Sam Spade's 2008 Senate/House Election Prediction Thread (FINALIZED - SEE P.18)

[KeyKeeper]

I think its time you add NC to Toss-up.

I haven't had a chance to update this in a while (esp. House).  Give me some time. 

Ok, sorry.

[Sam Spade]

On the Senate side, everything's been updated.  Don't pay attention to the House yet, it's still under re-construction for the time being.

[Lunar]

Stevens is still a tossup to win Alaska?  How long are you going to hold it in limbo Sam?

[Sam Spade]

Stevens is still a tossup to win Alaska?  How long are you going to hold it in limbo Sam?

Until the trial is completed.

[Lunar]

But this is a prediction, right?  If Stevens trial outcome is unknown, then we can still make a prediction on other factors.  Right now, he's not favored to win.  If he beats off the conviction, he could still be tarnished and there's no guarantee that he'd win regardless.  If the results of the trial determined the race, I'd agree with you, but the results will only determine if Stevens will even be competitive.

[Sam Spade]

But this is a prediction, right?  If Stevens trial outcome is unknown, then we can still make a prediction on other factors.  Right now, he's not favored to win.  If he beats off the conviction, he could still be tarnished and there's no guarantee that he'd win regardless.  If the results of the trial determined the race, I'd agree with you, but the results will only determine if Stevens will even be competitive.

If he beats the conviction, he'll win - mark my words.  Torie doesn't agree with me, but so be it - I'm willing to stick my neck out here.  If he doesn't, he'll obviously lose.

The polls have him such right now that I would put in in lean D.

[Nym90]

I would tend to agree that the bell cannot be unrung for Stevens when it comes to the trial, but I also suspect Republicans underpoll in Alaska, so who knows. Palin could well put him over the top by increasing turnout.

[Sam Spade]

I would tend to agree that the bell cannot be unrung for Stevens when it comes to the trial, but I also suspect Republicans underpoll in Alaska, so who knows. Palin could well put him over the top by increasing turnout.

I don't know whether Palin will help, but Republicans do tend to underpoll in Alaska, so I agree there.  Whichever, the trial is the important part.

[Nym90]

I would tend to agree that the bell cannot be unrung for Stevens when it comes to the trial, but I also suspect Republicans underpoll in Alaska, so who knows. Palin could well put him over the top by increasing turnout.

I don't know whether Palin will help, but Republicans do tend to underpoll in Alaska, so I agree there.  Whichever, the trial is the important part.

True. If it were anywhere other than Alaska I'd say the scandal would doom him regardless of the results of the trial (dye cannot be uncast, bell can't be unrung, whatever metaphor is to your liking here....). But it's Alaska, and they do like their pork.

[Torie]

I would tend to agree that the bell cannot be unrung for Stevens when it comes to the trial, but I also suspect Republicans underpoll in Alaska, so who knows. Palin could well put him over the top by increasing turnout.

I don't know whether Palin will help, but Republicans do tend to underpoll in Alaska, so I agree there.  Whichever, the trial is the important part. [Torie emphasis added]

What are the odds that Stevens will be found not guilty in DC before the election?  What happens if it is a hung jury?

[Sam Spade]

I would tend to agree that the bell cannot be unrung for Stevens when it comes to the trial, but I also suspect Republicans underpoll in Alaska, so who knows. Palin could well put him over the top by increasing turnout.

I don't know whether Palin will help, but Republicans do tend to underpoll in Alaska, so I agree there.  Whichever, the trial is the important part. [Torie emphasis added]

What are the odds that Stevens will be found not guilty in DC before the election? 

I have no clue.  The trial starts tomorrow - let's see the evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most likely loses, but not 100% sure.

Hey, I want Stevens to lose as much as everyone else does.  But I'm playing it conservative here.

[MarkWarner08]

Sam, why is Stevens less vulnerable than Young? Young, unlike Stevens, hasn't been formally charged with any crime. Is it Young's polarizing persona (he's ornery and crabby, but not in a lovable way) that's costing him (as Ivan Moore asserts), or are Alaskans just more attached to 'Uncle Ted'?

[Sam Spade]

Sam, why is Stevens less vulnerable than Young? Young, unlike Stevens, hasn't been formally charged with any crime. Is it Young's polarizing persona (he's ornery and crabby, but not in a lovable way) that's costing him (as Ivan Moore asserts), or are Alaskans just more attached to 'Uncle Ted'?

Greater attachment.  Young's personality doesn't help matters. 

[MarkWarner08]

Good list. I haven't been able to pay as much attention to the races lately, so it's nice to see a clear run-down of who's up and down in the Senate races. My only beef with your rankings is Minnesota, which I think should be moved into the tossup category. Most polls show the race tightening and Barkley's presence in the race seems to be equally hurting the candidates, which is contrary to the current CW.

If Coleman were up by 5% right now, would he be running as many negative ads?  His constant negative ads suggest that Franken is closing in the polls. The DSCC and the NRSC are also going nuclear in this race, with the national Ds running an ad that blatantly exploits the death of a solider and the national Rs running ads featuring Franken's tirades. Both suggest that the campaign atmosphere is so toxic that only the harshest ads will cut through the ad clutter.  The reason these ads are so negative is because both candidates realize that the race is very tight.

If Coleman were up by 5-7 points, he could afford to run some contrast or mainly positive ads. Right now, his "lead" is within the MoE and it's imperative that he maintain his negative messaging.  For this reason and because of the national political climate, I'd classify this race as a tossup.

[HardRCafé]

Sam, why is Stevens less vulnerable than Young?

I'm not Sam, but Stevens lobbied for statehood for Alaska in the first place.  Contrast that with Young, who couldn't get elected until the House seat opened up unexpectedly.

[Sam Spade]

Good list. I haven't been able to pay as much attention to the races lately, so it's nice to see a clear run-down of who's up and down in the Senate races. My only beef with your rankings is Minnesota, which I think should be moved into the tossup category. Most polls show the race tightening and Barkley's presence in the race seems to be equally hurting the candidates, which is contrary to the current CW.

If Coleman were up by 5% right now, would he be running as many negative ads?  His constant negative ads suggest that Franken is closing in the polls. The DSCC and the NRSC are also going nuclear in this race, with the national Ds running an ad that blatantly exploits the death of a solider and the national Rs running ads featuring Franken's tirades. Both suggest that the campaign atmosphere is so toxic that only the harshest ads will cut through the ad clutter.  The reason these ads are so negative is because both candidates realize that the race is very tight.

If Coleman were up by 5-7 points, he could afford to run some contrast or mainly positive ads. Right now, his "lead" is within the MoE and it's imperative that he maintain his negative messaging.  For this reason and because of the national political climate, I'd classify this race as a tossup.

Oh, I don't disagree that Coleman's lead is under 5 points, but he does have some sort of a "lead" considering no polling company has had Franken up in a while, and is Franken going to win any voters by constant negative advertising? 

Let's look at this another way, from the Franken view.  Seems to me like his strategy is to force enough Coleman voters third-party (along with DFL turnout help) to win.  The danger in that is, that if McCain starts performing worse than now, Republican voters are less likely to jump the third-party ship, and the strategy has its own potential risks with regards to his voters jumping the third-party ship.

Anyway, we'll see.  The rankings are, of course, flexible. 

[Brittain33]

Sam, why is Stevens less vulnerable than Young? Young, unlike Stevens, hasn't been formally charged with any crime. Is it Young's polarizing persona (he's ornery and crabby, but not in a lovable way) that's costing him (as Ivan Moore asserts), or are Alaskans just more attached to 'Uncle Ted'?

Greater attachment.  Young's personality doesn't help matters. 

Conversely, Begich is starting from a stronger position than Berkowitz, having both the name (not much use in a young state) and the geographic base (this does matter).

I met Berkowitz in June at a small fundraiser. He was emphasizing lowering energy costs for the Native communities as his signature issue, but also talked about "change" etc.

[Sam Spade]

Updated D House List, but not D Watch List.

[The Hack Hater]

On the subject of Smith, I think he made a mistake with his earlier ads. While Oregonians may not like  high taxes very much, they also don't like personal attacks, which is why that incompetent Kulongoski won reelection because Saxton was an idiot. Of course, Merkley has reciprocated that treatment and more, but the fact that Smith was the first to launch attack ads makes me think he gave a rather negative impression of himself. At this stage, I'll call Merkley for the win, largely because Oregon has a high amount of registered Democrats and it would seem that they would have higher turnout than the Republicans in this election cycle. And the ads show the Dems have more ammunition than the Repubs in my opinion.

Also on a recentad, fearmongering
 can be a double-edges sword. If used correctly, it could plant enough doubt in the voter's minds, since there are a fair percentage of Dems who are concerned about letting the bad guys go free. On the other hand, it was an attack ad with a somewhat nasty character.

[Sam Spade]

Kentucky has been moved to Lean R.

Schaffer simply beat Udall ragged in the MTP debate yesterday - was not pretty at all.

Nothing else on the news front - still waiting for a real poll out of NC. 

[Torie]

Updated D House List, but not D Watch List.

Are you going to give some commentary on the close House races, Sam? For example, why do you put Musgrave and Porter under water at the moment?

[Lunar]

Watch List (note: I'm only including 13 races that I "think" could be interesting, so that the number nicely rounds to 35.  I tend to include races that 1) are in marginal CDs; 2) open seats; 3) challengers have money; 4) freshman Reps; 5) bad candidates)
1. CT-02 (Courtney)
2. IL-08 (Bean)
3. IL-14 (Foster)
4. IN-08 (Ellsworth)
5. ME-01* (Allen)
6. MS-01 (Childers)
7. NC-11 (Shuler)
8. NY-19 (Hall)
9. OH-18 (Space)
10. TX-17 (Edwards)
11. UT-02 (Matheson)

[Sam Spade]

Updated D House List, but not D Watch List.

Are you going to give some commentary on the close House races, Sam? For example, why do you put Musgrave and Porter under water at the moment?

I'm not quite done yet with the new list, but I'll tell you why...

Musgrave:  Has been very poor at raising money and when you compare internal polls of the campaigns (Markey has herself up 9, Musgrave has herself up 2), it leads to a guess that Markey is probably up presently.  Also, Obama's campaign should be strong on the ground there.

Porter: Internal poll release of a few days ago by both campaigns (Titus has herself up 9, Porter has himself up 2).  Leads to a guess that Titus is probably up presently.  Obama's campaign should be strong there too.

The new Dem list is only updated halfway through Lean R, btw.

The other scary thing is how much Young (AK-AL) has improved his standing, imho.  Stevens too, and I think the government's case against him is not that strong.

[Sam Spade]

Watch List (note: I'm only including 13 races that I "think" could be interesting, so that the number nicely rounds to 35.  I tend to include races that 1) are in marginal CDs; 2) open seats; 3) challengers have money; 4) freshman Reps; 5) bad candidates)
1. CT-02 (Courtney)
2. IL-08 (Bean)
3. IL-14 (Foster)
4. IN-08 (Ellsworth)
5. ME-01* (Allen)
6. MS-01 (Childers)
7. NC-11 (Shuler)
8. NY-19 (Hall)
9. OH-18 (Space)
10. TX-17 (Edwards)
11. UT-02 (Matheson)

Will you let me complete the update before pointing out incorrect things?  Thanks. 

[MarkWarner08]

Interesting new rankings.

 Some races look a little low (e.g., FL-24 and FL-25), some races look a little high (e.g., KY-02), but I generally agree with your rankings. My only major beef is with your ranking of FL-13. The presence of Jan Schneider makes it virtually impossible for Buchanan to lose. The incumbent also enjoys a massive CoH edge and the DCCC has not reserved any ad time there. I would definitely bump FL-25 (which is too close to call, right now) above FL-13.

It's nice to see that you agree Phil English is now in serious trouble.  We also agree that IL-10 is an overrated pickup opportunity for the Democrats. Kirk has now raised over $4.6 million and even Democrats concede that Seals is running a mediocre campaign. Despite the top-ballot atmospherics, it's not a good year to be an Illinois Democrat.