Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
Just to note:
I don't think anyone was too bad, but I'm seeing a slope in front of us.
I don't think anyone was too bad, but I'm seeing a slope in front of us.
Projections of The United States Senatorial Races of 2010
- Thread starter Zarn
- Start date
One local commentator thinks she will win the Republican nomination. However I haven't seen a poll that said she had a chance against Blumenthal in the general election.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
I saw an amusing remark on this subject the other day, stating that the US isn't so much a democracy (or a republic) as it is a hokey-pokey-ocracy. "You vote your left bums in, you vote your right bums out, you do the hokey pokey and you turn it all about. You vote your right bums in, you vote your left bums out..."
mangxema
I
I'm basically in the same boat... now that I am in a closed primary state (FL) I would have to register with a party, which I can't do without feeling really dirty inside. Sometimes I think the GOP is trying really, really hard to make me a Democrat.
Has anyone seen this map:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate/?ref=politics
According to New York times there are 17 seats in play. 4 Democrat, 5 Republican, and 7 tossup. The map indicates that the Democrats will retain majority.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate/?ref=politics
According to New York times there are 17 seats in play. 4 Democrat, 5 Republican, and 7 tossup. The map indicates that the Democrats will retain majority.
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
I rely more on polling trends and state demographics than the New York Times, which has been known to get a lot of things wrong as of late. I would take anything they put out with a grain of salt, the same goes with most media and even the media's polling. Internal polling is also likely to be a bit off.
Professional pollsters are your most reliable, although even they make mistakes.
Professional pollsters are your most reliable, although even they make mistakes.
Well lets go by Nate Silver then:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/senate-rankings-post-masspocalypse.html
And then he has all the state rankings.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/senate-rankings-post-masspocalypse.html
Right now, the program is showing that Democrats will retain an average of 54.7 seats in the 112th Congress. The distribution, however, is slightly asymmetrical, so the median number is 54, and the modal number is 53.
And things could, potentially, get a whole lot worse than that; the program recognizes that the outcome of the different races are correlated based on changes in the national environment. Between the surprise in Massachusetts, and races like California and Indiana which are potentially coming into play, there's about a 6-7 percent chance that Republicans could actually take control of the Senate, and another 6 percent chance or so that they could wind up with a 50-50 split. On the other hand, there's still a 7-8 percent chance that the Democrats could regain their 60th seat if the national environment shifts back in their direction.
And then he has all the state rankings.
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
Well lets go by Nate Silver then:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/senate-rankings-post-masspocalypse.html
And then he has all the state rankings.
I don't think that is too far off, but he forgot to factor in a potential Lieberman flip, if there is a 50-50 tie. Would be interesting to see how such a scenario would unfold.
His projections are not too far from what Downtown or I were thinking, numbers wise. I just think the individual races need to be looked at separately.
The interesting thing is that Silver has 10 Dem seats in the top 15 and most are towards the top. I'm not surprised to see Kentucky before Florida. I am surprised to see Indiana that high and Missouri that low.
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
Downtown, are you are as shocked by Bayh declining to run as I am?
I am pretty shocked, and I'm wondering if there is perhaps something we don't know about going on...
mangxema
I
That's totally understandable, but I would think it would be more patriotic and helpful to stay and try to fix it than bail, especially since 1.) the Democrats will still control things and 2.) Reid may not be there anymore, so things could change. In a somewhat purplish state (IIRC Indiana went for Obama?) being the 'reasonable one trying to get stuff done' would play well, I would think.
Also, the Tea Party has qualified as a third party in the Nevada Senate race. Could play spoiler if it's close.
Also, the Tea Party has qualified as a third party in the Nevada Senate race. Could play spoiler if it's close.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
Right now:
DEMS PICK UP:
Missouri
GOPS PICK UP:
Arkansas
Colorado
Delaware
Illinois
Indiana
Nevada
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
DEMS PICK UP:
Missouri
GOPS PICK UP:
Arkansas
Colorado
Delaware
Illinois
Indiana
Nevada
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
Doubtful. Plenty of ex-governors feel like that after entering the Senate, and I'm sure Bayh is one of them, but he was actively campaigning for reelection just last week. I'm with downtown. Something's fishy here. It may turn out he's planning to run for another office, or it may be some sort of scandal.
Anyways, it's a little early to say that Bayh just lost the Democrats a seat. First question is if Mike Pence wants to try for the seat now that Bayh's gone. If not (that's a big if) then the Democrats should thank their lucky stars that they bushwhacked Coats early on, because that's the only thing keeping this seat a tossup instead of a Republican leaner.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
The Republican Sleeze balls would more than likely lose, Democrats make big strides in there elections retaking there filibuster proof majority.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
If Congress gets into a 50-50 split, we know that the lefties are gonna go into RAGE mode. Eventhough Biden holds the tiebreaking vote infavor for the Democrats.
OscarWildebeest
Prince
I keep a fairly close eye on Senate races, from my disadvantaged position on the other side of the pond. But we have to bear in mind that the 538.com predictions are a combination of demographics, past voting trends and recent polls. We have to guess how the polls will pan out in the next nine months.
I think Obama's personal approval ratings will claw back a little from their low last summer (they're already doing so). However, even though the US economy will improve on paper, unemployment will continue to rise. There's a difference between when people start being financially secure again and when they start feeling financially secure again - and I think the latter won't come until 2011.
So I'm going to put the following down (bear in mind I don't always know about local factors):
Republicans definitely win:
North Dakota, Arkansas, Nevada (although Reid's got tons of money)
Republicans probably win:
Pennsylvania (I think Specter looks too weak politically and electorally)
Colorado (I'm still a bit uncertain about this one)
Delaware (is Beau Biden definitely not contending this seat?)
Indiana (don't think the Dems have time to find a good candidate)
Republicans might win, but likely to stay Democrat:
Illinois (Giannoulias had a bruising primary, but that'll be forgotten come election day, and he still leads Kirk in polling even in these dark days)
Democrats probably win:
Missouri (Robin Carnahan is too strong a candidate to lose IMO, although this could be wishful thinking)
Democrats might win:
Florida (if Crist switches to them, as many are rumouring)
No change:
Ohio (R)
New Hampshire (R)
Kentucky (R)
California (D)
Wisconsin (D)
Connecticut (D)
A net gain of six for the Republicans (depending on Delaware and Florida) then, leaving the final tally at 51 Dem, 47 GOP, 2 Ind. I don't see Lieberman switching sides unless the GOP makes it to 50 seats.
I think Obama's personal approval ratings will claw back a little from their low last summer (they're already doing so). However, even though the US economy will improve on paper, unemployment will continue to rise. There's a difference between when people start being financially secure again and when they start feeling financially secure again - and I think the latter won't come until 2011.
So I'm going to put the following down (bear in mind I don't always know about local factors):
Republicans definitely win:
North Dakota, Arkansas, Nevada (although Reid's got tons of money)
Republicans probably win:
Pennsylvania (I think Specter looks too weak politically and electorally)
Colorado (I'm still a bit uncertain about this one)
Delaware (is Beau Biden definitely not contending this seat?)
Indiana (don't think the Dems have time to find a good candidate)
Republicans might win, but likely to stay Democrat:
Illinois (Giannoulias had a bruising primary, but that'll be forgotten come election day, and he still leads Kirk in polling even in these dark days)
Democrats probably win:
Missouri (Robin Carnahan is too strong a candidate to lose IMO, although this could be wishful thinking)
Democrats might win:
Florida (if Crist switches to them, as many are rumouring)
No change:
Ohio (R)
New Hampshire (R)
Kentucky (R)
California (D)
Wisconsin (D)
Connecticut (D)
A net gain of six for the Republicans (depending on Delaware and Florida) then, leaving the final tally at 51 Dem, 47 GOP, 2 Ind. I don't see Lieberman switching sides unless the GOP makes it to 50 seats.
OscarWildebeest
Prince
I should add, of course, that all the above assumes that the ancient Democratic senators like Robert Byrd, Frank Lautenberg (currently in hospital), the Hawaiian Daniels, Dianne Feinstein, etc. actually make it through to the end of their terms. All the ones I've just mentioned except Byrd are in states with Republican governors...
