Just a few % changes in my prediction for November. This could be my final map although i still say some states can flow back to Obama.
In the end I feel the house will be + a handle of Democrats and the senate will stay in Democratic hands almost where it is but the seats will change hands and some red states will see Democrats and some blue states may see GOP like COnnecticut. I feel in the end an unwritten note is the number of women who will be winning seats n the US senate.
A continuation of my 1916 theme and close race....
By:nkpolitics1279 (D-MA) 2012-10-06 @ 14:54:36
Looking at the US Senate-
How would you like if the Freshman Class consists of
By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-10-06 @ 16:35:10
I really see the GOP winning CT a possibility, but I see Donnelly in Indiana and Akin losing Missouri...so that would lessen Freshmen by one and change one, also I do not see Nevada pulling through as I feel she is lackluster but if there is one state the Dems can turn out a machine it is Nevada....might be a surprise in Arizona too...
Last Edit: 2012-10-07 @ 12:08:46
By:nkpolitics1279 (D-MA) 2012-10-06 @ 18:14:35
We are going to see 13 Freshman US Senators.
Brown(R-MA) and Tester(D-MT) are going to narrowly lose re-election. Warren(D-MA) and Rehberg(R-MT)
Looking at the open seat races.
By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-10-07 @ 12:10:34
Another facet which is seldom talked about is the increase in female senators this time around...we lose two as I remember (ME and TX) but are picking up Hawaii, Massachusetts, COnnecticut, Nebraska, and Wisconsin for a net gain of two...or more...
By:nkpolitics1279 (D-MA) 2012-10-07 @ 14:12:42
A Net Gain of 4 Female US Senators-if we include Berkley(NV) and McMahon(CT) winning their US Senate Race-
A Net Gain of 1 Female US Senators-if McCaskill(MO)surprisingly loses re-election. Berkley(NV) and McMahon(CT)lose their US Senate Races. Fischer(NE) and Hirono(HI) are strongly favored to win. Warren(MA) and Baldwin(WI) are expected to win by a wider than expected margin.
By:canuck777 (R-NV) 2012-10-12 @ 10:49:01
Berkley is now losing 47-39. Heller is winning the white, hispanic and asian vote. The poll was taken over the course of the last week and had 1,222 respondents, which is a rather large sample for a small state. She's finished. http://www.8newsnow.com/story/19787688/8-news-nowlvrj-poll-heller-widens-lead-over-berkley-embargo-until-4-am-thursday
By:canuck777 (R-NV) 2012-10-12 @ 11:08:55
Also the poll average for Ohio over the last week is all the way down to only Obama +2, you might want to change Ohio to tossup.
By:WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-10-12 @ 11:58:43
I remember after the all-night election of 1976 -- which didn't end until Mississippi put Carter over the top after nearly everyone was asleep -- I got prepared in 1980 to pull an "all-nighter" watching the returns. Then it was over by 8 p.m. (Central Time).
Given that Virginia and NH will be among the first states to report ... well, if either candidate wins both of them, then it's over.
This is no 1916. 2000 was.
Last Edit: 2012-10-12 @ 12:05:30
By:WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-10-12 @ 12:10:43
I just checked the poll closing times for states in the Eastern Time zone: Nearly all the Northern states will close at 8 p.m. while nearly all the Southern states close at 7 p.m.
Stated divided into the Eastern and Central time zones are MI, IN, KY, TN, and FL. Of those, only FL is likely to matter.
By:Snigglie (R-AL) 2012-10-12 @ 14:16:55
Keep in mind that a portion of Florida is in Central Time, meaning that it'll take an extra hour to get those results. If I remember correctly, most of the networks called Florida for Gore in 2000 a little after the polls closed in most of the state, which was around 7:30 Eastern time. I believe it was after midnight Eastern time that they called it for Bush, and close to 2am when they decided it was too close to call. So, even Eastern states can take a while before they're called if they're close.
By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-10-13 @ 14:07:23
Whyte rain I understand what you say about the year 2000 being close BUT the key for 1916 and 2012 is an incumbent president winning a close election, 2000 does not fit that category and that is what i am using to compare....my map seems pretty accurate for today in my mind.
By:bluemcdowell (D-WV) 2012-10-13 @ 20:41:11
I think AZ is probably out of reach for Obama even in a best case scenario. It's yet another case of "fool's gold" for the Dems. At least "lean" if not "solid" Romney. MO is probably out of reach too, at least so far...
Last Edit: 2012-10-13 @ 20:42:29
By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-10-14 @ 01:34:01
However, a new poll has Obama ahead in Arizona, this may be a fluke or may be representative of a small rebound most notably in hispanic support...
By:CR (--MO) 2012-10-14 @ 11:48:01
Maybe but that seems unlikely given the other polls favorability to Romney since the debate. Additionally if it were a small rebound in hispanic support I doubt we'd see Romney taking the lead in the polls in Colorado or making Nevada closer. I personally think that poll on Arizona is an outlier simply because it doesn't fit with the rest of the data. But we'll have to wait for more information before we can fully make that assumption.
I do tend to agree with blue though I think that Arizona and Missouri are out of reach for Democrats just as Michigan and Pennsylvania are for Republicans. They look good to the other side but are really just fool's gold.
By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-10-14 @ 14:17:09
Do not disagree but Arizona is one state which can flip as it did for Clinton, just like iowa did for Bush, lots of campaigning in last few weeks and i look for another bounce for Obama and ROmney moving back and forth...
By:WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-10-15 @ 06:26:43
dnul, if you want to find an election like this one, but one in which the incumbent wins a (fairly) close race -- which I am on long record of doubting will happen -- then try 1900.
1916 and 2000 were twins because (1) they were the two closest elections in the 20th century and (2) they were mirror images, with nearly all the Wilson states going for Bush and nearly all the Hughes states going for Gore.
[modify:] Don't get hung up on the "incumbent president" thing. Gore was, after all, the incumbent VICE-president and was essentially, like GHW Bush in '88, HHH in '68, and Nixon in '60 running for his party's "third term".
Btw, I've been saying for awhile that the Democrats will soon (within 2-3 years) adopt the "Ryan Budget", though not until it's out-of-date, and here's some evidence that they're already heading that way -- an op-ed in the NYT by a former top Obama Treasury official:
THE REAL RADICAL IS ROMNEY, NOT RYAN
President Obama should use Tuesday night’s debate to press Mr. Romney to defend — or even just explain — these proposed cuts, which would be far more draconian than those advanced by his running mate, Paul D. Ryan. Mr. Ryan is widely viewed as the real fiscal hawk, but in key areas, his views on spending levels are actually closer to Mr. Obama’s than to Mr. Romney’s.
Ok I see where you are coming from as far as states....I still like the 1916 election because it had some third party input like socialists....anyway enough said the polls are close and this is still to be won or lost.
Last Edit: 2012-10-15 @ 10:57:03
By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-10-16 @ 10:30:21
Next map might put Iowa back to Obama but I will await the debates...