The 2014 Battle for the Senate

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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 being straight party

[larrymcg421]

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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/p.../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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by stevew

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]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

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]

Originally Posted by stevew

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

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

[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

[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]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

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.