USA Mid-term Elections--Off to the Races

[onejayhawk]

For what it may be worth, I just received an email from Ben Carson:

50 years ago this week, Ronald Reagan delivered his now famous "A Time for Choosing" speech in support of Barry Goldwater's campaign for President. With that in mind, I'd like to make the next 2 years a time for choosing for President Obama.

The President entered office with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in full control of Congress. While he lost Speaker Pelosi in 2010, he's been able to count on Harry Reid's Senate to block any attempt at bipartisan reform. Next Tuesday, November 4, we can decisively change the conversation in Washington by taking control of the Senate. We can finally force the President to the table.

From Obamacare to the Keystone XL pipeline to the job-killing medical device tax, it will be time for President Obama to choose. Will he finally govern in the bipartisan way that he promised, or stand in the way? The President likes to remind us that he has "a phone and a pen." Our response can and should be; we have the Constitution, the entire U.S. Congress, and the will of the American people.

There was more, but it amounts to "send money".

Sabato finally put out his next to last update. He tips Iowa and Colorado to the Republicans, saying:

While many races remain close, it’s just getting harder and harder to envision a plausible path for the Democrats to retain control of the Senate. Ultimately, with just a few days to go before the election, the safe bet would be on Republicans eventually taking control of the upper chamber.

His only toss up is Kansas, which has no Democrat on the ballot. GA and LA are predicted to go to run off. Doing the math, He's predicting a GOP majority of 53 to 55, counting Angus King and possibly Greg Orman. Either Iowa or Colorado would be the tipping state unless the Democrats win Georgia.

538 is part of the momentum. Their numbers have taken another tick to the Republicans, with 52 and 53 seats (not counting Maine) totaling almost 40%.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

As the day approaches, I am getting a definite sense of movement toward the Republicans. It is things like the NYT hitting 70% for the first time, RCP moving a couple of tight races to lean Republican, Sabato's long list of state races shifting toward red, 538's widening "How It's Changed" graphic, to a series of articles like Krauthammer's "Election Day looking like a referendum on competence."

That said, there are holdouts. Sam Wang at Princeton is 100% poll driven. He holds the Republicans to 55% chance. Fundamentals like the President's approval (-12) and the generic ballot (GOP +2.5) have favored the Republicans for some time, but with little visible result. Perhaps this is a late shift (break is too strong a word). Perhaps the others are seeing an illusion.

Five days and counting.



http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics...bccc4c-6067-11e4-91f7-5d89b5e8c251_story.html
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/senate-forecast/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

 

[Antilogic]

That sense of movement, if it comes from the aggregate polling-based predictors, may simply be a factor of the time expiring rather than a definite shift in the polling averages. Most of them have been centered around a 7-seat gain for the GOP in the Senate, bringing them up to 52 after all the runoffs are settled. I can see a realistic path for 50-53, maybe 54, probably not outside that range unless the limited data we have is really inaccurate.

I'm really surprised the Dems chose to run Coakley in Massachusetts. This will be the second statewide campaign she has lost if she doesn't win the governorship.

 

[onejayhawk]

That sense of movement, if it comes from the aggregate polling-based predictors, may simply be a factor of the time expiring rather than a definite shift in the polling averages. Most of them have been centered around a 7-seat gain for the GOP in the Senate, bringing them up to 52 after all the runoffs are settled. I can see a realistic path for 50-53, maybe 54, probably not outside that range unless the limited data we have is really inaccurate.

I'm really surprised the Dems chose to run Coakley in Massachusetts. This will be the second statewide campaign she has lost if she doesn't win the governorship.

Don't for get Maine, where there is no election. Angus King will caucus with the majority. North Carolina could be the 54th. I doubt New Hampshire is the 55th, but it's the state to watch. They get early results. You will be able to see whether the Shaheen underperforms the polls or outperforms. If she loses, it will be a long night for the Democrats, but that is unlikely.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

It's the night before the day before, so time is short. The final polls are starting to roll in and it starts with a rock crusher.

The Des Moines Register publishes the most respected poll one of the most heavily polled places in the politics. The latest poll gives Joni Ernst (R) a 7% lead in Iowa. The impact of this poll was so great FiveThirtyEight jumped Ernst's chances 9% and the Republicans chances to 72%. This was one of the states the Democrats needed to win to retain control in the Senate, and Ernst is as conservative as they come.

If Iowa does go Republican, that gives them four flips in the bank--IA, SD, WV, MT--and over a 5% lead in AR. Nate Silver on the subject.

there were previously six Democratic-held seats where the polls came to a reasonably clear consensus that the Republican candidate was ahead. These included Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana and Colorado. (Colorado is the closest of the six, but Republican Cory Gardner has led in 15 of the past 17 nonpartisan polls.)

If you add Iowa to the list of likely Republican pickups, they’ll have more of a buffer if they lose some of their seats — such as Kansas (where recent polling has shown Republican incumbent Pat Roberts just slightly behind independent challenger Greg Orman) or Georgia (where Republican David Perdue’s standing has rebounded in recent polls but perhaps not by enough to avoid a runoff against Democrat Michelle Nunn). Nor will the GOP have to rely on Alaska, where the polling has been a little crazy.​

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/senate-update-polls-point-increasingly-to-republican-senate-win/

It is not over, but Iowa was a pivot point, which seems to be leaning Republican. The impact is such that 538 jumped to 72% likelihood the Republicans take the Senate. NYT is at 68%; KOS is at 78%, HuffPo is at 75%, Washington Post is at 96%. The holdout is Wang at Princeton who is "only" 65%.

Ideologically, this is also a big swing. Iowa is one of two really polarized elections, the other being Colorado. Ernst and Colorado's Cory Gardner are both strong conservatives running against strong liberals. Oddly, Kansas is high on the list without a Democrat on the ballot. Pat Roberts is so far right that modestly left Orman is far away ideologically. In comparison, the New Hampshire election is between two largely overlapping moderates.

We should know early if the Democrats have any chance in the Senate. New Hampshire is small and quickly counted. Jeanne Shaheen (D) has an aggregate 2.5% lead, in a densely polled state. If she wins by less than 1%, the polling had a modest Democrat lean. She needs to win by 4% or more to indicate the Democrats chances were underestimated. Kentucky is the Republican version of the same thing, but does not have the polling quantity or quality of NH.

State races may be more interesting when it comes to a vote. The gubernatorial races are wide open. RCP rates 12 races within 5%, 7 Republican and 5 Democrat. That's out of 36 up for election. Bot parties seem to have poached one seat. There rest is wide open. RCP no tossup map has the flips (3 each) and Alaska going independent. If there really is a Republican "wave" this is where it will prove--or not.

J

 

[Antilogic]

Don't for get Maine, where there is no election. Angus King will caucus with the majority. North Carolina could be the 54th. I doubt New Hampshire is the 55th, but it's the state to watch. They get early results. You will be able to see whether the Shaheen underperforms the polls or outperforms. If she loses, it will be a long night for the Democrats, but that is unlikely.

That report on Angus King did come from the tabloid gossip rag of politics aka Politico, and so it should be taken with a hearty helping of salt.

I was thinking of doing a proper set of predictions like we did for the 2012 presidential, but I'm too lazy to do so tonight. In short: I'll stick with the estimated net +7 (give or take 1) GOP in the Senate although we won't know for sure until the runoffs in GA and LA, I think I predicted the GOP picking up 8-10 in the House months ago and it still seems reasonable, and I think there will be a lot of turnovers on the gubernatorial side. Possibly record-setting.

 

[onejayhawk]

That report on Angus King did come from the tabloid gossip rag of politics aka Politico, and so it should be taken with a hearty helping of salt.

I was thinking of doing a proper set of predictions like we did for the 2012 presidential, but I'm too lazy to do so tonight. In short: I'll stick with the estimated net +7 (give or take 1) GOP in the Senate although we won't know for sure until the runoffs in GA and LA, I think I predicted the GOP picking up 8-10 in the House months ago and it still seems reasonable, and I think there will be a lot of turnovers on the gubernatorial side. Possibly record-setting.

Politico has its uses. That said, I fully expect him to do this. It is the best thing for his state.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

Sabato finally puts out his predictions:


http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-crystal-balls-final-2014-picks/

There are very much in line with Nate Silver (53 is the most likely outcome at 22%), NYT (51 plus Kansas either way and a R lean in Georgia), on down the line. Even the comparatively reserved Sam Wang has 51 as the most likely outcome.

Wang has another point which merits attention--institutional bias. Mid term polling is much less exacting than presidential year polling. While pollsters report some errors, others are not reported. For example, there is survey or surveyor error, which caused by question construction, order delivery, etc. Survey questions are not perfectly neutral and the person conducting the survey has an impact on the response. In 2008 and 2012 Rasmussen developed a reputation for overstating Republican chances. This year they may have over corrected, since Rasmussen tends to fall on the blue end of the spectrum.

There may be a systematic bias of the entire polling industry toward either party. If Democrat chances are understated, we could have a surprise come Wednesday morning. If Republicans are under represented, it will not matter much in the Senate, but the State races are another story. There are a great many close gubernatorial races. Here is Sabato's summary.



So both parties have a lot at stake.

J

 

[CaptainF]

Marilize Legaljuana!

 

[Cutlass]

In Connecticut's governor's race, looks like the 3rd party candidate, and Republican working with the Tea Party, has dropped out and endorsed the Republican nominee Foley. However, he waited until less than 48 hours before the election to do it. Polls last week had the Democrat and Republican in a dead heat, with the independent taking some votes from both, but more from the Republican. I think that dropping out so late will not change anything, as many of the people who would have voted for the 3rd party guy will still see his name on the ballot, it's too late to change it, and vote there anyways. So dropping out so late, many people won't even get the word that he has.

 

[onejayhawk]

I should have posted this earliet. 538 did an article on the close state races.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/one-day-left-the-most-competitive-races-for-governor/

Everything down to Illinois is closer than all but one Senate race, and there are more close Senate races than usual.

J

 

[Kaitzilla]

Today is voting day!

Remember, when you press Republican and the machine picks Democrat, don't let them give you any crap about the touch screen not being calibrated right.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

When you press Republican and the machine picks Democrat you're being outsmarted by a machine and you should go home and have a good long think about stuff.

Spoiler :

Kidding, of course!

Have fun practising democracy!

 

[onejayhawk]

Today is voting day!

Remember, when you press Republican and the machine picks Democrat, don't let them give you any crap about the touch screen not being calibrated right.

That won't work because the Democrats didn't design a screwed up ballot--this year.

J

 

[Antilogic]

That happens to Dems who have problems voting for their candidates instead of the GOP as well, it's a common technical issue with a particular type of touchscreen, and the butterfly ballot had nothing to do with that...

Whatever, I'm going to vote in an hour or so here on an extended lunch break.

 

[JollyRoger]

Is it wrong to push the Texas voter ID law to the limit to suppressmonitor the vote in one of the most conservative precincts in Texas?

 

[Antilogic]

Probably not, but it would end tragically when someone exercises his second amendment remedy against you.

 

[Samson]

A bit of a random question, but how many different positions do you vote for in these elections? I was over there last week, and saw a few houses with about 8 different election mini-poster things in their garden, and I saw this picture on the bbc site, and thought that does not look like a voting paper, it looks more like a newspaper!

 

[bhsup]

Totally depends on where you live. For example, in this current round here in Missouri, there are not any big statewide races whereas over in evil Kansas they have a lot of their statewide offices up for grabs this year. Then there are all of the ballot issues to be decided, local races, etc...

And remember, this is just one of the multiple elections we hold every year

 

[JollyRoger]

Voted for mainly Democrats, though in two judicial races, voted for the Republican because the incumbent Democrats are in my opinion not competent enough for the job.