Sam Spade's 2008 Senate/House Election Prediction Thread (FINALIZED - SEE P.18)

[Sam Spade]

Interesting new rankings.

 Some races look a little low (e.g., FL-24 and FL-25), some races look a little high (e.g., KY-02), but I generally agree with your rankings. My only major beef is with your ranking of FL-13. The presence of Jan Schneider makes it virtually impossible for Buchanan to lose. The incumbent also enjoys a massive CoH edge and the DCCC has not reserved any ad time there. I would definitely bump FL-25 (which is too close to call, right now) above FL-13.

It's nice to see that you agree Phil English is now in serious trouble.  We also agree that IL-10 is an overrated pickup opportunity for the Democrats. Kirk has now raised over $4.6 million and even Democrats concede that Seals is running a mediocre campaign. Despite the top-ballot atmospherics, it's not a good year to be an Illinois Democrat.

I'm only done updating everything through NY-26 or so yet.  Be patient.  I think a lot of this through.    You don't know where FL-25 is going to be yet (though FL-24 will stay where it is).

On Illinois, Halvorson's weakness is fascinating and I have to wonder how she'll do if Blago gets indicted (which I think is becoming almost a foregone conclusion eventually).

As for Seals, if your own polls can't put you within 10% of Kirk, why should I believe that you're competitive.

[Sam Spade]

Oh, on Phil English - I moved him up 1) because of the spending and 2) because the SUSA poll looks legit to me.

[HardRCafé]

It's nice to see that you agree Phil English is now in serious trouble.  We also agree that IL-10 is an overrated pickup opportunity for the Democrats. Kirk has now raised over $4.6 million and even Democrats concede that Seals is running a mediocre campaign. Despite the top-ballot atmospherics, it's not a good year to be an Illinois Democrat.

Sure it is!  Seals is one of just two I can think of looking unlikely to reap the rewards.

On Illinois, Halvorson's weakness is fascinating and I have to wonder how she'll do if Blago gets indicted (which I think is becoming almost a foregone conclusion eventually).

I'd love to talk with you about this one some time.

[Lunar]

Sam, I have a challenge for you and I think you'll enjoy it but maybe not.

Can you list the five-seven House races, and, perhaps, two Senate races, which you are most likely to be proven wrong on in election day?  Upsets of Sam's predidctions, if you will.  I know you already try and adjust for this type of thing (AK-AK-AK), but it'd be a good firewall for you   Even if you miss a race or two, you can still have them on that secondary "Maybe I'm Wrong" list.

Sort of thing I'm truly interested in.  I trust your judgment as rough estimate of the consensus, but I trust your judgment more on where the consensus could be failing to take other factors into account.     And it's not just CA-4 (which I'm surprised to note is already at #40, yay, higher than Politicker which has it at #53 or so) haha.   Besides the clear tossups, which races on November 4th would be the least predictable?

Or is your list already organized 100% in terms of confidence?

[Nym90]

Sam, I have a challenge for you and I think you'll enjoy it but maybe not.

Can you list the five-seven House races, and, perhaps, two Senate races, which you are most likely to be proven wrong on in election day?  Upsets of Sam's predidctions, if you will.  I know you already try and adjust for this type of thing (AK-AK-AK), but it'd be a good firewall for you   Even if you miss a race or two, you can still have them on that secondary "Maybe I'm Wrong" list.

Sort of thing I'm truly interested in.  I trust your judgment as rough estimate of the consensus, but I trust your judgment more on where the consensus could be failing to take other factors into account.     And it's not just CA-4 (which I'm surprised to note is already at #40, yay, higher than Politicker which has it at #53 or so) haha.   Besides the clear tossups, which races on November 4th would be the least predictable?

Or is your list already organized 100% in terms of confidence?

Yes, would be interested to see his take on these, as well.

Also looking to see if his upset picks pan out better this year than Steele in 2006 or Bush winning Hawaii in 2004.

Not that I'm being critical; at least he has the balls to make such picks, which I don't.

[Sam Spade]

Sam, I have a challenge for you and I think you'll enjoy it but maybe not.

Can you list the five-seven House races, and, perhaps, two Senate races, which you are most likely to be proven wrong on in election day?  Upsets of Sam's predidctions, if you will.  I know you already try and adjust for this type of thing (AK-AK-AK), but it'd be a good firewall for you   Even if you miss a race or two, you can still have them on that secondary "Maybe I'm Wrong" list.

Sort of thing I'm truly interested in.  I trust your judgment as rough estimate of the consensus, but I trust your judgment more on where the consensus could be failing to take other factors into account.     And it's not just CA-4 (which I'm surprised to note is already at #40, yay, higher than Politicker which has it at #53 or so) haha.   Besides the clear tossups, which races on November 4th would be the least predictable?

Or is your list already organized 100% in terms of confidence?

Yes, would be interested to see his take on these, as well.

Also looking to see if his upset picks pan out better this year than Steele in 2006 or Bush winning Hawaii in 2004.

Not that I'm being critical; at least he has the balls to make such picks, which I don't.

I have, in the past, chosen to make some upset picks.  This year, I probably won't, because when they're wrong they get pointed out and when I'm right - they don't. (e.g. Pombo in 2006)

[Nym90]

Sam, I have a challenge for you and I think you'll enjoy it but maybe not.

Can you list the five-seven House races, and, perhaps, two Senate races, which you are most likely to be proven wrong on in election day?  Upsets of Sam's predidctions, if you will.  I know you already try and adjust for this type of thing (AK-AK-AK), but it'd be a good firewall for you   Even if you miss a race or two, you can still have them on that secondary "Maybe I'm Wrong" list.

Sort of thing I'm truly interested in.  I trust your judgment as rough estimate of the consensus, but I trust your judgment more on where the consensus could be failing to take other factors into account.     And it's not just CA-4 (which I'm surprised to note is already at #40, yay, higher than Politicker which has it at #53 or so) haha.   Besides the clear tossups, which races on November 4th would be the least predictable?

Or is your list already organized 100% in terms of confidence?

Yes, would be interested to see his take on these, as well.

Also looking to see if his upset picks pan out better this year than Steele in 2006 or Bush winning Hawaii in 2004.

Not that I'm being critical; at least he has the balls to make such picks, which I don't.

I have, in the past, chosen to make some upset picks.  This year, I probably won't, because when they're wrong they get pointed out and when I'm right - they don't. (e.g. Pombo in 2006)

Was truly looking forward to the upset pick.

You should pick Barkley to win in MN. Hell, if you won't, I just might have to pick up the slack!

[MarkWarner08]

Now might be the time to move up AZ-03. The DCCC has dropped over $670k there, including over $200k today.

[Lunar]

From TPM (D):

The DCCC latest FEC filings from last night show that the Dems put down over $7 million for ads in 39 races across the country, in a mix of offense and defense. The single most notable expenditure: The Dems are spending $777,000 to go after scandal-plagued Rep. Don Young (R-AK), an astonishing amount for a small and very red state.


...

The NRCC has been playing defense with their media buys, compared to the Dems who have done mostly offense. The Hill reports that the GOP has now put down over $2 million on ads to defend Reps. Tim Walberg (R-MI) and Steve Chabot (R-OH). On top of that, Minnesota Public Radio reports that the NRCC has reserved $126,000 worth of ad time in defense of GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann.


...

Dole refuses to debate


...

Further elaboration from the hill on GOP spending:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Sam Spade]

MW08 - You have to wait for the update instead of blitzing me for being lazy about it. 

[Lunar]

Some more spending updates for you to ponder Sam:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1008/NRCC_cutting_back_ad_buys.html?showall

[Brittain33]

From TPM (D):

The DCCC latest FEC filings from last night show that the Dems put down over $7 million for ads in 39 races across the country, in a mix of offense and defense. The single most notable expenditure: The Dems are spending $777,000 to go after scandal-plagued Rep. Don Young (R-AK), an astonishing amount for a small and very red state.

Republicans will agree, this is a total FF move for the Democrats.

[Sam Spade]

From TPM (D):

The DCCC latest FEC filings from last night show that the Dems put down over $7 million for ads in 39 races across the country, in a mix of offense and defense. The single most notable expenditure: The Dems are spending $777,000 to go after scandal-plagued Rep. Don Young (R-AK), an astonishing amount for a small and very red state.

Republicans will agree, this is a total FF move for the Democrats.

This independent only hopes the move actually works.

[MarkWarner08]

Sam, someone like yourself needs to give a good talkin' to Marc Ambinder, who is typically an adroit observer of politics. Today Ambinder wrote, "Sen. Mitch McConnell doesn't campaign very well in tight races." Maybe that why he pulled off an upset in '84, survived in '90, and fended off a challenge from the current KY guv in '96.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/every_analyst_does_their_own.php

[Sam Spade]

Sam, someone like yourself needs to give a good talkin' to Marc Ambinder, who is typically an adroit observer of politics. Today Ambinder wrote, "Sen. Mitch McConnell doesn't campaign very well in tight races." Maybe that why he pulled off an upset in '84, survived in '90, and fended off a challenge from the current KY guv in '96.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/every_analyst_does_their_own.php

You seem to know enough about this to write to him yourself. 

[Sam Spade]

I might have missed a thing or two, but it's finally fully updated.

[© tweed]

why is GA likely as opposed to lean?  I'd think that Martin's chances are closer to Musgrove's than to Allen's... I actually think he might be slightly more likely to win than Musgrove is (but also more likely to lose by 8-10%).

[Sam Spade]

why is GA likely as opposed to lean?  I'd think that Martin's chances are closer to Musgrove's than to Allen's... I actually think he might be slightly more likely to win than Musgrove is (but also more likely to lose by 8-10%).

Much like I said earlier this year with Hagen, Martin has to prove to me that he can get above 44%-45%. 

In other words, all signs point to those Chambliss movers as being movers from Chambliss to undecided.  But so far, none of those movers have shown any inkling to move to Martin.  Until a poll shows they have interest in doing such, when election day gets here, they will move back to where they came from.

Of course, the fact that the DSCC is not advertising here is another factor.  Although they are advertising in KS, which makes no sense in comparison.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Much like I said earlier this year with Hagen,

Tragically, she spells it with an "a" instead of an "e".

[Lunar]

why is GA likely as opposed to lean?  I'd think that Martin's chances are closer to Musgrove's than to Allen's... I actually think he might be slightly more likely to win than Musgrove is (but also more likely to lose by 8-10%).

Much like I said earlier this year with Hagen, Martin has to prove to me that he can get above 44%-45%. 

In other words, all signs point to those Chambliss movers as being movers from Chambliss to undecided.  But so far, none of those movers have shown any inkling to move to Martin.  Until a poll shows they have interest in doing such, when election day gets here, they will move back to where they came from.

Of course, the fact that the DSCC is not advertising here is another factor.  Although they are advertising in KS, which makes no sense in comparison.

a little birdie told me to expect them to do so soon.  Well, no one told me that, but I can see the national party sprinting over.

[Sam Spade]

Few changes made today:

1. Obviously, because of the Mahoney thing - his seat goes to lean R and becomes the most likely Republican pickup.
2. I switched NM-01 and AK-AL.  Heinrich had a good fundraising quarter and Dem spending in AK-AL speaks to nervousness.
3. Moved KY Senate back down to Lean R.  Although McConnell's people released a poll with him up only 9 and under 50, Lunsford's people returned with a poll showing him down by 3.  That to me does not translate to Toss-up/Lean R status.
4. I'm getting close to putting Georgia in Lean R, but some money has to be thrown there first.

[MarkWarner08]

Few changes made today:

1. Obviously, because of the Mahoney thing - his seat goes to lean R and becomes the most likely Republican pickup.
2. I switched NM-01 and AK-AL.  Heinrich had a good fundraising quarter and Dem spending in AK-AL speaks to nervousness.
3. Moved KY Senate back down to Lean R.  Although McConnell's people released a poll with him up only 9 and under 50, Lunsford's people returned with a poll showing him down by 3.  That to me does not translate to Toss-up/Lean R status.
4. I'm getting close to putting Georgia in Lean R, but some money has to be thrown there first.

Interesting changes. I pared down the list of potentially competitive GOP-held House seats, tweaked some House ratings (e.g., WI-08 moved down a notch), and moved up a couple of GOP-held Senate races.

I remain reluctant to move MN into the Tossup/Tilts Democratic column. Barring a late collapse in Coleman's numbers, I can't see Franken being more than an even bet to win on election day.

[Sam Spade]

I remain reluctant to move MN into the Tossup/Tilts Democratic column. Barring a late collapse in Coleman's numbers, I can't see Franken being more than an even bet to win on election day.

As do I.  With Rasmussen's number, I can't help but wonder if that had to do with the suit flap.  Because the week before that, if you're (Franken) releasing a poll showing you up 2, you're not leading in my book.  Whatever - hopefully we'll get some clarity soon enough.

[Lunar]

New poll out confirms your idea on NV-02.  Some Kos diarist is sad right now.

Yay, CA-04 is now in the "lean" category.  Go Charlie Brown Go!

[Lunar]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1008/DCCC_adds_eight_candidates_to_list_of_top_recruits.html
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee added eight new Democratic challengers to its "Red-to-Blue" list of leading recruits.

The list, once viewed as a gold standard for the party's strongest candidates, now resembles more of a compilation of any Democrat with even a small chance of winning.

One of the additions is Louisiana technology executive Jim Harlan, running in a district that gave President Bush 71 percent of the vote in 2004.  He's running against Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), who won a special election for Bobby Jindal's old House seat.  Harlan has been self-financing much of his long-shot campaign.

Another inclusion is blind rabbi Dennis Shulman, running against Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.).

The full list of additions are below:

Josh Segall (AL 03)
Nick Leibham (CA 50)
Becky Greenwald (IA 04)
Jim Harlan (LA 01)
Elwyn Tinklenberg (MN 06)
Dennis Shulman (NJ 05)
Linda Ketner (SC 01)
Larry Joe Doherty (TX 10)