Sam Spade's 2010 Predictions

[Mr.Phips]

I would at least add MA - 10 to the watch list. Also MA - 02. That race hasn't settled yet, but Massachusetts Democrats are very scared about Neal. He has not had a real campaign in nearly 2 decades, is more or less a non-entity in terms of presence, and alienated everyone by voting for both the Stupak Amendment and the final HCR bill. Furthermore, Brown got nearly 60% in the district.

Furthermore, the GOP does have a very strong candidate in Hampden Clerk/Fmr Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees, who has won in Springfield in the past, and whose pro-choice, pro-gay marriage record would make extremely dangerous to Neal in places where Coakley actually managed to do decently. And while I trust Neal to do better than Coakley in getting out the vote in Springfield, Deval Patrick, who is highly unpopular in the area is running at the top of the ticket this fall.

Also it may be worthwhile to take a look at ME-1. I know I sound like a broken record, but Pingree is the type of representative that goes down in an environment like this, even against her current third-tier opponent. If one of the Republicans moves over from the Governors race she is in real trouble.

You cannot be serious about MA-02.  That is a heavily Democratic Springfield based district where Republicans have absolutely no bench whatsoever.  The one time Neal was seriously challenged was in 1992 when a Republican Springfield city councilman ran and still got just 30% of the vote. 

[Mr.Phips]

This district has pretty much elected Hispanic Democrats since its creation with a Republican winning from 1992 through 2006 after the Democratic incumbent was caught in a bribery and racketeering scandal. 

[Mr.Phips]

Strickland is looking safer since his impressive fundraising totals, his NRA endorsement, and a series of missteps by Kasich -- making fun of Strickland's rural roots and publicly saying that you're not engaged in keeping Lebron James in Ohio?  He's in damage controlmode

Oh, I definitely agree Strickland's position looks better than in December or January and Kasich has done a number of stupid things lately, but looking safer is perhaps a bit too much - looking stronger maybe...  (I don't usually say safer until I see the 10-point lead or something).

Let me say my above comment this way - right now there's really only two Dem governorships that I would call safe or anywhere close to safe (Ark and NY).  Hawaii and NH are the closest to being there otherwise, but honestly NH is much closer to lean D than likely D at this point.  And with the exception of MA, I really can't put together that good of an argument for the other 4 in Lean D not being in toss-up (and Oregon should clearly be in toss-up, based on the polling, which will be changed soon).

What does all this mean?  That there is the real danger Dems could be 15 or under in terms of governorship post-2010.  Not likely yet, at all, but it is a very real danger.

Being under 15 means post Watergate like Republican numbers for Democrats.  And Obama didnt even resign like Nixon.

[Mr.Phips]

Yours says 30-35 now that I have checked, Sam, and mine says 30.28, so no, it doesn't.

I've been saying that since January.  I still do expect a takeover, at the polls, of either House.

Dont or do?

[Mr.Phips]

Ive currently got a loss of 27 in the House for Dems, a four seat loss in the Senate and a net loss of three in governorships.  I almost nailed 2006 and 2008 right on the nose.  In 2008, I overestimated Dem gains in the House and in 2006, I underestimated them.

[Mr.Phips]

Looking at all of these seats being lost, Democrats might as well have just stayed home in 2006 and 2008 rather than try to win these seats.  Its like seeing all of your hard work over the years smashed to pieces. 

[Mr.Phips]

Looking at all of these seats being lost, Democrats might as well have just stayed home in 2006 and 2008 rather than try to win these seats.  Its like seeing all of your hard work over the years smashed to pieces.  

And the Republicans will lose tons of them in 2012. By your logic no party should even try to win elections.

Not when they get control of redistricting in most states.  

This idiot Democratic strategy since 1994 of "win the White House, forget everything else" is getting very annoying. 

[Mr.Phips]

Well, its not like the Dems are going to win the Governorship of the NY or anything. I think though the NY State Senate could flip back, narrowly. Albany will be fun to watch in 2011. . I am so glad I left 10 years prior.


Part of the problem was 2008 really gave many Dems a deflated sense of what was GOP territory bound to return to Republican hands. In 2008 only TX-22, LA-06, KS-02 and FL-16 went back to GOP and this made the Dems feel like a lot of territory such as PA-10, ILL-14, NY-19  and NY-29, because they weren't Southern, could be held by the Dems long term. Some are marginal like NY-19 and ILL-14 but  NY-29 and PA-10 really are drawn to be heavily Republican and really would have been in the "Lost after one term" category, but then came 2008 when that collumn of 10 or 12 seats was blown to above 20, meaning that even a marginal or slight GOP year would produce 15 to 20 seats to GOP by default. It also meant that Dems were over extended in marginal, formerly Republican territory like NY-19, ILL-14, NH seats, OH-15, OH-16, PA-07, PA-08 that a bad year could produce a wipe out.

I agree on OH-16, PA-10, NY-29 and IL-14, but OH-15, PA-07, and PA-08 should be seats that any competent Democrat should be able to hold onto with the advantages of incumbency. 

Look at all the marginal seats Republicans held onto in 1996, 1998, and 2000.  They held most of their 1994 gains until 2006. 

[Mr.Phips]

Well, its not like the Dems are going to win the Governorship of the NY or anything. I think though the NY State Senate could flip back, narrowly. Albany will be fun to watch in 2011. . I am so glad I left 10 years prior.


Part of the problem was 2008 really gave many Dems a deflated sense of what was GOP territory bound to return to Republican hands. In 2008 only TX-22, LA-06, KS-02 and FL-16 went back to GOP and this made the Dems feel like a lot of territory such as PA-10, ILL-14, NY-19  and NY-29, because they weren't Southern, could be held by the Dems long term. Some are marginal like NY-19 and ILL-14 but  NY-29 and PA-10 really are drawn to be heavily Republican and really would have been in the "Lost after one term" category, but then came 2008 when that collumn of 10 or 12 seats was blown to above 20, meaning that even a marginal or slight GOP year would produce 15 to 20 seats to GOP by default. It also meant that Dems were over extended in marginal, formerly Republican territory like NY-19, ILL-14, NH seats, OH-15, OH-16, PA-07, PA-08 that a bad year could produce a wipe out.

I agree on OH-16, PA-10, NY-29 and IL-14, but OH-15, PA-07, and PA-08 should be seats that any competent Democrat should be able to hold onto with the advantages of incumbency. 

Look at all the marginal seats Republicans held onto in 1996, 1998, and 2000.  They held most of their 1994 gains until 2006. 

Notice the bolded words. I categorized. Seats drawn to be Republican and those that are Marginal and that in former a marginal year would return to the GOP, and that this was unusally large group already. I then said that the later had overextended Dem presence meaning that even a temporary return to its former Republican roots such as a year like 2010 can cause, could be murderous.

1996, 1998 and 2000 witnessed the loss of several seats that were beyond the GOP's permenent grasp in the modern era in CA, WA, CT, NJ, NY, ILL, and MA. And it was only the balancing out with gains of Solid South seats slowly falling from the Dems reach in GA, TN, AL, NC, MS, SC, and TX. And to some extent, gaining seats in the former list of states but not ones lost in the those years like CT-02, that kept the GOP in the majority.

Republicans held marginal to lean Dem seats like IA-01, IA-02, IA-04, OH-01, OH-18, PA-08, NH-01, NH-02 and several in California and elsewhere through 1996 and 1998.  And OH-01 and OH-18 had been drawn to be Democratic in the 1990's, as were many of the Southern seats the GOP held. 

Democrats have no excuse to lose seats like PA-08 with a strong incumbent.

[Mr.Phips]

Sam says 50-55, and I have said 50-60 for close to two months, but I am not clued in, because the GOP message skill sucks. Whatever.   Sam, the facts on the ground, make all of this message stuff very second tier. That is why so many nutters will win. It is send a message time.

After my little visit to Philly, I am quite worried about a currency collapse down the road. I am going to have to sell on Monday some of my long term TIPS, which are in a taxable account, and book a large capital gain. I had not been planning to do that. I will now. For complex reasons, TIPS don't do well, when long rates go up, even though they are inflation protected.  They also have liquidity issues, when the bond market is under stress.

It is quite possible that 2012 will be even worse than 2010 for the Dems, not to say for the country. I hope of course that does not happen, but I am worried. The problem is that will all the debt out there, the cost of carry will eat the feds alive if and when interest rates bounce up, leading to a vicious cycle of collapsing confidence. And it can happen very quickly. By the way, Japan tried to stimulus approach, and massive public works and all, and it belly flopped. That is not the way out of the box. Pity that it is not very clear what is.

If Republicans pick up 50-60 seats this year, its going to be almost impossible for Republicans to gain anything more in 2012 because they will have picked up pretty much every possible seat that they can this year and there wont be many more Democrats to defeat.  230-232 seats is basically the ceiling for Republicans in the House. 

Control of redistricting in Indiana, Pennslyvania, and Ohio will help them a little, but there just arent going to be any Democrats left to cut out in these states if Republicans are picking up 12 seats in these states this year.  Since Ohio is losing two seats and Pennslyvania is losing one, Republicans may have to cut some of their own members out in redistricting. 

[Mr.Phips]

If Republicans pick up 50-60 seats this year, its going to be almost impossible for Republicans to gain anything more in 2012 because they will have picked up pretty much every possible seat that they can this year and there wont be many more Democrats to defeat.  230-232 seats is basically the ceiling for Republicans in the House. 

Control of redistricting in Indiana, Pennslyvania, and Ohio will help them a little, but there just arent going to be any Democrats left to cut out in these states if Republicans are picking up 12 seats in these states this year.  Since Ohio is losing two seats and Pennslyvania is losing one, Republicans may have to cut some of their own members out in redistricting. 

First, I expect low to mid 40's in the pickup category.

Second, there will probably be a 5-10 seat pickup after redistricting.

Third, long term (by 2017), I think you could be talking about a 280 seat ceiling for the GOP in the House.

Republicans will not gain that much from redistricting.  There isnt much more they can do in Ohio, Pennslyvania, and Indiana and the Obama Justice Department will have jurisdiction over what is done in most Southern states(where there arent going to be any white Democrats left anyway). 

[Mr.Phips]

Didn't the Dems do the same thing in 2006 and 2008? Did it help them bring in more seats?

Personally, I doubt that any amount of money could significantly shift the outcome on a macro scale in the last ten days. Early voting is already going on, and you can only polish crap candidates so much. It might swing a few races, but I'm really skeptical that these last-minute multi-million dollar expenditures actually do much other than firm up the races that are already shakily leaning towards them.

No.  In fact, in 2008, Democrats fell well short of predictions.  All the money in the world didnt help them.  What they needed was Obama to stop and campaign in winnable districts since he already had the election in the bag.  The fact that he didnt stop for Dan Seals in IL-10, Darcy Burner in WA-08, and Jim Esch in NE-02 was particularly annoying. 

[Mr.Phips]

Governor
AZ-GOV:  Nice job throwing away the Governor's seat to a politically astute, but stupid, politician, Mr. Obama (even though Goddard probably would have lost anyways).
CA-GOV:  Meg Whitman is done. (IMO)
CO-GOV:  You know, there's probably about a 10% chance Tancredo wins this thing, as scary as that sounds.  See, this is what Crist was trying to do - become the de facto nominee of the party.  Naturally, the tanned one failed.  As noted above, polling in Colorado tends to be a bit questionable, which adds to the general uncertainty.
CT-GOV:  The race is decently close, but note that Malloy tends to be at 48-50 where Foley is at 42-45, which is a lead outside MOE.  Some tightening (and preferably a poll showing Foley ahead) is going to have to occur for me to change the call.
FL-GOV:  It's FL and naturally the polling is literally *all over the place* (because FL polling sucks, you know).  I want to see the last Mason-Dixon before making any call, but if I were to bet now, it would be Scott.  Remember that Scott underpolled in the primary, the state has a natural Republican lean and early voting looks horrendous for Dems (IMO).
GA-GOV:  Deal is a crappy candidate, but given the year and the state, the Republican good ol' boy should beat the Democratic good ol' boy unless even worse things come out about Deal than before.  Polling has been sparse, but I'd like to see Barnes ahead in a poll before reconsidering this call.
HI-GOV:  Hawaii polling sucks.  Badly.  Of course, this is a whitey vs. a Hawaiian, which is probably why the race closed in the first place.  I'm not going to call this race - just wait for the actual results.
IA-GOV:  Sure, Culver is gone.  But this one will probably be closer than the polls say, maybe even single digits.  Think of it as being the opposite of 2008.
IL-GOV:  Unless the polling changes in any monumental way, Brady will win, but narrowly.  State Dems actually care about this race (unlike IL-SEN), so you can already see (and expect) different manuevers.
MA-GOV:  Baker is probably done, but I am less sure of this than CA (or see below).  Mainly b/c there's still a decent chance Cahill is overpolling a bit.
MD-GOV:  Ehrlich is done.  O'Malley is/has been garbage, but it's Maryland.
ME-GOV:  The polling continues to show LePage ahead narrowly, but most of the polling is by questionable orgs.  ME is one of those few states that will actually elect real third parties and Libby Mitchell (and LePage) are just bad enough to let that happen.  Honestly, I have no clue - Maine is not the type of place where I have a good gut feeling for the landscape.
MI-GOV:  No Democrat was going to win this year given voters' opinions of Granholm.  Hate to break it to ya... 
MN-GOV:  I still think Dayton has the edge, but I'm less sure of here than I was a week ago.  Some poll has to show Emmer up before I even start to think upset, though.
NH-GOV:  If you want to look for an under-the-radar upset that no one will consider possible, watch here.
NM-GOV:  NM is just weird enough for the race to completely turn in the last week without any warning, but it looks to me like Richardson completely destroyed Denish (in his own way).  I want to know what WMS is hearing from west ABQ, of course.
NV-GOV:  Just writing a lol at Harry Reid's son for thinking he could ever win with his father on the ballot.
NY-GOV:  I believe it was in June or so that I pointed out in this year (and also b/c of the candidate), Cuomo was likely to not poll any higher then than the percentage he would get in the GE.  Of course, I also said Paladino could win (lol) and that's turned out right...    Actually, he could have won, had he stuck to the message he ended his primary on.  Instead, well, you know,...  He's run perhaps the worst campaign possible.  Watch him still end up with better numbers than Gillibrand's opponent, McCain 2008 and Bush 2004.  Btw, Cuomo's running the particular type of campaign he's doing b/c he wants at least one Republican to win downballot and for the GOP to take over the State Senate.  Just FYI - I'm not blind.
OH-GOV:  Strickland has polled in the 43-45% range for months.  Generally, that = disaster.  Of course, Kasich is a mediocre candidate at best.  And now we have CNN/Time saying he has a 1% lead, but that's just one poll.  I'm in wait-and-see mode, but I'd still be surprised if he pulls it out unless the first fact has suddenly changed and he starts polling in the 48-49% area.
OK-GOV:  Fallin was never going to win by a Brad Henry-2006 type margin, but she was always going to win.  Yawn...
OR-GOV:  Dudley is a crappy candidate.  But OR has been in hyper-partisan mode this election with a Republican lean of a bit and that's why this election has been close (it's also why Schrader may well be a dead duck).  However, historically, in Oregon, Republicans lose these battles, even why hyper-partisan.  Maybe this year will be different, but I wouldn't bet money on it.
PA-GOV:  This race is over.  Don't let anyone make you think otherwise, though it certainly could be a narrow victory, but Corbett is almost certainly (99% or so) going to run ahead of Toomey and with Toomey so close, that means...  This type of result also fits PA historically anyways.
RI-GOV:  The polling in RI sucks.  Badly.  Rasmussen has Chafee up, everyone else has it close or Dems leading.  Who knows...
SC-GOV:  You know, if this year was more Dem-friendly, I suspect Haley could well lose.  Otherwise, it's going to be a rather unimpressive victory, I suspect.
TN-GOV:  Once again, why did all the Dems run away from this race this year?  Btw, Haslem is the type of GOPer who will give the office back to the Dems in 4 years (or 8 years if he wins re-election, probably likely), so don't fret too much, though all the Dem-friendly gerrymanders are gone here next year (may not matter though).
TX-GOV:  Guess White wasn't able to close the deal with those voters tired of Perry.  Why am I not surprised.  Rasmussen has probably got the margin close to right, fyi.
VT-GOV:  I really have no clue who will win here, except that it's probably a toss-up.
WI-GOV:  It's kinda funny to note that both Wisconsin races broke after the primary.  We'll see if that changes, but I suspect not.

I am wondering which states Democrats could have won if the environment was better.  I think Florida for sure.  Michigan probably wouldnt have mattered after Granholm and probably not Pennsylvania either.  Texas and Georgia might still have been too much of a stretch for Democrats at this point.