The 2014 Battle for the Senate

[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]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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]

Originally Posted by Izulde

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]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

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]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

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]

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

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]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This is interesting:


9 takeaways from the 2014 election - Vox

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

"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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.