PredictionsEndorse2006 Senatorial Predictions - db099221 (--CA) ResultsPolls
Note: The Google advertisement links below may advocate political positions that this site does not endorse.
Date of Prediction: 2006-11-01 Version:10

Prediction Map
db099221 MapPrediction Key

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

Confidence Map
db099221 MapConfidence Key

Prediction States Won
25 |
33 |
50 |
Dem22
 
pie
Rep9
 
Ind2
 
Non17
 

Confidence States Won
25 |
33 |
50 |
Dem19
 
pie
Rep8
 
Ind1
 
Tos5
 
Non17
 

State Pick-ups

Gain Loss Hold Net Gain
Inc. Open Total Inc. Open Total Inc. Open Total
Dem+60+60-1-114216+5
Rep000-60-6819-6
Ind0+1+1000011+1


Predicted Senate Control (110th Congress):
Party Seats Up Seats Not Up Total Seats
Democratic222749
Republican94049
Independent202
pie

Comments
No Comments Entered

Prediction History
Prediction Graph


Comments History - show

Version History


Member Comments

 By: db099221 (--CA) - 2006-11-01 @ 19:42:55

TN: Ford seems to have lost some momentum. In addition, I think that the "lie" factor will occur here.

VA: Allen's disgraceful attack on Webb for his FICTION novels has backfired. Allen probably would have won, but he just got too greedy. If the current situation lasts, Allen'll lose.

CT: I've given most hope here, but I wanted to keep to my pledge of no lean confidences. I thought it was closer to tossup than strong confidence. If nothing changes, I'll change it to strong on November 6th.
prediction Map

 By: db099221 (--CA) - 2006-11-01 @ 19:43:14

Please tell me what you think, everyone.prediction Map

 By: RepubforDem (R-IL) - 2006-11-01 @ 19:58:59

It certainly looks like this is the way things are shaping up. I argue that Missouri is still a flip of the coin right now but McCaskill may have the tiniest edge in that race now. Virginia is still very volatile and I am not convinced that Webb has a solid lead at the moment. Although all signs point to Webb having the momentum. Overall, pretty good projection. prediction Map

 By: Rock_nj (D-NJ) - 2006-11-01 @ 20:38:25

RepubforDem,

I couldn't have said it better myself. That is exactly how things appear at the moment.
prediction Map

 By: meejer (R-NC) - 2006-11-01 @ 21:38:20

TN. You got one right

VA. Will your deeply flawed candidate beat our deeply flawed candidate? Possible; but, no.

CT. A lib will win the election. Probobly Lieberman.

MO. I still lean toward Talent. It will be a close race.

MT. I'm still thinking Burns pulls this out.

NJ. Probobly Menendez but its a toss-up, I'll stand by my prediction.

OH. Sadly, I think you get that one. Shame, dewines problems are not of his own making.


Last Edit: 2006-11-01 @ 21:42:24
prediction Map

 By: padfoot714 (D-OH) - 2006-11-02 @ 02:50:44

I think that stem cells are going to give McCaskill the edge in MO.prediction Map

 By: Eytan (D-ISR) - 2006-11-02 @ 08:15:24

I agree with padfoot714.
Moreover, let's talk statistics. Let's say (just an assumption) that the race is really tied right now at 49%-49%. Than McCaskill will win at 50.5%-49.5%. Why? Because undecided voters, in all states, in all districts, are breaking for the Democrats. At a strong ration, too (anywhere beteen 2-to-1 to 4-to-1).
prediction Map

 By: Rock_nj (D-NJ) - 2006-11-02 @ 08:34:03

Undecides usually break for the challenger 2 to 1. So, an incumbent who is tied going into an election is likely to lose.

In New Jersey, where I live, Menendez will win. Not the strongest candidate we've seen, and he's running against the son of a popular former Governor (Kean), but NJ has become a deep blue state. The Republicans have not won a Senate seat in NJ in over 30 years. Menendez has not trailed in a poll for weeks now. Given these realities, it is highly unlikely that Kean will win on Tuesday.
prediction Map

 By: meejer (R-NC) - 2006-11-02 @ 08:57:32

You people become more delusional every day. we won't know how undecided break until NOV 7. thats when you typically find out. Incidentally they broke over 4-1 for Bush in 2004, so much for that argument.

Menendez trailed in a university Poll last weak. Your parroting propoganda like a good little lib, but it has no basis in reality. or do undecided voters breaking for the challenger only count if the challenger is a lib. lease, stay consistant with your idiocy at least.
prediction Map

 By: Eytan (D-ISR) - 2006-11-02 @ 09:11:33

meejer,

You still have Pennsylvainia a tossup. Enough said.
prediction Map

 By: meejer (R-NC) - 2006-11-02 @ 10:09:58

I'm consistant. And no, I don't have it a toss up, I have it lean dem. The cahnge may only be temporary, I'll see how thing look thur or friprediction Map

 By: Rock_nj (D-NJ) - 2006-11-02 @ 10:22:43

This website's polling data for NJ http://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2006/polls.php?fips=34 shows Menendez leading or tied since October 1st. In a Democratic leaning state that translates into a win. You are naive meejer and will be proven wrong on Tuesday. It's so obvious how the NJ election will go. It will be close, but NJ is liberal leaning and will once again elect a Democrat to the Senate.

prediction Map

 By: padfoot714 (D-OH) - 2006-11-02 @ 13:42:52

If you average the point spread for all the polls in October you get a 4.8% lead for Menendez. If you average their actual performance Menedenz averages 48.4% and Kean's average is 43.5%. If you average the point spread for the past week its +5.1 Menendez. I'd say things are trending Democrat here. Also, what university poll are you referring to meejer? It isn't listed on this site. The only poll I see listed from last week where Menendez didn't win was a Rasmussen tied at 45%.prediction Map

 By: db099221 (--CA) - 2006-11-02 @ 19:43:01

Yet another pundit acknowledges a Democratic wave occurring five days from now:

New Rothenberg Ratings
The latest Rothenberg Political Report ratings are out. Here are exclusive excerpts provided to Political Wire:

The Senate: "While Senate control is in doubt, with Democrats most likely to win from 5 to 7 seats, we do not think the two sides have an equal chance of winning a majority in the Senate. Instead, we believe that state and national dynamics favor Democrats netting six seats and winning control of the United States Senate."

The House: "Going into the final days before the 2006 midterm elections, we believe the most likely outcome in the House of Representatives is a Democratic gain of 34 to 40 seats, with slightly larger gains not impossible. This would put Democrats at between 237 and 243 seats, if not a handful more, giving them a majority in the next House that is slightly larger than the one the Republicans currently hold. If these numbers are generally correct, we would expect a period of GOP finger-pointing and self-flagellation after the elections, followed by a considerable number of Republican House retirements over the next two years."

Governors: "With Republican seats like Idaho, Alaska, and Nevada in play for state-specific reasons, and Minnesota vulnerable to a Democratic wave, the ceiling for possible Democratic gains is high. We have narrowed our earlier projection from Democratic gains of 6-10 to 7-9."


Last Edit: 2006-11-02 @ 19:45:43
prediction Map

 By: db099221 (--CA) - 2006-11-02 @ 19:45:21

Just wondering, how many of you used the Internet to get electoral results in 2004? If so, did you experience numberous freezes and server crashes? I know for me it was computer hell. I hope that doesn't happen this year.prediction Map

 By: padfoot714 (D-OH) - 2006-11-02 @ 20:03:10

I'm relying on the Daily Show this year for my election night news.prediction Map

 By: meejer (R-NC) - 2006-11-02 @ 20:08:09

You might want to consider Dr. Phil instead. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.prediction Map

 By: padfoot714 (D-OH) - 2006-11-02 @ 20:11:04

Come on now. The only reason John doesn't make fun of Dems is because they never do or say anything. At all. Ever. All they do is sit there.prediction Map

 By: meejer (R-NC) - 2006-11-02 @ 21:48:32

i think its more likely that they don't need help to be laughed at. thier pretty funny on thier own.prediction Map

 By: db099221 (--CA) - 2006-11-04 @ 13:21:20

I was just doing some research on State Secretaries of State. Ever since Florida 2000, everyone understands their significance.

Virginia - Dem
Montana - Rep
Ohio - Rep (conflict of interest?)
Iowa - Dem (conflict of interest?)
Rhode Island - Dem
Missouri - Dem
Tennessee - Dem
Florida - Republican
Kentucky - Rep
Pennsylvania - Dem
Arizona - Dem
Minnesota - Rep
Nevada - Rep
New Jersey - Dem
prediction Map

 By: padfoot714 (D-OH) - 2006-11-04 @ 16:29:52

Ohio is definately a conflict of interest.prediction Map

 By: db099221 (--CA) - 2006-11-05 @ 11:00:19

Missouri AND Virginia have Dem Secretaries of State. Interesting...

Does anyone know...if there's a dispute, does it go to the Secretary of State? Or who then?
prediction Map

 By: meejer (R-NC) - 2006-11-05 @ 12:19:04

Trying to play the "GOP stole the election" early I see. You guys are laughable. Secretaries of state don't count votes they only validate the votes reported to them by individual precincts. You all are really a joke.prediction Map

 By: db099221 (--CA) - 2006-11-05 @ 14:35:11

Yeah, meejer, and what happens when they do NOT validate the votes?

On another topic, here's an interesting article on Political Wire:

The Death of the Reagan Coalition
It took thirty years to build the Reagan coalition. It has taken George W. Bush just two years to destroy it. Polls taken by Reuters/Zogby International on the eve of the 2006 midterm elections confirm this analysis. In each of the Senate and House races surveyed, key groups that once formed the backbone to the Reagan coalition -- i.e., men, born-again voters, married, those with children under age 17 living at home, Independents, and those earning between $35,000 and $50,000 -- either favor the Democrats, or have forced the races to a draw.

Presidential coalitions endure because their agendas remain unfulfilled. Thus, when communism ended, the Reagan coalition began to decay. In politics, there is an important axiom: Success kills party coalitions. The fall of communism presented the Reagan coalition with its first crisis. Bill Clinton took advantage and won the presidency because of Reagan’s success.

George W. Bush sought to revive the Reagan coalition. First, he energized Christian conservatives who were repulsed by Clinton’s behavior during the Lewinsky affair. Second, he revived the Reagan tax cuts. But it was the war on terror that gave Bush his best hope for success. By reminding voters of September 11, Bush Republicans could offer themselves as the only barriers between safety and imminent holocaust.

There is a second rule of politics that is being reaffirmed this year: Failure guarantees the end of a party coalition. Dissatisfaction with Iraq is so high that Republican candidates have become stand-ins for Bush. Despite the burdens Democrats carry into the midterm contests, they are likely to win thanks to the successful enactment of a Republican tax cutting agenda at home, and the abject failures of the GOP’s foreign policy. This is reminiscent of 1968, when Democrats lost the presidency because the New Deal succeeded at home while the Vietnam War had become a colossal failure overseas.

The result is a terminal shrinking of the Reagan coalition. In 1980, Ronald Reagan asked a weary public the following questions: "Can anyone look at the record of this administration and say, ‘Well done?’ Can anyone look at our reduced standing in the world today and say, ‘Let’s have four more years of this?’" Democratic pollster Patrick Caddell observed that "there was no way we could survive if we allowed [the election] to become a referendum on the first three years of the Carter administration."

So it is once more. This year, Democrats want to make this election a referendum on the past two years. If you like the way things are going, they say, vote Republican. Republicans counter that these contests should not be a national referendum on the past, but a choice between an unhappy past and an even unhappier future should Democrats seize power. Since so few Americans are satisfied with the status-quo, Democrats are poised to win.

Ronald Reagan understood this elemental rule of politics -- namely, that elections boil down to choices based on simple questions. And his 1980 questions have renewed resonance this year. It is the Democrats who have donned the Reagan mantle. All they need is a presidential candidate to forge their new majority.

-- John Kenneth White is a Professor of Politics at the Catholic University of America and the author of The Values Divide: American Politics and Culture in Transition.
prediction Map

 By: meejer (R-NC) - 2006-11-05 @ 22:18:39

LOL. you post some liberal drivel about the demise of the Reagan coalition and expect anyone to take it seriously. The piece is just wishful thinking. Kinda like all the hoopla the dems are putting out about this election. Anybody seen the ltest generic balot from Mason Dixon, Pew or Gallup...ROFL. How about the latest from mason Dixon on RI. It would appear the air is coming out of the winbag a little early this year.

Panic will set in and Dem's will send Kerry and Dean out on a last minute mission to firm up the base.
prediction Map

 By: db099221 (--CA) - 2006-11-05 @ 22:31:09

Oh, yeah. Before you were saying that the generic ballot is useless and it doesn't measure anything accurately. Now you're stressing its importance. Typical of you. And I didn't write the article. I know you're upset because you're going to be crying in 48 hours, but don't take it out on me.prediction Map

 By: padfoot714 (D-OH) - 2006-11-06 @ 00:33:30

I agree with db on meejer's hypocrisy over the generic ballot. You can't poo-poo its significance and then turn around and use it as an attack against us when it moves in your favor. If it doesn't matter then it doesn't matter. Period. However, meejer may actually have a point in RI and MT. Those races are tightening at the last minute and will be close. MO and VA appear to be going in the opposite direction though. I attribute it to the super negativity of Allen and Limbaugh's comments about M. J. Fox. What do ya'll think?prediction Map

 By: RepubforDem (R-IL) - 2006-11-06 @ 00:51:46

Limbaugh is an interesting character. When he is right, he has masterful analysis. However, his comments on Mr. Fox are about the dumbest thing he has done since his Donovan McNabb flop. Allen just seems to be a desperate idiot. prediction Map

 By: db099221 (--CA) - 2006-11-06 @ 09:15:59

Allen has run one of the worst campaign I have ever seen (macaque, Jewish heritage, history of racism, Webb's books). On the other hand, Talent has run an excellent campaign, but it may not be enough. Claire leads in the last five polls. In the last one, she leads by 4. This may be premature, but I see an ever-so-slight trend toward McCaskill. It may just be good timing - whatever it is, it's helping McCaskill.prediction Map

 By: meejer (R-NC) - 2006-11-06 @ 10:23:03

I didn't say it was important, I simply posted it to laugh at you and see your reaction to the news. Whats the matter, does it not follow your liberal claims of victory? LOL. It is useless, just as useless as it was the last time. Just pointing it out to you. Do you disagree now? Or does your hypocracy know no bounds? If it meant something to you before, it should mean something to you now and you should be lamenting the collapse of your "advantage". So far you seem like typical libs, trumpeting polls of useless generic information when they support you, and decrying those which don't. I never believed the stupid polls which showed libs in the lead and I don't believe these stupid polls either. Just trying to soften the blow. I need you guys around for a little comic relief sometimes.prediction Map

 By: db099221 (--CA) - 2006-11-06 @ 11:01:43

I'm supposed to respond to your hackish, hyprocritical rant?prediction Map

 By: db099221 (--CA) - 2006-11-06 @ 11:13:50

No rain in St. Louis or Kansas City!prediction Map

 By: db099221 (--CA) - 2006-11-06 @ 20:53:22

NEW POLL IN MISSOURI!
NEW POLL IN MISSOURI!
NEW POLL IN MISSOURI!
NEW POLL IN MISSOURI!
NEW POLL IN MISSOURI!

In Missouri, Race Called "Un-pollable"
"Not one of the contests SurveyUSA is polling, has proven to be as unpredictable, as volatile, and frankly, as un-pollable, as the Missouri Senate race," where Claire McCaskill (D), Sen. Jim Talent (R) and Amendment 2 "are intertwined in a dance of complexity that is hard to untangle."

The last SurveyUSA poll shows McCaskill beating Talent, 51% to 42%, with 7% of the vote going elsewhere. "Where? SurveyUSA has Libertarian Frank Gilmour at 4%. 3% undecided. Gilmore gets 13% of Independent voters. If the Republicans capture some of Gilmour's vote and all of the undecided vote, the contest is closer than these results indicate. If not, it's a key Democrat take-away."

"Be Advised: SurveyUSA will continue to poll this contest through Monday night 11/6, and will update these findings if warranted."


GO MCCASKILL!
GO MCCASKILL!
GO MCCASKILL!
GO MCCASKILL!
GO MCCASKILL!
prediction Map

 By: db099221 (--CA) - 2006-11-06 @ 20:54:20

THE CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE RESTS ON RHODE ISLAND AND MONTANA.prediction Map

 By: db099221 (--CA) - 2006-11-07 @ 00:09:18

Guys, it's TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006.

ELECTION DAY!
prediction Map

 By: RepubforDem (R-IL) - 2006-11-07 @ 00:22:59

What a nail-biter. I do not think I have ever seen a more unpredictable race than the Missouri Senate race this year. prediction Map

 By: cm04g (I-FL) - 2006-11-07 @ 01:46:09

My final prediction is Pelosi will indeed be the next Speaker. The GOP will go down into defeat and Vice president Dick Cheney will break the tie (50R-48D-2I). prediction Map


User's Predictions

Prediction Score States Percent Total Accuracy Ver #D Rank#Pred
P 2008 President 52/56 43/56 95/112 84.8% pie 7 1 100T1,505
P 2007 Governor 3/3 2/3 5/6 83.3% pie 1 140 58T167
P 2006 U.S. Senate 33/33 22/33 55/66 83.3% pie 11 0 46T465
P 2006 Governor 35/36 28/36 63/72 87.5% pie 12 0 10T312
Aggregate Predictions 123/128 95/128 218/256 85.2% pie


Back to 2006 Senatorial Prediction Home - Predictions Home


Terms of Use - DCMA Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC 2019 All Rights Reserved