Election 2009 Gubernatorial Predictions

Note: The Google advertisement links below may advocate political positions that this site does not endorse.

Date of Prediction: 2009-10-28 Version:4

Prediction Map

* = Pickup via defeat of incumbent; ^ = Pickup of an open seat

Confidence Map

Prediction States Won

		2 \|	2 \|	50 \|
Dem	0
Rep	2
Ind	0
Non	48

Confidence States Won

		2 \|	2 \|	50 \|
Dem	0
Rep	1
Ind	0
Tos	1
Non	48

State Pick-ups

	Gain			Loss			Hold			Net Gain
	Inc.	Open	Total	Inc.	Open	Total	Inc.	Open	Total
Dem	0	0	0	-1	-1	-2	0	0	0	-2
Rep	+1	+1	+2	0	0	0	0	0	0	+2
Ind	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Prediction Score (max Score = 4)

Score	State Wins	State Percentages
4	2	2

Analysis
No Analysis Entered

Prediction History
Prediction Graph

Comments History - show

Version History

Member Comments

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2009-11-03 @ 02:02:52
My predictions: VA: R 56, D 43 NJ: R 45, D 44, I 9 NYC: I 54, D 42 NY-23: C 50, D 41, R 8 Not optimistic for Democrats, but I think the chances are not that bad that Corzine might win, and maybe even Owens.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2009-11-04 @ 10:25:47
My thoughts on the results: Virginia: Slightly wider margin than I predicted, really a landslide for McDonnell. I don't know how much it means, since the electorate which turned up at the polls voted for McCain by 8 points according to exit polls. I don't see any implication of Va. returning to the GOP fold, especially since McDonnell ran as a moderate (which seems to be the better idea for Republicans overall). New Jersey: Better margin than I thought for Christie as well, with Daggett's support collapsing at the booth. Corzine's maximum level was 45%, he needed Daggett to take more votes, at least in the high single digits. Not significant either, 27% of those who have a favorable view of Obama voted for Christie. NYC: Much closer than I and most people expected, but you can't be much more Democratic than NYC and Bloomberg is not Roosevelt, three terms in an executive position is a hard bet. NY-23: The night's upset and the reason I'm reasonably happy about last night. This was a night for moderate Republicans (Christie), or conservative Republicans playing moderate (McDonnell), not for conservative Conservatives playing conservative. The conservative movement took the blow it deserved for being so close upon itself and intolerant of ideological diversity: they lost a district held by Rockefeller Republicans for ages (and by the GOP for a whole century) because they don't understand the Southern intolerant brand doesn't play well in those areas. Scozzafava could have won this race, which is pretty much a textbook example of how the median voter theorem works (see 538.com), but the conservatives in her own party sacrificed their party's chances in the name of ideological purity. That race has another winner, and that is Newt Gingrich. Up next: see how Toomey will be unable to unseat Specter or beat Sestak... LGBT rights: disappointment in Maine, I thought New Englanders were a bit more open, but it seems off-year elections favor conservative turnout especially on social issues where the right is so freaked out. Better news from Washington, shame it is not gay marriage, equality is only a tiny step further...

By: CR (--MO) 2009-11-05 @ 04:43:48
Well I must say FrenchEd that I disagree with your analysis. Both McDonnell and Christie really moved to the right the last two, three weeks of the campign. McDonnell almost certainly had a more conservative campign from the beginning. This was not the night for "moderate" Republicans but for principled Republicans. Christie and McDonnell actually stood for something - lower taxes, less government, individual liberty, stopping the waste, etc. Not just pandering to politcal groups as Democrat-lite. In fact most of the time I've found it very amusing that we in the Republican party are suppose to think that we can win by being like Democrats. That if we only offer a more effecient and cleaner version of the Democratic party with a few slight modification that we can do big government better and win elections. I find that amusing most of the time. But not now. Now I am just annoyed and sick of it. The vast majority of the Republican party (the base) is center-right. And we are done listening to the RNC and the northeastern elites. The party has to stand for something. We can't just pander to this group and pander to that group. And we are a big tent. We don't care about someones race or gender or whatever. Our ideas and principles are meant to apply to the whole of America - smaller government, lower taxes, strong defense, individual liberty, etc. I completely disagree with you that we are somehow overtly intolerant. How much tolerance was shown to Joe Lieberman who defected on a single issue I might ask. Scozzafava would not have won that seat last night because while she would have had her own support many Republicans would have stayed home. She was more liberal than the Democrat! She was no moderate. And in the end as a principled conservative I'd rather see the Democrat in Congress than to have sent that RINO there. We must have priniples or there is no point in having power. Hoffman did very well for a third party candidate that entered the race late, had to deal with intra-party fighting, and had to deal with all the money the RNC gave Scozzafava. His showing amoung independents was not bad either. The fight for this particular district was in the plans of the Obama administration for a long time, ever since recuiting McHugh. The DNC invested a lot of money and out organized the local GOP. Not only that but the GOP did not have a primary so there was no consense candidate choosen by the local community. We'll just see what happens there next year. And I for one will be watching and supporting Pat Toomey from afar. There is a teachible moment here for the RNC. We in the base will no longer be ignored. If you want to put up real moderates (those who only differ from the party platform on a few issues not all of them as most so called moderates do) that's fine. Rudy Giuliani is fine. Mitt Romney is fine. But no liberals and no more RINOs. We'd rather let the Democrats have it. And Newt Gingrich just shot himself in the foot. He's done. So even though I pretty much completely disagree with you FrenchEd I'm still glad to chat with you and to hear your comments! Salute! :) Last Edit: 2009-11-05 @ 04:49:51

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2009-11-05 @ 05:11:58
How much tolerance was Joe Lieberman shown? Let's see, he ran against the official candidate of the Democratic Party and was still allowed to remain in the caucus AND to retain his seniority. He supported the Republican candidate for President and was still allowed to remain in the caucus AND to retain his committee chairmanship. He has pledged to vote against his caucus on a PROCEDURAL vote on an absolutely crucial piece of legislation, the most important of the 111th Congress and maybe of Obama's presidency. How would you have felt if Olympia Snowe had been defeated in primary, had still run and won, had supported Obama for President and had filibustered, say, the PATRIOT Act, and was still allowed her seniority, her chairmanship or even remaining in the GOP caucus? You wouldn't know because it wouldn't happen. And we would get a 61st Senator. And the GOP would move further to the right. I'm not saying Republicans have to move to the left to win. Triangulation only works for a time (see how the German SPD moved to the right and was crushed in the last election because a left-wing third party took a third of its vote). All I'm saying is, you need 50%+1 vote to win, and you can't get that, even in the States, with an anti-abortion, anti-civil unions, anti-health care reform platform. The right generally wins because it makes more sense (and I speak from a country where the right always wins because the left never makes sense, so I know what I'm talking about). Currently it doesn't: the birthers, the deathers, the tenthers are taking over in the GOP and the American mainstream, although it is anti-tax, anti-big government, is not like that. Let me give you the French example: in 2002, the French Prime Minister, Socialist party candidate Lionel Jospin, was ousted from the presidential election run-off by a far-right candidate because the far left took too many votes from him. Right-wing president Jacques Chirac won reelection with 82% of the vote. Triangulation sometimes fails. But in 2007, while the incumbent president Chirac had only a 30% approval rating, Nicolas Sarkozy won 53% of the vote in the run-off (which in France is a huge majority, because we're a tightly split country), because the left didn't make sense and was way to the left. Sarkozy wasn't a moderate by French standards, but a conservative (by yours, he would be somewhere between communist and socialist). He won because he made sense. That's all we ask of our leaders. So the conservatives can and will win again, but when they've come back to their senses and 1) stopped being extreme or downright insane about issues where they could make sense and 2) stopped insisting on those social issues which just alienate whole segments of the American society. And if they don't, Obama will win reelection even if his approval rating is down to 40%, just like Sarkozy would win reelection right now even though his approval is only 39%. Because the opposition doesn't make sense. Last Edit: 2009-11-05 @ 05:12:50

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2009-11-05 @ 05:17:00
By the way, I think McDonnell shows some promise. He is a serious conservative (as I said, his campaigned wasn't that loud and thus I misspoke of him as a moderate ;-) ) but he has shown he can win a purple state by a large margin. I think this is the kind of person you need in 2012.

By: CR (--MO) 2009-11-05 @ 22:39:55
Okay FrenchEd let me try to explain my position to you alittle bit better as I think what I was trying to say got lost in our discussion (which by the way I've missed since last year). Its sometimes hard to relate ideas to people outside your movement so allow me another go if you will. First and foremost I and other conservatives don't get this whole social issues thing. Now many think that being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control makes you a moderate in the GOP. That is not it at all. Rudy Guiliani does not really agree with the socially conservative side but I don't think he's a moderate. He's a strong conservative on taxes, spending, federalism, defense, smaller government, etc. Similarly I find other so-called moderates to be conservative. And to that end no one in the party has seriously talked about social issue since 2004. In fact our message has been over the last 18 months or so one of taxes, spending, deficits, controling healthcare costs, national defense, size of government, and personal liberty. The social issues are inheriantly tied to personal liberty, small government, and federalism. Argo they can't be separated from the rest of the platform. So you don't have to be pro-life and pro-gun, as long as we agree on the other major areas. Now as for someone like Olympia Snowe, that is a different story. She and those like her are termed RINOs because they hardly ever stand with us on anything. I can't remember the last major issue Snowe stood with the base on. At least Arlen Spector had the guts to admit what he really was, a Democrat. However, it is more adventagous to Democrats to have these RINO, dubbed moderates, in the GOP because it gives them bipartisan cover on issues and robs the party of a unifted message. The Democrats are very good about party disciple and I would kill for alittle of it in the GOP. Those are the people we don't want in GOP because they accept all the Democratic premises. That we need big government but somehow Republicans can do it better. That doesn't offer the people much of a choice. Another way to put it is that the GOP is told it must moderate its positions while the Democrats are never told they are too liberal for the American people. Therefore one would have to accept the Democratic notion that America is a center-left country. I disagree, I believe us to tbe center-right. And the center-right coalition is the true big tent that makes us the GOP. And even if America was more to the left, I'd still rather have a party that stood on principle and was the minority than a majority that stood for nothing and acted little better than the other side. I don't see people like Snowe standing for much of anything. The last time the Republicans moderated was in the 1960's and 1970's. What a bunch of losers we where then. We accepted Democratic primase after Democratic primase. They wrote the rule book and the media went along with them. We offered no alternative because we did not stand for any of our principles. We never got control of the Congress or state governments. We only won the White House when Democrats messed up so bad the people would take anyone. I mean Nixon and Ford, come on. Is it any wonder Democrats seek for us to return to that model. But Reagan and the 1994 Revolution showed that when you stand for something, with a bold contrast to the opposing side, you can win and win big. Hey polls show that 40% of Americans are conservative. That goes a long way to 50% +1. The principles of the Republican Party and likewise the conservative grassroots base are small government, low taxes, personal liberty, states' rights, and a strong national defense. And that covers the entire platform - economic, foriegn, and scoial. Believe me, I know this because I'm apart of it. I hope that sheds some more insight into the conservative wing. We're not a bunch of crazies, I swear, lol. But if not I look forward to our next debate all the same ;) Last Edit: 2009-11-05 @ 22:47:26

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2009-11-07 @ 09:24:13
It's funny but I happen to think that Democrats have no party discipline in Congress. Just look at the stimulus vote: no Republicans vote for it in the House, quite a few Republicans against it. Okay it was the other way around in the Senate, but hey Specter was still a GOPer, and Snowe and Collins weren't going to anger Obama while he had a 70% approval rating in their state. On healthcare, it's even worse. A public option isn't that big a reform. In the United Kingdom, health care is a public service. In France and Canada there is public insure (the famous "single-payer"). And that's since the 1940s. All Obama stood for was a public OPTION, a CHOICE between private plans and public plans to make the former more affordable -they aren't right now because of lack of competition. Competition is the more economically conservative thing there is. It's the basis of free market. Even Friedman will tell you his model doesn't work without it. And now what do we have: Democrats, so-called Blue Dogs (there are your DINOs), like Bayh, Landrieu, Ben Nelson or Lieberman (who is really from the CT for Liebermann party, that is for his own little self-important self) are ruining the effort to please constituents, or, in the case of Lieberman, to prepare their counter-Specterization into the GOP. The only one who is up for reelection next year is Bayh. The others have no excuse. So I don't know about the GOP, but when your President has brought your party to a 60-seat majority in the Senate and a 250-seat majority in the House, YOU BLEEPING VOTE HIS PLATFORM INTO LAW. No country is "center-left" or "center-right". The US is a more conservative country than any other western nation. In France, only the suggestion of private competition in healthcare would be considered political suicide and called right-wing delirium. Remember, I'm right-of-center here (hey, people are actually complaining that the postal service is going to become a private company owned by the government instead of a public company owned by the government; seriously). Every country has a center and then people left and right. Final point: social conservatism is generally opposed to personal liberty. On abortion and LGBT rights, it's advocating harsh social control. And it's always nice debating with you too, ConservRep. I mean, I've always expected conservatives to yell at me that I'm the Antichrist, and you've put my prejudices in serious doubt.

By: CR (--MO) 2009-11-07 @ 21:32:32
You know FrenchEd I always enjoy hearing from those more to the left views on the Democratic party itself and its own unique internal divisions. As a Republican I see the party divisions quiet clearly. Its not always the same with outsiders and visa versa. The evil you know so to speak. It is of course also always interesting to hear views on other countries from the people that live there, as oppose to what studies say or what the media reports. You sometimes miss the finer details, such as what you where saying about the postial service issue in France. Which as an American strikes me as strange. Again the devil you know so to speak. The United State is a unique country, as most every nation is. I would agree that America is the most "conservative" or lets say right of center country in the West. I do, however, believe that the tendencies of the United States are center-right more often than not. The GOP success can be based on how best it pulls together and reperesents the prinicples of covervatives, moderates, independents, Republicans, libertarians, and populists. That said, compared to the Republicans, the Democrats have a much greater party unity and discipile than I thought possible by a majority. From what I've observed the Blue Dogs tend to vote with the party line most of the time when the party leaders say so. From time to time on critical issues they are freed to vote against such issues if it means that they may get trashed in their home districts and states otherwise. But even then some of them thump their nose at the votes and go along with the leadership. Now as elected reperesentatives of the people they are suppose to vote for the people's interest and on their behalf. They where not voted into office to make their own decision but to reflect the will of the voters of their districts and states. Even if your president wins by a decent margin and you gain supermajority status you must still listen to the will of the people. Its not a free pass to do whatever. And they should so this regardless of whether they are up for reelection or not. Its a large part of why I favor term-limits. I think we'd get slightly more credible politicans. The American people have made it clear that they are not too fond of the sweeping agenda of the Obama administration. We could debate how much they favor it or oppose it but sufficite to say I think that the majority want to slow down and have a more through debate. I also hear that displeasure in your comments above for Lieberman. That is the way most GOPers view Collins and Snowe to go back to my RINO comment above. And when you meantion that there are those few in the party ruining it for the whole that is how many conservatives feel about the RINOs. But at the end of the day I still feel as though more Democrats are willing to take one for the team than the GOP. And why not, Democrats defend their own. Republicans will often toss theirs to the wolves. As for your point on social conservatism in general I don't think it is too anti-personal liberty. Certainly it has a little authority to it, as all moral structures do. Its a part of how a society maintains order. But that is also the beauty of federalism and states' rights. By moving these issues to the state leave each state can make its own mind up about things like abortion and gay marriage. Then people can move to areas that best suites them. One size need not fit all. I'm glad I've put a few of your prejudices in serious doubt. I promise there are other rational conservatives like me out there. We're just kindof quiet most of the time. And I'd never think of you as the Antichrist. I'd enjoy a bottle of wine with you anyday! Salute!

User's Predictions

Prediction Score	States	Percent	Total	Accuracy	Ver	#D	Rank		#Pred
2012 President	55/56	45/56	100/112	89.3%	12	1	115	T	760
2012 Senate	31/33	23/33	54/66	81.8%	2	1	40	T	343
2012 Governor	10/11	7/11	17/22	77.3%	2	1	51	T	228
2012 Rep Primary	44/52	9/52	53/104	51.0%	10	-	64	T	231
2010 Senate	34/37	28/37	62/74	83.8%	24	4	21	T	456
2010 Governor	35/37	26/37	61/74	82.4%	6	1	29	T	312
2009 Governor	2/2	2/2	4/4	100.0%	4	6	1	T	103
2008 President	54/56	47/56	101/112	90.2%	64	1	6	T	1,505
2008 Senate	32/33	23/33	55/66	83.3%	19	4	28	T	407
2008 Governor	11/11	7/11	18/22	81.8%	4	2	50	T	264
2008 Dem Primary	37/52	21/52	58/104	55.8%	16	-	52	T	271
2008 Rep Primary	35/49	15/49	50/98	51.0%	15	-	52	T	235
Aggregate Predictions	380/429	253/429	633/858	73.8%

Links

Back to 2009 Gubernatorial Prediction Home - Predictions Home