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

[Sam Spade]

Great job, Sam Spade! Much credit for your excellent predictions.

It is a prediction that will undoubtedly change each and every week, but alas, it is a prediction from someone like me who hates predicting. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not even this will save Shays in my view.  However, it is a possibility.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would advise you to look at what has been going on with the two front-runners for the GOP nomination.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even I will admit this prediction is kinda "out there" right now, even though I have my reasons for putting it there.  Maybe I should just highlight each week a race that is not on everyone's radar, and give some reasons why I think it could be on that radar soon enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cubin has consistently underperformed the GOP margins year after year in this state (9% in 2004) and she only got 60% in the primary this past week.  Her opponent also has money (something which I can't say for Schmidt's opponent in OH-02).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

NM-01:  The main reason right now why I think Wilson will survive is because she is a "survivor" from a number of tough races in the past, and, absent a national "wave", which I don't see right now, these attributes come more into play.  Secondly, Madrid is getting hammered at home and by Wilson for the scandal problems within the Richardson admin. and really hasn't done a good job of defending herself there.  Still, it's quite fair to predict she'll lose. 

KY-04:  We're dealing here with two people who are fairly well known by everyone, so there's no "name recognition" factor.  My own personal opinion right now is that Lucas will poll at his strongest point early in the race and will poll less well further in, and I don't think his slight advantage right now will be enough to offset this as time moves along.  Of course, Novak thinks the race is already pretty much over, so there's someone for your camp. 

[TomC]

I challenge Republicans to give me a reason why Harold Ford will lose this election. He's running a nearly perfect campaign, he's got a COH advantage,  he's got an opponent who is too liberal on abortion and love raising taxes. Here are a some recent headlines from this race:

"Ford camp says Corker failed to pay taxes on 2 companies."

"Ford on offensive against Corker."

"President may bring Corker cash – at a price."

"Corker misses a chance not debating in Jackson."

"Public should see Corker's taxes."

"Ford says Corker did not respond to 911 concerns."

"DSCC Ad Labels Bob Corker "Big Oil" Republican."

Need a say more? The momentum has shifted in this race.

Ford is gaining because of his strong, positive message and because Tennessee will say no to a flip-flopping, tax-hiking, wishy-washy, prevaricator who will jeopardize America's security. People died in Chattanooga because Corker slashed the 9-11 budget. With America's security at stake, can we afford Bob Corker's dangerous incompetence?

It's not fair, but it's what people remember:

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050527/NEWS0201/505270452"]

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/election/article/0,1406,KNS_630_4921183,00.html 

http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?section=9&screen=news&news_id=49278

[Sam Spade]

Thanks for your comments. What about Corker's failures as a candidate? Don't his failures as Mayor combined with the national climate put this race in play?

Once again, these are assumptions.  There is no proof presently that Corker's supposed (and I use supposed, because it's the correct word here) failures as a candidate and as a Mayor have affected him in any ways vis-a-vis the actual race.  There is also no proof that anyone's been paying attention to anything that has been done in this political race over the past month.  The only way we would know this is through polling.

The last poll we have of Tennessee is nearly a month old, showing Corker +6.  The previous three polls to this were conducted three weeks prior to that, right before the primary, and showed Corker @ +13, +12 and +7 respectively.  It is frankly, improper for me to assume without further basis, that the +6 number Rasmussen put out is representative of the race.  It could be greater, much greater, the same, less or much less than that margin now.  It is simply one data point in a stream.

Still, it's what I have to work with, and so with the other information, including other polling data and present campaign information, such as you have provided, I can try and piece together a picture of the race.  Also within that picture is the overall framework of the state itself, as I have provided above and possible national implications.

With regards to the national picture, I would comment that the overall picture looks bad for Republicans, but it does not look "dire" at present, dire translating into national "wave" potential for our purposes (I am predicting a "regional wave" right now, but that "wave" could either grow or collapse).  Secondly, when waves do occur, they do not occur at equal frequencies everywhere.  Some places receive greater amounts of movement, some less, some none.  Perhaps Tennessee will be an area of great wave potential, or maybe the wave here will be less than nationally found.

These are just some things to think about when examining what and what might not happen in Tennessee or any other race for that matter.

[TomC]

Corker's problem is with Republicans. For a good six months two Republican candidates and their supporters pummeled Corker to the point die hards thought he might as well be a Democrat. If people believe what Harold Ford says (and he has been consistently a center right Dem over the years) then he will get a decent middle of the road vote. Corker will get some middle of the road vote because Ford's family is seen by many as corrupt (though they won't provide any evidence that junior himself has ethics problems, and the federal rules are much stricter than the state's.

So, again, the problem for Corker is getting those Republicans back into his camp. And Republicans here are pissed at many in their party. Right wing radio hosts, namely Steve Gill, are basically telling Republicans to stay home or elect Dems to show the GOP they won't elect insincere conservatives. The main issue is immigration, and Corker's got an ad, but doesn't have a great record. Also, populist Republicans are ticked at the lack of fiscal discipline in DC. Many will certainly still show up and vote GOP, but how many will stay home? That's the problem Corker's got to seriously face. It's his to lose, but it could happen.

[minionofmidas]

other Democrats are safer in much more partisan GOP districts.

No, other Democrats are safer in much higher percentage presidential GOP districts.
Not the same thing. Not at all...

[Gustaf]

other Democrats are safer in much more partisan GOP districts.

No, other Democrats are safer in much higher percentage presidential GOP districts.
Not the same thing. Not at all...

I guess you're referring to someone like Landrieu (not a district, but I don't know enough about House Reps to name one )?

What about the Democrats in the Inner West? That area does seem to be partisan GOP as well.

[agcatter]

Dems +12 in the House, +2 in the Senate.

I think that is a fairly reasonable prediction.  No one knows of course but thats how I see it now.

[WMS]

Democrats will pickup NM-01 and KY-04. I have Madrid winning because oif Wilson’s dogmatic support of an unpopular war.

NM-01:  The main reason right now why I think Wilson will survive is because she is a "survivor" from a number of tough races in the past, and, absent a national "wave", which I don't see right now, these attributes come more into play.  Secondly, Madrid is getting hammered at home and by Wilson for the scandal problems within the Richardson admin. and really hasn't done a good job of defending herself there.  Still, it's quite fair to predict she'll lose. 

I'm with Sam Spade on NM-1, and yes, I saw the not-nearly-enough-details-released local poll on it (F***, where are the Independent numbers?!).   Here is a point to consider. No, Wilson is not running away with this race. But she has never been behind in a poll yet.

[Sam Spade]

I have moved Washington to Likely D.

[Sam Spade]

Time for my weekly update.  My final predictions have not changed at this time, so I won't be talking about anything there.  I will also only be posting and talking about races that are not in the Safe column for either party.  This now encompasses 15 Senate seats, 8 Republican, 6 Democrat and one fight between two Democrats (DINOs both ).

Afterwards, though I may not get to this tonight, I'll post on the House races too, as well as my commentary for the week.

Senate

Likely D
Nebraska - not much a-changing here
Washington (from Lean R last week)- McGavick's gaffe concerning his DWI release has left us with two straight polls showing him down 15+, after being only down by 5 before.  I believe the polling results complimenting each other.  At the end of the week, a story came out questioning some Cantwell dealings.  Will this affect things further?  I don't know.  Supposedly only those people who live south of Washington in Virginia know.  What do they say?.  Let the polls decide!

Lean D
Maryland - The primary could change this race.  If Mfume wins, I will put this in toss-up unless a couple of polls beckons me not to.
Michigan - We had a Rasmussen poll showing Granholm up 8, with 51%.  This race is, most likely, on the cusp between Lean and Likely, but in those situations I always opt for the more competitive designation.
Minnesota - No polls here for a while.
Montana (R) - Same as Minnesota, other than the fact the Montana is a Republican state (sort of), I can't figure out how Burns has stayed so close since he says at least one gaffe a week.  Maybe the rule is the more gaffes you make, the less effect they have on your political standing.  At some point, they're positives even! (sort of the Patty Murray/Tom Coburn rule)
Ohio (R) - Haven't seen a poll out of here in a while either.  IIRC, DeWine and Burns held a fundraiser a couple of nights ago together.  Was probably pretty entertaining.
Pennsylvania (R) - I finally watched the Santorum-Casey debate.  My opinion:  A solid Santorum win, but not spectacular.  Santorum was a bit overactive at times, but in command of the issues and came across as intelligent without being snobbish (one of my great flaws ).  My impression of Casey:  When he first appeared on the screen and talked, I was thinking, he's not too bad of a guy, seems sensible, certainly not as bad as Phil, etc. portrays him.  However, the more I watched him, the more it felt like he was...  Let me put it this way.  He has a way of talking into the camera that leaves the impression he thinks he's better than you are.  That's not the kind of impression you want to leave, imo.  Maybe it's just me who felt this, but normally my gut impressions are what others fell also.

Oh, and also, Santorum's ads are really much better than Casey's.

Toss-up
Missouri (R) - Battle of the gaffes this week.  Talent says no amnesty=amnesty and McCaskill says that GWB didn't go into New Orleans fast enough because he didn't want to really save the black people.  Considering I still don't know what amnesty really means (does anyone), I would call the loser McCaskill in this battle.
New Jersey (D) - Too heavily discussed this week for to really say much, except that federal probes don't help you win races.
Rhode Island (R) - The primary is everything here, in case you hadn't noticed.

Lean R
Tennessee - More polls out of Tennessee please.  M-D, SUSA, I urge you.  Btw, for those of you who didn't read the Rasmussen premium numbers and believe them totally, I will take the chance to note that Ford pretty much has his base (Democrats) totally lined behind him, whereas Corker (Republicans) doesn't.  It's a trend I've noticed a good bit in Senate polls of late, and should be a good measuring mark for how the races materialize later on.  Who these Republicans are is an unknown right now, but the general rule as to what they do if they're never won over is that most of them stay home come election day.  Just for future reference...

Virginia - Allen clearly has a slight lead outside of MOE.  Webb's first ad is very, very good, and I doubt the Nancy Reagan thing hurts him much.  He still needs to work on the money (money) problem.

Likely R
Arizona - ASU showed it within 10.  I don't pay any attention to ASU, but it's there.

Lean I/D (as opposed to lean D)
Connecticut - Internal POS showed Lieberman up by 16.  Unfortunately, that poll is a POS.

[Sam Spade]

I have not had the time to go into detail in the House races, but I would point out this quite important article in the NYT today, detailing that Democrats are thinking much less of their chances in picking up some of NY's 7 GOP house seats up for real contest (actually, Fossella is quite safe anyway).

The only seat the DCCC is spending big money on is NY-24 (open), the other races have totally been avoided in their $50 million buy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/11/nyregion/11house.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=todayspaper

For this reason, I am downgrading most of the NY seats right now a slight bit, and adopting a wait-and-see attitude.
Anyway, the numbers this week.  Without any giant new polling efforts in my mind (separate the RT Strategies poll), I have kept the 50 top races the same.

I have switched three Rep seats that will fall, but the numbers stay the same.  I have removed NY-29 and FL-13 and added VA-02 and CT-02
Prediction (as of Labor Day, September 4)
Democratic gains
AZ-08 (open)
CO-07 (open)
CT-02
CT-04
IA-01 (open)
IN-02
IN-08
IN-09
MN-06 (open)
NY-24 (open)
OH-01
OH-15
PA-06
PA-07
TX-22 (open)
VA-02
WI-08 (open)
WY-AL

Republican gains
IL-08

110th Congress
220D, 215R

[MarkWarner08]

Another reason why Senator Talent is in trouble -- this is from a Bush speech in 2002 -- "Jim Talent will be a vote I can count on."

Jim Talent today: "I'm an independent voice for Missouri."

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Talent may be in trouble but his approvals are at 51% and he has regained the lead in some of the polls. He isn't as endangered as he was earlier this year.

[Sam Spade]

Update for September 17.  Still no moves to Safe D/R, taking races off the table.  FWIW, my total prediction stays the same:  Dems +4, with MT, OH, PA and RI falling.

Senate

Likely D
Michigan (from Lean D last week)
Nebraska
Washington

Lean D
Maryland
Minnesota - Still no polls here for a while.
Montana (R) - We get a Rasmussen poll, but what I want is M-D.
Ohio (R) - Not much happening here yet.
Pennsylvania (R) - No polls from here in a while either.

Toss-up
Missouri (R)
Rhode Island (R)
Tennesse (R) - From Lean R last week

Lean R
New Jersey (D) - I know, I know.  But it's what's the polls say (even with NJ bias).  I still think the Dems pull a Torricelli and pull it out.
Virginia - Didn't watch the MTP debate today, yet.

Likely R
Arizona

Lean I/D (as opposed to lean D)
Connecticut

[MarkWarner08]

Update for September 17.  Still no moves to Safe D/R, taking races off the table.  FWIW, my total prediction stays the same:  Dems +4, with MT, OH, PA and RI falling.

Senate

Likely D
Michigan (from Lean D last week)
Nebraska
Washington

Lean D
Maryland
Minnesota - Still no polls here for a while.
Montana (R) - We get a Rasmussen poll, but what I want is M-D.
Ohio (R) - Not much happening here yet.
Pennsylvania (R) - No polls from here in a while either.

Toss-up
Missouri (R)
Rhode Island (R)
Tennesse (R) - From Lean R last week

Lean R
New Jersey (D) - I know, I know.  But it's what's the polls say (even with NJ bias).  I still think the Dems pull a Torricelli and pull it out.
Virginia - Didn't watch the MTP debate today, yet.

Likely R
Arizona

Lean I/D (as opposed to lean D)
Connecticut

You're right-- as usual!

[Sam Spade]

I am dropping PA-07 and replacing it with PA-10, because I believe that's the more competitive race at the moment (gut feeling).  At the same time, it's kind of funny, but on the whole Democrats really aren't performing very in House polls, as opposed to the Senate, so my prediction may drop next time if this trend continues.  I still see no big "wave" forming.

Prediction (as of September 17, 2006)
Democratic gains
AZ-08 (open)
CO-07 (open)
CT-02
CT-04
IA-01 (open)
IN-02
IN-08
IN-09
MN-06 (open)
NY-24 (open)
OH-01
OH-15
PA-06
PA-10
TX-22 (open)
VA-02
WI-08 (open)
WY-AL

Republican gains
IL-08

110th Congress
220D, 215R

[Sam Spade]

I should add that I am removing NH-02 from the list of 40 most vulnerable and adding AZ-01.

[Mike in Maryland]

I should add that I am removing NH-02 from the list of 40 most vulnerable and adding AZ-01.

Actually, I think your predictions are consistent with a "wave" with a net gain of 17 seats.  I'm finding it hard to believe that the Dems are going to win some of those, but maybe I'm putting too much stock in voting patterns of previous, probably more GOP-friendly years.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

OH 1 and OH 15 should be questioned because there is no poll out saying that they will win those. And his senate predictions, NJ should be questioned as well Kean has a lead in the polls.

[Sam Spade]

I should add that I am removing NH-02 from the list of 40 most vulnerable and adding AZ-01.

Actually, I think your predictions are consistent with a "wave" with a net gain of 17 seats.  I'm finding it hard to believe that the Dems are going to win some of those, but maybe I'm putting too much stock in voting patterns of previous, probably more GOP-friendly years.

In a sense, you are correct.  My predictions do correlate with a wave, but a wave which occurs on a close-in "regional" sense, rather than a "national" kind of change.  The center of that wave, through my predictions, seems to be centered in the Ohio River Valley, in Indiana and Ohio and some Northeast suburbs.

However, I will readily admit that most of the polling information I see is not showing an Ohio Valley wave in Congress, rather just an Indiana-only wave.  And otherwise nationwide, the polling in a number of Congressional CD's has been pretty weak all told for Dems, unless you want to take the Constituent Dynamics numbers as gold and I don't, for a number of reasons I'm mentioned before.  It's kind of odd that this is opposite the Senate polling, which has not been good for Republicans of late.  I'm trying to reconcile it, but I can't.

Frankly, absent a mini-regional wave or a national one, I find it hard to give the Democrats more than 12 or 13 seats in House, and this is including other seats (KY-04 and NC-11, for example) that other experts think are going to fall that I don't.

[MarkWarner08]

I should add that I am removing NH-02 from the list of 40 most vulnerable and adding AZ-01.

Actually, I think your predictions are consistent with a "wave" with a net gain of 17 seats.  I'm finding it hard to believe that the Dems are going to win some of those, but maybe I'm putting too much stock in voting patterns of previous, probably more GOP-friendly years.

In a sense, you are correct.  My predictions do correlate with a wave, but a wave which occurs on a close-in "regional" sense, rather than a "national" kind of change.  The center of that wave, through my predictions, seems to be centered in the Ohio River Valley, in Indiana and Ohio and some Northeast suburbs.

However, I will readily admit that most of the polling information I see is not showing an Ohio Valley wave in Congress, rather just an Indiana-only wave.  And otherwise nationwide, the polling in a number of Congressional CD's has been pretty weak all told for Dems, unless you want to take the Constituent Dynamics numbers as gold and I don't, for a number of reasons I'm mentioned before.  It's kind of odd that this is opposite the Senate polling, which has not been good for Republicans of late.  I'm trying to reconcile it, but I can't.

Frankly, absent a mini-regional wave or a national one, I find it hard to give the Democrats more than 12 or 13 seats in House, and this is including other seats (KY-04 and NC-11, for example) that other experts think are going to fall that I don't.

As of September, there seems to a be a Midwest and Northeast centered wave. PA, IN, CT and OH have a combined 13 close House seats. The reason taking back the House is so hard for Democrats is that they will have to beat entrenched incumbents like Deborah Pryce in OH-15 and Nancy Johnson in CT-5.

[Sam Spade]

I should add that I am removing NH-02 from the list of 40 most vulnerable and adding AZ-01.

Actually, I think your predictions are consistent with a "wave" with a net gain of 17 seats.  I'm finding it hard to believe that the Dems are going to win some of those, but maybe I'm putting too much stock in voting patterns of previous, probably more GOP-friendly years.

In a sense, you are correct.  My predictions do correlate with a wave, but a wave which occurs on a close-in "regional" sense, rather than a "national" kind of change.  The center of that wave, through my predictions, seems to be centered in the Ohio River Valley, in Indiana and Ohio and some Northeast suburbs.

However, I will readily admit that most of the polling information I see is not showing an Ohio Valley wave in Congress, rather just an Indiana-only wave.  And otherwise nationwide, the polling in a number of Congressional CD's has been pretty weak all told for Dems, unless you want to take the Constituent Dynamics numbers as gold and I don't, for a number of reasons I'm mentioned before.  It's kind of odd that this is opposite the Senate polling, which has not been good for Republicans of late.  I'm trying to reconcile it, but I can't.

Frankly, absent a mini-regional wave or a national one, I find it hard to give the Democrats more than 12 or 13 seats in House, and this is including other seats (KY-04 and NC-11, for example) that other experts think are going to fall that I don't.

As of September, there seems to a be a Midwest and Northeast centered wave. PA, IN, CT and OH have a combined 13 close House seats. The reason taking back the House is so hard for Democrats is that they will have to beat entrenched incumbents like Deborah Pryce in OH-15 and Nancy Johnson in CT-5.

That's what I thought I was seeing, but then I realized that the polling and internal campaign commentary only has seemed to match this analysis in IN.  In the other states, it's kind of fallen flat.  I'm not taking this into account yet, but rest assured, if it continues I will.

[Sam Spade]

During my next update, I will attempt to try and rank the competitive House seats by some sort of system.  There are some House seats that I am quite unsure of right now, though, but it's an attempt. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It looks like OH 1, OH 15, and PA 6 might go to the republicans.

[Sam Spade]

We're now six weeks out and as in the Gubernatorial thread, I'm now posting on all the Senate races out there for probably the next-to-last time.  Some detailed comments are going to be made.

I probably won't be able to get to the House prediction till tomorrow.  I'm still putting together the ranked list and ordering:

You'll notice my prediction has not changed in the Senate.
Senate

Safe D
California
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Massachusetts
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Likely D
Michigan
Minnesota* (from Lean D to Likely D) - Let me repeat.  I don't like moving races based on the Star-Tribune and HHH polls, which are totally crappy and worthless, but they say what they say.  If another poll from SUSA or M-D comes out showing the race under 10, I'm moving it back.
Nebraska - I argue with myself as to whether to put this in Safe D or Likely D.  The fact that Ricketts can put up a lot of money if he wants to is the only thing keeping it here.
Washington - Another poll verifying the Rasmussen numbers and I'll put it back down in Lean D.

Lean D
Maryland* - We have Rasmussen @ Cardin +7%, we have SUSA @ Steele +1%.  No other post-primary polls.  My gut says that this race is Cardin somewhere inside or outside MOE.  I will position this race @ Toss-up if the next reputable poll says Cardin +4% or less.  Cardin @ +5% to +9%, it stays where it is.  Cardin +10% or more, I will reevaluate.
Montana (R) - The only poll on this race since the primary has been Rasmussen, so that's the only trend line I've followed.  Till another polling company (M-D or SUSA) evaluates the race, I can only follow the single trendline, though I don't like to.
Ohio (R) - The polling clearly indicates Brown has a lead outside the MOE, somewhere around +4% to+7%.
Pennsylvania (R) - On the cusp of Likely, I prefer to leave it at the more competitive designation.
Rhode Island (R) (Toss-up to Lean D) - Polling out of RI is crappy, no two ways about it.  My rough guess is that Whitehouse has a lead somewhere right outside the MOE, at around +4% to +7%, but frankly I have little confidence in this, as opposed to Ohio, where polling can be trusted.  If anything, I would bet that the race is closer than this (knowing the usual facts about bad polls).

Toss-up
Missouri (R) - Definite toss-up right now.  There were some internals in the SUSA poll which lead me to believe that Talent is doing slightly better than that result indicated.  Besides, McCaskill is the type of candidate who will probably lose that election, more than Talent winning it.
Tennessee* (R) - Definite toss-up based on polling.  Ford is still fighting an uphill battle against the state's demographics, if you read the internals.  If the Republicans ever return home, it'll be curtains.  If not, Ford can definitely win.

Lean R
Virginia - Allen has a lead outside the MOE, roughly about 4% to 7% right now, see Brown/Whitehouse.
New Jersey (D) - Kean has lead in the last 6 polls, so I have to believe that the polls say he's leading right now and that the lead is right at the MOE, 4% or so.  My gut tells me that it's probably more like 2%-3%, knowing New Jersey polling, however.

Likely R
Arizona - Folks, if a poll comes out substantiating the SUSA result, I'll definitely move.  Until then, this stays where it is.

Safe R
Indiana
Maine
Mississippi
Nevada - Rasmussen is saying something here totally different than everyone else.  Unless another company backs him up, I'm going to ignore it.
Texas
Utah
Wyoming

Safe I/D
Vermont

Lean I/D (as opposed to lean D)
Connecticut
Prediction (as of September 17, 2006)
Democratic gains
Montana
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Rhode Island

Republican gains
None

Independent gains
Connecticut

110th Congress
51 R, 47D, 2 I