Senate seats in play in 2016 (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 24, 2024, 06:33:04 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Senate seats in play in 2016 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which of these seats have a decent chance of being competitive in 2016?
#1
Alaska
 
#2
Arizona
 
#3
Colorado
 
#4
Florida
 
#5
Georgia
 
#6
Illinois
 
#7
Indiana
 
#8
Iowa
 
#9
Kentucky
 
#10
Louisiana
 
#11
Missouri
 
#12
New Hampshire
 
#13
Nevada
 
#14
North Carolina
 
#15
Ohio
 
#16
Oregon
 
#17
Pennsylvania
 
#18
Washington
 
#19
Wisconsin
 
#20
Utah
 
#21
California
 
#22
Arkansas
 
#23
Another Republican-held seat
 
#24
Another Democratic-held seat
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 63

Calculate results by number of options selected
Author Topic: Senate seats in play in 2016  (Read 5153 times)
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,310
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
« on: January 15, 2015, 07:48:24 PM »

AZ, CO, FL, IL, NV, NH, NC, OH, PA, and WI are pretty likely to be in play, at least initially.

GA, IA, and KY could be if Isakson, Grassley and/or Paul decide to retire.

AK could be if Murkowski gets primaried again.

IN and MO are only plausible in a Democratic wave.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,310
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2015, 03:22:10 PM »

Are we really going to still say Q is less accurate than PPP? After the disastrous cycle PPP just had?

One cycle doesn't make a trend. Many pollsters had a disastrous cycle last year.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,310
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2015, 07:19:32 PM »

Are we really going to still say Q is less accurate than PPP? After the disastrous cycle PPP just had?

One cycle doesn't make a trend. Many pollsters had a disastrous cycle last year.

By that logic, Rass wouldn't have been trashed the way you guys did

Rasmussen was biased in years when other pollsters (e.g. PPP) were quite accurate. My point was that many pollsters did a poor job in 2014, so PPP having a bad year wasn't anything special. Rasmussen, on the other hand, had a much stronger Republican bias in its 2010 and 2012 polls than most other pollsters.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 14 queries.