Talk Elections

Link coming.

Ernst (R)- 51%
Braley (D)- 44%

wtf

WOW!

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2014/11/01/iowa-poll-joni-ernst-leads-bruce-braley/18345157/

Castrated!

Outlier.

I was about to say. Let's see some other polls before we come to conclusions. The PPP poll is something I'm looking forward to.

But yeah, RIP Buck Bentley

Squeal Bailey squeal!

Looks like "some farmer from Iowa" is gonna chair the judiciary committee.

Ouch. Are Iowa and Wisconsin trolling us?

This is the state's gold standard poll, so even if it's off by a point or two, definitely not junk.

It's time to say goodbye to the worst campaigner after Martha Coakley....

     Me too. It sure looks like an outlier, but with the PPP numbers that have come out so far this does not seem impossible.

And that's the ball game, folks. Soon we will have a turtle in control of the Senate. Oh joy.

Still, I highly doubt Ernst wins by this much. Even if Walker/Ernst win by slim margins, we'll need to start looking for new "gold standards" in IA/WI, which is a potentially interesting development.

lol dude, the election hasn't even happened yet. Calm down.

Ugh god dammit Iowa.

Braley losing IA-01 by 3. Yikes.

I doubt Ernst leads by 7, but she almost certainly leads. And Brad Billingsly has run out of time.

Looks like Tuesday is a big make or break for the reputation's of Selzer and Marquette.

Don't blame Iowa, blame Brock Busterson

()

Selzer and Marquette have a good history but its a very small sample size as they only poll single states. The numbers say Ernst should win by 1-2%, this poll is an outlier but it would be surprising to see Braley win at this point. Ernst only has a RCP lead of 1.8%.

Branstad is also up way more than in other polls.

The sample size is 701, which is just fine for a statewide poll.  The MoE is +/- 3.7, which is lower than the usual +/- 4 we see for statewide polls.

Selzer has polled other states in past cycles.  I recall seeing a Selzer Ohio poll in 2012, but I might be wrong.

Again, I think Ernst is up but by a lot less than this.

They polled CO, which was decent, (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2012/polls.php?type=src&source_id=40) and NH (way back in early 2011 though) .

Oh, she's a good pollster. Has had outliers like this before though. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/06/22/155530608/bloomberg-pollster-defends-survey-showing-obama-with-big-lead

As I thought, Selzer also polled Ohio in September 2012 (http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rhMzOK9Gexhs) for Bloomberg, though it's not in our database.

From the poll (http://www.scribd.com/doc/245224960/2108-Methodology-Attachment-Master).  Granted, the sample size was small, but...

So much for the all hallowed ground game making much of a difference.  Every non-2010 voter would have voted regardless of any campaign contact.

I have had my doubts that Ernst would pull it out, but as I said a few weeks ago, I would base my final prediction based on Selzer's last poll.

It's not going to be a 7% win, but I'm officially predicting an Ernst win - probably around 51-47.

Let's hope that Obama and Reid pack the courts as quickly as possible during the lame duck. Maybe get Ginsburg to resign as well and ram a replacement through.

What's the breakdown of the already voted crowd in this poll?

Also, Iowa is probably the Obama state most likely to turn red in the coming years. Let's face it, it's heavily rural, white, declining in population and aging. In the 2020s I expect Iowa to have an R+ PVI. States like Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and Colorado have a much higher likelihood of becoming blue states over the long term than Iowa.

NEVER FORGET. The Dems' last hope in Iowa this year.

Ah, the desperation is delicious

Ernst is winning IA-02 in this poll. Which is hilarious, given this:

Link (http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/senate-democratic-officials-start-lashing-out-at-white-house-20141022)

A plugged-in Democratic House official said internal polling showed Braley trailing Republican Joni Ernst in all of the state's congressional districts, even those that typically favor Democrats.

I can't find it in the poll (http://www.scribd.com/doc/245224960/2108-Methodology-Attachment-Master) or crosstabs (http://www.scribd.com/doc/245225028/Crosstabs-for-Public-Release). 

37% of respondents already voted.  That includes 54% of Democrats, 33% of Republicans and 28% of Independents. 

12% of all likely voters didn't vote in the 2010 elections.  A greater percentage of Republicans (10%) than Democrats (7%) didn't vote in 2010.  The percentage of Independents who didn't vote in 2010 is greater than those from either party (19%).

Quinnipiac and PPP will both have polls out probably Monday. But you don't need them to know that Iowa is likely going Republican. Ernst has been leading for a while.

Yeah, this one is over.  Braley was a God awful candidate and Ernst is a very good candidate.  She has busted this thing wide open.  Cotton has done the same in Arkansas.  Gardner is doing well in Colorado. McConnell has busted his race open too.  I wonder if these races are picking up a GOP wave.

Take a long walk off of a short pier, okay? This poll isn't anything like what we've seen recently, so it's an outlier.

If he's like this now, can y'all imagine how much fun Election Night will be here?

I'll get over it if Democrats lose, so don't expect anything to entertain you. I'm not a Republican, thank god.

If it's a 2 point Ernst win then Braley most likely wins IA-1 and 2. Braley I guess was a bit overrated from the start, barely survived in 2010 and his 2012 margin was the same as Obama in that district. A stronger Dem would have won by more than 1 point in 2010s version of IA-1.

Keep talking, brah

The only outlier is your own words.

No, look at the RCP average that you cherish so much, there hasn't been a poll with this wide of a spread in weeks.

Ernst is closing strong.

There has not been a Braley lead in the RCP average in months. Didn't stop you.

Or possibly PPP here.

You have two differing visions about what's going on with the 2014 electorate. The state Gold standard polls are detecting a very noticeable shift to the Republicans in WI and IA at least.  Some of the other pollsters seem to think more Democrats will head to the polls.

PPP is kind of hedging with predictions on states like KY and AR to make make them look more favorable to the Rs. It will be interesting to see what they do with IA when they release their own final poll.

As far as Iowa goes, Ernst has had a small, but persistent lead for a while now. The race was leaning in her direction. Seltzer confirms that.

I'm not talking about the average itself, I'm talking about the listing of polls it shows and there hasn't been big of a lead for your girl Joni in weeks. Even the average itself isn't +7.

We'll never forget you, Brice!

Oh gosh. Braley is going to be talked about for months as the Democrats' Mourdock or Akin.

Looks like the Democrats will get clobbered on Tuesday.

I have now adjusted my predictions accordingly.

CO and IA are likely gone.

AK and KS may be winnable, but who knows ?

Only Shaheen and Hagan could survive.

AK or CO, or Ia may be winnable.

Win La or Ga gets to 50

Hopefully Begich and nunn both win on election night

If this is true, even Hagan will be swept away by the wave. Only Shaheen could possibly survive.

Not a wave when you have someone like Brandstand helping Ernest, the weaker candidate. 

Hope remains AK, KS and La. Tillis is finished.

A lot of people are going to look really stupid on Wednesday.

Complete nonsense. People ticket split all over the place. Braley is just trash even more than Ernst. Let's see Susan Collins pull Paul LePage across the finish line. Not the same situation, but CO is likely to vote differently for Sen/Gov and the wonderful people of Mass are going to show us jyit how much an individual candidate matters. There are going to be many Braley-Branstad voters because of his popularity. His success has nothing to with Ernst's potential win. Coattails can only help a little down ballot due to turnout increases, but with high profile races, every candidate is their own person. You think people in Iowa are turning out to vote for Branstaf and this is an afterthought? They've been bombarded for 4 months of nonstop ads for this race. They are going to vote for Ernst and maybe for who they want to be representative. It's not like they check Branstad and go with his entire party.

Hatch was just as bad a candidate as Fitzgerald. Just as you can list cases, I can list mine.

Pryor losing and Ross
Durbin and Quinn winning.

It is more to do with an incompetetent candidate and Hatch was one.

I doubt the lead is a 7 point one, but I believe they're correct in that she is definitely in the lead.

Buddy Borkey was an elitist prick anyway.

IA-03 candidate Staci Appel is trying to run away from Bailey.

Terrible candidate.

I will not weep for the loss of Bailey, but I will weep for the gain of Ernst.

()

Bruce Braley waving goodbye to his career prospects.

R+4, R+5, R+6, R+7, R+8, R+9 is a wave. A 55-45 Senate, which at best is Democrats at 49 or 50 is a wave. It's just a matter of how big the wave is and if the Republicans end up controlling the Senate.

Again, this is not unexpected in the six-year itch election cycle.

I knew it was probably over as soon as I heard that "farmer from Iowa" story. Just awful.

If the Republicans win all the Republican states but lose purple states like IA, CO and NC, is that really a wave. What does that portend for the Republicans in 2016? Only if NC and NH fall am I calling this a Republican wave. We would also see the Republicans win most of the tossups in the governors race and gain more than 10 seats in the house. I am not saying that isn't a possibility, but that is what a wave looks like. Republicans winning seats in AR, AK and LA isn't a wave.

R+4 isn't a wave. It's an expected result.

WV was gone even if J-Rock stayed in. SD was gone the moment Sandlin ruled herself out. MT was gone the moment Walsh got busted for plagiarism. And there's way too much going on for Democrats to defend AR (which is heading towards being gone), LA, IA, CO, and AK.

Who?

Nonsense.

The Democrats controlled the Senate by a 55-45 margin.

There were 21 Democrat seats up for grabs this cycle and 15 Republican.

If the polling stands (throwing tossups the way they are dispersed right now in the polling), this class will shift to 22R, 13D, 1 I.

Of course it's a wave. Even at R+4, Democrats go from a 21-15 to 17-18-1 in this cycle. And as the Times pointed out, right now, it's more likely to be an R+9 election than a R+4 or R+5 where the Senate remains in Democrat control.

In the worst case scenario it's 55-45 D to 54-46 R is a tsunami.  (Assuming Shaheen holds on).

As far as the House goes, a gain of 6-14 seats would likely by the max of Republican possible gains this cycle. Republicans pretty much have as much turf as they possibly can, except in marginal districts in blue states (like MA-6, NY-1, NY-24 with GA-12 being an exception).

Nonsense.

The Democrats controlled the Senate by a 55-45 margin.

There were 21 Democrat seats up for grabs this cycle and 15 Republican.

If the polling stands (throwing tossups the way they are dispersed right now in the polling), this class will shift to 22R, 13D, 1 I.

Of course it's a wave. Even at R+4, Democrats go from a 21-15 to 17-18-1 in this cycle. And as the Times pointed out, right now, it's more likely to be an R+9 election than a R+4 or R+5 where the Senate remains in Democrat control.

In the worst case scenario 55-45 D to 54-46 R is a tsunami.

As far as the House goes, a gain of 6-14 seats would likely be the max of Republican possible gains this cycle. Republicans pretty much have as much turf as they possibly can, except in marginal districts in blue states (like MA-6, NY-1, NY-24 with GA-12 and UT-4 being an exception).

Even more reason to suspend these elections until 2016.

 It will be a net 5 seat GOP gain or 4 with Orman. Begich or Udall wins and we seize Ga making Orman 51sr vote.

If you put these seats in context, I don't see how you could realistically call R+4 a wave.

I mean, you are, but I disagree that it is.

It's an expectation game, that's really all it is.

My argument is even if the Republicans don't take the Senate (which is looking increasingly unlikely at this point), their cycle is better than the Democrats. If the goalpost wasn't considered a Senate takeover, +4 would be a good result in most cycles for either party.

So in your opinion, if the Republicans can't win CO, IA, NC and NH, that is still a wave election? Do you think 2012 was a Democratic wave year? Do you find it impressive that Republican candidates are winning in places where Obama lost by double digits?

Those were seats that Democrats could have chosen to defend with incumbents, so yes. Those incumbents somehow managed to beat the Republican six years ago, right?

Yes, in 2008 which was a Democratic wave year, especially in the senate. Also, that was before the south stopped voting democrat at all levels. That is why so many of these pickups are in the south.

Also, if you are playing an expectations game, then that is absolutely stupid. Parties do that in order to get their base fired up and to get money. Which of those two are you hoping to accomplish on the atlas forum?

One would probably argue now that anything LESS than R+6 would be a disappointing result, if we're basing it on 'expectations'.

I agree, and frankly, I even consider R+6 to be a disappointment given the electoral geography, the national sentiment, ect. I consider R+7 (NOT including Orman if he wins and caucuses with the Pubs) to be a "good" result, but it's frankly pathetic to me that R+8 or R+9 isn't looking far more likely.

Talk of a 'wave election' is silly. This is simply a reversion to the mean.

Exactly, this is a mid-term election, more than that, the second mid-term. Add in the retirement of strong incumbents and the fact that once the personal vote is gone, they revert to their general voting mood...

Let's look at the second mid-term results for Presidents since the war, who were in office long enough, results are for the Party of the president.

1950 (Truman) - lost 28 seats in the House and 5 in the Senate
1958 (Eisenhower) - lost 48 seats in the House and 15 in the Senate
1986 (Reagan) - Lost 5 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate
1998 (Clinton) - No change in the House and picked up 5 seats in the Senate (special circumstances)
2006 (Bush II) - lost 30 seats in the House and lost 6 in the Senate

Note 1974 was Ford and was also a special circumstance wipe-out.

So the average of those 5 elections is 22 house seats lost and basically 6 Senate seats.

At the end of the day, you will likely see a 6-14 seat D loss in the House and probably net -7 or net -8 in the Senate (depending on Orman in KS). This should fall in line with the other six-year itch elections.

Nope!

Don't mess with Selzer!

Yup, looks like Selzer and Marquette retain their gold standard reputations. After them standing up to the consensus of literally every pollster, I certainly won't be doubting them ever again.

Well done Selzer.

Yep!

Looks like Selzer was right about Ernst castrating Buddy Bentley.

Well, it was still an outlier. It just so happens that the outlier was correct.

Not really, the rest of the herd was modeling the race around the same result so as to not get embarrassed. Selzer stuck her neck out there, polling without special sauce, and got it right.