Cook Report moves GA Senate race to "Toss Up"

[Adam Griffin]

Again, anyone who knows an ounce about politics can call up to 90% percent of races. The whole point of models is to predict tossup contests, otherwise there would be no point.

I'm not sure you understand what he's saying or what Silver does. His job isn't to call who is going to win or lose; his job is to determine the statistical likelihood of a candidate winning or losing an election. If he was just going to call the races, then he'd do it the same way that Cook, Sabato and Rothenburg do it by just guessing. Instead, he uses a series of data-sets and weights to project a confidence factor.

It makes more sense if you think about running each race in a simulation of sorts (which is what Silver and the Obama campaign both were doing to determine the likelihood of victory for one party or another in each state). So in May 2012, the GOP had a 70% chance of winning, according to Silver. That means if you ran the simulation 1000 times, the GOP would win 700 times and the Dems would win 300 times. Now obviously, you can't simulate such events in real life and there is only one election, but that doesn't matter in the context of how this data is supposed to be interpreted.

Yes, most races were off the table for one party or another, which is why those races had a 99%+ confidence factor - 18 Senate races, to be exact. North Dakota, in contrast, had a 70% likelihood of going to the GOP in May and a 80% chance in September. The final projection was 92.5% for the GOP in ND, and only 66% in MT - far cries from 99%+ confidence.

[Flake]

I feel like joshgreen is a poster from that conservative forum that says all liberals are racist marxists and that polls are all skewed (and all election results are fake because the liberals changed the results), but his goal is trying to impersonate one after we discovered their lair of doom.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The fact of the matter is that unless Dems take over House, there is potential for a GOP takeover of Senate. It's gonna come down to Begich, Landrieu and Hagen. Outside of that, was speculatation, and that Sabato crystal ball has it right.

[Joshgreen]

Again, anyone who knows an ounce about politics can call up to 90% percent of races. The whole point of models is to predict tossup contests, otherwise there would be no point.

I'm not sure you understand what he's saying or what Silver does. His job isn't to call who is going to win or lose; his job is to determine the statistical likelihood of a candidate winning or losing an election. If he was just going to call the races, then he'd do it the same way that Cook, Sabato and Rothenburg do it by just guessing. Instead, he uses a series of data-sets and weights to project a confidence factor.

It makes more sense if you think about running each race in a simulation of sorts (which is what Silver and the Obama campaign both were doing to determine the likelihood of victory for one party or another in each state). So in May 2012, the GOP had a 70% chance of winning, according to Silver. That means if you ran the simulation 1000 times, the GOP would win 700 times and the Dems would win 300 times. Now obviously, you can't simulate such events in real life and there is only one election, but that doesn't matter in the context of how this data is supposed to be interpreted.

Yes, most races were off the table for one party or another, which is why those races had a 99%+ confidence factor - 18 Senate races, to be exact. North Dakota, in contrast, had a 70% likelihood of going to the GOP in May and a 80% chance in September. The final projection was 92.5% for the GOP in ND, and only 66% in MT - far cries from 99%+ confidence.

The fact is that his probabilities failed spectacularly in two very similar neighboring states. This points to a flaw in his model that emphasizes state fundamentals over polling.

[7,052,770]

Again, anyone who knows an ounce about politics can call up to 90% percent of races. The whole point of models is to predict tossup contests, otherwise there would be no point.

I'm not sure you understand what he's saying or what Silver does. His job isn't to call who is going to win or lose; his job is to determine the statistical likelihood of a candidate winning or losing an election. If he was just going to call the races, then he'd do it the same way that Cook, Sabato and Rothenburg do it by just guessing. Instead, he uses a series of data-sets and weights to project a confidence factor.

It makes more sense if you think about running each race in a simulation of sorts (which is what Silver and the Obama campaign both were doing to determine the likelihood of victory for one party or another in each state). So in May 2012, the GOP had a 70% chance of winning, according to Silver. That means if you ran the simulation 1000 times, the GOP would win 700 times and the Dems would win 300 times. Now obviously, you can't simulate such events in real life and there is only one election, but that doesn't matter in the context of how this data is supposed to be interpreted.

Yes, most races were off the table for one party or another, which is why those races had a 99%+ confidence factor - 18 Senate races, to be exact. North Dakota, in contrast, had a 70% likelihood of going to the GOP in May and a 80% chance in September. The final projection was 92.5% for the GOP in ND, and only 66% in MT - far cries from 99%+ confidence.

The fact is that his probabilities failed spectacularly in two very similar neighboring states. This points to a flaw in his model that emphasizes state fundamentals over polling.

That's possible, but we have a very small sample.  It's also possible that MT as a 1-in-3 event that Silver acknowledged was possible, and ND was also a 1-in-12 he accounted for.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

If Broun or Gingrey win, this race would easily shift to Likely Dem, and Michelle Nunn would probably end up a shoo-in

As much as I'd love to think that, I don't think that will ever be a reality. Georgia could be the Indiana of 2012, and Joe Donnelly only won by five-ish points. Georgia's too red for any Dem to be a "shoo-in."

You might cite McCaskill's 16 point win in 2012 Missouri, but I think it's slightly different than 2014 Georgia because they had an incumbent running in a state where it's actually possible for Democrats to win statewide. Unless you're Evan Bayh in Indiana, no Democrats typically win statewide there or GA.

I could also see Georgia as more receptive to a Libertarian candidate, but that will only work to make the path to 50%+1 for Nunn more difficult. If it goes to a runoff, she's toast.

[Adam Griffin]

If Broun or Gingrey win, this race would easily shift to Likely Dem, and Michelle Nunn would probably end up a shoo-in

As much as I'd love to think that, I don't think that will ever be a reality. Georgia could be the Indiana of 2012, and Joe Donnelly only won by five-ish points. Georgia's too red for any Dem to be a "shoo-in."

You might cite McCaskill's 16 point win in 2012 Missouri, but I think it's slightly different than 2014 Georgia because they had an incumbent running in a state where it's actually possible for Democrats to win statewide. Unless you're Evan Bayh in Indiana, no Democrats typically win statewide there or GA.

I could also see Georgia as more receptive to a Libertarian candidate, but that will only work to make the path to 50%+1 for Nunn more difficult. If it goes to a runoff, she's toast.

Any statewide Libertarian can expect around 3% of the vote in Georgia, which means that Nunn really can't win unless she's ahead of Broun by 3 points or more. When you add that Georgia is much less elastic than Indiana or Missouri, the pathways to victory become much more difficult.

Maybe I'm being a bit facetious, but I think Broun could pull a Goatse with a cross in a 30-second spot and air it in every media market throughout the state and probably lose by no more than 5 in the general.

I don't even buy that someone like Gingrey is toxic enough to provide an opportunity for victory; many people forget that he has represented most of the northern swing electorate of metro Atlanta at one point or another. I think even a gaffe-riddled Gingrey wouldn't lose by more than 3 or so and would present only a small chance of a Nunn victory, and even then, we can't be for sure that disaffected voters won't just vote for the Libertarian in November.

I've maintained all along that Kingston is the most dangerous, and not because of his money. Perdue can be painted as a hack-and-slash business type who's cousin was once Governor. Handel can be painted as being an uneducated socon. Nobody in the general is going to care if Jack is a Washington insider (if/once he has the R nomination), and the guy is really likable. In GA-1, he regularly scores anywhere from 15-20% of the black vote. Still, I think any of these Republicans can win, simply because we have run-offs. Nunn has a damn good shot of winning a plurality against any of them, but like I said, she needs to beat the Republican by at least 3 if she wants to actually win.

[Adam Griffin]

Oh, and in a follow-up on what I said above in regards to the potential margin and likelihood of crossing 50%+1:

I attended a training seminar with the campaign back in January. Since this was disclosed to a group of a few dozen people in a public setting, I see no harm in sharing the broader information.

The campaign's goal in Georgia was described as hitting 52% on Election Night; obviously that seems like a bit of an overshoot, but such a number wouldn't be stated if it weren't possible. It's a bit more than what I think is possible with a worst-case scenario for the Republicans, but you don't want to aim for 50% and then fall short. I also don't have the same experience running campaigns.

I wouldn't have put much stock in it, except for the fact that the person who disclosed this has been involved with the DSCC, is one of Nunn's campaign managers and was the person responsible for the campaign that re-elected Tester in 2012.

EDIT: Haha, a quick search found this person doing the same run-through more or less in the public domain for DFA. The 52% for campaigns is referenced here, and you'll hear the goal being referenced as different than the win number here. Makes sense.

[moderatevoter]

Palin just endorsed Karen Handel. Wowwww.

[RogueBeaver]

Palin just endorsed Karen Handel. Wowwww.

No surprise. Here's the FB post.

[moderatevoter]

At first I thought she'd endorse Broun or Gingrey, so I was surprised. But then I remembered she endorsed Handel in 2010, and so it made more sense.

[Joshgreen]

Palin just endorsed Karen Handel. Wowwww.

No surprise. Here's the FB post.

Handel is a Georgian Palin.

[Adam Griffin]

Palin just endorsed Karen Handel. Wowwww.

No surprise. Here's the FB post.

Handel is a Georgian Palin.

Yeah, honestly the only surprise here is that it took her this long to do it. I had just assumed that she already had and that I'd missed it.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Still, I think any of these Republicans can win, simply because we have run-offs. Nunn has a damn good shot of winning a plurality against any of them, but like I said, she needs to beat the Republican by at least 3 if she wants to actually win.

When did they start doing run-offs? Didn't Max Cleland win with a plurality in the 90's, why didn't that go to a run-off?

[NewYorkExpress]

Still, I think any of these Republicans can win, simply because we have run-offs. Nunn has a damn good shot of winning a plurality against any of them, but like I said, she needs to beat the Republican by at least 3 if she wants to actually win.

When did they start doing run-offs? Didn't Max Cleland win with a plurality in the 90's, why didn't that go to a run-off?

They Started doing runoffs because Max Cleland won in the 90's on the strength of minority voters? (I suspect Democrats in the 90's were more racist than they are today)

[Adam Griffin]

Still, I think any of these Republicans can win, simply because we have run-offs. Nunn has a damn good shot of winning a plurality against any of them, but like I said, she needs to beat the Republican by at least 3 if she wants to actually win.

When did they start doing run-offs? Didn't Max Cleland win with a plurality in the 90's, why didn't that go to a run-off?

Run-offs have always existed in Georgia. Democrats -sensing their inevitable downfall - moved the threshold to avoid a run-off to 45%+1 after 1992; the Republicans moved it back to 50%+1 once they took power in 2004.

[Adam Griffin]

538 has adjusted its rating for the GA Senate race, giving Nunn a better chance of winning than Landrieu, Hagan, Pryor, Grimes or Begich.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[moderatevoter]

The Chamber of Commerce endorsed Kingston.

[Nichlemn]

I don't think that's an official projection. It's an exercise in modeling polls and Presidential approval ratings.

[Maxwell]

I feel like that's a mistake when you see Kingston and Perdue moving to the front of the field, but Nunn is one of the best candidates that the Georgia Dems have recruited in a while, so maybe its fitting.

[windjammer]

I feel like that's a mistake when you see Kingston and Perdue moving to the front of the field, but Nunn is one of the best candidates that the Georgia Dems have recruited in a while, so maybe its fitting.

Seriously, Nate Silver predictions for senate aren't extremely inacurrate. Nunn isn't going to have more chance to be electec than Hagan.

[illegaloperation]

Seriously, Nate Silver predictions for senate aren't extremely inacurrate. Nunn isn't going to have more chance to be electec than Hagan.

He wasn't that accurate in 2012 either.

[windjammer]

Seriously, Nate Silver predictions for senate aren't extremely inacurrate. Nunn isn't going to have more chance to be electec than Hagan.

He wasn't that accurate in 2012 either.

He gave Jon Tester ~30% chance of winning and gave Heidi Heitkamp ~20%.

It was even for Heidi Heitkamp even: 5%

[illegaloperation]

It was even for Heidi Heitkamp even: 5%

My mistake. I went and check and you are right.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Seriously, Nate Silver predictions for senate aren't extremely inacurrate. Nunn isn't going to have more chance to be electec than Hagan.

He wasn't that accurate in 2012 either.

He gave Jon Tester ~30% chance of winning and gave Heidi Heitkamp ~20%.

It was even for Heidi Heitkamp even: 5%

Yes, the irony was that 538 and PPP were both too Republican.