Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2018, 11:22:50 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2018 predictions for US Senate are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 515 516 517 518 519 [520]
12976  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Gerrymandering Tennessee on: February 21, 2007, 03:27:45 pm
There are about as many counties in Massachusetts as there are congressional districts.

I went through making my map on a town-by-town basis.
12977  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Gerrymandering Tennessee on: February 21, 2007, 02:57:00 pm
Interesting map.  I tried gerrymandering Massachusetts once to maximize seats for the GOP just to see if it could be done, but I couldn't even squeeze out one Bush majority district.
12978  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: 2008 Senate Races - Bad Map for Republicans on: February 21, 2007, 02:51:54 pm
Well, there was a giveback in the House anyway, as irrelevant as that is to my point about the Senate!
12979  Election Archive / 2008 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: Quinnipiac Poll: Bunch of Results for General Election on: February 21, 2007, 02:18:59 pm
Assuming the MOE given for the entire poll, breaking down the poll by individual state would give statistically useless data.

Key findings: "Giuliani tops Clinton 55% to 38% in Red states, which voted Republican in the 2004 presidential election, and ties her 46% to 46% in Blue states, which went Democratic in 2004. He gets 44% to Clinton's 45% in Purple states, where the margin in 2004 was less than 7%."

Hmm. I wonder if they have state polls for "Purple States", "Blue States" and "Red States" or do they just split the 1.400 polled by state, like 2 people from Wyoming + 11 people from Nevada etc... or do they have seperate state samples of 500 + or whatever ?
12980  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Bill Richardson / Tom Vilsack vs. John McCain / Rudy Giuliani on: February 21, 2007, 02:16:16 pm
Second, there is a lot of background on polling on this forum which you might want to check out.  While SUSA is to be commended for including the internals of its polls, it has a very spotty record for accuracy.

I'm very familiar with SurveyUSA, their methodology, and their track record -- I've been tracking them long since Bob Torricelli first rolled out his (ridiculous) "CRAP" polling smear when SUSA showed him trailing Forrester in 2002.

For my money, they do a fine job in polling -- just as good as anyone else.  And a far better job than, say, Zogby (who consistently releases garbage disguised as polling data).
12981  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: NY-26: Tom Reynolds, the past, the present and the future on: February 21, 2007, 01:58:22 pm
I thought that poll listed her as a write in.

The poll in question was done by Zogby (ugh).  It asked whether or not people were going to vote for Lampson or a write-in, and if people said they were going to vote for a write-in, the pollster asked whose name they would be writing in.


In the initial question, Lampson trailed "write-in" by a 36 - 35 margin.  But only 79% of those who chose a write-in could come up with Shelley Sekula-Gibbs' name.

Of course, if you haven't guessed, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs isn't exactly the easiest name to write-in.  Especially with those machines they just rolled out in TX-22.
12982  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: 2008 Senate Races - Bad Map for Republicans on: February 21, 2007, 01:40:07 pm
Republicans will still be in power.  Bush will still be President at the time.

True, but Republicans won't be in power in the Senate, and Bush will be a lame duck.  After tidal wave elections, you almost always see a little bit of giveback, and a Maine pickup (by beating an immensely popular incumbent, no less) just doesn't seem historically consistent.
12983  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: 2008 Senate Races - Bad Map for Republicans on: February 21, 2007, 01:30:41 pm
Granted, though I doubt 2008 will be as bad for Republicans as 1994 was for Democrats (it's hard to get outraged at a party out of power); and I doubt Maine will be as blue in 2008 as Texas was red in 1994.

Still, there's room for error, which is why she's not "safe"!
12984  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Bill Richardson / Tom Vilsack vs. John McCain / Rudy Giuliani on: February 21, 2007, 12:35:50 pm
One thing most people don't know is just how strongly McCain is despised in Arizona.

A lot of conservatives would not merely vote, but work hard in support of a Richardson candidacy as they know that McCain is a scumbag.

Oh, lord.  Fact check, please.

Survey USA's most recent check on John McCain puts him at 65% approve, 32% disapprove.  That includes 73% of Republicans approving and 65% of conservatives.

Putting it in perspective: more Republicans in Arizona approve of John McCain than Democrats in Louisiana approve of Mary Landrieu (72%) or New Jersey Democrats approving of Frank Lautenberg (55%).  Or New York Democrats of Chuck Schumer (71%).
12985  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Giuliani vs. Clinton in NY on: February 21, 2007, 12:25:39 pm
I'm not sure I buy that New York City doesn't like
Clinton...barring a national landslide..which might put NY into play...

Rudy isn't going to win the Republicans NY, but he gives them some hope in NJ and CT...some...

and he might carry PA...

but New York? Highly unlikely.

Clinton would have to spend $$ in NY - which she would need elswhere and that'd make it interesting.

No, she wouldn't. Clinton solidly has the backing of upstate New York over Giuliani (upstaters hate the city and cityfolk), and New York City itself has less than fond memories of Giuliani. Unlike the rest of the country, NYC knew Giuliani before September 11th.

I don't buy that New York City has "less than fond" memories of Giuliani.  Certainly, they were fond enough to buy him a second term.  And more than fond enough to singlehandedly give Bloomberg his 2001 win.

The last set of approval ratings for Rudy that I can find prior to 9-11 put him at a solid 50 - 40% (Quinnipiac, 25 July 2001).  I'd guess he's probably a little bit higher than that today in NYC.

A poll conducted (again by Quinnipiac) on 14 November 2006 has some more interesting things to say about Rudy, when asked what kind of President the following figures would make:

Sen. Hillary Clinton: 67 percent "great" or "good;" 17 percent "so so," 13 percent "bad;"
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani: 41 percent "great" or "good;" 24 percent "so so," 33 percent "bad."

The slam-dunk popular Bloomberg fares better, however:
Bloomberg would make a "great" or "good" President, 44 percent of New York City voters say, with 36 percent who say "so so" and 17 percent who say "bad."

Bloomberg's most recent set of approval ratings puts him at 75 - 16%.
12986  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: NY-26: Tom Reynolds, the past, the present and the future on: February 21, 2007, 11:40:56 am
Governor Spade, is there any way Lampson could survive?

Does he have to magically transform himself into Chet Edwards or have the pleasure of running against Shelly Sekula-Gibbs to win?

Chet Edwards wouldn't stand a chance in TX-22.  Chet Edwards relies on two things: 1) He's been an active, reachable, local politician in the area for 20 years or so; 2) The former rural Democrat vote, which unlike Texas suburban vote, likes to crossover and vote for candidates whom they personally support (as rural conservative voters more than Republicans/Democrats).

Basically, the point I'm making is kinda simple:  GOP suburbanites in Texas don't split their vote very much.  And more importantly, the GOP suburbanites who tend to only show up in Presidential elections split their vote even less.  It's a big problem.

The only way I can figure Lampson has a chance is to successfully reach out to the moderate Republicans in TX-22.  It's very difficult, but I'm not going to say its impossible.  And secondly hope the Republicans nominate someone who is a Christian right nutter (not far-right on economics however).  I think he'd stand a decent chance in that situation.

Lastly, if Sekula-Gibbs' name was literally on the ballot last year, she would have beaten Lampson by about a 55-45 margin.  Even though she was a total idiot in Congress, I'd be willing to bet considerable money that if an election was held today, she'd probably still beat him.  That's what your up against.  And there are much better GOP candidates out there than her.

If that was the case, then Lampson would have lost by that margin in 2006.  Her name was right there on the primary ballot on election day and people could have wrote her name in they wanted to. 

The demographics are changing in that district.  Did you notice that it is only 60% white now?

Oh, please.  The race was extensively polled, and it showed two things: Sekula-Gibbs would have won easily had her name been on the ballot; but Lampson was almost guaranteed to win since it wasn't.

Republicans knocked off plenty of Democrats in 2004 who were in far better positions than Lampson is in right now.

And if the district is only 60% white, it's worth noting that in the south, whites vote just about as monolithically with the GOP as black voters go with the Democrats.
12987  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: 2008 Senate Races - Bad Map for Republicans on: February 21, 2007, 11:29:45 am
As far as the US Senate goes, here are my initial thoughts:

Alaska - Safe GOP.
Alabama - Safe GOP.
Arkansas - Strong Dem.
Colorado - To me, this one has the potential to be a toss-up, depending on who winds up being the GOP nominee.  I've not bought into the Udall-as-invincible line; certainly this should be a close race regardless considering Colorado's generic though mild GOP preference.  Still, I'll give Democrats the early edge.
Delaware - Safe Dem, provided Biden runs for re-election.
Georgia - Strong GOP.  Georgia Democrats seem to be in a death spiral, and will no doubt be more interested in playing defense in 2006.
Iowa - Strong Dem.  Harkin has made a living out of defeating top tier GOP recruits.  Still, Iowa is purple and there's a built in GOP base of at least 40% here.
Idaho - Safe GOP.
Illinois - Safe Dem.
Kansas - Safe GOP.
Kentucky - Safe GOP.
Louisiana - Again, a race that has the potential to be a toss-up, but probably has an ever-so-slight Dem advantage.  Landrieu's numbers aren't as bad as they once were, but they're no where near as strong as they need to be to guarantee re-election in a southern state.  This one should prove a lucrative target, so I'd expect a top-tier GOP candidate to get into the race.
Massachusetts - Safe Dem.
Maine - Strong GOP.  People with the kind of approval ratings that Collins have just don't lose re-election bids.  Period.
Michigan - Safe Dem.
Minnesota - Slight GOP.  Coleman is a skilled campaigner, and Ciresi has yet to show he has what it takes to beat him.  Franken is a non-starter.  This will definitely be a top Dem target, and it shouldn't surprise anyone to see it flip, but if Pawlenty could hold on in 2006, I'm willing to give Coleman the benefit of the doubt in 2008.
Mississippi - Safe GOP.
Montana - Strong Dem, if only because it's a Democratic incumbent in a reddish-purplish state.
North Carolina - Lean GOP.  Democrats just don't have much luck here in Presidential years (you have to go back to Sam Ervin's 1968 re-election bid), and Dole is a fairly uncontroversial Republican incumbent.  Still, you can't rule out a strong challenger here...yet.
Nebraska - Safe GOP if Hagel runs for re-election; Strong GOP otherwise.
New Hampshire - Slight GOP.  Sununu's numbers are healthy but unimpressive, and New Hampshire remains a "purple" state.  Still, the Democratic bench in the state is unimpressive, and the two most likely candidates against him - Swett and Shaheen - already have statewide losses to their credit.
New Jersey - Strong Dem.  You can't rule out the GOP 100% here, considering that Frank Lautenberg's numbers aren't exactly stellar, the fact that he's never been a good campaigner (and is definitely getting worse with age), and the fact that he's never actually won an election by a double digit margin.  And while the NJ GOP never wins these races, they've been at least competitive in every Senate race here since 1984.  Still, the best the GOP has to offer in the state are likely to pass, leaving the nomination to a Kean family loyalist like businesswoman Anne Estabrook (who?) or a conservative activist who won't stand a snowball's chance in hell.
New Mexico - Strong GOP.  Domenici looks like a strong bet, but you can't count out the possibility of a health smear gaining momentum.
Oklahoma - Safe GOP.
Oregon - Lean GOP.  Democrats are no doubt anxious to take out purple-stater Smith, but their most likely candidate is second-tier at best.  It'd be easier to give Democrats the benefit of the doubt here if their second-tier effort to oust him in 2002 didn't result in a 17 point Smith victory.  Still, Democrats are likely to carry the state on the Presidential level, so it bears watching for that reason, at least.
Rhode Island - Safe Dem.
South Carolina - Strong GOP.  Graham looks good in the General, but I want to see if he encounters any turbulence in the Primary before calling this 'safe'.
South Dakota - Leans Dem.  Johnson is looking more and more like a candidate for re-election, but this is a very GOP state and 2008 is a Presidential year.  Once the GOP settles on a candidate, things should become more clear.
Tennessee - Strong GOP.  Alexander should cruise, but again, I'll hold off on a 'safe' until the Democrats pull together a slate.
Texas - Strong GOP.  A hard call not to put this one in the safe column, but Cornyn's numbers are poor.  Still, Texas Democrats are likely in no position to capitalize and will be busier playing defense to hold on to some very difficult to hold House seats.
Virginia - Strong GOP, provided Warner runs for re-election as planned.  I'm unconvinced that Mark Warner will run, and John Warner is otherwise a very popular and respected politician.  Allen shot himself in the foot over and over again, and still almost won re-election...and Warner simply starts out in a better position.
West Virginia - Safe Dem, provided Rockefeller runs for re-election.  If not, all hell could break loose.
Wyoming - Safe GOP.

Best guess: Democrats are able to pick up Colorado, and successfully (but narrowly) defend Louisiana.  Republicans defend Maine (easily), Oregon (easily), and Minnesota (not-so-easily).  That's a net pick up of one, with Democrats having the better "upside" potential than Republicans.
12988  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Sununu for VP? on: February 20, 2007, 10:42:38 am
Jeb Bradley would be a good candidate for an open Senate seat in NH.  I certainly like his chances against [insert Swett family member here] in a year that isn't 2006.
12989  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: The Hill: Van Hollen targeting N.J. seats, but state GOP officials unafraid on: February 20, 2007, 09:12:56 am
I used to live in PA-15.  It's quickly becoming a New York City (!) commuter district, despite being 70 or 80 miles from the city.  The cities of Bethlehem and Allentown have been rotting on the vine since Bethlehem Steel died.  Meanwhile, the "suburbs" are quickly booming with new development.

It used to be a Reagan Democrat district, but the unions are fast disappearing.  It's becoming a commuter Republican district.

Looking at election trends, suburban Essex County NJ was the first to go Democrat after long being a GOP stronghold, then Union County's suburbs fell to Democrats, now Somerset County is moving towards the toss-up column, and Hunterdon County's 2006 results show a marked decrease in GOP performance over years prior.

The reason: exurb-loving Republicans are moving west.  $500,000 goes a lot farther in PA-15 than it does in NJ-07.  Just about everyone I grew up with in High School ten years ago moved to Pennsylvania to start their families.

Dent was incredibly popular in his Democratic-leaning Allentown (city) based District, and he's a terrific fit for the swing district.  I expect him to run statewide at some point, possibly for Senate -- the Lehigh Valley is influential enough to deserve its own statewide candidate.
12990  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: NJ: 2002 Senatorial Republican Primary Election Result on: February 20, 2007, 08:40:59 am
Whether or not you think Allen would have been a horrible statewide candidate more or less depends on whether or not you believe that the New Jersey populace was just too fatigued from the liberal Republicanism of the Whitman years.

Regardless, the scenario with Allen would have been vastly different.  Unlike Forrester, she was a defined quantity with real name recognition, and was consistently doing better than Forrester in the General Election polling.  My feeling is that Allen would have opened up a much larger lead much earlier, prompting Torricelli to withdraw in the late summer.

Without the time crunch, a "normal" choice would have gotten into the U.S. Senate race -- with some probability, Frank Pallone would have said "yes," and the 2002 race would have been a toss-up.

Forrester, while a nice guy on a personal level, is a just plain terrible candidate who botched two consecutive elections by pissing off both the left and the right.  Allen is a much more polished candidate, and would have avoided his mistakes.

Then again, I'm biased, since I was one of the fools standing there at Diane Allen's victory party in Burlington...........
Pages: 1 ... 515 516 517 518 519 [520]

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines