Here we are at the finish line. Tomorrow won't be a proud day for the Democratic Party, but at least all evidence points to us holding the Senate. Feingold, especially, will be missed by advocates of sanity.

Congratulations, Republicans. Congratulations, Tea Party. Now YOU try to lead this country.

Too tired for explanations. Most changes are, I believe, self-evident. Comments welcome.

While the generic ballot polls and Obama and Congress’s approval ratings haven’t changed much over the last month, there is a bit more hope for the Dems when you look at the situation race by race. It seems more likely than ever that the Dems will still have their Senate majority in 2011, and that Reid will be their majority leader.

Changes from last month’s prediction and explanations for them:

Illinois: “R>40” to “D>40”. Fine, prediction community, it looks like you were right all along, and it was only a matter of time until Illinois’s true blue roots came through. It’s still gonna be a very close one.

Nevada: “R>50” to “D>50”. Thank you, Tea Party.

Ohio: “D>40” to “R>50”. The numbers here seemed too good to be true for a while, and it appears they were. Now that Fisher’s long primary bounce is over, it seems doubtful the perennial swing state will go Democratic in 2010.

Oklahoma: “R>50” to “R>60”. I can’t help but think I should have seen this one coming.

West Virginia: Nothing to “D>50” and “Strong D”. Governor Manchin has got this.

Wisconsin: “Lean D” to “Tossup”. With Johnson killing in the primary polls, I can no longer pretend that Feingold is not in serious danger.

Changes from last month’s prediction and explanations for them:

Arkansas: “R>50” to “R>60” and “Lean R” to “Strong R”. Arkansas continues to move further and further to the right, and the progressive community there sure isn’t going to show up in droves to help Lincoln. Expect a blowout.

Hawaii: “D>60” to “D>70”. It looks like Inouye will reach his blowout margins of past election cycles once again.

Illinois: “R>50” “R>40”. Things seem to be tightening here a bit; they’re certainly tight enough that whichever candidate wins will be held below 50% by the Green Party.

Maryland: “D>50” to “D>60”. I couldn’t find any new polls out of Maryland, but I did take a glance at each candidate’s fundraising numbers, and between them and Obama’s continued high numbers in Maryland, I think Mikulski will win in an absolute blowout, even this year.

New York (Special): “D>60” to “D>50”. Gillibrand’s numbers have fallen down a bit from last month, but she’s still got a very comfortable lead.

Ohio: “R>40” to “D>40”. For the moment, I’m sold: Fisher’s lead seems to have outlasted the usual primary bump period. The polls are amazingly consistent in producing statistical ties, though (fun fact: neither candidate has been outside the margin of error in a single poll since March!). Not for the first time, all eyes will be on Ohio come election night.

South Carolina: “R>50” to “R>60”. If you’ve watched the news in the past month, you know what this is about.

South Dakota: “R>50” to “R>60”. The only poll showing this one to be remotely close came out of Research 2000, a firm that, it has been pretty much definitively shown, does fraudulent polling. I’m disregarding it and falling back on the next best things: a December 2009 PPP poll showing Thune beating a Generic Dem by a 23% margin, and a fairly recent PPP approval poll showing Thune with +22% net approval.

With all the recent primary upsets, you would think the landscape of the general election would be changing. You would be wrong. The numbers remain remarkably steady; all I had to change in this monthly update were percentage and confidence intervals. In a few cases, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio, primary results really do seem to have tipped the scales in favor of the other party (in these cases, the Dems), but I’m reluctant to change them over until we see whether Fisher and Sestak are still leading after their primary bounces fade.

Gloomy as this prediction is, there’s still plenty of tossups that could go the Dems’ way.


Changes and explanations:

Alaska: “R>50” to “R>60”. Polls show Murkowski pulling away even further.

Connecticut: “D>60” to “D>50”. This minor “scandal” about Blumenthal’s military service has taken its toll, but it won’t do nearly enough damage to make a difference in the ultimate outcome.

Florida: “I>30” to “I>40”. It’s not that Crist is pulling away; if anything, I’m less sure about his victory than ever. It’s just that Crist has become the de facto Democratic candidate, and I doubt Meek will pull enough of the vote to hold the winner below 40%.

Georgia: “R>50” to “R>60”. I’m finding it hard to believe I ever thought this one could be close.

Nevada: “Lean R” to “Tossup”. Harry Reid has been at this for a long time. I’m not saying he’s the best politician, but he is a close ally of Obama’s who knows how the system works. Losing their majority leader would be a big embarassment to the Dems, and the DNC won’t let him go down without a fight. Still, Reid is trailing in every poll. But the race seems to be tightening, at least. Don’t be completely stunned at a comeback.

New York: “D>70” to “D>60”. Current polls point to Schumer falling just short of 70% this time.

New York (Special): “D>50” to “D>60” and “Tossup” to “Strong D”. I’ve finally come to my senses and realized the Republicans aren’t going to run anyone with a chance here.

North Carolina: “Strong R” to “Lean R”. Marshall is getting a bit of a post-primary bounce, and the race is one again within single digits.

Washington: “Lean D” to “Tossup”. It’s time for another one of Rossi’s regularly schedule narrow defeats.

Wisconsin: “Strong D” to “Lean D”. Feingold isn’t running so well against Johnson. I’ve yet to see primary polling pitting Johnson against Westlake, but if Johnson ends up being the GOP’s man, there will be a real race here.

I was hoping things would have turned around a bit more by now, but the overall numbers remain depressingly consistent. Even so, I still can't quite see the Republicans taking back the Senate this year.


Changes from last month’s prediction and explanations for them:

Connecticut: “D>50” to “D>60”. Blumenthal will be unstoppable, no matter who he faces.

Delaware: “Lean R” to “Strong R”. The race is now almost certain to be Coonts vs Castle, and Coonts doesn’t have a chance.

Florida: “R>50” to “I>30” and “Strong R” to “Tossup”. Hello, interesting development. The Crist party defection does not bode well for the GOP: hardcore conservatives will still flock to Rubio, but liberals who understand the concept of “lesser of two evils” (and, of course, moderates) will go for Crist. It will still be very close, that’s the one thing I’m sure of.

Georgia: “Lean R” to “Strong R”. Isakson is surging. Nothing to see here, folks.

Illinois: “D>50” to “R>50”. To all those who say Obama’s former Senate seat won’t possibly fall to the Republicans, consider this: you would have said the same thing about Ted Kennedy’s seat last year. The Dems have plenty of time to turn the numbers around, but right now, it’s advantage GOP.

Indiana: “Lean R” to “Strong R”. Barring the Indiana Democratic Party’s committee picking some miracle candidate that has nothing to do with Ellsworth, the only question remaining here is: will the new junior Senator from Indiana be Coats or Hostettler?

Iowa: “R>60” to “R>50”. Grassley’s numbers have fallen off a bit just recently. Maybe there is a God.

New Hampshire: “Tossup” to “Lean R”. Ayotte, by far the toughest Republican for the Dems to beat, is pulling away from her Republican opponents.

North Dakota: “R>60” to “R>70”. Hoeven’s approval numbers and favorables are so high that I’m starting to wonder if the man actually exists, or if he’s just some kind of mythical animal. Seriously, 83% approval? Is that even possible in this day and age?

Ohio: “R>50” to “R>40”. Ohio has replaced Missouri as the most likely Dem Senate pickup of 2010. Between this and the ultra close governor’s race, all eyes will be on Ohio come election night.

Wisconsin: “Lean D” to “Strong D”. With Thompson out of the running, Feingold’s re-election bid is secure.

It's been two months, and it's time for a depressing update. Things only look worse for the Democrats, and a Republican take-over of the Senate actually looks within the realm of possibility. I can only hope the current numbers reflect the 2010 low point for the Democratic Party.

Changes from January’s prediction and explanations for them:

Arkansas: “D>40” to “R>50” and “Tossup” to “Lean R.” Remember all those excuses Lincoln made about how she had to complicate the healthcare process in order to look out for the interest of Arkansans? It’s so nice to see they all approved of that. Good riddance, DINO.

California: “Strong D” to “Lean D.” Recent polling has Boxer’s lead down to single-digit numbers.

Connecticut: “R>50” to “D>50” and “Tossup” to “Strong D.” In the one bright spot for the Dems, Dodd has taken the bullet and stepped down. For all we know, this alone might keep the Democratic Senate majority intact.

Delaware: “R>40” to “R>50” and “Tossup” to “Lean R.” With Beau Biden out of the race, I really don’t think it matters whether Coons ends up facing Castle or O’Donnell; another seat that should be safely Democratic is going to the GOP.

Florida: “Lean R” to “Strong R.” The picture in Florida is becoming clearer: Crist is going down to Rubio in the primary, yet he STILL has a better chance of being elected than Meek.

Indiana: “D>50” to “R>50” and “Tossup” to “Lean R.” The loss of Bayh hurts. Ellsworth is faring a bit better than I would have guessed against his possible opponents, but I still think this seat is very likely to go Republican.

Kansas: “R>50” to “R>60.” I was willing to consider this one might be close given that no big names have appeared on either side, but that fact alone combined with the fact that we’re dealing with Kansas, and the year is 2010, probably means we’re looking at a blowout here.

Kentucky: “Tossup” to “Lean R.” Paul is pulling away, both from his primary challenger Grayson and the two Democrats he could possibly face. Oh well, this one was never much more than a pipe dream anyway.

Maryland: “D>60” to “D>50.” Mikulski only beats “generic Republican” by 18, according to Rasmussen. It will be interesting to see how the actual Republican candidate fares against his generic counterpart.

Missouri: “D>50” to “R>50.” The most likely Democratic pickup is swaying towards the Republicans again. I have a feeling this one will fluctuate very much in sync with the national generic ballot polls.

Nevada: “R>40” to “R>50” and “Tossup” to “Lean R.” I can stand up to the overwhelming poll numbers no longer. One way or another, it looks like America will have a new Senate majority leader in 2011.

New York: “D>60” to “D>70.” My old theory was that a competitive special election race would drive up Republican turnout and hold Schumer below 70%, but current polling indicates he would probably get above that, and I try not to argue with the polls.

North Carolina: “Lean R” to “Strong R.” It’s looking like the Dems will run Marshall, and several recent polls have Burr beating her by double digits.

North Dakota: “D>50” to “R>60” and “Tossup” to “Strong R.” (North Dakota 2010 Senate Election) – (Byron Dorgan) + (John Hoeven) = Blowout of epic proportions.

Pennsylvania: “D>50” to “R>50.” Specter still has a good chance of holding on, but it will be a fight.

Washington: “Strong D” to “Lean D.” This is really a compromise rating of the race. If Rossi jumps in and manages to secure the Republican nomination, it’s a tossup. Otherwise, it’s safe Murray.


The battle will be an uphill one, Democrats. Good luck fighting it.

It’s still way too early to make good predictions about the 2010 elections, and at some level I think it’s disrespectful to the currently elected officials to start this early, but hey, I’m excited, and at least I held out until the year of. Forgive me for what I’m already sure will be a way-too-long breakdown of the 2010 Senate races. I’ve done my homework (most of it, anyway), and I want to get this right from the start.

First of all, an overview: Barring an amazing turnaround, 2010 will not be a good year for the Democrats. Obama and the Democrats in Congress have made every effort to run to the center on nearly every issue, and all it will do is de-motivate progressives to show up on Election Day. The Dems will win over a few moderates, but it won’t begin to counter the loss of an enthusiastic base. The conservatives, of course, would find a way to oppose Obama and the congressional Democrats even if they promoted the conservatives’ exact platform, so the Dems won’t be making any progress with them. Also working against the Democrats is the mystique that surrounded Obama during the 2008 campaign. Too many people believed in their hearts, if not their minds, that things in this country really would drastically improve during the first year of the Obama administration. When your supporters think you’re a superhero, there’s bound to be some disillusionment. These factors, combined with the new administration taking on the bold, politically risky tasks of reforming healthcare and setting a new course in Afghanistan, go a long way toward explaining how Obama’s approval numbers fell from the high 60’s to the high 40’s in one short year, and why the Republicans have regained the lead in the generic congressional ballot polls.

The bad news for the Republicans amounts to simple math. The Democratic majorities gained in both houses in 2006 and reinforced in 2008 are both too strong to fall in a single election cycle, barring a Republican landslide so dramatic that it would make 1994 look like a close contest. The Republicans will have to bide their time and hope the Democrats keep doing exactly what they’re doing. If they do, we should see a Republican president and a Republican Congress in 2013. Personally, I’m hoping 2010 will be a sufficient wake-up call.

And now, the individual races:

Let’s start with Connecticut, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. Here we have three Democratic senators who have each held their jobs for over twenty years and are now, for different reasons, all in serious danger of losing their seats. With being in the Senate comes a certain amount of money and power, and having been in it this long, these three aren’t going down without a fight (and the Democratic National isn’t about to give up on them). For this reason, I believe all three of these men will see their poll numbers improve as Election Day approaches. For Specter, who’s in a statistical tie now, this should be enough to save him. For Dodd, who’s in the most trouble, I’m predicting a Corzine-esque not-quite-sufficient surge. Reid is somewhere in the middle and the one I’m least sure about. I’ll go with current polling for now and see where it goes. But it would be quite embarrassing for the Dems to lose their majority leader.

Alabama: Whoever the Dems put up, Shelby will cruise to re-election.

Alaska: Murkowski has this all wrapped up. If Knowles runs against her, it will be a moderate landslide. If anyone else runs against her, it will be a severe one.

Arizona: There’s rumors going around that McCain is in primary trouble. Don’t believe them. He’s not in any general election trouble, either: the only Democrat who ever had any chance at all against him is tucked away in the White House, losing her own political capital over the recent attempted terrorist attack.

Arkansas: All polling indicates this will be a close one no matter who Lincoln ends up running against. And seeing as how it’s a Republican vs. a DINO, I don’t think the outcome will make much of a difference. I’ll give Lincoln the incumbent advantage for now.

California: Q: What do you call a Democrat with an approval rating in the 40’s who’s going to win re-election by double digits? A: A Californian.

Colorado: Bennett is in trouble, and his primary challenger isn’t doing any better in the polls than he is. It’s far from a sure thing yet, but I expect to see a Senator Norton take office next year.

Delaware: Remember when it seemed like a no-brainer that the Dems would hold Joe Biden’s old seat? Just goes to show how fast things have changed. A lot remains to be seen here. If Beau Biden gets the Democratic nomination, name recognition will probably push his poll numbers up a bit from where they currently stand. He can probably beat O’Donnell; Castle will be a tougher battle. Since Biden vs. Castle seems like the most likely match-up and Castle currently leads in those polls, I’ll give it to the GOP for now, but this is about as close to a 50/50 guess as you can get.

Florida: Forget the general election; the real race to watch will be the Republican primary. Whether the moderate or the conservative comes out on top, I believe the GOP will hold the seat (though if Rubio wins, it could be a real fight). Also noteworthy is that the Democrat who’s most likely gonna get the nod is named Meek. If that isn’t fitting, I don’t know what is.

Georgia: I couldn’t find any good primary polling, but it looks like Baker and Marshall are the two most likely to get the Democratic nod, and polling has Isakson beating both by a 5-9% margin.

Hawaii: Popular incumbent Inouye is a lock no matter whom he faces, even if it’s popular governor Lingle. Whether or not he ends up facing her will make a big difference in the percentages, though.

Idaho: You’d think the fact that Crapo isn’t even sure if he’s running for re-election would make this at least a remotely potential Democratic pick-up, but you’d be forgetting we’re talking about Idaho. I’ll consider it a win if the Democrats even bother to put up an official candidate.

Illinois: The primary polling shows that a Giannoulias vs. Kirk match-up is almost inevitable. The polling for that match-up shows a statistical tie. I’ll default it to Giannoulias for now, Illinois being Illinois.

Indiana: I have no polling to go off of here. Last time I checked, Bayh was still pretty popular. I’ll trust the aggregate prediction.

Iowa: The only question is of Grassley’s victory margin. Polls have him winning by a margin of 12-27%, depending on his challenger. Ouch.

Kansas: With Brownback out of the picture, there is the slight possibility of a Democratic pick-up, but I won’t be holding my breath. It looks like Moran will be the Republican nominee; the Democrats, to the best of my knowledge, have no big names yet. This alone gives the Republicans a huge early edge.

Kentucky: This is an interesting one. Both parties are in a tight primary fight, and the only match-up that consistently spells doom for the Democrats is Grayson vs. Mongiardo. The race is a toss-up with a slight Republican lean.

Louisiana: It looks like Melancon will probably get the nod for the Democrats, and it’s certain Vitter would pummel him.

Maryland: The Republicans are struggling to find a viable candidate here, and conventional wisdom holds that no matter who they end up with, Mikulski will handily hold the seat.

Missouri: A Carnahan vs. Blunt match-up is by far the most likely, and Carnahan’s edge over Blunt is narrow but consistent. This will likely be the only Senatorial Democratic pick-up of 2010.

New Hampshire: If Ayotte can wrap up the Republican nomination, it’ll be one hell of an uphill battle for the Dems. Alternate Republican candidates could make it a real race.

New York: The total lack of polling here tells me two things: (1) Schumer’s re-election margin is nearly impossible to guess; and (2) Schumer is certain to win.

New York (Special): With Giuliani out of the picture, the Republicans have lost any edge they might have had. It’s still a very tough race to call, as everyone and their Grandma is considering jumping into it, but a Gillibrand vs. Pataki match-up now seems most likely, and the polling on that match-up is all over the place. I’ll default it to Gillibrand for now.

North Carolina: Burr vs. Marshall is the match-up to watch, and Burr has a moderate but consistent lead in it.

North Dakota: This is a weird one. Dorgan remains a popular senator and crushes all the opposition…except for the even more popular current governor, Hoeven, who crushes HIM, but who has not announced his candidacy. What do you do with a situation like this? You sit on your thumbs and call it a toss-up, I guess.

Ohio: Portman is a lock for the Republican nod, and he’s running about even with both Fisher and Brunner, who are locked in a tight race for the Democratic nod. This would be a pure toss-up in any other year, but under the current political climate, I’ll give a slight edge to the Republicans.

Oklahoma: Coburn, the biggest nutcase to serve in the United States Senate since Inhofe (seriously, is there something in the water in Oklahoma?) is poised for double-digit re-election no matter who the Democrats run.

Oregon: This is another state nobody has bothered to poll because the winner is a foregone conclusion. Easy win for Wyden.

South Carolina: Another non-race. DeMint is sitting pretty.

South Dakota: Ditto.

Utah: There’s a small chance Bennett will be ousted by a primary challenger, but it doesn’t change the fact that getting the Republican nod in Utah is like being handed some dynamite to fish wish.

Vermont: Governor Douglas is the best candidate the Republicans could hope to put up against Leahy, and according to a Research 2000 poll, even he would trail by 22%. Happy landslide re-election, Senator.

Washington: The Republicans are struggling to find a good candidate and Murray comfortably leads every hypothetical match-up so far.

Wisconsin: The only Republican with even a slight chance against Feingold is Thompson, who (a) is only a speculative candidate and (b) would probably lose anyway.

There, I feel like I just wrote a paper. This was really more to organize the races in my own mind than anything. If you actually read it all, my thanks/apologies.