FiveThirtyEight Gov Probabilities Released:

[JRP1994]

http://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/enten-datalab-early-gubernatorial-polling-table.png?w=610&h=757

[Antonio the Sixth]

Scott at 48% and Quinn at 25%? Looks like bullsh*t to me.

[Maxwell]

Scott at 48% and Quinn at 25%? Looks like bullsh*t to me.

I don't think so. Scotts numbers have been steadily rising, and Quinn's news has only gotten worse. Maybe not those exact numbers, but I'd say Scott is more likely to win re-election than Quinn is.

[International Brotherhood of Bernard]

Also has Malloy at 42%. Throw it in the trash.

[GaussLaw]

Sorry guys, but I'm sensing some real cognitive dissonance here.

Just because you don't like these results (I don't either) doesn't mean they're not true. 

Given the fact that there's a small but realistic chance of a 2010 wave redux(and this chance is much greater than a Dem wave), these probabilities seem quite reasonable.

[henster]

One poll has Scott with a two point lead within the margin of error and suddenly he's a lock for re-election.

[free my dawg]

Sorry guys, but I'm sensing some real cognitive dissonance here.

Just because you don't like these results (I don't either) doesn't mean they're not true. 

Given the fact that there's a small but realistic chance of a 2010 wave redux(and this chance is much greater than a Dem wave), these probabilities seem quite reasonable.

I don't have a problem with Scott's rating (considering how Florida Democratic logic says to run a brazen opportunist who has more interest in the governor's seat than the party against a brazen opportunist who gave a handout to his company disguised as welfare reform), and I can even see Malloy losing this November.

However, what I do have a problem with is him trying to say that John Kitzhaber has a 3% better chance of winning than Mark Udall, or that whoever the Republicans put up in Maryland has a slightly better chance than Joni Ernst or Scott Brown. That's just f***ing ridiculous.

[badgate]

Why'd they omit New York?

[JRP1994]

Why'd they omit New York?

Strong 3rd party presence.

[Donerail]

However, what I do have a problem with is him trying to say that John Kitzhaber has a 3% better chance of winning than Mark Udall, or that whoever the Republicans put up in Maryland has a slightly better chance than Joni Ernst or Scott Brown. That's just f***ing ridiculous.

Read the article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Donerail]

Also, something we seem to be ignoring in this thread:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Also, something we seem to be ignoring in this thread:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was waiting for someone to point this out, thanks.

[LeBron]

CA and NH - I agree on those. Brown is popular and Republicans have a Tea Party darling in Tim Donnelly. Hassan is safe to as assumed by polling, but you can't ever be sure in such an independent state where the Republican nominee isn't half bad (pro-SSM). NY should be up here to, but I guess Silver considers Howie Hawkins too strong of a third party challenger if he gets enough left-wing and union support to give it to Cuomo.

MA - No. Now the MA Republicans are terrible and are having an intra-party fight between Baker and Fisher with an attempted bribing scandal present, but Coakley will be the nominee and MA has a history of electing Republicans, so this, if anything, should be below MD.

MN - I'll agree. I wouldn't count the GOP here considering it's Minnesota, but they're struggling to rally behind one candidate while Dayton himself has approval's in the 50s and just ended the hate he's been getting from the medical marijuana activists in the state, so I'd say he's in the low 90s of chances of being re-elected.

PA - Maybe too high? Wolf is the Corbett's worst nightmare, but McCord and Schwartz successfully attacked Wolf on his bad judgment and managerial skills and Corbett still has a strong war chest even if he's facing the problems of low job growth, gutting public education funding, and the Sandusky scandal. I would say about an 82% chance for Wolf.

CO - Seems about right. Hickenlooper was in a lot of trouble this time last year, but the CO GOP is about to nominate freaking Tancredo again and Hickenlooper's approval is improving, so low, low chances for a GOP pickup here and I agree with the 80% because it nonetheless still is a tossup state.

MD - No, no, no, no, no......no. Just no. I really don't want to believe Silver is seriously taking a Republican internal poll into account for his basis. Silver should be ashamed. This should be in the 90 percentile if anything.

OR - Again......this is what happens when you take every single poll in a race into account. Maybe if the OR GOP nominated Walden then Kitzhaber would have only a 64% chance, but not against a pretty bland, anti-choice, anti-SSM Republican candidate.

FL - As much as I hate to see it, it's reality that Scott has somehow made this race a tossup again with only a slight tilt to FL Democrats. I agree with Silver's probability of a Crist win.

CT - If Foley can't beat Malloy in 2010, what makes Silver think he can do it in 2014 even after a brutal primary and in a more neutral year? Despite the ties, undecided's will break for Malloy and I might have agreed with Silver's ranking of Shays was the GOP nominee, but he isn't. 55% chance for Malloy getting re-elected.

AZ - While the state still slightly favors Republicans, outgoing Gov. Brewer has only a 44-42 approval rating and Republicans seem ready to nominate Tea Party-backed socon Doug Ducey. He still has the advantage, but Dems managed to field a pretty good candidate here and he probably has more of a 55% chance.

AR - While Hutchinson does lead by high single digits and Obama has low approval's in AR, Beebe is still incredibly popular, so I would say about only a 60% chance for Asa for now.

GA - This definitely accounts for all of those polls with Deal leads and how much Carter will struggle to avoid a runoff, but again, it's favoring the Republican too much.

IL - A few of the polls in IL heavily oversampled older voters, so just by averaging out Rassy's +3 for Rauner and PPP's +3 for Quinn, it's a 50/50 tossup here. By no means 25/75.

WI - Marquette and Rassy had this tied.....yet Walker has a 77% chance at re-election? It still tilts Walker so about a 52% chance for him, but a total no no here.

KS - OMG. I hope he realizes that the Wilson Perkins Allen poll is pretty much negligible and yes, it is KS, but heck, Corbett is more popular than Brownback is! Davis should have at least a 40% chance.

MI - No.

NE - Given Ricketts is the nominee, that seems like a legit rating.

OH - An 83% chance Kasich gets re-elected? xD Too funny. He must have literally taken all of the Qunnipiac polls into account to get to that probable conclusion.

IA - I mean, Hatch is a weak candidate, but now so is Branstad and most polls now pre-scandal are negligible. Hatch has more like a 3 in 10 chance than a 1 in 10 chance.

NM - Given King's poor record as AG and the lack of name recognition the other candidates have, Martinez is safer than she would have been, but her re-election chances are too high here.

TX - Seems about right. There's still a little bit of room Abbott makes enough gaffes to give Davis a slim chance, but besides that possibility, Abbott will win.

SC - The economy and Haley's approvals are getting better, but Silver shouldn't underestimate Sheheen. He has name ID and is moderate enough to win statewide, so Silver shouldn't be basing this off of one, likely flawed Rassy poll.

SD and TN - Well both Daugaard and Haslam are popular and uncontroversial, so even though Dems found candidates in both races, they're safe. 


It's really a shame what Silver has become. This honestly looks like a chart of Sabato predictions tbh and Silver unfortunately fails to realize that governor elections are entirely different from congressional elections in that Obama's approval won't matter as much and won't hurt the Democratic candidates as much as low turnout and terrible in-state campaigns will. Even in Ohio, FitzGerald is trailing not because of Obama's low approval here, but because FitzGerald doesn't have the money or powerful endorsements and organization yet to give him strongly off the ground and heck, Ohio voters even want to ignore Obama when it comes to the revived Ohio economy. Early polling might usually be accurate most of the time to, but in Ohio in 2010, that wasn't the case and it wasn't until the campaign got started that Strickland lost his early leads.

As for NY, AK, and ME, I oppose the idea of him not including them when it's all but guaranteed Hawkins, Cutler or Walker/Myers will become Governor. It will surely change the outcome, but Cuomo is safe and in the 90 percentile for re-election, Michaud probably has about a 52-55% chance of winning, and Parnell about a 65% chance given all the right-wing votes that are being stolen from Parnell.

I would take this with a grain of salt, guys. Polls seem to be the only thing being taken into account in all of these races and I think I'll stick with Rothenberg.

[free my dawg]

However, what I do have a problem with is him trying to say that John Kitzhaber has a 3% better chance of winning than Mark Udall, or that whoever the Republicans put up in Maryland has a slightly better chance than Joni Ernst or Scott Brown. That's just f***ing ridiculous.

Read the article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Still doesn't excuse the Oregon result, which is the most egregious of them all.

There is no way in hell that someone as strong as Kitzhaber will be beaten by someone as weak as Richardson, let alone be comparable to one of the most competitive races of the cycle.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Like I care what Nate Silver thinks.

[JRP1994]

Like I care what Nate Silver thinks.

The political landscape is littered with the ashes of people's reputations who said that Nate Silver didn't know what he was talking about.

[Maxwell]

Sorry guys, but I'm sensing some real cognitive dissonance here.

Just because you don't like these results (I don't either) doesn't mean they're not true. 

Given the fact that there's a small but realistic chance of a 2010 wave redux(and this chance is much greater than a Dem wave), these probabilities seem quite reasonable.

I don't have a problem with Scott's rating (considering how Florida Democratic logic says to run a brazen opportunist who has more interest in the governor's seat than the party against a brazen opportunist who gave a handout to his company disguised as welfare reform), and I can even see Malloy losing this November.

However, what I do have a problem with is him trying to say that John Kitzhaber has a 3% better chance of winning than Mark Udall, or that whoever the Republicans put up in Maryland has a slightly better chance than Joni Ernst or Scott Brown. That's just f***ing ridiculous.

the Maryland figure is pretty weird. Then again, Scott Brown has a zero percent chance of being elected, so that makes sense.

[Mr. Illini]

FiveThirtyEight is usually pretty good, but I would question a number of these, including my home state and the state just to our north.

Looking forward to the more detailed work on the forecasts.

[pbrower2a]

Republicans have an advantage in having well-funded front groups like Citizens United, the National Chamber of Commerce, Crossroads GPS, Americans for Prosperity, etc., that have flooded the airwaves in some states with advertising that all but demonizes anything not completely in favor of absolute plutocracy. GOP front groups are spending heavily -- early.

It gives them an early advantage. Can it stick? The democrats have yet to respond. Democrats need to personalize their campaigns to win. In many places they have the time.

[Tender Branson]

MD & MA should be switched ...

[TX Conservative Dem]

What is the historical accuracy rate on 538 ?

I mean Silver is the same IDIOT, who wrongly predicted the 2012 SB would be between Seattle vs New England (when in fact, 49ers lost to the Ravens that year).

He needs to stick to politics.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

SC - The economy and Haley's approvals are getting better, but Silver shouldn't underestimate Sheheen. He has name ID and is moderate enough to win statewide, so Silver shouldn't be basing this off of one, likely flawed Rassy poll.

Actually, giving Sheheen a 3% chance is likely an overestimate of his chances.  Haley suffered in 2010 from a highly contested Republican GOP primary and being seen as a female Sanford, which could have been a positive had Mark not gone hiking on the Argentinean Trail instead of the Appalachian Trail as he'd told his wife.

Haley has had a good four years as governor, albeit with a few missteps in her first year.  Unlike 2010, there will be far fewer voters choosing to vote against her because they think she is likely to be incompetent, to be too reactionary, and/or to have insufficient character.  Sheheen's only chance is if Haley makes a major faux pas and/or gets embroiled in an unexpected scandal. Sheheen will not be winning on the strength of his skills as a campaigner, even if he improves over his 2010 campaign (and his 2010 campaign left much to be desired as if focused too much on Sanford and not enough on Haley).  The only possible fly in the ointment for Haley at the moment is if Ervin's "Independent Republican" candidacy takes off, but I really doubt it will, even if he makes it onto the ballot (which we won't know until sometime in late July or early August).  Even then, the most I expect Ervin to do is deny Haley a double digit margin of victory.

[Free Bird]

CA and NH - I agree on those. Brown is popular and Republicans have a Tea Party darling in Tim Donnelly. Hassan is safe to as assumed by polling, but you can't ever be sure in such an independent state where the Republican nominee isn't half bad (pro-SSM). NY should be up here to, but I guess Silver considers Howie Hawkins too strong of a third party challenger if he gets enough left-wing and union support to give it to Cuomo.

MA - No. Now the MA Republicans are terrible and are having an intra-party fight between Baker and Fisher with an attempted bribing scandal present, but Coakley will be the nominee and MA has a history of electing Republicans, so this, if anything, should be below MD.

MN - I'll agree. I wouldn't count the GOP here considering it's Minnesota, but they're struggling to rally behind one candidate while Dayton himself has approval's in the 50s and just ended the hate he's been getting from the medical marijuana activists in the state, so I'd say he's in the low 90s of chances of being re-elected.

PA - Maybe too high? Wolf is the Corbett's worst nightmare, but McCord and Schwartz successfully attacked Wolf on his bad judgment and managerial skills and Corbett still has a strong war chest even if he's facing the problems of low job growth, gutting public education funding, and the Sandusky scandal. I would say about an 82% chance for Wolf.

CO - Seems about right. Hickenlooper was in a lot of trouble this time last year, but the CO GOP is about to nominate freaking Tancredo again and Hickenlooper's approval is improving, so low, low chances for a GOP pickup here and I agree with the 80% because it nonetheless still is a tossup state.

MD - No, no, no, no, no......no. Just no. I really don't want to believe Silver is seriously taking a Republican internal poll into account for his basis. Silver should be ashamed. This should be in the 90 percentile if anything.

OR - Again......this is what happens when you take every single poll in a race into account. Maybe if the OR GOP nominated Walden then Kitzhaber would have only a 64% chance, but not against a pretty bland, anti-choice, anti-SSM Republican candidate.

FL - As much as I hate to see it, it's reality that Scott has somehow made this race a tossup again with only a slight tilt to FL Democrats. I agree with Silver's probability of a Crist win.

CT - If Foley can't beat Malloy in 2010, what makes Silver think he can do it in 2014 even after a brutal primary and in a more neutral year? Despite the ties, undecided's will break for Malloy and I might have agreed with Silver's ranking of Shays was the GOP nominee, but he isn't. 55% chance for Malloy getting re-elected.

AZ - While the state still slightly favors Republicans, outgoing Gov. Brewer has only a 44-42 approval rating and Republicans seem ready to nominate Tea Party-backed socon Doug Ducey. He still has the advantage, but Dems managed to field a pretty good candidate here and he probably has more of a 55% chance.

AR - While Hutchinson does lead by high single digits and Obama has low approval's in AR, Beebe is still incredibly popular, so I would say about only a 60% chance for Asa for now.

GA - This definitely accounts for all of those polls with Deal leads and how much Carter will struggle to avoid a runoff, but again, it's favoring the Republican too much.

IL - A few of the polls in IL heavily oversampled older voters, so just by averaging out Rassy's +3 for Rauner and PPP's +3 for Quinn, it's a 50/50 tossup here. By no means 25/75.

WI - Marquette and Rassy had this tied.....yet Walker has a 77% chance at re-election? It still tilts Walker so about a 52% chance for him, but a total no no here.

KS - OMG. I hope he realizes that the Wilson Perkins Allen poll is pretty much negligible and yes, it is KS, but heck, Corbett is more popular than Brownback is! Davis should have at least a 40% chance.

MI - No.

NE - Given Ricketts is the nominee, that seems like a legit rating.

OH - An 83% chance Kasich gets re-elected? xD Too funny. He must have literally taken all of the Qunnipiac polls into account to get to that probable conclusion.

IA - I mean, Hatch is a weak candidate, but now so is Branstad and most polls now pre-scandal are negligible. Hatch has more like a 3 in 10 chance than a 1 in 10 chance.

NM - Given King's poor record as AG and the lack of name recognition the other candidates have, Martinez is safer than she would have been, but her re-election chances are too high here.

TX - Seems about right. There's still a little bit of room Abbott makes enough gaffes to give Davis a slim chance, but besides that possibility, Abbott will win.

SC - The economy and Haley's approvals are getting better, but Silver shouldn't underestimate Sheheen. He has name ID and is moderate enough to win statewide, so Silver shouldn't be basing this off of one, likely flawed Rassy poll.

SD and TN - Well both Daugaard and Haslam are popular and uncontroversial, so even though Dems found candidates in both races, they're safe.  


It's really a shame what Silver has become. This honestly looks like a chart of Sabato predictions tbh and Silver unfortunately fails to realize that governor elections are entirely different from congressional elections in that Obama's approval won't matter as much and won't hurt the Democratic candidates as much as low turnout and terrible in-state campaigns will. Even in Ohio, FitzGerald is trailing not because of Obama's low approval here, but because FitzGerald doesn't have the money or powerful endorsements and organization yet to give him strongly off the ground and heck, Ohio voters even want to ignore Obama when it comes to the revived Ohio economy. Early polling might usually be accurate most of the time to, but in Ohio in 2010, that wasn't the case and it wasn't until the campaign got started that Strickland lost his early leads.

As for NY, AK, and ME, I oppose the idea of him not including them when it's all but guaranteed Hawkins, Cutler or Walker/Myers will become Governor. It will surely change the outcome, but Cuomo is safe and in the 90 percentile for re-election, Michaud probably has about a 52-55% chance of winning, and Parnell about a 65% chance given all the right-wing votes that are being stolen from Parnell.

I would take this with a grain of salt, guys. Polls seem to be the only thing being taken into account in all of these races and I think I'll stick with Rothenberg.

No. No. No. Foley only lost because of extended voting in Bridgeport and other places, and the primary was brutal in 2010. This time, Foley is cruising, and the only real other guy worth bringing up is Boughton, who is basically just Foley's Santorum. Just because you don't like a prediction doesn't mean it's wrong.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Like I care what Nate Silver thinks.

The political landscape is littered with the ashes of people's reputations who said that Nate Silver didn't know what he was talking about.

Thankfully Oldiesfreak's reputation can't really get worse than it already is.

[Maxwell]

I don't really think Foley is a worse candidate than Shays. If Shays did that badly in a Republican primary even after being a Congressman in the state for as long as he was, that's not a good sign that he could've done in well in a general election. Foley seems like the strongest recruit the Connecticut Republicans have had in a while.