Sam Spade's 2010 Predictions

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Why do you see Pat Tiberi as being so vulnerable? That's the one rating on your House list that really jumps out at me.

[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.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

This isn't addressed to Sam, but I guess I'll post it here.

How's Hodes doing in New Hampshire?  He has never been a strong fundraiser, but Ayotte hasn't seemed as strong in real life as she sounded on paper either.

Hodes is about as close as you can come to having Generic Democrat running for office. So all Ayotte has to do to win is avoid making gaffes.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

I'm surprised to see IL-08 still on the watch list. I thought with the whole Joe Walsh trainwreck, you would've taken it off. I'm also not feeling the WI-08 move; the candidates running against Kagen seem pretty uninspiring.

I've been thinking about the Iowa seats; they just don't look likely enough to flip, though. IA-02 has the better candidate, but it's also the more liberal district.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Yeah, I was comparing the list to mine as well. The only one that really surprised me was Kurt Schrader in OR-05; he doesn't seem to be in that much trouble.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

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.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

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

[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.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Alaska
Senate
Prediction:  Miller (R) 40, Murkowski (WI) 29, McAdams (D) 29, Other 2
Actual:  Murkowski (WI) 40, Miller (R) 34, McAdams (D) 23, Other 2 Outside MOE, WRONG WINNER
Comment:  Wow, what an awful prediction.  McAdams still underran his polling, proving one true fact about Alaska, regardless of circumstances.

My gut feeling was Murkowski would win, but I changed my prediction at the last minute to Miller, figuring the state would default to the Republican on the ballot. Whoops.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never did understand why everyone thought Giffords was in worse shape than Mitchell.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I blame that stupid SUSA poll showing Vidak ahead by 10.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you mean CT-05 was wrong.

I was tempted to predict that the Democrats wouldn't lose a single seat in New England outside of New Hampshire. Fortune favors the bold, I guess.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I said it before and I'll say it again, anyone who thought they could seriously predict this one was on crack. I ended up guessing the Dems would win it, but that's mostly because Djou would have had to pull in something like a third of Case's voters from the special to win.