Sam Spade's 2010 Predictions
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:24:43 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Sam Spade's 2010 Predictions
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13
Author Topic: Sam Spade's 2010 Predictions  (Read 44388 times)
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #200 on: September 16, 2010, 06:12:42 PM »

A little pruning around the edges today.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #201 on: September 16, 2010, 07:42:26 PM »

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. 

Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #202 on: September 16, 2010, 10:43:30 PM »

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.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #203 on: September 16, 2010, 11:18:47 PM »

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. 
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #204 on: September 17, 2010, 01:18:39 AM »

Well, its not like the Dems are going to win the Governorship of the NY or anything. Tongue I think though the NY State Senate could flip back, narrowly. Albany will be fun to watch in 2011. Wink. 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.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #205 on: September 17, 2010, 01:21:31 AM »

Well, its not like the Dems are going to win the Governorship of the NY or anything. Tongue I think though the NY State Senate could flip back, narrowly. Albany will be fun to watch in 2011. Wink. 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. 
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #206 on: September 17, 2010, 01:54:15 AM »

Well, its not like the Dems are going to win the Governorship of the NY or anything. Tongue I think though the NY State Senate could flip back, narrowly. Albany will be fun to watch in 2011. Wink. 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.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #207 on: September 17, 2010, 02:08:16 AM »

Well, its not like the Dems are going to win the Governorship of the NY or anything. Tongue I think though the NY State Senate could flip back, narrowly. Albany will be fun to watch in 2011. Wink. 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.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #208 on: September 20, 2010, 11:12:31 AM »

a little more massaging around the edges.  Should probably move my House call back down to 40-45, just imo.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #209 on: September 20, 2010, 07:29:50 PM »

A few more changes to House - dropped to 40-45 seat call, but added a few more Watches.
Logged
JohnnyLongtorso
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #210 on: September 20, 2010, 08:06:14 PM »

AZ-06? Did Jeff Flake switch parties while I wasn't looking?
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #211 on: September 20, 2010, 09:33:11 PM »

AZ-06? Did Jeff Flake switch parties while I wasn't looking?

oh f-it!  big error there.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #212 on: September 26, 2010, 04:22:11 PM »

Changes on all three fronts...  Updated
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #213 on: September 26, 2010, 04:36:36 PM »
« Edited: September 26, 2010, 04:52:17 PM by Torie »

Below are snaps of my rankings and in the last column, Sam's, before his immediately prior update. I have put in bold where my major discrepancies are that matter (oh, I see that I forgot to bold IN-2, number 49 on my list, and NC-8, number 37 on my list). 5.5 means tossup, 6 is tilt/lean Dem, and 7 and above is stronger lean to likely to safe to watch D. Lower numbers are more GOP in reverse. I got the template, which I then played with, from here.





Oh, on the GOP side, the GOP drops LA-2 and Delaware, with toss ups in FL-25, Ill-10, and HI-1.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #214 on: September 27, 2010, 02:50:50 PM »

I am going to bury this here for the moment, in the absence of any better place. What does one think of Jay Cost's deus ex machina that one does a correction factor for all polls, so that the partisan turnout split for the given jurisdiction, matches whatever it was in 2004?  So if the split in a poll is more Dem say than in 2004 in California, you just readjust the partisan weights in the poll to a more GOP hue to get a more accurate picture of what would actually happen there was an actual vote.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #215 on: September 27, 2010, 02:58:35 PM »
« Edited: September 27, 2010, 03:01:18 PM by cinyc »

I am going to bury this here for the moment, in the absence of any better place. What does one think of Jay Cost's deus ex machina that one does a correction factor for all polls, so that the partisan turnout split for the given jurisdiction, matches whatever it was in 2004?  So if the split in a poll is more Dem say than in 2004 in California, you just readjust the partisan weights in the poll to a more GOP hue to get a more accurate picture of what would actually happen there was an actual vote.

2004 was a Presidential election year.  I have no clue why people are citing the 2004 numbers for an off-year election when partisan turnout will be higher at the expense of self-described independents.
 
In my opinion, given this will be a wave election, 1994 would be a more relevant measure if the overall partisan makeup if the states hadn't changed so much in the past 16 years.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #216 on: September 27, 2010, 03:14:53 PM »

I am going to bury this here for the moment, in the absence of any better place. What does one think of Jay Cost's deus ex machina that one does a correction factor for all polls, so that the partisan turnout split for the given jurisdiction, matches whatever it was in 2004?  So if the split in a poll is more Dem say than in 2004 in California, you just readjust the partisan weights in the poll to a more GOP hue to get a more accurate picture of what would actually happen there was an actual vote.

2004 was a Presidential election year.  I have no clue why people are citing the 2004 numbers for an off-year election when partisan turnout will be higher at the expense of independents. 

In my opinion, given this will be a wave election, 1994 would be a more relevant measure if the overall partisan makeup if the states hadn't changed so much in the past 16 years.

Yes, quite right.  But there were no exit poll data released in 2002, and I can't find anything for 1998 either, so there you go.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #217 on: September 27, 2010, 03:27:40 PM »

I am going to bury this here for the moment, in the absence of any better place. What does one think of Jay Cost's deus ex machina that one does a correction factor for all polls, so that the partisan turnout split for the given jurisdiction, matches whatever it was in 2004?  So if the split in a poll is more Dem say than in 2004 in California, you just readjust the partisan weights in the poll to a more GOP hue to get a more accurate picture of what would actually happen there was an actual vote.

2004 was a Presidential election year.  I have no clue why people are citing the 2004 numbers for an off-year election when partisan turnout will be higher at the expense of independents.  

In my opinion, given this will be a wave election, 1994 would be a more relevant measure if the overall partisan makeup if the states hadn't changed so much in the past 16 years.

Yes, quite right.  But there were no exit poll data released in 2002, and I can't find anything for 1998 either, so there you go.

There were no exit polls in 2002 after the 2000 exit poll debacle in Florida - except in California.

Exit polls from the 90s are still available on CNN's website:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/AL/#ppolls

(That's for Alabama - change state to whatever you want; click on the Governor or Senate office for the 1998 exit poll for that race - links to prior year exit polls are near the bottom of the state pages).  

U Conn's Roper Center has the raw exit poll data from 1976-2008:
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/common/state_exitpolls.html

I suppose using Presidential election year data is easier than off-year data because it's available for all states.  In the past two decades, only 2004, 1998 and 1992 would be an exact match to 2010's regularly-scheduled races - and all but 1998 were Presidential election years anyway.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #218 on: September 28, 2010, 04:34:38 PM »

couple of changes.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #219 on: September 29, 2010, 03:59:54 PM »

SUSA poll has a close race in NC-7, 'parently.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #220 on: September 29, 2010, 06:00:23 PM »


The NRCC throwing large sums of money at this race pretty much confirmed to me that it was not a runaway in the first place.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #221 on: October 09, 2010, 10:27:56 AM »

Senate changes (10/9/10)
- moving NY (Gillibrand) back to safe because of polling.
- am tempted to put Delaware in safe Dem and Connecticut in Likely D based on polling, but based on fact DSCC is actually spending in Delaware and has put a good bit of money on Connecticut will make me pause, for now. (also because they are not early voting states)
- put Washington back into pure tossup because of polling.
- put West Virginia in tossup/lean R because of polling.
- put Missouri in Likely R based on polling and DSCC decision to leave.
- put Louisiana and North Carolina in Safe R b/c no one seems interested, which usually means...  If there's greater than a 10% victory in NC, count me surprised, but still.
- put Ohio in safe - Portman has been consistently polling at 50% or over, Fisher has no money, DSCC not interested, etc.
- put Indiana in safe for same reasons as Ohio (Ellsworth does have money, but I see no evidence of closing, and its getting late) and it's getting late for early voting states when behind by more than 10%.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #222 on: October 09, 2010, 12:38:10 PM »

Changes in the Governor's column mainly just consist of me moving races to Safe that probably should be considered such based on the polling (candidate consistently over 50% and ahead by 10%, especially if not incumbent).

There's a bit of shifting around otherwise, nothing major.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #223 on: October 09, 2010, 01:53:20 PM »

Just for my own amusement, I went checking the theory that Sam Spade is actually Nate Silver.
Sam's current House predictions, with Silver's current percentages for a hold.

DEMS (GOP Targets) (90 seats/20 Watch List)

Likely R (7 seats)
AR-02*  3
CO-04   12
LA-03*  10
NY-29*   2
TN-06*   2
TX-17     5
VA-05     7

Lean R (21 seats)
AR-01* 18
AZ-05   26
FL-08   32
FL-24   16
IL-11     4
IN-08*   8
KS-03*  7
MI-01*  12
MS-01   15
ND-AL    19
NH-02*  38
OH-01     7
OH-15    10
OH-16    20
PA-03     17
PA-07*   24
PA-08    30
PA-11    19
TN-08*  16
VA-02     21
WA-03*  18

Toss-up/Tilt R (10 seats)
AZ-01   15
AZ-08   52
FL-02   22
MD-01  17
MI-07   33
NM-02  31
PA-10   18
SC-05   51
WI-07* 23
WI-08   20

Pure Toss-up (14 seats)
AL-02   29
CA-11  45
CO-03  46
GA-08   39
IL-14    45
IL-17    59
IN-09    43
MA-10* 76
NV-03   44
NY-19   31
NY-24   42
OH-18   66
TX-23    62
WV-01* 44

Toss-up/Tilt D (8 seats)
FL-22   47
NC-08  48
NH-01  16
NJ-03   64
NY-01   81
OH-13  91
SD-AL   29
WA-02  71

Lean D (20 seats)
CA-47   95
CT-04   87
GA-02   78
IA-03   53
ID-01   68
IN-02   79
KY-06   59
MI-09   70
MO-04  59
NC-07   48
NC-11   73
NM-01   86
NY-20   75
NY-23   33
PA-12   52
OR-05   64
TN-04   42
VA-09   79
VA-11   82
WI-03   89

Likely D (10 seats)
CA-20   94
CO-07   88
CT-05   67
KY-03   95
MN-01  96
NY-13   81
PA-04   84
PA-17   93
WA-09  95
WV-03  77
 
Watch List (20 seats)
AZ-07   99
AR-04   93
CA-18   100
GA-12   100
IA-01    98
IA-02    93
IL-08    81
ME-01   98
ME-02   87
MS-04   61
MO-03   96
NC-02   94
NJ-12    99
NY-25    95
OH-06   60
OK-02   96
OR-01   96
RI-01*  94
UT-02   88

Seats not listed by Sam with hold percentages below 99.5% in Silver
NY-22 99
MI-15 99
MN-07 98
MN-08 98
NC-04 96
MS-02 99
TX-27 99
NM-03 99

GOP (DEM Targets) (9 seats/9 Watch List)

Likely D (1 seat)
LA-02    14

Lean D (1 seat)
DE-AL*   8

Pure Toss-up (2 seats)
HI-01    36
IL-10*  46

Lean R (2 seats)
CA-03   85
FL-25*  85

Likely R (3 seats)
PA-06   93
PA-15   92
WA-08  94

Watch List (9 seats)
AL-05*  97
AZ-03*  98
CA-45    98
KS-04*  100
MI-03*  98
MN-06   99
NE-02    98
OH-12   99
SC-02   100

I guess where completeness' sake I'll include a list of further R seats below 99.5... even though it's probably wholly pointless:

IN-03 98
FL-12 94
CA-44 99



Considerable overlap there. More than with some other lists I've seen.

Oh yeah, there are 138 utterly safe D seats by these two combined counts (140 D100 shares minus GA12 and CA18, which I'd agree are among the oddest on the lists.) There are a few more I'd probably subtract, all things considered, but only about a dozen.
 
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #224 on: October 09, 2010, 03:32:18 PM »

Haven't updated it in a while, Lewis, so you're placement is a little stale.  Will probably get to it tomorrow.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 11 queries.