after he made it to Washington. I find him earnest and principled. There is a sentiment from the base that "you don't work with Democrats. You run them over." Of course this is the attitude the Democrats had with Republicans. And we see how well that worked for them.
Democrats blame Republicans for obstructionism, when there were few pieces of legislation the Democrats were actually prevented from passing. The most glaring one, climate change, wasn't even obstructed by the Republicans. The Democrats never introduced the bill in the senate. When the Democrats wanted to pass a bill it wasn't that hard to pick off a Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, George Voinovich, Susan Collins, or Kit Bond. The Democrats wrote the legislation in the back room and then were surprised when it was their own party that obstructed the bill.
No matter how many Republicans get elected Tuesday there will be over 200 Democrats in the House and Senate. All of them will have been elected too. We won't win on Tuesday. We'll win more than we lose. If you want to win independents you have to work with the other party. Republicans need to lead, but that doesn't mean exclude the other guys. The Democrats might have a few meaningful things to add to a bill.
The 90's were a good time because we had a smart effective Republican congress that worked with a Democratic President. America kept the Republicans in the majority until they forgot that's what they were supposed to do. So let's introduce bills in committee, have debate, and hearings. Let's listen to both sides, give a little and get a little. I know we can make Republicans bills that can get Democratic votes and Obama will sign. Sure, we should push Obama and make him veto some legislation, but only after we've got some wins to show America what Republicans can do.
Democrats blame Republicans for obstructionism, when there were few pieces of legislation the Democrats were actually prevented from passing. The most glaring one, climate change, wasn't even obstructed by the Republicans. The Democrats never introduced the bill in the senate. When the Democrats wanted to pass a bill it wasn't that hard to pick off a Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, George Voinovich, Susan Collins, or Kit Bond. The Democrats wrote the legislation in the back room and then were surprised when it was their own party that obstructed the bill.
No matter how many Republicans get elected Tuesday there will be over 200 Democrats in the House and Senate. All of them will have been elected too. We won't win on Tuesday. We'll win more than we lose. If you want to win independents you have to work with the other party. Republicans need to lead, but that doesn't mean exclude the other guys. The Democrats might have a few meaningful things to add to a bill.
The 90's were a good time because we had a smart effective Republican congress that worked with a Democratic President. America kept the Republicans in the majority until they forgot that's what they were supposed to do. So let's introduce bills in committee, have debate, and hearings. Let's listen to both sides, give a little and get a little. I know we can make Republicans bills that can get Democratic votes and Obama will sign. Sure, we should push Obama and make him veto some legislation, but only after we've got some wins to show America what Republicans can do.
How The House Breaks
Nate Silver suggests it's possible that races could break two points for Democrats and they might not lose the House. A week ago I looked at the results of the expert predictions, showing when the pollsters predict a toss-up the races split and don't go one way or the other.
Since Monday independent pollsters have released 17 House races polled within 4 points. These races could go either way. In 2006 and 2008 Republicans won 31 races by 5 points or less. Democrats won 34. It's certainly possible that where that center is could move a point or two in one direction or another, but it's likely that the two sides will split the toss-ups.
A simple way to look at the forecasts would be to say Republicans win all the races that the forecasters have leaning GOP, lose all the races that are leaning Democratic and split the toss-ups. If that were to happen, Larry Sabato, Stu Rothenberg, Charlie Cook, and CQ Politics would all have 41-43 Republican gains. Real Clear Politics would have 62. Of course you should expect the Republicans will win a few Lean Democratic seats and the Democrats will win a few Lean Republican. That'd make Republican gains bigger. Right now I see a Republican 233 Democratic 202 split based on my formula. Nate Silver has 231-204. While I really think it'll be 225-227 I'm probably being cautious.
Since Monday independent pollsters have released 17 House races polled within 4 points. These races could go either way. In 2006 and 2008 Republicans won 31 races by 5 points or less. Democrats won 34. It's certainly possible that where that center is could move a point or two in one direction or another, but it's likely that the two sides will split the toss-ups.
A simple way to look at the forecasts would be to say Republicans win all the races that the forecasters have leaning GOP, lose all the races that are leaning Democratic and split the toss-ups. If that were to happen, Larry Sabato, Stu Rothenberg, Charlie Cook, and CQ Politics would all have 41-43 Republican gains. Real Clear Politics would have 62. Of course you should expect the Republicans will win a few Lean Democratic seats and the Democrats will win a few Lean Republican. That'd make Republican gains bigger. Right now I see a Republican 233 Democratic 202 split based on my formula. Nate Silver has 231-204. While I really think it'll be 225-227 I'm probably being cautious.
Senate Predictions
I can make most of these now, because races don't change in the last few days.
Republican
South Dakota
Idaho
Kansas
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Alabama
Utah
Georgia
Arizona
Iowa
Alaska
North Carolina
Louisiana
Ohio
Florida
New Hampshire
Missouri
Kentucky
North Dakota
Arkansas
Indiana
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Nevada
Democratic
West Virginia
Washington
California
Connecticut
Delaware
New York*
Oregon
Maryland
New York
Vermont
Hawaii
That'd be 51-48 Democrats. The one race I have yet to pick is Colorado, but I'm leaning Republican. Alaska will be one of the two Republicans. I'm leaning Miller, but I reserve the right to change that one. Don't take this prediction as contradicting my post yesterday. I'm picking Boxer by the slimmest of margins and I know my California friends are going to do a big GOTV so I'll be proven wrong.
Republican
South Dakota
Idaho
Kansas
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Alabama
Utah
Georgia
Arizona
Iowa
Alaska
North Carolina
Louisiana
Ohio
Florida
New Hampshire
Missouri
Kentucky
North Dakota
Arkansas
Indiana
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Nevada
Democratic
West Virginia
Washington
California
Connecticut
Delaware
New York*
Oregon
Maryland
New York
Vermont
Hawaii
That'd be 51-48 Democrats. The one race I have yet to pick is Colorado, but I'm leaning Republican. Alaska will be one of the two Republicans. I'm leaning Miller, but I reserve the right to change that one. Don't take this prediction as contradicting my post yesterday. I'm picking Boxer by the slimmest of margins and I know my California friends are going to do a big GOTV so I'll be proven wrong.
The Campaign Trail
As I mentioned earlier, the Delaware Valley is a huge battleground in House and Senate races. Starting Friday my camera crew and I will be on the campaign trail with a bunch of those campaigns documenting the final hours before the elections. I'm excited to get it. i hope to be able to report back our experiences each day.
These will be the final scenes in Where's The Party?
I will have final House and Senate predictions even if I can't post much.
These will be the final scenes in Where's The Party?
I will have final House and Senate predictions even if I can't post much.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Good News for Fiorina
PPP, a Democratic polling firm, has come out with a poll where Carly Fiorina is losing by 9 points. Clearly, she's done, right? Wrong. This is a great poll for Fiorina. If you look closely you'll see that 26% of this year's voters have already voted and they favor Boxer by only 48%-46%. That's a significant amount of voters, so the 2 point difference is very meaningful and likely highly indicative.
PPP has a 47% Democratic electorate and a 13 point differential between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats were 40%, 41%, and 42% in 2004, 2006, and 2008. The differential was 7%, 6%, and 12%. Once again PPP's electorate is way more Democratic than even California can produce.
Extrapolating their responses by party, the people who have already voted could be 40% Democratic 33% Republican 27% independent, the 2004 electorate or 41% Democratic 35% Republican 24% independent, the 2006 electorate. Both would produce the same results. If Fiorina gets either the 2004 or 2006 electorate and wins independents by 17 points, it's a toss up. It's certainly possible the electorate won't be like 2004 and 2006 and be more like 2008, but since the voting so far, with 26% already voting, has been 2004/2006.
The polls in the last two weeks have ranged from Fiorina +3 to this one with Boxer +9. I'm telling Carly and California Republicans not to give up. We're really neck and neck.
PPP has a 47% Democratic electorate and a 13 point differential between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats were 40%, 41%, and 42% in 2004, 2006, and 2008. The differential was 7%, 6%, and 12%. Once again PPP's electorate is way more Democratic than even California can produce.
Extrapolating their responses by party, the people who have already voted could be 40% Democratic 33% Republican 27% independent, the 2004 electorate or 41% Democratic 35% Republican 24% independent, the 2006 electorate. Both would produce the same results. If Fiorina gets either the 2004 or 2006 electorate and wins independents by 17 points, it's a toss up. It's certainly possible the electorate won't be like 2004 and 2006 and be more like 2008, but since the voting so far, with 26% already voting, has been 2004/2006.
The polls in the last two weeks have ranged from Fiorina +3 to this one with Boxer +9. I'm telling Carly and California Republicans not to give up. We're really neck and neck.
Things to Look For Besides The Results
Obviously who wins and loses is what's most important, but there are a number of things that could be telling about the future.
In 2008 House Democrats won the 18-29 vote 65%-35%. This was significant, but below the 67%-33% that Obama got. Do the Democrats have this group or was it just Obama in 2008? If Republicans do better, Democrats will argue that this is an off year election and a Republican wave. Because it's an off year election less young people will vote, but what we want to know is what the ones that do vote do. Certainly Republicans will do better than they did in 2008. The Democratic argument is that they own the youth vote. If Republicans do well with 18-29 that'll show that they won't win this demographic under all circumstances.
So it be important to look at how the youth vote indexes against the total percentage. This eliminates that it's a wave election because it compares the percentage of 18-29, 65%, to the overall average of 55.6%. The Democratic index was 117, well below Obama's 126. That may show that Obama really inflated the number.
House Democrats won the Latino vote 70%-30%, just as they did in 2006. The Latino indices were 126 and 128 in those years. In 2004 the Democrats only too 55% of the Latino vote, a 114 index. That was a year Bush brought in a lot of Latinos. This year will show whether the GOP is capable of winning Latinos.
People might think the Black vote would be irrelevant to Republicans, but they've traditionally garnered around 10% of the Black vote. It was 5% in 2008. The is a significant amount of votes and could be a big deal in districts that aren't majority Black, but there is a presence. If Republicans are at 5% again that'll show that Blacks are a lost cause until Obama leaves office or that the GOP has lost the few Blacks it had due to Obama opposition.
I'll be watching the tea party candidates. The argument against them is that they won't win. The argument for them is that they are true conservatives, not RINOs. I may not prefer some of the candidates, character counts with me, but every dog should have his day. I'm tired of hearing that conservatives can't win somewhere. We'll test it and see. If they don't win this year we'll know that the state/district is one where only a more moderate candidate can win. We know about the ones in the Senate (e.g. Miller, Angle), but there are a number in House races. Keith Rothfus in PA-4, Anna Little in NJ-6 are two I can think of.
I'll be watching the fake tea party candidates. Democrats have inserted these people in PA-7, NJ-3, FL-8, FL-12, and the Nevada Senate. If conservatives can be fooled into voting for these people the Democrats have a winning strategy of fraud that they'll expand to hundreds of races in 2012.
In 2008 House Democrats won the 18-29 vote 65%-35%. This was significant, but below the 67%-33% that Obama got. Do the Democrats have this group or was it just Obama in 2008? If Republicans do better, Democrats will argue that this is an off year election and a Republican wave. Because it's an off year election less young people will vote, but what we want to know is what the ones that do vote do. Certainly Republicans will do better than they did in 2008. The Democratic argument is that they own the youth vote. If Republicans do well with 18-29 that'll show that they won't win this demographic under all circumstances.
So it be important to look at how the youth vote indexes against the total percentage. This eliminates that it's a wave election because it compares the percentage of 18-29, 65%, to the overall average of 55.6%. The Democratic index was 117, well below Obama's 126. That may show that Obama really inflated the number.
House Democrats won the Latino vote 70%-30%, just as they did in 2006. The Latino indices were 126 and 128 in those years. In 2004 the Democrats only too 55% of the Latino vote, a 114 index. That was a year Bush brought in a lot of Latinos. This year will show whether the GOP is capable of winning Latinos.
People might think the Black vote would be irrelevant to Republicans, but they've traditionally garnered around 10% of the Black vote. It was 5% in 2008. The is a significant amount of votes and could be a big deal in districts that aren't majority Black, but there is a presence. If Republicans are at 5% again that'll show that Blacks are a lost cause until Obama leaves office or that the GOP has lost the few Blacks it had due to Obama opposition.
I'll be watching the tea party candidates. The argument against them is that they won't win. The argument for them is that they are true conservatives, not RINOs. I may not prefer some of the candidates, character counts with me, but every dog should have his day. I'm tired of hearing that conservatives can't win somewhere. We'll test it and see. If they don't win this year we'll know that the state/district is one where only a more moderate candidate can win. We know about the ones in the Senate (e.g. Miller, Angle), but there are a number in House races. Keith Rothfus in PA-4, Anna Little in NJ-6 are two I can think of.
I'll be watching the fake tea party candidates. Democrats have inserted these people in PA-7, NJ-3, FL-8, FL-12, and the Nevada Senate. If conservatives can be fooled into voting for these people the Democrats have a winning strategy of fraud that they'll expand to hundreds of races in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)