Princeton study: Dems outperforming expectations, likely to keep Senate

[Miles]

Article.

Basically its main points are:

- Other outlets are showing more GOP-friendly results because their models rely too much on fundamentals as opposed to actual polling.
- Despite the lean of the states, Republincans in places like AR, NC and AK haven't been able to break out in the polls.
- Other outlets try to predict the future, based on state-by-state analysis leads to randomness.

Overall, they saw Democrats have a 65% chance of retaining the Senate.

Personally, I'm not sure I completely buy it.

[Senator Cris]

http://election.princeton.edu/todays-senate-seat-count-histogram/
They have a probability of 72% of Dem control!

[IceSpear]

Although I think their overall numbers are too rosy, I agree with their main point. Accounting for fundamentals early on is a decent idea, but by this stage of the game they're already baked into the polls.

[Miles]

The Upshot has a Senate forecast that goes against this.

The argument of the Princeton study is that Democrats do better in models based on polls as opposed to fundamentals. In the Upshot's model, with polling the sole factor, Republicans have a 66% chance of taking the Senate. With fundmentals only, its down to 56%.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

The Upshot has a Senate forecast that goes against this.

The argument of the Princeton study is that Democrats do better in models based on polls as opposed to fundamentals. In the Upshot's model, with polling the sole factor, Republicans have a 66% chance of taking the Senate. With fundmentals only, its down to 56%.

In Kansas, is Orman actually the most liberal out of the three contenders??

[King]

It's still too early. Republicans didn't open up a big generic ballot lead in 2010 until September. We've only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to voter engagement by either side.

The real crux for the GOP is that the economy is decent shape and Obamacare has faded into obscurity, despite ideologically induced panic to the contrary. That's a real turnout driver. GOP will have to drive people out on foreign policy.

[Never]

It's still too early. Republicans didn't open up a big generic ballot lead in 2010 until September. We've only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to voter engagement by either side.

The real crux for the GOP is that the economy is decent shape and Obamacare has faded into obscurity, despite ideologically induced panic to the contrary. That's a real turnout driver. GOP will have to drive people out on foreign policy.

It would be interesting to see foreign policy become the most significant issue of this midterm, as that would make it similar to 2006 in at least one respect.

[7,052,770]

<shrugs> I hope they're right.

[KCDem]

It's still too early. Republicans didn't open up a big generic ballot lead in 2010 until September. We've only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to voter engagement by either side.

The real crux for the GOP is that the economy is decent shape and Obamacare has faded into obscurity, despite ideologically induced panic to the contrary. That's a real turnout driver. GOP will have to drive people out on foreign policy.

It would be interesting to see foreign policy become the most significant issue of this midterm, as that would make it similar to 2006 in at least one respect.

Will NEVER happen...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I actually tend to agree with them. That's not wishful thinking btw. The dynamics of this election are yet to be fully established and there's still time for either side to change the flow. Having said that, I just don't buy this being another 2010 as King points out, I can see people being unhappy, but they just don't seem 'angry'.

[IceSpear]

It's still too early. Republicans didn't open up a big generic ballot lead in 2010 until September. We've only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to voter engagement by either side.

Actually, the Republicans opened up a big lead in early August and never looked back, although the margin did fluctuate.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2010_generic_congressional_vote-2171.html

[free my dawg]

Good news. Wang is better at predicting Senate races than Silver is, so I tend to trust him more. This is the most soothing news of the election cycle.

[IceSpear]

Good news. Wang is better at predicting Senate races than Silver is, so I tend to trust him more. This is the most soothing news of the election cycle.

inb4bronz