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

[Sam Spade]

What is going to be the topic of these DCCC ads or are they not done yet?

The DCCC's site says the ads will "respond" to the Freedom's Watch ads. Will the ads attack Freedom's Watch's shady billionaire backer Sheldon Adelson, who is connected to forced abortions in China? We should know in a day or two.

That would be stupid.  Does anyone outside of political websites know what Freedom's Watch is?

[Sam Spade]

What is going to be the topic of these DCCC ads or are they not done yet?

The DCCC's site says the ads will "respond" to the Freedom's Watch ads. Will the ads attack Freedom's Watch's shady billionaire backer Sheldon Adelson, who is connected to forced abortions in China? We should know in a day or two.

That would be stupid.  Does anyone outside of political websites know what Freedom's Watch is?

Here's the possible ad: Have you heard the false, negative ads attacking Kay Barnes? The man  paying for those ads is a Las Vegas casino billionaire! Billionaire Sheldon Adelson has spent hundreds of millions  of dollars investing in Communist China, paying off the government and supporting forced abortions.  Dirty money, forced abortions, and lies about Kay Barnes. Is this all Sam Graves has left?

Paid for by the DCCC

The amusing thing is that those people who heard the negative ads are probably unlikely to the rebuttal - which would make the ad even more confusing than otherwise.

[Sam Spade]

Made some changes to the Senate list.  Will try to update the House tomorrow.

NM is odd in that the NRSC has pulled out, but I personally suspect Rasmussen is right on where the race stands.

[Sam Spade]

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. 

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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. 

[Sam Spade]

Updated D House List, but not D Watch List.

[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. 

[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. 

[Sam Spade]

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.

I'm only done updating everything through NY-26 or so yet.  Be patient.  I think a lot of this through.    You don't know where FL-25 is going to be yet (though FL-24 will stay where it is).

On Illinois, Halvorson's weakness is fascinating and I have to wonder how she'll do if Blago gets indicted (which I think is becoming almost a foregone conclusion eventually).

As for Seals, if your own polls can't put you within 10% of Kirk, why should I believe that you're competitive.

[Sam Spade]

Oh, on Phil English - I moved him up 1) because of the spending and 2) because the SUSA poll looks legit to me.

[Sam Spade]

Sam, I have a challenge for you and I think you'll enjoy it but maybe not.

Can you list the five-seven House races, and, perhaps, two Senate races, which you are most likely to be proven wrong on in election day?  Upsets of Sam's predidctions, if you will.  I know you already try and adjust for this type of thing (AK-AK-AK), but it'd be a good firewall for you   Even if you miss a race or two, you can still have them on that secondary "Maybe I'm Wrong" list.

Sort of thing I'm truly interested in.  I trust your judgment as rough estimate of the consensus, but I trust your judgment more on where the consensus could be failing to take other factors into account.     And it's not just CA-4 (which I'm surprised to note is already at #40, yay, higher than Politicker which has it at #53 or so) haha.   Besides the clear tossups, which races on November 4th would be the least predictable?

Or is your list already organized 100% in terms of confidence?

Yes, would be interested to see his take on these, as well.

Also looking to see if his upset picks pan out better this year than Steele in 2006 or Bush winning Hawaii in 2004.

Not that I'm being critical; at least he has the balls to make such picks, which I don't.

I have, in the past, chosen to make some upset picks.  This year, I probably won't, because when they're wrong they get pointed out and when I'm right - they don't. (e.g. Pombo in 2006)

[Sam Spade]

MW08 - You have to wait for the update instead of blitzing me for being lazy about it. 

[Sam Spade]

From TPM (D):

The DCCC latest FEC filings from last night show that the Dems put down over $7 million for ads in 39 races across the country, in a mix of offense and defense. The single most notable expenditure: The Dems are spending $777,000 to go after scandal-plagued Rep. Don Young (R-AK), an astonishing amount for a small and very red state.

Republicans will agree, this is a total FF move for the Democrats.

This independent only hopes the move actually works.

[Sam Spade]

Sam, someone like yourself needs to give a good talkin' to Marc Ambinder, who is typically an adroit observer of politics. Today Ambinder wrote, "Sen. Mitch McConnell doesn't campaign very well in tight races." Maybe that why he pulled off an upset in '84, survived in '90, and fended off a challenge from the current KY guv in '96.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/every_analyst_does_their_own.php

You seem to know enough about this to write to him yourself. 

[Sam Spade]

I might have missed a thing or two, but it's finally fully updated.

[Sam Spade]

why is GA likely as opposed to lean?  I'd think that Martin's chances are closer to Musgrove's than to Allen's... I actually think he might be slightly more likely to win than Musgrove is (but also more likely to lose by 8-10%).

Much like I said earlier this year with Hagen, Martin has to prove to me that he can get above 44%-45%. 

In other words, all signs point to those Chambliss movers as being movers from Chambliss to undecided.  But so far, none of those movers have shown any inkling to move to Martin.  Until a poll shows they have interest in doing such, when election day gets here, they will move back to where they came from.

Of course, the fact that the DSCC is not advertising here is another factor.  Although they are advertising in KS, which makes no sense in comparison.

[Sam Spade]

Few changes made today:

1. Obviously, because of the Mahoney thing - his seat goes to lean R and becomes the most likely Republican pickup.
2. I switched NM-01 and AK-AL.  Heinrich had a good fundraising quarter and Dem spending in AK-AL speaks to nervousness.
3. Moved KY Senate back down to Lean R.  Although McConnell's people released a poll with him up only 9 and under 50, Lunsford's people returned with a poll showing him down by 3.  That to me does not translate to Toss-up/Lean R status.
4. I'm getting close to putting Georgia in Lean R, but some money has to be thrown there first.

[Sam Spade]

I remain reluctant to move MN into the Tossup/Tilts Democratic column. Barring a late collapse in Coleman's numbers, I can't see Franken being more than an even bet to win on election day.

As do I.  With Rasmussen's number, I can't help but wonder if that had to do with the suit flap.  Because the week before that, if you're (Franken) releasing a poll showing you up 2, you're not leading in my book.  Whatever - hopefully we'll get some clarity soon enough.