The 2014 Battle for the Senate

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

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]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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...d/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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

FYI, happened to see this yesterday:

Second poll finds close race -- with Weiland in second

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

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]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.