Election 2010 Senatorial Predictions

Note: The Google advertisement links below may advocate political positions that this site does not endorse.

Date of Prediction: 2010-11-02 Version:42

Prediction Map

* = Pickup via defeat of incumbent; ^ = Pickup of an open seat

Confidence Map

Prediction States Won

		19 \|	37 \|	37 \|
Dem	8
Rep	29
Ind	0
Non	0

Confidence States Won

		19 \|	37 \|	37 \|
Dem	8
Rep	22
Ind	0
Tos	7
Non	0

State Pick-ups

	Gain			Loss			Hold			Net Gain
	Inc.	Open	Total	Inc.	Open	Total	Inc.	Open	Total
Dem	0	0	0	-6	-5	-11	6	2	8	-11
Rep	+6	+5	+11	0	0	0	10	8	18	+11
Ind	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Predicted Senate Control (112th Congress):

Party	Seats Up	Seats Not Up	Total Seats
Democratic	8	38	46
Republican	29	23	52
Independent	0	2	2

Prediction Score (max Score = 74)

Score	State Wins	State Percentages
53	31	22

Analysis

This will be my final Senate prediction this year. Washington, California and West Virginia are the races to watch election night in my mind. I am pretty confident in every other one of my predictions. Turnout is going to be the deciding factor. The bottom line is that independents are breaking for the GOP and enthusiasm and turnout will strongly favour the Republicans. I think it is going to ultimately tip these close races in their favour. I am not ruling out all three of these races going to the Democrats. However, given the nature of the political climate at this time, and how close the final polling is in all three races, I am predicting GOP wins. As for the House, I think the Democrats are going to watch in shock and awe as the floor falls out from under them. This is a once in a lifetime election. We probably won't see something of this proportion again. I won't make a specific prediction, but if the gains are below 60 seats, I will be VERY surprised. Let the GOP learn from this and govern differently over the next two years. It's the economy, stupid!!!

Prediction History
Prediction Graph

Comments History - show

Version History

Member Comments

By: CR (--MO) 2010-11-04 @ 01:00:15
We did great colin! Victory in 2010!!!!

By: Olawakandi (G-CA) 2010-11-04 @ 08:21:45
Unfortunately for us, this was the wrong time, because except for MN and IL and NY and CA, you guys will be in control of the redistricting process. And all the Dems can lose in 2012. But some of those GOP that won in the north aren't gonna be there anyways in 2012 due to the loss of congressional seats in the North anyways.

By: colin (I-ON) 2010-11-04 @ 23:19:53
what a change from 2008 CR!! Very exciting! Was hoping for the Senate to be a bit better, but can't complain! Yes, the Democrats are in for a tough time at redistricting...and maybe legislatures such as in Ohio will eliminate Dem districts? Ohio is slated to lose two and it could very easily be redrawn to eliminate say Sutton and possibly Ryan. It will be very tough for Dems...

By: CR (--MO) 2010-11-05 @ 01:13:13
You said it Colin! Biggest congressional win since World War II! I'm stunned at the number of state houses we picked up. Outside of Illinois and Minnesota we have almost unchallenged control of the Midwest in addition to much of the South and strength in the West. Hell we even captured the whole state government of Maine. Redistricting should be very favorable to us but also these will be good breeding grounds for future candidates that we'll need. The governor's races were also very exciting and we did so well. I too wanted more seats in the Senate but taking into account that we needed 10 for the majority gaining 6 got us over half way there. Not bad considering we were up against popular state officials, incumbent machines loaded with cash, and playing in a lot of very blue states. Democrats did this well in 2006 with the only difference being that they were closer to the 51 mark then than we were before Tuesday's election. If we can gain another 6 or 7 in 2012 we'll be set. I'll take 47 seats over 40 or 41 any day. And the House, I can't say enough about the House. Looks like we'll end up with something like +63. We haven't had this many seats since the late 1940's. I think the final count may shake out around 242. We basically control the state governments and we have a senate filibuster with some teeth. Those will be our shields. The House will be our sword. A historic night and this puts us in a good place going into 2012! Onward to victory but its not over yet!

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2010-11-05 @ 16:38:38
Did you seriously think that California and West Virginia would go Republican?

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2010-11-05 @ 18:04:23
"Unfortunately for us, this was the wrong time, because except for MN and IL and NY and CA, you guys will be in control of the redistricting process. And all the Dems can lose in 2012." As I recall, Democrats have about the same number of Governorships as they did during the last redistricting. Also, I think the Dems will gain house seats in 2012. They may lose some due to redistricting but a lot of Republicans who were elected in 2010 will be vulnerable in 2012. Last Edit: 2010-11-05 @ 18:04:33

By: CR (--MO) 2010-11-06 @ 00:19:51
Well I think an argument can be made that West Virginia was winnable this year. We had an open seat in a pretty conservative state where the president had very low approval numbers. Manchin had to run very far to the right to win this race despite his high popularity. So I think in the end West Virginia was a tossup and a potential GOP pick up but the governor's popular simply won out over the national wave. As far as redistricting goes, the GOP has not been in this favorable a position in a long time. We are now in control of some key areas and important battlegrounds. Our wins will help us a lot in the coming years. I'm sure some Republicans could be more vulnerable in 2012 but so will a lot of Democrats, especially in the Senate. The big issue of 2012, however, will be the presidential election. Most things will stem from that race and there are just too many unknowns right now to make many firm predictions.

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2010-11-06 @ 10:01:35
"As far as redistricting goes, the GOP has not been in this favorable a position in a long time." Well, lets look at the states where they do redistricting, comparing then to now: Washington: 2000 - Democratic governor 2010 - Democratic governor Oregon: 2000 - Democratic governor 2010 - Democratic governor California: 2000 - Democratic governor 2010 - Democratic governor Hawaii: 2000 - Democratic governor 2010 - Democratic governor Idaho: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Republican governor Utah: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Republican governor Arizona: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Republican governor Colorado: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Democratic governor New Mexico: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Republican governor Nebraska: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Republican governor Kansas: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Republican governor Oklahoma: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Republican governor Texas: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Republican governor Minnesota: 2000 - Reform party governor 2010 - probably DFL governor Iowa: 2000 - Democratic governor 2010 - Republican governor Missouri: 2000 - Democratic governor 2010 - Democratic governor Arkansas: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Democratic governor Louisiana: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Republican governor Wisconsin: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Republican governor Illinois: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Democratic governor Kentucky: 2000 - Democratic governor 2010 - Democratic governor Tennesee: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Republican governor Alabama: 2000 - Democratic governor 2010 - Republican governor Michigan: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Republican governor Ohio: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Republican governor Indiana: 2000 - Democratic governor 2010 - Republican governor West Virginia: 2000 - Democratic governor 2010 - Democratic governor New York: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Democratic governor Pennsylvania: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Republican governor Maryland: 2000 - Democratic governor 2010 - Democratic governor Virginia: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Republican governor North Carolina: 2000 - Democratic governor 2010 - Democratic governor South Carolina: 2000 - Democratic governor 2010 - Republican governor Georgia: 2000 - Democratic governor 2010 - Republican governor Florida: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Republican governor Massachusetts: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Democratic governor Conneticuit: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - probably Democratic governor New Hampshire: 2000 - Democratic governor 2010 - Democratic governor Rhode Island: 2000 - Republican governor 2010 - Independent governor Maine: 2000 - Independent governor 2010 - Republican governor Sounds pretty similar to me, PLUS Democrats have control of New York and Illinois (unlike last time). Last Edit: 2010-11-06 @ 10:04:35

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2010-11-06 @ 10:02:21
"Well I think an argument can be made that West Virginia was winnable this year." Not if you had looked at the most recent polling.

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2010-11-06 @ 10:46:10
"I'm sure some Republicans could be more vulnerable in 2012 but so will a lot of Democrats, especially in the Senate." Sorry CR. The vulnerable house Democrats are mostly gone now. Though some will become vulnerable due to redistricting, they will be more than offset by the many vulnerable Republicans swept into office by the wave this year. And in the senate, yes there will be vulnerable Democratic-held seats, but some such as Montana have become safer as time has gone on.

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2010-11-06 @ 10:46:22
Well, on to 2012! I think Obama may squeak by because the GOP does not have a formidable candidate.

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2010-11-06 @ 19:53:22
"A historic night and this puts us in a good place going into 2012!" I would strongly caution that you not over read your mandate. This election was not about how great the Republicans were or how bad the Democrats were. In fact, approval ratings are equally dismal (roughly speaking) for both parties. No this election was about the economy. The reality is that when the economy is bad, the incumbent party will take a beating every two years until the economy gets better. Last Edit: 2010-11-06 @ 19:54:37

By: CR (--MO) 2010-11-06 @ 20:10:51
That's true on the governor's side albaleman but I'm referring more to the state legislatures and our historic gains in those bodies which are equal responsible for redistricting. So yes, we are in a stronger position as compared to the last time around. When I say West Virginia was winnable I mean that it was at some point. John Raese had the lead for a few weeks and was polling ahead of Manchin. It took Joe a lot of work and campaigning further to the right than most Democrats to get elected. So the race was competitive at one point and time. But Manchin finished strong and made good case for himself. We disagree on our respective parties chances in various states, which is fine. But the fact is that Democrats have more to lose in the Senate in 2012 than the GOP. In the House, I don't know. We'll have to see how the GOP governs there. If they do good by the people they will retain control. If not they won't. Its that simple. I'm happy with where we are right now. I'll worry about 2012 when we get there. But you are right, we are on to 2012. The here is that we don't know who the GOP will nominate so we don't know if the challenger will be formidable or not. We have to get candidates declared, have debate, see who emerges strong, and then take on Obama. A tall order in any situation but one I'm excited about. The primaries for all practical purposes start next year. I will agree with you on one point though. This election was not about how great the Republicans are. In fact we're on probation from the American people. A second chance to prove that we will follow through on our principles. The approval is abysmal for both parties and with good reason. But this election was a direct repudiation on the part of the Democrats and their agenda that the American people have rejected as not working. The same thing happened to us in 2006 and 2008. You and I also agree it is all about the economy and it is the agenda in Washington that is seen to either help or hurt it. Right now the people want something different. I hope the GOP plans to deliver on that point.

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2010-11-07 @ 12:38:38
Well I agree with a good deal of what you said CR. However, the redistricting is set up so that the Governors have far more power than the state legislature. When push comes to shove, the governors get their way with redistricting. After all, they're the ones that actually draw the borders! Last Edit: 2010-11-07 @ 12:39:27

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2010-11-07 @ 12:40:36
I fear Dan Boren's district is going to be chopped up into pieces.

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2010-11-07 @ 12:59:58
It's going to be bad especially in Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Penn., and Ohio.

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2010-11-07 @ 19:08:11
"I fear Dan Boren's district is going to be chopped up into pieces." Boren is so popular it might not matter. Yes the redistricting will be bad this time, but not historically nor much worse than last time. The one place it will be significantly worse than last time will be the south, where there are very few Democrats anyway. Last Edit: 2010-11-07 @ 19:09:34

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2010-11-07 @ 19:09:16
Oh, no it's very vulnerable. He underperformed expectations this year, getting by with 56%. For someone with his dynastic name, that's bad.

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2010-11-07 @ 19:09:59
In a district McCain won 2-1, and in a year that was terrible for Democrats and even worse for Southern Democrats. Last Edit: 2010-11-07 @ 19:12:34

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2010-11-07 @ 19:43:42
True, but this is a sign of weakness Chet Edwards showed in 2008 and look what happened to him.

By: CR (--MO) 2010-11-07 @ 22:16:23
I think that we could redistrict enough in the South and much of the Midwest to ensure that we have an easier time in at least 10 to 25 seats. Every little bit helps in a process like this. I saw that the GOP gained majorities in Minnesota's legislature. With the state slated to lose an electoral vote since the census maybe we have a change to save Bachmann's district :))))

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2010-11-07 @ 23:00:19
Not if we have Governor Dayton...

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2010-11-08 @ 09:42:53
Which we probably do.

By: colin (I-ON) 2010-11-08 @ 10:32:01
sorry everyone...I've been out of the loop for the past couple of days. You are right CR, redistricting looks to be even better for us than 2000. I'm hoping that Emmer wins in MN (although not counting on it...don't worry al lol). In fact, it may be easier to talk about states where redistricting may NOT go so well for the GOP, as the list is much smaller. There are several factors to take into consideration as well. Californians voted to have a non-partisan committee draw the districts as opposed to the state government. This may actually help Republicans, we will see. Although, Floridians did the same. While Florida is slated to pick up two seats, we may lose a couple as the last redistricting heavily favoured us there. North Carolina (where we somehow only managed to pick up one seat) elected GOP majorities in both the state house and the state senate for the first time in over a hundred years. The interesting part of this equation is that while the state has a Democratic governor, she has absolutely no say in the redistricting process. It is the only state where the governor cannot veto redistricting. We may pick up some seats in NC next time around as a result. New York and Illinois, as al stated, will probably not go as well for us, but they are also slated to lose seats. The only state that I can really think of where the Democrats are gaining seats, and the they are in control is Washington. This is going to be very interesting to watch play out...

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2010-11-08 @ 16:46:27
"You are right CR, redistricting looks to be even better for us than 2000." Well, I disagree. It looks about the same. You are both vastly overestimating the powers of the state legislature. The reality is that, when push comes to shove, the governor almost always gets his/her way. This is true not just of redistricting but also with almost everything else. Us Minnesota DFLers have learned this lesson the hard way many times over the last 8 years under Gov. Pawlenty. Well, now the tables have [probably] turned. 9,000 votes may not sound like a lot, but it's am extremely daunting edge in a recount. Last Edit: 2010-11-08 @ 18:24:51

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2010-11-08 @ 18:24:11
Also CR, I believe the latest totals show Missouri, not Minnesota, losing that seat.

By: CR (--MO) 2010-11-08 @ 18:57:15
I guess we'll just have to disagree on the redistricting process. I think we're in a good position. As for the electors, I thought at last count both Minnesota and Missouri were slated to lose a seat. I sure hope Missouri doesn't it.

By: colin (I-ON) 2010-11-09 @ 00:29:13
I'm pretty sure Missouri is supposed to lose a seat...sorry CR =(

By: colin (I-ON) 2010-11-09 @ 00:29:58
maybe they can carve up Russ Carnahan's district? =)

By: CR (--MO) 2010-11-09 @ 00:55:54
Oh that would be fantastic! :D Either way I'll probably end up in a new district as MO-9 is the last district and will have to go. Maybe we'll get absorbed into Vicky Harstler's district in MO-4, my birth place. That would be the best outcome for me. But whether or not Missouri loses an elector has gone back and forth ever since the census was taken. We'll just have to wait for the final results.

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2010-11-09 @ 08:18:47
Carving up Carnahan's district would be very difficult and could endanger some GOP incumbents.

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2010-11-09 @ 14:35:58
Yes, and also the Governor of Missouri is a Democrat.

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2010-11-09 @ 15:48:21
Nixon would never let Carnahan be gerrymadered out of his seat.

By: CR (--MO) 2010-11-09 @ 19:36:24
I believe we Republicans have the numbers now to be able to override Nixon's vetos in the state legislature. Assuming vetos apply to the redistricting process.

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2010-11-09 @ 19:40:21
I don't think they do.

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2010-11-10 @ 20:43:06
"Assuming vetos apply to the redistricting process. " They do not. Nixon is the only person to draw up the maps, then the legislature votes yes or no to whatever Nixon submits. Last Edit: 2010-11-10 @ 20:45:58

User's Predictions

Prediction Score	States	Percent	Total	Accuracy	Ver	#D	Rank		#Pred
2024 President	/56	/56	/112	%					245
2022 Senate	28/35	21/35	49/70	70.0%	4	6	271	T	305
2022 Governor	26/36	17/36	43/72	59.7%	5	6	260	T	272
2020 President	47/56	26/56	73/112	65.2%	5	10	667		684
2020 Senate	30/35	20/35	50/70	71.4%	2	8	274	T	423
2020 Governor	11/11	6/11	17/22	77.3%	2	10	147	T	293
2016 President	52/56	35/56	87/112	77.7%	9	1	35	T	678
2016 Senate	30/34	18/34	48/68	70.6%	4	1	164	T	362
2016 Governor	11/12	8/12	19/24	79.2%	2	1	1	T	279
2014 Senate	35/36	23/36	58/72	80.6%	18	1	60	T	382
2014 Governor	32/36	20/36	52/72	72.2%	12	1	15	T	300
2013 Governor	1/2	0/2	1/4	25.0%	1	228	138	T	153
2012 President	53/56	41/56	94/112	83.9%	28	1	367	T	760
2012 Senate	31/33	20/33	51/66	77.3%	11	1	94	T	343
2012 Governor	9/11	6/11	15/22	68.2%	3	48	131	T	228
2010 Senate	31/37	22/37	53/74	71.6%	42	0	167	T	456
2010 Governor	31/37	24/37	55/74	74.3%	23	0	118	T	312
2008 President	49/56	44/56	93/112	83.0%	16	2	139	T	1,505
2008 Senate	30/33	14/33	44/66	66.7%	2	3	281	T	407
2008 Governor	9/11	5/11	14/22	63.6%	2	3	212	T	264
2006 U.S. Senate	25/33	13/33	38/66	57.6%	1	1	402	T	465
2006 Governor	30/36	13/36	43/72	59.7%	1	1	232	T	312
2004 President	53/56	36/56	89/112	79.5%	3	1	283	T	1,994
Aggregate Predictions	654/748	432/748	1086/1496	72.6%