The 2014 Battle for the Senate

[Solecismic]

I thought we could use a non-partisan thread for discussing the 2014 Senate races, since control of the Senate is up for grabs and the direction it goes will have a large impact on whether Congress will pass anything interesting in 2015-16.

Let's try very hard not to have the same tired red/blue arguments. This is just about the election itself. Not about the specific ramifications of a majority for either side.

To sum up the current situation:

The Senate has 100 members, 55 of whom caucus with the Democrats and 45 of whom caucus with the Republicans.

There are 36 seats up for election in November. Of those, 21 currently caucus with the Democrats and 15 with the Republicans. This includes three special elections for senators who are retiring.

This leaves the Democrats with a 34-30 edge. However, since the 36 seats up for grabs are mostly the same seats that were up in 2008 when Obama won in what's seen as a Democratic wave election, and since the party with an incumbent president with low popularity ratings tends to lose ground in off-presidential years, the Republicans will gain a lot of ground.

The question is how much ground. They need to gain a 51-49 majority in order to control the Senate. That's because 50-50 ties are broken by the Vice President. Consider this the home-field advantage of Capitol Hill.

Of the 36 seats up for grabs, 24 aren't competitive. They're not getting a lot of attention, so the polling shows the favorite drifting a little bit more into favorite territory. I won't bother breaking all of these down. If you're in one of these states, you have some awareness that there's a Senate election coming, but there is little to no advertising.

These 24 seats go 15-9 to the Republicans, and include three seats (Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia) that were held by Democrats who decided not to run when their terms expired.

In Illinois, the polls aren't overwhelming for incumbent Dick Durbin (D), but he's touching 50%, he has a fairly consistent 10-point lead, and there's no movement in the polls. I don't see any reason the Republicans would spend a lot of money down the stretch.

In South Dakota, Mike Rounds (R) is in an interesting three-way race and leads by 11-14 points. The fascinating part is the polls have the independent candidate all over the place, suggesting low-quality polling. With Rounds polling at about 40%, while I see nothing to suggest his 11-14 point lead won't hold up, the game could change drastically, as it did in Kansas recently.

In West Virginia, Shelley Capito (R) has increased her lead significantly in the last month and seems to be over 50%. While this race was on the watch list early on, I felt comfortable removing it.

The total will go to 45-43 in favor of the Republicans with these 24 seats decided. We could discuss movement in these races. Some are on a "vague watch" list, where polling suggests something could change the race.

So that leaves 12 competitive races. This is where the money is going. This is where you can't turn on a television without seeing negative ads. Pretty soon, your phone's answering machine will turn into a billboard.

I'm close to putting two of these races on the non-competitive list.

In Minnesota, Al Franken (D) is starting to touch 50% in the polling and has an 8-point lead. Polling has indicated a slight Republican shift while undecideds drop, but only a slight shift. That's the trademark of a race that's fairly safe, and the challenger has fired all of his or her shots.

In New Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen (D) seems to be up by about 6 points with the same slight shift while undecideds drop. I know more about New Hampshire politics, having lived there for seven years not that long ago. This is a state that rewards the familiar (even if the familiar is an underdog), and Shaheen has been a name for a long time. It might wind up being a close race, but I don't see much of a chance of her losing.

So that moves the Democrats back to 45-45.

The next group of three are races that are fairly close to statistically tied, but lean one way or the other. I would feel comfortable predicting these races today, but they remain competitive and something relatively small could turn them even again.

In Michigan, Gary Peters (D) leads Terri Lynn Land by a handful of points. There are still plenty of undecideds, but it's a real lead. Obviously, this being my home state, I've heard a lot about it. My take is that Land simply isn't a strong enough candidate to grab more than her share of undecideds.

In Kentucky, incumbent Mitch McConnell (R) leads Alice Grimes by a handful of points. There are fewer undecideds here and McConnell even touched 50 in one recent poll. My sense is that Kentucky is too red to let a powerful Republican senator go down to defeat.

In Colorado, incumbent Mark Udall (D) leads Cory Gardner. This race is getting some high-quality polling and it's all very consistent. Colorado is a slightly blue state and I think that's the difference here. Unlike the other two in this category, I think there's some room for real movement. But it needs to be real movement. Udall has a slight lead.

So these three races give the Democrats a 47-46 edge. I think that's where the election stands right now. The Republicans need to win five of seven toss-ups to take the Senate.

Here are the toss-ups.

In Kansas, incumbent Pat Roberts (R) had a lead, but lost it when the Democratic candidate dropped out of the race. This leaves a fairly strong independent candidate, Greg Orman. Now Orman says he's independent and will caucus with the party with the majority. But what will he do if it's 50-49 in favor of the Republicans, and he's the one who breaks the tie (again, 50-50 goes to the Democrats)? His record suggests he fits the mold of a red-state Democrat. Roberts had to run to the right to win a tough primary, which left a gaping hole for this sort of candidate. Polling has not been very thorough here. I don't have a strong sense either way.

In Alaska, where polling is notoriously difficult, we've seen more movement in this Senate race over the last month than anywhere. Presumably, it's because Democrat incumbent Mark Bergich had an advertising gaffe, swinging a few points over to Republican challenger Dan Sullivan. Right now, I'd say this one very slightly leans to the Republicans. But very slightly.

In Georgia, David Perdue (R) has a tiny lead over Michelle Nunn for the Saxby Chambliss seat. This one comes down to turnout. I'd give the Republicans a very slight lean here as well.

In Arkansas, incumbent Mark Pryor (D) is in a very close race with Tom Cotton. Cotton has a slight lead, according to the polls. CNN had it 49-47, which is remarkable at this stage for its lack of undecideds. Other polls have a more normal number of undecideds. The incumbent should get a tiny push in the booth. But Arkansas is a red state, and the southern states seem to be viewing the election as an Obamacare referendum more than most. So that should give a tiny push to the challenger. This race seems dead even to me.

In Louisiana, where the general is essentially a primary, Democratic incumbent Mary Landrieu slightly trails Bill Cassidy. Since there's another Republican getting a chunk of votes, neither is likely to reach the 50% required to avoid a runoff election in December. Which makes this whole race an absolute toss-up. Throw in the Kansas situation and a lot could be on the line here in December. This situation could make Greg Orman a very powerful man indeed.

In Iowa, Bruce Braley (D) has maybe a one-point lead over Joni Ernst for Democrat Tom Harkin's seat. CNN again came in with a poll with almost no undecideds this week. This race has slightly leaned Democrat for ages now, with the exception of some brief movement this summer. My sense is that Braley has a very slight lean.

And finally, in North Carolina, we have the race that's all over the place. Democratic incumbent Kay Hagen may have a slight edge over Thom Tillis. But there are lots of undecideds and neither seems to be a threat to hit the magic 50. Like Georgia, this one will come down to turnout. But it's closer now than Georgia. I'm not comfortable with saying there's a lean either way.

So, with the slight leans, I'm at 48-48. Keeping in mind that the Republicans need three more, my feeling is that the Democrats have about a 60-70% chance of retaining the Senate.

Now, some argue that in elections like these, there's often a late swing against the President. I read an article (on 538, I believe) just today saying that their reasoning for giving the Republicans a slight edge in taking the Senate is that the generic Republican/Democrat poll is running more red than the individual polls would indicate.

That theory could well be correct, especially as it would be stronger in red states like Georgia and Arkansas, and would pull these races solidly over the line. North Carolina and Iowa, purple states looking at toss-ups, maybe aren't toss-ups.

Obviously, the situation is fluid. I will continue to look at these races frequently. I hope we can have some good discussion. Including some details from those of you who have a first-hand look at the closest races.

[Thomkal]

Nice analysis there. While I'm very interested in how this plays out, I'm not that deep into it to comment much on it. Two things I will say though:

1-I think the Democrats will keep the Senate, but it will be by just one or two seats.

2-I think the DNC is going to spend every last dollar in Kentucky. If they still lose the Senate, I think they will consider it a "win/win" to be rid of McConnell-who has been Public Enemy no 1 to the Dems after his infamous-"Let's make Obama a One-Term President" Speech soon after Obama was first elected.

[Peregrine]

Insert biased red statement here.

Followed by biased blue statement.

Followed by third statement calling for bipartisanship.

[flere-imsaho]

Excellent analysis. I always enjoy the "horse-racing" element of the general elections and don't see why we can't keep this one non-partisan (or unpartisan?).

I have been under the impression that Nate Silver, et. al. were pretty certain the GOP were going to get control.

Regardless, I don't think much will get done in Congress next term even if the GOP comes up a few seats short. They've still got the filibuster, and the House isn't going to send anything their way the President wants to sign anyway.

The most critical thing (and it is pretty critical) is how it affects potential SCOTUS nominations.

[JonInMiddleGA]

re: Georgia

If you're looking for a possible upset/surprise down here, focus on the Governor's race instead of the Senate race.

Perdue will pull away in the end, it's Gov Deal vs Jason (grandson of) Carter that is feeling more like a dogfight to me.

Reasoning is simple: there is no real anti-Perdue faction. Deal has several groups (teachers, ethics types) looking for his head on a pike.

[JPhillips]

I think KY is less about red/blue and more about McConnell's connections/machine. He has an enormous amount of chits to cash in all over the state. I see it exactly like Reid in NV a few years ago. In the end he'll win by several points more than the polling predicts.

[flere-imsaho]

One of those "no contest" races is here in Maine where Republican Susan Collins is up for re-election. Daily Kos for about a decade (and probably some other liberal blogs) have liked to talk up the chances against her (and also previously Republican Olympia Snowe, now retired), but don't believe it. This state rarely ejects Senators and while Collins might not be the Maine icon Snowe was, most every elected Republican in Maine owes something to her and her machine over the past 20 years.

Like in Georgia (per Jon), the real race is going to be for Governor, where Incumbent Tea Partier Paul LePage is running for re-election. LePage won a 3-way race last time with 39% of the vote. The spoiler in that election, independent Eliot Cutler, is back, but his Democratic opponent is much more formidable. 2nd district (that's the northern and more rural part of the state) U.S. Congressman Mike Michaud is the Democratic candidate. Well-respected, a former millworker and also recently out as gay, he is polling very strongly over LePage. Were Michaud from the south of the state, he probably wouldn't have a chance, but given his background and support in the north, he'll be hard to beat. There's also considerable word that the Independents & Democrats who backed Cutler last time have reconsidered and are throwing their weight behind Michaud.

[flere-imsaho]

In Illinois, the polls aren't overwhelming for incumbent Dick Durbin (D), but he's touching 50%, he has a fairly consistent 10-point lead, and there's no movement in the polls. I don't see any reason the Republicans would spend a lot of money down the stretch.

I'd be surprised if Durbin loses. The Democratic machine is still quite strong, and Durbin has spent considerable time cultivating support downstate. Unless something weird happens, this is probably the high-water mark for his opponent.

[Ryche]

Living in Colorado and being undecided on who to vote for in the Senate race, it really seems like Udall is running a poor campaign. Pretty much every ad being run in support of him is talking about birth control and abortion. I'm still waiting to hear why I should vote for him rather than why I should not vote for his opponent.

[Solecismic]

Living in Colorado and being undecided on who to vote for in the Senate race, it really seems like Udall is running a poor campaign. Pretty much every ad being run in support of him is talking about birth control and abortion. I'm still waiting to hear why I should vote for him rather than why I should not vote for his opponent.

That could explain the lack of movement in the polls. Both candidates may feel this is a GOTV (get out the vote) election, and Udall is trying to motivate his base more than he's trying to convince undecideds.

Colorado has that interesting mix of mountain conservative, which has a libertarian streak, and urban blue. It reached a tipping point about ten years ago, but it seems all state-wide elections are close these days. I'd imagine the birth-control ads motivate the Democratic base without doing as much of the opposite as you'd see in the south.

[flere-imsaho]

Colorado has that interesting mix of mountain conservative, which has a libertarian streak, and urban blue. It reached a tipping point about ten years ago, but it seems all state-wide elections are close these days. I'd imagine the birth-control ads motivate the Democratic base without doing as much of the opposite as you'd see in the south.

This made me think of something: do libertarians normally poll as pro-choice or pro-life?

[TroyF]

This made me think of something: do libertarians normally poll as pro-choice or pro-life?

A true libertarian believes choices should be made by the people with limited government intervention. They poll heavily Pro Choice.

[TroyF]

One more note:

A vast majority of libertarians are also against the government funding abortion clinics. As it is a personal choice, it is up to you to get it done.

I am oversimplifying it here, there are both sides, but the biggest tenant of the entire movement is to have the government stay the hell out of decisions. That includes abortion.

[ISiddiqui]

re: Georgia

If you're looking for a possible upset/surprise down here, focus on the Governor's race instead of the Senate race.

Perdue will pull away in the end, it's Gov Deal vs Jason (grandson of) Carter that is feeling more like a dogfight to me.

Reasoning is simple: there is no real anti-Perdue faction. Deal has several groups (teachers, ethics types) looking for his head on a pike.

Though I feel that Perdue and Deal will pull away in the end. Jason Carter may have been benefited getting this far with his name, but the "Carter" name isn't necessarily popular in this state and that will cost him in the end, IMO.

[kcchief19]

Re: Kansas -- The politics of this race are getting more complicated. The Republican Secretary of State is arguing Democrat Chad Taylor did not withdraw correctly before the deadline, therefore must remain on the ballot. If the Kansas Supreme Court sides with Taylor, the SOS is also arguing state law requires the Democratic party to name a replacement nominee. The Kansas SC hears the case this week, so we should have an idea where it will lead.

Only one poll has been taken since Taylor announced his exit, and he was still in the poll, although he dropped from around 30% to 10%. The majority of his supporters have gone to the independent Greg Orman, with the rest undecided. Orman was up 1 in the last poll, making it essentially a dead heat.

Roberts was very wounded in the primary, with lots of questions about his residency and how much time he spends in the state. The prevailing voter attitude is that he's even in Washington too long and they want a change, but this is a dark red state. If this were Roberts vs. Taylor straight up, Roberts would win without much of a sweat. Heads up against a well funded independent, he is in for a fight.

As for the campaign, the RNC and Roberts have completely shaken up his campaign staff. Corry Bliss, who ran Linda McMahon's Senate campaign in Connecticut, has taken over and changing the tone of the campaign. They are trying to paint Orman as a Democrat in Independent clothing.

The general media consensus was Roberts mopped the floor with Orman in the first debate. Orman spent too much time agreeing with Roberts and less time attacking, while Roberts was much more aggressive. Orman is running to the right, trying to prove he's moderate enough for Kansas.

Roberts is absolutely vulnerable against the right candidate, but I question if Orman is experienced enough to handle a tough campaign. So far his campaign is very middle of the road with no attacks on Roberts. If his campaign doesn't get tougher -- or someone on his behalf -- Roberts may survive.

The other X-factor is the governor's race. Theoretically Sam Brownback should be safe, but he has trailed Democrat Paul Davis in three of the last four likely voter polls. Brownback has gone full Arthur Laffer as governor, implement sweeping tax cuts to stimulate the economy. The problem is that state revenues have plunged, and the narrative is that the Brownback tax cuts are devastating the state. If Brownback continues to struggle, you're going to have no enthusiasm on the GOP side and a fired up Democratic/Independent base.

Kansas is a dark red state, but it's complicated. There are for all intents and purposes three parties in Kansas with Democrats, moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans. The moderate and conservative Republicans are at war. Conservative Republicans decided to go after the moderates and challenged many of them in primaries for the state legislature. Moderate Republicans helped give Kathleen Sebelius two terms as governor, so they can definitely swing to Democrats or an independent.

If were a betting man, I wouldn't touch these races with a ten-foot pole right now. We should get a better look the next few weeks once the ballot questions are resolved, we get more polling for a two-man Senate race and voters get to know Orman better. He's doing well right with people not knowing much about him. Will Orman define himself or will he let Roberts define him? Once voters get to know him, will they still like him?

[Julio Riddols]

The cool part about all this is it won't matter who is in office in the end. They're all money motivated ladder climbers who only want a permanent in to living above the law and advancing party interests with no regard for what their constituents actually want to see.

We'll usher in another couple years of gridlock, more middle aged bickering bullshit and tire spinning, where those who are in office never stop campaigning. They'll campaign through misinformation, hidden agendas, and outright lies. They'll do it with dissenting votes in place of actual attempts at legislation. It'll work, because none of the viable candidates are any different from one another except one is ultimately more effective in pandering to the majority.

[Julio Riddols]

And I apologize for shitting on this thread with my likely overly cynical views.. But in my lifetime I have yet to see anything valuable truly occur with our government. For every step forward we take at least one back as a country. Its not about who has the money anymore, it is just increasingly apparent that the system is beyond repair. All that matters (and as far as I know, all that has ever mattered) is who lies the best.

[Solecismic]

While I agree with you for the most part, I hope we can keep non-partisan ranting out of this thread as well as the partisan ranting that renders so many political threads unreadable.

It looks like Perdue might be gaining some separation in Georgia, but the latest poll showing 50-44 is an outlier so far.

[larrymcg421]

Nate Silver has Republican chances down to 53%, mostly due to movement in Kansas.

[Solecismic]

Yes, there's definitely been about ten percentage points of momentum for the Democrats this week in the Senate battle question. My assessment is more like 65% to 75%. North Carolina looks like it's moving. The only piece of good news for the Republicans is Georgia these days.

Maybe 2014 will hold up as the only real exception to the rule that the minority party gains in off-year elections with an unpopular president.

[flere-imsaho]

Nate Silver has Republican chances down to 53%, mostly due to movement in Kansas.

The Kansas race is flat out nuts.


Maybe 2014 will hold up as the only real exception to the rule that the minority party gains in off-year elections with an unpopular president.

That would be something, to be sure. The rule about off-year elections has been pretty unshakeable. I also believe (though I can't look it up right now) that even the party of popular presidents tends to lose or hold at mid-term elections, especially in a 2nd term.

[chesapeake]

Maybe 2014 will hold up as the only real exception to the rule that the minority party gains in off-year elections with an unpopular president.

Even the rosiest of scenarios for the Democrats have them losing several seats in the House and Senate, including a bunch of incumbents. They may hold onto the Senate, but they will still be losing 4 to 5 seats.

[JPhillips]

We're in an odd time period due to demographic changes and ideological consolidation within parties. I think it's pretty clear that nationally and in a number of swing states and districts that Dems win if they get their voters out, but in off-year elections they generally don't get their voters out. A lot of close Senate races aren't close with registered voter numbers, that's why the GOP has to work so hard to limit turnout.

[Solecismic]

Even the rosiest of scenarios for the Democrats have them losing several seats in the House and Senate, including a bunch of incumbents. They may hold onto the Senate, but they will still be losing 4 to 5 seats.

In the Senate, just about all of these seats were last up in the wave election of 2008. Only losing 4-5 seats would be a major gain for the Democrats. That would be true unless Obama were as popular as he was in 2008.

The Republicans should understand that they're getting this far only because Obama is at historic lows in popularity. That underneath it all, they are still quite unpopular themselves, and have missed an opportunity to gain significant control over the Senate and increase their lead in the House.

I'm not sure a party can limit turnout. Both parties will be using GOTV heavily.

[JPhillips]

I'm not sure a party can limit turnout. Both parties will be using GOTV heavily.

I'm talking about GOP efforts in states to limit voting times/places and add restrictions to voting and registration. There's a pretty clearly coordinated effort to limit access for traditional Dem voting blocks.

[JPhillips]

So now we have aggregator aggregators. From Vox:

http://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/EWMsAN18RuZ3CbSVgi_A0SQ77sQ=/775x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/847288/Senate_odds_9-1.0.png

[JonInMiddleGA]

So now we have aggregator aggregators.

Right or wrong, that made me LOL

[albionmoonlight]

A couple of observations from inside NC.

I'm pretty much a TiVo/Netflix/Podcasts guy, so I avoid most TV and radio ads. And I am still getting lots of ads for the Senate race. Online, print, what TV I do manage to see, etc. Both sides are pouring $$ into this race, and it really shows. The parties also seem better at getting ads into places where people like me will see them.

Also, I think that in hindsight, the GOP messed up by nominating Tillis to run. He's the Speaker of the House of the state legislature, and Hagan's team is doing a good job of accusing him of being responsible for every unpopular thing happening in the state.

He does not get to run as pure of an anti-incumbency campaign as I think the GOP would like in an off-year election with an unpopular government.

Finally, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing an emergency appeal on September 25th concerning some of North Carolina's new voting law changes and whether to prevent their enforcement for this election. (The actual legality of the changes is still being litigated. The emergency appeal is to decide what to do for this election while that litigation is ongoing). In a race this close, anything that could affect turnout will have a magnified effect.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/news-announcements/2014/09/12/media-advisory-14-1845-duke-v-state-of-north-carolina

[chesapeake]

In the Senate, just about all of these seats were last up in the wave election of 2008. Only losing 4-5 seats would be a major gain for the Democrats. That would be true unless Obama were as popular as he was in 2008.

The Republicans should understand that they're getting this far only because Obama is at historic lows in popularity. That underneath it all, they are still quite unpopular themselves, and have missed an opportunity to gain significant control over the Senate and increase their lead in the House.

I think you're viewing this through the prism of how crappy it could be for Democrats rather than taking the empirical view of how this election compares to similar recent elections. Clinton saw no net change in Senate seats in 1998. That is what a victory looks like for a second-term president. Losing 4-5 Senate seats is much more like what happened to Bush in 2006, when Republicans lost 6. I don't think anyone viewed that as anything other than a huge loss for the President.

Most of the Dems I talk to on the Hill view the current snapshot (which is the best it has looked for Dems since the cycle started) as merely a disaster. And many think the winds may well shift against them again. I think that may be right; but I admit that getting burned as badly as I did in 2010 colors my judgment here.

Regarding the House, I've not seen any polling or assessment of the House that doesn't show the GOP increasing its majority there. Stu Rothenberg and Charlie Cook, two of the better known handicappers in DC, both anticipate a net pickup for Republicans.

[flere-imsaho]

Thought this might be useful from a historical standpoint:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png/1280px-Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png

[Galaxy]

We're in an odd time period due to demographic changes and ideological consolidation within parties. I think it's pretty clear that nationally and in a number of swing states and districts that Dems win if they get their voters out, but in off-year elections they generally don't get their voters out. A lot of close Senate races aren't close with registered voter numbers, that's why the GOP has to work so hard to limit turnout.

Is the younger demographic voting block down quite a bit in off-year elections?

[kcchief19]

The Kansas Supreme Court has scrubbed Democrat Chad Taylor from the ballot, ruling that his withdrawal complied with state law. Not a huge surprise; from the questioning during the hearing, it was clear where the justices were headed. The court is also more Democrat-leaning than one would expect, since 4 of the 7 justices were appointed by Kathleen Sebelius and two more were appointed by moderate Republican Gov. Bill Graves.

The Republican SOS Kris Kobach has given the Democrats until Sept. 26 to nominate a replacement, but it's not entirely clear under what legal precedent he is making that claim. Kobach asked the Kansas Supreme Court to order the Democrats to nominate a replacement, but the justices said that was not material to the Taylor case. So we probably have one more court cased to go before this is clear.

Right now, the polling shows a clear difference between a three-candidate race and a two-candidate race. Whether there is a Democrat on the ballot might decide the race and control of the Senate.

[JPhillips]

Is there a reason why they couldn't nominate the independent?

[DaddyTorgo]

What a sleazebag Kobach is.

[Scarecrow]

Is there a reason why they couldn't nominate the independent?

Because Orman is not a registered Democrat, is running on an anti-party platform, and would drop 20 points in the uber-red state.

Kansas has a law that defines 'major party status' as one that receives at least 5% of votes in the previous election. Kobach could use that to effectively eliminate the Democratic Party in Kansas.

Since the ruling, Orman now has a 10 point lead on Roberts.

[Solecismic]

I thought I'd do a quick check of the state of the Senate races. We're 11 days closer to the election, which is now 41 days away. Not quite time for the incessant phone calls to start, but when I zip through the commercials on TiVo, nary a commercial break goes by without frowny-faced ads for our senate and gubernatorial races. Positive ads have entirely disappeared during this cycle. It's all about linking Rs to Koches and Ds to Obamas.

Nothing has changed in the 24 "settled" races. So that's 45-43 Republican.

Checking the remaining 12...

Close to non-competitive:

Minnesota: Franken's (D-incumbent) lead over McFadden is expanding a bit. This one is close to moving to the settled category. I doubt I'll be tracking it on November 4.

New Hampshire: One CNN shock poll had Shaheen (D-incumbent) tied with Brown a couple of weeks ago. Every other poll shows Shaheen with a solid lead, and touching the 50 barrier. Undecideds remain low. I see no reason to change my rating of this race.

Leaners:

Michigan: A lot of polling here lately, and all of it showing Peters (D) with a 2-7 point lead over Land. Undecideds are still quite high. So this is competitive, but still a definite leaner.

Kentucky: McConnell (R-incumbent) has a steady five-point lead over Grimes. Slightly fewer undecideds. This one could soon move up a category, into close to non-competitive.

Colorado: Two polls this week show Gardner (R) with a lead over the incumbent, Udall. This is a switch from consistent polling showing Udall with a small lead. Not sure what happened this week, or if this is just random noise. One of the new polls is from Quinnipiac, which was running R of the other polls here all along. If this continues, Colorado will move back into the toss-up category.

Alaska: Sullivan (R) now has a small lead over the incumbent, Begich. Begich may have sacrificed a few votes by voting with the president to keep his amnesty executive option alive post-election. The Democrats allowed Hagan (NC), Shaheen (NH), Pryor (AK), Manchin (WV) and Landrieu (LA) to cross over. The same could explain Colorado. This vote would give more credibility to the argument that the vote is not about the individual, it's about Obama and control of the Senate.

Georgia: Perdue (R) maintains a small lead over Nunn. The last cycle of polls, which showed an expansion of the lead, was from the subset that's been showing larger Perdue leads all along. So this is still a slight leaner, and hasn't changed in the last couple of weeks.

North Carolina: Hagan (D-incumbent) has a definite lead over Tillis now. So I'm moving it into the leaner category, despite it having the largest number of undecideds amongst the close races. The Democrats are focusing heavily on this race, and it's paying off.

The leaners move the balance to 48-48.

Toss-ups:

Louisiana: Landrieu (D-incumbent) had a large lead over various nameless competitors this summer. But as Cassidy has emerged as the main Republican challenger, he has taken the lead in polls, which is now a definitely lead. Since Louisiana uses the general as a primary, a run-off is still likely. While Cassidy will probably win the most votes in November, the run-off is still way ahead here, so I can't call this anything but a toss-up. It will be a different political world in December.

Arkansas: Pryor (D-incumbent) still trails Cotton by a point or two. This is getting closer to a Republican leaner, but I'll keep it in the toss-up category for now.

Iowa: Polling shows Braley (D) and Ernst are dead even. Ernst has steadily closed the gap. I'm moving this one into the toss-up category.

Kansas: Orman (I) has a 6-10 point lead over Roberts (R-incumbent) in this race, now that the Democrat is off the ballot. This means Roberts will try to show that Orman is a de-facto Democrat. There could be considerable fluidity in this race down the stretch. I'd signal a switch to a leaner, but Orman may be under pressure to define himself - which carries large risks. Orman really deserves his own category right now. Watch the money here. Democrats are running against the Koch brothers this term. Roberts may start running against Orman's backers rather than Orman.


Overall:

My assessment two weeks ago was 65% chance of Democrat control. Last week, it moved to 75%. With the amnesty vote, and the resulting fallout (admittedly, I'm reading a lot into a small number of polls), I'm moving it down to 60%. I think this had a big effect in the closer states.

[JPhillips]

How crazy is it going to be if the election ends up with 49 Dem caucus and 49 GOP caucus with Orman pledged to go to the majority and Landrieu in a December runoff.

[larrymcg421]

How crazy is it going to be if the election ends up with 49 Dem caucus and 49 GOP caucus with Orman pledged to go to the majority and Landrieu in a December runoff.

That would be crazy, but why would Orman do that? He could secure being in the majority before the LA runoff since the Dems only need 50.

[Solecismic]

Yes, the more interesting scenario is if it's 50-48 R after November 4. I don't think Orman hesitates for a second if it's 49-49, especially since he'll be hit pretty hard by the Republicans over the next few weeks.

The only sign of weakness from Orman will be if he can't raise money. Which means he really is on the fence with regard to affiliation.

[JPhillips]

I don't know what he'll do, but if there's a runoff there will be tremendous pressure for him to wait and hold to his promise. If he doesn't he'll guarantee himself one term and out. He needs a lot of people that would normally vote R to vote for him if he's going to win.

[chesapeake]

This review of the polling has a Dem spin to it -- which I like -- but I think you are a little nuts if you are putting Begich and M. Udall in the lean Dem and Pryor and Landrieu in the toss-up category. Landrieu in particular is in trouble. The question isn't whether she will win in November; no on really thinks she has much chance of that at this point. She's just hoping to extend the race for another month. Pryor appears to be closing the gap, but is still trailing and has trailed for a long time.

Interesting reporting on the GA race coming out over the last couple of days. Although Michelle Nunn has been trailing for most of the campaign, as in LA you need >50% of the vote to win, otherwise it goes to a January 6 runoff. The numbers there are getting close enough that the runoff is appearing more of a possibility.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm wondering, though, how meaningful it's really going to be if the Democrats even end up with a slight edge in the Senate (like 51-49).

Confirmations are still going to be subject to filibusters and they still don't have enough to invoke cloture.
Those confirmations where they change the rules so they can invoke cloture with 51 I suppose, whereas the GOP will just shut it down if they get the majority.
They're not going to get anything from the House that they want to pass anyway.
Democrats in the Senate especially have never really shown a lot of discipline on party-line votes.

Honestly, given that the House is staying GOP and Obama will be in his last two years, it's probably better for the Democrats (for the purposes of electioneering in 2016) if the GOP takes the Senate, even with a slim margin.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm probably pushing out of the "horse-race" discussion this thread is based upon and more into "political analysis", so I'd encourage folks who want to continue the conversation about the relatively efficacy of Democratic vs. Republican majorities in the Senate to the Obama thread.

I just wanted to respond to the question of the "stakes" involved in this election. Yes, if the Democrats lose the Senate, it's a blow, but how much things would change from now is, I think, an open question.

Which is why my point about this is relevant to the 2016 horserace. Democrats are probably better off for 2016 if they lose the Senate this time around, given other factors.

[albionmoonlight]

Fourth Circuit holding oral argument on NC's new voting laws in about five minutes.

The panel identity would have been announced by now, but I cannot find it being reported anywhere.

[albionmoonlight]

Just found it on twitter:

Judges Motz, Wynn, and Floyd.

[chesapeake]

Confirmations are still going to be subject to filibusters and they still don't have enough to invoke cloture.
Those confirmations where they change the rules so they can invoke cloture with 51 I suppose, whereas the GOP will just shut it down if they get the majority.

FYI - Executive branch nominees and judicial nominees (other than the Supremes) are no longer subject to filibuster per the 2013 Senate rules change.

[Solecismic]

This review of the polling has a Dem spin to it -- which I like -- but I think you are a little nuts if you are putting Begich and M. Udall in the lean Dem and Pryor and Landrieu in the toss-up category. Landrieu in particular is in trouble. The question isn't whether she will win in November; no on really thinks she has much chance of that at this point. She's just hoping to extend the race for another month. Pryor appears to be closing the gap, but is still trailing and has trailed for a long time.

Interesting reporting on the GA race coming out over the last couple of days. Although Michelle Nunn has been trailing for most of the campaign, as in LA you need >50% of the vote to win, otherwise it goes to a January 6 runoff. The numbers there are getting close enough that the runoff is appearing more of a possibility.


I have Alaska in the lean Republican category. These are slight leans. As I wrote before, we're seeing a difference in generic R/D polling and the individual polls - Democratic candidates are faring better than expected. Some expect that to correct. I'm aware that my expectations are a little D of the average aggregation, but it's not spin, it's just my own look at the numbers. We have a lot of undecideds in some races. We also have increased difficulty in polling these days. I expect we'll learn a lot about that when the results actually come in. There will undoubtedly be surprises on November 4.

I have Landrieu as a toss-up because it seems very likely no one will win in November. When Congress returns, there's going to be a lot of action that will change the playing field. There's a good chance Louisiana will affect the balance of power (even with the majority, the Democrats can't go too hog-wild because Manchin doesn't support the controversial stuff). So that race could get very silly very quickly.

[Solecismic]

Just found it on twitter:

Judges Motz, Wynn, and Floyd.

All three are Democratic appointees. So we can expect a ruling against the new laws.

[chesapeake]

There will undoubtedly be surprises on November 4.

There always are.

I see your point on Landrieu. You almost need another category for the LA and GA races. They are either "leans Republican" or "leans runoff."

[larrymcg421]

If it's a runoff in GA, then Perdue wins. No need to make that a separate category. Nunn needs to win on election day.

As for LA, it's less clear because Landrieu's incumbency should give her an organizational edge in GOTV for the runoff.

[chesapeake]

If it's a runoff in GA, then Perdue wins. No need to make that a separate category. Nunn needs to win on election day.

As for LA, it's less clear because Landrieu's incumbency should give her an organizational edge in GOTV for the runoff.

The polling has been so consistently in favor of the Republican candidate in both races, both belong in the Leans R column, in my opinion. But if you are going to say the polling goes out the window if one race goes to a runoff, why do you keep the polling in the other?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I literally had no idea the (L) even entered a candidate in the GA Senate race.
Several minutes of searching for a sample ballot resulted in the first time I've ever heard her name.

[larrymcg421]

The polling has been so consistently in favor of the Republican candidate in both races, both belong in the Leans R column, in my opinion. But if you are going to say the polling goes out the window if one race goes to a runoff, why do you keep the polling in the other?

A runoff is a whole new thing and turns into a GOTV game. The Dems will definitely lose this in GA. In 2008, Martin lost by a couple points in November and held Chambliss to a runoff. In the runoff, Martin got hammered by 15 pts. Landrieu has actually won two runoffs in the past and incumbency should give her an organizational boost for GOTV. I'm not saying she wins, but she certainly has a better shot at a runoff than Nunn.

[JonInMiddleGA]

A runoff is a whole new thing and turns into a GOTV game. The Dems will definitely lose this in GA. In 2008, Martin lost by a couple points in November and held Chambliss to a runoff. In the runoff, Martin got hammered by 15 pts.

Nice job remembering the history.

United States Senate election in Georgia, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Georgia,_2008)

Martin himself had to win a primary runoff to beat Vernon Jones.
And it's interesting to note that Chambliss-Martin numbers at this stage were somewhat similar to the current Perdue-Nunn numbers.

[Solecismic]

A new Des Moines Register poll (their first) matches the Quinnipiac six-point Ernst lead, though with far more undecideds.

Having spent the last couple of days in Iowa (albeit without a television), I have a better sense of this race. It's a very different terrain and feel from Michigan/Wisconsin/Ohio/Pennsylvania. I don't know how that that difference affects political races, but I can't expect the same reactions I would at home.

It seems like rural areas, where Ernst leads by several touchdowns, will not forgive Braley's comments about farmers.

Since this race has been so close, the question is whether last week's national swing toward Republicans is real here as well. If so (and that could also be a factor in the Rasmussen poll in Arkansas showing Cotton up 7), it makes the situation in Kansas almost bizarre.

Are Orman and Roberts debating? How do you debate when you've pledged to caucus with the winning party, but your decision may well decide which party wins? How do you plan to vote for a guy when you have no idea where he stands on the most important issues of the day? His campaign has been very effective in doing what I do - point out that partisanship in Washington makes Washington ineffective. But that alone doesn't solve problems.

So claiming he will caucus with one or the other is the ultimate act of hypocrisy. If he matters, then why commit to either party, ever? Why not relish his role as the one Senator who can vote exactly as he feels is best for his state, no matter what? That would get my vote.

Instead, he waffles on that question, claiming he can force both parties to submit candidates for Majority Leader who have a proven record of crossing the aisle. They won't. It's just not realistic. I agree that it would be wonderful if they did, but then why have parties in the first place? And I agree that we shouldn't have parties, but most Congressmen come from districts where party affiliation alone guarantees a win, and they want party leaders who support that platform. The more non-partisan Senators, like Murkowski and Heitkamp (Orman uses these names as examples) are never going to get wide support for party leadership. They are, however, very useful if you want to set a positive tone for productive debate.

Orman wants to have everything both ways. Instead, I think he needs to pick a party caucus now (and, essentially, he has to pick Democrat) and focus on where he disagrees with the party view (his platform statement on immigration, for example, is mostly boilerplate Republican) and state that he simply won't go along with a vote that he thinks is bad for the people of Kansas.

There's enough "throw them all out" that I think he can beat Roberts with a consistent message.

Without that, here's where the 527 groups can hurt him. You have your standard attack ads. One set paints him as a Democrat based on his contributions and prior run for Senate. This is GOTV for the Republicans. The next set paints him as a waffler based on his fuzzy caucus pledge. How do you vote for a guy when your vote could be for either party? This makes the independents worry about where he stands on specific issues. The 527 stuff gives Roberts the ability to hit him hard from completely opposite sides.

I think Orman could well lose by 5-10 points if he doesn't drop this "caucus with the winner" statement.

[Scarecrow]

A new Des Moines Register poll (their first) matches the Quinnipiac six-point Ernst lead, though with far more undecideds.

Having spent the last couple of days in Iowa (albeit without a television), I have a better sense of this race. It's a very different terrain and feel from Michigan/Wisconsin/Ohio/Pennsylvania. I don't know how that that difference affects political races, but I can't expect the same reactions I would at home.

It seems like rural areas, where Ernst leads by several touchdowns, will not forgive Braley's comments about farmers.

Since this race has been so close, the question is whether last week's national swing toward Republicans is real here as well. If so (and that could also be a factor in the Rasmussen poll in Arkansas showing Cotton up 7), it makes the situation in Kansas almost bizarre.

Are Orman and Roberts debating? How do you debate when you've pledged to caucus with the winning party, but your decision may well decide which party wins? How do you plan to vote for a guy when you have no idea where he stands on the most important issues of the day? His campaign has been very effective in doing what I do - point out that partisanship in Washington makes Washington ineffective. But that alone doesn't solve problems.

So claiming he will caucus with one or the other is the ultimate act of hypocrisy. If he matters, then why commit to either party, ever? Why not relish his role as the one Senator who can vote exactly as he feels is best for his state, no matter what? That would get my vote.

Instead, he waffles on that question, claiming he can force both parties to submit candidates for Majority Leader who have a proven record of crossing the aisle. They won't. It's just not realistic. I agree that it would be wonderful if they did, but then why have parties in the first place? And I agree that we shouldn't have parties, but most Congressmen come from districts where party affiliation alone guarantees a win, and they want party leaders who support that platform. The more non-partisan Senators, like Murkowski and Heitkamp (Orman uses these names as examples) are never going to get wide support for party leadership. They are, however, very useful if you want to set a positive tone for productive debate.

Orman wants to have everything both ways. Instead, I think he needs to pick a party caucus now (and, essentially, he has to pick Democrat) and focus on where he disagrees with the party view (his platform statement on immigration, for example, is mostly boilerplate Republican) and state that he simply won't go along with a vote that he thinks is bad for the people of Kansas.

There's enough "throw them all out" that I think he can beat Roberts with a consistent message.

Without that, here's where the 527 groups can hurt him. You have your standard attack ads. One set paints him as a Democrat based on his contributions and prior run for Senate. This is GOTV for the Republicans. The next set paints him as a waffler based on his fuzzy caucus pledge. How do you vote for a guy when your vote could be for either party? This makes the independents worry about where he stands on specific issues. The 527 stuff gives Roberts the ability to hit him hard from completely opposite sides.

I think Orman could well lose by 5-10 points if he doesn't drop this "caucus with the winner" statement.

As the Kansas poli-rep here, I'll try to give you an inside viewpoint of the Kansas senate race.

1) There was one debate at the Kansas State Fair that was won by Roberts. Roberts portrayed Orman as a Democrat since he donated money to the Obama campaign. Orman countered by saying that he's donated to both parties, but that was largely ignored.

2) The Orman is going to caucus with the winning party has also been ignored, both by Roberts and Kansans.

Roberts and his team are blowing this entire campaign. And it's not surprising since he has never had any real competition since being appointed to the House in 1981. Instead of attacking Orman as a flip flopper and an 'only play with the winner' person, he's harping on the 'a vote for Orman is a vote for Harry Reid' mantra.

Orman, on the other hand, has counter-punched everything that Roberts has brought. Roberts tried to portray Orman as a democrat-in-desguise, only to have Orman get the endorsement of Milton Wolf, the tea-party candidate that lost to Roberts in the primary. Orman has now launched an attack against Roberts (along the same anti-establishment lines) by finding documents that Roberts signed saying (a)his principle residence is in Fairfax County Virginia, and (b)that the Dodge City address he claims he lives at is actually owned by a supporter, and Roberts rents a room from them at $300/month.

It will be interesting how it finally ends up. I think Orman is going to win everywhere east of I-135, with a commanding wins in Douglas (Lawrence), Wyandotte (KC), and Sedgewick (Wichita) counties. The big questions are what the farmers are going to do, and if there's enough out there are the tipping points. My guess is that the eastern half of the state will have large voter turnouts due to close local/state elections, while the western half will stay home.

Final prediction: Orman wins by 6%.

[kcchief19]

Gutsy prediction, Scarecrow. I think you may be right, but there is still a long way to go.

To answer Jim's direction question about why Orman is pledging to caucus with the majority, if he says he will caucus with the Democrats regardless, he will lose. It will drive moderate Republicans away. If he was running as a Democrat, it would still be a close race, but he would lose.

The Roberts campaign is running a pure GOTV campaign. I'm sure their polling is telling them they are losing the Democrats and Independents, and there is no wooing them back. Orman has those groups locked up barring a catastrophe.

The Sebelius path to victory is winning the Kansas City metro, the Missouri border states, the Wichita Metro and the Manhattan metro. That's a 51% strategy. Sebelius also picked up a lot central Kansas where her father-in-law was a six-term Congressman.

I'm not sure Orman is going to play in central and western Kansas. I don't think his message works, and I'm not sure he's a savvy enough campaigner to dedicate resources there. If he wants a lesson in that, look to Claire McCaskill in Missouri. She lost the race for governor in 2004 because she only won the metro areas. When she ran for the Senate in 2006, she campaigned aggressively in rural Missouri and picked up the votes to win.

I think the 527 money that hits Orman is going to be classic GOP GOTV issues painting him as pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-spending and pro taxes. If Orman has the independents and Democrats, Roberts has to get out the vote, and the one GOP group he has most trouble with is the Tea Party-types. He needs them to vote for him and not skip out. That's where his message needs to go.

[Scarecrow]

Here's an article on Greg Orman. Funny thing about the article is the things they are bashing him on are the things that make him appealing.

For me, I wish more politicians were like Greg Orman.

Greg Orman – The Cipher For Senate | RedState (http://www.redstate.com/2014/09/30/greg-orman-cipher-senate/)

[albionmoonlight]

The Fourth Circuit's opinion came down. Split decision. Most of the voting-law changes will be allowed to go into effect. Two of them will be enjoined for this election: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141845.P.pdf

The Court was careful to note that it was not making any pronouncements about the merits of the case--just the preliminary injunction standard.

Not the best news for Hagan. But also not as nationally relevant as it seemed a couple of weeks ago. It looks like the GOP will take the Senate with or without North Carolina.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Here's an article on Greg Orman. Funny thing about the article is the things they are bashing him on are the things that make him appealing.

For me, I wish more politicians were like Greg Orman.

Greg Orman – The Cipher For Senate | RedState (http://www.redstate.com/2014/09/30/greg-orman-cipher-senate/)

Senator Pat Roberts leaves a lot to be desired. He represents McLean, VA quite efficiently. Unfortunately, he runs for office as a Senator from the Great State of Kansas.

I liked this opening. Flip it around 180 degrees, I'd still like it as an opening. It's just a good line afaic.

That said, he's pretty much the antithesis of what I want in a candidate or an elected official.

[flere-imsaho]

I liked this opening. Flip it around 180 degrees, I'd still like it as an opening. It's just a good line afaic.

+1

Quite, simply, that's how you campaign.

[Solecismic]

With four weeks to go, I've moved Minnesota and Michigan into the no longer tracking closely category. In Minnesota's case, polling shows Franken with more than a ten-point lead.

In Michigan's case, it's more like an eight-point lead, but Land refuses to debate and the Republicans are pulling out. I think they're frustrated with her campaign and would rather make their last push everywhere but here. Zipping through programming on my TiVo, it seems every commercial is either pro-Snyder (Republican for governor) or anti-Land.

So that leaves the score at 45-45.

The leaner category is growing on the Republican side. This may be why the Republicans seem happy this week. Alaska, Arkansas and Georgia have all seen small Republican gains in polling. Kentucky has gone a point toward the challenger, Grimes, but that was the furthest Republican lean last week. There's a real Republican lean in all four races.

On the Democratic side, New Hampshire is still a strong lean and North Carolina is becoming a strong lean.

The leaners give the Republicans a 49-47 edge. Which means they need two of the remaining four races for control.

Louisiana will go to the runoff in December. While the Republican holds a lead in runoff polling, he's nowhere near a majority in three-way polling. Landrieu may well get the plurality. The way the voting is set up, it's actually to Louisiana's advantage to do this. Much more attention = more power.

That leaves Colorado, Kansas and Iowa. The Republicans probably feel safer with Louisiana if control is on the line in December. Cassidy's lead in head-to-head polling is consistent. Though things will change enough, post-election, that it will be a different playing field.

While the totals really haven't changed in the last week, it's the expansion of really small leads into slightly significant leads in the leaners that are giving the Republicans that confidence that Louisiana would give them 51 in many scenarios. I think it's a mistake to count on Louisiana, though.

Colorado has shifted back a tiny bit to the Democrat, Udall. This is now the closest race, and it seems one of the more volatile races when it comes to polling. Iowa shows Ernst, the Republican, with a tiny lead. Both of these races seem like they'll go whichever way the country turns in the final week.

Kansas is where the Republicans are focused. Big money is headed in that direction. Polling suggests Roberts can make a dent in Orman's lead, though Orman is likely still in the lead (a series of Fox polls came out yesterday that, if real, would make the Democrats very unhappy in several places - but they suggest a large and sudden swing that's not reflected in other polls).

Feeling they need one of these three, perceived Republican control depends on either being able to move Kansas with attacks on Orman or having the end-game shift in their direction. While I'd place both individual events at lower than even odds, getting one of the two is more like 60%. And the chance of losing Louisiana if Republican control depends on it is fairly low.

So I'm moving my Republican control odds to 50%, mostly based on the movement in Kansas.

[larrymcg421]

Keep an eye on South Dakota, which could get exciting. Lots of money going in for Weiland ($2 mill) and the DSCC is spending $1 mill against Rounds. The most recent poll had Rounds 35, Pressler 32, and Weiland 28.

[Solecismic]

That's the first poll showing Rounds with less than a 10-point lead. But it has been a light-polling state and the setup seems very similar to where Roberts was a couple of months ago.

It's worth watching. South Dakota is less red than most of its neighbors.

[JPhillips]

Orman talked about raising the SS age in the debate and I expect Roberts will beat the hell out of him with that. Orman has a good lead, but that could be the opening Roberts needs.

[albionmoonlight]

DSCC pulling ad buys out of Kentucky. Seems like good strategy.

[larrymcg421]

Survey USA has Nunn up 48-45. I wonder if that outsourcing comment is sinking Perdue.

Then there's a crazy SD poll from Harper, which is a Republican firm. They have it Rounds 37, Weiland 33, Pressler 23.

It's gonna be a crazy election day for sure.

[JAG]

That's the first poll showing Rounds with less than a 10-point lead. But it has been a light-polling state and the setup seems very similar to where Roberts was a couple of months ago.

It's worth watching. South Dakota is less red than most of its neighbors.

FYI, happened to see this yesterday:

Second poll finds close race -- with Weiland in second (http://www.argusleader.com/story/davidmontgomery/2014/10/13/harper-poll/17188281/)

A second poll has found Mike Rounds in the 30s with a narrow lead. Unlike the Aberdeen American News/KSFY/KOTA poll, though, the Harper Polling survey has Rick Weiland in second place, four points back. Larry Pressler is a more distant third place.
They have Rounds at 37 percent, Weiland at 33 percent, Pressler at 23 percent and Gordon Howie at 5 percent.

[JPhillips]

Survey USA has Nunn up 48-45. I wonder if that outsourcing comment is sinking Perdue.

Then there's a crazy SD poll from Harper, which is a Republican firm. They have it Rounds 37, Weiland 33, Pressler 23.

It's gonna be a crazy election day for sure.

With the total number of votes likely in SD it's really going to be a turnout election.

[JPhillips]

I don't think it will go down like this, but imagine if the Dems lose CO and IA, but win SD, KS and GA.

Politics sure is local.

[miked]

No way Nunn wins GA. Purdue is a doof and he can't lose. GA has the worst unemployment rate in the country (or one of the worst) and yet the guy who's been sued for unfair wage discrimination and is proud of his outsourcing will win. And Deal will win as well. It's amazing, maybe because the state is near the bottom in education as well, people just aren't smart enough to change anything.

[JonInMiddleGA]

No way Nunn wins GA. Purdue is a doof and he can't lose. GA has the worst unemployment rate in the country (or one of the worst) and yet the guy who's been sued for unfair wage discrimination and is proud of his outsourcing will win. And Deal will win as well. It's amazing, maybe because the state is near the bottom in education as well, people just aren't smart enough to change anything.

Nah.

We just know whose genetics Carter carries. And that Nunn's last name belies her utter worthlessness (although her dad's failure to disavow the D's has pretty much caused me to lose the respect I once had for him)

edit: and if we aren't at least smart enough to get these two votes right, hell, it's time to stop people from voting period. They're too fucking stupid to handle it.

[Solecismic]

Georgia has gotten closer. I'll update in the next few days, but there's evidence I should move it back into the pure toss-up category.

Strange that North Carolina might be getting closer the other way, though.

I'll be deciding which races to monitor on Election Night soon. Hopefully we can get a good game thread going.

[OldGiants]

Everybody has Warner being re-elected in Virginia, and that is likely, however:

I live in the district that Eric Cantor represented. His loss, while in a primary, is giving Warner the heebie-jeebies right now, according to local commentators. Some of this is due to Warner being extraordinarily narcissistic even for a politician. He is more or less 'demanding' his people produce a landslide that would fuel his national career. That isn't happening. Plus, Gillespie has landed some strong punches in debates by asking Warner, who billed himself as the bi-partisan problem solver, to name one single problem he has solved. Warner had no good answer, and is miffed with his staff for not anticipating this attack. It is somewhat similar to Brat's attacks on Cantor, the effectiveness of which did not appear until the votes were cast. So Warner is nervous.

My bet would be a narrow win for Warner, say 52%, but stay tuned.

[JPhillips]

Reports are that Gillespie is pulling TV ads. If that's true the race is clearly over.

[ISiddiqui]

No way Nunn wins GA. Purdue is a doof and he can't lose. GA has the worst unemployment rate in the country (or one of the worst) and yet the guy who's been sued for unfair wage discrimination and is proud of his outsourcing will win. And Deal will win as well. It's amazing, maybe because the state is near the bottom in education as well, people just aren't smart enough to change anything.

Both Nunn and Perdue are running one of the most negative campaigns possible. I won't vote for either. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with a CEO being proud of outsourcing saving his company millions either.

I like Jason Carter. He seems decent enough. But I can't stand Michelle Nunn at this point.

[Solecismic]

10/19 Update:

I've made a few changes, as undecideds are reduced in many polls.

Very Likely:

I've moved South Dakota out of the Very Likely category for the Republicans. This doesn't mean South Dakota is in play, but it does mean that it's not a certainty. Minnesota and Michigan aren't changing at all.

D 45, R 44

Leaners

South Dakota goes in the R column here, as it's a three-way race where Rounds has yet to trail in a poll. Also, it's not certain which of his opponents has an edge.

Alaska. Sullivan continues to lead for the Rs, although the fluid movement redward seems to have stopped.

Kentucky. McConnell's lead hasn't changed in a while, and D money is leaving the state.

Arkansas. Cotton's lead remains at 4 points.

New Hampshire. Shaheen's lead is down, and there was even a poll showing a Brown lead, but I think her lead is still real and it would be a major upset if she lost.

R 48, D 46

Toss-ups. I've expanded this category.

Georgia. Perdue (R) had a bad week, supposedly with the outsourcing issue, and this was the only Senate race to move blueward in the last week or so. Which means a January runoff is looking likely.

Louisiana. While Cassidy (R) continues to lead in head-to-head polling, a December runoff is almost certain.

Colorado. This race moved redward more than any other race during the last week. Almost enough to make this a Republican leaner. But the voting rules in Colorado are interesting, and polling in this state is, as a result far more difficult. I also think Colorado has become a blue state, and the last-minute incumbent bias may save Udall.

Iowa. No movement here. Ernst (R) continues to maintain a tiny lead, but not enough to make me consider calling it a lean.

North Carolina. Hagen (D) had a bad week, and loses her lean. She still leads in polling, but I would now call this the closest race in the Senate.

Kansas. Roberts (R) had a good week, and just about erased Orman's lead. This was likely because Orman never had to face targeted hate-ads before, and news got out about Orman's Soros-backed fundraiser. There's no longer the question about caucusing.

So that's six races I can't call at all. I think the Republicans have the lean in both runoffs, but that's a long way off.

The Democrats need to sweep the four other tossups to take that away. And, if they don't, at least a decent chance of winning a runoff. All told, I'm moving my Republican control percentage estimate from 50 to 55. Nationally, the Republicans gained a point this week.

[chesapeake]

So Warner is nervous.

My bet would be a narrow win for Warner, say 52%, but stay tuned.

My old boss on the Hill would get nervous every election. He won 18 times and rarely did his percentage dip below 60. They all get nervous as you get closer to election day.

It is a 3-way race in VA. Sarvis, the Libertarian candidate, made the ballot. So your 53% prediction may be spot on in a year like this. But I think that also means that Gillespie is at 45 or below.

Jim, I still think you are being too conservative with your estimates. The snapshot of today leans heavily toward the Republican side. Anything can happen between now and election day which could change things; that said, if nothing changes, it is very hard to see Dems holding onto the Senate.

I think some of the pundits are starting to nudge the number of seats the Republicans will pick up in the House up from the 8-10 that they have been predicting. Based on what I've been hearing from House staffers, I'm not surprised.

[Solecismic]

When we look at polls, we're being asked to trust that the adjustments the pollsters make to interpret their results with respect to the entire voting public are accurate.

So we've seen several sites now attempt to measure the measurers. And I do the same thing. We've all heard how optimistic Romney was going into 2012, and that was based on faulty internal polling. He was beaten fairly soundly, and wasn't close in states he spent money in as the race ended. That's a massive failure on the part of the polling interpretations he trusted.

I've never been polled myself. Perhaps I've received calls from pollsters. But I have a strict policy of not answering my phone if I don't recognize the number. It's illegal to call cell phones with a robopoll, and more and more young people have ditched land lines entirely.

So we're in this age of transition for polling. Voluntary polling perpetuates biases and more and more people are not only not responding to cold calls, but they're not even aware they could be in the sample. Assuming independence for the people who answer the phone is ridiculous. Pollsters have to incur costs by hiring people to dial the cells and ask the questions. Many polls we see are contracted by people unwilling to pay that extra cost.

From everything I see, people who tend to vote Democratic are more highly represented in the groups that can't be reached by pollsters. So pollsters make whatever adjustment they feel is necessary based on demographic questions answered by those they can reach. Some do this well and some don't, but all of them are reflected in the aggregate polls.

Nate Silver has found great success assuming consistent performance on the part of pollsters. That whatever methods they use are fair and consistent over a certain time period. So if pollster X misses by 10% while pollster Y misses by 5% over a certain time period, pollster Y gets a higher weight in his aggregate.

Maybe that approach still works. He essentially created this science of weighted aggregation, and there's no reason, yet, to doubt its validity.

But just take one poll - the standard Obama "good job" poll - which Rasmussen and Gallup have been running regularly this cycle. Rasmussen is consistently 10 points higher on this simple question.

So, to make a long answer shorter, the reason I'm closer to 50% on the Republican chances for taking the Senate is because I think it's inevitable that polling becomes more inaccurate as more and more people make it difficult to impossible to be included. Response rates have fallen from around 40% to below 10% in a relatively short amount of time. The assumptions you have to make from a very small amount of knowledge about that 10%, therefore, is growing. And every 1% that response rate drops, now, means a lot more variability in result.

On Election Night, in a couple of weeks, I think we'll have more than our usual share of surprises.

[chesapeake]

On Election Night, in a couple of weeks, I think we'll have more than our usual share of surprises.

I hear what you're saying. And I think Nate Silver does, too. He also gives greater weight to polls that call cell phones, for example.

Although I agree with this last sentence, I'm not sure our definition of "surprise" is the same thing. Mitch McConnell losing, although unlikely, is hardly a surprise. Everyone has been talking about his tough reelection campaign for the last 2 years. Ditto with Begich or Pryor winning reelection. Those have been closely contested races for the entire cycle with big money on both sides, even if the Republicans have been leading in the polls in recent weeks.

Shaheen, Franken, Warner or the Michigan seat going GOP -- one of those would be a surprise. But when I think of a "surprise" occurring on election day, it is one of those scenarios rather than Thad Cochran, Shelley Moore Capito or some other GOP seat falling.

[larrymcg421]

I think MI is definitely safe now. That leaves 11 competitive seats. Dems need to win 5 of them.

Lean Dem

NC - This one moved toward the GOP recently, but Hagan has maintained a consistent lead.

NH - Shaheen has had a small, consistent lead and there aren't many undecideds left here.


Toss Up

KS - This is close to a Lean Dem. Roberts has led in a few polls, but one was Fox News and another was from a R polling firm. The most recent poll from Rasmussen has Orman up by 5.


Lean GOP -

AK - Very little polling here, but Sullivan leads every survey and is close to 50.

AR - This is close to being a likely GOP unless there's some movement in the polls soon.

CO - Udall has been in a free fall. It's not impossible for him to come back, especially with a really strong turnout game, but I'm not optimistic.

GA - Nunn led in 4 consecutive surveys and Nate Silver actually has Nunn as a favorite. The thing that many people are missing about this race is Nunn isn't really running against Perdue right now. She's running against that 50% number. She has no chance of winning a runoff, especially if Senate control is at stake. So we shouldn't measure her likelihood of beating Perdue, but her likelihood of getting 50%. That's why I still have this as Lean GOP.

IA - Ernst has a small, but consistent lead. Braley's farmer gaffe has doomed him and even DailyKos is pessimistic about the early voting numbers. This is a slightly blue state, so Braley can still pull this out.

KY - DSCC said they were pulling out, but sounds like they are coming back. McConnell still has a clear lead, but the most recent survey only had Grimes down by 1.

LA - This one is definitely going to runoff and the head to head numbers don't look good for Landrieu. I give her better chances in a runoff, since she's won them twice before, but this race still clearly favors the GOP.

SD - A very lightly polled state, which is frustrating because so much is happening in this race. I still give this a Lean GOP, because Rounds has never trailed a poll, but there's a scandal brewing that could bring him down.



The Dems need to win 2 of those Lean GOP races and I'm very pessimistic about that possibility. I'd put the GOP chances of taking the Senate at 65% right now.

[JPhillips]

Not sure where to put this and I don't think it needs it's own thread.

Looks like Martha Coakley is set to blow another gimme election in MA. The Globe has her down nine points to the no-name GOP candidate for Gov. With skills this awful, how did she ever get elected to anything?

[flere-imsaho]

That's unreal. She must come from the Michael Dukakis school of campaigning.

On a similar (off-topic) note, the Maine Gubernatorial race has Michaud (D) and LePage (R) in a dead heat at 40-40 with Cutler (I) taking 17%. Polling shows that most of Cutler's support would vote for Michaud.

For those unfamiliar with the history, LePage won a 3-way race in 2010 just barely over Cutler. Michaud is a far better candidate than the Democrat that ran in 2010, but we could easily see LePage win it again with most of the state effectively voting against him.

Which is crazy, as the same poll (PPP, in this case) indicates that LePage is also one of the most unliked governors in the country.

[JPhillips]

That's unreal. She must come from the Michael Dukakis school of campaigning.

Dukakis won the Gov. Coakley will have blown easy Senate and Governor races to no-names in the bluest state in the country.

[ISiddiqui]

The thing that many people are missing about this race is Nunn isn't really running against Perdue right now. She's running against that 50% number. She has no chance of winning a runoff, especially if Senate control is at stake. So we shouldn't measure her likelihood of beating Perdue, but her likelihood of getting 50%. That's why I still have this as Lean GOP.

True. I know a lot of Dems are trying to mitigate this by saying the last time there was a Senate runoff (between Chambliss and Martin), the runoff was so much greater of a spread than the general because a lot of African-Americans who just went to the polls so they could vote for Barack Obama for President and voted D all the way down didn't show up to the runoff.

And that may be true, but I'd argue that in this race there are plenty of folks who may show up to the polls to vote D for the Governor's race (Deal vs. Carter) rather than the Senate race. The Senate race has been SO negative that you may have a similar situation to 2008 (though not as pronounced).

I mean speaking for myself, I'll vote for Jason Carter for Governor, but I'm not voting for David Perdue OR Michelle Nunn for Senate. I'll likely vote for the Libertarian Amanda Swafford, and then I may or may not vote in the Senate runoff.

[Solecismic]

Coakley's still within range. I'd call this one a pure tossup.

I've spent some time with this today, and I'm dropping my Republican control percentage all the way to 40. The undecideds are still unusually high in many places. I think North Carolina is back to D-leaner and Kentucky is back to a toss-up. I'm moving South Dakota to toss-up as well.

I see the Republicans getting to 48-49, but if the close races break D a couple of points in the last weekend (suggesting a polling issue), as they have in every election in recent years, that throws Kansas to the Democrats and Iowa/Kentucky are right on the line. And, looking at the numbers, Nunn may have gained enough this week to avoid a runoff. Landrieu seems to have good runoff skills, so, while that one will go to runoff, it's by no means a safe one for Cassidy. New Hampshire has closed, but it has by far the lowest number of undecideds - Brown probably doesn't have enough room to make up the ground in what has become a blue-ish state.

If you look at the polling in the Heitkamp North Dakota race a couple of years ago, you can see why South Dakota is difficult to call right now.

There are eleven races in play right now, and the Republicans need seven. While polling suggests about a 2.5-point lead, on average, in the eleven states, the data also suggests that Democrats have been consistently underpolled 2-3 points in every close election (on average) in the last ten years. We saw how not taking that into account hurt Romney in the closing week two years ago. He spent too much energy reaching in places he couldn't win.

But, I will add, this is an unusual situation in that there are so many races where the Republicans seem to be up 1-5 points. If there is no Democratic underpolling, their odds are more like 60-65% right now. I think the Heitkamp race from 2012 is the most interesting. It was unique in 2012, but several races are following that path today.

[albionmoonlight]

Jim:

Isn't there also some effect where late breakers tend to side with whomever is leading the polls? Like a want to be on the winning side effect? Or am I mis-remembering that?

If that's true, won't that also help the GOP?

[Solecismic]

Yes, that is absolutely true with individual races. I found that whenever someone has a lead in polling above a certain threshold, that lead often expands quite a bit in the election. For instance, Nelson in Florida (D) had a small but consistent lead over Mack the entire cycle. Polls ranged from 1 to 13 in Nelson's favor during the last six weeks, averaging +6 for Nelson. Experts had no trouble calling this a strong leaner. Nelson ended up winning by 13.

The question is the location of the threshold, and that's hard to determine. Are any of these eleven races above that threshold? It's possible. But I think they're all close enough that this won't happen. The question is whether the pollsters have changed enough from 2012 and 2010 and 2008, etc, to have gotten it right this time.

When I make my final tracking selections for Election Night, I hope to establish the answer to that question with very early partial results, so I can determine which of the later results deserves more attention.

[larrymcg421]

Lots of polls today

AK: Sullivan +4

AK polling is sketcy, but Begich is almost certainly in a major uphill battle here.

AR: Cotton +2, Cotton +5

This is actually not so bad for Pryor as a previous poll had him down 8. Still, Cotton has been ahead here for a while.

CO: Gardner +1, Udall +1

Best news for Dems in a long time here. This is the first poll Udall has led since 10/1.

GA: Perdue +3

Nunn was leading a ton of polls here, so this is a bit of an outlier at the moment. I still remain pessimistic about this race due to runoff rules.

IA: Ernst +3, Tie

Can Braley still pull this off? It will depend on how the Dems manage their ground game.

KS: Orman +1, Roberts +4

Not so good here. Even the +1 lead is too tight for the Dems to be comfortable and we still don't even know that he'll caucus with the Dems if he does win.

LA: Cassidy +4

Not sure how much we can or should read into these runoff polls until the runoff starts. If this race determines control, I think it has to be much harder for Landrieu to win.

NC: Tie, Hagan +3

The tie poll has the Libertarian candidate with 7%. I think that's too high. The +3 is more in line with other polls right now.

NH: Shaheen +5

Great poll for Shaheen.

SD: Rounds +14, Rounds +13

So much for this one.


I stick with my 65% chance of GOP control. Jim is right that polls in 2012 underestimated the Dems, but that was also a much better climate for them. I'm not pinning my hopes on that happening again, especially since people that pin their hopes on the polls being wrong are usually disappointed.

[Solecismic]

It's not just 2012. the late swing applied in prior elections. It's small, but definite, and only applies to close races.

I'm moving South Dakota back to R-leaner today.

The polls today are helpful. Always nice to see the CBS/NYT polls because they are larger, which means lower margin of error. They poll everywhere. Most don't, so they may have insight others don't have. And it tends to lean a little blue. Not much, and not in all races, but maybe a point or two on average.

This is consistent with the late swing the last three elections. Every pollster has to make some assumptions about the people they can reach. CBS/NYT may well be making better assumptions than most. With any poll, you have to look at its history.

In Colorado, the CBS/NYT was also the last poll to have Udall with a lead. And NBC/Marist has given Udall his best polls of the entire cycle. So I don't see Colorado as having moved, but I see this as evidence that this is a very, very close race. Colorado will definitely be on my track list next Tuesday.

In Kansas, CBS/NYT shows Roberts ahead, 42-38 (they showed it 40-40 last month). These are crazy-high undecided numbers for this late in the race. I will be tracking Kansas because I don't think we have a good idea of how this one will turn out.

In North Carolina, CBS/NYT has Hagen up 3, and aside from the Republican-connected Civitas, is the only poll to show a Tillis lead in the entire cycle. Hagen's lead is small, but real. I continue to see this as a D-leaner.

In Iowa, CBS/NYT has been a bit more in Braley's favor than most. They ran the last Braley-lead poll a month ago. And they're showing more undecideds than most polls. Here's another example of the Heitkamp situation. I see this one as dead even.

In Georgia, CBS/NYT is red-leaning compared to other polls. What do they see here that others don't? They have consistently seen this race from the red side. I have to decide whether to modify my prep work to track a race against the possibility of a run-off. The Libertarian vote here matters almost more than the D/R votes for now.

I still see Alaska and Arkansas as redward and New Hampshire as blueward. Kentucky is on the edge of R-leaning. I'm still at 40% Republican control.

[Solecismic]

I've selected the following races for detailed tracking on Tuesday:

7:00 closing, Kentucky Senate
7:30 closing, North Carolina Senate
8:00 closing, New Hampshire Senate, Massachusetts Governor, Michigan Governor (a few polling places close at 9:00), Kansas Senate (a few polling places close at 9:00).
9:00 closing, Colorado Senate, Wisconsin Governor
10:00 Iowa Senate
12:00 Alaska Senate

This item will serve as a game thread. Again, I ask that people keep this non-partisan. Which means let's keep it to results and polls, and keep any discussion of topics like voter fraud or nasty campaigning in other items. Thanks.

[miked]

Man, they are really hammering Perdue on the outsourcing. I'm working from home today and I've seen about 10 commercials on his "proud of my outsourcing" comments. They also have people from some company named Pillow something where he apparently made millions as a CEO right before the company tanked and lots lost jobs (or at least the commercials would make you believe). In a state with the worst unemployment, I gather this is hurting him.

Though, I've seen no commercials about what either will do, so I gather this is probably the most negative campaign. Every Perdue commercial is just Nunn saying she supports the president's policies with a picture of Obama. The ironic thing is the message is "time for a change" which is silly because the 2 senate seats have been in R hands for a while with no legislation actually coming from them.

Edit: Apparently I had no idea that the governor's race was also a runoff scenario. So we'll have at least 4-6 more weeks of crazy adds for everyone. The national parties are pouring tons of money in to these races. I wonder if it's clear that the R will take control of the senate before the runoff, do they decrease spending on Perdue?

[larrymcg421]

The GA polls have shifted back in Perdue's direction. I see almost zero chance of Michelle getting 50% on election day.

I see the Dems winning NC, Iowa, and NH, but nothing else (and I'm not even sure about Iowa). I certainly hope I'm wrong, but this is going to be an ugly day.

[larrymcg421]

dola

This will be the most exciting election day for me, because it's my first campaign cycle as a professional. I worked as a Field Organizer for the IA-3 and MI-6 races, plus did some remote organizing for the KS-Sen race.

[sterlingice]

dola

This will be the most exciting election day for me, because it's my first campaign cycle as a professional. I worked as a Field Organizer for the IA-3 and MI-6 races, plus did some remote organizing for the KS-Sen race.

I'd love to hear about what that's like if you can talk about it. Election organizing seems like a fascinating thing to me.

SI

[larrymcg421]

I'd love to hear about what that's like if you can talk about it. Election organizing seems like a fascinating thing to me.

SI

It's long hours and I haven't had a day off since August, but it's definitely more exciting and fulfilling than anything I've done in the private sector.

My job is to get people involved in the campaign as phone bankers, canvassers, or grassroots communicators. We find people by calling those who have signed up as potential volunteers in the past, giving presentations to college groups, making alliances with local community activist groups, and canvassing at public events. I also set up and run the college and high school internship program. When those people come in, I train and supervise them. When they're done, I enter their data. Also, if we do a "regular people" ad, then I will recruit people to be in it. Those are the main things we focus on, but my job is to come up with any ideas that can get us more volunteers.

[miked]

Can you tell them to stop fucking calling my house 10 times a night between 6:30-8? I know how to vote, I know where to vote, and I always vote. Stop. Fucking. Calling.

[larrymcg421]

Can you tell them to stop fucking calling my house 10 times a night between 6:30-8? I know how to vote, I know where to vote, and I always vote. Stop. Fucking. Calling.

If you told someone you know how to vote (or to fuck off), the reason you might still be getting calls is probably because PACs are making calls and can't coordinate with the campaign, so the data isn't shared.

[JPhillips]

I know there's data that shows it works, but the voting record cards both sides are sending out to guilt people are pretty shitty.

[Solecismic]

Not to derail this thread, but the only way a campaigner could possibly change my vote is to annoy me enough that I voted against him or her.

I had a policy back in New Hampshire, before I had caller ID and where there are fewer extremists running, of voting against any candidate who called my home.

There was once a local race where the Republican was heavily favored. He was from a family that had a last name that meant something in the area. He went ahead with a robocall. He lost a close race, and received a lot of negative feedback about the robocall.

So he wrote a letter to the local newspaper congratulating his opponent and apologizing for having made the calls. Two years later, he ran again, didn't make robocalls, and won easily over the same opponent.

I know the research suggests that annoying people works, but for the life of me I don't get it. I never answer the phone for unknown callers and when you're eating dinner or watching TV and have to sit through the phone ringing and then the long message on your answering machine... it really makes you dislike that person. I know it's legal to make those calls, but I think politicians should use the National No-Call List to scrub their lists. Both for their sake and for ours.

[larrymcg421]

Yeah, calls can be annoying, but looking at the numbers, they're definitely worth it. It would be suicide for a campaign to not employ them as part of its field plan, just like it would be suicide to not flood people with ads and mailers.

As far as I know, we aren't sending out voting history cards in any of our races. I actually don't mind the ones addresses to the individual and containing only their information. Where it crosses the line IMO is when they send out cards with names of your neighbors who haven't voted.

We actually started remote organizing for a 4th race - NH-01. So I'll have 4 races to closely watch (outside of the huge races that I'll already be watching). There's a chance we could lose all four, which would be a pretty crappy first election night, but I'm still proud of the work I've done.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah, calls can be annoying, but looking at the numbers, they're definitely worth it. It would be suicide for a campaign to not employ them as part of its field plan, just like it would be suicide to not flood people with ads and mailers.

Basically, this.

I just pretty much abandoned the use of my landline this year. Might answer it once or twice a month since spring.

[Solecismic]

Yeah, calls can be annoying, but looking at the numbers, they're definitely worth it. It would be suicide for a campaign to not employ them as part of its field plan, just like it would be suicide to not flood people with ads and mailers.

As far as I know, we aren't sending out voting history cards in any of our races. I actually don't mind the ones addresses to the individual and containing only their information. Where it crosses the line IMO is when they send out cards with names of your neighbors who haven't voted.

We actually started remote organizing for a 4th race - NH-01. So I'll have 4 races to closely watch (outside of the huge races that I'll already be watching). There's a chance we could lose all four, which would be a pretty crappy first election night, but I'm still proud of the work I've done.

If someone sent me a card with my voting record (assuming I read it - cards usually go straight into recycling without a glance), I would take notice and strongly consider a vote against that candidate. I think that's far, far over the line.

There are moments like these when I worry about our country. I have a responsibility, as a voter, to learn for myself about the issues and try and make reasonable decisions. I would never consider a straight-ticket vote for any party. So the phone calls are ignored, the fliers are ignored, I don't answer the doorbell if I'm not expecting someone. I don't watch commercials. I'm pretty much impossible to reach unless you annoy me enough to make me dislike you.

Yet the parties spend billions on this stuff. And they say they have evidence it works. Who is it that's influenced positively by this harassment?

[larrymcg421]

If someone sent me a card with my voting record (assuming I read it - cards usually go straight into recycling without a glance), I would take notice and strongly consider a vote against that candidate. I think that's far, far over the line.

There are moments like these when I worry about our country. I have a responsibility, as a voter, to learn for myself about the issues and try and make reasonable decisions. I would never consider a straight-ticket vote for any party. So the phone calls are ignored, the fliers are ignored, I don't answer the doorbell if I'm not expecting someone. I don't watch commercials. I'm pretty much impossible to reach unless you annoy me enough to make me dislike you.

Yet the parties spend billions on this stuff. And they say they have evidence it works. Who is it that's influenced positively by this harassment?

What would you suggest candidates do? Sit in their campaign office and hope someone stops by with a question?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yet the parties spend billions on this stuff. And they say they have evidence it works. Who is it that's influenced positively by this harassment?

The benefit of the mass media tactics is top of mind, mostly.

I think you're such an outlier in terms of how you approach voting, the responsibility you mentioned, that it's not surprising how you react to a common tactic.

Look no further that this
I would never consider a straight-ticket vote for any party.

versus

roughlyl 2/3rds of ballots cast in Texas (http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/10/29/6241775/the-quickest-way-to-vote-in-texas.html) being straight party

[larrymcg421]

I don't blindly vote straight party, but I always vote straight party.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't blindly vote straight party, but I always vote straight party.

And yea, there's this.

When I referred to "straight party", I was mostly thinking of what I suspect you'll remember Georgia: the old single lever/single button/master lever option.

Still an option in 13-14 states.

As this point I'm more likely to omit/no-vote a race as my own statement than I am to break the straight-party thing.

[BishopMVP]

Dukakis won the Gov. Coakley will have blown easy Senate and Governor races to no-names in the bluest state in the country.It's not as blue a state as people think for statewide races. Dukakis was actually the last Democratic Governor until Deval Patrick - 4 different Republicans held office from 1991-2007, plus there have been a few decently close Senate races even with prominent Senators in Kennedy and Kerry.

The Mass Dem Party was also opposed to Coakley and strongly pushed Grossman in the primary, so it's not anbug surprise she's losing.

[PilotMan]

I know the research suggests that annoying people works, but for the life of me I don't get it. I never answer the phone for unknown callers and when you're eating dinner or watching TV and have to sit through the phone ringing and then the long message on your answering machine... it really makes you dislike that person. I know it's legal to make those calls, but I think politicians should use the National No-Call List to scrub their lists. Both for their sake and for ours.

FWIW, since I've used Magic Jack as my primary land line with calls being routed through a different Google Voice number I haven't had a single political call. It's been really nice.

[Solecismic]

What would you suggest candidates do? Sit in their campaign office and hope someone stops by with a question?

I'd like the parties to agree to respect the National No-Call List, or agree to set up a separate no-call list for political calls. Is that really a lot to ask? Seems like common courtesy to me.

And, better yet, hold public debates about the issues, rather than sound-byte contests. And, if they do feel the need to advertise their campaigns, discuss the issues rather than engage in disgraceful mud-slinging.

[SackAttack]

I'd like the parties to agree to respect the National No-Call List

The only reason the National No-Call list even became a thing with legal enforcement was the carve-out for politics and prior business relationships.

or agree to set up a separate no-call list for political calls. Is that really a lot to ask? Seems like common courtesy to me.

As others have said, what you consider common courtesy is political suicide in a lot of ways. Given that snail and electronic mailers routinely get trashed/deleted without being read, phone calls and door-to-door are the only really viable outlets political candidates can count on to get their message out. I suspect you'd have an easier time getting a law passed banning lies and half-truths in political advertising than you would in getting Congress to pass legislation criminalizing (or even strongly disapproving of without actual consequences) unwanted political contacts.

Just sayin'.

[TroyF]

I can honestly say I'm in the third that don't vote straight ticket.I can only think of a ballot or two in my 20+ years of voting that went one side all the way down.

As for the calls, I hang up on them and they don't influence my vote one way or the other. This year I've tried something new. . . I haven't watched a single ad. If one comes on, I change the channel. I go online and read the stances on the issues I care about. I don't even look at the polls. I couldn't tell you if the issues I'm going to vote for are 20 points ahead or 20 points behind.

I feel better. My guess is if I started a web site or created an app that just had stances on the issues with no polling numbers or negative comments that it would fail miserably. Yet I'd also guess a lot of people would be excited to hear about a website or app like that.

Go figure.

[larrymcg421]

I'd like the parties to agree to respect the National No-Call List, or agree to set up a separate no-call list for political calls. Is that really a lot to ask? Seems like common courtesy to me.

I'm definitely not opposed to any changes like that. I was more speaking to how you disavowed all forms of political communication.

And, better yet, hold public debates about the issues, rather than sound-byte contests. And, if they do feel the need to advertise their campaigns, discuss the issues rather than engage in disgraceful mud-slinging.

Very nice and idealistic, but this is completely up to the voters. If they stop rewarding mud-slinging, then parties will stop mud-slinging. If the public had an attention span to listen to more than sound-bytes, then you'd see debates that were more than sound-byte contests.

Several people in this thread clearly take their voting responsibilities very seriously and don't want or need to be communicated about the candidates or issues. I completely respect that. But there are many more people that listen to the calls, read the mailers, pay attention the ads, listen to door canvassers (you'd be surprised at how well this is usually received), etc. Until that changes, none of it is going away.

Anyways, I didn't mean to hijack this thread. I just thought it would be interesting to share a personal career moment that is pretty exciting for me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

fwiw, I'm in the same hard (nearly impossible) to reach category as Solecismic.

I watch essentially zero local TV.
I listen to even less local radio.
I read newspaper only online and only that with near complete ad-blocking.
I answer zero political calls.

As for advertising, the only ways to get through to me at all are billboards & yard signs. And the latter is a two-edged sword as I have withheld votes from candidates who have a noticeable number of signs placed illegally in the highway right-of-way.

[Solecismic]

Well, if we really reward this behavior, then we get the candidates we deserve.

Yes, I suppose it's time to get back to the item at hand.

New poll in Iowa, same as the old poll. The DMR polls rightward, so I think Ernst and Braley are still within a sling of the ol' mud of each other.

[larrymcg421]

Last 5 polls in each state:

AK: R+5, D+6, R+4, R+4, R+6
AR: R+8, R+7, R+13, R+2, R+5
CO: R+2, R+1, R+7, R+6, R+1
GA: R+4, Tie, R+2, R+3, R+2
IA: R+7, R+1, R+1, R+2, D+1
KS: I+1, R+1, I+2, I+1, R+4
KY: R+9, R+8, R+5, R+6, R+8
LA: R+5, R+1, R+8, R+7, R+4
NC: D+1, D+2, D+3, Tie, Tie
NH: D+1, R+1, D+7, Tie, R+4
SD: R+14, R+11, R+9, R+11, R+13

This is one case where I hope Jim is right and I'm wrong, but I don't know how anyone can look at these numbers and not see the inevitability of Republicans winning the Senate. I have them at 80% chances right now and I'm thinking that might be low.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I have them at 80% chances right now and I'm thinking that might be low.

From your mouth to God's ear

;)

[Solecismic]

I'd like to keep the rooting out of here, if that's OK. The tone is still cool, but I want to be careful that this doesn't devolve into every other political item tomorrow.

So... my second-to-last assessment before the election.

Over the last week, the Republicans have gained maybe a half-point, maybe less. But it's all where they expected those gains. These are more conservative southern states.

I've made the following changes:

South Dakota - no longer tracking closely. Very Likely R.

This puts the score at 45-45.

Arkansas - Still leaning R, but on the verge of very likely.
Kentucky - moving from toss-up to leaning R.

With leaners, the score is 48-47 for the Republicans.

We have the two likely run-offs, Iowa, Kansas and Colorado in the toss-up category. Both sides probably need three of these five for the win.

The Republicans will probably start off as slight favorites in both run-offs, but the political climate always changes right after the election. Obama has promised some action. Either side could make a mistake. I just don't feel comfortable assigning confidence to the run-offs.

My feeling, looking at the polls, is that Iowa and Kansas are very, very even and Colorado is very, very slightly red. But Colorado does have that experiment with the ballot mailing to consider, and that means the LV versus RV distinction is less important. Of course, when you look at the few RV polls in that race, all long ago, they didn't show anything different.

Of the leaners, Alaska has moved bluer more than any state over the last week. Could be random noise. And, as we know, Alaska polls are tough to read. It's a hard state to cover. I'm tempted to move it into toss-up.

I see North Carolina and New Hampshire as consistent blue leaners. Both are close, but they have lower undecideds and an incumbent to beat.

I'll take the Republican odds from 40 to 45%, based on solidification in Kentucky and Arkansas. It would be more, but Alaska is going to be interesting.

[larrymcg421]

Obama could help with turnout in the runoffs, but it could also backfire and hurt Nunn/Landrieu with the right leaning independents they need to win the election. The GOP has been running against Obama in both states and if the Senate is up for grabs, the Republicans who are considering voting for the moderate Dems will come home to make sure their party wins control. Also, Perdue has a decent chance of getting 50 and avoiding the runoff.

The other problem is if we have the situation where the GOP has won 50 seats and the Dems are stuck at 47. Orman will be under tremendous pressure to declare at that point instead of waiting until January.

The Dems will need to win Iowa, Kansas, and Colorado, because they can't count on the runoffs and they need to be in position for Orman to caucus with them. The problem is I see the GOP as having more chance at picking off NC or NH than the Dems do of holding CO.

[Solecismic]

I'm going to keep Alaska as a redward leaner. This is the latest poll, showing Sullivan up 1.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/AKResults.pdf

It's from PPP, which is a Democratic organization, but they've been polling a long time and their results are credible, though they lean slightly toward the blue side of the result spectrum.

I'm inclined to think that R+1 is possible here, but about as good as the Democrats can expect.

Delving into the survey, what struck me was the "who did you vote for in 2012" question. This favored Romney, 50-41. The actual result in 2012 was Romney 55-41. The poll also included 50% 46-to-65s, who went 47-46 for Begich, and have heavy support for the independent challenging the Republican for governor. But 46-to-65s make up about 30% of the voting age population and the age group should be more red-leaning than others.

On the other hand, CBS/NYT/YouGov showed Sullivan with a 4-point lead, but ahead 46-33 with the 45-to-64s, who comprised more than half of those surveyed, but were weighted at 42%. They have surveyed a few times here and gotten similar results. These seem more along the lines of what I'd expect.

Alaska, again, is very difficult to figure. But I think more is necessary to make a switch.

[Solecismic]

A final pre-election look...

To summarize, the Democratic caucus holds a 34-30 edge in seats that are not up for election.

Adding in elections that polls show aren't close, the tally is 45-45.

I have Arkansas, Kentucky and Alaska leaning red.

I have North Carolina and New Hampshire leaning blue. Particularly in New Hampshire, the polls that show Brown as tied are of lower quality (robopolls), and undecideds are very low there.

That leaves the Republican caucus with a 48-47 advantage.

Georgia and Louisiana are very close, both leaning red if the final election were held today. But these states have runoffs if no candidate reaches 50 percent. That's near certain in Louisiana, and very likely in Georgia. The Republican has re-established a real lean in Georgia, but it's probably not quite enough for tomorrow.

The polls show the Republican with about a 2-point lead in Colorado and Iowa. But in the last several elections, pollsters have under-polled young people, and the final results have been a few points to the Democratic side.

Again, time after time when I look at these polls, I see more middle-aged people contacted and weights applied to try and keep that from counting too much. But, every time, pollsters assume young people won't vote, and they do. And too many polls are of low quality anyway. That doesn't mean you throw away the results, but I'm assuming the same blue swing as we had two years ago on election day. So I'm predicting Democratic wins in Colorado and Iowa. Close, but blue.

In Kansas, we had the Democrat drop out and a former Democrat, running as an independent, shoot to the top of the polls. The incumbent took the expected strategy of trying to paint the guy as a Democrat, which he probably is, and that helped narrow the gap. But that can only go so far, and the Independent has a one-point lead in the polls.

The situation in Kansas is interesting. This is a red state. In most of the state, you have small counties that go 80% or more to the Republicans. It was as easy a win for Romney as he had anywhere. And, usually, Kansas elects Republicans to state-wide offices. But something's different this time. There's a deep anger from Kansas Republicans about the economy. The governor's race is polling almost identical to this senate race. For the half who care more about immigration and Obamacare, they're going to vote as they normally do. But the half that cares more about the economy - and many of them are Republicans - don't trust these two candidates at all.

So even though the Republican successfully painted the independent as a Democrat, which wasn't that hard to do given the history there, it didn't make a huge difference. So I think the independent wins this.

Orman has said he will caucus with the majority. If things go as I expect, it will be 49-48 at this point - 49-49 if Georgia decides. Since 50-50 means the Democrats are the majority, he can be the decision-maker, and I expect him to side with the people who funded his campaign.

So, I'm predicting the Democrats will hold the Senate, probably 50-50 in the end. Accordingly, I'm dropping Republican chances from 45% back to 40%, based on a lot more confidence in New Hampshire and my closer look at Kansas. This is very close, though.

[lungs]

Not a Senate race, but it'll be interesting to see how WI-Gov turns out. Burke will be closer than Barrett came to Walker but I think Walker still pulls out a 1-2% victory. Just a gut feeling.

[JPhillips]

I can't see any way the GOP doesn't take the Senate. Too many upsets have to happen for the Dems to retain control.

What will really be interesting are the leadership battles. I'd bet Reid steps aside for fresh blood going into 2016 and several GOPers are refusing to say they'll support Mitch.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My gut, strictly my anecdotal instinctive gut, is that Georgia is either a runoff or Nunn wins outright. I can't see any scenario where Perdue wins outright tonight.

[flere-imsaho]

Went to vote and the polling place was packed. People around me said it's the busiest they've seen it for years (we just moved in a year ago, so no comparisons for us).

This may be because Maine has both a) a pretty heated gubernatorial race and b) a ballot measure to outlaw bear hunting (well, outlaw bear hunting with dogs, traps and/or bait) that has been probably the most controversial thing on the ballot.

[larrymcg421]

My gut, strictly my anecdotal instinctive gut, is that Georgia is either a runoff or Nunn wins outright. I can't see any scenario where Perdue wins outright tonight.

Nunn winning outright would be a pretty major upset at this point.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Nunn winning outright would be a pretty major upset at this point.

{shrug} Early voting here looked more like Obama round one. The GOTV effort looked like it went exceptionally well for the D's.

[ISiddiqui]

And it would mean that the Dems are likely going to keep the Senate as all the polling was too pro-R (if Nunn wins outright that is)

[JonInMiddleGA]

And it would mean that the Dems are likely going to keep the Senate as all the polling was too pro-R (if Nunn wins outright that is)

This is very much the sense I'm starting to get, at least here. Perdue in particular seemed to generate very little enthusiasm that I could see. And I'm not at all sure the non-political class of R's here really understand what's at stake nationally. Not really.

That said, my track record of predicting outcomes ain't great historically.

[ISiddiqui]

From your lips to God's ears ;)

Though I bet your track record will manifest again :(

[flere-imsaho]

If the Democrats nationally really GOTV in this election, then I think we will really need to look at how they managed that, given that (my presumption) this was supposed to be a down year for Democratic Party involvement.

[Kodos]

My polling place was busier than I expected.

[stevew]

All of our races show massive leads. Wish we had a bear issue to vote on. Probably will head out in an hour or so. I suspect the 2016 PA senate race will be huge and the seat should be up for grabs. Toomey(R) narrowly defeated his opponent 51-49 last time. He'll be vulnerable again.

[SirFozzie]

I can't Get Out To Vote today, I screwed up my leg/thigh badly somehow.. :(

My hopes here in MA

A) Believe it or not, I hope Charlie Baker beats Martha Coakley. Coakley.. just.. isn't a good politician/campaigner. She's a wonk. And with the level of D ownership of our state house and senate, having a slightly moderate R governor is not so bad.

B) Casino Bill Repeal: Looks like repeal is going to fail, but still a bit worried.

C) After that, I hope Scott Brown loses, and falls into a mudpit... and I hope that the Koch brother spontaneously combust. Hey, I can dream right?

[sterlingice]

All of our races show massive leads. Wish we had a bear issue to vote on. Probably will head out in an hour or so. I suspect the 2016 PA senate race will be huge and the seat should be up for grabs. Toomey(R) narrowly defeated his opponent 51-49 last time. He'll be vulnerable again.

:D

SI

[JAG]

In St Paul, MN, my wife said there was no line this morning (way down compared with 2008/2012), which is supposedly par for the course around here.

[stevew]

For some reason we don't get awesome ballot initiatives in PA(I'm assuming the constitution of this state is different).

[Dr. Sak]

For some reason we don't get awesome ballot initiatives in PA(I'm assuming the constitution of this state is different).

It'd be nice to get an initiative so we can buy beer & wine in a grocery story and gas station...you know the important stuff.

[ISiddiqui]

I can't Get Out To Vote today, I screwed up my leg/thigh badly somehow.. :(

...

C) After that, I hope Scott Brown loses, and falls into a mudpit... and I hope that the Koch brother spontaneously combust. Hey, I can dream right?

Pre-karma? ;)

Though I hope you feel better soon :(

[JonInMiddleGA]

For some reason we don't get awesome ballot initiatives in PA(I'm assuming the constitution of this state is different).

Pennsylvania 2014 ballot measures - Ballotpedia (http://ballotpedia.org/Pennsylvania_2014_ballot_measures)

Pennsylvania does not have an initiative and referendum process.

Basically it looks like you can only get state-C amendments or advisory questions. Since 1998 (per that link) you've averaged 1 per year, never more than 2.

[Arles]

As of this morning, Nate Silver is reporting a 75% chance for republicans to win the senate:

Final Update: Republicans Have A 3 In 4 Chance Of Winning The Senate | FiveThirtyEight (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/final-update-republicans-have-a-3-in-4-chance-of-winning-the-senate/)

[digamma]

Pretty bland year in California. Even the ballot propositions are tame, relative to past years.

The hottest race in my district is the LA County Supervisor's race between two longtime local politicians (both Democrats) Sheila Kuehl and Bobby Shriver. That, in and of itself, says something. I expect turnout to be very low.

[Thomkal]

Well with all respect to those here, I hope there are many surprises tonight so we can see things like this again:

Karl Rove's election night melt-down over Ohio results on Fox News - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TwuR0jCavk)

[Buccaneer]

In a county of 427,000 registered voters, 187,000 votes were dropped off as of 9 last night. Today by mid-morning, only 536 voters showed up the old fashioned way at polling places.

Several Colorado polls showed most interest in local issues and not the race for gov or senator. In my family that includes a dem-leaning independent, we all voted none of the above for the politicians.

[Izulde]

Turnout in Nevada is extremely low for midterm elections. Sandoval's expected to be re-elected governor in a landslide, though he's done after this term because of Nevada's moronic two term limit for its state-level politicians (which ensures that the state is firmly in the grip of the gambling and mining lobbyists).

No Senate race and the US House races are all expected to see the incumbents win, with only District 4 even marginally competitive.

[Solecismic]

It's ridiculously early, but the first 12,000 or so votes from Kentucky, which are almost all from heavily-red counties, suggest a closer race than expected. Not enough data to read anything into it, and still a slight edge to McConnell.

[Galaxy]

Iand I hope that the Koch brother spontaneously combust. Hey, I can dream right?

Billionaire-backed Democrats vs. billionaire-backed Republicans.

[ISiddiqui]

So... I had to stand in line, which is extremely rare. I've never had to stand in line to vote. Even during Presidential elections. Today, I had to wait for over 20 minutes. Strange stuff...

[ISiddiqui]

Kentucky has been called for McConnell.

[Solecismic]

It was called instantly, which means exit polls, right?

The early numbers are suggesting McConnell will win by somewhere between 5-9. I wouldn't call it yet, but it seems like a very likely at this point.

[miked]

This is very much the sense I'm starting to get, at least here. Perdue in particular seemed to generate very little enthusiasm that I could see. And I'm not at all sure the non-political class of R's here really understand what's at stake nationally. Not really.

That said, my track record of predicting outcomes ain't great historically.

The problem with this race is that is was so negative you have really no idea what people stood for. Every ad for Perdue was basically Nunn standing next to the president in some photo and a sound bite where she said she supports the presidents policies (and defers to his judgement--which was totally not in any context). Nunn just hammered the job stuff over and over. I'm shocked if either wins outright and it will just get uglier.

[Solecismic]

The biggest piece of bad news for Grimes is Fayette County (Lexington). This is a county Obama won by 1 point in 2012. She probably needed to see 62-63% from Lexington. It's almost all in now and reporting only 6 points in her favor.

I don't any other positive result, yet, except her 2-point win in Wolfe County, which went to Romney by 22. That's about the kind of switch she needed to win this race.

I don't have the kind of data that allows for confidence intervals, but we're now leaning more 8s and 9s than 6s and 7s. So maybe 6-11 rather than 5-9 now, for McConnell.

[Solecismic]

In North Carolina, most of the early votes reported are from the Raleigh area (Wake county). That inflates Hagen's perceived lead. The very limited data reported so far points to a lead centering at 6 points in Hagen's favor. But this is a tiny sample of counties even reporting anything.

[Solecismic]

And based on almost nothing in New Hampshire, Shaheen's lead is consistent with a 4-6 point win. Concord is the only city of any significant size reporting all precincts, and it went 67% for Shaheen. From Concord's past voting data, she would have wanted at least 63%.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Arkansas goes to the Republicans.

[Galaxy]

CNN just gets worse over time. I can barely stand to listen to Wolf anymore.

[Solecismic]

A lot more in, and Kentucky is now centering on 10-11 in McConnell's favor. Could be a case of once people perceive an incumbent will win, they tend to vote for the winner. So when the Democrats pulled ads early, that hurt Grimes more than the polls showed.

[larrymcg421]

So one of the races I did remote organizing for was NH-01. Carol Shea-Porter won it in the 2006 wave. In 2008, she beat Frank Guinta. Guinta then beat her in the 2010 rematch. Then she beat him again in the 2012 rematch. Now they're facing again for the 4th consecutive race.

Shea-Porter won by 4 pts in 2012 and she's performing between 3 and 5 points worse in many of the townships. This is going to be close.

[Solecismic]

A longer look at North Carolina, Hagen's lead centering at 4-5 points now. The eastern part of the state is providing Tillis with better news than the western part, though the western part is still his territory.

[Solecismic]

So one of the races I did remote organizing for was NH-01. Carol Shea-Porter won it in the 2006 wave. In 2008, she beat Frank Guinta. Guinta then beat her in the 2010 rematch. Then she beat him again in the 2012 rematch. Now they're facing again for the 4th consecutive race.

Shea-Porter won by 4 pts in 2012 and she's performing between 3 and 5 points worse in many of the townships. This is going to be close.

I lived there at the time. I remember what a shock that first result was. No one thought it would be close.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

South Dakota to Republicans.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

LOL.....Karl Rove is all over this Virginia Senate race. Good viewing if for nothing else than entertainment value.

[Solecismic]

New Hampshire holding consistent with a 5-point Shaheen lead. I'd almost feel comfortable calling it, though 5 is obviously very close.

[Solecismic]

The way-way too early numbers for Kansas are very good for the incumbent. Of course, if Roberts holds in Kansas, that changes everything.

One comment is that Orman ran on an anti-gridlock platform. Biden, this morning, said "he's one of us." I think Kansans could accept that Orman wasn't a Republican. Polls show they're frustrated. But Biden's assertion went against everything Orman was claiming - painting him as a liar. Given the high undecideds even in late polling, this could end up being one of Biden's larger gaffes. The question is how tuned in to today's media were Kansas voters. A big Roberts victory would suggest they're very tuned in.

However, this is based on 80,000 votes out of what could be as many as 900,000.

[Galaxy]

Can an election race get any tighter than Kansas?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

New Hampshire to Democrats.

[kcchief19]

I've had Roberts winning 52-48 most of the night, and was ready to shift that to 51-49. In 2010, Jerry Moran won the senate race with 70% of the vote, and Roberts has been trending about 15-20 points behind Moran in most Republican counties.

Then the two reliable Democratic counties came in and Orman was outperforming Moran's 2010 Democrat opponent by more than 20 points. That started swinging it closer to 50/50.

Then the first returns started coming in from southeastern Kansas, and Roberts is only under performing by about 8-12 points. These are not huge vote total counties, but it's showing Orman may not have played well in that part of the state, and it's a place I think he needed to perform well.

The governor's race will be tight as well, but it looks like incumbent Sam Brownback will go down, probably by 3-5 points. Not an upset based on polling, but a stunner for a deep red state like Kansas.

[Solecismic]

Did my first look at the Michigan governor's race. This one looks dead even, though the good news for Snyder, the incumbent, is in counties he will lose by a lot. Since it's still very early, that probably means the more urban areas will come in later. I don't think I'd be very happy right now if I were Snyder.

[flere-imsaho]

In Maine, turnout is expected to be a whopping 60%, for which you can thank the governor's race, but also the ballot issue on bear hunting.

Sen. Collins is safely back in.
Michaud has a slim lead over LePage for governor.
And on the bear hunting ballot issue, "NO" (i.e. don't ban bear hunting) is leading over "YES" (i.e. ban bear hunting). Though I should point out the ban would only have banned the use of dogs, traps & bait. You could still have gone out and shot a bear during season.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Minor note ... or not.

Still some major counties to report in Georgia but ... Perdue actually has a slightly bigger lead over Nunn in the Senate race than Deal has in the Governor's race. The difference, down to a tenth of the percent rests solely in a better showing for the (L) gubernatorial candidate (2.36% vs 1.92% for the Lib Senate candidate).

This contradicts most polls down the stretch which showed Deal as the stronger of the two candidates.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Colorado to Republicans.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Montana to Republicans.

[Matthean]

Did my first look at the Michigan governor's race. This one looks dead even, though the good news for Snyder, the incumbent, is in counties he will lose by a lot. Since it's still very early, that probably means the more urban areas will come in later. I don't think I'd be very happy right now if I were Snyder.

53.83% to 44.08% with 29.51% reporting. Not exactly dead even.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'd offer some insight into the GA race but for the first time I can recall since results went online, the Sec of State website hasn't been able to handle the demand. Mostly failure to load so far so I can't see county by county

[Solecismic]

53.83% to 44.08% with 29.51% reporting. Not exactly dead even.

Dead even in terms of projecting the results from individual counties onto results from past elections. Snyder needs to be up a little bit more.

[Coffee Warlord]

In utterly zero shock, Chicago votes for Governor Quinn, the entire rest of the state votes Rauner, Quinn likely takes it, though it's close right now.

How we wind up re-electing him is beyond comprehension.

[Solecismic]

Colorado is showing about a four-point lead for Gardner. They dumped a lot of numbers very quickly. Udall can expect at least to close the gap by 50,000 from Denver alone. Turnout there will be key (or mail turnout).

[JonInMiddleGA]

How ... interesting on the late votes coming in for Virginia.

[JPhillips]

In utterly zero shock, Chicago votes for Governor Quinn, the entire rest of the state votes Rauner, Quinn likely takes it, though it's close right now.

How we wind up re-electing him is beyond comprehension.

Staten Island is going to reelect Grimm in a landslide and he'll likely be in prison before the end of 2015.

[Coffee Warlord]

Staten Island is going to reelect Grimm in a landslide and he'll likely be in prison before the end of 2015.

Illinois still has the advantage when it comes to imprisoned state officials. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

CNN calls U.S. House race for Allen (R) over incumbent Barrow (D). A surprise to many here, if not an outright shocker.

Could bode well for other statewide R's.

[Illini Boy]

In utterly zero shock, Chicago votes for Governor Quinn, the entire rest of the state votes Rauner, Quinn likely takes it, though it's close right now.

How we wind up re-electing him is beyond comprehension.

Rauner has the small lead right now, but Cook County only has 75% in right now.

[Solecismic]

Kansas now showing +8 for Roberts projected. Kansas is harder to figure, though, because its population is very concentrated and because it's hard to project votes for an independent.

The data from Johnson county (suburb of KC) suggests Orman is doing better than -8. While it looks like a good day for Roberts, I think the projection will drop as the evening progresses.

[JonInMiddleGA]

CBS calls GA for (R) without a runoff.

I ain't ready to go that far quite yet but it looks pretty good.

[Matthean]

Dead even in terms of projecting the results from individual counties onto results from past elections. Snyder needs to be up a little bit more.

Snyder defeats Schauer to win governor of Michigan

LIVE BLOG: Michigan Election 2014 voting results for governor, major races (http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/04/live-blog-election-2014-results-voting-michigan/18467343/)

At the time I grabbed this. Yes, the percentages are getting closer. I just find it interesting they are willing to put that as a title.

[Solecismic]

They might have precinct data.

North Carolina is very close. What I'm seeing is higher turnout in Republican counties. That changes the projection. While Hagen should have the edge in what will come in late, it might not be enough to overcome Tillis' lead. This one now projects to under 1%.

[BishopMVP]

How ... interesting on the late votes coming in for Virginia.Seriously... 98.6% in and Warner's only up 2,000 votes? He still likely wins it, but that's pretty much all I need to assume Republicans take the Senate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Seriously... 98.6% in and Warner's only up 2,000 votes? He still likely wins it, but that's pretty much all I need to assume Republicans take the Senate.

sources tweeting that the margin is 500 votes for Warner with 99% now in

[kcchief19]

Kansas now showing +8 for Roberts projected. Kansas is harder to figure, though, because its population is very concentrated and because it's hard to project votes for an independent.

The data from Johnson county (suburb of KC) suggests Orman is doing better than -8. While it looks like a good day for Roberts, I think the projection will drop as the evening progresses.
Yeah, Roberts +8 seems slightly out of line for me based on the votes in and left to come. It's 51-45 now, with a lot of the vote to come from the Kansas City suburbs (Johnson and Wyandote), Shawnee (Topeka) and Sedgwick (Wichita). Lawrence is a reliable liberal stronghold but it's vote is mostly in. Orman is up in both Johnson and Shawnee, which he must win to have a chance.

Sedgwick County might be the key. Roberts is +6 there right now, and Orman really need to break 50/50 there.

One note about Kansas ... in most counties, the first precinct to report are absentee & advance voting, so a big share of vote comes in early. There are still enough votes out there for Orman, but he's running out of time. He is trailing behind the Democratic governor candidate, who looks like he will win a close race.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

F Joe Biden. Was really hoping that Roberts would go down to defeat. His comments didn't help Orman at all.

[Illini Boy]

With 74% in for Illinois, Rauner (R) is at 49.5 with Quinn at 47.1. Cook County has 85% in. It will be very, very close.

[kcchief19]

Sedgwick is now fully in and Roberts finished +7, which matches his statewide lead of 51-44. I would expect that lead to close a bit, but not enough for Orman.

Johnson County usually comes in right around 10 p.m.

And now we're getting calls for Roberts.

[JPhillips]

F Joe Biden. Was really hoping that Roberts would go down to defeat. His comments didn't help Orman at all.

I'd be very surprised if Biden's comments made any appreciable difference. Most people didn't hear about them and those that did had likely made up their mind because they were politically engaged enough to know about his comments.

[Solecismic]

I don't know. Roberts and Brownback were tracking together closely. Roberts is doing about 6-8 points better than Brownback. What Biden said was exactly what Orman claimed he wasn't.

A look at the Wisconsin governor's race. Still early, with a lot of Milwaukee and Madison to go (they come in late and they come in big). But, even with that in mind, Walker is still up +10. It looks good for him.

[lungs]

Walker has it. Good turnout in Madison and Milwaukee but Walker really got the vote out pretty much everywhere else in the state. It'll probably end up +4 Walker if I had to guess.

[Solecismic]

It wasn't a race I tracked, but one of the surprises of today is Scott holding off Crist in the Florida governor's race.

[Illini Boy]

Media outlets calling Rauner over Quinn. A Republican governor in the state of Illinois, crazy night.

[ISiddiqui]

My gut, strictly my anecdotal instinctive gut, is that Georgia is either a runoff or Nunn wins outright. I can't see any scenario where Perdue wins outright tonight.

I seriously need you post your gut feelings earlier so I can bet the other way ;).

Tillis over Hagan by 2 points with 96% counted is a shocker to me. I didn't see that.

[Matthean]

They might have precinct data.

North Carolina is very close. What I'm seeing is higher turnout in Republican counties. That changes the projection. While Hagen should have the edge in what will come in late, it might not be enough to overcome Tillis' lead. This one now projects to under 1%.

AP page has Snyder winning it. Numbers are 52.04% to 45.77% with 65.08% reporting. I was going to say it might get interesting if Schauer got to 47%, but he's yet to hit 46%. Eventually, yes, but I don't see him getting to the 48ish percent needed to win.

[Buccaneer]

I guess I am embarrassed to say that I was surprised that Scott winning in SC made him the first black Senator from the South since Reconstruction. I swore there had been several others but I think I have mistaken Representatives instead of Senators. Would like to hear more about that contest.

[RainMaker]

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

I seriously need you post your gut feelings earlier so I can bet the other way ;).

Much as I ought not admit it, that was my true gut, I wasn't trying to jinx.

I didn't start to feel comfortable until I saw the Barrow loss, once that shocker happened then I knew there might be a chance.

Oh so happy to be wrong.

[Solecismic]

Update on North Carolina:

Tillis leads by 47,000 with 88 of 100 counties indicating 100% returns (I suspect one is definitely wrong there).

I had projected 61% of 2012's votes. Generally, my projections of vote totals have been a bit low today. We're getting 62% in Democratic counties, and 66% in Republican counties. That appears to be the election right there.

Of what's remaining (and I'll skip anything with less than 2k projected vote swings still out there):

Davidson County: +5k Tillis
Mecklenburg County: +11k Hagen

Unless there's something weird out there in vote totals (Wake County is at 60% of 2012 levels, so it wouldn't shock me to find more votes there), this one is safely in Tillis' hands. There just aren't a lot of big places out there that could provide much of a swing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Wow. Iowa and North Carolina both to Republicans. Getting crazy.

[Solecismic]

It is looking a lot like 53-46 in the Senate pending Alaska, assuming Cassidy's performance today is indicative of a huge head-to-head lead over Landrieu.

That's a shame, from a political standpoint. The closer we are to even, the more cross-aisle talk they need to pass anything. When you get as high as 53 or 54, a party can provide cover for its more vulnerable members. That's when partisan politics becomes stronger.

[Buccaneer]

So the cycle continues. I wrote about arrogance being the downfall of the Republicans in 2006/2008 and then I said about the arrogance of the Democrats will be their downfall. But 2016 is just around the corner and it will switch again for the same reason.

[larrymcg421]

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

[Buccaneer]

It is looking a lot like 53-46 in the Senate pending Alaska, assuming Cassidy's performance today is indicative of a huge head-to-head lead over Landrieu.

That's a shame, from a political standpoint. The closer we are to even, the more cross-aisle talk they need to pass anything. When you get as high as 53 or 54, a party can provide cover for its more vulnerable members. That's when partisan politics becomes stronger.

This reminded me of something I just read on cnn

House GOP leaders could have their work cut out for them. Many House conservatives are suspicious of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who they view as too much of a Washington insider and too willing to negotiate with the Obama administration or Senate Democrats. If Republicans are able to capture the upper chamber Boehner and McConnell will likely wrestle with a vocal group from the right flank of their party over legislative priorities.

With a more liberal House Democratic caucus, the task of negotiating any significant legislation across an even wider ideological divide will grow even tougher. Democrats will have their eye on regaining control of the House in 2016, when they believe the political environment will be better for them. The incentive to join Boehner to help pass bipartisan bills won't be very high, and a more polarized House could increase gridlock.

I think we have passed the point of no return of ever being an incentive to be bipartisan, not when the next election cycle has already begun. But not being able to pass major legislature is a very good thing, imo, and I hope that will continue.

[Solecismic]

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.

Anyway, Michigan governor looks like Snyder will hold. My model for this race wasn't as good. And it's Oakland county (northwest suburbs of Detroit) that absolutely turned out for Snyder and blew the race open.

Wayne county (Detroit) still has close to 50k in edge for Schauer remaining, but there are many places elsewhere in the state that have a few thousand left for Snyder. So Snyder's lead should actually increase. Again, a big part of the story seems to be turnout in Republican counties (and in Oakland county, which is usually fairly even if not slightly blue).

[kcchief19]

Kansas completely stunned me. Roberts-Orman ended up not that close. Orman simply underperformed in Democratic areas, and even though Brownback underperformed in Republican areas, Orman's inability to carve out wins in Kansas City and Wichita doomed him.

Same story in the governor's race. Davis led most of the night and was holding Brownback well below his 2010 margins in Republican strongholds in the south and west. But again, he underperformed in Wichita and Kansas City. Needed bigger margins there.

[kcchief19]

I think we have passed the point of no return of ever being an incentive to be bipartisan, not when the next election cycle has already begun. But not being able to pass major legislature is a very good thing, imo, and I hope that will continue.
Until we get a Supreme Court that decides gerrymandering is unconstitutional, bipartisan politics is almost dead.

[NobodyHere]

It still fascinates me that Michigan can elect a Democratic senator in a statewide election but still lose the governorship in same election. What did people who voted for Gary Peters like that they still voted for Rick Snyder?

[Buccaneer]

It still fascinates me that Michigan can elect a Democratic senator in a statewide election but still lose the governorship in same election. What did people who voted for Gary Peters like that they still voted for Rick Snyder?

I don't think it is as simple of voting for one and then voting for the other. I believe that a lot of people do vote for one candidate but then not vote for either candidates for the other, if that makes sense. Or perhaps it's just my habit of voting none of the above in many races (including most presidential races) for many elections now.

[Solecismic]

It still fascinates me that Michigan can elect a Democratic senator in a statewide election but still lose the governorship in same election. What did people who voted for Gary Peters like that they still voted for Rick Snyder?

Snyder is a businessman. He made strides in changing a business climate in Michigan that was ranked 50th in the country. The economy here is more like the rest of the country now and there' s new investment. He's considered a moderate.

Schauer lost some support when he did some grandstanding and got pepper-sprayed over right-to-work legislation. It helped him win the Democratic nomination, but allowed Snyder to paint him as more extreme and connected to the policies of Jennifer Granholm, our former governor. Granholm is often blamed for the 50th-in-the-country economy.

The Senate race is a lot simpler. Land didn't inspire anyone. She ducked debates. She ducked the press. This gave people the perception that she couldn't think on her feet. She was considered a strong candidate at first because people credit her with doing a good job as our Secretary of State. But she ran a very poor campaign.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't think it is as simple of voting for one and then voting for the other. I believe that a lot of people do vote for one candidate but then not vote for either candidates for the other, if that makes sense. Or perhaps it's just my habit of voting none of the above in many races (including most presidential races) for many elections now.

I'm totally on board with skipping specific races for reasons of specific candidates -- regardless of their ballot position (i.e. I don't just skip down ballot races).

That said, in the case of Michigan ...

Through about 81% of counties reporting, only about 20,000 vote total diff out of over 2,000,000 votes counted. It looks like about 200,000 actually split their ticket for an (R) gov and a (D) senator. About 10% of the voters.

edit to add: and at the moment (percentages counted are slightly diff in the two races) it looks like more may have voted for governor than for Senate.

[Solecismic]

Maryland governor, too. That one Republican poll last week that people were poking fun at turned out dead-on accurate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Anybody seen a table/list of national PAC money invested by contest?

I'm wondering how many of these upsets/suddenly close races had significant differences in outside spending. (I know PAC money came in pretty strong in the Barrow House district the D's lost in Georgia tonite for example)

[Izulde]

Fuck Wisconsin. That's pretty much all I have to say right now.

[Solecismic]

Connecticut governor was one of the races I was tracking closely. I didn't update it early because results were slow coming in.

Bridgewater came in a few minutes ago, as expected, and I feel comfortable calling this one for Malloy, the Democrat. He leads by only 14k, but he has about 16k in expected advantage from areas that haven't reported.

Unlike other races tonight, turnout in Democrat townships and Republican townships is similar.

While Greenwich isn't in, and should go for Foley, Hartford, East Hartford and West Hartford will provide another 16k for Milloy all by themselves.

[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.

[Solecismic]

And looking at the Colorado governor's race (I built a model on the fly - most of the work was done with the senate model of Colorado).

Currently, Beauprez (R) leads by 5k. Full results from 42 of 64 counties. As in many races, higher than expected turnout from the Republicans.

However, Boulder should add a margin of 14k and Denver a margin of 28k to the existing totals for Hickenlooper (D). El Paso should add 5k for Beauprez, but Adams 4k for Hickenlooper. No other vote source seems significant.

Right now, I'm projecting a 35k Hickenlooper win. I don't know if there are other sources of votes (I.E. 100% counted isn't 100%), but it looks fairly good for Hickenlooper here.

[Solecismic]

Alaska is now at 61% in, Sullivan leads by 8,500. Based on the weighting of districts turned in, I would have expected a lead of less than 1,000 assuming a 50/50 election. Downtown Anchorage should help Begich, but my assessment of the remaining votes doesn't give him an advantage. This should be close to the final margin, maybe a bit larger. I don't see any harm in calling Alaska right now.

[Galaxy]

Fuck Wisconsin. That's pretty much all I have to say right now.

I think he ran one of the best campaigns this election season. Very on message about the economy and jobs, maybe more than another politician, and while polarizing, he's taken on and re-shaped the issues that needed to be fixed and turnaround Wisconsin's financial health economy on the up.

I look at Michigan and see their efforts have rewarded the re-election of their governor who took on the same challenges.

[Solecismic]

One last mention on Alaska. I think the wire services aren't calling it because it's a lot of extra work. I'm estimating 82% of the votes are in. Sullivan is up by 11,000. Of the 63 precincts that haven't yet reported votes, 48 are in the west (including all those islands that stretch all the way past the Palins' back yard) and north. Large area, small population. But very blue. So Begich could get 3k back on those precincts. The remaining 15 are split between red and blue areas. Sullivan is now about 7k above where I figure the 50/50 result would have placed him based on the districts reporting. In a state where you expect about 260,000 votes total, that's a lot. This doesn't seem particularly close. The opposite goes for the governor's race, which is much closer, but the independent holds a 1,500-vote lead over the Republican.

[SackAttack]

I think he ran one of the best campaigns this election season. Very on message about the economy and jobs, maybe more than another politician, and while polarizing, he's taken on and re-shaped the issues that needed to be fixed and turnaround Wisconsin's financial health economy on the up.

He has not. When he took office, Wisconsin had one of the top educational systems in the country and was doing reasonably well despite the economic headwinds.

First thing he did was blow a hole in the budget handing out tax breaks to corporations, attack educational funding and the public unions because OH NOES WE HAVE A DEFICIT NOW WE HAVE TO FIX IT and then spend the next four years trying to define unemployment rates in a way none of the other 49 Governors - Democratic OR Republican - have done in order to make it look like he was closer than he really was to delivering the 250,000 jobs he said he'd create in the first four years.

The beauty of it is, he's had a Legislature marching in lockstep with him, because Wisconsin doesn't HAVE a filibuster. Wisconsin Democrats couldn't have stolen the D.C. Republican playbook if they tried. So he's gotten everything he wanted in the last four years, some token opposition to try to draw attention to the union-busting aside, and he STILL hasn't delivered what he said he would.

No, I'm sorry. The one thing he hasn't been able to get yet is the Supreme Court to sign off on the voter ID law the Legislature passed, but there HAS been a lot of stop-start-stop on that. No idea whether the confusion on that depressed Democratic turnout today or whether it was just a repeat of 2010's malaise.

Either way, Walker's going to run for President because he survived a recall and won a 'normal' re-election campaign. Bully for him. Meanwhile, Wisconsin hasn't benefited one iota from his governorship.

And how the hell this state votes for a lesbian Democrat for Senate and this asswipe for Governor (three fucking times) is beyond me.

[RainMaker]

I don't get the knock on Walker for education spending. Wisconsin is still in the top half of the country in it and teachers are well-paid. This country as a whole and Wisconsin in particular spends more than just about any country on the planet per student. This idea that education isn't being funded is silly. You can argue it's not going to the right places, but it's being funded.

Your state is also in decent financial shape at the moment. Being in Illinois, I'd take your policies over ours any day of the week.

[mckerney]

I think he ran one of the best campaigns this election season. Very on message about the economy and jobs, maybe more than another politician, and while polarizing, he's taken on and re-shaped the issues that needed to be fixed and turnaround Wisconsin's financial health economy on the up.

I look at Michigan and see their efforts have rewarded the re-election of their governor who took on the same challenges.

Had to have run a good campaign to be on message on fiscal issues and jobs while failing to deliver on either jobs or balanced budgets.

[JPhillips]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1ohUX-CIAEY5-w.jpg

[Coffee Warlord]

I think we have passed the point of no return of ever being an incentive to be bipartisan, not when the next election cycle has already begun. But not being able to pass major legislature is a very good thing, imo, and I hope that will continue.

It seriously depresses me that daring to negotiate with the opposing party is considered a negative these days.

[Buccaneer]

And looking at the Colorado governor's race (I built a model on the fly - most of the work was done with the senate model of Colorado).

Currently, Beauprez (R) leads by 5k. Full results from 42 of 64 counties. As in many races, higher than expected turnout from the Republicans.

However, Boulder should add a margin of 14k and Denver a margin of 28k to the existing totals for Hickenlooper (D). El Paso should add 5k for Beauprez, but Adams 4k for Hickenlooper. No other vote source seems significant.

Right now, I'm projecting a 35k Hickenlooper win. I don't know if there are other sources of votes (I.E. 100% counted isn't 100%), but it looks fairly good for Hickenlooper here.

Colorado is interesting in that many had considered it to be a solid Blue state (Dem Gov, 2 Senators, legislature, Obama twice, lots of young voters, strong Hispanic seg, Denver/Boulder domination) - all which goes against Obama's assertion that red states were in play. Even in our blue state, we go against grain which I think was helped by our large percentage of independents.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It seriously depresses me that daring to negotiate with the opposing party is considered a negative these days.

As one of my all-time favorite sayings/quotes goes

"You negotiate with the enemy with your knee in his chest and your knife at his throat"

[cuervo72]

Maryland governor, too. That one Republican poll last week that people were poking fun at turned out dead-on accurate.

Was rather shocked with this one. 538 had it D+9.8. That's not even close.

Baltimore City didn't show up, Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties did (and I think PG and Montgomery could have shown better too). And I think there were a few D/I who backed Hogan.

[ISiddiqui]

The Obama Administration election years have been very interesting. Obama himself won landslides in 2008 and 2012, but suffered huge losses in 2010 and 2014. It goes back and forth it seems.

[SFL Cat]

So I guess what one can take away from this is that the people who do professional polling and predicting for a living are a lot like AGW alarmists, there's a lot of sh*t going on their models don't account for and more times than not, they are wrong about what is going to happen. :cool:

[ISiddiqui]

Is it too early to say the words of the North(East)?: Hillary is Coming

;)

[Buccaneer]

Over night, I thought about something my parents said to me about the 1968 or 1972 election - it all comes down to who can get the vote out. Perhaps it is a generalization to say that if the Dem voters are not excited FOR a candidate (ala Obama) then they will stay home. At least that what it was like in New York 40-45 years ago.

[JPhillips]

So I guess what one can take away from this is that the people who do professional polling and predicting for a living are a lot like AGW alarmists, there's a lot of sh*t going on their models don't account for and more times than not, they are wrong about what is going to happen. :cool:

This is my new favorite.

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

[ISiddiqui]

This is interesting:

The night had few bright spots for Democrats — but there were some for liberals. The personhood ballot initiatives lost in Colorado and North Dakota. Marijuana was legalized in D.C. and Oregon (and we're still waiting on Alaska). The minimum wage was raised in Arkansas, Illinois and Nebraska. Washington state expanded background checks on guns. "So voters want a higher minimum wage, legal pot, abortion access and GOP representation," tweeted FiveThirtyEight's Ben Casselman. "Ok then."
9 takeaways from the 2014 election - Vox (http://www.vox.com/2014/11/5/7159145/9-takeaways-from-the-2014-election)

[JPhillips]

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.

[JPhillips]

This is interesting:


9 takeaways from the 2014 election - Vox (http://www.vox.com/2014/11/5/7159145/9-takeaways-from-the-2014-election)

That's because the Dems are too scared to openly support any of those things.

[ISiddiqui]

Also in the Vox article, and interesting tidbit:

4) The Republican Senate wins were largely expected.

But the scope of the GOP's gains in gubernatorial races wasn't. That makes Chris Christie, as head of the Republican Governors' Association, one of the election's big winners. He can now argue not only that he has personally won elections in a blue state but that he led a bunch of other Republicans to win hard elections in blue states. That's going to be a powerful argument to make to Republicans in 2016.

[JPhillips]

Christie vs. Walker is going to be epic.

[lungs]

re: Walker vs. Burke

Just like Obama in '12, the opposition had a lot of talking points against Walker but the Dems couldn't conjure up a candidate that could truly challenge Walker. Burke did make some headway in Western Wisconsin but Dems needs to get out of this idea that Madison/Milwaukee turnout will win them elections in non-Presidential years.

Next big race in Wisconsin will be Ron Johnson's senate seat in 2016. I'd call that seat very vulnerable even with last night's results.

[Easy Mac]

I didn't vote yesterday. Not because I didn't care, although I wasn't overly enthused about any candidate. I didn't vote because I literally had no time.

Had to drop my daughter off for school downtown, so I have to leave by 7:10 every morning... no chance I can get to vote in 10 minutes at my precinct.

Couldn't go during the day, as I was the only one of 5 people in my group at work who was there yesterday. I was insanely swamped. Add in that the precinct is 1/2 hour from my work, and I didn't have time at lunch (wife went at lunch and said she waited 45 minutes).

Didn't get out of work until 5:30. Then took 45 minutes to get home. Drove by the precinct and the line was well out the door. I decided I'd rather have dinner with my family than stand in the cold with a headache to wait 45 minutes to vote.

Maybe I'm selfish, but I'd choose dinner with my family any day over voting for people who don't care if I actually exist.

[cuervo72]

This is my new favorite.

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

I just don't get this. Hey, there's all this energy that we're releasing that was previously stored as fuel, and we're creating an atmosphere that doesn't allow as much energy to escape the planet. It's like, No man, thermodynamics really isn't a thing. And Venus? Never heard of it.

[Arles]

"So voters want a higher minimum wage, legal pot, abortion access and GOP representation," tweeted FiveThirtyEight's Ben Casselman. "Ok then."
Just my opinion, but I think there is a large portion of non-religious conservatives who are ok with abortion, legal pot, gay marriage and other social "liberal" stances. I would even add sports betting into the pot as well. There is a big culture shift to being more tolerant of liberal social policies - even for republicans. The interesting aspect is if the republicans will capitalize on this and find a way to focus more on the fiscal side than the social side in the next presidential election. I would never expect them to nominate someone who is socially liberal, but if they can avoid the abortion/gay marriage debate by being somewhat noncommittal - they could pull a lot of democrats/indep/non-religious republicans. I know many people (myself included) who would vote for a fiscal conservative who wasn't so preachy on social issues. I think this is especially true with women - many of whom agree with some of the conservative side on economic issues but can't stomach the idea of a pro-life, anti-gay marriage president.

[ISiddiqui]

Christie vs. Walker is going to be epic.

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.

[ISiddiqui]

I know many people (myself included) who would vote for a fiscal conservative who wasn't so preachy on social issues.

So... Chris Christie?

[Buccaneer]

Goes along with what JPhillips said. Since I ignored the whole election until last night, I started reading up on what had happened. In one state, I believe it was Clinton that came in and slammed the Dem senator for saying nothing except negative against the opponent and nothing positive on why you should vote for the Dem except that he was not Obama. it could've been Colorado.