Sam Spade's 2012 Congress/Governor Predictions

[Sam Spade]

SENATE

Safe D
California
Delaware
Maryland
Minnesota
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
Vermont (I)
Washington

Likely D   
Connecticut*
Hawaii*
Maine* (R) (the shift to I is most likely here)
Michigan
Pennsylvania
West Virginia

Lean D
Florida
Ohio

Toss-up
Massachusetts (R) (Scott Brown is obviously very happy to have Romney around)
Missouri (D) (honestly, McCaskill looks like a doomed incumbent to me, but we'll see...)
Montana (D) (same here - kinda reminds me of 1988 really)
Nevada (R) (my read is that Berkley is the wrong candidate, but that being said, we can't really trust Nevada polling, of course Ralston says Heller has slight lead right now, so there)
New Mexico* (D) (I have never been one to underestimate Heather Wilson)
Virginia* (D) (what else is there to say)
Wisconsin* (D) (ditto - I do think Baldwin is the wrong candidate here also)

Lean R   
Arizona*

Likely R
Indiana (btw, if Lugar wins, it's Safe R, but I expect him to lose, if Mourdock wins, then Likely R, Obama's campaign not being around here in 2012 is a major reason why, also the general disaster that the Indiana Democratic party has been since 2008 is another reason why)
Nebraska* (D)
North Dakota* (D)
Texas* (I never put open Senate seats in safe until after the primary, but here it's really tempting)

Safe R
Mississippi
Tennessee
Utah
Wyoming

GOVERNOR

Safe D
Delaware
Vermont

Likely D/Lean D
Missouri
West Virginia

Toss-up
Montana* (D)
New Hampshire* (D)
North Carolina* (D) (I know what the polls say, but I'm treating this more conservatively than most, that being said, the NC Dem party is presently in disaster mode)
Washington* (D)
Wisconsin (R)

Likely R/Lean R
Indiana*

Safe R
North Dakota
Utah

[Holmes]

Quite generous to Ben Nelson.

[Gravis Marketing]

Why do you see NC as toss-up rather than Lean or Likely R?

[Sam Spade]

Quite generous to Ben Nelson.

You're probably right, but give it time.

[Sam Spade]

Why do you see NC as toss-up rather than Lean or Likely R?

This early out, I'm really leery of putting incumbents at anything more than tossup.  In fact, I'm always leery of doing it before primaries.

Though I will admit, the polls on both North Carolina Gov and Nebraska Senate suggest more of a Lean R than tossup, Nebraska depending on the candidate.  Polls out this far only give us generalized views, though.

You have to hedge a lot at this point, though I must admit that right now Republican candidate recruitment looks a lot better than Democratic recruitment.

[Torie]

As Chrisy Matthews would say, tell me something I don't know Sam. Shock me, surprise me, give me a buzz. Is that to much to ask? 

[Lunar]

Hawaii* – If Lingle runs, I’ll think about putting it in Likely R (and probably decline), unless maybe Ed Case wins the primary.

Typo, or serious? Seems like if Lingle runs, she'd be at best competitive

[Gravis Marketing]

As Chrisy Matthews would say, tell me something I don't know Sam. Shock me, surprise me, give me a buzz. Is that to much to ask? 

I think that making calls on Lean and Likely and not just throwing everything into Safe or Toss-up like a tv pundit is pretty gutsy.

[Sam Spade]

As Chrisy Matthews would say, tell me something I don't know Sam. Shock me, surprise me, give me a buzz. Is that to much to ask? 

I think that making calls on Lean and Likely and not just throwing everything into Safe or Toss-up like a tv pundit is pretty gutsy.

Even at this early point, one should be able to determine what is safe and what is not, barring scandal or dropping out or new candidates, or whatever.

[Nichlemn]

Why do you see NC as toss-up rather than Lean or Likely R?

This early out, I'm really leery of putting incumbents at anything more than tossup.  In fact, I'm always leery of doing it before primaries.

Though I will admit, the polls on both North Carolina Gov and Nebraska Senate suggest more of a Lean R than tossup, Nebraska depending on the candidate.  Polls out this far only give us generalized views, though.

You have to hedge a lot at this point, though I must admit that right now Republican candidate recruitment looks a lot better than Democratic recruitment.

Is there any evidence that incumbents have an advantage controlling for polling? My guess is they don't - most of their advantage is already reflected in the polling, so if they're trailing early, they're in real trouble.

[Badger]

Hawaii* – If Lingle runs, I’ll think about putting it in Likely R (and probably decline), unless maybe Ed Case wins the primary.

Typo, or serious? Seems like if Lingle runs, she'd be at best competitive

Seriously. This is Hawaii with Obama at the head of the ticket. Lingle vs. Case is Lean D at best. More like Likely D.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why do you have Massachusetts at Lean R?

[GPORTER]

The Obama/Biden camp will be very happy if Nelson survives and is reelected in Nebraska. That is if Obama is reelected.

[Senator Napoleon]

Why do you have Massachusetts at Lean R?

Because literally every sign shows MA being at least Lean R?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why do you have Massachusetts at Lean R?

Because literally every sign shows MA being at least Lean R?

It's MA, though. Scott Brown has faced no scrutiny yet outside of a few very small stories buried in newspapers. I'd wait until next year's summer before declaring it a Lean R race. Elizabeth Warren would be a boon for netroots fundraising and could easily match Brown on that front.

[Sam Spade]

Why do you see NC as toss-up rather than Lean or Likely R?

This early out, I'm really leery of putting incumbents at anything more than tossup.  In fact, I'm always leery of doing it before primaries.

Though I will admit, the polls on both North Carolina Gov and Nebraska Senate suggest more of a Lean R than tossup, Nebraska depending on the candidate.  Polls out this far only give us generalized views, though.

You have to hedge a lot at this point, though I must admit that right now Republican candidate recruitment looks a lot better than Democratic recruitment.

Is there any evidence that incumbents have an advantage controlling for polling? My guess is they don't - most of their advantage is already reflected in the polling, so if they're trailing early, they're in real trouble.

Not always.  Besides, when it is *this* early, advantages can come and go.

[Sam Spade]

Why do you have Massachusetts at Lean R?

Being cautious, which seems appropriate, though if Obama continues to have trouble where the polls say, Massachusetts will continue to be less D at the Presidential level (not competitive, but you know what I mean), thereby helping Brown immensely.

[Keystone Phil]

Why do you have Massachusetts at Lean R?

Because literally every sign shows MA being at least Lean R?

It's MA, though.

Ok...but...we're rating the races now and he has a decent approval rating plus polls that show him ahead by healthy margins.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why do you have Massachusetts at Lean R?

Being cautious, which seems appropriate, though if Obama continues to have trouble where the polls say, Massachusetts will continue to be less D at the Presidential level (not competitive, but you know what I mean), thereby helping Brown immensely.

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's numbers were in the negatives at this point in MA but Scott Brown's glow could be fading by this point, especially after the debt ceiling debacle which seems to have damaged every Congressional incumbent in the nation.

I want more polling! Too many Democrats are resigned to losing this race.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

The Dem candidates are rather weak in IN. The race for governor is in the GOP primary. The only way the Dems have a shot is if Evan Bayh runs and we all know that's not gonna happen. Though it might be fun having Rupert Boneham (L-Kokomo) in the race.  IN- Safe R

[Sam Spade]

bump

Any particular reason?  I'm not doing House yet.

The only changes I would make right now are West Virginia Gov from Likely D to Lean D and New Hampshire Gov from Likely D to Toss-up.  But it's not worth making a formal change.

If this is in regards to MA Senate, you need to wait about 6 weeks or so to see how the race settles out.  Large bumps like what we're seeing right now often occur at announcement time of candidates that get attention, and then 2 months later, we're back to where we were (or something similar).  Wait.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Quite generous to Ben Nelson.

You're probably right, but give it time.

He's a dog with fleas...
Come on, tell me something I don't
know. Pretend it's my birthday, pal,
surprise me...

[Sam Spade]

Updated.  I'm going to try to do the House in the next few weeks. 

In the House, Dems need to win 25 seats net to take back the majority (26 if they lose AZ-08).  My read on redistricting/2010 wave election is that Republicans won in-between 10-15 seats more than they should have in a neutral contest with the present incumbent advantage.  That being said, the Dems are probably going to have 5-10 seats taken away from them due to untimely retirements in the Deep South and map changes. The present polls highly suggest that this year will be a return to the 1996-2004 world at all levels, and not a wave year.  As such, Dem chances of winning the House should be placed at >10%, and probably >5%.
 
In the Senate, at present, Republicans would need to win 4 out of 7 tossups with Romney win or 5 out of 7 with Obama win to take back the Senate.  Maybe slightly under 50% chance of that occurring right now.  Kinda like the Presidency really.

[Fuzzy]

No maps?  Silly noob.