Sam Spade's 2010 Predictions

[Lunar]

with the damages to white working-class voters in  MA, I wonder if PA is actually Lean (R) until the Democrats can show some strength with the type

[Sam Spade]

with the damages to white working-class voters in  MA, I wonder if PA is actually Lean (R) until the Democrats can show some strength with the type

Maybe. 

This is actually a pretty conservative (in terms of calls, not ideology) prediction, all told.  But I tend to be that way until primaries start hitting us because the polling presently has too many undecideds IMO.

A more liberal prediction (where I think things are headed and what the polls appear to be telling me) would put Indiana in Lean D; Colorado, Kentucky and Pennsylvania in Lean R (I see nothing but trouble for Dems in Colorado) and Florida in Likely R (even with Meek's fundraising haul). 

Heck, a more liberal call would put Delaware in Likely R given the lack of serious opponent.

[J. J.]

with the damages to white working-class voters in  MA, I wonder if PA is actually Lean (R) until the Democrats can show some strength with the type

I think it might be more the climate than the candidate.  I think all but one statewide GOP judicial candidate won (it was like 3 out of 4, or something along those lines).

I think at the county level in PA, one incumbent Republican was defeated (there may have been others).  I contributed to his opponent, the Democrat who won.

[Dan the Roman]

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.

[Sam Spade]

Updated Governor, moved Indiana to lean D on the news that Coats is running.

New House list will be done sometime soon, I hope.

[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. 

[Sam Spade]

Uploaded the updated House stuff - without exact numbers, just more of in a group, and all...

I expect and await criticism, naturally.

[Torie]

It is a set of anti-wave predictions, which in the end, I consider more likely than wave predictions. However, in the Senate, putting Kentucky for example as a toss up is interesting. It must be the latest poll or something.  Anyway, Sam, with this set of predictions, the GOP would be lucky to gain four seats. It looks like a 20 seat or so gain in the House for the GOP from this set of predictions. That might be the top of the bell curve, but I suspect the non symmetrical tails suggest something a bit more. I would be surprised however if the GOP gains more than 30 seats in the House absent a robust wave. And I lack confidence in the GOP to manage effecting a wave, absent the economy remaining comatose. Heath care alone won't cut it. The GOP just hasn't been skilled or persuasive enough to present a case of the kind that I would present I suspect, on that one, and my case is more long term, and voters just don't have that kind of time horizon.

The real wild card at the margins, is whether there will be a disproportionate GOP turnout. Who knows?

[bgwah]

Is there any reason you don't think OR isn't safe for the Democrats? They are running Kitzhaber, after all...

[CARLHAYDEN]

HOUSE

DEM (GOP Targets)

Likely R (1 seat)
TN-06*

Lean R (7 seats)
AR-02*
ID-01
KS-03*
LA-03*
NM-02
OH-01
VA-05

Toss-up (22 seats)
AL-02
AR-01*
CO-04
FL-08
IN-08*
IN-09
MD-01
MI-07
MS-01
NH-01
NH-02*
NV-03
NY-01
NY-23
NY-24
NY-29*
OH-15
PA-07*
PA-12*
TN-08*
VA-02
WA-03*

Lean D (19 seats)
AZ-05
AZ-08
CA-11
FL-24
HI-01*
IA-03
MA-10*
MO-04
NC-08
ND-AL
NJ-03
NY-19
OH-16
PA-03
PA-10
PA-11
SC-05
TN-04
TX-17

Likely D (14 seats)
CO-03
CT-04
CT-05
FL-22
IL-14
NM-01
OH-18
PA-04
PA-08
SD-AL
VA-09
VA-11
WV-01
WI-08

Watch List (27 seats)
AZ-01
AR-04
CA-47
CO-07
FL-02
GA-08
GA-12
IL-08
IL-11
IN-02
KY-06
MI-09
MS-04
MO-03
NC-11
NY-13
NY-20
OH-06
OH-13
OK-02
OR-05
PA-17
TX-23
UT-02
WA-02
WI-03
WI-07
WV-03

GOP (DEM Targets)

Likely D (2 seats)
DE-AL
LA-02

Toss-up (1 seat)
IL-10

Lean R (4 seats)
CA-03
PA-06
PA-15
WA-08

Likely R (3 seats)
MN-06
NE-02
OH-02

Watch List (8 seats)
AZ-03*
CA-44
CA-45
FL-12*
FL-25*
KS-04*
OH-12
SC-02

Sorry Sam, but Arizona 8 is leaning heavily Republican!

Gabby has enraged her constituents with her 'Pelosi ' impersonation.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

No major disagreements, although I don't think the CT seats will be competitive, and you can probably drop AR-04, as Ross didn't garner any serious challengers.

[Sam Spade]

It is a set of anti-wave predictions, which in the end, I consider more likely than wave predictions. However, in the Senate, putting Kentucky for example as a toss up is interesting. It must be the latest poll or something.  Anyway, Sam, with this set of predictions, the GOP would be lucky to gain four seats. It looks like a 20 seat or so gain in the House for the GOP from this set of predictions. That might be the top of the bell curve, but I suspect the non symmetrical tails suggest something a bit more. I would be surprised however if the GOP gains more than 30 seats in the House absent a robust wave. And I lack confidence in the GOP to manage effecting a wave, absent the economy remaining comatose. Heath care alone won't cut it. The GOP just hasn't been skilled or persuasive enough to present a case of the kind that I would present I suspect, on that one, and my case is more long term, and voters just don't have that kind of time horizon.

The real wild card at the margins, is whether there will be a disproportionate GOP turnout. Who knows?

KY should be in Lean R, given latest polls.  I just haven't changed it.  Today's modifications were House.  Sorry.

I have said now, about 3-4 times in the past few days, that if the election were held today, the GOP would gain about 20-25 seats.  Of course, that's today and not six months from now (whether good or bad for both parties).  And that goes for all the predictions.

I agree that without a wave, the GOP top is about 30 seats.  Problem is that nearly of the set factors I look at which are needed for a wave to actually occur at this point are in alignment (which means that I agree with Cook on that point - not necessarily on its conclusion).

I also agree with you about the GOP's incompetence in message.  However, while a set factor and one of the few that's not in alignment, that's not, imo, a necessary factor to a wave, and perhaps more interestingly, usually doesn't come into alignment until later on.

[Sam Spade]

Made some changes to Senate/Governor today.  Also created Toss-up/Lean D, Pure Toss-up and Toss-up/Lean R for Senate races only as we're starting to get some idea where things begin there so far.

[Sam Spade]

Made some changes to Senate/Governor today.  Also created Toss-up/Lean D, Pure Toss-up and Toss-up/Lean R for Senate races only as we're starting to get some idea where things begin there so far.

Now I decided to get rid of the Toss-up variations for now.  Flip-flop...

Btw, I am starting to see more of the logic that Al's reaching at in concluding that Republicans, in the end, may have a better shot at taking the Senate than the House.

[Badger]

Made some changes to Senate/Governor today.  Also created Toss-up/Lean D, Pure Toss-up and Toss-up/Lean R for Senate races only as we're starting to get some idea where things begin there so far.

Now I decided to get rid of the Toss-up variations for now.  Flip-flop...

Btw, I am starting to see more of the logic that Al's reaching at in concluding that Republicans, in the end, may have a better shot at taking the Senate than the House.

Really? I haven't found Al's analysis in this thread, but is it because you're downgrading the GOP's chance of taking back the House, or are you more bullish than most analysts on the chance of a Republican Senate?

I'm genuinely curious here. From your rankings, Sam, to win the 10 seats necessary for a majority the Republicans would have to win all 5 tossup races, both lean D races (IL & CA), plus one of the 4 current likely D races. That seems like a highly unlikely scenario baring a 1994 like (or probably bigger) wave election, and I really can't see the Democrats keeping the House under such dire national circumstances.

[Nym90]

Yeah, I don't really see the logic for how the Senate flips but not the House. The "wave" would have to be particularly localized in certain areas.

Simple math shows how unlikely this would be....to flip the Senate, the GOP has to gain 10 seats, but only 2 Dem senate seats are at risk in states that voted for McCain. So the GOP has to win at least 8 Dem senate seats in Obama states, in addition to the 5 they themselves are defending in Obama states.

In contrast, there are 48 (I believe) Dem House seats at risk in McCain districts, so the GOP, at least in theory, could win the House on these seats alone.

So basically for the Senate to fall but not the House, there have to be a lot of Obama voters who switch to GOP Senate candidates, but at the same time a decent number of McCain voters who still vote for Dem House candidates.

Now, maybe the health care bill causes some revolt among suburban Obama voters in "blue" states that costs the Dems a bunch of Senate seats, but it somehow doesn't affect the "reddish" rural Dem districts who realize it's not so bad after all, or some such. But that's about the only way I see that happening.

If anything I see the opposite as being much more likely....a GOP wave in reddish districts flips the House, but the Senate holds relatively firm with fewer losses than expected as voters in fundamentally Dem states return to the Dems.

[cinyc]

With Scott Brown's election, Republicans don't need to win 10 Senate seats to take control of the Senate.  They need 9 seats plus a Lieberman defection or 8 seats plus a Lieberman defection and a scared Democrat Senator defecting in order to save himself in 2012.    If Republicans win 9, Joe Lieberman becomes the most important man in the Senate.

The most likely outcome right now is that Republicans pick up 6, I think.

As for the potential 10th seat, Gillibrand is vulnerable if Pataki or someone credible decides to run.  Feingold tends to run in close races, and could lose to Thompson, if he decides to run.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I think it is more like 4 seat netgain Oh,PA,and CO are pure tossups and can go either way.  Six is the max gains for the GOP and every poll except Ras has PA a tight race right now.

[Sam Spade]

Too many Dem incumbents at or below the 50% mark (or upside down in terms of approvals).

[Torie]

Too many Dem incumbents at or below the 50% mark (or upside down in terms of approvals).

Good luck on predicting the election now Sam.

[Nym90]

Too many Dem incumbents at or below the 50% mark (or upside down in terms of approvals).

True, but I'm sure there are quite a few in the House for whom that is true, as well (there just isn't as much polling).

I agree that the Senate, all things being equal, tends to be more favorable to the GOP than the House, due to the small state bias factor. However, the big problem with taking the Senate is that only 1/3 of it is up for election and the other 2/3 was elected in very favorable years for the Dems (and that 1/3 was elected in a mildly favorable GOP environment), and so it would take a massive wave, and how that massive wave somehow misses the House is the part that I don't really get.

Due to the favorable Senate maps they will be looking at in 2012 and 2014, if I were the GOP I'd rather take the Senate than the House,  even though normally the House majority matters more due to the filibuster, because if GOP does take the Senate this year they have an excellent shot at 60 seats by January 2015.

In fact, you could say it is already highly likely that either 2012 or 2014 will be great years for the GOP (2012 if Obama loses, 2014 if he wins), and thus the odds of the Dems having 59 or 60 Senate seats again anytime in the next decade are pretty slim.

[Sam Spade]

Too many Dem incumbents at or below the 50% mark (or upside down in terms of approvals).

True, but I'm sure there are quite a few in the House for whom that is true, as well (there just isn't as much polling).

It's problematic for the House, but much more problematic for Senate incumbents, at least historically.  Doesn't necessarily mean anything really bad is definitely going to happen, but it ain't a good sign.

[Brittain33]

Uploaded the updated House stuff - without exact numbers, just more of in a group, and all...

I expect and await criticism, naturally.

Republicans have third-tier candidates in AR-1 and TN-8 vs. first-tier Democrats. That may be enough in a serious wave election for them to be toss-ups, but for now, we have to see if they even become viable third-tier candidates.

[Sam Spade]

Uploaded the updated House stuff - without exact numbers, just more of in a group, and all...

I expect and await criticism, naturally.

Republicans have third-tier candidates in AR-1 and TN-8 vs. first-tier Democrats. That may be enough in a serious wave election for them to be toss-ups, but for now, we have to see if they even become viable third-tier candidates.

I agree with you on AR-1 to a certain extent.  The GOP candidates suck there - but if there's a place where even a local wave will occur, it'll be Arkansas.  It should probably be moved to Lean D (and MA-10 to toss-up, but I haven't done so yet)

I can't agree on TN-8 - the Republican there is a fundraising machine and nearly all of his contributions come from in the CD.  Honestly, it's only toss-up to me because of the historic Dem nature of the region and the quality of the D candidate.  You'll notice that Mr. Longtorso is less optimistic than I am for Dems there, and I understand why.

[Brittain33]

I can't agree on TN-8 - the Republican there is a fundraising machine and nearly all of his contributions come from in the CD.  Honestly, it's only toss-up to me because of the historic Dem nature of the region and the quality of the D candidate.  You'll notice that Mr. Longtorso is less optimistic than I am for Dems there, and I understand why.

Which Republican in TN-8 are you referring to? I see two who have raised a fair bit of money, confusingly.