USA Mid-term Elections--Off to the Races

[onejayhawk]

I think with Republicans voting no on the gender/pay act and the Obamacare fury fairly settled, even in the face of Obama seeming fairly weak these past few months on foreign policy, the polls will continue to trend better for the democrats than they did back in March or June etc.

When you think of trending nationally, check two numbers: the generic ballot and the Presidents approval rating. You have a point about foreign policy. The approval ratings on that subject are severely worse than overall.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

J

 

[onejayhawk]

Here is an interesting article. Referred by a tweet
http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/20...-advertising-in-september-dems-lead-in-house/



Several people have commented on the tweet. One was to note that the Democrats out spent the Republicans in 2010 and vice versa in 2006.

I was struck by the disparity in Colorado and urban Michigan.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

Kansas' Senate seat could go independent. From Greg Orman's campaign site, issues page "With which part will you caucus":

If I'm elected, there’s a reasonable chance that neither party would have a majority in the US Senate. If that is the case, I will work with the other independent Senators to caucus with the party that is most willing to face our country’s difficult problems head on and advance our problem-solving, non-partisan agenda.

When it comes time to support a candidate for Majority Leader, I' ll encourage both parties to select a leader who has a demonstrated track record of working across the aisle as one indicator of his or her willingness to solve problems. I'll also look at responsible leaders from both sides like Democrat Heidi Heitkamp and Republican Lisa Murkowski who are willing to cross party lines to vote for what is right.

Both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell have been too partisan for far too long to earn my vote for Majority Leader.

With that said, if one party is clearly in the majority, I will seek to caucus with the party that was in the majority as that would be in the best interest of the state of Kansas.

But caucusing with a party does not mean voting with them on every issue. My vote to caucus with a party is dependent on their willingness to seek common-ground solutions to our nation' s problems. That means I will vote on each bill individually,based on the content of the proposed legislation.

My first and only allegiance is to the people of Kansas -- not a political party -- so should the caucus I join fall into bad behavior,I will represent the people of Kansas appropriately and vote on the merits of the legislation instead of how party bosses demand. I will always seek common sense solutions while maintaining my independence from either the Republicans or Democrats.​

Bold is mine.

J

 

[Antilogic]

Yea the numbers show pretty likely that the Republicans will get 50/slightly more than 50 seats. I don't think anything outside of dramatic scandal in a toss-up state will change that

I think with Republicans voting no on the gender/pay act and the Obamacare fury fairly settled, even in the face of Obama seeming fairly weak these past few months on foreign policy, the polls will continue to trend better for the democrats than they did back in March or June etc.

I think the last big twist in this campaign is the war in Syria. It won't affect local races, but the decision to not take a vote and suspend until the lame duck session might have an impact on close House and Senate races.

At least, that's been my hypothesis. So far, I don't think we have seen any major shifts in polls attributable to it.

Here is an interesting article. Referred by a tweet
http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/20...-advertising-in-september-dems-lead-in-house/

Spoiler :

Several people have commented on the tweet. One was to note that the Democrats out spent the Republicans in 2010 and vice versa in 2006.

I was struck by the disparity in Colorado and urban Michigan.

J

First thing I noticed was the overlaps into states without Senate races due to the local media markets.

Kansas' Senate seat could go independent. From Greg Orman's campaign site, issues page "With which part will you caucus":

If I'm elected, there’s a reasonable chance that neither party would have a majority in the US Senate. If that is the case, I will work with the other independent Senators to caucus with the party that is most willing to face our country’s difficult problems head on and advance our problem-solving, non-partisan agenda.

When it comes time to support a candidate for Majority Leader, I' ll encourage both parties to select a leader who has a demonstrated track record of working across the aisle as one indicator of his or her willingness to solve problems. I'll also look at responsible leaders from both sides like Democrat Heidi Heitkamp and Republican Lisa Murkowski who are willing to cross party lines to vote for what is right.

Both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell have been too partisan for far too long to earn my vote for Majority Leader.

With that said, if one party is clearly in the majority, I will seek to caucus with the party that was in the majority as that would be in the best interest of the state of Kansas.

But caucusing with a party does not mean voting with them on every issue. My vote to caucus with a party is dependent on their willingness to seek common-ground solutions to our nation' s problems. That means I will vote on each bill individually,based on the content of the proposed legislation.

My first and only allegiance is to the people of Kansas -- not a political party -- so should the caucus I join fall into bad behavior,I will represent the people of Kansas appropriately and vote on the merits of the legislation instead of how party bosses demand. I will always seek common sense solutions while maintaining my independence from either the Republicans or Democrats.​

Bold is mine.

J

I think he's playing his cards right. Only way he could have done it better was to work in some language explicitly requesting the candidates for majority leader to submit a proposed agenda and let him decide based on that.

 

[Cutlass]

How is New Hampshire reacting to Scott Brown? NH is a somewhat conservative state, but Brown isn't a native. He moved there just to run for office.

 

[onejayhawk]

One interesting thing about New Hampshire, and Iowa, is the excellence of polling. Due to the intense coverage of the Presidential primary/caucus, the infrastructure is available for other things. RCP calls it a tossup, but Shaheen still has a noticable margin. That said, Brown has been trimming the lead. The RCP rolling average Shaheen +4.4%. The notes comment that the race is finally showing sligns of life.

The RCP no tossup map is currently 50-49-1 (really 50-47-3) with the one being Kansas. If the Republicans have 50 plus Orman, I would count that as an outright win. When push comes to shove, Orman will not let Joe Biden vote.

J

 

[Antilogic]

I'm not as convinced about Orman as you are, onejay. It's very possible he cut a deal where Taylor would drop out in exchange with him caucusing for the Democrats unless the GOP had an unambiguous majority (51+).

On New Hampshire, it's important to remember their primary was only a couple weeks ago, so Scotty B is riding the post-nomination bump. I would still be surprised if he won, he has made such a nakedly opportunistic and self-serving move that I can't believe a bunch of supposedly keen local guys would fall for it. At least, they keep telling us so to justify going second in the presidential nomination process.

As far as I can tell, he's had a few awkward moments on the campaign trail but they have been mostly caused by his surrogates (i.e. the guy introducing him said he wasn't a phony from Massachusetts, he was a phony from New Hampshire, it was really funny) or his goofy practice of handing out random trophies to women who talk to him.

 

[bhsup]

I would still be surprised if he won, he has made such a nakedly opportunistic and self-serving move that I can't believe a bunch of supposedly keen local guys would fall for it.

 

[Antilogic]

Yeah, I know Hillary picked a convenient state to run in. And you could have posted a picture of Bobby Kennedy too, didn't he run for a senate seat in New York because he didn't want to challenge his brother holding one in Massachusetts?

But it's a little worse when he was a senator who lost reelection in the neighboring state literally the last election cycle. Plus he's kind of a dick and I'd be happy to see him lose again.

 

[onejayhawk]

I'm not as convinced about Orman as you are, onejay. It's very possible he cut a deal where Taylor would drop out in exchange with him caucusing for the Democrats unless the GOP had an unambiguous majority (51+).

That's pretty far fetched. I think Taylor dropped out, even went to court to get his name removed from the ballot, to take down Roberts. It is a totally understandable attitude. Orman is still right of center.

NH is not leaning Republican, or anything close. It has gotten interesting, nothing more.

I am looking for support on a Louisiana poll showing Bill Cassidy up 13% on Mary Landrieu. This is by far the biggest margin of the race to date. RCP has LA as leans Republican, but the other major pundits have it as toss up. If the seat is on the red side, it would be the 50th (or 49th, taking out Kansas).

J

 

[onejayhawk]

The New York Times seconds RCP in LA. The rest of the story is that recent news other close states except North Carolina favors Republicans. Hence a 61% likelihood of Republicans controlling the Senate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/u...tml?ref=2014-midterm-elections&abt=0002&abg=1

The Washington Post has an article on the battleground states. Significantly, neither LA nor AR is listed. In he article, both are referred to as leaning. Note: Kansas is one of the five and there is no Democrat on the ballot. Any one of AK, IA, CO or NC could be the 50th.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...five-races-will-decide-control-of-the-senate/

Alaska is poorly polled in the best of situations. Evidence there is partly anecdotal, but it is starting to pile up. This could be the decision state. Iowa is very well polled and very close. Colorado, which saw a big move toward the Democrats, has swung back. RCP has moved it from leans Democrat to tossup, also Michigan. The no ties map has the Republicans picking up 8, but losing Kansas.

For the first time, signs of a major change (8 or more) appear. Six votes for a clear majority is significant, but not major. There are signs the Republicans could bag as many as ten.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

Nate Silver finally weighs in, specifically on Colorado:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/senate-update-a-troubling-trend-for-democrats-in-colorado/
The 538 widget has most likely outcomes as 52 and 53 Republican seats. It shows almost as mucch chance of the Republicans gaining 9 seats as the Democrats retaining a clear majority: 10% vs 12%.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/senate-forecast/

After a week of good news, the last week has been grim for Democrats. Colorado had a big swing, which swung back. Louisiana and Arkansas are even at best, with momentum against the incumbents. Iowa, one of the best polled places on the planet, is truly too close to call. Alaska, one of the worst polled, seems to be slipping away. The good news was that there will be no Democrat on the ballot in Kansas, giving the independent a better chance.

In fundamentals, things also look bad. The generic ballot has remained +3% - +4% for the Republicans. Presidential approval is below 42%, with a double digit spread.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

Another week and another swing around the baseline. Two weeks ago, the Democrats pulled ahead in two states. North Carolina is still leaning Democrat. Last week was the Republican's turn to get good news. Alaska and Iowa, either of which could be the pivotal 51st seat, moved toward the GOP.

This week is a bit back to the Democrats, but not much. Louisiana pulled closer. New Hampshire is beginnig to lean strongly to the Democrats. Kansas leans to an independent. For the Republicans, Alaska continues to look better and Colorado is back in play.

For the Democrats, time is getting short. It is under 5 weeks to poll time. The number of ways the Republicans can get to 51 is daunting. The three big models all give 52, not counting Kansas, as the most likely outcome. Here is a summary page:
http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/comparisons.html

It will not be either 2006 or 2010, but this is starting to look settled.

J

 

[JollyRoger]

If the GOP only gets to 52, then the Democrats easily take it back in 2016.

 

[KMRblue1027]

The problem is if someone on SCOTUS kicks it we'd be a judge down for at least the remainder of the Obama administration.

 

[onejayhawk]

A Nate Silver story from Sunday is titled, "Should the Democratss Panic?"
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/senate-update-when-should-democrats-panic/

If the GOP only gets to 52, then the Democrats easily take it back in 2016.

That is certainly possible, though I wouldn't say easily. That said, there is a strong historical trend to change parties in the White house after eight years. If that happens, Democrat gains in the Senate are iffy. A lot depends on the economy.

The problem is if someone on SCOTUS kicks it we'd be a judge down for at least the remainder of the Obama administration.

Traditionally, judical nominations were considered above politics. That changed when Judge Bork was nominaated in the 1980s, but there is still a degree of deference in that area particularly from Republicans.

J

 

[KMRblue1027]

A lot of things were above politics before the 80s.

 

[Bootstoots]

I expect Nate Silver to be about as correct as possible, just like the last elections.

Assuming the Republicans do gain a majority of the Senate, what would the likely outcome be? I suspect most of what they would attempt would be filibustered by the Democrats/vetoed by Obama. This will probably be an even less productive arrangement than the current setup.

 

[Antilogic]

Polling over the last week has had some good news for GOPers. Was there a debate or something that Udall flubbed in Colorado? I figured he was in much better shape than the other incumbents, but it's starting to look like he is trailing Gardner. Given that Kentucky is holding for McConnell and we have a post-bombing poll included, I think it's time to take that out of the tossup column. Sabato has had it likely GOP for awhile now, not sure what's taking Cook so long. On the plus side, Scotty B may have peaked; the last poll out of New Hampshire gave Shaheen a 10 point lead.

I think 10 seats is probably a bit much for a GOP pickup unless we see another drastic move in the coming weeks. That pathway requires a sweep including states like Michigan, New Hampshire, and North Carolina, which have been pretty static and slightly-D recently. 7-8 is looking much more likely.

Side note: I've been considering Louisiana as close to a guaranteed pickup for the GOP as possible because I don't think Landrieu can exceed 50% in the November election, and she's at a greater disadvantage in a one-on-one even-lower turnout runoff election.

If the GOP only gets to 52, then the Democrats easily take it back in 2016.

2016 is going to be the reverse of this year. We've had three elections where a lot of seats have changed hands, it's resulted in unbalanced classes.

The problem is if someone on SCOTUS kicks it we'd be a judge down for at least the remainder of the Obama administration.

I think he'd end up appointing someone the GOP would like unless it is in 2016--a Supreme Court seat is just too important to leave unfilled for any prolonged length of time.



EDIT: Missed this, I took awhile to write my post.

... That said, there is a strong historical trend to change parties in the White house after eight years. If that happens, Democrat gains in the Senate are iffy. A lot depends on the economy.

No, there really isn't. We have had winning streaks of 7 (Jefferson -> Quincy Adams), 6 (Lincoln -> Garfield), 4 (McKinley -> Taft), and 5 (F. Roosevelt -> Truman). You can also add the three definite* 3-peats: (Jackson -> van Buren), (Harding -> Hoover), (Reagan -> Bush). Given we have only had 57 presidential elections and 31 are in these streaks, I think it is safe to assess this as a fairly normal occurrence.

The recent "trend" of switching every two terms also rests on weak ground because of close elections in 1960, 1976, and 2000. Oh, and 1916, Wilson was nearly a one-termer.

*Not counting (Washington -> Adams) because Washington is nominally non-partisan.

 

[onejayhawk]

No, there really isn't. We have had winning streaks of 7 (Jefferson -> Quincy Adams), 6 (Lincoln -> Garfield), 4 (McKinley -> Taft), and 5 (F. Roosevelt -> Truman). You can also add the three definite* 3-peats: (Jackson -> van Buren), (Harding -> Hoover), (Reagan -> Bush). Given we have only had 57 presidential elections and 31 are in these streaks, I think it is safe to assess this as a fairly normal occurrence.

The recent "trend" of switching every two terms also rests on weak ground because of close elections in 1960, 1976, and 2000. Oh, and 1916, Wilson was nearly a one-termer.

*Not counting (Washington -> Adams) because Washington is nominally non-partisan.

Trend as opposed to history. FDR is an exception to many rules. Since then parties changed in 1952, 1960, 1968, 1976, 1980 (early), 1992 (late), 2000, 2008. That's 5 of 7. Both exceptions are a single term off. 8, 8, 8, 4, 12, 8, 8 is a trend.

I give you "strong" may be too strong. Perhaps we are due for a close election.

J