Sam Spade's 2010 Predictions

[You kip if you want to...]

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. 

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

Just no.

[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). 

[Sam Spade]

A few changes.  As expected, the 89th seat in my competitive list appeared.  I am one poll (non-Rasmussen) from putting IL, NV and WV in Tossup/Tilt R.  PA is back in Toss-up.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

What do you think is the reason behind some of the strange latest Cook ratings changes? Oberstar being moved to Lean D? Carnahan being moved to Lean D? I suppose it has to do with the latest fundraising numbers but even then it seems like a stretch to say that Carnahan and Oberstar are in trouble based on how much CoH they have. They should be on a Watch List at best. The other changes that confused me were FL-12, PA-4, and NY-20.

Early voting in NV isn't looking bad for Reid.

[cinyc]

What do you think is the reason behind some of the strange latest Cook ratings changes? Oberstar being moved to Lean D? Carnahan being moved to Lean D? I suppose it has to do with the latest fundraising numbers but even then it seems like a stretch to say that Carnahan and Oberstar are in trouble based on how much CoH they have. They should be on a Watch List at best. The other changes that confused me were FL-12, PA-4, and NY-20.

Early voting in NV isn't looking bad for Reid.

Oberstar had a disastrous Duluth debate performance, where he called some of his constituents members of the flat earth society.   The sense is the race is tightening.  

There was an internal poll for Rep. Russ Carnahan's Republican opponent, showing Rep. Carnahan's lead shrunk to 9.

NY-20 seems to be tightening, with both the NRCC and DCCC throwing money at the race.  

I don't know about FL-12 or PA-04.  What did Cook do in PA-04?  I believe there was a recent independent poll showing Altmire with a big lead.

Last I heard, early voting in NV was looking terrible for Reid, when compared with 2008's early voting turnout.

[minionofmidas]

There was an internal poll for Rep. Russ Carnahan's Republican opponent, showing Rep. Carnahan's lead shrunk to 9.

Uh, that's the kind of poll result that you move a seat from Lean D to Safe D for. Not the other way round.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wouldn't give anything on such rumours (or more frequently "rumours".) That goes to the poster you replied to as well, of course.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I wouldn't give anything on such rumours (or more frequently "rumours".)

On election night this year, the Tory candidate in Cardiff West told the BBC that he was going to win, so the BBC informed us all that Kevin Brennan was in trouble and that, given that the seat had been Labour since 1945 with one four year exception in the mid 1980s, this was both significant and dreadful news for Labour. Brennan won by over 10pts.

[cinyc]

There was an internal poll for Rep. Russ Carnahan's Republican opponent, showing Rep. Carnahan's lead shrunk to 9.

Uh, that's the kind of poll result that you move a seat from Lean D to Safe D for. Not the other way around.

Not when everyone's expectation was that Carnahan would easily win reelection.  A single-digit lead shows uncertainty.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wouldn't give anything on such rumours (or more frequently "rumours".) That goes to the poster you replied to as well, of course.
[/quote]

These are not rumours, "rumours", rumors or even "rumors".  In the states that have party registration, the early/absentee vote composition is a fact - one that can be compared to the early/absentee vote composition from this time last cycle, or at the very least, at the end of the cycle or registration.  Politico did just that and says the early vote composition didn't look good for Harry Reid compared to party registration.  More Republicans and fewer Democrats have early voted as of the time the article was published.

[Vepres]

Cook has AZ-07 at toss-up now FWIW. What idiot tells people to boycott his own state, and by extension his own district?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

There was an internal poll for Rep. Russ Carnahan's Republican opponent, showing Rep. Carnahan's lead shrunk to 9.

Uh, that's the kind of poll result that you move a seat from Lean D to Safe D for. Not the other way round.

I wouldn't give anything on such rumours (or more frequently "rumours".) That goes to the poster you replied to as well, of course.

I wasn't basing anything off the rumors, I was basing it off of the raw numbers. Democrats are edging the Republicans by 2,000 in early voting and this is before Reid's GOTV machine started busing in voters (this began today, I think) and Obama's Las Vegas event. Democrats are actually doing much better at early voting than they were in 2006.

[Dgov]

Cook has AZ-07 at toss-up now FWIW. What idiot tells people to boycott his own state, and by extension his own district?

Self-righteous Liberals who think voters are too stupid to actually vote them out of office for something like this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There was an internal poll for Rep. Russ Carnahan's Republican opponent, showing Rep. Carnahan's lead shrunk to 9.

Uh, that's the kind of poll result that you move a seat from Lean D to Safe D for. Not the other way round.

I wouldn't give anything on such rumours (or more frequently "rumours".) That goes to the poster you replied to as well, of course.

I wasn't basing anything off the rumors, I was basing it off of the raw numbers. Democrats are edging the Republicans by 2,000 in early voting and this is before Reid's GOTV machine started busing in voters (this began today, I think) and Obama's Las Vegas event. Democrats are actually doing much better at early voting than they were in 2006.

This is what I was interested in seeing. The early vote info I have is about four days old now. How often is it updated?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

There was an internal poll for Rep. Russ Carnahan's Republican opponent, showing Rep. Carnahan's lead shrunk to 9.

Uh, that's the kind of poll result that you move a seat from Lean D to Safe D for. Not the other way round.

I wouldn't give anything on such rumours (or more frequently "rumours".) That goes to the poster you replied to as well, of course.

I wasn't basing anything off the rumors, I was basing it off of the raw numbers. Democrats are edging the Republicans by 2,000 in early voting and this is before Reid's GOTV machine started busing in voters (this began today, I think) and Obama's Las Vegas event. Democrats are actually doing much better at early voting than they were in 2006.

This is what I was interested in seeing. The early vote info I have is about four days old now. How often is it updated?

Early voting: http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/depts/election/english/Pages/home.aspx
New registrations: http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/blogs/documents/2010/10/21/CCVP-2010-Q3_FINAL.pdf (showing great things for Democrats)

[cinyc]

Early voting: http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/depts/election/english/Pages/home.aspx
New registrations: http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/blogs/documents/2010/10/21/CCVP-2010-Q3_FINAL.pdf (showing great things for Democrats)

Showing great things for Democrats?  Hardly.  In 2008, the Clark County Early voters were 52.0% registered Democrats, 30.6% Republicans and 17.4% independents.  If my math is right, Obama ended up winning about 64% of the two-party Clark County early vote.

So far this cycle, Clark County Early voters are 46.3% Democrats, 38.0% Republicans and 15.6% independents.  Democrats are down 5.7 points from 2008, Republicans up 7.4 points and Independents down 1.8 points - a major swing away from the Democrats in the early voting composition.  And if my math is right, in 2008, Obama did about 9 points better in the Clark County Early Vote than the election day tally.  If a similar pattern persists in 2010, Harry Reid might not even win Clark County, let alone the rest of the state.

Edited to add:  This really belongs on the Early Voting thread, not cluttering Sam's thread.  I've copied it there.  Please continue the discussion on the Early Vote thread.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Early voting: http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/depts/election/english/Pages/home.aspx
New registrations: http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/blogs/documents/2010/10/21/CCVP-2010-Q3_FINAL.pdf (showing great things for Democrats)

Showing great things for Democrats?  Hardly.  In 2008, the Clark County Early voters were 52.0% registered Democrats, 30.6% Republicans and 17.4% independents.  If my math is right, Obama ended up winning about 64% of the two-party Clark County early vote.

So far this cycle, Clark County Early voters are 46.3% Democrats, 38.0% Republicans and 15.6% independents.  Democrats are down 5.7 points from 2008, Republicans up 7.4 points and Independents down 1.8 points - a major swing away from the Democrats in the early voting composition.  And if my math is right, in 2008, Obama did about 9 points better in the Clark County Early Vote than the election day tally.  If a similar pattern persists in 2010, Harry Reid might not even win Clark County, let alone the rest of the state.

Comparing 2010 to 2008 is not the best practice for a variety of reasons. These numbers are improvements for Democrats when comparing 2010 to 2006, which is very important. Besides there's still time for these numbers to shift and with an Obama event being scheduled, and Reid about to bus in voters I expect them to.

I think your problem is making the assumption that the patterns this year are going to be the same as 2008. Obama did so well among early voters and so poorly in comparison among same day voters because his campaign pushed unbelievably hard on early voting. If you look at the numbers for 2008, they are insane.

The numbers that worry me are the ones coming out of Washoe...

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Early voting: http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/depts/election/english/Pages/home.aspx
New registrations: http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/blogs/documents/2010/10/21/CCVP-2010-Q3_FINAL.pdf (showing great things for Democrats)

Showing great things for Democrats?  Hardly.  In 2008, the Clark County Early voters were 52.0% registered Democrats, 30.6% Republicans and 17.4% independents.  If my math is right, Obama ended up winning about 64% of the two-party Clark County early vote.

So far this cycle, Clark County Early voters are 46.3% Democrats, 38.0% Republicans and 15.6% independents.  Democrats are down 5.7 points from 2008, Republicans up 7.4 points and Independents down 1.8 points - a major swing away from the Democrats in the early voting composition.  And if my math is right, in 2008, Obama did about 9 points better in the Clark County Early Vote than the election day tally.  If a similar pattern persists in 2010, Harry Reid might not even win Clark County, let alone the rest of the state.

Edited to add:  This really belongs on the Early Voting thread, not cluttering Sam's thread.  I've copied it there.  Please continue the discussion on the Early Vote thread.

I think that it looks like Reid will narrowly lose at this point, but there's no way he loses Clark County.

[Torie]

WA-6?

[Sam Spade]

Senate
AK-SEN:  Miller has really, really sucked as a candidate.  And I've never seen a Dem underpoll in Alaska.  So the real question is whether it's Murkowski or Miller.  The national Republicans seem to think the same thing (and have for a while), henceforth no ads against her.  To add to this confusion, Alaska polling is notoriously questionable and underpolls Republicans historically.  I would not be surprised with a narrow Murkowski win, a 10-point Miller or something in-between, but something else would be surprising.
AR-SEN:  As expected, Blanche Lincoln should be able to close to somewhere near 40% if she campaigns halfway-competent, but just remember that Boozman didn't start active statewide campaigning until 2 weeks ago.  Which goes to show you how bad it is for Lincoln.
CA-SEN:  My best guess is that this ends up like 1994, just with less 3rd party votes.  Fiorina has closed the race in the past few weeks, that much is clear.  If Fiorina is going to have a solid chance to win, we should see a poll in the next week that shows her ahead, unless, of course, the turnout models are screwing us up.
CO-SEN:  No poll has shown Bennet ahead, except for PPP, in many months.  Of course, Vorlon comes by and tells us that internal polling shows it tied or Bennet very slightly ahead.  What is this, a reverse Strickland?    One thing's for sure, Colorado polling is always a bit questionable, so I really am just stabbing for a conclusion here, which I don't have.
CT-SEN:  Bet on the Suffolk poll being wrong and Blumenthal winning somewhere in mid to upper single digits.  McMahon has run a good campaign, but it isn't enough.  CT is a weird state in that they decide fairly early on who's going to win, and that actually happens.  Too bad for Republicans that Dodd didn't run again - he would have been toast.
DE-SEN:  I think O'Donnell is, in general, underpolling a bit, maybe by more than you think.  It's still over.
FL-SEN:  So Charlie Crist is going to finish in second, but Rubio will win by double-digits.  I'll take getting one out of two predictions from six months ago right.    As for Crist, I doubt I will find any other loss of this cycle so enjoyable.
IL-SEN:  One of two things is going to happen here: 1) The Dem undecideds break for G, Dems actually want G to win and G wins, narrowly; 2) Irregardless of whether the Dem undecideds do anything, the IL Dems decide that they don't want G in there and are fine with Kirk, a fellow Combiner, running things, and Kirk wins, narrowly.  There are pretty good odds at both conclusions, so place your bets.
IN-SEN:  I expect this race to be closer than the polls indicate, maybe even in single digits, but it's over.  Nice job throwing away an elected position, Mr. Ellsworth.
KY-SEN:  Repeat after me - the most likely outcome is that Paul wins by 5-10 points.  Second to that is that he wins narrowly - 1-5 points.  Third is that he wins by double-digits.  The chances of Conway winning come after that, but are probably too low for me to count seriously.  The Dems should have nominated Mongiardo, at least they would have had a serious chance at winning.
LA-SEN:  So Melancon has himself within 3.  I could even see him within single-digits b/c this is LA, but I do find that amusing.  Nice job throwing away an elected position, Mr. Melancon.
MO-SEN:  Even ignoring the fact that Blunt is generic Republican (i.e. a better candidate than Talent) and MO doesn't like Obama, doesn't one think that in this year, of all years, it would be best not to run another Carnahan.  Blunt wins by upper single-digits.
NC-SEN:  The real question here is not whether the curse is over, but whether Burr can best Jesse Helms 9% margin of victory in 1978, which stands as the biggest Senate victory in NC since Sam Erwin left.
ND-SEN:  What happened here should have been the tell that trouble was afoot (along with Scott Brown), but yep...
NH-SEN:  This race has been gone since Obama went so upside-down among Indys, but I'd personally be surprised if Ayotte won by more than single-digits.  Hodes has sure sucked as a candidate.
NV-SEN:  My gut says Reid is dead and that the final margin will be Angle 49-50, Reid 46-47.  I think it's now time to find a post of mine where I said Reid's ceiling would be 46-47% because it's out there.  
OH-SEN:  Told ya Fisher sucked as a candidate.  Sucks so much that Portman should win by more than DeWine or Voinovich their first time out.
PA-SEN:  Sestak's chances really depend, in large part, on turnout.  Keep in mind, this race was never going to "break out" no matter what the national circumstances, b/c of how Pennsylvania is, but Toomey will always have the inherent advantage b/c of the year.  Doesn't mean Sestak's odds of winning are not very reasonable, mind you.
WA-SEN:  Another race which will likely come down to turnout.  Washington is very predictable in this regard.  Much as CA, look for a poll which shows Rossi ahead, unless turnout is completely wrong (entirely possible).
WI-SEN:  Remember the recent Norbert College poll is an outlier to the previous unless proven as such.  My gut still says this race is over, but single-digits.  Wrong state, wrong candidate, wrong year.
WV-SEN:  The polling in WV, as usual, is all over the place.  As Al points out, though, Manchin has never won a competitive race.  Raese is a horrible candidate, but at least understands this year that the best message is - "I will stand up against Obama.  My opponent will stand up with him."  Thus, unless the larger message in this race changes to something else, my gut says Raese will win.

[Sam Spade]

WA-6?

It's on the next ten seats after the watch list.  Eh, who knows.  Looks like a push poll to me, though.  Wenzel is a Republican pollster, of course.

[minionofmidas]

Senate
AK-SEN:  Miller has really, really sucked as a candidate.  And I've never seen a Dem overpoll in Alaska.

You mean underpoll.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not even that much is clear.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite.

[Phony Moderate]

I wouldn't give anything on such rumours (or more frequently "rumours".)

On election night this year, the Tory candidate in Cardiff West told the BBC that he was going to win, so the BBC informed us all that Kevin Brennan was in trouble and that, given that the seat had been Labour since 1945 with one four year exception in the mid 1980s, this was both significant and dreadful news for Labour. Brennan won by over 10pts.

Angela is an interesting name for a man....

[Torie]

WA-6?

It's on the next ten seats after the watch list.  Eh, who knows.  Looks like a push poll to me, though.  Wenzel is a Republican pollster, of course.

I assume you know that it has been revealed that the NRCC or some such outfit has pulled a 20 million line of credit to pump more money into a wider field of seats. GOP ads might pop up in the oddest places all of a sudden, and the GOP ads to my mind are often more effective than the local stuff the candidates themselves produce. The standard deviation error factor in all of these projections by everyone, I suspect is unusually high this year. Nobody really knows what will happen, after we get past the first 35 seats or so. The GOP could gain 35 seats, they could gain 80, and the tea leaves will be there to say, with a selective culling, hey, I told you so!

Oh, Sam, do you consider the text of the questions below "push polling?"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

[JohnnyLongtorso]

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.

[cinyc]

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.

Remember - not every state has early voting, particularly in the Northeast.  It's more of a Western and Southern phenomenon.  Expenditures in areas without early voting could go further.  Voters in those areas don't need to make our minds up until election day, unless they vote for-cause-absentee.

[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.