Sam Spade's (FINAL, see p.10) Congressional and Senatorial prediction thread...
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:24:59 PM
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)
  Sam Spade's (FINAL, see p.10) Congressional and Senatorial prediction thread...
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7
Author Topic: Sam Spade's (FINAL, see p.10) Congressional and Senatorial prediction thread...  (Read 14180 times)
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #125 on: November 04, 2006, 02:37:12 PM »

Another possible explanation is that Ford, Tester and Kean were all over-rated and benefited from something like a media bubble, which has either burst or seems likely to.

The thing I couldn't understand about Montana is that they are practically a forgotten state like North Dakota or something and Burns is not only on the  Appropriations Committee, but he's the chair of a subcommittee there and he has made use of that position of influence by bringing a lot of money to the state. Similar to CT considering the idea of throwing out Lieberman for a bottom of the totem pole guy like Lamont.  Lieberman and Burns have both made an issue of the money they have brought back to their small influence states. I understand why he's vulnerable, like with Lieberman, but small state voters have to look at the big picture, too, and Lieberman and Burns are far more useful to them in power than they are out of power.

Good points as well, and it helps explain why states like North Dakota and Alaska always reelect their incumbents by huge margins.

Though South Dakota 2004 and Delaware 2000 would be examples of Senate races in small states where this ended up being overcome by the national trend (at least in the Senate in 2000).

The thing with Burns though is that even in 2000 he only won by about 3 percent while Bush was winning the state by 25 points. He's never been all that popular or ever won by large margins, and even his first two wins in 1994 and 1988 were helped by a favorable GOP environment in the state. So it's unusual to see him actually bucking the national trend rather than being swept along with it for a change.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #126 on: November 04, 2006, 02:39:40 PM »

Another possible explanation is that Ford, Tester and Kean were all over-rated and benefited from something like a media bubble, which has either burst or seems likely to.

The thing I couldn't understand about Montana is that they are practically a forgotten state like North Dakota or something and Burns is not only on the  Appropriations Committee, but he's the chair of a subcommittee there and he has made use of that position of influence by bringing a lot of money to the state. Similar to CT considering the idea of throwing out Lieberman for a bottom of the totem pole guy like Lamont.  Lieberman and Burns have both made an issue of the money they have brought back to their small influence states. I understand why he's vulnerable, like with Lieberman, but small state voters have to look at the big picture, too, and Lieberman and Burns are far more useful to them in power than they are out of power.

So you supported Tom Daschle? Tongue

And the Hon. Robert Byrd too apparently
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #127 on: November 04, 2006, 03:12:14 PM »

Another possible explanation is that Ford, Tester and Kean were all over-rated and benefited from something like a media bubble, which has either burst or seems likely to.

The thing I couldn't understand about Montana is that they are practically a forgotten state like North Dakota or something and Burns is not only on the  Appropriations Committee, but he's the chair of a subcommittee there and he has made use of that position of influence by bringing a lot of money to the state. Similar to CT considering the idea of throwing out Lieberman for a bottom of the totem pole guy like Lamont.  Lieberman and Burns have both made an issue of the money they have brought back to their small influence states. I understand why he's vulnerable, like with Lieberman, but small state voters have to look at the big picture, too, and Lieberman and Burns are far more useful to them in power than they are out of power.

Good points as well, and it helps explain why states like North Dakota and Alaska always reelect their incumbents by huge margins.

Though South Dakota 2004 and Delaware 2000 would be examples of Senate races in small states where this ended up being overcome by the national trend (at least in the Senate in 2000).

The thing with Burns though is that even in 2000 he only won by about 3 percent while Bush was winning the state by 25 points. He's never been all that popular or ever won by large margins, and even his first two wins in 1994 and 1988 were helped by a favorable GOP environment in the state. So it's unusual to see him actually bucking the national trend rather than being swept along with it for a change.

Delaware 2000 wasn't about the national trend, it was about a senator who appeared totally senile and out of it.  Voters always throw those people out of office, unless it's New Jersey or South Carolina.  Smiley

Burns in 2000 was well ahead of Schweitzer until about 3-4 weeks before the election, when he started to absolutely collapse.  If the election had been one week later, Burns would have surely lost.

This year, Burns appeared to be dead in the water until right about the same time.  Will his surge be about a week too late this time around?  We'll find out.
Logged
NHPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #128 on: November 04, 2006, 03:28:25 PM »


It looks like thefactor deleted his post. Anyway, I didn't say that I supported Burns, even. I was just saying that I am surprised when small states boot out incumbent senators who are powerful. Daschle's hold on power was tenuous even if he'd have beaten Thune.  The Dems were losing  patience with his attempts at seizing control of the Senate.  Now, Byrd is a much better analogy. And, it supports what I'm saying. WV gets it. They understand that booting out Byrd should be done only after some serious thought because the stakes are quite high if the payoff of replacing him are not at all close to keeping him.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #129 on: November 04, 2006, 03:52:36 PM »

Another possible explanation is that Ford, Tester and Kean were all over-rated and benefited from something like a media bubble, which has either burst or seems likely to.

The thing I couldn't understand about Montana is that they are practically a forgotten state like North Dakota or something and Burns is not only on the  Appropriations Committee, but he's the chair of a subcommittee there and he has made use of that position of influence by bringing a lot of money to the state. Similar to CT considering the idea of throwing out Lieberman for a bottom of the totem pole guy like Lamont.  Lieberman and Burns have both made an issue of the money they have brought back to their small influence states. I understand why he's vulnerable, like with Lieberman, but small state voters have to look at the big picture, too, and Lieberman and Burns are far more useful to them in power than they are out of power.

Good points as well, and it helps explain why states like North Dakota and Alaska always reelect their incumbents by huge margins.

Though South Dakota 2004 and Delaware 2000 would be examples of Senate races in small states where this ended up being overcome by the national trend (at least in the Senate in 2000).

The thing with Burns though is that even in 2000 he only won by about 3 percent while Bush was winning the state by 25 points. He's never been all that popular or ever won by large margins, and even his first two wins in 1994 and 1988 were helped by a favorable GOP environment in the state. So it's unusual to see him actually bucking the national trend rather than being swept along with it for a change.

Delaware 2000 wasn't about the national trend, it was about a senator who appeared totally senile and out of it.  Voters always throw those people out of office, unless it's New Jersey or South Carolina.  Smiley

Burns in 2000 was well ahead of Schweitzer until about 3-4 weeks before the election, when he started to absolutely collapse.  If the election had been one week later, Burns would have surely lost.

This year, Burns appeared to be dead in the water until right about the same time.  Will his surge be about a week too late this time around?  We'll find out.

Well I agree Roth's defeat really didn't have to do with the national trend, though I mentioned it in the same breath as South Dakota only because it was a very good year for the Democrats in the Senate overall, just as Dasche was probably a victim of favorable Republican dynamics in 2004.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #130 on: November 06, 2006, 04:02:25 PM »

....
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #131 on: November 06, 2006, 04:31:26 PM »


Smiley

Just got back from class.  I've done most of the hard work and put the numbers together.  I will probably wait until SUSA's last poll dump before I release my final numbers.
Logged
Rob
Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,277
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #132 on: November 06, 2006, 06:09:13 PM »

Just got back from class.  I've done most of the hard work and put the numbers together.  I will probably wait until SUSA's last poll dump before I release my final numbers.

Just out of curiosity, Sam, which Senatorial candidates are you supporting? I know you're fairly conservative, but you're a bit of an enigma... Tongue

I hope you're supporting Tester, at least. Smiley
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #133 on: November 06, 2006, 06:17:52 PM »

Just got back from class.  I've done most of the hard work and put the numbers together.  I will probably wait until SUSA's last poll dump before I release my final numbers.

Just out of curiosity, Sam, which Senatorial candidates are you supporting? I know you're fairly conservative, but you're a bit of an enigma... Tongue

I hope you're supporting Tester, at least. Smiley

I am a total enigma on Senatorial candidates and on candidates in general, with these exceptions:

My home state of Texas, where it is well-known that I support the two Republicans for Governor and Senate, the latter much more strongly than the former (more of a win-by-default one).

The state I will vote in tomorrow:  New York, where is should also be well-known that I support Spitzer for Gov and will probably write in Daniel Patrick Moynihan on the Senate part.

I would also add that I think neither major candidate in the Virginia Senate race is fit for the position of city dog-catcher and that I generally do not look favorably on crooks.  Interpret that as you wish.
Logged
Rob
Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,277
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #134 on: November 06, 2006, 06:24:55 PM »

I would also add that I think neither major candidate in the Virginia Senate race is fit for the position of city dog-catcher and that I generally do not look favorably on crooks.

You're a good man.
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #135 on: November 06, 2006, 06:36:42 PM »

I would also add that I think neither major candidate in the Virginia Senate race is fit for the position of city dog-catcher and that I generally do not look favorably on crooks.

You're a good man.

So you'll be rooting for the Republicans in New Mexico then? Tongue
Logged
Rob
Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,277
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #136 on: November 06, 2006, 06:39:23 PM »

Third-party, if anything. I don't support Menendez, or Blagojevich, but I'm not backing the GOP in those races.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #137 on: November 06, 2006, 07:11:58 PM »

And here we go... 

FINAL PREDICTION - SENATE
Safe D
California Feinstein (D) 61, Mountjoy (R) 35, Other 4
Delaware Carper (D) 64, Ting (R) 34, Other 2
Florida Bill Nelson (D) 61, Harris (R) 37, Other 2
Hawaii Akaka (D) 61, Thielen (R) 37, Other 2
Massachusetts Kennedy (D) 67, Chase (R) 31, Other 2
Minnesota* Klobuchar (D) 54, Kennedy (R) 42, Other 4
Nebraska Ben Nelson (D) 56, Ricketts (R) 43, Other 1
New Mexico Bingaman (D) 64, McCulloch (R) 34, Other 2
New York Clinton (D) 66, Spencer (R) 31, Other 3
North Dakota Conrad (D) 69, Grotberg (R) 26, Other 5
Ohio (R) Brown (D) 55, DeWine (R) 44, Other 1
Pennsylvania (R) Casey (D) 55, Santorum (R) 45
Washington Cantwell (D) 55, McGavick (R) 42, Other 3
West Virginia Byrd (D) 63, Raese (R) 35, Other 2
Wisconsin Kohl (D) 65, Lorge (R) 31, Other 4

Likely D
Michigan Stabenow (D) 54, Bouchard (R) 45, Other 1

Lean D
New Jersey Menendez (D) 52, Kean (R) 46, Other 2

Tossup (Lean D)
Virginia Webb (D) 49.9, Allen (R) 48.3, Other 2.6
Montana Tester (D) 49.5, Burns (R) 48.4, Other 2.1
Maryland* Steele (R) 49.5, Cardin (D) 48.6, Other 1.9
Rhode Island Chafee (R) 50.1, Whitehouse (D) 48.4, Other 1.4

Toss-up (Pure)
Missouri McCaskill (D) 49.6, Talent (R) 49.3, Other 1.1

Lean R
Tennessee* Corker (R) 53, Ford (D) 46, Other 1
Arizona Kyl (R) 54, Pederson (D) 45, Other 1

Likely R
None

Safe R
Indiana Lugar (R) 91, Other 9
Maine Snowe (R) 72, Bright (D) 25, Other 3
Mississippi Lott (R) 63, Fleming (D) 36, Other 1
Nevada Ensign (R) 56, Carter (D) 43, Other 1
Texas Hutchinson (R) 62, Radnofsky (D) 37, Other 1
Utah Hatch (R) 64, Ashdown (D) 34, Other 2
Wyoming Thomas (R) 68, Groutage (D) 28, Other 4

Safe I
Vermont* Sanders (D/I) 62, Tarrant (R) 35, Other 3

Likely I
Connecticut Lieberman (CFL) 49, Lamont (D) 40, Schlesinger (R) 10, Other 1

Democratic gains
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Virginia
Montana
Missouri

Republican gains
Maryland

Independent gains
Connecticut

110th Senate
51 R, 47D, 2 I
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #138 on: November 06, 2006, 07:16:09 PM »
« Edited: November 06, 2006, 07:18:10 PM by Sam Spade »

FINAL PREDICTIONS - HOUSE
* indicates change of party
GOP Seats
Likely D
1. AZ-08* (open)
2. CO-07* (open)

Lean D
3. PA-10*
4. IN-08*
5. IA-01* (open)
6. PA-07*
7. OH-18* (open)
8. OH-15*
9. NY-24* (open)
10. IN-02*
11. TX-22* (open)

Toss-up (Lean D)
12. FL-16 (open)
13. NM-01*
14. NC-11*
15. CT-05*
16. NH-02*
17. PA-06*
18. FL-13 (open)*
19. CT-04*

Toss-up (Pure)
20. NY-20*
21. OH-01*
22. FL-22
23. CT-02
24. AZ-05*
25. KY-03*
26. IN-09
27. IL-06 (open)
28. WI-08 (open)

Toss-up (Lean R)
29. VA-02
30. PA-08
31. NY-26
32. NY-25*
33. ID-01 (open)
34. CA-11*
35. OH-02
36. WY-AL

Lean R
37. NY-29
38. CO-04
39. KY-04
39. WA-08
41. KS-02
42. OH-12
43. PA-04
44. MN-01
45. MN-06 (open)
46. KY-02
47. NE-03 (open)
48. AZ-01
49. NY-19
50. IL-10
51. IA-02
52. NV-03
53. NC-08
54. NY-03
55. NV-02 (open)
56. VA-10
57. WA-05
58. CA-04
59. CO-05 (open)

Likely R
60. TX-23
61. NJ-07
62. IN-03
63. MI-07 (open)
64. NH-01
65. FL-09 (open)
66. NE-01
67. FL-08
68. MI-08
69. IL-11
70. NY-13
71. MI-09
72. NJ-05
73. CA-50
74. WV-02
75. IA-04

Dem Seats
Toss-up
1. IL-08
2. GA-08
3. GA-12*

Lean D
4. VT-AL
5. IA-03
6. IN-07
7. OR-05
8. WV-AL
9. TX-17

Likely D
10. IL-17 (open)
11. LA-03
12. CO-03
13. NC-13
14. SC-05
15. KS-03
16. LA-02

House Pickups
Dems (+24)
AZ-05
AZ-08 (open)
CA-11
CO-07 (open)
CT-04
CT-05
FL-13
IA-01 (open)
IN-02
IN-08
KY-03
NC-11
NH-02
NM-01
NY-20
NY-24 (open)
NY-25
OH-01
OH-15
OH-18 (open)
PA-06
PA-07
PA-10
TX-22 (open)

GOP (+1)
GA-12

110th Congress
226 D, 209 R
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #139 on: November 06, 2006, 07:17:44 PM »

As a note, if a Cat 5 wave occurs, expect it to hit around MN-01 or so.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #140 on: November 06, 2006, 07:20:50 PM »

This seems to be the lay down on the competitive Senate races

Lean Democrat: MT, MD, RI
Tossup leaning Democrat: MO, VA
Likely Republican: TN, AZ

All others are safe.


As a note, if a Cat 5 wave occurs, expect it to hit around MN-01 or so.

What category would you call your prediction? I'd call 5-6 Senate seats and 24 House seats a success.
Logged
Boris
boris78
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,098
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #141 on: November 06, 2006, 07:22:35 PM »

Steele beating Cardin in Maryland? What makes you think that? I haven't seen a single poll showing Steele leading, and only SUSA puts him within the MoE (I think).
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #142 on: November 06, 2006, 07:23:53 PM »

This seems to be the lay down on the competitive Senate races

Lean Democrat: MT, MD, RI
Tossup leaning Democrat: MO, VA
Likely Republican: TN, AZ

All others are safe.

Maybe.  Things have been happening of late that indicates that your placement among those five top races is wrong.  The last two are correct, but should be in Lean.

Of my predictions right now, my confidence level is actually highest on RI and MT.  Anywho, the five top races are extremely difficult to call right now, and I could be dead wrong on all of them.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #143 on: November 06, 2006, 07:24:30 PM »

Steele beating Cardin in Maryland? What makes you think that? I haven't seen a single poll showing Steele leading, and only SUSA puts him within the MoE (I think).

Oh, I assumed all of his "Lean D" predictions would have the Democrat winning. Silly me.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #144 on: November 06, 2006, 07:26:02 PM »

Steele beating Cardin in Maryland? What makes you think that? I haven't seen a single poll showing Steele leading, and only SUSA puts him within the MoE (I think).

Mason-Dixon has it the same as SUSA.  This is what is called a "gut sense call", in the literal definition.  I could give reasons, but none of them can be measured in numbers.

If you disagree with me, that's fine.  All of the toss-up races could really go either way, frankly, though I know more about some than others.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #145 on: November 06, 2006, 07:26:42 PM »
« Edited: November 06, 2006, 07:28:24 PM by Alcon »

Wait, MD is both Dem-leaning and a GOP pick-up?

I assume that's a typo?

Very nice though.  I disagree with MD and personally I'd put WA-08 (not trying to be state-centric, but it's what I know) closer than Lean GOP, even if I think Reichert has the advantage.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #146 on: November 06, 2006, 07:27:18 PM »

Steele beating Cardin in Maryland? What makes you think that? I haven't seen a single poll showing Steele leading, and only SUSA puts him within the MoE (I think).

Oh, I assumed all of his "Lean D" predictions would have the Democrat winning. Silly me.

There have to be surprises.  And on election night there always are.  In terms of the "actual numbers", Toss-up (Lean D) is the best call for all those races, except MO.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #147 on: November 06, 2006, 07:29:13 PM »

Wait, MD is both Dem-leaning and a GOP pick-up?

Yes.  As I said in my previous post, the Toss-up (Lean D), which is in-between Lean D and Toss-up, as well as the other designations are where the numbers say the races are.  The numbers are my "gut" prediction based on the numbers.

If you want me to clarify, I'd be happy to.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #148 on: November 06, 2006, 07:30:53 PM »
« Edited: November 06, 2006, 07:34:08 PM by jfern »

Steele beating Cardin in Maryland? What makes you think that? I haven't seen a single poll showing Steele leading, and only SUSA puts him within the MoE (I think).

Oh, I assumed all of his "Lean D" predictions would have the Democrat winning. Silly me.

There have to be surprises.  And on election night there always are.  In terms of the "actual numbers", Toss-up (Lean D) is the best call for all those races, except MO.

Why? Do you think Steele's dirty tricks claiming that he got the endorsements of Mfume, Curry, and Johnson will win it for Steele? It would be nice if Republicans weren't all a bunch of inhuman liars.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/MD_Dirty_tricks.jpg
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/MD_Dirty_tricks2.jpg
Logged
Boris
boris78
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,098
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #149 on: November 06, 2006, 07:31:17 PM »

Steele beating Cardin in Maryland? What makes you think that? I haven't seen a single poll showing Steele leading, and only SUSA puts him within the MoE (I think).

Oh, I assumed all of his "Lean D" predictions would have the Democrat winning. Silly me.

There have to be surprises.  And on election night there always are.  In terms of the "actual numbers", Toss-up (Lean D) is the best call for all those races, except MO.

So, numerically, Maryland is a lean D, but your gut feeling makes you think that Steele will eek out a thin victory?

Personally, I honestly can't see Steele winning, not in Maryland and not in 2006. From what I've heard, he's run a great campaign and is a strong contender, but I don't think that's enough. I say Cardin wins by five. Ehrlich on the other hand is in a much better position than Steele is; if Steele wins, Ehrlich most definitely will.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  
« previous next »
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 0.061 seconds with 11 queries.