Senate Election Overview
Welcome back once again to our ongoing pigeonholing exercise for this year's midterm Senate races. The big question, of course, is whether Republicans will pick up the six seats they need to wrest control of the chamber from the dastardly (according to them) Harry Reid and his Democratic minions. The answer to this pressing question is still not clear, and it actually may not be definitively answered until long after election night (for various interesting and wonky reasons).
Still, that doesn't stop the punditocracy ("wonkocracy," perhaps?) from making our predictions, so let's just dive in and make some rash and reckless prognostications, shall we? As always, in making these determinations I use the criteria of: news I've read about each race, all polling data available, and a good dose of common sense. That last one could also be read as "what my gut is telling me about each race," I fully admit.
The public is increasingly paying attention to each individual race, and in many states public debates have been held in the past week or so. Some races have firmed up as a result, and some are more chaotic than ever.
The current Senate stands at 45 Republicans and effectively 55 Democrats (counting in the two Independents who caucus with them). Because a tie vote is broken by Democratic Vice President Joe Biden, the Republicans need 51 seats to gain control of the chamber -- a net pickup of six seats. Throughout my categories, I will provide a running net total to see how close Republicans will come to achieving this goal, although the number of races which are totally up in the air precludes actually predicting whether it'll happen or not.
For those interested, my remarks below refer to my previous Senate overview column, from a few weeks ago. I use only five categories: Safe Democratic, Leaning Democratic, Too Close To Call, Leaning Republican, and Safe Republican. Any questions? Leave them in the comments, along with any disagreements you might have about which race belongs where.
Safe Republican
The list of Safe Republican states hasn't changed much: Alabama, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The only change here is that South Dakota moved down to Leaning Republican. More on that in a moment.
This starts Republicans with a net pickup of two seats (Montana and West Virginia) held by Democrats.
Safe Democratic
I'm going to go out on a limb and move New Hampshire into this category, because carpetbagger Scott Brown doesn't seem to be gaining any ground. The full list of Safe Democratic seats: Delaware, Hawai'i, Illinois, Oregon, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Virginia.
Some might argue my gut is being too optimistic about Michigan (as well as the inclusion of New Hampshire), but the news this week was that Republicans have very quietly cancelled all their last-minute ad buys because they think Michigan is now a lost cause for them. And who am I to argue?
However, none of these seats is currently in Republican hands, so this list represents no net gain or loss for Democrats in the Senate.
Leaning Republican
There was a lot of movement both in and out of this category this time around. Kentucky dropped down to Too Close To Call, while South Dakota was added, moving down from Safe Republican.
The race in Georgia remains very tight, and might even merit moving down to Too Close To Call next time around. The Republican was just caught in a cringe-worthy gaffe (where he extolled his personal experience outsourcing jobs to foreign countries), and then he essentially doubled down on his pro-outsourcing stance. This is not exactly a popular idea anywhere in America, so we'll see whether it improves Michelle Nunn's poll numbers in the next week or so.
Louisiana remains very close in the polling, but the Republican challenger to Mary Landrieu seems to be holding an edge. At this point, it has to be counted as Leaning Republican.
South Dakota is an interesting race because it has become a true three-way contest. Previously, the Republican was holding a big lead over the Democrat and the Independent was far behind, but recent polling shows the Independent moving up quickly, and one poll put his support higher than the Democrat's. However, both are still trailing the Republican, meaning at best the state has to be considered Leaning Republican. But anything can happen in the late days of a three-sided race, so it can't really be considered Safe Republican at this point.
If Republicans took all their leaning states, it would add two more takeovers (Louisiana and South Dakota) to their total, but it wouldn't put them over the top. They'd still be two states short of a Senate majority.
Leaning Democratic
The Leaning Democratic category shifted around a bit as well. New Hampshire moved up to Safe Democratic, Alaska moved down to Too Close To Call, and the special case of Kansas was added to this category (since it doesn't really belong anywhere else), up from Too Close To Call.
By the numbers, Colorado should probably be in Too Close To Call, but I'm more optimistic about Mark Udall's chances than perhaps I should be. It's been a tight race all year in the polling, but Udall seems to have retained an edge. In Colorado, as in many states, it's all going to come down to turnout. For now, I'm keeping it as Leaning Democratic, although admittedly a lot of that is just gut feeling.
Kansas doesn't really belong anywhere on this list, because there is no "Safe Independent" category. Since the dramatic exit of the Democratic candidate from this race, Greg Orman is beating Pat Roberts soundly in the polls. This is a breathtaking reversal of fortunes for Roberts, and has not changed much in the past few weeks. Of course, Orman refuses to say which party he'll caucus with if he wins, but at the very least this race is "leaning non-Republican" at the moment. A few more good polls, and it might even move up to "safe non-Republican" -- but that could all change after the election, if Orman does decide to caucus with Republicans after all.
North Carolina remains in this category, as Kay Hagen has held a small edge over her Republican challenger. If she manages to hold this lead, the Democrats will have won a very hard-fought race here. North Carolina is one of the states which have held candidate debates recently, so if any movement is going to happen (good or bad), look for it in the next week or so.
If Democrats win Colorado and North Carolina, if Greg Orman wins Kansas, and if (the biggest "if" in the list) Orman does caucus with the Democrats, they will have picked up one seat from Republicans. This brings our rolling total to a net of three Republican gains.
Too Close To Call
As always, this is the category with the most movement. Kansas moved upwards (this time around) to "leaning non-Republican," while Kentucky moved down from Leaning Republican and Alaska moved down from Leaning Democratic.
Up in Alaska, my gut still tells me Mark Begich is going to eke out a victory. Democrats have been spending a lot of "get out the vote" money here, and polling is notoriously unreliable in the state. However, the Republican has gotten a few good polls of late, so I have to bow to the numbers and classify the race as Too Close To Call, at least for the moment.
Arkansas is still incredibly close, as polls have been mixed (in some, the Republican has a tiny lead, in others Mark Pryor has a tiny lead). One interesting announcement from the campaign trail is that both Clintons, Bill and Hillary, will be stumping for Pryor in the coming days. The Clintons are still fondly remembered in Arkansas, so this may boost Pryor's numbers in the closing weeks. But it still remains one of the closest races in the country.
The other contender for closest race of 2014 is still Iowa, where Bruce Braley has been struggling but is still neck-and-neck with Joni Ernst. A scandal was recently announced (Ernst's husband getting government contracts while she was in a lower office), but it remains to be seen whether it'll affect the polling or not.
And, lastly, we have the race in Kentucky. Mitch McConnell has been up in the polls, and most everyone has called this race as either Leaning Republican or even Safe Republican, but Alison Lundergan Grimes just posted a lead over McConnell in the latest poll. This may be an outlier -- one poll showing a boost that doesn't actually exist -- but until this is made clear, the state has to be seen as Too Close To Call for now.
Assuming the lean and safe lists pan out, Republicans will have to win three out of these four races to capture control of the Senate from Harry Reid. If Democrats can manage to win any two of them (assuming Greg Orman from Kansas joins them), it would put control of the Senate out of reach for Republicans.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I got a campaign ad in the mail from Mitch McConnell (R) yesterday. I kid you not, it was a big For Sale sign. I will have to admit that that is the one thing that he has always been upfront about.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/senate-forecast/
John From Censornati -
Hey, can you send me an image of that?!?
I'll contact you via email, just in case you don't already have an address you can reach me at...
:-)
I'm thinking... Friday... I can fit that in SOMEwhere...
YoYoTheAssyrian -
56.4% is awfully close to "a coin toss would give you just as accurate information"... I'm just saying'...
:-)
-CW
"Hey, can you send me an image of that?!?"
I put it in the recycling bin and it's already gone, but I will see if I can scare up another in my neighborhood this afternoon.
I put it in the recycling bin and it's already gone, but I will see if I can scare up another in my neighborhood this afternoon.
TRANSLATION: "It never really happened except in my wet dream..."
:D
Just like JFC's non-existent quote from DHS....
I have finally learned how to tell EXACTLY when JFC is totally bullshitting....
He posts comments. :D
Considering all the bad news that is coming in that make Obama look like a weak fool and considering that no Democrat wants to be in the same city with Obama and considering that Obama has definitively stated that HIS "policies are all on the ballot".....
Considering all these FACTS I really have to wonder how ya'all can believe that control of the Senate is in doubt...
I guess Hope Springs Eternal, eh?? :D
Michale
Oh and let's not forget that, in the next month, hundreds of thousands of health insurance policies are going to be cancelled because they are not in compliance with TrainWreckCare....
Virginia is going to be the hardest hit with a quarter of a million policies being cancelled..
Bringing TrainWreckCare and Obama's LIE OF THE YEAR back to the forefront right before the midterm elections....
Again, save wishful thinking, there isn't ANY reason to think that the Demcorats will retain control of the Senate...
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news...
Well, no.. Not really.. :D
Michale
Just in case everyone has forgotten Obama's LIE OF THE YEAR..
"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period.If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period.No one will take it away. No matter what."
-President Barack Obama, 2009
Now, ya'all seem to think lying was a big deal back when ya'all accused Bush of lying even though Bush didn't really even lie...
I guess if the liar has a '-D' after the name, lying is perfectly acceptable...
Go figger... :D
Michale
Since I appear to be the only one around here who can back up my claims of facts with links.....
Obamacare Cancellations: Blame 'AV Drift'
realclearpolicy.com/blog/2014/10/08/obamacare_cancellations_blame_av_drift_1094.html
If You Like Your Plan, You Still Can't Keep It
There's another wave of Obamacare health plan cancellations on the way.
usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/09/22/under-obamacare-americans-will-continue-to-lose-coverage
Face the facts, people...
TrainWreckCare is an Edsel... Just like it's namesake creator...
Michale
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-tran/politics/election-lab-2014
Read 'em and weep, people... :D
I know, I know.. It's an outlier...
But if ya'all put all your eggs in the Kentucky outlier, I can gloat about this 94% chance outlier... :D
Speaking of Kentucky, ya'alls own HuffPoop gives McConnel a 63% chance of beating the proven liar Grimes...
It's gonna be a rout!!!!! :D
Michale
CW-
As always, I appreciate your connoisseurship in these matters. One, actually two minor quibbles...there are TWO South Carolina and TWO Oklahoma races. Granted all four are VERY safe Republican wins, but you need to include them all for scoring purposes.
As a helpful memory device, I always picture Steve Martin running around shouting Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma in the movie "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels".
WAPO Election Lab doesn't include the extra SC and OK in their summary tabulation page, which as anybody who bothers to read my crap knows, drives me nuts. By the way Election lab now calls the race decided at greater than .99 probability of a Republican senate. That's going way out on a rotten limb IMHO, even if it doesn't exactly make them dirty rotten scandals. Misguided? I guess the "greater than" sign makes them look less of a prat should the race break Democratic, but.....
Just for fun, I've run your picks through my obscure Quick and Dirty Rank Ordered Model. Put the CW picks in order, starting with the Safe DEM, then the Lean Dem, then Too Close to Call, Lean REP and finally Safe REP. Since the QUICK and Dirty model evaluates the overall likelihood of senate control in terms of BLUE probabilities (RED are just BLUE-1) I've converted CW categories into the following QUALITATIVE BLUE probabilities.
HIGHLY PROBABLE, BETTER THAN EVEN, TOSS UP, LESS THAN EVEN, NEAR IMPOSSIBLE.
Fair enough?
Putting the state races in descending order of categorical probability, there are a dozen states in the HIGHLY PROBABLE category which means the DEMS are highly likely to win at least 12 states. There are 3 states in the less likely category, so DEMS have a better than even chance of winning 3 plus twelve equals 15 states, which is still a loss of senate control. There are 4 states in the TOSS UP Category, meaning DEMS have a roughly 50/50 chance of winning at least 4+3+12=19 states, which gives allows them to retain senate control (with caucus assumptions). DEMS have a less than even chance of winning at least 26 seats, which would actually amount to a blowout victory, but less than even is a pretty vague term. The chances of winning all the races is clearly nearly impossible.
All in all, the Quick and Dirty summary of the CW rankings imply that DEMS have a somewhat better than even chance of retaining senate control. An optimistic outlier, but not by that much. Not bad for chunked data, but it's very knife edged. Change things a little, and things look a lot different.
All in all, the Quick and Dirty summary of the CW rankings imply that DEMS have a somewhat better than even chance of retaining senate control.
You sound like Karl Rove saying that Romney will win the 2012 POTUS Election.. :D
There is no poll on the planet that gives Democrats a 50% chance of keeping the Senate...
While your process is intricate and chock full of stats and explanations, the simple fact is there is nothing to substantiate the claims..
It's like me explaining to you that I actually have 11 fingers... My explanation is compelling and it SOUNDS great...
But it's readily apparent that I don't really have more than 10 fingers.. :D
Michale
By the way Election lab now calls the race decided at greater than .99 probability of a Republican senate.
Still at 94% as far as I can see...
But if you are so sure that Democrats have a better than even chance of retaining control of the Senate, surely you can make a wager without any special considerations???
Straight up or down shot...
Dems keep the Senate...
Dems lose the Senate...
Any takers?? :D
Michale
TheStig -
Good point about OK and SC, but isn't one of those SC races the one where Dems didn't even field a candidate? Anyway, I'll include them next time, mea culpa for the omission.
Michale -
I'll bet that the Republican who is running without a Dem challenger is going to win his race. How's that?
:-)
As for who is getting worried, take a look at this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/late-season-surprises-shake-gop-confidence-in-senate-elections/2014/10/08/66499c1c-4ef4-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html
-CW
Michale -
Here's another one, from a total right-winger:
http://nypost.com/2014/10/07/why-democrats-may-keep-the-senate/
-CW
@ CW
I suppose I should have written an actual comment, but mainly I just thought the fivethirtyeight forecast should also be included in the discussion.
I'll bet that the Republican who is running without a Dem challenger is going to win his race. How's that?
Do you think the Democrats will retain control of the Senate???
As to Orman and Kansas???
Orman is quoted as saying he would relax the Dodd-Frank regulations.....
How do you like Orman now???
http://nypost.com/2014/10/07/why-democrats-may-keep-the-senate/
Yes... I'll readily admit.. The Democrat **MAY** keep the Senate... But the odds are against it...
But I am willing to put my wallet where my mouth is... :D
Michale
All I am asking is this:
Is ANYONE so sure of their ideology that they are ready to state for the record that the Demcorats will keep the Senate and to back up that claim with some fundraising...
*I* am sure enough of my facts to do so...
Is anyone else??
That's all I am saying...
Michale
I also notice that no one wants to tackle the TrainWreckCare aspect of the upcoming mid-terms...
Do I smell concession in the air?? :D
Michale
But if you are so sure that Democrats have a better than even chance of retaining control of the Senate, surely you can make a wager without any special considerations???
"i'm your huckleberry"
~val kilmer - Tombstone
i will get a pro-republican t-shirt from my father in law (staunch republican), wear it to work if the dems lose the senate, and send CW a photo of it on me. i'm not quite as bold as you were in '12, so i'd be forthright about it being a lost wager.
JL
M - 11
Intricate? You find notebook paper, a pencil , a column of states, and a column of probabilities intricate? All my model does is quickly generate the probability of winning elections, given somebody else's state by state estimates, and without the need of computer simulations. My quick and dirty model usually agrees quite closely with well known senate forecasters - NYT, 538, WAPO, HUFFPO. Across the range of optimists to pessimists. Even on-line bookmakers (2012 pres election).
You don't like the result? Then blame CW, it derives from his considered state by state probabilities, evaluated without fear or favor by a fixed procedure, presented transparently. That and the fact too close to call is generally interpreted in an election context as 50:50 , coin toss, p=0.5. Given the CW breakdown, the model says the probability of Dems winning at least 16 seats is Too Close to Call = 0.5.
Still don't like my model? Write your own, implement it, populate it, benchmark it, post it and defend it.
Nobody calls the the senate race 50:50? I think CW more or less did, even if he wasn't, explicit about it. I'm sure he'll correct me if
I'm wrong.
Actually, it would be interesting to know what probability of victory range CW would assign to Safe. To Lean, and to Too Close to Call.
M - 17
Nope. My evaluation of the evidence leads me to believe the probability of Dems retaining senate control is somewhere around 0.4. Even odds is a bad bet. Betting is one thing, fundraising another. Mixing them cheapens both. Like rum and coke. I'm in for reasoned debate, not fraternity house chest bumping.
You don't like the result? Then blame CW, it derives from his considered state by state probabilities, evaluated without fear or favor by a fixed procedure, presented transparently. That and the fact too close to call is generally interpreted in an election context as 50:50 , coin toss, p=0.5. Given the CW breakdown, the model says the probability of Dems winning at least 16 seats is Too Close to Call = 0.5.
All I am saying is that you make a fascinating, compelling and accurate sounding case...
It's just not in keeping with the reality that ALL polls and predictions are making...
Having said that, you COULD be right.. That's more of concession than I have ever gotten from rank and file Weigantians... :D
Michale
i will get a pro-republican t-shirt from my father in law (staunch republican), wear it to work if the dems lose the senate, and send CW a photo of it on me.
Awww, I was hoping to see ya in it!!
OK, that sounded weird.. :D
i'm not quite as bold as you were in '12, so i'd be forthright about it being a lost wager.
If only more rank and file Weigantians would have your gumption.. I would be a lot less frustrated around here.. :D
Michale
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/09/40-painful-seconds-of-alison-lundergan-grimes-refusing-to-say-whether-she-voted-for-president-obama/
Looks like Lundergan Grimes stepped on her wee-wee again...
How ya'all can even THINK to hope that Dems will take Kentucky is beyond me....
How the hell can the people of Kentucky think that ALG can be a competent leader when she can't even answer a simple question honestly and truthfully???
Michale
Wapo is up to 95% chance that the GOP will own the Senate 52-45...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-tran/politics/election-lab-2014
Of course, this may change before election day.. At one point, it was down to 51% chance for the GOP...
But so high a percentage so close to the mid-term???
I don't think anyone here REALLY believes that the Dems will keep control of the Senate...
Hay CW, you going to be doing live blogging on Election Day??? :D
Michale
Awww, I was hoping to see ya in it!!
for that you'd have to come to new york, AND the republicans would still have to actually win. should the democrats retain the senate, what will you do for your part of the wager?
JL
for that you'd have to come to new york,
You buyin' the beer?? :D
AND the republicans would still have to actually win
Don't think that's gonna be a problem.. :D
should the democrats retain the senate, what will you do for your part of the wager?
I am open to suggestions...
Michale
After Orman's crappy performance in the latest debate against Pat Roberts, the race has tilted in favor of Roberts....
I am also constrained to point out that Kansas has sent a Republican to the Senate since the 1930s... There is really no reason to think that will change..
Orman tried to wear the clothing of an Independent, but it's clear from his answers in the debate and from his past that he is an Obama Democrat.....
The people of Kansas are now realizing this, which is why Roberts is now favored in the race...
Michale
The idea of -- I'm sorry even to say you regret your vote that would almost seem as disingenuous. But that is -- can Kentuckyians expect {Allison Lundgran Greene} to cast a tough vote on anything? Is she ever going to answer a tough question on anything? You want to be a U.S. Senator? If you can't say -- if you can't find a way to stand behind your party's president, you can disagree with him but can't answer that basic question and come across looking ridiculous. I think she disqualified herself.
-Chuck Todd, Moderator MEET THE PRESS
Between what her staffers were caught on tape saying and her dismal performance in this recent debate??
Stick a fork in ALG.... She's done....
Kentucky goes to McConnell..
Michale
Having subjected CW.com to an unsolicited "implied probability analysis, I move on to Real Clear Politics, which produces a similar map, but slightly more fine grained with 7 possible outcomes:
safe D, likely D, lean D, toss up, lean R, likely R safe R.
RCP is pretty noncommittal, lots of toss ups, which I equate with a fair coin throw, p =0.5
RCP Implied Probability of DEMS retaining control is a coin toss. In fact, the Implied Probability of DEMS winning 19 states is also 0.5. The latter is much at odds with the more fine grained models I track. That's the price of a coarse grained qualitative analysis.
Looking at things from the Republican side, the implied probability of winning at least 24 states is also 0.5 Also very much at odds with fine grained forecasts.
Once again, I suggest that map driven pundits would gain a lot by stating perceived probability ranges for all their categories, but especially the toss up, which should probably be considered as at a minimum spread of 47%-53%, based on pure polling sampling error considerations.
Here's the take from Electionprojection.com a Republican leaning, map driven site recommended by the Electoral Vote.com, which is linked to CW.com.
Election projection uses 8 qualitative victory probabilities.
Solid D, Strong D, Moderate D, Weak D, Weak R, Mod R,Strong R, Solid D R.
No Toss Ups! NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL FORECASTIN' said in my best Scots accent!
The implied qualitative probability falls in the weak Republican Victory class, the implied qualitative probability of winning at least 21 states according to the QandD model. I'm sure what fraction equates with "Weak" but I would hope the owner of the Election Projection could give us his perceived range of values. If not, I'd ask him why not?
I put this analysis in to keep Michael from exploding, but I'm not sure it will do that.
You buyin' the beer?? :D
if you show up in NYC, i will absolutely buy the beer, and craft beer at that, regardless of the outcome of our wager. as to your part should the dems retain control of the senate, how about you wear a shirt in support of democrats?
JL
The chatbot is posting fact-free GOP talking points again.
FYI y'all - there have been exactly zero debates in the KY senate race, but there will be one on Monday.
In addition, nobody outside of the cancervative bubble has heard of or cares about James O'Keefe's video. Coal will not be a deciding factor. Everybody knows that Dems are in favor of environmental protection and the GOP are union busters. Coal miners have also heard of fracking and natural gas. Hillbillies are not quite as stupid as the GOP propagandists seem to think they are.
Nor will not answering questions be decisive since neither of them will answer questions (thus far).
This will be decided by turnout which does not favor ALG. Bill Clinton is still popular in KY and
he's a friend of ALG's daddy. We'll see how many voters he can turn out for her and how many Rant Paul (R) can turn out for the King of Crony Capitalism. Rant and Jesse Benton will surely be holding their noses while they campaign.
I may have to vote for David Patterson (L). He didn't get to participate, of course. I actually assume ALG's telling the truth about her coal cheerleading and that turns me off and it pisses me off that once again MM was allowed to slide by w/o explaining his unexplainable Obamacare position. I hope that the thing on KET is an improvement. I'm tired of talking points, but I won't get to watch. Going to a funeral.
I'm on the ropes, so I won't have any FTP suggestions this weekend.
The chatbot is posting fact-free GOP talking points again.
Once again, JFC proves he has no idea what he is talking about.. :D
Surprised to see it's ONE comment he hasn't played with his race cards...
FYI y'all - there have been exactly zero debates in the KY senate race, but there will be one on Monday.
So concentrated on the minituea to salvage yer decimated reputation, eh son?? :D
So it wasn't a debate per se, but rather an appearance before an editorial board..
Big whoopdee doo...
The simple fact is, she refused to own up that she voted for Obama. A very rookie mistake..
Chuck Todd called it... Stick a fork in ALG. She is done..
You want to make a wager on the Kentucky race, son?? Are you that sure of your facts???
Jeeze, look who I am asking about facts..
Still waiting to see that McConnell mailing you claimed you received...
:D
Michale
JL,
as to your part should the dems retain control of the senate, how about you wear a shirt in support of democrats?
Sounds fair to me. I'll even let you pick out the shirt.. :D
Michale
JFC,
I'm on the ropes, so I won't have any FTP suggestions this weekend.
Yea, sorry about that... But yer just too damn easy of a target.. :D
Michale
JFC,
Just in case you were wondering about the link.. Ya know.. LINKS.. Something YOU never provide...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/09/40-painful-seconds-of-alison-lundergan-grimes-refusing-to-say-whether-she-voted-for-president-obama/
How can Kentuckians trust a Senator who can't even answer a simple question??? Who won't take a stand on anything?? Who says whatever she has to say to get elected???
Fact is, they can't....
That is why ALG is going to lose...
If you think I am wrong... Make a wager. Put yer money where yer considerable mouth is....
No??? Didna think so....
Michale
Turnout fears mount for Dems
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/220469-turnout-fears-mount-for-democrats
What have I been saying for over a year now???
That the 2014 Midterms are going to make the Great Democrat Shellacking Of 2010 seem like a family picnic by comparison..
Looks like things are shaping up to be proven dead on ballz accurate...
I promise I won't gloat... TOO much... :D
Michale
I'm sure what fraction equates with "Weak" but I would hope the owner of the Election Projection could give us his perceived range of values. If not, I'd ask him why not?
Interesting that you would say this..
Why, exactly would you want his data and process??
I put this analysis in to keep Michael from exploding, but I'm not sure it will do that.
Oh, I never explode... I just either gloat or sulk.. :D
But I do like the Election Projection website.. It's neat and concise and really lays it out.. The fact that it also re-enforces my own projections is simply icing on the cake.. :D
Michale
"Why, exactly would you want his data and process??"
I don't want all of his data and process, just his belief of what his categories signify in terms of probabilities. Given this, my QDM model spits out a probability range of overall victory.
Example:
Strong D = 100% P Dems Win State (PDWS)
With this data,
Solid D = 99% - 80% PDWS
Moderate D = 79% - 60% PDWS
Weak D =59% - 50% PDWS
Weak R 50% - 41% PDWS
Moderate R 40% - 21% PDWS
Solid R 20%-1% PDWS
Strong R 0% PDWS
With this hypothetical set of author generated probability ranges, the somewhat nebulous QDM projection of "weak Rep victory" becomes 50%-41% chance of Dems retaining the senate and 50% - 59% of Reps taking over.
This allows a more meaningful comparison with quantitative forecasts like 538, HUFFPOL, WAPO and NYT, or gambling odds. Moreover, it forces the proprietor of a qualitative site to seriously reconsider the implications of how his or her categories are structured. Especially if categories are based on aggregated leads in the polls. Aggregated poll leads plus or minus something are not equivalent to probabilities of winning a state, plus or minus something.
I would hope qualitative pollsters like the redoubtable CW would latch on, so I throw the notion out to the blogosphere.
So, if you have his data and his process, you can determine the accuracy of his data and replicate his process to determine if the the theory is sound..
So, say, if this owner is reticent to give you his data parameters, you could discern that he might be hiding something fishy...
I completely agree.... :D
I guess we'll know in a little over 2 weeks how right he is, eh?? :D
Michale
M-43
My model will flag internal inconsistencies between state by state predictions vs the overall national prediction. I don't need all the data, or all the process for that. I wouldn't have time to wade through it.
The three examples I analyzed where All internally consistent, two gave a grand prediction of "too close to call" and one gave a prediction "weak (=slight?)Rep favorite." All were well within the mainstream of prognostication. Which I currently read as trending 60% chance of Republican control, subject to change without much notice. I haven't even bothered to look today for updates.
The main advantages of defining categories in terms of probabilities is greater clarity and more precise comparisons between different prognosticators. I think the exercise of assigning perceived probabilities to their subjective classes would be illuminating.