Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2017, 03:41:32 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, Virginia)
| | |-+  Sam Spade's 2010 Predictions
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 Print
Author Topic: Sam Spade's 2010 Predictions  (Read 40824 times)
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27868


View Profile
« Reply #175 on: August 28, 2010, 12:51:12 pm »
Ignore

I've certainly been giving thought to pushing MN-01 up to Likely D, most certainly.

With MN-08, I've got about 5-10 CDs I'd put on the watch list before it in my view, though I agree the candidate is presentable.

Though I agree with Al too - if MN-08 falls, 100 seats are falling, and probably every one in Iowa, just to get my drift.  We're not there, at all, imo.

Even the Iowa City CD? 

Yes - I have my reasons actually.  Though don't read too much into this - it might make my top 100 seats to flip (barely), which means it's not that much further from MN-08, but whatever.

The GOP candidate is actually a good bit better than the one in IA-1 and the Dem is a good bit worse (Loesback ran weakly in 2008 imo).  Besides, it's not like this district hasn't voted for GOPers for Congress - and in wave elections that is often an important factor for me.  I also see a lot of ugliness for Dems in Iowa this year, generically, the polls pretty much say this.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35827
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #176 on: August 28, 2010, 12:56:59 pm »
Ignore

I've certainly been giving thought to pushing MN-01 up to Likely D, most certainly.

With MN-08, I've got about 5-10 CDs I'd put on the watch list before it in my view, though I agree the candidate is presentable.

Though I agree with Al too - if MN-08 falls, 100 seats are falling, and probably every one in Iowa, just to get my drift.  We're not there, at all, imo.

Even the Iowa City CD? 

Yes - I have my reasons actually.  Though don't read too much into this - it might make my top 100 seats to flip (barely), which means it's not that much further from MN-08, but whatever.

The GOP candidate is actually a good bit better than the one in IA-1 and the Dem is a good bit worse (Loesback ran weakly in 2008 imo).  Besides, it's not like this district hasn't voted for GOPers for Congress - and in wave elections that is often an important factor for me.  I also see a lot of ugliness for Dems in Iowa this year, generically, the polls pretty much say this.

Why are Iowans particularly mad?  They like balanced budgets?
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27868


View Profile
« Reply #177 on: August 28, 2010, 01:08:41 pm »
Ignore

I've certainly been giving thought to pushing MN-01 up to Likely D, most certainly.

With MN-08, I've got about 5-10 CDs I'd put on the watch list before it in my view, though I agree the candidate is presentable.

Though I agree with Al too - if MN-08 falls, 100 seats are falling, and probably every one in Iowa, just to get my drift.  We're not there, at all, imo.

Even the Iowa City CD? 

Yes - I have my reasons actually.  Though don't read too much into this - it might make my top 100 seats to flip (barely), which means it's not that much further from MN-08, but whatever.

The GOP candidate is actually a good bit better than the one in IA-1 and the Dem is a good bit worse (Loesback ran weakly in 2008 imo).  Besides, it's not like this district hasn't voted for GOPers for Congress - and in wave elections that is often an important factor for me.  I also see a lot of ugliness for Dems in Iowa this year, generically, the polls pretty much say this.

Why are Iowans particularly mad?  They like balanced budgets?

I don't know.  My one time in Iowa I didn't particularly like the place, so I wouldn't call myself an expert at all...  Tongue
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21683


View Profile
« Reply #178 on: August 28, 2010, 01:10:40 pm »
Ignore

Political scientists throw their hats into the ring:

"On average, the Republicans win 229 seats, 23 more than the Democrats and 11 more than the 218 needed for a majority"



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-bafumi/a-forecast-of-the-2010-ho_b_697051.html
Logged

"Clinton failed, Bush failed, and Obama failed [to start a nuclear war]. I won't fail." - Donald J. Trump
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35827
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #179 on: August 28, 2010, 01:17:27 pm »
Ignore

50 seat gain, eh?  

Quote
we simulate 1,000 separate outcomes of the national vote. The pooled generic polls
conducted 121 to 180 days in advance of the 2010 election show a very close division of 49.1% Democratic and 50.9% Republican. But a near tie in the polls in mid-summer projects to a significant vote plurality for the Republicans in November, close to a 53%-47% split.


Quote
However, we should be wary of the possibility that the underlying model of the national vote works differently in 2010 or is influenced by variables we have not taken into account. Because the 2010 campaign started to heat up earlier than usual, the usual tilt toward the out party may already be complete, with no further drift to the Republicans.

Er, hasn't the further drift to the GOP in the generic numbers already happened? In other words, is not the text above (the 121 to 180 days out), now overtaken by events, since we are 68 days out now, or something?
« Last Edit: August 28, 2010, 01:28:21 pm by Torie »Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21683


View Profile
« Reply #180 on: August 28, 2010, 01:37:36 pm »
Ignore

Well, it should be noted that in the 2002 House elections, when Republicans won 229 seats, the popular vote was 49.6% to 45%, a 4.6% difference. The average size of today's RCP generic vote is 4.3%. Personally, I am predicting a bit more.

For example, RCP has GOP 45.9%, Dem 41.6%, and a very simple hypothesis could be that those who haven't expressed a preference at this stage are not sufficiently motivated and will not show up. That takes the denominator down to 45.9+41.6 = 87.5. In that case ,the two-party gap becomes 4.3/87.5 = 4.9%. Yeah, my simplistic thinking isn't as sophisticated as Sam's, but it takes less time to come up with Smiley Thanks for the info on this thread, though.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2010, 01:40:04 pm by Beet »Logged

"Clinton failed, Bush failed, and Obama failed [to start a nuclear war]. I won't fail." - Donald J. Trump
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1852
United States


View Profile
« Reply #181 on: August 28, 2010, 02:27:47 pm »
Ignore

I will just repeat, the GOP is running nearly 40 more candidates this year than the Democrats. That is going to be worth 3-4% of wasted national popular vote. There is a reason opposition parties almost always need well over 50% or at least a  substantial win to take the majority in "wave years". Because a side-effect of the momentum is a shift in the number of contested seats, the result is a much greater increase in wasted votes. Ie. the number of votes the GOP will gain in PA-08 is probably going to be dwarfed by the gain of simply putting a name on the ballot in MA-05. So the Republicans are likely to under-perform their generic figures in the final result just based on that.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21683


View Profile
« Reply #182 on: August 28, 2010, 02:37:33 pm »
Ignore

True but that partly depends on whether people are taking this into account when they respond to generic ballot polls. So a comparison of generic ballot polls from the same pollster in 2002 to 2010 may be a better comparison than a comparison of generic ballot polls from 2010 to the 2002 actual results. Even this is vulnerable to methodology changes, but it is at least as good as comparing poll aggregates across years, because the makeup of these aggregates may change.

In Gallup, the GOP generic lead starting with a breakout in late July in 2002 was 6,8,3,5,5,9, and 5, average 5.9%. Here we have the same breakout in late July and leads of 5,6,7, and 3, average 5.25%. I suppose taking into account polling effects makes the picture look slightly better for Democrats, but not in a really significant way. As of now, Boehner is still probably going to be the next Speaker.
Logged

"Clinton failed, Bush failed, and Obama failed [to start a nuclear war]. I won't fail." - Donald J. Trump
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1852
United States


View Profile
« Reply #183 on: August 28, 2010, 02:51:31 pm »
Ignore

True but that partly depends on whether people are taking this into account when they respond to generic ballot polls. So a comparison of generic ballot polls from the same pollster in 2002 to 2010 may be a better comparison than a comparison of generic ballot polls from 2010 to the 2002 actual results. Even this is vulnerable to methodology changes, but it is at least as good as comparing poll aggregates across years, because the makeup of these aggregates may change.

In Gallup, the GOP generic lead starting with a breakout in late July in 2002 was 6,8,3,5,5,9, and 5, average 5.9%. Here we have the same breakout in late July and leads of 5,6,7, and 3, average 5.25%. I suppose taking into account polling effects makes the picture look slightly better for Democrats, but not in a really significant way. As of now, Boehner is still probably going to be the next Speaker.

2002 ended up being a good year for the GOP, but it wasn't all that clear earlier. A better example would probably be 1994 where a 7 point GOP lead resulted in a 230 to 204 lead in seats, almost identical to the 228 to 206 split in 1996 with an evenly split electoral result. Or 2006 where an 8 point lead resulted in a 233 to 202 result.

Basically, it looks like the initial election takes a large hump to get over, and after that it dosen't take much more than a tie to retain control.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32118
United States


View Profile
« Reply #184 on: August 28, 2010, 04:04:49 pm »
Ignore

As of now, Boehner is still probably going to be the next Speaker.

I'm still not saying that.

The 'bots give the GOP a lead (7-12 points), but not gigantic and fluctuating.

The Dems will do badly, but it is a question of how badly.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35827
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #185 on: August 28, 2010, 04:40:13 pm »
Ignore

Has this RCP House horse race utility that I just discovered hit anyone else's radar screen? It shows something like a 45 seat GOP gain, splitting the tossups. Some of the races have commentary to them.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2010, 04:43:41 pm by Torie »Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4746
Mexico


View Profile
« Reply #186 on: August 28, 2010, 05:00:10 pm »
Ignore

Has this RCP House horse race utility that I just discovered hit anyone else's radar screen? It shows something like a 45 seat GOP gain, splitting the tossups. Some of the races have commentary to them.
How do they determine their race ratings? It seems that they base it too heavily on polling, which means that for many seats its based on internal polls.

Speaking of that, why haven't the Democrats released many internal polls?
Logged



"In this historic hour, we solemnly pledge ourselves to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No Executive Order gives you the power to destroy ideas that are eternal and indestructible."
-Otto Wels Enabling Act speech, paraphrased
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13581
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #187 on: August 28, 2010, 05:00:30 pm »
Ignore

Has this RCP House horse race utility that I just discovered hit anyone else's radar screen? It shows something like a 45 seat GOP gain, splitting the tossups. Some of the races have commentary to them.

MA-10 as a toss-up?  That's news to me, but hey, whatever, a little bit of optimism is always nice.
Logged

Mr Moderate at 54/10 is a total joke, he is a horror.

I think it is very possible that Vladimir Putin could be the Antichrist.  That is nothing more than an educated guess on my part.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35827
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #188 on: August 28, 2010, 05:17:15 pm »
Ignore

Has this RCP House horse race utility that I just discovered hit anyone else's radar screen? It shows something like a 45 seat GOP gain, splitting the tossups. Some of the races have commentary to them.
How do they determine their race ratings? It seems that they base it too heavily on polling, which means that for many seats its based on internal polls.

Speaking of that, why haven't the Democrats released many internal polls?

Don't know, and I made some effort to find out, and came up empty.
Logged
Saturday's Cab Ride Home
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 81185
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #189 on: August 28, 2010, 09:23:42 pm »
Ignore

If MN-08 is lost, the Democrats have indeed lost every seat in Iowa. And every seat in the Upper Midwest except the Twin Cities, Madison and Milwaukee-based ones. Oberstar has actually never even lost a single county since he was first elected to that seat. He is not going to go down while Emmer is destroyed in the same seat (Dayton's running mate is also from there.)

MN-01 is more winnable, but the GOP candidate has the same problem as Emmer, he's a backbencher extremist with nothing notable for him other than being so extreme. To win he'd have to about 5 out of 6 of these: win typical GOP margins in the conservative western half, hold Walz to under 60% in Greater Mankato which is a rock solid stronghold for Walz, win the German Catholic belt by double digits, hold Walz to under 60% in the "meth and strippers" belt along the Iowa border, win Olmsted county by at least 5 points and win by enough in the rest of the counties to at least cancel out Winona. Now that may not be impossible, but I don't see how he's the best candidate to do it.
Logged

JohnnyLongtorso
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6802


View Profile
« Reply #190 on: August 29, 2010, 04:52:12 pm »
Ignore

So why's CO-03 been knocked down to more vulnerable than CO-07? Yes, it's more Republican, but I don't see Tipton to be nearly as strong as Frazier.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27868


View Profile
« Reply #191 on: August 29, 2010, 05:25:57 pm »
Ignore

So why's CO-03 been knocked down to more vulnerable than CO-07? Yes, it's more Republican, but I don't see Tipton to be nearly as strong as Frazier.

Seat strength is viewed by me as a stronger factor than candidate strength right now when I compare these two seats.  Especially since CO-07 can potentially be saved by Dem turnout if things really go awry.  CO-03 can't.

don't get me wrong though - as a candidate, Frazier looks a good bit stronger than Tipton imo.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27868


View Profile
« Reply #192 on: September 03, 2010, 09:39:29 pm »
Ignore

Updated Senate and Governor.  Most of the movement is towards Republicans as the environment continues to get better for them. 
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8035
United States
View Profile
« Reply #193 on: September 03, 2010, 11:47:52 pm »
Ignore

Why move Connecticut Senate to lean Dem now?
Logged
Lunar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30434
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #194 on: September 04, 2010, 12:27:29 am »
Ignore

Why move Connecticut Senate to lean Dem now?

You mean besides the body count?
Logged

this is real
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27868


View Profile
« Reply #195 on: September 14, 2010, 10:56:21 am »
Ignore

I had the House update on Sunday evening, but I'm just posting it today and will update tomorrow based on primary results.

I could have added about 10-15 seats on the GOP side and 3-5 on the Dem side to both Watch Lists, but I decided against it.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35827
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #196 on: September 14, 2010, 11:58:58 am »
Ignore

You still think NV-03 is tilt GOP eh Sam?  It looks like a toss up to me at the moment. Did you factor in Bishop's (the Georgia one) recent ethical hitches?  
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4746
Mexico


View Profile
« Reply #197 on: September 14, 2010, 12:13:41 pm »
Ignore

You should move NY-19 to tilt R or lean R. The new PPP poll is brutal and it looks like your predictions about suburban/exurban areas turning the hardest against the Democrats/Obama are true. Obama only has a 39% approval rating for the district and Schumer has 40/50 favorables.
Logged



"In this historic hour, we solemnly pledge ourselves to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No Executive Order gives you the power to destroy ideas that are eternal and indestructible."
-Otto Wels Enabling Act speech, paraphrased
Eraserhead
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 42248
United States


View Profile
« Reply #198 on: September 14, 2010, 01:39:31 pm »
Ignore

You should move NY-19 to tilt R or lean R. The new PPP poll is brutal and it looks like your predictions about suburban/exurban areas turning the hardest against the Democrats/Obama are true. Obama only has a 39% approval rating for the district and Schumer has 40/50 favorables.

Wow, I just found that. I'm glad somebody finally did a public poll. No wonder Hall is all over the air now. I really want to see NY-20 too although I suspect Murphy is in considerably better shape.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/246500/toss-ny-19-already-high-potential-gop-win-pile
Logged

Update lives again on Atlas After Dark. PM me for info.
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27868


View Profile
« Reply #199 on: September 14, 2010, 02:05:47 pm »
Ignore

You should move NY-19 to tilt R or lean R. The new PPP poll is brutal and it looks like your predictions about suburban/exurban areas turning the hardest against the Democrats/Obama are true. Obama only has a 39% approval rating for the district and Schumer has 40/50 favorables.

Want to see the primaries here - but I think replacing NY-19 and NV-03 is a reasonable call. 

Torie:  Yes, I did factor that in on GA-02 - which is why it got moved all the way up to Lean D.  Keown is also a good candidate, from what I've seen. 

Right now, just so it is clear, I consider all those seats up to Lean D on the Dem side to be considerably in play, with those in Likely D fairly close to coming in.  I think the Likely R seats are gone and the Lean R seats are in definite bad shape (and probably gone too).
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines