The 2014 Battle for the Senate

[Arles]

So... Chris Christie?
He's come out pretty strong against gay marriage and has chanced his stance to be pretty heavily prolife (even though he was more pro-choice a while back). He's also opposed to legalizing marijuana for recreational use. Sports betting is the only thing I mentioned above that he's in favor of. That said, I think his beliefs are a good direction for the republican party to move towards, but I can't see him ever being a legit candidate given how much clowning he's already gotten nationally over the past few years.

[Arles]

It's just not feasible because the religious right and liberal left are who fund campaigns and have "zealot supporters" to GOTV and volunteer - but it would really be a nice option to have a 3rd party who tended to be more socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I think a lot of people would gravitate to those ideas, but they will never make it out of the primaries in the current two party system as the religious conservative or liberal democrat will always get more funding/boots within each party.

[Buccaneer]

Cuervo, part of it could be that the same scientists that are showing a warming trend have also shown previous warming trends throughout earth's and human history.

[ISiddiqui]

Christie was pretty strong against gay marriage? He was super pro-civil unions and then dropped his challenge to gay marriage once the Court of Appeals voted it was unconstitutional (ie, he didn't fight it all the way). I mean that's like as middle ground as you are going to get on gay marriage for Republicans.

[ISiddiqui]

it would really be a nice option to have a 3rd party who tended to be more socially liberal and fiscally conservative

Isn't that the Libertarian Party?

To be honest, the 3rd Party that I think would REALLY get votes would be one that is Socially Conservative (or at least Socially Moderate) and Fiscally Liberal. Those folks aren't represented at all, so they tend to vote Republican because the social conservativism is that important to them (a lot of Conservative Christians are actually in this camp).

[Arles]

He vetoed a bill for gay marriage and was pretty outspoken against it when he stopped his court battle:
NASHVILLE — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said Saturday that the GOP shouldn’t stop debating same-sex marriage, despite shifting national attitudes and a string of court decisions that have overturned gay marriage bans.

“I don’t think there’s some referee who stands up and says, ‘OK, now it’s time for you to change your opinion,’” he told reporters at a gathering of the National Governors Association in Nashville. “The country will resolve this over a period of time. But do I think it’s resolved? No.”

Still, he added, the issue is “settled” in New Jersey, unless there’s an unexpected change in the state’s solidly Democratic legislature.

Christie, who opposes same-sex marriage, drew flak from conservatives for deciding to halt a court battle over the issue last year. He said Saturday that he made the call because he would have lost anyway.

“When I know that I’ve been defeated, you don’t bang your head against the wall anymore and spend taxpayer money to do it,” said Christie, a potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate.

The governor said the issue should be left to the states, noting that “an overwhelming majority of states currently still ban same-sex marriage.”
He certainly is more of a pragmatist than most republicans and, as I said, I think he's a step in the right direction on many issues. But you are kidding yourself if you think he would sign a bill passed in New Jersey tomorrow legalizing gay marriage. There's no chance.

[Arles]

Isn't that the Libertarian Party?
I find myself agreeing with some libertarian candidates, but they are often too "rip the bandaid off now and deal with the pain" on fiscal issues. They also super bare bones on social spending - which I think also goes too far. But, if they could ever come out with a charismatic leader and a somewhat clear message nationally, I think many people would be interested. The problem now is that the libertarian message is very local/regional and they haven't tied it all together well.

To be honest, the 3rd Party that I think would REALLY get votes would be one that is Socially Conservative (or at least Socially Moderate) and Fiscally Liberal. Those folks aren't represented at all, so they tend to vote Republican because the social conservativism is that important to them (a lot of Conservative Christians are actually in this camp).
That sounds exactly like the current republican party. Anti-Gay marriage, Anti-abortion, spend a ton of money on crap and (when in power) view budgets as a light guideline :D If you are a socially conservative person and fiscally liberal - outside of maybe having higher taxes on corporations - I'm not sure what you can complain about with this current set of republicans in Washington.

[Warhammer]

I think people are ignoring John Kasich at their own peril. He just won re-election in Ohio (still considered a bellweather state) by 30 points.

Agreed.

[ISiddiqui]

Not entirely sure I could call the current GOP fiscally liberal when they are against raising the minimum wage, want to cut food stamps, are against expanding Medicaid, etc.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Isn't that the Libertarian Party?

To be honest, the 3rd Party that I think would REALLY get votes would be one that is Socially Conservative (or at least Socially Moderate) and Fiscally Liberal. Those folks aren't represented at all, so they tend to vote Republican because the social conservativism is that important to them (a lot of Conservative Christians are actually in this camp).

I really don't know if any 3rd would garner anything past 10% at this point (which, granted, would be an excellent and influential showing) but you do raise an interesting point about that missing combination. I'm not sure the last time I even heard that point on the spectrum mentioned in a discussion.

[ISiddiqui]

But you are kidding yourself if you think he would sign a bill passed in New Jersey tomorrow legalizing gay marriage. There's no chance.

Are there any Republican Governors who would sign a bill legalizing gay marriage? I doubt it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Saw a darned good quote on Twitter last night, from @Iowahawkblog, one that I think is extremely important for celebratory conservatives today.

"This isn't a mandate for Republicans, it's a restraining order on Democrats"

I have few -- very few -- expectations for much positive change over the next two years. I just hope the bleeding can be stopped.

If that turns out to be the case I wonder how the absence of specific accomplishments (other than preventing further mistakes) will impact the perception & enthusiasm of conservative voters.

[Coffee Warlord]

Isn't that the Libertarian Party?

Effectively yes, but like most minor parties, they tend to drift to the extremes.

[Arles]

Not entirely sure I could call the current GOP fiscally liberal when they are against raising the minimum wage, want to cut food stamps, are against expanding Medicaid, etc.
Those are more socially liberal stances - min wage and food stamps especially. I'd be interested in how people who are against gay marriage and against abortion are also for a higher minimum wage and want to increase food stamps. Heck, you can throw in Obama care too. I would expect someone in that camp to be as rare as Big Foot in this current climate.

[Coffee Warlord]

Not entirely sure I could call the current GOP fiscally liberal when they are against raising the minimum wage, want to cut food stamps, are against expanding Medicaid, etc.

Fiscally liberal in the sense that they love spending money. Neither major party has any idea what restraint is when it comes to spending - they just tend throw money at different things. I view "fiscally conservative" as a platform of curbing spending, not "spending on traditionally conservative areas."

[Butter]

The Democrats lack a group of candidates with statewide name recognition in Ohio. There was not a GOP candidate up for statewide office that didn't win by at least 15 points. I don't give Kasich much credit for his margin of victory so much as blame dems for nominating a bunch of nobodies with no charisma and no shot.

[Arles]

Fiscally liberal in the sense that they love spending money. Neither major party has any idea what restraint is when it comes to spending - they just tend throw money at different things. I view "fiscally conservative" as a platform of curbing spending, not "spending on traditionally conservative areas."
Agreed. In a nutshell, I'd like to see a group or party based on fiscal responsibility and sticking to budgets - while also being more tolerant of gay marriage and abortion. I've always felt the "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" stance was more consistent (as is the reverse). To, on one hand, want the government heavily involved with what consenting adults do in the bedroom or use the government to stop a 16-year old kid in a poor area from having an abortion (which may be in the best interest of her and the state) - but then state how the government should "stay off my lawn" when it comes to guns, taxes and health care seems inconsistent to me.

To be fair, I also certainly understand how many religious conservatives take issue with my stance on issues in that I tend to adhere to "traditional values" on financial issues but throw them out when it comes to social issues. But, I think there's a certain consistency in saying "hey, I don't want the government getting overly involved in people's bedrooms, personal health decisions, overtaxing or restricting other freedoms like gun use and even a little pot use".

[ISiddiqui]

Those are more socially liberal stances - min wage and food stamps especially.

Minimum wage or food stamps aren't necessarily social issues. They are fiscal issues. You need to pay for them. Most folks consider fiscally liberal to partially be using the government to help pay for liberal causes.

I'd be interested in how people who are against gay marriage and against abortion are also for a higher minimum wage and want to increase food stamps. Heck, you can throw in Obama care too. I would expect someone in that camp to be as rare as Big Foot in this current climate.

An absolute TON of church going Christians. I knew plenty of folks who thought expanding health care was a great idea, but would never vote for someone who was pro-choice.

Heck look at polling done with Catholics. Most of them are for liberal causes such as min wage increases, food stamps, etc. but are against liberalization on gay marriage and abortion.

[molson]

Most amusing result locally was a woman who plagiarized her opponent on her campaign website was elected state superintendent of schools.

[cuervo72]

Cuervo, part of it could be that the same scientists that are showing a warming trend have also shown previous warming trends throughout earth's and human history.

Sure, global temperatures have risen and fallen naturally. I think it's a little naive (if not dangerous) to discount though that hey - we've added a variable to this system, and that we can't have some bearing on the baseline of that cycle.

[Easy Mac]

There was a vote on a 1 cent sales tax increase in our county that failed miserably. I attribute it mainly to:

A) It was intended to fix roads, but also stated the money could also be used for any purpose.
B) An "oversight" in the writing forgot to note that the tax did not include groceries, which are currently untaxed. They stated that they would try to change the language if it was passed so groceries would not be taxed.

I've enjoyed reading comments about how people are glad it failed, and it signals that we don't want big government.

Isn't a local tax the entire point of small government advocates, that people governing in their own small sphere is the best way to govern?

[JonInMiddleGA]

There was a vote on a 1 cent sales tax increase in our county that failed miserably.

OMG, you mean there are voters somewhere with enough sense to do that?
Down here that's like the never-ending perpetual money faucet, the success rate on renewal is absurdly high.

[ISiddiqui]

I only wish that was true, JIMG.

I'm still pissed over the TSPLOST's failure.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm still pissed over the TSPLOST's failure.

One of the greatest voter victories in Georgia in my lifetime afaic. Rarely do you see so many disparate interests united so thoroughly.

To be fair though, I was thinking of county level SPLOSTs, that particular measure didn't even cross my mind this morning.

[Easy Mac]

OMG, you mean there are voters somewhere with enough sense to do that?
Down here that's like the never-ending perpetual money faucet, the success rate on renewal is absurdly high.

I think this one was just so poorly written that its opponents had a field day shooting it down. Plus, you can't tax groceries around here. I'd wager that if they tried again next year with just that fix, it will pass.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think this one was just so poorly written that its opponents had a field day shooting it down. Plus, you can't tax groceries around here. I'd wager that if they tried again next year with just that fix, it will pass.

And if that's the case, will of the voters & all, cool.

I'm just impressed to see an electorate that will turn one of those down instead of going "oh well, I guess it's for the children" (or whatever). Rarely seems to be the case here.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm really happy Rauner won. We need some balance in this state.

Is Madigan still Speaker? Then you'll see no change. Illinois has one of the weakest (constitutionally) gubernatorial offices in the nation.

Pretty depressing night. Not how I wanted to start my career.

Look at it this way - things can only get better! :D

I worry that you're correct. Obama has incentive to come to the table now. But not if he gets bill after bill that he pretty much has no choice but to veto.

Obama's been coming to the table since he was first elected. The problem has been either the two sides of the GOP have been having a fight in the revolving door leading to the table, or McConnell's had it locked up tight so no one could get in.

I voted, but I get people that didn't. I follow politics pretty closely and I have no idea what the Dems want to do. Imagine your thoughts if you only see a bunch of negative ads. What was exciting about voting for any Dem yesterday?

At least a lot of the GOP candidates were promising their voters things that excited them.

I think this is a great point. Listening to acceptance speeches this morning from Walker & LePage, it struck me that the Republicans have got populist rhetoric down pat. If you were to listen to them without context, it would be hard not to be at least a little inspired or interested.

Compare this to most Democratic politicians who are either wonks, activists or Clinton-esque "third way" folks without Clinton's charisma.

Someone on, I think, 538 pointed out a number of Democratic senatorial candidates who did everything they could to avoid talking about ACA for fear it would be used against them, and lost anyway.

[JPhillips]

Someone on, I think, 538 pointed out a number of Democratic senatorial candidates who did everything they could to avoid talking about ACA for fear it would be used against them, and lost anyway.

This drives me crazy. Once you vote for it, you better own it.

"I voted for it, but I'd like it changed or replaced or maybe kept, but..."

If a voter hates something they won't vote for the guy that helped pass it, but now is wishy-washy about it.

[Galaril]

How Hillary Clinton won the 2014 midterms - Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/how-hillary-clinton-won-the-2014-midterms-075943434.html)

[Buccaneer]

Reading up some more. I was struck the the Denver Post endorsed Rep Gardner for senate and Boston Globe endorsed the Rep Gov.

[Buccaneer]

JPhillips, it seems more important to vote with your caucus than to have an independent thought because it seems many votes are taken for political purposes (to be used for or against in attack ads).

[flere-imsaho]

Hey MBBF!

The Polls Were Skewed Toward Democrats | FiveThirtyEight (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-were-skewed-toward-democrats/)

[Solecismic]

Taking a quick look at the 2016 Senate climate:

For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume it's 54-46 R going into the next election.

34 seats are up, barring retirements. Of these, 24 are R.

So it will be a 36-30 D baseline

I'd rate 22 of these seats as safe, 15 R and 7 D, because of the state and/or past election results. That makes it 45-43 R.

That leaves 12 seats up for grabs. Nine of those are held by Republicans.

Two seats - Nevada and Washington, will lean D. Reid and Murray have had tough elections, but strong bases. Reid may well retire.

Six seats - Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, New Hampshire and North Carolina, will lean R. I assume McCain is retiring. Rubio is popular, but Florida is always competitive. In Indiana you have a freshman who replaced a popular Democrat. Vitter won easily in a semi-red state, but it was ugly. Ayotte is popular, but New Hampshire is semi-blue. North Carolina is also always competitive. Those six seats are all weaker leans than the above seats, and will be prime Democratic targets.

Four seats - Colorado, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - will be very competitive. Republicans hold the latter three, and these are blue states.

If the political climate shifts a few points, control of the Senate will definitely be up for grabs in 2016. The Republicans will be playing almost exclusive defense. Even in a great year for them, they wouldn't be expected to gain seats.

[chesapeake]

Two seats - Nevada and Washington, will lean D. Reid and Murray have had tough elections, but strong bases. Reid may well retire.

Murray had a bit of a close race in 2010, but only because it was an awful, awful year for everyone. Other than that, her races have been cakewalks. What bench the GOP has in WA will line up for the governor's race against Inslee, not for Murray's seat.

[lungs]

Will the Democrats make use of the filibuster in a manner similar to the Republicans lately?

[SFL Cat]

Not if the GOP keeps the Democrat nuclear option in place.

[SFL Cat]

Charles Krauthammer on 2014 Midterms: [Obama] played as the puzzled observer. He was asked about the meaning of the election, and he said “I’ll leave to others the reading of tea leaves.” Was this really a subtle result? Was this sort of complicated and nuanced? This was the worst wall-to-wall, national, unmistakable, unequivocal shellacking that you will ever see in a midterm election, and it happened on just about every level. You’ve got in the House the Republicans now have the largest majority since 1929.

In the Senate, the Democrats have lost seven, probably nine, and by huge margins, McConnell is supposed to be neck-and-neck, he won by 15 points, Arkansas 18 points. And then the — the one excuse the Republicans have is “well this election was played on their home turf, on red turf.” Well, you know, Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois are not exactly red states. All of them elected, shockingly, Republican governors. “The Economist” called this a massacre and Obama says, “I don’t read tea leaves,” and remember, what he said about the election. It’s about his policies, everywhere, every single one. Of course it was about him, of course it was his ideology and the execution of his leadership. This was a wall-to-wall rejection of Obama-ism and he pretended that this was an election that didn’t have a lot of meaning because two-thirds of the electorate didn’t show up.

[SFL Cat]

This is my new favorite.

Polling in the Virginia Senate race was off, therefore, global warming is a hoax.

The other day, John Kerry said even if the U.S. completely quit fossil fuels, it would be too late to change global warming, or climate change, or whatever it's being called these days...so if that's the case, I guess we should just live comfortably until the end, no?

[ISiddiqui]

Considering Obama won two landslides as President and the GOP pretended that it never happened, I think he's allowed this ;).

[stevew]

What happens if a supreme court justice dies? I'm guessing everyone will be filibustered. Can the court exist with only 8 members for a year or more?

[Galaril]

Charles Krauthammer on 2014 Midterms: [Obama] played as the puzzled observer. He was asked about the meaning of the election, and he said “I’ll leave to others the reading of tea leaves.” Was this really a subtle result? Was this sort of complicated and nuanced? This was the worst wall-to-wall, national, unmistakable, unequivocal shellacking that you will ever see in a midterm election, and it happened on just about every level. You’ve got in the House the Republicans now have the largest majority since 1929.

In the Senate, the Democrats have lost seven, probably nine, and by huge margins, McConnell is supposed to be neck-and-neck, he won by 15 points, Arkansas 18 points. And then the — the one excuse the Republicans have is “well this election was played on their home turf, on red turf.” Well, you know, Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois are not exactly red states. All of them elected, shockingly, Republican governors. “The Economist” called this a massacre and Obama says, “I don’t read tea leaves,” and remember, what he said about the election. It’s about his policies, everywhere, every single one. Of course it was about him, of course it was his ideology and the execution of his leadership. This was a wall-to-wall rejection of Obama-ism and he pretended that this was an election that didn’t have a lot of meaning because two-thirds of the electorate didn’t show up.

Well the most frightening thing noted in your quote I bolded. So what happened in 1929 and preceded the Great Depression in 1930? Hmm oh yeah the stock market crash😁

[JPhillips]

Not if the GOP keeps the Democrat nuclear option in place.

Do you have any idea what changed about the filibuster? Appointees and federal judges were approved with a 51 vote majority. That's the only change. With a Dem president the GOP wouldn't ever use that change.

[JPhillips]

Just saw that national turnout was 36.6%

That's the lowest since WW2. Hooray for billions in negative advertising.

[flere-imsaho]

I'd rate 22 of these seats as safe, 15 R and 7 D, because of the state and/or past election results. That makes it 45-43 R.


I'm going to assume you're considering Angus King (I-ME) a safe seat (and you would be correct) and counting him as a "D" for these purposes?

[flere-imsaho]

Just saw that national turnout was 36.6%

And people wonder why the GOP has incentive to suppress voter turnout.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just saw that national turnout was 36.6%

Since the figures match, I assume you either saw this story (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/11/05/midterm-turnout-decreased-in-all-but-12-states) or one based on the same source.


Hooray for billions in negative advertising.

Percentage of non-white population continues to rise, voter participation among non-whites remains traditionally low in mid-terms. Those two things seem to guarantee a decline in participation percentage as long as both remain true.

[Butter]

Percentage of non-white population continues to rise, voter participation among non-whites remains traditionally low in mid-terms. Those two things seem to guarantee a decline in participation percentage as long as both remain true.

Those two things and aggressive voter suppression tactics. Although given the numbers with this election, I'm not sure it would've made much difference in many of the outcomes.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Those two things and aggressive voter suppression tactics. Although given the numbers with this election, I'm not sure it would've made much difference in many of the outcomes.

And, as has already been pointed out, the outcomes (taken in isolation) certainly provide all the motivation anyone could want.

[chesapeake]

Charles Krauthammer: You’ve got in the House the Republicans now have the largest majority since 1929.

Typical Krauthammerism. Miscasting something to make it sound significantly different than it actually is. It is the largest REPUBLICAN majority since 1929. Dems had a larger majority as recently as 2011 and have frequently had larger majorities over this time period. Not to diminish the GOP gains this cycle; but they are not significant in a historical context. It is of middling significance even in modern times.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Typical Krauthammerism. Miscasting something to make it sound significantly different than it actually is. It is the largest REPUBLICAN majority since 1929. Dems had a larger majority as recently as 2011 and have frequently had larger majorities over this time period. Not to diminish the GOP gains this cycle; but they are not significant in a historical context. It is of middling significance even in modern times.

The same point has been made, in pretty much the same way by

Log In - The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/us/politics/republicans-maintain-control-of-house-and-party-leaders-face-new-questions.html)

This could be the most dominant Republican Congress since 1929 - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/03/this-could-be-the-most-dominant-republican-congress-since-1929/)

http://online.wsj.com/articles/house-republicans-achieve-largest-majority-in-decades-1415208289

Is Krauthammer writing for all of them now?

[cartman]

So, two years ago, when Obama was running, he was easily re-elected. But now, when he isn't running, it is a clear repudiation of all of his policies?

[JonInMiddleGA]

So, two years ago, when Obama was running, he was easily re-elected. But now, when he isn't running, it is a clear repudiation of all of his policies?

Among those who showed up to vote this week, I don't think there's any other way to cast it frankly.

I mean, 60% of Republican voters cited voting against Obama as their primary motivation for voting this week.

Given the outcomes, yeah, I'd say that's a pretty fair description of it.

Hell, minus control of the senate at stake, I can't imagine I'd have made such a point of voting for a candidate I didn't particularly give a damn about.

[albionmoonlight]

Jim:

Nate Silver noted something, and I wanted your take on it. He noted that with the popularity (and increased respect) of polling aggregator sites, there may be a tendency for more polls to "cheat" by looking at the 538 or RCP averages and tweaking assumptions/screens/weights/etc. to get results that look right. If that ends up being the case, then the polling aggregation sites end up using bad data and will have worse results in the future.

Do you see that as a real risk?

Also, a related question. As political consumers get better at going to aggregation sites instead of looking at one poll in isolation, what incentive do pollsters have to put out good quality polls? Good quality polling is time and labor intensive. And if the result of all of that ends up being that most people ignore your result and you instead serve as one data point for Nate Silver (who then gets all the press and clicks and attention), why does that make any sense?

(Note, I am not saying that aggregator sites are doing anything wrong or that they do not add good value. But they are getting rewarded for that value. I don't know if I see that for the actual pollsters.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

J Also, a related question. As political consumers get better at going to aggregation sites instead of looking at one poll in isolation, what incentive do pollsters have to put out good quality polls? Good quality polling is time and labor intensive. And if the result of all of that ends up being that most people ignore your result and you instead serve as one data point for Nate Silver (who then gets all the press and clicks and attention), why does that make any sense?

My sense of things is that you're (badly) overestimating how many people even know aggregation sites exist or would understand what that meant even if they did.

Plus, the motivation for most polling is the same as it's been for years: monetizing that, or deriving some value from it. I mean, somebody pays for this stuff, be it CBS or NYT or parties or campaigns or somebody. As long as there is perceived value in having "your own poll" then they will continue. Once there isn't, they'll dry up.

[Buccaneer]

cartman, just like 2006 huh?

[cartman]

Among those who showed up to vote this week

And that is the key piece. You had one of the GOP heads stating this was the start of a 100 year majority. Mid-term elections for two term presidents have never gone the way of the sitting party all the way back to Ike. The lower turnout, coupled with voter fatigue I think cause some of the reactions to be overblown.

[Buccaneer]

cartman, again, I think you would find some Dem talking heads in 2006/2008 talking about a Dem dynasty. It's just like sports where there are those yapping after a big victory.

[Arles]

All this stuff is cyclical. In 2008, democrats were super motivated for Obama and there was a lot of "republican fatigue" after Bush. In 2012, Obama won again based on his popularity and the fact that a lot of his policies (ie Obamacare) hadn't really taken hold. But, again, Obama moves the needle for democrat turnout (esp minorities) to democrats rode a strong turnout to a nice win. In 2014, there wasn't much for democrats to be excited about - no president to vote for and some "Obama fatigue" setting in. Not a ton of new, exciting candidate - just a lot of people in red states trying to backtrack from supporting Obamacare. So, again it made sense for the republicans to pick some seats up.

2016 will be interesting as it will be a presidential election year - which tends to bring more democrats than a mid-term. As Jim stated, the republicans will be playing a lot of defense, but the reality is they could lose 2-3 "toss up" races in the senate and still be fine. For both parties, the candidate choice will be a huge factor. I'm very interesting to see who's chosen for each side and the level of "for my guy" vs "against their guy" that comes out of it. That's a key factor in turnout for elections. Regardless of what the right says, democrats came out in droves to vote FOR Obama - that's something he should get a lot of credit for when history looks back.

[flere-imsaho]

I think its significance is likely going to be more about how "built-in" the GOP advantage is, especially when you look at House districting.

[flere-imsaho]

I agree, however, with those of you who are making points about cyclical. In 2002 or 2004 Rove talked about a permanent GOP majority. In 2006 and 2008 the Democrats talked about the same thing. It'll still change, but concerns about the spinelessness of Democratic candidates in general, and the GOP advantage in gerrymandering in specific are worthy of some concern (if you're a Democrat).

[Solecismic]

Jim:

Nate Silver noted something, and I wanted your take on it. He noted that with the popularity (and increased respect) of polling aggregator sites, there may be a tendency for more polls to "cheat" by looking at the 538 or RCP averages and tweaking assumptions/screens/weights/etc. to get results that look right. If that ends up being the case, then the polling aggregation sites end up using bad data and will have worse results in the future.

Do you see that as a real risk?

Also, a related question. As political consumers get better at going to aggregation sites instead of looking at one poll in isolation, what incentive do pollsters have to put out good quality polls? Good quality polling is time and labor intensive. And if the result of all of that ends up being that most people ignore your result and you instead serve as one data point for Nate Silver (who then gets all the press and clicks and attention), why does that make any sense?

(Note, I am not saying that aggregator sites are doing anything wrong or that they do not add good value. But they are getting rewarded for that value. I don't know if I see that for the actual pollsters.)

Certainly. Aggregator sites really nailed 2010 (particularly Silver's) and did very well in 2012. There are a lot of polls out there, and what most people don't know about polling is the following:

A) They've gone from reaching 40% of their targets around the turn of the century to less than 10% today. They know that 10% isn't necessarily representative of the voting population, yet they continue to assign confidence intervals that assumes independence of who they reach. Polling is less accurate, and there's nothing they can do about that, except...

B) Most polls take demographic information and assign weights to each group polled. Those weights are an expectation of the electorate. So if 50% of those they reach are in the 45-64 range, but their model of the turnout shows they expect 35% of the electorate will be in that range, they will weight it accordingly.

What happened Tuesday is that Democratic counties came out just a little bit more than they did in the 2010 midterms. That's not bad. In fact, it's pretty good. The Democrat GOTV would have been considered a success based on numbers alone. They've grown their base. However, the Republicans have caught up on GOTV and saw increases more in line with what the Democrats achieved ten years ago.

The overall numbers for participation look bad, but there has been so much focus on voter registration that registration numbers are higher, and more work needs to be done on getting those registered to actually vote. So, while GOTV has been quite successful, both sides understand that there are many more voters out there that they have to reach. That's why we are nagged incessantly by telephone, fliers, etc., and that will continue.

Anyway, yes, I agree with Silver. There are many polling firms out there. There are university groups. Polls get attention. People don't necessarily look at the source when they read a poll. Every pollster has to assign those weights. So, for those with less understanding of the electorate, there is a tendency to "peek" at the aggregate and massage the weights so that they're not too far out of line. That's why Silver records the results of polls in great detail, so that his aggregate reflects the quality of those making the decisions. It's very much a cat chasing its own tail.

So, the reason the polls missed by so much this time was that there is that tendency to follow. With so few people reachable by poll these days, the measurement of turnout within each tiny demographic was off. The LV versus RV measurement is difficult to take, and this time they were off by quite a bit.

The incentive for good polling is financial. Anyone can set up a robopoll and wait for the results. That costs very little. But the money doesn't come from clicks from the public, it comes from politicians who want accurate data.

We all saw how Romney was confident that he was going to beat Obama. He spent a lot of money in states he wasn't close to winning. The pollsters he hired for the good stuff screwed up. Instead of telling him he was in serious trouble in Florida and needed to focus there and on a narrow path that could lead him to 270, Romney tried to focus on 300 and make Obama play defense, as it turned out, in states where Obama was far ahead.

In reality, the potential was for a close election. Romney's strategy mistakes kept it not-so-close. Politicians don't care about the aggregates. They care about tiny details. They want to tune their energies on the one or two points they can make that can move one or two demographics. That kind of polling is expensive and supposedly far more accurate than anything we'll see.

One interesting story I read about McConnell (and is the reason why he will likely be majority leader next year) is how he had access to detailed polling in Kansas before we did, and knew Roberts was in serious trouble. So he personally got Roberts to campaign properly and save his seat. No one thought the seat was at risk until then.

I don't know how the good pollsters do their jobs with response rates in single digits, but keep in mind that there's a lot of data out there about all of us. I'd imagine there are researchers who can correlate a very small amount of response into a lot of information. We're not too far from a world where they won't even need to take polls.

[Solecismic]

Early Report on Alaska:

Alaska is divided into 40 districts. The state does not break these down when reporting results during the return process.

But they do report number of ballots cast in each district. This gives me the ability to weight the votes currently reported.

Sullivan has a 5,100-vote lead with about a third of expected ballots counted. I would have expected a 3,300-vote lead based on the districts reporting and my initial projection of a 0.6-point win for Sullivan.

So he's tracking well ahead of expectations. If this holds up, he'll win by about 7,000 votes.


While Begich still hasn't conceded, the outlying rural areas of Alaska and most absentee ballots are counted, and Sullivan still leads by 7,000-8,000. All that's left is waiting for ballots that may have been mailed by last Tuesday's deadline. There's no reason to expect much of a change. The results were consistent with the extrapolation of what was counted in the first hour after the polls closed.

So, we're at 53-46 with Louisiana holding a runoff on 12/6. No polls have been reported since the election. While Cassidy is expected to hold the lead, a lot of money will be spent in Louisiana over the next few weeks. Landrieu is trying to push the Keystone Pipeline vote to show that she can stand up to the president.

Most races were run on a "he/she aligns with Obama 99% of the time" platform, so addressing that issue may turn some independent voters. Of course, the same concept may keep some of the Democratic base at home. And it may keep those who voted for the other Republican (Maness) at home as well. It really is a new election and I wouldn't count Landrieu out. She has held up to decent challenges in the past.

[flere-imsaho]

It may also turn off some independent voters who see it as the naked campaigning tactic it is.

[albionmoonlight]

I know that people from most states say this, but Louisiana politics is weird. I would not feel comfortable making any predictions in that race.

This was pretty good information about how campaigns seem to continue to mis-use resources: Experiments show this is the best way to win campaigns. But is anyone actually doing it? - Vox (http://www.vox.com/2014/11/13/7214339/campaign-ground-game)

[kcchief19]

One interesting story I read about McConnell (and is the reason why he will likely be majority leader next year) is how he had access to detailed polling in Kansas before we did, and knew Roberts was in serious trouble. So he personally got Roberts to campaign properly and save his seat. No one thought the seat was at risk until then.
I think this is a bit of marcro/micro view. From 10,000 feet at the national level, McConnell was ahead of the curve. From a local level, it was clear Roberts was in for a fight long before the RNC forced Roberts to bring in Chris LaCivita and Corry Bliss to run the campaign. The primary showed a massive anti-Roberts sentiment, and Orman was clearly going to spend a lot of money running a centrist campaign. The only question was how much would Democrat Chad Taylor siphon from Orman, which is why the GOP fought hard to keep Taylor on the ballot.

The taking over of the Roberts campaign had long coat tails. The bailout of Roberts absolutely saved Brownback's governor campaign and definitely helped out a couple of other down ticket statewide races. It also helped the GOP pad their already veto-proof majority in the state legislature.

[sterlingice]

I know that people from most states say this, but Louisiana politics is weird. I would not feel comfortable making any predictions in that race.

This was pretty good information about how campaigns seem to continue to mis-use resources: Experiments show this is the best way to win campaigns. But is anyone actually doing it? - Vox (http://www.vox.com/2014/11/13/7214339/campaign-ground-game)

Doesn't this neglect that a lot of the ads are negative and the point is to effectively drop turnout for the other candidate?

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

This was pretty good information about how campaigns seem to continue to mis-use resources: Experiments show this is the best way to win campaigns. But is anyone actually doing it? - Vox (http://www.vox.com/2014/11/13/7214339/campaign-ground-game)

Here's a pretty relevant issue I think

Field operatives can often be hired for about $20 an hour (including overhead) and could have two high-quality 20 minute long conversations with voters every hour, for about $10 per conversation.

Who in the fuck would spend 20 minutes on the phone with a political field operative?

I have to imagine that's a very tiny percentage of voters ... and an even smaller percentage of voters who haven't already made up their minds.

[chesapeake]

Here's a pretty relevant issue I think

Who in the fuck would spend 20 minutes on the phone with a political field operative?

I have to imagine that's a very tiny percentage of voters ... and an even smaller percentage of voters who haven't already made up their minds.

Not phones -- door knocking. I've knocked on many thousands of doors in my time. It works. And in most states you can make sure you're knocking on the right doors to best use your time.

[JPhillips]

Here's a pretty relevant issue I think



Who in the fuck would spend 20 minutes on the phone with a political field operative?

I have to imagine that's a very tiny percentage of voters ... and an even smaller percentage of voters who haven't already made up their minds.

My experience with people would lead me to believe that in an hour you'd have two one minute conversations and one fifty-eight minute conversation.