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

[Nym90]

Sam, just curious, but why do you list Wyoming at large as Lean R yet believe it will go Democratic, whereas several tossup seats are predicted to be Republican holds? Also, IL-8 being considered Lean D but yet predicted to be a GOP gain.

I do realize your ratings are based on where you feel the races stand at this moment, not an ultimate prediction of where things will be come November 7, so that's the reason why the predictions are not congruent with the rankings. But I am still curious why you think the Democrats will come back in Wyoming, and why the GOP will come back in IL-8. Also, why IL-6 will stay GOP when it's ranked as the 15th most vulnerable GOP seat (which would seem in theory then to make it the "tipping point" and the one single most critical seat in determining the majority).

[Nym90]

I have to wonder if some of the late movement in the Senate races is simply voters coming back home to their natural "preferred" party. It seems most of the Senate races are moving back toward the natural partisan predilection of their states. Rhode Island and New Jersey moving toward the Democrats, while Montana and Tennessee move toward the Republicans.

[Nym90]

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.

[Nym90]

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. 

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.