Sam Spade's 2010 Predictions
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:02:39 PM
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 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13
Author Topic: Sam Spade's 2010 Predictions  (Read 44386 times)
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #175 on: August 28, 2010, 12:51:12 PM »

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
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #176 on: August 28, 2010, 12:56:59 PM »

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
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #177 on: August 28, 2010, 01:08:41 PM »

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
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #178 on: August 28, 2010, 01:10:40 PM »

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
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 #179 on: August 28, 2010, 01:17:27 PM »
« Edited: August 28, 2010, 01:28:21 PM by Torie »

50 seat gain, eh?  

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #180 on: August 28, 2010, 01:37:36 PM »
« Edited: August 28, 2010, 01:40:04 PM by Beet »

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.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #181 on: August 28, 2010, 02:27:47 PM »

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
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #182 on: August 28, 2010, 02:37:33 PM »

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
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #183 on: August 28, 2010, 02:51:31 PM »

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.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #184 on: August 28, 2010, 04:04:49 PM »

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
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 #185 on: August 28, 2010, 04:40:13 PM »
« Edited: August 28, 2010, 04:43:41 PM by Torie »

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.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #186 on: August 28, 2010, 05:00:10 PM »

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
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #187 on: August 28, 2010, 05:00:30 PM »

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
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 #188 on: August 28, 2010, 05:17:15 PM »

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
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,701
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #189 on: August 28, 2010, 09:23:42 PM »

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #190 on: August 29, 2010, 04:52:12 PM »

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
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #191 on: August 29, 2010, 05:25:57 PM »

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
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #192 on: September 03, 2010, 09:39:29 PM »

Updated Senate and Governor.  Most of the movement is towards Republicans as the environment continues to get better for them. 
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #193 on: September 03, 2010, 11:47:52 PM »

Why move Connecticut Senate to lean Dem now?
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #194 on: September 04, 2010, 12:27:29 AM »

Why move Connecticut Senate to lean Dem now?

You mean besides the body count?
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #195 on: September 14, 2010, 10:56:21 AM »

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
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #196 on: September 14, 2010, 11:58:58 AM »

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #197 on: September 14, 2010, 12:13:41 PM »

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
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,405
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #198 on: September 14, 2010, 01:39:31 PM »

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
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #199 on: September 14, 2010, 02:05:47 PM »

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  
« 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 0.053 seconds with 13 queries.