Prediction Map

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

Prediction States Won

		19 |	37 |	37 |
Dem	13
Rep	23
Ind	1
Non	0

Confidence States Won

		19 |	37 |	37 |
Dem	10
Rep	21
Ind	0
Tos	6
Non	0

State Pick-ups

	Gain			Loss			Hold			Net Gain
	Inc.	Open	Total	Inc.	Open	Total	Inc.	Open	Total
Dem	0	0	0	-2	-4	-6	10	3	13	-6
Rep	+2	+4	+6	0	-1	-1	10	7	17	+5
Ind	0	+1	+1	0	0	0	0	0	0	+1

Predicted Senate Control (112th Congress):

Party Seats Up Seats Not Up Total Seats Democratic 13 38 51 Republican 23 23 46 Independent 1 2 3

Prediction Score (max Score = 74)

Score	State Wins	State Percentages
67	37	30

Analysis

This is it, folks!

I wish it could have turned out better.

Final Tallies:











REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS TODAY, I would like to send my deepest thanks to Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid. Despite the anemic and dispassionate leadership of President Obama, both Pelosi and Reid have excelled in their respective capacities as legislative leaders; they were able to navigate the political seas to ultimately pass the most meaningful reforms in decades. Perhaps we will never again have a Speaker with the clout and efficiency of Pelosi or a Majority Leader with the guile and heft of Reid. Due to political backlash, which is due to factors largely out of their control, they both could very well be severely punished on election night. Pelosi stands to lose her majority, and she will thus relay her gavel over to an egocentric, chain-smoking, overtanned hack of a Congressman; Reid, on the other hand, stands to lose his Senate seat to one of the most radical candidates the GOP has ever put forth.
Whatever happens tonight, you both have my utmost revenrence and my deepest admiration. You have been the real political heroes of these last years.

Prediction History

Comments History - hide

Version: 190

Dems lose every competitive race except for WV and CO. PPP is the only legit pollster with Murray behind...I'll give it to her.

Version: 183

JUSTIFICATION:

The brightest spots on Election night will be Bennet and Reid, possibly Sestak.

CO: Bennet and Buck are TIED in the SUSA poll out Thursday. My hunch is that CO voters will vote Democrat for Gov. and Senate but will take their anti-Obama anger out on their Congressman (e.g, Markey and Salazar).
PPP has Bennet leading; as anyone I've talked to can tell you, I trust PPP the most.

NV: Democrats are showing up in big numbers for early voting in Clark country; Clark was about 67% of the total vote in 2008 and 2004. Obama won Clark by 19 points; I'm giving Clark to Reid by a 56/44 margin, accounting for a 7-point enthusiasm gap.
67(.56) + 33(.35) = 49.1%

Then, the None of These (NoT) vote will be about 5% of the total. Since Independents are most likely to vote NoT and because Independents favor Angle roughly 2-3, Angle will be hurt more by NoT than Reid. Thus, to account for NoT's 5%, I will take 2% from Reid's total and 3% from Angle's. Finally to account for tea party backstabbing, I'm giving Ashjian 2% share; thus 2% will be taken from Angle.

TOTAL

Reid: 47.1%
Angle: 45.9%
NOT: 5%
Other: 2%

Its gonna be a wild ride!

PA: This is basically a leap of faith. This will GREATLY depend on the Philly Machine's GOTV effort. From what I've heard, the Machine is running a very well-oiled operation, no pun intended!
The way I see it, Sestak will need to come out of Philly with AT LEAST a 400,000 vote advantage and he'll need roughly a 100,000 edge in Pittsburgh to stay alive, as Toomey will dominate the central part of the state.
As my fellow Louisianian James Carville said "In Pennsylvania, you have Philadelphia on one side, Pittsburgh on the other side and Alabama in the middle."

WV: Still a pure tossup in my mind. I'm giving it to Manchin, as PPP has him ahead. I will wait for the final PPP poll out this weak to make a final judgment here.
Look, as someone with 1/4 of my blood from the Mountain State, I think that I have the authority to say this: West Virginians aren't the smartest people. Its in their best interest to elect Manchin, but a lot of them can't see past the black man in the White House.

IL: The Midwest will be a total train wreck. Democrats CERTAINLY could have found a candidate better than Giannoulias; in fact, Alexi was endorsed by Obama as early as mid-2009. If Dems lose IL, it is 1000% Obama's fault. Simply put, Kirk has lesser negatives than Giannoulias; thats gonna tip the scales for the GOP. At least he's pretty moderate...

Version: 182

Version: 137

Yesterday was the 2nd Anniversary of the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC! Congrats Rachel!! I hope for many more years of the show!!
If everyone listened to Rachel and Keith instead of Fox, we'd have a MUCH more informed country!

Version: 135

Version: 133

Version: 132

Version: 120

WA: Top-tier Dem vs. perennial GOP challenger in a bad environment for Dems
OR: Popular Dem vs. weak Rep
CA: Polarizing Dem vs. mediocre but well-financed Rep in a navy blue state
NV: Unpopular Dem vs. polarizing and loony Rep
HI: Very Popular Dem vs. very weak Rep
AK: Mediocre Rep vs weak Dem in a crimson state
ID:Popular Rep vs little-known Dem in a crimson state
UT: Fringe Rep vs. weak Dem in crimson state
AZ: Popular Rep in primary battle against fringe candidate
CO: Novice Senate Dem vs polarizing Rep
ND: Very popular Rep vs. generic Dem
SD: Unopposed Rep
KS: Top-tier Rep vs. generic Dem
OK: See KS
IA: Venerable elder statesman vs. decent challenger
MO: Well-known and popular Dem vs. top-tier Rep
AR: Unpopular incumbent vs. generic GOP hack in a Dixiecrat state
LA: Disgraced Rep vs. credible Dem in a very red state
WI: Credible Dem incumbent vs. strong GOP challenger
IL: Weak Dem vs. Weak Rep in a blue state
IN: Rep with high name-recognition vs. generic Dem
OH: Decent Rep vs. well-known Dem who campaigns poorly
PA: Tea Party Rep masking his views vs. come-from-behind Dem
KY: Fringe Rep. vs. credible Dem in a red state
WV: Very popular Dem vs. weak Rep in a Dixiecrat state
MD: Super popular Dem vs. weak GOP challenger
DE: Rep. elder statesman vs. decent Dem
NY: Very popular Dem vs. weak Rep
NYS: Decent Dem incumbent vs. weak Rep
VT: Elder statesman Dem vs. weak Rep
CT: Popular statewide official vs. rich Rep opponent
NH: Rising star Rep vs. generic Dem
AL: Strong Rep vs. weak Dem
GA: See AL
SC: Fringe GOP incumbent vs. very, very weak Dem challenger
NC: Mediocre Rep incumbent vs. strong Dem challenger in a slightly red state
FL: Fringe but strong Rep vs. weak Dem vs. Strong independent

Version: 84

Safe Democrat
NY: SCHUMER 70-26
NYS: GILLIBRAND 65-32
VT: LEAHY 72-24
CT: BLUMENTHAL 57-42
MD: MIKULSKI 64-34
HI: INOUYE 80-17
OR: WYDEN 61-38

Lean Democrat
CA: BOXER 53-46
WA: MURRAY 53-47
NV: REID 46-43

Slight Democrat
MO: CARNAHAN* 51-49
FL: CRIST* 40-38-22
PA: SESTAK 52-47
OH: FISHER* 49.5-49
KY: CONWAY* 51-48

Slight Republican
LA: VITTER 47-43
IL: KIRK* 44-42-14
CO: BUCK* 50-48
WI: JOHNSON* 50-49

Lean Republican
IN: COATS* 55-44
NH: AYOTTE 54-45
DE: CASTLE* 57-43
NC: BURR 53-47
AR: BOOZMAN* 56-44

Strong Republican
AK: MURKOWSKI 65-33
ID: CRAPO 79-20
UT: LEE 68-30
AZ: MCCAIN 59-40
ND: HOEVEN* 74-24
SD: THUNE 95
KS: MORAN 61-37
OK: COBURN 67-32
IA: GRASSLEY 58-42
AL: SHELBY 69-31
GA: ISAKSON 57-42
SC: DEMINT 70-28

Version: 73

Republican Tsunami/1994 Part II Map

Safe Democrat
NY: SCHUMER 73-25
NYS: GILLIBRAND 66-32
VT: LEAHY 72-24
CT: BLUMENTHAL 58-41
MD: MIKULSKI 67-31
HI: INOUYE 85-12
OR: WYDEN 62-36

Lean Democrat
CA: BOXER 54-45
WA: MURRAY 53-46
PA: SESTAK 51-48

Slight Democrat
MO: CARNAHAN* 50-48
FL: CRIST* 39-38-22

Slight Republican
IL: KIRK* 44-42-14
CO: NORTON* 50-48
NV: ANGLE* 47-43
KY: PAUL 53-47
OH: PORTMAN 52-48
WI: JOHNSON 50-49

Lean Republican
IN: COATS* 55-44
NH: AYOTTE 54-45
DE: CASTLE* 57-43
NC: BURR 53-47

Strong Republican
AK: MURKOWSKI 65-33
ID: CRAPO 79-20
UT: LEE 68-30
AZ: MCCAIN 59-40
ND: HOEVEN* 74-24
SD: THUNE 95
KS: MORAN 61-38
OK: COBURN 67-32
IA: GRASSLEY 58-42
AR: BOOZMAN* 57-42
LA: VITTER 56-43
AL: SHELBY 69-31
GA: ISAKSON 57-42
SC: DEMINT 70-28

Not a pretty map, folks. Johnson unseats Feingold due to his ousider appeal. Marshall doesn't survive the high GOP tide. In Arkansas, even with the help of Clinton, Lincoln loses in a landslide. Save for Florida, the south is off-limits for Democrats. Jones acts as the spoiler candidate in IL, allowing Kirk to slip by.
The brightest spots for Democrats are PA and MO. Sestak wins due to Toomey's extreme views. Carnahan barely scrapes 50%.

Version: 71

I'm having a day of silence to commemorate the life and contributions of the Senatorial giant Robert C. Byrd. Sen. Byrd's status as an American hero was cemented yesterday. This is my tribute to the late, great Senator Byrd.

http://mc56progressivepost.blogspot.com/2010/06/tribute-to-sen-robert-c-byrd.html

Version: 51

I can now justify giving IL to Giannoulias. The last Rass poll has him behind Kirk 42-39. With the house effect of of R+5, Giannoulias wins a close 42-40 race.

With Halter out of the picture, the GOP is almost guaranteed 4 pickups: AR, DE, IN and ND.

Version: 49

MO: ..who knows. No really reliable polling lately. The latest Rass poll has Blunt up by one. The momentum is with Carnahan.
NC: The last poll done was a PPP; Burr and Marshall were one point apart. PPP has a house effect of R+1, so its relativity reliable and the NC race is a TIE as far as I am concerned. Marshall is up from a 14 point deficit, so the trend is on her side. The latest Rass poll was done a month ago and Burr led 48 to 40. Factor in the house effect, and the race is tied at 44%. Factor in a post-primary bump for Marshall and it looks good!
CO: Bennet up in a PPP poll 45-41. Thus, he's actually ahead by 6 at 46-40. I'm feeling pretty confident about Bennet; he's running good ads and after authoring the Bennet Letter for the public option, he has my endorsement.
NV: Reid and his likely opponent Angle are tied. Reid gets wins due to his relative ideological moderation.
LA: Pure wishful thinking.

Version: 45

Retiring Democratic seats:
{Holds} (4/7)
CT: [Dodd] Blumenthal (58-41)
IL: [Burris] Giannoulias (53-46)
PA: [Specter] Sestak (54-45)
AR: [Lincoln] Halter (51-49)
{Losses}
DE: [Kaufman] Castle (57-42)
IN: [Bayh] Coats (55-45)
ND: [Dorgan] Hoeven (70-30)

Retiring Republican Seats:
{Holds} (5/7)
KS: [Brownback] Moran (65-34)
KY: [Bunning] Paul (54-46)
NH: [Gregg] Ayotte (55-45)
UT: [Bennett] Bridgewater (63-36)
OH: [Voinovich] Portman (49-48)
{Losses}
FL: [LeMieux] Crist (38-34-28)
MO: [Bond] Carnahan (52-47)

Democratic incumbents:
{Holds} (10/11)
CA: Boxer (56-44)
HI: Inouye (unopposed)
MD: Mikulski (66-32)
NV: Reid (42-39-19)
NY: Schumer (75-23)
NYS: Gillibrand (65-35)
OR: Wyden (64-34)
VT: Leahy (79-21)
WA: Murray (57-42)
WI: Feingold (55-45)
{Losses}
CO: [Bennet] Norton (51-48)

Republican incumbents:
{Holds} (9/11)
AL: Shelby (68-30)
AZ: McCain (55-44)
GA: Isakson (61-38)
ID: Crapo (80-20)
IA: Grassley (57-43)
LA: Vitter (54-44)
OK: Coburn (unopposed)
SC: DeMint (59-40)
SD: Thune (unopposed)
{Losses}
NC: [Burr] Marshall (52-48)
AK: [Murkowski] Miller (40-30-30)

Version: 44

Retiring Democratic seats:
{Holds} (3/6)
CT: [Dodd] Blumenthal (58-41)
IL: [Burris] Giannoulias (53-46)
PA: {Specter} Sestak (54-45)
{Losses}
DE: [Kaufman] Castle (57-42)
IN: [Bayh] Coats (55-45)
ND: [Dorgan] Hoeven (70-30)

Retiring Republican Seats:
{Holds} (4/7)
KS: [Brownback] Moran (65-34)
KY: [Bunning] Paul (54-46)
NH: [Gregg] Ayotte (55-45)
UT: {Bennett} Bridgewater (63-36)
{Losses}
FL: [LeMieux] Crist (38-34-28)
MO: [Bond] Carnahan (52-47)
OH: [Voinovich] Fisher (49-47)

Democratic incumbents:
{Holds} (10/12)
CA: Boxer (56-44)
HI: Inouye (unopposed)
MD: Mikulski (66-32)
NV: Reid (42-39-19)
NY: Schumer (75-23)
NYS: Gillibrand (65-35)
OR: Wyden (64-34)
VT: Leahy (79-21)
WA: Murray (57-42)
WI: Feingold (55-45)
{Losses}
CO: [Bennet] Norton (51-48)
AR: [Lincoln] Boozman (58-42)

Republican incumbents:
{Holds} (9/11)
AL: Shelby (68-30)
AK: Murkowski (71-29)
AZ: McCain (55-44)
GA: Isakson (61-38)
ID: Crapo (80-20)
IA: Grassley (57-43)
OK: Coburn (unopposed)
SC: DeMint (59-40)
SD: Thune (unopposed)
{Losses}
NC: [Burr] Marshall (52-48)
LA: [Vitter] Melancon (50-49)

Version: 43

Retiring Democratic seats:
{Holds} (4/7)
AR: [Lincoln] Halter (52-48)
CT: [Dodd] Blumenthal (58-41)
IL: [Burris] Giannoulias (53-46)
PA: [Specter] Sestak (54-45)
{Losses}
DE: [Kaufman] Castle (57-40)
IN: [Bayh] Coats (55-45)
ND: [Hoeven] (72-27)

Retiring Republican Seats:
{Holds} (4/7)
KS: [Brownback] Moran (65-34)
KY: [Bunning] Paul (54-46)
NH: [Gregg] Ayotte (55-45)
UT: [Bennett] Bridgewater (63-36)
{Losses}
FL: [LeMieux] Crist (38-34-28)
MO: [Bond] Carnahan (52-47)
OH: [Voinovich] Fisher (49-47)

Democratic incumbents:
{Holds} (10/11)
CA: Boxer (56-44)
HI: Inouye (unopposed)
MD: Mikulski (66-32)
NV: Reid (42-39-19)
NY: Schumer (75-23)
NYS: Gillibrand (65-35)
OR: Wyden (64-34)
VT: Leahy (79-21)
WA: Murray (57-42)
WI: Feingold (55-45)
{Losses}
CO: [Bennet] Norton (51-48)

Republican incumbents:
{Holds} (10/11)
AL: Shelby (68-30)
AK: Murkowski (71-29)
AZ: McCain (55-44)
GA: Isakson (61-38)
ID: Crapo (80-20)
IA: Grassley (57-43)
LA: Vitter (54-46)
OK: Coburn (unopposed)
SC: DeMint (59-40)
SD: Thune (unopposed)
{Losses}
NC: [Burr] Marshall (51-48)

Version: 42

Its my 18th Birthday...

Version: 41

Independent seats, with the obvious of FL, are races that I don't want to call.
The percentages on my new map don't represent percentages of victory. They are more in line with the Strong-Lean-Tossup scale and are the percentages that a party will keep a given seat. e.g, Wyden is alomst certain to win, thus OR is D >90%.
I'm giving a slight edge to the Dems in OH, and MO so they're pink. Similar situation in KY with the GOP.
I will decide what to do with AR after the runoff. If Lincoln wins, it will turn to R >90%. If Halter wins, it will stay a tossup.

Key
>90%, >80% = Safe
>70%, >60% = Likely
>50%, > 40% = Lean
>30% = Slight

Version: 40

Blumenthal is up an average of 20 points in the last 2 polls; thus, CT moves to safe Dem.

WI moves down to lean Dem; Feingold is only up 2 against Johnson, but I expect Feingold to widen that gap soon.

It would be scary if Angle won the GOP nod in NV; she makes Lowden seem moderate. If Angle runs, she will get the GOP and Tea Party vote, so it would be less likely the GOP vote would be slpit among Angle and Ashjian, thus it would be harder for Reid to squeake by in a 3-way race. Reid's best case scenario at this point would look very similar to the HI-1 special election. He'd get 40% while Lowden and Ashjian would split the rest pretty evenly, especially if Angle loses the GOP primary then endorses Ashjian over Lowden, then the GOP voted would really be split. So for the heck of it, I'm giving the GOP nomination temporarily to Angle.

CO: Norton slightly edges out Bennet due to McInnis coattails.

AR: Lets face it, the only reason Boozman is killing the Dems in the polls is because he has an R behind his name. Once Lincoln is out of the picture, the race will change. Halter is much more outgoing than Boozman and Halter will have Beebe coattails.
If Lincoln gets the nomination, I'm putting AR at R >90%.

IL: Obama isn't gonna let Giannoulias lose.

Version: 37

Unemployment doesn't change nor does the economy. The result; Republicans sweep the south and middle of the country; the Dems are limited to the northeast, west cost and industrial midwest.

Version: 36

Assumptions:
-Lincoln has won the Dem Primary
-Lowden wins the NV GOP primary
-Marshall beats Cunningham
-Norton beats Buck
-McCain beats Hayworth
-Boxer faces Fiorina
-McMahon beats Simmons


SAFE DEM (9)
HI: Inouye (no opposition)
OR: Wyden (65-34) D+31
NY: Schumer (77-21) D+56
NY: Gillibrand (65-34) D+32
VT: Leahy (76-23) D+53
MD: Mikulski (66-34) D+32
WI: Feingold (62-37)D+25
WA: Murray (57-42) D+15
CA: Boxer (56-44) D+12

Lean/Likely DEM (2)
PA: Sestak (53-46) D+7
CT: Blumenthal (54-45) D+9

Close DEM (4)
NC: Marshall* (49-48) D+2
CO: Bennet (52-47) D+5
OH: Fisher^(51-48) D+4
MO: Carnahan^ (53-47) D+6

IND (1)
FL: Crist^ (37-35-28) I+2

Close GOP (5)
NH: Ayotte (53-46) R+7
IL: Kirk^ (51-47) R+4
IN: Coats^ (53-45) R+8
NV: Lowden^ (45-39-16) R+6
KY: Paul (51-48) R+3

Lean/Likely GOP (4)
DE: Castle^ (57-42) R+15
LA: Vitter (54-46) R+8
AZ: McCain (54-45) R+9
IA: Grassley (55-44) R+11

SAFE GOP (11)
AR: Boozman*(61-38) R+23
UT: Lee (65-34) R+31
GA: Isakson (56-42) R+14
SC: DeMint (58-41) R+18
AL: Shelby (71-28) R+43
AK: Murkowski (67-32) R+35
KA: Moran (62-37) R+25
ID: Crapo (74-23) R+51
ND: Hoeven^ (70-29) R+41
OK: Coburn (no opposition)
SD: Thune (no opposition)

Version: 34

If the election were this Tuesday and the candidates had the weekend to campaign...

Assumptions:
-Lincoln has won the Dem Primary
-Lowden wins the NV GOP primary
-Marshall beats Cunningham
-Norton beats Buck
-McCain beats Hayworth
-Boxer faces Fiorina
-McMahon beats Simmons


SAFE DEM (9)
HI: Inouye (no opposition)
OR: Wyden (65-34) D+31
NY: Schumer (77-21) D+56
NY: Gillibrand (65-33) D+32
VT: Leahy (75-24) D+51
MD: Mikulski (62-37) D+25
WI: Feingold (63-35)D+22
WA: Murray (56-42) D+14
CA: Boxer (56-44) D+12

Lean/Likely DEM (2)
PA: Sestak (53-46) D+7
CT: Blumenthal (53-47) D+6

Close DEM (4)
NC: Marshall* (50-48) D+3
CO: Bennet (59-48) D+1
OH: Fisher^(52-48) D+4
MO: Carnahan^ (52-47) D+5

IND (1)
FL: Crist^ (36-34-30) I+2

Close GOP (5)
NH: Ayotte (53-46) R+7
IL: Kirk^ (51-47) R+4
IN: Coats (53-45) R+8
NV: Lowden (45-39-16) R+6
KY: Paul^ (50-48) D+2

Lean/Likely GOP (4)
DE: Castle^ (57-42) R+15
LA: Vitter (54-46) R+8
AZ: McCain (54-45) R+9
IA: Grassley (55-44) R+11

SAFE GOP (11)
AR: Boozman*(59-41) R+18
UT: Lee (65-34) R+31
GA: Isakson (56-42) R+14
SC: DeMint (59-40) R+19
AL: Shelby (68-31) R+37
AK: Murkowski (67-32) R+35
KA: Moran (62-37) R+25
ID: Crapo (74-23) R+51
ND: Hoeven^ (70-29) R+41
OK: Coburn (no opposition)
SD: Thune (no opposition)

Version: 33

Michael Bennet now leads Jane Norton and Ken Buck; the Dems prospects of keeping CO are looking better. CO moves to D>40 to D>50, Bennet will probably win with something like 51%.

In NC, good news. Ken Lewis, the Dem who finished 3rd in the primary has endorsed Marshall. He got 17% of the vote; if 80% of his voters go for Marshall, she'll be at 51%, plus I expect Marshall to take the two other females who didn't make it to the runoff, so Marshall should win with about 57%.

If Sestak attacks Toomey like he did Specter, PA should stay Democrat; Sestak is gonna blitz Toomey. This is gonna be Casey-Santorum all over again.

That new Rasmussen poll with Paul 25 points ahead of Conway is total crap. Rand Paul is gonna be very easy for Conway to attack. Paul's polarizing views are already getting him into trouble.

I'm getting more confident about Boxer; she's widen her lead against Campbell, thankfully. I'm assuming Fiorina gets the nod due to her sheer spending advantage.

SAFE DEM (8)
HI: Inouye (no opposition)
OR: Wyden (65-34) D+31
NY: Schumer (77-21) D+56
NY: Gillibrand (65-33) D+32
VT: Leahy (75-24) D+51
MD: Mikulski (63-37) D+26
WI: Feingold (60-38)D+22
WA: Murray (56-42) D+14

Lean/Likely DEM (5)
CA: Boxer (55-44) D+11
OH: Fisher (52-47) D+4
MO: Carnahan^ (52-47) D+5
CT: Blumenthal (53-46) D+7
PA: Sestak (54-45) D+9

Close DEM (5)
NC: Marshall* (51-48) D+3
NV: Reid (41-38-21) D+3
AR: Halter (52-48) D+4
CO: Bennet (51-48) D+3
KY: Conway^ (52-48) D+4

IND (1)
FL: Crist^ (36-34-30) I+2

Close GOP (3)
NH: Ayotte (53-46) R+7
IL: Kirk^ (52-47) R+5
IN: Coats^ (52-46) R+6

Lean/Likely GOP (4)
DE: Castle^ (57-42) R+15
LA: Vitter (54-46) R+8
AZ: McCain (54-45) R+9
IA: Grassley (55-44) R+11

SAFE GOP (10)
UT: Lee (65-34) R+31
GA: Isakson (56-42) R+14
SC: DeMint (59-40) R+19
AL: Shelby (68-31) R+37
AK: Murkowski (67-32) R+35
KA: Moran (62-37) R+25
ID: Crapo (74-23) R+51
ND: Hoeven^ (70-29) R+41
OK: Coburn (no opposition)
SD: Thune (no opposition)

Version: 32

Here's my take on Super Tuesday 2010:

PA: If Sestak can attack Toomey like he did Specter, this race will become very close. Sestak got the votes of the moderate and conservative Democrats; ironically, he was considered to be the more liberal candidate. This tells me that Sestak could win a big chunk of the GOP block; the Republicans who are too moderate for Toomey, which I imagine there are many, will be drawn to Sestak. Sestak's biggest assets are his military experience and the fact the represents a relatively conservative district.

AR: This was a victory. Lincoln was only ahead by 2 points; in mid-March, Lincoln was ahead 13. Even in the last poll before the election, Lincoln was up 9 points. I think Halter will learn a few lessons from Sestak. THE MOMENTUM IS UNDOUBTEDLY ON HALTER'S SIDE.
Now concerning Morrision's 13% voting share; I have 2 scenarios. Because Morrison was a more conservative Dem than Lincoln (imagine that!), his votes will most likely go to Lincoln. Or, the Morrison voters could show that they're truly anti-incumbent and vote Halter.

KY: This will be a pretty close race as well. Rand Paul won by a pretty outright margin, so he'll get the Libertarian and conservative Republicans. But Conway is only trailing by 1 as of the latest poll. It could go either way.

I still think Blumenthal will win in CT, even if McFreak is the Republican. He'll win by a lesser margin.

SAFE DEM (8)
HI: Inouye (no opposition)
OR: Wyden (65-34) D+31
NY: Schumer (77-21) D+56
NY: Gillibrand (65-33) D+32
VT: Leahy (75-24) D+51
MD: Mikulski (62-37) D+25
WI: Feingold (63-35)D+22
WA: Murray (56-42) D+14

Lean/Likely DEM (3)
CA: Boxer (Fiorina) (55-44) D+11
OH: Fisher (52-47) D+4
MO: Carnahan^ (52-47) D+5
CT: Blumenthal (55-45) R+10

Close DEM (6)
NC: Marshall* (51-48) D+3
NV: Reid (41-38-21) D+3
AR: Halter (52-48) D+4
PA: Sestak (53-47) D+6
CO: Bennet (50-47) D+3
KY: Conway^ (49-48) D+1

IND (1)
FL: Crist^ (37-33-30) I+4

Close GOP (3)
NH: Ayotte (53-46) R+7
IL: Kirk^ (51-47) R+4
IN: Coats^ (53-45) R+8

Lean/Likely GOP (4)
DE: Castle^ (57-42) R+15
LA: Vitter (54-46) R+8
AZ: McCain (54-45) R+9
IA: Grassley (55-44) R+11

SAFE GOP (10)
UT: Lee (65-34) R+31
GA: Isakson (56-42) R+14
SC: DeMint (59-40) R+19
AL: Shelby (68-31) R+37
AK: Murkowski (67-32) R+35
KA: Moran (62-37) R+25
ID: Crapo (74-23) R+51
ND: Hoeven^ (70-29) R+41
OK: Coburn (no opposition)
SD: Thune (no opposition)

Version: 31

Blumenthal pulls a Coakley; he's starting to lie about things. His numbers are getting closer to 50% even now. McFreak beats Simmons in the primary due to her sheer amount of funds.
The KY race is getting closer; I'm assuming Mongiardo gets the nomination. Both Mongiardo and Conway trail Rand Paul, but not by terribly much. Mongiardo steps it up during the summer and overtakes Paul. Bunning has won by razor thin margins, and I expect this year to be no different for the winner.

SAFE DEM (8)
HI: Inouye (no opposition)
OR: Wyden (65-34) D+31
NY: Schumer (77-21) D+56
NY: Gillibrand (65-33) D+32
VT: Leahy (75-24) D+51
MD: Mikulski (62-37) D+25
WI: Feingold (63-35)D+22
WA: Murray (56-42) D+14

Lean/Likely DEM (3)
CA: Boxer (Fiorina) (55-44) D+11
OH: Fisher (52-47) D+4
MO: Carnahan^ (52-47) D+5

Close DEM (6)
NC: Marshall* (51-48) D+3
NV: Reid (41-38-21) D+3
AR: Halter (52-48) D+4
PA: Specter (53-47) D+6
CO: Bennet (50-47) D+3
KY: Mongiardo^ (49-48) D+1

IND (1)
FL: Crist^ (37-33-30) I+4

Close GOP (4)
NH: Ayotte (53-46) R+7
IL: Kirk^ (51-47) R+4
IN: Coats^ (53-45) R+8
CT: McMahon^ (51-48) R+3

Lean/Likely GOP (4)
DE: Castle^ (57-42) R+15
LA: Vitter (54-46) R+8 (runoff election)
AZ: McCain (54-45) R+9
IA: Grassley (55-44) R+11

SAFE GOP (10)
UT: Lee (65-34) R+31
GA: Isakson (56-42) R+14
SC: DeMint (59-40) R+19
AL: Shelby (68-31) R+37
AK: Murkowski (67-32) R+35
KA: Moran (62-37) R+25
ID: Crapo (74-23) R+51
ND: Hoeven^ (70-29) R+41
OK: Coburn (no opposition)
SD: Thune (no opposition)

Version: 30

Brad Ellsworth is officially the nominee to succeed Bayh. His campaign will now get more momentum. He needs to capitalize on Coat's lobbying and get his own name recognition up. Where is Bayh's 13 million? That would really help.
I'm feeling more confident about OH; Fisher is establishing a slight but consistent lead. According to Rasmussen, Boxer and Fisher are each up by 1 in their respective states; I know Boxer will win, thus, Fisher's prospects look better.
Carnahan has some room for improvement in the polls; virtually all MO polling is Rasmussen, but still she's been consistently down by about 7.
The Dems best chances for pickups will be OH and NC.

SAFE DEM (9)
HI: Inouye (no opposition)
OR: Wyden (65-34) D+31
NY: Schumer (77-21) D+56
NY: Gillibrand (65-33) D+32
VT: Leahy (75-24) D+51
CT: Blumenthal (61-37) D+24
MD: Mikulski (62-37) D+25
WI: Feingold (63-35)D+22
WA: Murray (56-42) D+14

Lean/Likely DEM (2)
CA: Boxer (Fiorina) (55-44) D+11
OH: Fisher^ (52-47) D+4

Close DEM (6)
NC: Marshall* (51-48) D+3
NV: Reid (41-38-21) D+3
AR: Halter (52-48) D+4
PA: Specter (53-47) D+6
CO: Bennet (50-47) D+3
IN: Ellsworth (52-46) D+6

IND (1)
FL: Crist^ (37-33-30) I+4

Close GOP (4)
KY: Paul (52-48) R+4
NH: Ayotte (53-46) R+7
IL: Kirk^ (51-47) R+4
MO: Blunt (52-47) R+5

Lean/Likely GOP (4)
DE: Castle^ (57-42) R+15
LA: Vitter (54-46) R+8 (runoff election)
AZ: McCain (54-45) R+9
IA: Grassley (55-44) R+11

SAFE GOP (10)
UT: Lee (65-34) R+31
GA: Isakson (56-42) R+14
SC: DeMint (59-40) R+19
AL: Shelby (68-31) R+37
AK: Murkowski (67-32) R+35
KA: Moran (62-37) R+25
ID: Crapo (74-23) R+51
ND: Hoeven^ (70-29) R+41
OK: Coburn (no opposition)
SD: Thune (no opposition)

Version: 29

SAFE DEM (9)
HI: Inouye (no opposition)
OR: Wyden (65-34) D+31
NY: Schumer (77-21) D+56
NY: Gillibrand (65-33) D+32
VT: Leahy (75-24) D+51
CT: Blumenthal (61-37) D+24
MD: Mikulski (62-37) D+25
WI: Feingold (63-35)D+22
WA: Murray (56-42) D+14

Lean/Likely DEM (3)
CA: Boxer (Fiorina) (55-44) D+11
OH: Fisher^ (51-47) D+4
MO: Carnahan (52-47) D+5

Close DEM (5)
NC: Marshall* (51-48) D+3
NV: Reid (41-38-21) D+3
AR: Halter (52-48) D+4
PA: Specter (53-47) D+6
CO: Bennet (50-47) D+3


IND (1)
FL: Crist^ (37-33-30) I+4

Close GOP (4)
KY: Paul (52-48) R+4
NH: Ayotte (53-46) R+7
IN: Coats^ (51-45) R+6
IL: Kirk^ (51-47) D+4

Lean/Likely GOP (4)
DE: Castle^ (57-42) R+15
LA: Vitter (54-46) R+8 (runoff election)
AZ: McCain (54-45) R+9
IA: Grassley (55-44) R+11

SAFE GOP (10)
UT: Lee (65-34) R+31
GA: Isakson (56-42) R+14
SC: DeMint (59-40) R+19
AL: Shelby (68-31) R+37
AK: Murkowski (67-32) R+35
KA: Moran (62-37) R+25
ID: Crapo (74-23) R+51
ND: Hoeven^ (70-29) R+41
OK: Coburn (no opposition)
SD: Thune (no opposition)

Version: 28

SAFE DEM (9)
HI: Inouye (no opposition)
OR: Wyden (65-34) D+31
NY: Schumer (77-21) D+56
NY: Gillibrand (65-33) D+32
VT: Leahy (75-24) D+51
CT: Blumenthal (61-37) D+24
MD: Mikulski (62-37) D+25
WI: Feingold (63-35)D+22
WA: Murray (56-42) D+14

Lean/Likely DEM (3)
CA: Boxer (Fiorina) (55-44) D+11
OH: Fisher^ (51-47) D+4
MO: Carnahan (52-47) D+5

Close DEM (5)
NC: Marshall* (51-48) D+3
NV: Reid (41-38-21) D+3
AR: Halter (52-47) D+5
PA: Specter (53-47) D+6
CO: Bennet (50-47) D+3


IND (1)
FL: Crist^ (37-33-30) I+4

Close GOP (4)
KY: Paul (52-48) R+4
NH: Ayotte (53-46) R+7
IN: Coats^ (51-45) R+6
IL: Kirk^ (51-47) D+4

Lean/Likely GOP (4)
DE: Castle^ (58-42) R+16
LA: Melancon (51-48) D+10
AZ: McCain (53-46) R+9
IA: Grassley (55-44) R+11

SAFE GOP (10)
UT: Bridgewater (65-34) R+31
GA: Isakson (56-42) R+14
SC: DeMint (59-40) R+19
AL: Shelby (68-31) R+37
AK: Murkowski (67-32) R+35
KA: Moran (62-37) R+25
ID: Crapo (74-23) R+51
ND: Hoeven^ (70-29) R+41
OK: Coburn (no opposition)
SD: Thune (no opposition)

Version: 27

SAFE DEM (9)
HI: Inouye (no opposition)
OR: Wyden (65-34) D+31
NY: Schumer (77-21) D+56
NY: Gillibrand (65-33) D+32
VT: Leahy (75-24) D+51
CT: Blumenthal (61-37) D+24
MD: Mikulski (62-37) D+25
WI: Feingold (63-35)D+22
WA: Murray (56-42) D+14

Lean/Likely DEM (3)
CA: Boxer (Fiorina) (55-44) D+11
OH: Fisher^ (51-47) D+4
MO: Carnahan^ (52-47) D+5

Close DEM (6)
NC: Marshall* (50-48) D+2
CO: Bennet (49-47) D+2
NV: Reid (41-38-21) D+3
AR: Halter (52-47) D+5
PA: Specter (53-46) D+7
IL: Giannoulias (50-47) D+3

IND (1)
FL: Crist^ (37-33-30) I+4

Close GOP (3)
KY: Paul (52-48) R+4
NH: Ayotte (53-46) R+7
IN: Coats^ (51-45) R+6

Lean/Likely GOP (4)
DE: Castle^ (58-42) R+16
LA: Vitter (55-45) R+10
AZ: McCain (53-46) R+9
IA: Grassley (55-44) R+11

SAFE GOP (10)
UT: Bridgewater (65-34) R+31
GA: Isakson (56-42) R+14
SC: DeMint (59-40) R+19
AL: Shelby (68-31) R+37
AK: Murkowski (67-32) R+35
KA: Moran (62-37) R+25
ID: Crapo (74-23) R+51
ND: Hoeven^ (70-29) R+41
OK: Coburn (no opposition)
SD: Thune (no opposition)

Version: 26

With Bennett not running and assuming McCain gets the nomination and goes on to win the general election, the western portion of my map gets more blue. McCain does not pull a landslide win; he will have virtually no Hispanic support. So the Dems are back to a 1 seat loss.
In PA, Sestak uses Specter's vote against Kagan as Solicitor General against him and edges Specter out in the primary. Sestak isn't able to beat Toomey in the general election. The moderate Dems and people like darthpi who would have voted for Specter stay home rather than supporting Sestak.

SAFE DEM (9)
HI: Inouye (no opposition)
OR: Wyden (65-34) D+31
NY: Schumer (77-21) D+56
NY: Gillibrand (65-33) D+32
VT: Leahy (75-24) D+51
CT: Blumenthal (61-37) D+24
MD: Mikulski (62-37) D+25
WI: Feingold (63-35)D+22
WA: Murray (56-42) D+14

Lean/Likely DEM (3)
CA: Boxer (Fiorina) (55-44) D+11
OH: Fisher^ (51-47) D+4
MO: Carnahan^ (52-47) D+5

Close DEM (4)
NC: Marshall* (50-48) D+2
CO: Bennet (49-47) D+2
NV: Reid (41-38-21) D+3
AR: Halter (52-47) D+5

IND (1)
FL: Crist^ (37-33-30) I+4

Close GOP (5)
KY: Paul (52-48) R+4
NH: Ayotte (53-46) R+7
IN: Coats^ (51-45) R+6
IL: Kirk^ (52-47) R+5
PA: Toomey (53-47) D+6

Lean/Likely GOP (4)
DE: Castle^ (58-42) R+16
LA: Vitter (55-45) R+10
AZ: McCain (53-46) R+9
IA: Grassley (55-44) R+11

SAFE GOP (10)
UT: Bridgewater (65-34) R+31
GA: Isakson (56-42) R+14
SC: DeMint (59-40) R+19
AL: Shelby (68-31) R+37
AK: Murkowski (67-32) R+35
KA: Moran (62-37) R+25
ID: Crapo (74-23) R+51
ND: Hoeven^ (70-29) R+41
OK: Coburn (no opposition)
SD: Thune (no opposition)

Version: 25

After Bennett's loss, the Hayworth campaign is invigorated and pulls past McCain in the primary. Essentially, Hayworth then slips in the general election and Rodney Glassman wins because Hayworth will be seen as too conservative. Also, backlash from Show Me Your Papers will help both Glassman and Goddard in November. The GOP is going to get almost none of the Hispanic vote.
Also, Jon Ashjian's camp in NV is energized, but he only manges to detract from Lowden's share of the vote and Reid subsequently wins with about 39%.
The drama with Bennett was fun, but alas, the saga is over. He said that he would support "whomever the winner" of the GOP is.

Version: 24

Today is judgment day for Bob Bennett...we'll see if KS21 and I are right.
I went more Democratic with this map. IL is red again because all Kirk is going to campaign on is Giannoulias' bank; the voters will get sick of it and realize that Giannoulias' campaign has more substance.
John McCain gets under 60% because his support among Hispanics is in near-single digit territory.
If I were the Dems, I'd focus more on keeping Obama's seat than trying to knock off Grassley; but IA moves down to Lean GOP, as does AZ.

SAFE DEM (9)
HI: Inouye (no opposition)
OR: Wyden (65-34) D+31
NY: Schumer (77-21) D+56
NY: Gillibrand (65-33) D+32
VT: Leahy (75-24) D+51
CT: Blumenthal (61-37) D+24
MD: Mikulski (62-37) D+25
WI: Feingold (63-35)D+22
WA: Murray (56-42) D+14

Lean/Likely DEM (4)
CA: Boxer (Fiorina) (55-44) D+11
OH: Fisher^ (51-47) D+4
PA: Specter (53-46) D+7
MO: Carnahan^ (51-48) D+3

Close DEM (5)
NC: Marshall* (50-48) D+2
CO: Bennet (49-47) D+2
NV: Reid (41-38-21) D+3
AR: Halter (53-47) D+6


IND (2)
FL: Crist^ (37-33-30) I+4
UT: Bennett (39-32-29) I+7

Close GOP (4)
KY: Paul (52-48) R+4
NH: Ayotte (53-46) R+7
IN: Coats^ (51-45) R+6
IL: Giannoulias^ (52-47) R+5

Lean/Likely GOP (4)
DE: Castle^ (58-42) R+16
LA: Vitter (55-45) R+10
AZ: McCain (56-43) R+13
IA: Grassley (55-44) R+11

SAFE GOP (9)
GA: Isakson (56-42) R+14
SC: DeMint (59-40) R+19
AL: Shelby (68-31) R+37
AK: Murkowski (67-32) R+35
KA: Moran (62-37) R+25
ID: Crapo (74-23) R+51
ND: Hoeven^ (70-29) R+41
OK: Coburn (no opposition)
SD: Thune (no opposition)

Version: 23

PA goes GOP...which will happen if Sestak gets the nomination. And AR flips...which will happen if Lincoln is nominated.

SAFE DEM (9)
HI: Inouye (no opposition)
OR: Wyden (65-34) D+31
NY: Schumer (77-21) D+56
NY: Gillibrand (66-33) D+33
VT: Leahy (75-24) D+51
CT: Blumenthal (61-37) D+24
MD: Mikulski (62-37) D+25
WI: Feingold (63-37)D+24
WA: Murray (56-42) D+14

Lean/Likely DEM (3)
CA: Boxer (Fiorina) (55-44) D+11
OH: Fisher (53-47) D+6

Close DEM (4)
NC: Marshall (50-48) D+2
CO: Bennet (50-47) D+3
NV: Reid (41-39-20) D+2
MO: Carnahan (52-47) R+5

IND (2)
FL: Crist (38-33-29) I+5
UT: Bennett (39-32-29) I+7

Close GOP (5)
KY: Paul (52-48) R+4
NH: Ayotte (53-46) R+7
IN: Coats (51-45) R+6
IL: Kirk (52-47) D+5
PA: Toomey (54-45) D+9

Lean/Likely GOP (4)
DE: Castle (58-42) R+16
LA: Vitter (55-45) R+10
AZ: McCain (63-36) R+27
AR: Boozman (55-43) D+12

SAFE GOP (10)
GA: Isakson (56-42) R+14
SC: DeMint (59-40) R+19
AL: Shelby (68-31) R+37
AK: Murkowski (67-32) R+35
IO: Grassley (63-35) R+28
KA: Moran (62-37) R+25
ID: Crapo (74-23) R+51
ND: Hoeven (70-29) R+41
OK: Coburn (no opposition)
SD: Thune (no opposition)

Version: 22

There, KY is blue again...like its grass!

SAFE DEM (9)
HI: Inouye (no opposition)
OR: Wyden (65-34) D+31
NY: Schumer (77-21) D+56
NY: Gillibrand (66-33) D+33
VT: Leahy (75-24) D+51
CT: Blumenthal (61-37) D+24
MD: Mikulski (62-37) D+25
WI: Feingold (63-37)D+24
WA: Murray (56-42) D+14

Lean/Likely DEM (3)
CA: Boxer (Fiorina) (55-44) D+11
PA: Specter (51-46) D+5
OH: Fisher (53-47) D+6

Close DEM (5)
NC: Marshall (50-48) D+2
AR: Halter (52-47) D+5
CO: Bennet (50-47) D+3
NV: Reid (41-39-20) D+2
MO: Carnahan (52-47) R+5

IND (2)
FL: Crist (38-33-29) I+5
UT: Bennett (39-32-29) I+7

Close GOP (4)
KY: Paul (52-48) R+4
NH: Ayotte (53-46) R+7
IN: Coats (51-45) R+6
IL: Kirk (52-47) D+5

Lean/Likely GOP (3)
DE: Castle (58-42) R+16
LA: Vitter (55-45) R+10
AZ: McCain (63-36) R+27

SAFE GOP (10)
GA: Isakson (56-42) R+14
SC: DeMint (59-40) R+19
AL: Shelby (68-31) R+37
AK: Murkowski (67-32) R+35
IO: Grassley (63-35) R+28
KA: Moran (62-37) R+25
ID: Crapo (74-23) R+51
ND: Hoeven (70-29) R+41
OK: Coburn (no opposition)
SD: Thune (no opposition)

Version: 21

SAFE DEM (9)
HI: Inouye (no opposition)
OR: Wyden (65-34) D+31
NY: Schumer (77-21) D+56
NY: Gillibrand (66-33) D+33
VT: Leahy (80-19) D+61
CT: Blumenthal (60-36) D+24
MD: Mikulski (64-36) D+28
WI: Feingold (63-37)D+24
WA: Murray (57-42) D+15

Lean/Likely DEM (4)
CA: Boxer (Campbell) (54-46) D+8
PA: Specter (52-46) D+6
OH: Fisher (53-45) D+8
MO: Carnahan (52-46) D+6

Close DEM (6)
NC: Marshall (50-48) D+2
AR: Halter (52-47) D+5
CO: Bennet (49-47) D+2
NV: Reid (41-39-20) D+2
IN: Ellsworth (51-47) D+4
KY: Mongiardo (53-46) D+7

IND (2)
FL: Crist (36-34-30) I+2
UT: Bennett (38-33-29) I+5

Close GOP (2)
IL: Kirk (52-47) R+5
NH: Ayotte (53-46) R+7

Lean/Likely GOP (4)
GA: Isakson (56-41) R+15
DE: Castle (58-42) R+16
LA: Vitter (55-45) R+10
AZ: McCain (63-36) R+27

SAFE GOP (9)
SC: DeMint (59-40) R+19
AL: Shelby (68-31) R+37
AK: Murkowski (67-32) R+35
IO: Grassley (63-35) R+28
KA: Moran (62-34) R+28
OK: Coburn (no opposition)
ID: Crapo (76-21) R+55
ND: Hoeven (70-29) R+41
SD: Thune (no opposition)

Version: 13

This is my worst case scenario map. Since its my 13th version, I'm limiting the Dems to 13 wins.

You know this is my worst case map if I'm abandoning Halter, Marshall and Crist!!!!

Version: 10

Changes:

With Thompson out if the WI race, Feingold wins by a lrager margin. Now, he's almost at 50% while the 2 remaining Repubs are barely over 30%.

Reid squeaks by in NV...again.

IN now a tossup. I don't think Coats, a corporate lobbyist, will be a good candidate. But IN seemed to love Bayh and he was as corporate as they come!

In the latest FL poll, Crist and Rubio are statistically tied in a 3-way. Thats good news.

I'm a bit troubled by the latest IL polls though. Kirk is has a slight edge. Anyways,Kirk is a Susan Collins-type Republican so at least he's not a conservative.

I've been following Halter's campaign on facebook and I'm to impressed with him so I'm not turning AR blue. Halter has a lot more pics of his campaign than Boozman or Lincoln. He's been at numerous events and he's really reaching out to the minorities who would otherwise vote Lincoln.

Version: 8

A Tea Party candidate is officially in the Nevada race, Jon Ashjian; he's already caused Lowden to lose 8% of her share in the polls. Once he gets close to 20% of voters, Lowden could be in trouble. For now, Lowden is ahead of Reid by 6 points. However, Ashjian will probably take more voters from Lowden, so Nevada is pink.

Here's my look at the Florida election:

In most midterm elections, Republicans tend to have the highest turnout rate, so here's the party breakdown of those who show up:

Republican-37%
Democrat- 32%
Indepenent-31%

Here's the voting share each candidate gets from each party:

GOP: (37% of total votes)
Rubio- 71%
Crist- 25%
Meek- 4%

Dem: (32% of total votes)
Rubio- 7%
Crist- 23%
Meek- 70%

Ind: (31% of total votes)
Rubio-15%
Crist-61%
Meek: 24%

Crist will need to build a coalition of the moderate voters. He'll get 25% of Repubs, 24% of Dems but he'll need to have a base (>60%) of Independent voters.
Rubio and Meek will get over 70% of their own parties, but not over 10% of the eachother's party.

End result:

Crist- 36.1%
Rubio- 33.6%
Meek- 30.3%

In the Keystone state, Specter is too far behind in the polls for me to turn PA red again. I would think the tenure of Santorum is still pretty fresh in the minds of PA voters, but Tommey (who is about equal with Santorum) is still posting leads.

In NC, the Democratic primary is on May 4 and Marshall is starting to emerge as the solid front runner. I'd be surprised if she doesn't get the nomination. Burr is in tough shape for a GOP incumbent this year; only 27% view him favorably. If the mood of the nation is anti-incumbent, not anti-Democratic, Burr is gonna be one of the first to go.

Version: 5

For this map, I started with the 11 more or less safe seats for the Dems.
-Murray
-Boxer
-Wyden
-Inouye
-Schumer
-Gillibrand
-Leahy
-Blumenthal
-Mikulski
-Feingold
-Giannoulias

Anyway, I was the DNC and I had to pick 4 close races to focus on, they would be:
-OH: Fisher
-NC: Marshall
-PA: Specter
-CO: Bennet
So, these races go to the Dems. I would compromise NV, AR, MO and IN.

Generally speaking, OH, NC, PA, CO are more friendly to Dems than IN,NV, AR and MO so thats why I chose to focus on those 4.

But, lets look at the potential longevity of the candidates from each of those states:

OH: Fisher- 58 years old. Probably would only serve 2 terms before retiring at age 70. Voinovich is 73 and is retiring. Fisher could get a 3 terms max.
NC: Marshall- 64 years old. She could probably get 2 terms max.
PA: Specter- 80 years old. 1 more term. Its ok if you're Byrd or Inouye and you're 100 years old and representing a small state. PA is a big state and it might be too much for an 86 year-old.
CO: Bennet- 45 years old. If he got 3 more terms, he would be 63. Not too shabby.
AR: Halter and Lincoln are each 49. If they got 4 more terms, they would be 73, a good age to retire.
MO: Carnahan- 48. same boat as Lincoln & Halter.
IN: Ellsworth- 51. Lugar is 78. Ellsworth could be there for a while.

I'M ASSUMING LINCOLN BEATS HALTER. Hence, I'm handing over AR to Boozman for this once.

Percentage Predictions: (for Dems)

SAFE DEMOCRAT:

WA: Murray > Benton. (58-40)
OR: Wyden > Huffman. (62-37)
HI: Inouye runs unopposed.
WI: Feingold > Westlake. (59- 38)
NY: Schumer > Chicon. (86-15)
NY: Gillibrand > Blakeman (64-35)
VT: Leahy > Britton (78-21)
CT: Blumenthal > McMahan (65-32)
MD: Mikulski > Vaughn (61-37)

LEAN DEMOCRAT:

CA: Boxer > Campbell (54-45)
IL: Giannoulias > Kirk (53-46)

TOSSUP

OH: Fisher > Portman (52.5-47)
NC: Marshall > Burr (51-48)
CO: Bennet > Norton (52-48)
PA: Specter > Toomey (53-47)

3-WAY

NV: Lowden > Reid > Tea Partier (39-37-24)
FL: Crist > Rubio > Meek (36-33-31)

Version: 4

NY gets more Democratic. The GOP will be unable to draft a formidable challenger for Gillibrand. She will also be riding Schumer and Cuomo's coattails. NY will be one of the safest places for the Dems. Heck, even Rasmussen has Gillibrand beating Pataki!

This is about as pessimistic as I'm willing to get for the Dems. Bennett, according to the latest polling, stands a better chance at retaining his seat than Carnahan has gaining Bond's seat.

I still believe in Halter and Marshall!! So even in this anti-Dem scenario, they win.

Version: 3

Thanks to a little info from nkpatel1279, I've made some slight changes. With Thune running unopposed, he takes SD with >90%. Tom Coburn has minimal opposition and now gets >80%.

AZ moves to safe GOP; McCain seems to be widening his lead over Hayworth. With McCain as the GOP nominee, the general race will be much less competitive.

I changed NC to lean Democrat. While it ostensibly seems to lean GOP, too many people in NC aren't very crazy about Burr. Elaine Marshall has been the Secretary of State for
14 years; she is more in touch with the state on the local level and she's had years to establish her support base. She's making a point to reach out to the more conservative rural voters.

I'm giving my home state LA back to Vitter...for now. Hodes gets the boot temporarily; once the NH GOP primary heats up more, I might be tempted to give NH back to Hodes.

I'm working on a in-depth prediction of Florida...I'll have that up soon.

Version: 1

Yeah, I'm pretty optimistic for the Dems. i live in a southern state (LA) and i think Dave Vitter and Richard Burr are going down. I'm also really impressed by Bill Halter in Arkansas. I think in order to have a chance at the Senate in Florida, Charlie Crist will have to run as an independent. I think that Rubio will turn off quite a few independent voters and Meek will not be a strong enough contender to garner the necessary support base; Crist will then be the moderate, sensible choice.

As for Nevada, 99% of people have Reid losing, Harry Reid will barely pull through. He will run against Sue Lowden; Lowden will be the next Sarah Palin, she will seem patronizing and the Reid campaign will emphasize some of her somewhat shady career in the big casino business. The Tea Party will be tempted to put their own candidate into the race. If they do, the final result be something to the tune of:
Reid- 39
Lowden-37
Tea Party-24

The it seems that one of the most competitive races will be Arkansas. The Lt. Governor Bill Halter will edge out Blanche Lincoln in the primary; he's painting her as a corporatist blue-dog who appeases the GOP and is not loyal to the party. Most polls have Halter fairing better against the GOP candidate than Lincoln. The GOP nominee will be Congressman John Boozman. The Dems will have to label Boozman as a special-interest Washington insider while they will emphasize Halter's more local achievements and an endorsement from the popular governor Mike Beebe will be necessary.

Version History

191: 2010-11-02 @ 14:10:48 190: 2010-11-01 @ 16:33:33 189: 2010-10-31 @ 00:13:16 188: 2010-10-30 @ 13:48:16 187: 2010-10-29 @ 12:21:15 186: 2010-10-28 @ 21:09:03 185: 2010-10-27 @ 18:48:18 184: 2010-10-26 @ 17:02:02 183: 2010-10-25 @ 15:20:24 182: 2010-10-24 @ 01:29:16 181: 2010-10-23 @ 11:36:23 180: 2010-10-22 @ 00:22:06 179: 2010-10-21 @ 17:31:43 178: 2010-10-20 @ 00:42:34 177: 2010-10-19 @ 13:34:29 176: 2010-10-18 @ 15:19:25 175: 2010-10-17 @ 17:31:41 174: 2010-10-16 @ 03:49:02 173: 2010-10-15 @ 10:51:47 172: 2010-10-14 @ 17:18:30 171: 2010-10-13 @ 00:59:46 170: 2010-10-12 @ 09:55:01 169: 2010-10-11 @ 17:53:33 168: 2010-10-10 @ 18:23:46 167: 2010-10-09 @ 14:03:18 166: 2010-10-08 @ 20:49:10 165: 2010-10-07 @ 21:42:13 164: 2010-10-06 @ 18:14:03 163: 2010-10-05 @ 01:06:40 162: 2010-10-04 @ 01:56:39 161: 2010-10-03 @ 02:56:59 160: 2010-10-02 @ 23:41:41 159: 2010-10-01 @ 02:05:17 158: 2010-09-30 @ 22:47:26 157: 2010-09-29 @ 11:11:12 156: 2010-09-28 @ 00:09:34 155: 2010-09-27 @ 16:10:06 154: 2010-09-26 @ 02:51:16 153: 2010-09-25 @ 00:05:51 152: 2010-09-24 @ 00:57:45 151: 2010-09-23 @ 20:14:38 150: 2010-09-22 @ 00:37:42 149: 2010-09-21 @ 13:27:44 148: 2010-09-20 @ 01:03:27 147: 2010-09-19 @ 00:32:21 146: 2010-09-18 @ 13:36:42 145: 2010-09-17 @ 10:48:47 144: 2010-09-16 @ 01:10:01 143: 2010-09-15 @ 22:29:10 142: 2010-09-14 @ 21:16:55 141: 2010-09-13 @ 00:03:34 140: 2010-09-12 @ 02:04:35 139: 2010-09-11 @ 18:56:05 138: 2010-09-10 @ 00:42:57 137: 2010-09-09 @ 00:07:05 136: 2010-09-08 @ 13:39:02 135: 2010-09-07 @ 00:40:01 134: 2010-09-06 @ 01:40:24 133: 2010-09-05 @ 02:37:53 132: 2010-09-04 @ 00:26:36 131: 2010-09-03 @ 00:26:26 130: 2010-09-02 @ 13:51:32 129: 2010-09-01 @ 01:06:35 128: 2010-08-31 @ 13:09:01 127: 2010-08-30 @ 01:46:04 126: 2010-08-29 @ 01:56:16 125: 2010-08-28 @ 00:58:58 124: 2010-08-27 @ 00:50:44 123: 2010-08-26 @ 00:26:34 122: 2010-08-25 @ 14:05:53 121: 2010-08-24 @ 00:40:43 120: 2010-08-23 @ 19:17:03 119: 2010-08-22 @ 13:56:05 118: 2010-08-21 @ 00:03:45 117: 2010-08-20 @ 11:00:11 116: 2010-08-19 @ 01:14:03 115: 2010-08-17 @ 10:51:42 114: 2010-08-16 @ 00:14:10 113: 2010-08-15 @ 16:32:08 112: 2010-08-14 @ 10:24:27 111: 2010-08-13 @ 00:01:55 110: 2010-08-12 @ 01:15:00 109: 2010-08-11 @ 00:44:16 108: 2010-08-09 @ 18:19:26 107: 2010-08-08 @ 16:45:42 106: 2010-08-06 @ 23:39:55 105: 2010-08-05 @ 11:36:36 104: 2010-08-04 @ 23:08:32 103: 2010-08-03 @ 13:45:13 102: 2010-08-01 @ 18:10:48 101: 2010-07-31 @ 00:33:21 100: 2010-07-30 @ 13:38:09 99: 2010-07-29 @ 00:40:59 98: 2010-07-28 @ 00:52:35 97: 2010-07-27 @ 23:02:59 96: 2010-07-26 @ 00:16:22 95: 2010-07-25 @ 01:38:11 94: 2010-07-24 @ 00:59:12 93: 2010-07-23 @ 01:09:07 92: 2010-07-22 @ 17:12:44 91: 2010-07-21 @ 00:21:30 90: 2010-07-20 @ 15:46:29 89: 2010-07-19 @ 17:37:10 88: 2010-07-18 @ 16:37:47 87: 2010-07-17 @ 20:49:05 86: 2010-07-16 @ 00:29:30 85: 2010-07-15 @ 15:14:07 84: 2010-07-14 @ 01:19:30 83: 2010-07-13 @ 21:24:46 82: 2010-07-12 @ 12:25:56 81: 2010-07-11 @ 10:57:36 80: 2010-07-10 @ 16:28:20 79: 2010-07-09 @ 23:38:48 78: 2010-07-06 @ 22:39:30 77: 2010-07-05 @ 00:17:57 76: 2010-07-04 @ 13:18:56 75: 2010-07-03 @ 00:02:10 74: 2010-07-02 @ 10:56:58 73: 2010-07-01 @ 06:30:49 72: 2010-06-30 @ 23:59:03 71: 2010-06-29 @ 16:28:28 70: 2010-06-28 @ 00:34:23 69: 2010-06-27 @ 01:54:59 68: 2010-06-26 @ 01:11:43 67: 2010-06-25 @ 11:31:34 66: 2010-06-24 @ 14:03:16 65: 2010-06-23 @ 14:28:51 64: 2010-06-22 @ 20:51:35 63: 2010-06-21 @ 15:44:06 62: 2010-06-20 @ 03:06:09 61: 2010-06-19 @ 12:34:57 60: 2010-06-18 @ 02:35:31 59: 2010-06-17 @ 12:55:38 58: 2010-06-16 @ 17:09:59 57: 2010-06-15 @ 23:36:18 56: 2010-06-14 @ 14:37:28 55: 2010-06-13 @ 08:28:47 54: 2010-06-12 @ 12:35:00 53: 2010-06-11 @ 23:39:12 52: 2010-06-10 @ 00:16:47 51: 2010-06-09 @ 10:56:24 50: 2010-06-08 @ 23:08:44 49: 2010-06-07 @ 22:01:56 48: 2010-06-05 @ 15:09:45 47: 2010-06-04 @ 08:30:44 46: 2010-06-03 @ 15:41:31 45: 2010-06-02 @ 18:14:55 44: 2010-06-01 @ 00:26:26 43: 2010-05-30 @ 17:07:39 42: 2010-05-29 @ 18:49:27 41: 2010-05-28 @ 10:25:23 40: 2010-05-27 @ 15:29:49 39: 2010-05-26 @ 17:37:32 38: 2010-05-25 @ 14:03:47 37: 2010-05-24 @ 22:17:52 36: 2010-05-23 @ 23:09:33 35: 2010-05-22 @ 13:03:40 34: 2010-05-21 @ 16:25:17 33: 2010-05-20 @ 15:59:46 32: 2010-05-19 @ 15:52:16 31: 2010-05-17 @ 22:59:14 30: 2010-05-16 @ 18:46:26 29: 2010-05-15 @ 12:03:10 28: 2010-05-13 @ 14:12:58 27: 2010-05-11 @ 23:06:59 26: 2010-05-10 @ 12:42:15 25: 2010-05-09 @ 23:14:05 24: 2010-05-08 @ 20:27:47 23: 2010-05-07 @ 21:19:38 22: 2010-05-06 @ 18:09:22 21: 2010-05-05 @ 18:36:06 20: 2010-05-04 @ 14:11:32 19: 2010-05-03 @ 22:25:48 18: 2010-05-02 @ 20:37:23 17: 2010-05-01 @ 20:27:37 16: 2010-04-30 @ 00:09:39 15: 2010-04-27 @ 21:17:09 14: 2010-04-25 @ 22:27:54 13: 2010-04-23 @ 16:52:57 12: 2010-04-22 @ 15:19:12 11: 2010-04-21 @ 23:57:51 10: 2010-04-20 @ 15:49:17 9: 2010-04-18 @ 23:02:34 8: 2010-04-17 @ 12:07:37 7: 2010-04-16 @ 22:26:54 6: 2010-04-14 @ 16:26:01 5: 2010-04-13 @ 23:08:44 4: 2010-04-12 @ 22:54:48 3: 2010-04-11 @ 18:39:56 2: 2010-04-10 @ 08:46:02 1: 2010-04-09 @ 23:57:38 View Version

Member Comments

By: MilesC56 (I-VA) 2010-11-02 @ 12:46:27

---

By: MilesC56 (I-VA) 2010-11-02 @ 17:07:43

---

By: MilesC56 (I-VA) 2010-11-02 @ 17:13:28
Senator Bennet, Thank you for your efforts in behalf of the Public Option. Your leadership in the healthcare debate, specifically the Bennet Letter, has meant to the world to me and you have given me hope that one day, out healthcare system may be one of efficiency and affordability. Thank you for putting consumers over politics and special interests. Whatever happens tonight, I am grateful for your courage and the Senate is a better palce for having you in it THE BENNET LETTER Dear Leader Reid: We respectfully ask that you bring for a vote before the full Senate a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules. There are four fundamental reasons why we support this approach – its potential for billions of dollars in cost savings; the growing need to increase competition and lower costs for the consumer; the history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation; and the continued public support for a public option. A Public Option Is an Important Tool for Restoring Fiscal Discipline. As Democrats, we pledged that the Senate health care reform package would address skyrocketing health care costs and relieve overburdened American families and small businesses from annual double-digit health care cost increases. And that it would do so without adding a dime to the national debt. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined that the Senate health reform bill is actually better than deficit neutral. It would reduce the deficit by over $130 billion in the first ten years and up to $1 trillion in the first 20 years. These cost savings are an important start. But a strong public option can be the centerpiece of an even better package of cost saving measures. CBO estimated that various public option proposals in the House save at least $25 billion. Even $1 billion in savings would qualify it for consideration under reconciliation. Put simply, including a strong public option is one of the best, most fiscally responsible ways to reform our health insurance system. A Public Option Would Provide Americans with a Low-Cost Alternative and Improve Market Competitiveness. A strong public option would create better competition in our health insurance markets. Many Americans have no or little real choice of health insurance provider. Far too often, it’s “take it or leave it” for families and small businesses. This lack of competition drives up costs and leaves private health insurance companies with little incentive to provide quality customer service. A recent Health Care for America Now report on private insurance companies found that the largest five for-profit health insurance providers made $12 billion in profits last year, yet they actually dropped 2.7 million people from coverage. Private insurance – by gouging the public even during a severe economic recession – has shown it cannot function in the public’s interest without a public alternative. Americans have nowhere to turn. That is not healthy market competition, and it is not good for the public. If families or individuals like their current coverage through a private insurance company, then they can keep that coverage. And in some markets where consumers have many alternatives, a public option may be less necessary. But many local markets have broken down, with only one or two insurance providers available to consumers. Each and every health insurance market should have real choices for consumers. There is a history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation. There is substantial Senate precedent for using reconciliation to enact important health care policies. The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare Advantage, and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), which actually contains the term ‘reconciliation’ in its title, were all enacted under reconciliation. The American Enterprise Institute’s Norman Ornstein and Brookings’ Thomas Mann and Molly Reynolds jointly wrote, “Are Democrats making an egregious power grab by sidestepping the filibuster? Hardly.” They continued that the precedent for using reconciliation to enact major policy changes is “much more extensive . . . than Senate Republicans are willing to admit these days.” There is strong public support for a public option, across party lines. The overwhelming majority of Americans want a public option. The latest New York Times poll on this issue, in December, shows that despite the attacks of recent months Americans support the public option 59% to 29%. Support includes 80% of Democrats, 59% of Independents, and even 33% of Republicans. Much of the public identifies a public option as the key component of health care reform -- and as the best thing we can do to stand up for regular people against big insurance companies. In fact, overall support for health care reform declined steadily as the public option was removed from reform legislation. Although we strongly support the important reforms made by the Senate-passed health reform package, including a strong public option would improve both its substance and the public’s perception of it. The Senate has an obligation to reform our unworkable health insurance market -- both to reduce costs and to give consumers more choices. A strong public option is the best way to deliver on both of these goals, and we urge its consideration under reconciliation rules. Respectfully, Michael Bennet (D-CO), U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), U.S. Senator

---

By: MilesC56 (I-VA) 2010-11-02 @ 17:25:11
THANK YOU SENATOR BENNET!! GOOD LUCK!! WE'RE GONNA WIN THIS!!

---

By: JohnLV (O-NV) 2010-11-02 @ 17:32:11
Reid is up by less then 7000 in early voting, nowhere near enough for him to win. Almost all of the early voting in Nevada is in Clark County which means most of the vote today will be from the rural areas. No offense but I think your house prediction is quite a ways off. I've enjoyed your predictions and hope to see you in two years, remember you'll get a lot of those house seats back in 2012 when it's not a wave election.

---

By: MilesC56 (I-VA) 2010-11-02 @ 18:21:46
Thanks John. I've enjoyed your company as well. Well Nate Silver at 538.com has the House at 203-232. I gave the Dems 10 more wins than he did.

---

By: MilesC56 (I-VA) 2010-11-02 @ 18:37:10
FINAL CALLS: AL: Shelby*(R): 69% Barnes(D): 31% AK: Murkowski*(W): 35% Miller(R): 34% McAdams(D): 32% AZ McCain(R)*: 59% Glassman(D): 40% AR Boozman(R): 57% Lincoln(D)*: 41% CA Boxer(D)*: 53% Fiorina(R): 46% CO Bennet(D)*: 49% Buck(R): 48.5% CT Blumenthal(D)^: 56% McMahon(R): 44% DE Coons(D)^: 60% O’Donnell(R): 39% FL Rubio(R)^: 46% Crist(I): 33% Meek(D): 21% GA Iaskson(R):60% Thurmond(D):38% HI Inouye(D)*: 69% Cavasso(R):29% ID Crapo(R)*: 74% Sullivan(D): 25% IL Kirk(R): 47% Giannoulias(D)^: 46% IN Coats(R): 59% Ellsworth(D)^: 40% IA Grassley(R)*: 62% Conlin(D): 37% KS Moran(R)^: 68% Johnston(D): 30% KY Paul(R)^: 56% Conway(D): 44% LA Vitter(R)*: 57% Melancon(D): 42% MD Mikulski(D)*: 62% Wargotz(R): 38% MO Blunt(R)^: 54% Carnahan(D):45% NV Reid(D)*: 48% Angle(R): 47.5% NH Ayotte(R)^:56% Hodes(D): 43% NY Schumer(D)*: 65% Townsend(R): 35% NY Class I Gillibrand(D)*: 59% DioGuardi(R): 40% NC Burr(R)*: 56% Marshall(D): 44% ND Hoeven(R): 72% Potter(D)^: 27% OH Portman(R)^: 59% Fisher(D): 41% OK Coburn(R)*: 72% Rogers(D): 28% OR Wyden(D)*: 59% Huffman(R): 41% PA Pat Toomey(R): 52% Joe Sestak(D)^: 48% SC DeMint(R)*: 69% Greene(D): 28% SD Thune(R)*: >95% (uncontested) UT Lee(R)^: 63% Granato(D): 37% VT Leahy(D)*: 68% Britton(R): 30% WA Murray(D)*: 51% Rossi(R): 49% WA Johnson(R):53% Feingold(D)*: 46% WV Manchin(D)^: 52% Raese(R): 47%

---

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2010-11-02 @ 18:41:48
Hope you're right!

---

By: CR (--MO) 2010-11-04 @ 00:46:41
Good job Miles. You had a pretty solid prediction.

---

By: MilesC56 (I-VA) 2010-11-04 @ 01:23:20
Even in the Senate, your party did pretty well CR. The clean sweep of the midwest was pretty impressive. Besides the coasts, the only state that the Dems won was CO...not good!!

---

By: CR (--MO) 2010-11-04 @ 01:35:54
Very true. I'd have liked more of course but 47 seats is nothing to sneeze at. That puts us in a good place for 2012 when we could take back the Senate. For now, our decisive victory in the House is good enough. Plus our Senate filibuster has some real teeth behind it. My native region the Midwest was very kind.

---

By: MilesC56 (I-VA) 2010-11-04 @ 03:15:28
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Democrats lost Halter's seat!!!!!

---

By: Olawakandi (G-CA) 2010-11-04 @ 07:13:11
And how can Malloy lose. I predicted him to lose but that was a stretch. Looks like most people were wrong about florida and Illinois. Quinn survived and Giannoulias didn't I am so glad that Quinn won.

---

By: MilesC56 (I-VA) 2010-11-04 @ 13:58:07
Me too. My hat is off to Quinn; I didn't think he'd survive the GOP wave in the midwest. Looks like he'll be getting a full term!

---

By: CR (--MO) 2010-11-05 @ 00:50:59
He just barely squeaked by. Impressive but then again its Illinois and Chicago saved his bacon.

---

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2010-11-05 @ 13:12:56
Congrats on getting every state right, Miles.

---

By: MilesC56 (I-VA) 2010-11-05 @ 13:28:29
Thanks albaleman. I was taking a risk with CO and NV, but they both pulled through in the end!

---

By: CR (--MO) 2010-11-06 @ 00:13:04
I know what you mean Miles. I took a risk on Washington and lost. But them's the breaks. The polling turned out to be less than helpful in some of the western contest but I'm proud to say that outside of four states I called the rest pretty much dead on.

---

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2010-11-06 @ 11:50:14
"AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Democrats lost Halter's seat!!!!!" I'm not suprised. The GOP picked up a ton of Democratic seats down there.

---

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2010-11-06 @ 11:56:00
Crosspost: When 'House Effects' Become 'Bias'

---

By: MilesC56 (I-VA) 2010-11-07 @ 00:19:59
Yes, there is a distinction between the HE and bias, but Rasmussen has pro-Republican HE and bias. Its indefensible.

---

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2010-11-07 @ 09:20:54
I know. And yet some still take their polls at face value.

---

By: MilesC56 (I-VA) 2010-11-07 @ 11:19:01
From now on, I'm using a HE of R+5 for Rasmussen polls.

---

By: CR (--MO) 2010-11-07 @ 11:28:24
Data is data and should be taken at face value. If you believe that Rasmussen polling data is extremely flawed and the results are biased (thus making this method unreliable) then I suggest that you simply throw out his data point. House effects simply add on more bad math so its better to just do away with data that you feel is unreliable. Just my two cents.

---

By: MilesC56 (I-VA) 2010-11-07 @ 19:02:52
Yeah, going forward, I might just exclude Rasmussen polls entirely from my aggregates.

---

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2010-11-07 @ 19:07:32
I will too, if at all possible.

---

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2010-11-07 @ 19:55:33
%^&#!!!!!!!!!!! The Oakland Raiders scored a field goal and are sending the KC-Oakland game into overtime!!!!!

---

By: MilesC56 (I-VA) 2010-11-07 @ 19:57:55
The Saints won...I'm happy!

---

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2010-11-07 @ 20:03:03
DA*M IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE RAIDERS WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was almost always root for the Saints unless they're playing Seattle or KC... New Orleans is a great town. Last Edit: 2010-11-07 @ 20:09:46

---

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2010-11-08 @ 18:42:57
Well the Vikes had a thrilling win yesterday - they scored two touchdowns in the last 4 minutes of regulation to tie it then kicked a field goal in OT to win it! Last Edit: 2010-11-08 @ 18:44:17

---

By: MilesC56 (I-VA) 2010-11-11 @ 00:04:16
I'm gonna miss you, Guts Grayson.... :(((

---

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2010-11-14 @ 06:03:16
Congrats on some of the best predicting here. you also had a little bit of luck on your side in CO, NV... :) :) but luck is part of it all. Hey, I hear the former East German secret police is looking for new recruits. Maybe that's why they booked flights up to Alaska. I think Miller will be looking for a new job soon, for his position as nuisance is about to end.

---

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2010-11-14 @ 08:58:19
lol

---

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2010-11-18 @ 08:00:05
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/11/17/extra_bonus_quote_of_the_day.html

---