# 2014 battle for control of the US Senate



## Statistikhengst

Real Clear Politics does a pretty good compilation of polling (aggregate).

Here is their Senate website:

RealClearPolitics - 2014 Election Maps - Battle for the Senate

(the graphic is interactive - clickable, and pretty much everything is hyperlinked)


This is how RCP sees the battle for the Senate right now:



​

It sees nine seats in play. The GOP needs 4 of those nine seats. It needs 6 seats in order to win the Senate, but 2 of them are already clearly strongly R right now, and pretty much ceded to the GOP: Montana and South Dakota. Both are show on the graphic as "Likely R", and I concur.


Let's take a look at the* safe D* seats:

The Northeast: *Delaware, Massachusetts, Rhode Island*
The Midwest: *Illinois*
The Southwest: *New Mexico*

5 seats

No one is expecting these seats to flip, even in the case of a massive GOP wave in the Fall.

Let's take a look as the *safe R* seats:


The South: *Alabama, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oklahoma (special) South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas*
The breadbasket: *Kansas, Nebraska*
Big Sky: *Idaho, Wyoming*
The Northeast: *Maine*

12 seats.

No one is expecting these seats to flip, even in the case that a GOP wave does not materialize in the Fall.

Already, the GOP has a massive SAFE seat advantage over the Dems of more than 2:1


Let's take a look at the *likely D* seats:

The West: *Hawaii, Oregon*
The Midwest: *Minnesota*
The Northeast: *New Jersey*
The South: *Virginia*


These are the five states where the GOP is not really investing. Mark Warner is likely to win the biggest for the DEMS in this cycle, making him a future presidential candidate as well.  Another important story here is the story of the power of the incumbency. Al Franken (D) barely won his Senate seat in 2008, but right now, his average over challenger Mike McFadden (R) is *+10.4*, which is a landslide aggregate margin. Of these states, the one state that could end up being a surprise on the senatorial level could be Hawaii.


And let's take a look at the *likely GOP* seats:

The South: *Mississippi*
The Big Sky/Breadbasket: *Montana, South Dakota (O)*

Here are already two pretty much guaranteed pick-ups for the Republicans in the Fall (MT, SD).

Now the next is where RCP and I don't completely agree about the level, but we do agree about the direction.

Under the *leaning D* states:

The Northeast: New Hampshire

The only problem I have with that is that Jean Shahean (D), according to RCP polling averages, is leading Republican Scott Brown by *+10.4*, which is exactly the same landslide margin that was shown for Al Franken (D) in Minnesota, so why one state should be considered likely D, but the other state is listed as leaning D is a mystery to me. Of course, the NH primary is first on September 9th, so right now the assumption is that Scott Brown, the former Republican Senator from Massachusetts, will become the Republican Senatorial nominee. Perhaps this is why RCP is classifying the two races in two different ways. Wait and see.

And under the* leaning R* states:


The South: West Virginia (O)

Again, I wonder why RCP is classifying this as leaning R, because right now, Republican Shelly Capito is leading Democrat Natalie Tennent by *+9.3*, which is a near-landslide margin.


Maybe RCP is just trying to be overly careful, but it sure seems to me that in both cases, those states are more "likely" for either D or R than "leaning", which means that most likely, the GOP already has 3 pick-ups in the bag: MT, SD and WV. Which means it only needs 3 of the statistical tossup states in order to outright have 51 Senate seats and therefore, the majority:


That leaves us with nine statistical tossups:


The South: Arkansas, Georgia (O), Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina
The Midwest: Iowa (O) , Michigan (O )
The Southeast / Mountain States: Colorado
The Pacific: Alaska


*This is where the strategema looks extremely grim for the Democrats.* Of those nine statistical tossups, five of those races are with Democratic incumbents who are all locked in tight races. There is only one race where a Republican incumbent is locked in a tight race (Kentucky - Mitch McConnell), and of the open races, two of the three are currently Democratic seats.

Here are the averages:

Alaska: AK has not had it's primary yet, but the values range from Begich (D) *+0.4* over Treadwell (R) to Begich *+12.0* over Miller. However, it looks as if Miller has no chance of winning the GOP primary (he beat Murkowski in 2010 and then lost to her as a write-in candidate in the Fall of that year).

Arkansas: Cotton (R) *+3*, and incumbent Mark Pryor has not won in a poll since April.

Colorado: Udall (D) *+1.5*

Georgia: Perdue (R) *+3.2*

Iowa: Ernst (R) *+0.8*

Kentucky: McConnell (R) *+2.5*

Louisiana: Cassidy (R) *+1*

Michigan: Peters (D) *+4*

North Carolina: Tillis *+1.3*


_Please remember that the aggregate values I am quoting are from today, 11 August 2014, and could already change again in the next days._

Now, 8 of those 9 margins (aggregates) are well within the MoE and the Michigan margin is just outside the standard MoE, but right now, the GOP is a nose ahead in 6 of those 9 races. And remember, the GOP only needs to win 3, assuming that MT, SD and WV all go as pretty much everyone expects them to go.


Almost eight months ago, I put out this thread:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...pared-to-presidential-terms-1855-present.html


Quote at the end:



> So, what can we learn from this information?
> 
> 1.) We have had divided government a lot more than most people realize.
> 
> 2.) The statistical probability that the President's party suffers major losses in a mid-term election, especially in a 2nd term mid-term, is extremely high.
> 
> 3.) Divided government is not necessarily a bad thing. See: Eisenhower, Clinton. Likewise, unified government is not necessarily good. See: Hoover, Carter.
> 
> So, before the pundits go blabbing their mouths off about the 2014 elections, *know that history is on the side of the GOP in this election*.




And indeed, what we are seeing right now is exactly in line with electoral history.

And then there is Angus King (I - ME), who, should the GOP only win 5 seats for some reason, could play kingmaker and decide to caucus with the GOP.  So, in reality, the GOP only needs to win 5 seats, but 6-8 are very likely.

Now, there are two seats that the Democrats really COULD win:

Georgia - and - Kentucky.

But even that is dicey.

And for this reason, the mention of Angus King. Should the GOP win 7 seats, but lose 2, it could still control the Senate, with Angus King (I) switching sides.

When the last primaries are over with and the polling for the key races comes in, then I will be following the numbers quite closely, but the aggregates, from pollsters from all over the spectrum, *are pointing to a very, very good outcome for the GOP in November*.

What's the absolute top-line?

Well, I will take RCP's take, which currently shows 45 DEM seats in the basket, and were Angus King to switch sides, then the Senate could move from 54 (D) - 45 (R) 1 (I) to 54 (R) - 45 (D) - 1 (I). It could go from D+9 to R+9, which would then be a partisan shift of R+18.

Please notice that I included the geography when listing the states. This is because the South is playing an enormous role in this: there are four southern states where the Dems could easily lose seats: WV, AR, NC, LA.

My gut tells me that the GOP is going to do better than *+6* in the fall, maybe* +7* or *+8*, but could definitely lose one seat. This is also not uncommon in electoral history. Even in historic wave mid-terms, the "other side" has often picked up at least one seat. So, that's also not a big surprise.

The next step in all of this is to see where the GOP places it's money in advertising and the sending in heavy hitters from other areas to help.

I will be updating this thread again in late August.

Oh, and  [MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION], what was that again about "partisan hack"?


----------



## Statistikhengst

A friendly shout out to some folks who may really enjoy the information in the OP: [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] [MENTION=45886]Mad_Cabbie[/MENTION] [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] [MENTION=38281]Wolfsister77[/MENTION] [MENTION=21679]william the wie[/MENTION] [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION] [MENTION=37250]aaronleland[/MENTION] [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION] [MENTION=30999]daws101[/MENTION] [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION] [MENTION=33449]BreezeWood[/MENTION] [MENTION=46750]Knightfall[/MENTION] [MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION] [MENTION=20594]Mr Clean[/MENTION] [MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION] [MENTION=45320]Nyvin[/MENTION] [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION] [MENTION=46193]Thx[/MENTION] [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION] [MENTION=18990]Barb[/MENTION] [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION] [MENTION=22983]Flopper[/MENTION] [MENTION=46136]dreolin[/MENTION] [MENTION=34688]Grandma[/MENTION] [MENTION=48060]guno[/MENTION] [MENTION=42946]Howey[/MENTION] [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] [MENTION=48010]Machaut[/MENTION] [MENTION=39530]AceRothstein[/MENTION] [MENTION=25493]kiwiman127[/MENTION] [MENTION=42949]bendog[/MENTION] [MENTION=49463]PoliticalTorch[/MENTION] [MENTION=39852]TheOldSchool[/MENTION] [MENTION=45739]Jughead[/MENTION] [MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/MENTION] 


Anyone who doesn't want to be on this occasional mention list: just let me know, I will drop the name immediately. If you want onto the list, just let me know. I really am trying to make this a totally non-partisan list.

Thanks, 

-Stat

Folks, please do not quote this posting, otherwise, you send out the mention list again. Thanks.


----------



## JoeB131

More than likely, the GOP will take the Senate in 2014. 

The good news, they won't take it by that much, maybe one or two seats, and they'll lose it again in 2016 with seats in IL and WI coming into play.


----------



## Samson

Must be a slow polling month for Stat: where's the analysis of Data from a poll in B.F.E. That shows Hillary Clinton leading no less than 25 republican contenders in a race held in more than two years in the future?

Note that Stat has omitted most of his customary partisan blather regarding WHY it appears Republicans will take the Senate. If Dems were ahead in the 2014 race to control the Senate, then we'd no doubt be treated to a litany of absurd excuses beginning with Boooooooooosh.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Samson said:


> Must be a slow polling month for Stat: where's the analysis of Data from a poll in B.F.E. That shows Hillary Clinton leading no less than 25 republican contenders in a race held in more than two years in the future?
> 
> Note that Stat has omitted most of his customary partisan blather regarding WHY it appears Republicans will take the Senate. If Dems were ahead in the 2014 race to control the Senate, then we'd no doubt be treated to a litany of absurd excuses beginning with Boooooooooosh.




Well, actually no.

The Clinton update is due at the end of September.  I do this according to a plan.

And in my analysis of her polling I don't list WHY she is leading, I just report the averages.

I already challenged you to find even just one single posting of mine, just one, where I have blamed former Pres. Bush for anything during the Obama administration, and you apparently couldn't find one.  Tsk, tsk.

You are able to read enough to troll, so I suspect you would already know this.

Oh, and I post less when I am on vacation. This is just fun for me.

I know you are totally anal retentive and may find that word "fun" difficult to understand, but do try.


----------



## Statistikhengst

JoeB131 said:


> More than likely, the GOP will take the Senate in 2014.
> 
> The good news, they won't take it by that much, maybe one or two seats, and they'll lose it again in 2016 with seats in IL and WI coming into play.




Indeed, the seats up for grabs in 2016 would be the same seats that were in contention in 2010, and in that case, the tables will likely be turned, with the GOP having to protect more "turf" than the Democrats.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I think the worst the GOP can do is 50 and may win as many as 54.

Normal Americans are willing to look at candidates not like Akins, Mourdouch, Angle, O'Donnell, etc.

If we wish take the presidency from the Dems in 2016, we will have to cut a meaningful deal on immigration sometime in 2015.


----------



## Nyvin

Angus King is very unlikely to caucus with the GOP.  He leans left with his voting record and doesn't come anywhere near as moderate as the GOP's "moderates" like Murkowski, Kirk, and Collins (Harry Reid actually has a more moderate vote record then King...).  

He also comes from a bluer state than most of the GOP and looking ahead at 2016 it's unlikely the GOP will be able to hang onto the majority thus not making it a wise decision to flip-flop.


----------



## konradv

I predict 50/50, giving Biden a lot more to do over the last 2 years of his term.


----------



## Wolfsister77

I agree that it is going to be nearly impossible for the Democrats to hang onto the Senate in 2014. I'm sure Obama is going to get more use out of his Veto power than he has up to this point. Not only are several Dems retiring in tough States, but you have Reps beating out some Tea Party challengers in other tough States. Plus, the party in the WH usually doesn't do as well in the midterms in Senate races anyway. So none of this should come as a really big surprise to anyone.


----------



## Wolfsister77

JakeStarkey said:


> I think the worst the GOP can do is 50 and may win as many as 54.
> 
> Normal Americans are willing to look at candidates not like Akins, Mourdouch, Angle, O'Donnell, etc.
> 
> If we wish take the presidency from the Dems in 2016, we will have to cut a meaningful deal on immigration sometime in 2015.



I agree, but I don't see the GOP budging much on immigration. Which is going to hurt them in 2016.

Well, that plus as of right now, they don't have any decent candidates.


----------



## JakeStarkey

King may flip to GOP in 2015 | TheHill


----------



## daws101

what the house and senate do in September will determine the majorities in both.


----------



## Statistikhengst

JakeStarkey said:


> King may flip to GOP in 2015 | TheHill




Yes, Angus King has been making overtures about this for a number of months now, and for that reason I included that aspect of this in the OP.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Wolfsister77 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the worst the GOP can do is 50 and may win as many as 54.
> 
> Normal Americans are willing to look at candidates not like Akins, Mourdouch, Angle, O'Donnell, etc.
> 
> If we wish take the presidency from the Dems in 2016, we will have to cut a meaningful deal on immigration sometime in 2015.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but I don't see the GOP budging much on immigration. Which is going to hurt them in 2016.
> 
> Well, that plus as of right now, they don't have any decent candidates.
Click to expand...




Blocking on immigration will kill the GOP in the Latino vote in 2016.

Obama took 71% of the Latino vote in 2012. Hillary may get up to 80%, if the GOP does not propose something meaningful in the way of immigration reform.

Plus, in the Senate, the GOP will have to defend more seats than the DEMS in that cycle.


This will be the Senate map for 2016:






24 GOP incumbents, 10 DEM incumbents, if the 2014 races in HI, OK special and SC special go as we think they will go.

In other words, the schlamazel that the DEMS are currently in for the 2014 Senate elections is the same kind of schlamazel that the GOP will face in 2016.  It's gravity: what comes up, must come down.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GOP could lose eleven, the Dems one.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

JoeB131 said:


> More than likely, the GOP will take the Senate in 2014.
> 
> The good news, they won't take it by that much, maybe one or two seats, and they'll lose it again in 2016 with seats in IL and WI coming into play.



Agreed. 

And winning the Senate in 2014 will likely work against republicans come the 2016 General Election with its larger, more diverse voter turnout.


----------



## Derideo_Te

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More than likely, the GOP will take the Senate in 2014.
> 
> The good news, they won't take it by that much, maybe one or two seats, and they'll lose it again in 2016 with seats in IL and WI coming into play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> And winning the Senate in 2014 will likely work against republicans come the 2016 General Election with its larger, more diverse voter turnout.
Click to expand...


The numbers show that the GOP will win control of the Senate which sets them up for having no further excuses to not impeach Obama. The TP'ers will insist upon it and since they control the House they will pass the Impeachment charges. If Boehner tries to block it they will remove him. 

Once they impeach the GOP won't be able to win in 2016. The GOP brand will be so tarnished they will hand the election over to the Dems and it will be over. Obama will be acquitted and leave office with an approval rating over 50%.

Mission accomplished....not!


----------



## JakeStarkey

the TPs will not control the caucus after January thank God: they have had to many loses and will have no more than 11 seats in the house

JB is safe and there will be no impeachment; the Senate Republican leadership have told the GOP House leadership they will listen to the indictment and then acquit BHO.


----------



## Derideo_Te

JakeStarkey said:


> the TPs will not control the caucus after January thank God: *they have had to many loses and will have no more than 11 seats in the house*
> 
> JB is safe and there will be no impeachment; the Senate Republican leadership have told the GOP House leadership they will listen to the indictment and then acquit BHO.



How do you get from 60+ TP House members down to just 11?


----------



## MarcATL

Considering the current political climate and RW rhetoric, the fact that the Republicans are predicted to barely win that doesn't sit well for their standing with the American People.

That's good news.

I'm personally hopeful for a Democratic upset here in GA. I'm really optimistic.


----------



## Derideo_Te

MarcATL said:


> Considering the current political climate and RW rhetoric, the fact that the Republicans are predicted to barely win that doesn't sit well for their standing with the American People.
> 
> That's good news.
> 
> I'm personally hopeful for a Democratic upset here in GA. I'm really optimistic.



Either GA or KY works for an upset but it will depend upon participation. The demographics in KY might just pull it off for the Dems. In GA I suspect that they are going to be outspent. Not that spending always buys an election. Sometimes no amount of spending can make up for the candidates shortcomings.


----------



## JoeB131

Statistikhengst said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the worst the GOP can do is 50 and may win as many as 54.
> 
> Normal Americans are willing to look at candidates not like Akins, Mourdouch, Angle, O'Donnell, etc.
> 
> If we wish take the presidency from the Dems in 2016, we will have to cut a meaningful deal on immigration sometime in 2015.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but I don't see the GOP budging much on immigration. Which is going to hurt them in 2016.
> 
> Well, that plus as of right now, they don't have any decent candidates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blocking on immigration will kill the GOP in the Latino vote in 2016.
> 
> Obama took 71% of the Latino vote in 2012. Hillary may get up to 80%, if the GOP does not propose something meaningful in the way of immigration reform.
> 
> Plus, in the Senate, the GOP will have to defend more seats than the DEMS in that cycle.
> 
> 
> This will be the Senate map for 2016:
> 
> 24 GOP incumbents, 10 DEM incumbents, if the 2014 races in HI, OK special and SC special go as we think they will go.
> 
> In other words, the schlamazel that the DEMS are currently in for the 2014 Senate elections is the same kind of schlamazel that the GOP will face in 2016.  It's gravity: what comes up, must come down.
Click to expand...


I don't buy that the GOP has to do immigration reform. I think that would hurt them as much as it helps them.  It could even trigger a third party.


----------



## Nyvin

JakeStarkey said:


> the TPs will not control the caucus after January thank God: they have had to many loses and will have no more than 11 seats in the house
> 
> JB is safe and there will be no impeachment; the Senate Republican leadership have told the GOP House leadership they will listen to the indictment and then acquit BHO.



11 seats in the house???  Try 70+


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nyvin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> the TPs will not control the caucus after January thank God: they have had to many loses and will have no more than 11 seats in the house
> 
> JB is safe and there will be no impeachment; the Senate Republican leadership have told the GOP House leadership they will listen to the indictment and then acquit BHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 11 seats in the house???  Try 70+
Click to expand...


You  had 70 in 2011, 35 in 2013, and will have 11 in 2015.

Mike Lee for instance cozied with TeaPs in the past but now is being nice to Dems in Utah because of his vulnerability in 2016.


----------



## BreezeWood

maybe it will sink in by Nov., if Americans really care about the economy they will keep the Democrats in the Senate.

the Rs will fall short of their goal.

.


----------



## Samson

Statistikhengst said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the worst the GOP can do is 50 and may win as many as 54.
> 
> Normal Americans are willing to look at candidates not like Akins, Mourdouch, Angle, O'Donnell, etc.
> 
> If we wish take the presidency from the Dems in 2016, we will have to cut a meaningful deal on immigration sometime in 2015.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but I don't see the GOP budging much on immigration. Which is going to hurt them in 2016.
> 
> Well, that plus as of right now, they don't have any decent candidates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blocking on immigration will kill the GOP in the Latino vote in 2016.
> 
> Obama took 71% of the Latino vote in 2012. Hillary may get up to 80%, if the GOP does not propose something meaningful in the way of immigration reform.
> 
> Plus, in the Senate, the GOP will have to defend more seats than the DEMS in that cycle.
> 
> 
> This will be the Senate map for 2016:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 24 GOP incumbents, 10 DEM incumbents, if the 2014 races in HI, OK special and SC special go as we think they will go.
> 
> In other words, the schlamazel that the DEMS are currently in for the 2014 Senate elections is the same kind of schlamazel that the GOP will face in 2016.  It's gravity: what comes up, must come down.
Click to expand...


15 posts, and you couldn't stay on topic because it didn't fit the Democratic Partisan Dream..




Your predictability is very satisfying.


So, are we talking about your 2016 fantasies, or the much more likely trouncing of the beloved Democratic Party this Fall?


----------



## william the wie

The one wildcard I see this election is the usual the sky is falling in the stock market. At this point a 10% correction would look like a replay of 87. 53-47 R due to a Sept/Oct 5-10% drop. (Avg. for Sept. is -1)


----------



## konradv

After the 2012 fiasco I find it hard to give any credence to Republican claims that they're going to win.


----------



## daws101

Derideo_Te said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> the TPs will not control the caucus after January thank God: *they have had to many loses and will have no more than 11 seats in the house*
> 
> JB is safe and there will be no impeachment; the Senate Republican leadership have told the GOP House leadership they will listen to the indictment and then acquit BHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get from 60+ TP House members down to just 11?
Click to expand...

the only TP I use is two or three ply ...


----------



## Darkwind

I figure the GOP will have 52 seats on the day after the election.

Time will tell if the Senate's new leadership has any sack to him.


----------



## daws101

Darkwind said:


> I figure the GOP will have 52 seats on the day after the election.
> 
> Time will tell if the Senate's new leadership has any sack to him.


the right is far too overconfident ... all you need t do is look at the 2012 presidential election.


----------



## Derideo_Te

william the wie said:


> The one wildcard I see this election is the usual the sky is falling in the stock market. At this point a 10% correction would look like a replay of 87. 53-47 R due to a Sept/Oct 5-10% drop. (Avg. for Sept. is -1)



The economy was in bubble mode in 1987. 

No bubble in the current economy ergo no 10% stock drop.


----------



## Shanty

Derideo_Te said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> the TPs will not control the caucus after January thank God: *they have had to many loses and will have no more than 11 seats in the house*
> 
> JB is safe and there will be no impeachment; the Senate Republican leadership have told the GOP House leadership they will listen to the indictment and then acquit BHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get from 60+ TP House members down to just 11?
Click to expand...

You let them open their big, stupid mouths.


----------



## Shanty

william the wie said:


> The one wildcard I see this election is the usual the sky is falling in the stock market. At this point a 10% correction would look like a replay of 87. 53-47 R due to a Sept/Oct 5-10% drop. (Avg. for Sept. is -1)


There's nothing indicating a potential drop in the markets of any significance.


----------



## PoliticalTorch

Statistikhengst said:


> Real Clear Politics does a pretty good compilation of polling (aggregate).
> 
> There is only one race where a Republican incumbent is locked in a tight race (Kentucky - Mitch McConnell), and of the open races, two of the three are currently Democratic seats.
> 
> Here are the averages:
> 
> Now, there are two seats that the Democrats really COULD win:
> 
> Georgia - and - Kentucky.


That is precisely why old Mitch, the Senate Minority Leader, is shaking in his boots right now about the possibility of his losing Kentucky and if he does, the Democrats _Keep_ the Senate according to him.

Mitch McConnell Admits That Republicans Have No Chance Of Taking The Senate If He Loses


----------



## JakeStarkey

Shanty said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> the TPs will not control the caucus after January thank God: *they have had to many loses and will have no more than 11 seats in the house*
> 
> JB is safe and there will be no impeachment; the Senate Republican leadership have told the GOP House leadership they will listen to the indictment and then acquit BHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get from 60+ TP House members down to just 11?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You let them open their big, stupid mouths.
Click to expand...


They let their real thoughts be known to the voters.

Watch Boehner move toward the center somewhat in 2015 once he does not have to worry about the once and gone TPM mill stone around his neck.


----------



## william the wie

Shanty said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one wildcard I see this election is the usual the sky is falling in the stock market. At this point a 10% correction would look like a replay of 87. 53-47 R due to a Sept/Oct 5-10% drop. (Avg. for Sept. is -1)
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing indicating a potential drop in the markets of any significance.
Click to expand...

A 10% drop is normal variance.


----------



## Shanty

JakeStarkey said:


> Shanty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get from 60+ TP House members down to just 11?
> 
> 
> 
> You let them open their big, stupid mouths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They let their real thoughts be known to the voters.
> 
> Watch Boehner move toward the center somewhat in 2015 once he does have to worry about the once and gone TPM mill stone around his neck.
Click to expand...

I agree. 

Boehner, for all of his faults and helping them to screw up so much, wants to get stuff done. As Speaker, he wants to be known for being able to move an agenda forward, which requires compromise. I think once the TP is finally done, and if those members mellow out who are from the far right, we'd see some compromises.


----------



## Shanty

william the wie said:


> Shanty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one wildcard I see this election is the usual the sky is falling in the stock market. At this point a 10% correction would look like a replay of 87. 53-47 R due to a Sept/Oct 5-10% drop. (Avg. for Sept. is -1)
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing indicating a potential drop in the markets of any significance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A 10% drop is normal variance.
Click to expand...

People will ignore that and opt to see if the jobs situation is improving, or not.


----------



## FuzzyCat

Ga. unemployment rate just went up to 7.8!


----------



## konradv

FuzzyCat said:


> Ga. unemployment rate just went up to 7.8!



Vote out those damn Republicans running the state.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Even with the high unemployment, those folks will not work in the fields for a pay check.

Farm owners, workers worry about immigration law's impact on crops

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/farm-owners-workers-worry-about-immigration-laws-i/nQt7D/


----------



## Shanty

JakeStarkey said:


> Even with the high unemployment, those folks will not work in the fields for a pay check.
> 
> Farm owners, workers worry about immigration law's impact on crops
> 
> Farm owners, workers worry about immigration law's impact on crop | www.ajc.com



If they pay a living wage, Americans will work.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, they won't, that's what the stats show in GA, Shart.

Americans will not work for $12 an hour in the fields anymore.

Immigrants will.


----------



## tgards79

Statistikhengst said:


> Real Clear Politics does a pretty good compilation of polling (aggregate).
> 
> Here is their Senate website:
> 
> RealClearPolitics - 2014 Election Maps - Battle for the Senate
> 
> (the graphic is interactive - clickable, and pretty much everything is hyperlinked)
> 
> 
> This is how RCP sees the battle for the Senate right now:
> 
> 
> View attachment 31070​
> 
> It sees nine seats in play. The GOP needs 4 of those nine seats. It needs 6 seats in order to win the Senate, but 2 of them are already clearly strongly R right now, and pretty much ceded to the GOP: Montana and South Dakota. Both are show on the graphic as "Likely R", and I concur.
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the* safe D* seats:
> 
> The Northeast: *Delaware, Massachusetts, Rhode Island*
> The Midwest: *Illinois*
> The Southwest: *New Mexico*
> 
> 5 seats
> 
> No one is expecting these seats to flip, even in the case of a massive GOP wave in the Fall.
> 
> Let's take a look as the *safe R* seats:
> 
> 
> The South: *Alabama, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oklahoma (special) South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas*
> The breadbasket: *Kansas, Nebraska*
> Big Sky: *Idaho, Wyoming*
> The Northeast: *Maine*
> 
> 12 seats.
> 
> No one is expecting these seats to flip, even in the case that a GOP wave does not materialize in the Fall.
> 
> Already, the GOP has a massive SAFE seat advantage over the Dems of more than 2:1
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the *likely D* seats:
> 
> The West: *Hawaii, Oregon*
> The Midwest: *Minnesota*
> The Northeast: *New Jersey*
> The South: *Virginia*
> 
> 
> These are the five states where the GOP is not really investing. Mark Warner is likely to win the biggest for the DEMS in this cycle, making him a future presidential candidate as well.  Another important story here is the story of the power of the incumbency. Al Franken (D) barely won his Senate seat in 2008, but right now, his average over challenger Mike McFadden (R) is *+10.4*, which is a landslide aggregate margin. Of these states, the one state that could end up being a surprise on the senatorial level could be Hawaii.
> 
> 
> And let's take a look at the *likely GOP* seats:
> 
> The South: *Mississippi*
> The Big Sky/Breadbasket: *Montana, South Dakota (O)*
> 
> Here are already two pretty much guaranteed pick-ups for the Republicans in the Fall (MT, SD).
> 
> Now the next is where RCP and I don't completely agree about the level, but we do agree about the direction.
> 
> Under the *leaning D* states:
> 
> The Northeast: New Hampshire
> 
> The only problem I have with that is that Jean Shahean (D), according to RCP polling averages, is leading Republican Scott Brown by *+10.4*, which is exactly the same landslide margin that was shown for Al Franken (D) in Minnesota, so why one state should be considered likely D, but the other state is listed as leaning D is a mystery to me. Of course, the NH primary is first on September 9th, so right now the assumption is that Scott Brown, the former Republican Senator from Massachusetts, will become the Republican Senatorial nominee. Perhaps this is why RCP is classifying the two races in two different ways. Wait and see.
> 
> And under the* leaning R* states:
> 
> 
> The South: West Virginia (O)
> 
> Again, I wonder why RCP is classifying this as leaning R, because right now, Republican Shelly Capito is leading Democrat Natalie Tennent by *+9.3*, which is a near-landslide margin.
> 
> 
> Maybe RCP is just trying to be overly careful, but it sure seems to me that in both cases, those states are more "likely" for either D or R than "leaning", which means that most likely, the GOP already has 3 pick-ups in the bag: MT, SD and WV. Which means it only needs 3 of the statistical tossup states in order to outright have 51 Senate seats and therefore, the majority:
> 
> 
> That leaves us with nine statistical tossups:
> 
> 
> The South: Arkansas, Georgia (O), Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina
> The Midwest: Iowa (O) , Michigan (O )
> The Southeast / Mountain States: Colorado
> The Pacific: Alaska
> 
> 
> *This is where the strategema looks extremely grim for the Democrats.* Of those nine statistical tossups, five of those races are with Democratic incumbents who are all locked in tight races. There is only one race where a Republican incumbent is locked in a tight race (Kentucky - Mitch McConnell), and of the open races, two of the three are currently Democratic seats.
> 
> Here are the averages:
> 
> Alaska: AK has not had it's primary yet, but the values range from Begich (D) *+0.4* over Treadwell (R) to Begich *+12.0* over Miller. However, it looks as if Miller has no chance of winning the GOP primary (he beat Murkowski in 2010 and then lost to her as a write-in candidate in the Fall of that year).
> 
> Arkansas: Cotton (R) *+3*, and incumbent Mark Pryor has not won in a poll since April.
> 
> Colorado: Udall (D) *+1.5*
> 
> Georgia: Perdue (R) *+3.2*
> 
> Iowa: Ernst (R) *+0.8*
> 
> Kentucky: McConnell (R) *+2.5*
> 
> Louisiana: Cassidy (R) *+1*
> 
> Michigan: Peters (D) *+4*
> 
> North Carolina: Tillis *+1.3*
> 
> 
> _Please remember that the aggregate values I am quoting are from today, 11 August 2014, and could already change again in the next days._
> 
> Now, 8 of those 9 margins (aggregates) are well within the MoE and the Michigan margin is just outside the standard MoE, but right now, the GOP is a nose ahead in 6 of those 9 races. And remember, the GOP only needs to win 3, assuming that MT, SD and WV all go as pretty much everyone expects them to go.
> 
> 
> Almost eight months ago, I put out this thread:
> 
> 
> Congressional Elections compared to Presidential Terms 1855-present US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Quote at the end:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, what can we learn from this information?
> 
> 1.) We have had divided government a lot more than most people realize.
> 
> 2.) The statistical probability that the President's party suffers major losses in a mid-term election, especially in a 2nd term mid-term, is extremely high.
> 
> 3.) Divided government is not necessarily a bad thing. See: Eisenhower, Clinton. Likewise, unified government is not necessarily good. See: Hoover, Carter.
> 
> So, before the pundits go blabbing their mouths off about the 2014 elections, *know that history is on the side of the GOP in this election*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed, what we are seeing right now is exactly in line with electoral history.
> 
> And then there is Angus King (I - ME), who, should the GOP only win 5 seats for some reason, could play kingmaker and decide to caucus with the GOP.  So, in reality, the GOP only needs to win 5 seats, but 6-8 are very likely.
> 
> Now, there are two seats that the Democrats really COULD win:
> 
> Georgia - and - Kentucky.
> 
> But even that is dicey.
> 
> And for this reason, the mention of Angus King. Should the GOP win 7 seats, but lose 2, it could still control the Senate, with Angus King (I) switching sides.
> 
> When the last primaries are over with and the polling for the key races comes in, then I will be following the numbers quite closely, but the aggregates, from pollsters from all over the spectrum, *are pointing to a very, very good outcome for the GOP in November*.
> 
> What's the absolute top-line?
> 
> Well, I will take RCP's take, which currently shows 45 DEM seats in the basket, and were Angus King to switch sides, then the Senate could move from 54 (D) - 45 (R) 1 (I) to 54 (R) - 45 (D) - 1 (I). It could go from D+9 to R+9, which would then be a partisan shift of R+18.
> 
> Please notice that I included the geography when listing the states. This is because the South is playing an enormous role in this: there are four southern states where the Dems could easily lose seats: WV, AR, NC, LA.
> 
> My gut tells me that the GOP is going to do better than *+6* in the fall, maybe* +7* or *+8*, but could definitely lose one seat. This is also not uncommon in electoral history. Even in historic wave mid-terms, the "other side" has often picked up at least one seat. So, that's also not a big surprise.
> 
> The next step in all of this is to see where the GOP places it's money in advertising and the sending in heavy hitters from other areas to help.
> 
> I will be updating this thread again in late August.
> 
> Oh, and  [MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION], what was that again about "partisan hack"?
Click to expand...

Or check this out:
Born To Run The Numbers Election 2014 Senate 2014 Election Update Dems 51 GOP 49...Plenty of Toss-ups...Could Senate Control Come Down to Louisiana In December


----------



## Statistikhengst

tgards79 said:


> Or check this out:
> Born To Run The Numbers Election 2014 Senate 2014 Election Update Dems 51 GOP 49...Plenty of Toss-ups...Could Senate Control Come Down to Louisiana In December




That is EXTREMELY optomistic for the Democrats EXTREMELY. And not in line with current polling data at all.

Though I am a Democrat, when it comes to polling numbers, I am brutally neutral. The numbers have been and are still pointing toward a GOP take-over of the Senate in 2014, which would also be right in line with electoral history.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Well, the Labor Day weekend has come and gone and as is a big tradition in US-American politics, mid-term election season is underway and we now go into 5th gear.

*In exactly 9 weeks from today*, voters across the country will go to the polls to elect local, state and national representatives. We know that all 435 seats in the US HOR will be officially up for election (although some will be completely non-competitive) and roughly 1/3 of all Senate seats will be up for grabs.

Also, 36 governors' seats are up for election.

We should have about 240,000,000 US-Americans who _would_ be eligible to vote and maybe, if we are lucky, about 170,000,000 of them will register.  Voter turnout in mid-term elections has historically been much lower than for presidential elections. Wait and see. In one month, I will be putting out a massive thread with all of the voter registration statistics throughout the Union.

I also want to once again point to the *hard facts* about mid-terms, especially mid-terms that occur within the second term of a 2-term presidency:

Congressional Elections compared to Presidential Terms 1855-present US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Grab yourself a cup of coffee and take time to really read that thread and let the numbers sink in. They tell an important story that is incontrovertible.

In mid-terms elections, going all the way back to 1854, the first year that the then-fledgling GOP was on the national ballot for such, *the opposition party has traditionally made gains, usually, substantial gains, in congress*. Way back in January, I wrote that the GOP had the better cards in it's hand, and now, 8 months later, that prognosis has not changed. The GOP still has the better cards in it's hand.

Most believe that mid-terms are a referendum on the sitting POTUS and his administration. I wouldn't dispute that argument. Absent a possibility to "vote the bum out" or vote vigorously to keep him, many voters express their displeasure with the POTUS by voting in the mid-term for the opposition party.

The GOP already has control of the HOR and I fully expect that they will ever so slightly expand their lead. I am suspecting that they might pick up a net 11 seats, maybe less, but this is just a shot in the dark as many HOR races will never be polled and sometimes, the whackiest of surprises can happen. But if the generic aggregate is our guide, about 11 would be right.

However,  it's the Senate that all eyes appear to be fixed upon and Republicans know that the magic number is right around *SIX*, depending on whether or not the DEMS pick up one or two seats in the Senate themselves. All of the reasoning for this has already been laid out in the OP, no need to rehash.

But as of this point in time, we go into the "hot" period of the election cycle.

Already, some things are worth noting:

RCP had West Virginia as "leans GOP" when I wrote the OP - and now, WV been moved to "likely GOP",  just as I surmised would happen when I wrote the OP.

At the same time, the Senate seat in Ruby-Red Kansas, which was listed as "likely GOP", has now been moved to "lean GOP".  Now, were this a presidential election with an immensely popular Democratic candidate on the ballot for Prez, I could surmize that the DEMS could pull-out a surprise in Kansas, but in a mid-term with so much acrimony across the nation, I am pretty darned sure that this seat stays red.

This means that the GOP really does have 3 of the six seats it needs to get over the finish line in November: MT, SD and WV. It only needs three more, assuming that the DEMS cannot pick-up a seat or two. Wait and see.

The one other factor worth noting is the generic polling. At this time 4 years ago, the Democratic party started to take a massive dive in the aggregate generic polling. That is not happening this time, at least not yet.

Here is a chart going back to 2002. I think it's pretty self-explanatory:







That graphic was put out at KOS, which conservatives will not like, but the math dudes at KOS crunch the numbers just the same as the math dudes at RCP. In fact, the KOS math geeks used RCP's numbers.

Thus far, in generic polling, the Democratic party is not taking the dive it took four years ago, but that could still happen. Wait and see. Even if the end generic shows an absolute tie, it would still be advantage GOP, as many statisticians believe that the DEMS would need about a *+7* in AGGREGATE polling just to overcome the effects of Republican Gerrymandering since 2011, and that is not going to happen. Now, I'm not the biggest fan of generic polling, but the aggregate usually does provide some useable information. Just remember: Gallup was off on it's final 2010 generic by 9.3 points. It predicted *GOP +15* in 2010. The GOP won on election night 2014 by *+5.7*. That's a pretty dismal performance on the part of Gallup.

All in all, it looks pretty much like the mid-terms are headed for the results I generally predicted in January.

*1.)* The GOP retains the HOR.

*2.)* The GOP captures the Senate, but not with a filibuster-proof majority. This means that the HOR can pass as many Articles of Impeachment or Obamacare revocations it wants, and those things will simply die in the Senate.

*3.) *The State gubernatorial races will be pretty evenly split, with a couple of pretty deep losses on each side looming, for instance, in Pennsylvania, Kansas and in Illinois. However, there are more (R) gubernatorial seats in the toss-up column than (D) races. The Democrats could make some surprising gains here.

Starting next week, one week after Labor Day, I will be posting the 9 critical battleground state (Senate) aggregates and looking pretty deeply into a number of polls.  I am also expecting the "war of the pollsters" to begin shortly. That's always fun to watch. Already, Rasmussen has upped the number of polls.

*One final thing: *in every mid-term in my memory (since 1974), there have been _unexpected surprises_. Some candidate may jump the shark or get caught having sex with someone other than his/her wife/husband. Plagarism scandals are become quite popular these days. A nice drug scandal could pop up. And of course, unsavory hot-mic comments can be quite damaging (see: 47%). So, somewhere along the way, a race that was probably not even on anyone's radar could suddenly pop-up.


----------



## tgards79

Statistikhengst said:


> tgards79 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or check this out:
> Born To Run The Numbers Election 2014 Senate 2014 Election Update Dems 51 GOP 49...Plenty of Toss-ups...Could Senate Control Come Down to Louisiana In December
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is EXTREMELY optomistic for the Democrats EXTREMELY. And not in line with current polling data at all.
> 
> Though I am a Democrat, when it comes to polling numbers, I am brutally neutral. The numbers have been and are still pointing toward a GOP take-over of the Senate in 2014, which would also be right in line with electoral history.
Click to expand...

I did it straight from the polling.  I'd like you to tell me where you think it is wrong.


----------



## Statistikhengst

tgards79 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tgards79 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or check this out:
> Born To Run The Numbers Election 2014 Senate 2014 Election Update Dems 51 GOP 49...Plenty of Toss-ups...Could Senate Control Come Down to Louisiana In December
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is EXTREMELY optomistic for the Democrats EXTREMELY. And not in line with current polling data at all.
> 
> Though I am a Democrat, when it comes to polling numbers, I am brutally neutral. The numbers have been and are still pointing toward a GOP take-over of the Senate in 2014, which would also be right in line with electoral history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did it straight from the polling.  I'd like you to tell me where you think it is wrong.
Click to expand...



I go through all of the aggregates and not one one them, not even from KOS, shows D51-R49 right now.

Much more accurate is

D45 - R46 - in contention 9.


----------



## tgards79

Statistikhengst said:


> tgards79 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tgards79 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or check this out:
> Born To Run The Numbers Election 2014 Senate 2014 Election Update Dems 51 GOP 49...Plenty of Toss-ups...Could Senate Control Come Down to Louisiana In December
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is EXTREMELY optomistic for the Democrats EXTREMELY. And not in line with current polling data at all.
> 
> Though I am a Democrat, when it comes to polling numbers, I am brutally neutral. The numbers have been and are still pointing toward a GOP take-over of the Senate in 2014, which would also be right in line with electoral history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did it straight from the polling.  I'd like you to tell me where you think it is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I go through all of the aggregates and not one one them, not even from KOS, shows D51-R49 right now.
> 
> Much more accurate is
> 
> D45 - R46 - in contention 9.
Click to expand...

A couple of things to note:  the services often use an average of many polls even if they are more than two months old.  I only go back to July 1 or, if there are five polls in the last two weeks, only them (more important going forward).  Plus services like to add "special sauce," which is essentially their own take on "intangibles."  In 2012 I was correct on 33 out of 35 Senate (same as Nate) and in 2008 I was 35 for 35.  Plus 45/46 with 9 toss-ups is correct.  I called the toss-ups.


----------



## JakeStarkey

My analysis right now is GOP 52 to Dem 48.


----------



## Statistikhengst

tgards79 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tgards79 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tgards79 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or check this out:
> Born To Run The Numbers Election 2014 Senate 2014 Election Update Dems 51 GOP 49...Plenty of Toss-ups...Could Senate Control Come Down to Louisiana In December
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is EXTREMELY optomistic for the Democrats EXTREMELY. And not in line with current polling data at all.
> 
> Though I am a Democrat, when it comes to polling numbers, I am brutally neutral. The numbers have been and are still pointing toward a GOP take-over of the Senate in 2014, which would also be right in line with electoral history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did it straight from the polling.  I'd like you to tell me where you think it is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I go through all of the aggregates and not one one them, not even from KOS, shows D51-R49 right now.
> 
> Much more accurate is
> 
> D45 - R46 - in contention 9.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A couple of things to note:  the services often use an average of many polls even if they are more than two months old.  I only go back to July 1 or, if there are five polls in the last two weeks, only them (more important going forward).  Plus services like to add "special sauce," which is essentially their own take on "intangibles."  In 2012 I was correct on 33 out of 35 Senate (same as Nate) and in 2008 I was 35 for 35.  Plus 45/46 with 9 toss-ups is correct.  I called the toss-ups.
Click to expand...



Well, good!

I do lots of electoral statistics, so I am sure we are going to bump into each other now and then.


----------



## tgards79

JakeStarkey said:


> My analysis right now is GOP 52 to Dem 48.


Hey Jake, where can I see your analysis?


----------



## daws101

a potential game changer Campaign manager for Mitch McConnell resigns over Ron Paul bribery allegations


----------



## Antares

Yes 


tgards79 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> My analysis right now is GOP 52 to Dem 48.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Jake, where can I see your analysis?
Click to expand...


Jake, I'd like to see it too?


----------



## HenryBHough

Something frequently overlooked:

Conservative leaning voters tend to distrust telephone pollsters.  They (more frequently than liberals or "moderates", whatever in hell those are) just hang up on poll-calls.  Or fill the pollster so full of shit that their eyes turn brown.

In-person polling could be expected to be more fruitful but who does THAT anymore?

As to internet polling?  Yeah.  Right.


----------



## Statistikhengst

HenryBHough said:


> Something frequently overlooked:
> 
> Conservative leaning voters tend to distrust telephone pollsters.  They (more frequently than liberals or "moderates", whatever in hell those are) just hang up on poll-calls.  Or fill the pollster so full of shit that their eyes turn brown.
> 
> In-person polling could be expected to be more fruitful but who does THAT anymore?
> 
> As to internet polling?  Yeah.  Right.




Which explains why the last round of polling had a CONSERVATIVE mathematical bias. 

NOT.


----------



## HenryBHough

Love those brown eyes, Statist!


----------



## Statistikhengst

Your blindness bothers you, what?

You can always push that "informative" button and you will feel better right away!


----------



## HenryBHough

It IS kinda fun!


----------



## Statistikhengst

HenryBHough said:


> It IS kinda fun!




I see you are easily amused, Kemosabe.

Most simpletons are.


----------



## Nyvin

watchman_otw said:


> CLUELESS obama has doomed liberal dems.  Reps will take both house of congress. and pres. in 2016 ====Get over it!



Doomed them how?


----------



## Statistikhengst

lol...


----------



## Derideo_Te

Statistikhengst said:


> Well, the Labor Day weekend has come and gone and as is a big tradition in US-American politics, mid-term election season is underway and we now go into 5th gear.
> 
> *In exactly 9 weeks from today*, voters across the country will go to the polls to elect local, state and national representatives. We know that all 435 seats in the US HOR will be officially up for election (although some will be completely non-competitive) and roughly 1/3 of all Senate seats will be up for grabs.
> 
> Also, 36 governors' seats are up for election.
> 
> We should have about 240,000,000 US-Americans who _would_ be eligible to vote and maybe, if we are lucky, about 170,000,000 of them will register.  Voter turnout in mid-term elections has historically been much lower than for presidential elections. Wait and see. In one month, I will be putting out a massive thread with all of the voter registration statistics throughout the Union.
> 
> I also want to once again point to the *hard facts* about mid-terms, especially mid-terms that occur within the second term of a 2-term presidency:
> 
> Congressional Elections compared to Presidential Terms 1855-present US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Grab yourself a cup of coffee and take time to really read that thread and let the numbers sink in. They tell an important story that is incontrovertible.
> 
> In mid-terms elections, going all the way back to 1854, the first year that the then-fledgling GOP was on the national ballot for such, *the opposition party has traditionally made gains, usually, substantial gains, in congress*. Way back in January, I wrote that the GOP had the better cards in it's hand, and now, 8 months later, that prognosis has not changed. The GOP still has the better cards in it's hand.
> 
> Most believe that mid-terms are a referendum on the sitting POTUS and his administration. I wouldn't dispute that argument. Absent a possibility to "vote the bum out" or vote vigorously to keep him, many voters express their displeasure with the POTUS by voting in the mid-term for the opposition party.
> 
> The GOP already has control of the HOR and I fully expect that they will ever so slightly expand their lead. I am suspecting that they might pick up a net 11 seats, maybe less, but this is just a shot in the dark as many HOR races will never be polled and sometimes, the whackiest of surprises can happen. But if the generic aggregate is our guide, about 11 would be right.
> 
> However,  it's the Senate that all eyes appear to be fixed upon and Republicans know that the magic number is right around *SIX*, depending on whether or not the DEMS pick up one or two seats in the Senate themselves. All of the reasoning for this has already been laid out in the OP, no need to rehash.
> 
> But as of this point in time, we go into the "hot" period of the election cycle.
> 
> Already, some things are worth noting:
> 
> RCP had West Virginia as "leans GOP" when I wrote the OP - and now, WV been moved to "likely GOP",  just as I surmised would happen when I wrote the OP.
> 
> At the same time, the Senate seat in Ruby-Red Kansas, which was listed as "likely GOP", has now been moved to "lean GOP".  Now, were this a presidential election with an immensely popular Democratic candidate on the ballot for Prez, I could surmize that the DEMS could pull-out a surprise in Kansas, but in a mid-term with so much acrimony across the nation, I am pretty darned sure that this seat stays red.
> 
> This means that the GOP really does have 3 of the six seats it needs to get over the finish line in November: MT, SD and WV. It only needs three more, assuming that the DEMS cannot pick-up a seat or two. Wait and see.
> 
> The one other factor worth noting is the generic polling. At this time 4 years ago, the Democratic party started to take a massive dive in the aggregate generic polling. That is not happening this time, at least not yet.
> 
> Here is a chart going back to 2002. I think it's pretty self-explanatory:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That graphic was put out at KOS, which conservatives will not like, but the math dudes at KOS crunch the numbers just the same as the math dudes at RCP. In fact, the KOS math geeks used RCP's numbers.
> 
> Thus far, in generic polling, the Democratic party is not taking the dive it took four years ago, but that could still happen. Wait and see. Even if the end generic shows an absolute tie, it would still be advantage GOP, as many statisticians believe that the DEMS would need about a *+7* in AGGREGATE polling just to overcome the effects of Republican Gerrymandering since 2011, and that is not going to happen. Now, I'm not the biggest fan of generic polling, but the aggregate usually does provide some useable information. Just remember: Gallup was off on it's final 2010 generic by 9.3 points. It predicted *GOP +15* in 2010. The GOP won on election night 2014 by *+5.7*. That's a pretty dismal performance on the part of Gallup.
> 
> All in all, it looks pretty much like the mid-terms are headed for the results I generally predicted in January.
> 
> *1.)* The GOP retains the HOR.
> 
> *2.)* *The GOP captures the Senate, but not with a filibuster-proof majority.* This means that the HOR can pass as many Articles of Impeachment or Obamacare revocations it wants, and those things will simply die in the Senate.
> 
> *3.) *The State gubernatorial races will be pretty evenly split, with a couple of pretty deep losses on each side looming, for instance, in Pennsylvania, Kansas and in Illinois. However, there are more (R) gubernatorial seats in the toss-up column than (D) races. The Democrats could make some surprising gains here.
> 
> Starting next week, one week after Labor Day, I will be posting the 9 critical battleground state (Senate) aggregates and looking pretty deeply into a number of polls.  I am also expecting the "war of the pollsters" to begin shortly. That's always fun to watch. Already, Rasmussen has upped the number of polls.
> 
> *One final thing: *in every mid-term in my memory (since 1974), there have been _unexpected surprises_. Some candidate may jump the shark or get caught having sex with someone other than his/her wife/husband. Plagarism scandals are become quite popular these days. A nice drug scandal could pop up. And of course, unsavory hot-mic comments can be quite damaging (see: 47%). So, somewhere along the way, a race that was probably not even on anyone's radar could suddenly pop-up.



The GOP might decide to revoke the filibuster entirely if it has 51 seats. I strongly suspect that will be the case so as to turn up the heat on Obama and force him to veto their bills ahead of the 2016 elections.


----------



## Nyvin

Derideo_Te said:


> The GOP might decide to revoke the filibuster entirely if it has 51 seats. I strongly suspect that will be the case so as to turn up the heat on Obama and force him to veto their bills ahead of the 2016 elections.



I really doubt it.   That's an extremely bold move when 2016 is right around the corner.   Not saying they know they'll lose, just they wouldn't want to take the chance.   Reid getting rid of the filibuster for nominations was already pretty bold...getting rid of it for legislation would be one of the biggest changes to the national government in recent history.


----------



## JakeStarkey

If the far right creepies did not have the blue button, stat, they would freak.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Nyvin said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP might decide to revoke the filibuster entirely if it has 51 seats. I strongly suspect that will be the case so as to turn up the heat on Obama and force him to veto their bills ahead of the 2016 elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really doubt it.   That's an extremely bold move when 2016 is right around the corner.   Not saying they know they'll lose, just they wouldn't want to take the chance.
Click to expand...


We are not talking about the sane reasonable choice here. The HoR is now run by the extremists. If the Senate has a Republican majority it will be Ted Cruz who will be calling the shots in my opinion.


----------



## Nyvin

Taylor (D) just withdrew from the Kansas Senate race....


----------



## JakeStarkey

Don't think Cruz has much power at all within the Senate.


----------



## Derideo_Te

JakeStarkey said:


> Don't think Cruz has much power at all within the Senate.



Not at present but we are talking about 2015 which might be a whole different ball game with a different roster of players.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Cruz, does not have the respect of the old line in the Senate.

But anything is possible. Joe McCarthy had a run before his own party pulled him down as too dangerous to American liberties.


----------



## LoneLaugher

@statistikhengst

What just happened in Kansas senate race?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Taylor dropped out, I don't know why.  That will make things a bit easier for the GOP to capture the Senate.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Democrat Chad Taylor drops out of U.S. Senate race against Pat Roberts Greg Orman The Wichita Eagle

The independent, who attracts voters from right to left, is tn points ahead of the Pub candidate.

If Orman wins, the Senate will get its first Independent from KS.  He will caucus with the majority party.


----------



## LoneLaugher

JakeStarkey said:


> Taylor dropped out, I don't know why.  That will make things a bit easier for the GOP to capture the Senate.



That's not what I am hearing. I heard that the Independent guy has a real shot at beating Roberts. Taylor dropping out is not good for Taylor as it stands today.


----------



## Nyvin

JakeStarkey said:


> Taylor dropped out, I don't know why.  That will make things a bit easier for the GOP to capture the Senate.



No, if anything it makes it much harder.   Orman is much better funded.   Also before Taylor dropped out the liberal/moderate vote would've been divided between the two, now it's going to be united to 1 candidate.   Also there is still a libertarian in the race which will draw a few votes from Roberts.

It's important to note that Orman was actually left of center while Taylor was right of center politically.


----------



## LoneLaugher

I expect that there will be some loud cries of "foul!!!" coming from from certain radio hosts tomorrow.


----------



## BreezeWood

> *Candidates In Alaska Governor s Race Join Forces To Unseat The Incumbent*
> 
> *Candidates In Alaska Governor's Race Join Forces To Unseat The Incumbent*
> 
> ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — The independent and Democratic candidates for Alaska governor said Tuesday that they are merging their campaigns to give them a better shot at unseating Republican incumbent Gov. Sean Parnell.





the same horse trading by the democrats recently happened in the Alaska Governors race as well - helping Begich by no coincident either ... demos are not going down without a fight.


* large fonts not mine ...

.


----------



## HenryBHough

Rank and file Democrats, however, are up in arms.  Central committee leadership may find itself replaced.  Feeling seems to be that a lot of people got off their asses to vote in a primary and then got the finger for their having done so.

Not as pretty as you might think.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

JakeStarkey said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> the TPs will not control the caucus after January thank God: they have had to many loses and will have no more than 11 seats in the house
> 
> JB is safe and there will be no impeachment; the Senate Republican leadership have told the GOP House leadership they will listen to the indictment and then acquit BHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 11 seats in the house???  Try 70+
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You  had 70 in 2011, 35 in 2013, and will have 11 in 2015.
> 
> Mike Lee for instance cozied with TeaPs in the past but now is being nice to Dems in Utah because of his vulnerability in 2016.
Click to expand...


 Mike Lee has no vulnerability to any Democrat in Utah.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

JakeStarkey said:


> Americans will not work for $12 an hour in the fields anymore.



They will if you take their welfare check away.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Derideo_Te said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP might decide to revoke the filibuster entirely if it has 51 seats. I strongly suspect that will be the case so as to turn up the heat on Obama and force him to veto their bills ahead of the 2016 elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really doubt it.   That's an extremely bold move when 2016 is right around the corner.   Not saying they know they'll lose, just they wouldn't want to take the chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not talking about the sane reasonable choice here. The HoR is now run by the extremists. If the Senate has a Republican majority it will be Ted Cruz who will be calling the shots in my opinion.
Click to expand...


Yeah, right, as if McConnell will let Cruz anywhere near any kind of leadership role.


----------



## Statistikhengst

JakeStarkey said:


> If the far right creepies did not have the blue button, stat, they would freak.



@JakeStarkey   - It could be that blue is the new red!!! Cuz, cuz, cuz, well, BENGHAZI!




Now, back to the OP: I will be posting the first week dump on Sunday. Poll-dump, I mean, just to clear up any misunderstandings.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Nyvin said:


> Taylor (D) just withdrew from the Kansas Senate race....




Hmmmm,  well as I wrote in the addendum post, surprises usually start to happen about now. It's all part and parcel of US-American politics. So, now we have two shake ups. If a unity ticket unseats the GOP governor in Alaska and Mark Begich holds onto his seat (which I see as very, very likely) and with Hillary Clinton as the DEM nominee in 2016, then for the first time since 1968, we may see an election night where it could take hours to call Alaska for one presidential candidate or another.

But in Kansas, if Independent Orman now wins, he may or may not caucus with the Democrats. Still, losing a seat there would be a shock for the GOP.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> the TPs will not control the caucus after January thank God: they have had to many loses and will have no more than 11 seats in the house
> 
> JB is safe and there will be no impeachment; the Senate Republican leadership have told the GOP House leadership they will listen to the indictment and then acquit BHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 11 seats in the house???  Try 70+
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You  had 70 in 2011, 35 in 2013, and will have 11 in 2015.
> 
> Mike Lee for instance cozied with TeaPs in the past but now is being nice to Dems in Utah because of his vulnerability in 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mike Lee has no vulnerability to any Democrat in Utah.
Click to expand...



Indeed. A cardboard poster with an R after it's name would win in Utah.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP might decide to revoke the filibuster entirely if it has 51 seats. I strongly suspect that will be the case so as to turn up the heat on Obama and force him to veto their bills ahead of the 2016 elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really doubt it.   That's an extremely bold move when 2016 is right around the corner.   Not saying they know they'll lose, just they wouldn't want to take the chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not talking about the sane reasonable choice here. The HoR is now run by the extremists. If the Senate has a Republican majority it will be Ted Cruz who will be calling the shots in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, right, as if McConnell will let Cruz anywhere near any kind of leadership role.
Click to expand...



This of course predicates that Mitch McConnell survives his re-election campaign.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans will not work for $12 an hour in the fields anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will if you take their welfare check away.
Click to expand...


You are a true patriot and clearly proud of your fellow Americans.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Statistikhengst said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> the TPs will not control the caucus after January thank God: they have had to many loses and will have no more than 11 seats in the house
> 
> JB is safe and there will be no impeachment; the Senate Republican leadership have told the GOP House leadership they will listen to the indictment and then acquit BHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 11 seats in the house???  Try 70+
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You  had 70 in 2011, 35 in 2013, and will have 11 in 2015.
> 
> Mike Lee for instance cozied with TeaPs in the past but now is being nice to Dems in Utah because of his vulnerability in 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mike Lee has no vulnerability to any Democrat in Utah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. A cardboard poster with an R after it's name would win in Utah.
Click to expand...

But he is vulnerable to a primary challenge in the party.  The nominating system has changed.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Jake, are you writing in invisible ink again?!?!?


----------



## JakeStarkey

It's a challenge to the secret intel squirrels of the far right.


----------



## Statistikhengst

JakeStarkey said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> the TPs will not control the caucus after January thank God: they have had to many loses and will have no more than 11 seats in the house
> 
> JB is safe and there will be no impeachment; the Senate Republican leadership have told the GOP House leadership they will listen to the indictment and then acquit BHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 11 seats in the house???  Try 70+
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You  had 70 in 2011, 35 in 2013, and will have 11 in 2015.
> 
> Mike Lee for instance cozied with TeaPs in the past but now is being nice to Dems in Utah because of his vulnerability in 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mike Lee has no vulnerability to any Democrat in Utah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. A cardboard poster with an R after it's name would win in Utah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But he is vulnerable to a primary challenge in the party.  The nominating system has changed.
Click to expand...



Yes,. agree. However, considering the MASSIVE VR edge R vs.D in Utah, it's very strong tilt to the Right and it's very long (R) electoral history, I submit that he is not as vulnerable as people may think.


----------



## Statistikhengst

JakeStarkey said:


> It's a challenge to the secret intel squirrels of the far right.




You realize, they are going to find that very, very informative!!


----------



## Katzndogz

Don't put it past democrats to throw both the 2014 and 2016 elections.  It would be to their best interests to lose both.

We are rapidly approaching an unavoidable conflict with radical islam.   How better to blame the coming conflict on republicans but to put them in charge on the eve of such war?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

JakeStarkey said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> the TPs will not control the caucus after January thank God: they have had to many loses and will have no more than 11 seats in the house
> 
> JB is safe and there will be no impeachment; the Senate Republican leadership have told the GOP House leadership they will listen to the indictment and then acquit BHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 11 seats in the house???  Try 70+
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You  had 70 in 2011, 35 in 2013, and will have 11 in 2015.
> 
> Mike Lee for instance cozied with TeaPs in the past but now is being nice to Dems in Utah because of his vulnerability in 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mike Lee has no vulnerability to any Democrat in Utah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. A cardboard poster with an R after it's name would win in Utah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But he is vulnerable to a primary challenge in the party.  The nominating system has changed.
Click to expand...


That could certainly be possible, but it would be a rather bold move.  Lee was nominated because people in the state felt Bennett was not conservative enough.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

LoneLaugher said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans will not work for $12 an hour in the fields anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will if you take their welfare check away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a true patriot and clearly proud of your fellow Americans.
Click to expand...


What do you have against people having to work for a living?  Are you one of the people collecting the welfare checks?


----------



## LoneLaugher

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans will not work for $12 an hour in the fields anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will if you take their welfare check away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a true patriot and clearly proud of your fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you have against people having to work for a living?  Are you one of the people collecting the welfare checks?
Click to expand...


Answer the question in my signature, please. Then we can have an honest discussion about welfare and your arrogance. 

Thanks.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Taz does not have an answer, so he poses, nothing more, on this issue.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP might decide to revoke the filibuster entirely if it has 51 seats. I strongly suspect that will be the case so as to turn up the heat on Obama and force him to veto their bills ahead of the 2016 elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really doubt it.   That's an extremely bold move when 2016 is right around the corner.   Not saying they know they'll lose, just they wouldn't want to take the chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not talking about the sane reasonable choice here. The HoR is now run by the extremists. If the Senate has a Republican majority it will be Ted Cruz who will be calling the shots in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, right, as if McConnell will let Cruz anywhere near any kind of leadership role.
Click to expand...


That assumes that McConnell will still be around to stop Cruz.


----------



## daws101

Nyvin said:


> watchman_otw said:
> 
> 
> 
> CLUELESS obama has doomed liberal dems.  Reps will take both house of congress. and pres. in 2016 ====Get over it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doomed them how?
Click to expand...

that's a classic repub non sequitur , translated it means "I'd better say something to deflect the fact that we (the repubs) will get our ass handed to us again" .


----------



## daws101

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans will not work for $12 an hour in the fields anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will if you take their welfare check away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a true patriot and clearly proud of your fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you have against people having to work for a living?  Are you one of the people collecting the welfare checks?
Click to expand...

the majority of people on welfare need it .....it wil be ironic when the day comes when you need it and can't get it ....


----------



## daws101

Katzndogz said:


> Don't put it past democrats to throw both the 2014 and 2016 elections.  It would be to their best interests to lose both.
> 
> We are rapidly approaching an unavoidable conflict with radical islam.   How better to blame the coming conflict on republicans but to put them in charge on the eve of such war?


*Republicans Start The Wars, Democrats Finish Them*


----------



## Shanty

JakeStarkey said:


> No, they won't, that's what the stats show in GA, Shart.
> 
> Americans will not work for $12 an hour in the fields anymore.
> 
> Immigrants will.


Which means, if they pay a living wage, commensurate with the degree of hard work required, Americans will do the work.


----------



## Shanty

Statistikhengst said:


> tgards79 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or check this out:
> Born To Run The Numbers Election 2014 Senate 2014 Election Update Dems 51 GOP 49...Plenty of Toss-ups...Could Senate Control Come Down to Louisiana In December
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is EXTREMELY optomistic for the Democrats EXTREMELY. And not in line with current polling data at all.
> 
> Though I am a Democrat, when it comes to polling numbers, I am brutally neutral. The numbers have been and are still pointing toward a GOP take-over of the Senate in 2014, which would also be right in line with electoral history.
Click to expand...

The GOP looks to be in the lead. But, they've had a tendency to really screw it up in 2012


----------



## william the wie

Why do you think the GOP symbol is Dumbo all grown up? Of course running against a herd of braying jackasses when arrogance beats stupidity in straight sets for the utter futile foolishness sweepstakes being dumb isn't so bad.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Shanty said:


> The GOP looks to be in the lead. But, they've had a tendency to really screw it up in 2012



True, but second-term mid-terms tend to be even more brutal to sitting presidents and their parties than the first-term mid-terms were.

See:

Bush 43 2006
Reagan 1986
NIxon/Ford 1974
Kennedy/Johnson 1966
Eisenhower 1958
FDR/Truman 1946

Big exception:

Clinton 1998

With luck, the DEMS might be able to battle the GOP to a 50-50 tie, including Angus King.

The DEMS could win GA and KY and the independent (Orman) could take Kansas away from the GOP, but the GOP would still need only 8 seats to win, and three of them are already for all intents and purposes in the bag. Getting another 5, even in this scenario, is very doable for the GOP.

I'm not writing this because I am suddenly a cheerleader for the GOP. Obviously, I am not. But I have always been and always will be brutally neutral when it comes to the numbers. And the aggregates are currently showing the DEMS in a terrible position, and that is BEFORE a possible GOP wave could form.  In this kind of environment, the GOP *will* pick-up MT, SD and WV - even the DEMS are pretty much conceding these states. And right now, the DEM incumbents are fighting for their political lives in IA, AR and LA. All of those three seats could very easily flip, with polling being so tight. CO, AK and NC are the next tier of states where it is extremely close, but the DEM candidates are just a nose ahead. The GOP could easily pick-up those states if a large wave appears. And two of those races were races that, 6 years ago, were landslide wins for the Democrat. So, there are nine states right there that the GOP could sweep, irrespective of potential losses in KY, GA and now, KS.

Now, were Democrats to register and go to vote in mid-terms with the same fervor as they do in presidential elections, we would not even have to be talking about this, but Democrats have a historically bad record of voter apathy when it comes to mid-terms and then they wake up the next morning and say "whutt?? whutt happened?". Republican voters, the die-hards, on the other hand, have proven themselves to be more disciplined and more aware when it comes to mid-terms.

That could, of course, change in this year. Already, the voter registration figures I am collecting are showing that indeed, more people are registering in 2014 than registered in 2010, four years ago, but that may barely be keeping pace with the natural population growth of our Union.

The VERY best case scenario for the DEMS is that they pick-up both KY and GA (both very real possibilities), the Independent wins in KS (a VERY real possibility) and then caucuses with the Democrats (also a very real possibility), the McDaniels supporters bawk in MS, making the race competitive and therefore forcing the GOP to sink money into the state, and then, the DEMS hold 2 of the 3 upper-tier close states. I bet that, when all is said and done, Mark Begich pulls this one out in Alaska: he barely won six years ago, but now has universal name recognition in AK and with the unusual situation that just occured with the gubernatorial, where the DEM has pulled out and a Unity-ticket was formed with the Independent and the former Democratic Sen. candidate, a certain number of voters who vote for that Unity-ticket will likely also vote for Begich. Also, Hagan in NC is staying a nose ahead of Tillis, who has a lot of baggage and who debates badly. Since the demographics of NC are changing, I think she will pull  it out. Likewise, in IA, Braley is a fighter and Jodi Ernst also has baggage. For the same reasons as NC, I bet that Braley pulls it out.

Udall comes from a family of political fighters and 2010 proved that even in bad years for the Democratic party, a Democrat can win in CO. Wait and see. This will depend on DEM voter engagement or apathy in Denver and the outlying regions.

But I have real doubts about AR and LA, for the same type of demographic reasons as for NC: both of those states are becoming deeper and deeper red states and Mary Landrieu, whom I like and respect, may have used up the rest of her constituents' good will. It may very well be that the third time is not a charm for her at all.

Pryor is an interesting candidate in AR, because he is campaigning based ON Obamacare and not against it, and although he is doing the right thing imo, he will likely lose. If both Clintons head to their former home-state and campaign like hell for him, he may just pull this one out, but we are talking about a state that went  for Jimmy Carter by *+30.01%* in 1976 to a state that went for Mitt Romney (who is NOT a born again evangelical or Southern Baptist, as Jimmy Carter was) by *+23.69%* in 2012. That's a *53.7%* shift in the statistics from blue to red over 36 years (roughly 1.5 generations). Most people do not know that Mitt Romney made electoral history in 2012 in Arkansas:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond CNN Presidential Election calls 1992-2012 a timeline study



> By the way, Mitt Romney set an electoral record in Arkansas in 2012: This is the first time in television history that Arkansas has been called immediately for a Republican candidate. _In fact, this is first time EVER that Arkansas has been called immediately for a Republican._



I made that observation way back in June, 2013.

Usually, I don't make big comparisons between presidential cycles and mid-terms, because often, the two don't jive with each other at all, but AR doesn't do voter registration by party affiliation - all we can really go on is how voters have behaved in the past. And in the AR General Assembly, both houses are in the hands of the GOP. In the AR House it went from D-54 R-46 in the last assembly to R-51 D-48 GREEN-1 in the current session. In the AR Senate, it went from D-20 R-15 to R-21 D-14 (now: R-22 D-13). A Republican, John Boozman, unseated Democratic incumbent Blanche Lincoln in the 2010 Senatorial in a landslide. All four of Arkansas' congressional seats are in the hands of Republicans. All four of them won their seats in 2012 with landslide margins. Womack won his seat with 76% of the vote. Tom Cotton, who is now challenging for the senate seat, won his congressional seat in 2012 by +22.

The only real ray of sunshine for the Democats in AR is Governor Mike Beebe (who I think could be a real presidential contender), who, in the middle of the Tea Party wave of 2010, held his seat and won re-election over Republican Keet by +30. Beebe has never gone under 70% favorability in his state, not once. I know of no other Governor in modern history who can make this claim. If anyone can correct this statement, please do, but I have been looking and not found another example comparable with Beebe vis-a-vis favorabillity/unfavorability.

But other than Gov. Beebe, the state is about as red as red can get.  And Tom Cotton is considered a major rising star in the GOP. Politico rated him as "most likely to succeed" way back in January, 2013.  I just don't see how Mark Pryor survives in this mid-term atmosphere. Wait and see.

Looking at the mid-terms right now, even in September, is a lot like looking at John King's analysis of the 2012 election night returns, starting at 11 PM, after California, Washington State and Hawaii were called for Obama, bringing him to 229 EV (FOX already had him at 242 at that time). King went through the electoral map of the states left an summized the states that were very likely to go for Obama, like NV and NM and WI, and within 10 minutes, they did.  It got to the point where King simply reminded that Obama only needed just one state out of 6 possible hitherto uncalled states to win. It was obvious that Obama had the better cards in his hand. Just as it is very obvious that the GOP has had the better cards in it's hand all year this year, and still does right now. And that is BEFORE a potential wave (which is not registering yet) may appear.

And even if the DEMS race to a 50-50 draw, Angus King could tip the scales overnight and switch caucuses, were the GOP to offer him more juicy assignments than he already has. King could literally become the "King-maker" of 2014. But it is unlikely that it will be that close.

So, the next time conservatives think I only talk down GOP candidates, remember this posting. In many states, the GOP is fielding a better crew than it did in 2010.  It will now come down to GOTV and voter intensity.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Remember that our GOP has had trouble with total numbers for a long time.

We did everything right, the Dems did almost every thing wrong, and we still fell short in the popular vote and needed to be bailed out by USSC.


----------



## HenryBHough

I love it when a Democrat is so ashamed of his (her/its) party that it poses as a Republican!


----------



## JakeStarkey

I see using the Blue I button makes you feel better, Henry, and makes me laugh at you.


----------



## rightwinger

Senate race should be interesting

Right now, republicans have a slight lead but I am for NC and Kansas to flip


----------



## HenryBHough

JakeStarkey said:


> I see using the Blue I button makes you feel better, Henry, and makes me laugh at you.



So pleased to have brought a ray of sunshine to a dark basement room!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Good for you, Henry.

RW, I am not so sure that Kansas can flip.


----------



## rightwinger

JakeStarkey said:


> Good for you, Henry.
> 
> RW, I am not so sure that Kansas can flip.


With the dem dropping out last week, it opens up the race


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yeah, but enough?  And if the I wins, he will caucus with the majority party.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, Henry.
> 
> RW, I am not so sure that Kansas can flip.
> 
> 
> 
> With the dem dropping out last week, it opens up the race
Click to expand...


But they ruled he has to stay on the ballot.


----------



## rightwinger

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, Henry.
> 
> RW, I am not so sure that Kansas can flip.
> 
> 
> 
> With the dem dropping out last week, it opens up the race
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they ruled he has to stay on the ballot.
Click to expand...

He stays on the ballot and campaigns for the other guy


----------



## Shanty

Statistikhengst said:


> Shanty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP looks to be in the lead. But, they've had a tendency to really screw it up in 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but second-term mid-terms tend to be even more brutal to sitting presidents and their parties than the first-term mid-terms were.
> 
> See:
> 
> Bush 43 2006
> Reagan 1986
> NIxon/Ford 1974
> Kennedy/Johnson 1966
> Eisenhower 1958
> FDR/Truman 1946
> 
> Big exception:
> 
> Clinton 1998
> 
> With luck, the DEMS might be able to battle the GOP to a 50-50 tie, including Angus King.
> 
> The DEMS could win GA and KY and the independent (Orman) could take Kansas away from the GOP, but the GOP would still need only 8 seats to win, and three of them are already for all intents and purposes in the bag. Getting another 5, even in this scenario, is very doable for the GOP.
> 
> I'm not writing this because I am suddenly a cheerleader for the GOP. Obviously, I am not. But I have always been and always will be brutally neutral when it comes to the numbers. And the aggregates are currently showing the DEMS in a terrible position, and that is BEFORE a possible GOP wave could form.  In this kind of environment, the GOP *will* pick-up MT, SD and WV - even the DEMS are pretty much conceding these states. And right now, the DEM incumbents are fighting for their political lives in IA, AR and LA. All of those three seats could very easily flip, with polling being so tight. CO, AK and NC are the next tier of states where it is extremely close, but the DEM candidates are just a nose ahead. The GOP could easily pick-up those states if a large wave appears. And two of those races were races that, 6 years ago, were landslide wins for the Democrat. So, there are nine states right there that the GOP could sweep, irrespective of potential losses in KY, GA and now, KS.
> 
> Now, were Democrats to register and go to vote in mid-terms with the same fervor as they do in presidential elections, we would not even have to be talking about this, but Democrats have a historically bad record of voter apathy when it comes to mid-terms and then they wake up the next morning and say "whutt?? whutt happened?". Republican voters, the die-hards, on the other hand, have proven themselves to be more disciplined and more aware when it comes to mid-terms.
> 
> That could, of course, change in this year. Already, the voter registration figures I am collecting are showing that indeed, more people are registering in 2014 than registered in 2010, four years ago, but that may barely be keeping pace with the natural population growth of our Union.
> 
> The VERY best case scenario for the DEMS is that they pick-up both KY and GA (both very real possibilities), the Independent wins in KS (a VERY real possibility) and then caucuses with the Democrats (also a very real possibility), the McDaniels supporters bawk in MS, making the race competitive and therefore forcing the GOP to sink money into the state, and then, the DEMS hold 2 of the 3 upper-tier close states. I bet that, when all is said and done, Mark Begich pulls this one out in Alaska: he barely won six years ago, but now has universal name recognition in AK and with the unusual situation that just occured with the gubernatorial, where the DEM has pulled out and a Unity-ticket was formed with the Independent and the former Democratic Sen. candidate, a certain number of voters who vote for that Unity-ticket will likely also vote for Begich. Also, Hagan in NC is staying a nose ahead of Tillis, who has a lot of baggage and who debates badly. Since the demographics of NC are changing, I think she will pull  it out. Likewise, in IA, Braley is a fighter and Jodi Ernst also has baggage. For the same reasons as NC, I bet that Braley pulls it out.
> 
> Udall comes from a family of political fighters and 2010 proved that even in bad years for the Democratic party, a Democrat can win in CO. Wait and see. This will depend on DEM voter engagement or apathy in Denver and the outlying regions.
> 
> But I have real doubts about AR and LA, for the same type of demographic reasons as for NC: both of those states are becoming deeper and deeper red states and Mary Landrieu, whom I like and respect, may have used up the rest of her constituents' good will. It may very well be that the third time is not a charm for her at all.
> 
> Pryor is an interesting candidate in AR, because he is campaigning based ON Obamacare and not against it, and although he is doing the right thing imo, he will likely lose. If both Clintons head to their former home-state and campaign like hell for him, he may just pull this one out, but we are talking about a state that went  for Jimmy Carter by *+30.01%* in 1976 to a state that went for Mitt Romney (who is NOT a born again evangelical or Southern Baptist, as Jimmy Carter was) by *+23.69%* in 2012. That's a *53.7%* shift in the statistics from blue to red over 36 years (roughly 1.5 generations). Most people do not know that Mitt Romney made electoral history in 2012 in Arkansas:
> 
> Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond CNN Presidential Election calls 1992-2012 a timeline study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, Mitt Romney set an electoral record in Arkansas in 2012: This is the first time in television history that Arkansas has been called immediately for a Republican candidate. _In fact, this is first time EVER that Arkansas has been called immediately for a Republican._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made that observation way back in June, 2013.
> 
> Usually, I don't make big comparisons between presidential cycles and mid-terms, because often, the two don't jive with each other at all, but AR doesn't do voter registration by party affiliation - all we can really go on is how voters have behaved in the past. And in the AR General Assembly, both houses are in the hands of the GOP. In the AR House it went from D-54 R-46 in the last assembly to R-51 D-48 GREEN-1 in the current session. In the AR Senate, it went from D-20 R-15 to R-21 D-14 (now: R-22 D-13). A Republican, John Boozman, unseated Democratic incumbent Blanche Lincoln in the 2010 Senatorial in a landslide. All four of Arkansas' congressional seats are in the hands of Republicans. All four of them won their seats in 2012 with landslide margins. Womack won his seat with 76% of the vote. Tom Cotton, who is now challenging for the senate seat, won his congressional seat in 2012 by +22.
> 
> The only real ray of sunshine for the Democats in AR is Governor Mike Beebe (who I think could be a real presidential contender), who, in the middle of the Tea Party wave of 2010, held his seat and won re-election over Republican Keet by +30. Beebe has never gone under 70% favorability in his state, not once. I know of no other Governor in modern history who can make this claim. If anyone can correct this statement, please do, but I have been looking and not found another example comparable with Beebe vis-a-vis favorabillity/unfavorability.
> 
> But other than Gov. Beebe, the state is about as red as red can get.  And Tom Cotton is considered a major rising star in the GOP. Politico rated him as "most likely to succeed" way back in January, 2013.  I just don't see how Mark Pryor survives in this mid-term atmosphere. Wait and see.
> 
> Looking at the mid-terms right now, even in September, is a lot like looking at John King's analysis of the 2012 election night returns, starting at 11 PM, after California, Washington State and Hawaii were called for Obama, bringing him to 229 EV (FOX already had him at 242 at that time). King went through the electoral map of the states left an summized the states that were very likely to go for Obama, like NV and NM and WI, and within 10 minutes, they did.  It got to the point where King simply reminded that Obama only needed just one state out of 6 possible hitherto uncalled states to win. It was obvious that Obama had the better cards in his hand. Just as it is very obvious that the GOP has had the better cards in it's hand all year this year, and still does right now. And that is BEFORE a potential wave (which is not registering yet) may appear.
> 
> And even if the DEMS race to a 50-50 draw, Angus King could tip the scales overnight and switch caucuses, were the GOP to offer him more juicy assignments than he already has. King could literally become the "King-maker" of 2014. But it is unlikely that it will be that close.
> 
> So, the next time conservatives think I only talk down GOP candidates, remember this posting. In many states, the GOP is fielding a better crew than it did in 2010.  It will now come down to GOTV and voter intensity.
Click to expand...

I'm not cheerleading for the Democrats on this, either. Obama sat back and wouldn't hit back on the TeaBagged attacks on the ACA. And, he and Democrats went way too small on the stimulus, and didn't focus more of it on big spending infrastructure projects, or come up with more money for states to keep more state workers in their jobs, back in 2010.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, Henry.
> 
> RW, I am not so sure that Kansas can flip.
> 
> 
> 
> With the dem dropping out last week, it opens up the race
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they ruled he has to stay on the ballot.
Click to expand...



For which I wrote a thread and some interesting observations. Kris Kobach may very well have done the Democratic Party a big favor by making a big deal out of this.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bernie will not caucus with the GOP: why would a bear use an outhouse when he has the woods?

But an I win in KS will have the winner caucusing with the majority party, whether Pub or Dem.

It's about power.


----------



## Statistikhengst

If Orman wins, then that would mean 3 I's in the Senate and Jake is right about Bernie Sanders - he is a socialist and is not going to caucus with the GOP. But both Angus King and Mark Orman could. That being said, it is unlikely. Orman is a FORMER Republican who then tried a Democratic bid for Senate, I believe it was, 2 years ago. He is pro Obamacare and he is socially pretty progressive. So, an Orman win down in Oz-land really would be a shock for the GOP, to say the least. Not a deadly shock, but a shock nonetheless.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

I'm rooting for Orman, but I'm not too optimistic he'll pull it off.  I still think Roberts will win.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I'm rooting for Orman, but I'm not too optimistic he'll pull it off.  I still think Roberts will win.




Tee trinken und abwarten, Junge.


----------



## Shanty

Statistikhengst said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, Henry.
> 
> RW, I am not so sure that Kansas can flip.
> 
> 
> 
> With the dem dropping out last week, it opens up the race
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they ruled he has to stay on the ballot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For which I wrote a thread and some interesting observations. Kris Kobach may very well have done the Democratic Party a big favor by making a big deal out of this.
Click to expand...

Kobach may have intensified problems for his own race to remain as Kansas Secretary of State. He's running neck and neck with his challenger, and this may make non-party aligned voters to opt to dump him.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Shanty said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, Henry.
> 
> RW, I am not so sure that Kansas can flip.
> 
> 
> 
> With the dem dropping out last week, it opens up the race
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they ruled he has to stay on the ballot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For which I wrote a thread and some interesting observations. Kris Kobach may very well have done the Democratic Party a big favor by making a big deal out of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kobach may have intensified problems for his own race to remain as Kansas Secretary of State. He's running neck and neck with his challenger, and this may make non-party aligned voters to opt to dump him.
Click to expand...



Yepp. It could be that another birfer bites the dust.


----------



## Shanty

Sam Wang's aggregates show Democrats having a shot to hold the Senate. 
Game Change Kansas Sam Wang Model Gives Dems 90 Chance Of Holding Senate


----------



## ScienceRocks

80% of all immigrants being naturalized yearly are non-white.
Asians voted 70+ democrat in 2012
Hispanics voted 70+ democrat in 2012
Blacks voted 90+ democrat in 2012

750,000 more every year.

The democrats can tap into this and give the republicans a surprise.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Matthew said:


> *80% of all immigrants being naturalized yearly are non-white*.
> Asians voted 70+ democrat in 2012
> Hispanics voted 70+ democrat in 2012
> Blacks voted 90+ democrat in 2012
> 
> 750,000 more every year.
> 
> The democrats can tap into this and give the republicans a surprise.



Hispanics are white!


----------



## daws101

Derideo_Te said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *80% of all immigrants being naturalized yearly are non-white*.
> Asians voted 70+ democrat in 2012
> Hispanics voted 70+ democrat in 2012
> Blacks voted 90+ democrat in 2012
> 
> 750,000 more every year.
> 
> The democrats can tap into this and give the republicans a surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hispanics are white!
Click to expand...

not if you're a republican


----------



## the_human_being

I suppose when you're loosing, all you have left are dreams of 2016. Sooooooooo Faaaarrrrr  Away.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Orman polling at 37%, Roberts at 36%!

RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Kansas Senate - Roberts vs. Taylor vs. Orman


----------



## Nyvin

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Orman polling at 37%, Roberts at 36%!
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Kansas Senate - Roberts vs. Taylor vs. Orman



And what's weird about that poll is it shows Taylor still having 10% support, leaving one to wonder just how badly Roberts is really doing.


----------



## Bush92

Might I remind all Jayhawks, there is no such thing as an "I" on Capital Hill. This guy is an Obama "D." Don't shit yourself. It's six long years of this dolt.


----------



## BreezeWood

Bush92 said:


> Might I remind all Jayhawks, there is no such thing as an "I" on Capital Hill. This guy is an Obama "D." Don't shit yourself. It's six long years of this dolt.



*
Incumbent republican Senator Pat Roberts is running for re-election to a fourth term ...*


three terms were not enough - one has to wonder what would posses a person to need to run for a fourth term of office ? -

there was no one in their ranks to take his place ?


the Jayhawkers should do themselves a favour and give the leach a good kick in the butt.

.


----------



## Samson

Statistikhengst said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must be a slow polling month for Stat: where's the analysis of Data from a poll in B.F.E. That shows Hillary Clinton leading no less than 25 republican contenders in a race held in more than two years in the future?
> 
> Note that Stat has omitted most of his customary partisan blather regarding WHY it appears Republicans will take the Senate. If Dems were ahead in the 2014 race to control the Senate, then we'd no doubt be treated to a litany of absurd excuses beginning with Boooooooooosh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually no.
> 
> The Clinton update is due at the end of September.  I do this according to a plan.
> 
> And in my analysis of her polling I don't list WHY she is leading, I just report the averages.
> 
> I already challenged you to find even just one single posting of mine, just one, where I have blamed former Pres. Bush for anything during the Obama administration, and you apparently couldn't find one.  Tsk, tsk.
> 
> You are able to read enough to troll, so I suspect you would already know this.
> 
> Oh, and I post less when I am on vacation. This is just fun for me.
> 
> I know you are totally anal retentive and may find that word "fun" difficult to understand, but do try.
Click to expand...


If you seriously think anyone reads even a fraction of your partisan blitherings, then your delusional.


----------



## BreezeWood

just last week the Ds were in the plus column - the republicans have shifted the momentum completely to their favour and the generic Congressional vote predictably and reassuringly shows their results.

however it is only mid September, a peak like the one above will be hard to maintain for a month and a half especially when it is based on nothing more than hot air - at any rate there is time for the Democrats to reload and with the proper timing for them to peak when it counts the most.

.


----------



## HenryBHough

Hard for Democrats to improve their polling when their fearless leader insists on making an ass of Himself no live television.


----------



## Statistikhengst

HenryBHough said:


> Hard for Democrats to improve their polling when their fearless leader insists on making an ass of Himself *no* live television.




"no"?


----------



## daws101

HenryBHough said:


> Hard for Democrats to improve their polling when their fearless leader insists on making an ass of Himself no live television.


you must be mistaking obama for ted cruz


----------



## daws101

Statistikhengst said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard for Democrats to improve their polling when their fearless leader insists on making an ass of Himself *no* live television.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "no"?
Click to expand...

I saw that too. gave him a pass ..


----------



## Statistikhengst

So, today is September 16, 2014 and the November mid-term elections are exactly 7 weeks (42 days) away.

Some things have changed since the OP was written.

First, KS-SEN looks like it may become a GOP loss and an IND pickup.

Going down the list of battlegrounds, *the four races moving toward the Democrats*:

NC-SEN:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - North Carolina Senate - Tillis vs. Hagan






Current aggregate: Hagan *+3.7*

When this OP was written on Aug 11, 2014, in NC, the aggregate on that day was: *Tillis +1.3*

So, *Kay Hagan* has moved the needle +5 in her direction since then.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the COL-SEN, a similar story:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Colorado Senate - Gardner vs. Udall





Current aggregate:* Udall +3.7*.

On August 11, 2014, when the OP was published, the aggregate showed: *Udall +1.5*.

So, *Mark Udall* has moved the needle 2.2 points more in his direction.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MI-SEN:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Michigan Senate - Land vs. Peters





Current aggregate: *Peters +5.2*.

On August 11, 2014, as the OP was published, the aggregate was: *Peters +4*

So, *Gary Peters* has moved the needle 1.2 points farther in his direction.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IA-SEN:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Iowa Senate - Ernst vs. Braley





Current aggregate: *Braley +1.4*

On August 11, 2014, as the OP was published, the aggregate was: *Ernst +0.8*.

So, *Bruce Braley* has moved the needle +2.2 points in his direction during that time.

Those were the *four* Senatorial races where the Democrats' chances have improved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Two races in no-man's land:*​

AK-SEN:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Alaska Senate - Sullivan vs. Begich






Current aggregate: *Sullivan +1.3*

NOT in the statistic is the Harstadt poll that just came in, showing Begich +5 (45-40):

AK-Sen Harstad Research for Senate Majority PAC

With that poll in the mix, the aggregate would then be _Begich +0.25_.

On August 11, 2014, as the OP was published, an AK aggregate was not really possible, for the AK primary had not yet taken place. That being said, conventional wisdom was that in a race against Sullivan, it would be a dogfight, and see, it is.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LA-SEN:

RealClearPolitics - 2014 Louisiana Senate Race

In Louisiana, we have a statistical mess, caused partially by LA state law:





Officially, the aggregate in a pure two-man race is: *Cassidy +1.3*

But Lousiana essentially does an open jungle primary for it's SEN-GE and that aggregate is: *Landrieu +5.4*.

BOTH of those values are very faulty. The latest 2-way data is 2 weeks old and the jungle primary data has a poll from the end of June, which is very, very cold coffee. There is no way in hell that that poll should be in the current mix.

Mary Landrieu has survived a number of razor-thin elections in her life, I just don't know if she will pull this one out.

On August 11, 2014, as the OP was published, the aggregate was: *Cassidy +1*.

So, *Bill Cassidy* has micro-moved the needle +0.3 in his direction. All way, way, way within the margin of error for both sides. *FLIP A COIN*.

We really need fresh polling from Louisiana to get a better picture here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Races where the GOP is prevailing:*​
AR-SEN:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Arkansas Senate - Cotton vs. Pryor





Current aggregate: *Cotton +2.5*.

However, as was the case with Alaska, a more recent poll is missing:

Pryor Steel Lead New Statewide Poll Ross in Dead Heat Southern Progress

That poll shows Pryor +4 (46/42).

With that poll in the mix, the aggregate would be _Cotton +1.5_.

On August 11, 2014, as the OP was published the aggregate was:  Cotton +3.

So, actually, the statistic has moved between +0.5 to +1.5 toward *Mark Pryor*. Either way, Cotton is still a nose ahead here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GA-SEN:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Georgia Senate - Perdue vs. Nunn





Aggregate: *Perdue +3*.

On August 11, 2014, as the OP was published, the aggregate was: *Perdue +3.2*
Technically, the needle has moved +0.2 toward *Michelle Nunn*, but that is micromovement. Perdue is building a lean but stubborn lead in the Peach State.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KY-SEN:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Kentucky Senate - McConnell vs. Grimes







Current aggregate: McConnell +5.2.

However, as was the case in Alaska and Arkansas, at least one poll is missing here:

http://images.politico.com/global/2014/09/09/14mem908_ky_-_d11.html

showing Grimes +1.

The Mellmann Group is also a reputable pollster and had a +0.60 Republican mathematical bias in the 2012 election. It also nailed Obama's national margin.

I warned that, with time, RCP would deliberately not include some polls, but that being said, McConnell is posting some substantial leads from very well known pollsters, and I do not doubt their results.

On August 11, 2014, as the OP was published, the aggregate was: *McConnell +2.5*.

So, for now, Senate Minority Leader *Mitch McConnell* has doubled his lead over Grimes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The possible Independent barnburner:*​
KS-SEN:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Kansas Senate - Roberts vs. Taylor vs. Orman





I included the RCP text in this screenshot, because I think it is important.

It is still too early to figure out an accurate aggregate for this race, but most likely, it will become Orman's to lose, putting an Independent from KS in the US-Senate.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Odd man out:*​
NH-SEN:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - New Hampshire Senate - Brown vs. Shaheen





Current aggregate: *Shaheen +3.5*.

This is an EXCELLENT case study on a possible outlier and this one is especially interesting. All four of these polls were taken at about the same time. Two polls, one from a right-leaning pollster (Rasmussen) and one from a left-leaning pollster (CBS), both show Shaheen +6. The hometown pollster, if you will, WMUR (which has a good reputation but tends to the Right), shows Shaheen +2. Were it just those three polls, then the aggregate would be Shaheen +4.7. But the CNN poll shows a mathematical tie, 6 complete points off of two +6ers for Shaheen.

On August 11, 2014, as the OP was published, the aggregate was:

*Shaheen +10.4*.

So, *Scott Brown* has gained +7.1 toward his side in the last 5 weeks.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Facit:* not that much has changed since August 11th, 2014. The four senate seats that most were assuming would firm up for the Democrats are indeed firming up and the open senate seats in the South are leaning more Republican, making it easy for the GOP to pick up 6 seats, considering that it practically already has SD, MT and WV in it's pocket.

It's too early to tell, but the current signs are that the two senate seats where the Democrats have seen (and should still see) pick-up possibilities are currently moving toward the Republicans.

The curent polling shows no sign of a massive GOP wave, but it also shows no real enthusiasm for the Democrats, either.


----------



## Statistikhengst

@Derideo_Te - I thought this update from the posting above would interest you.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Fascinating numbers.

Essentially a stalemate but one that slightly favors Dems over the GOP. The "wave" still has time to form given that we are still 7 weeks out but I am no longer expecting any "surprises" given that the Tea Party senate candidates were eliminated in the primaries. Doesn't mean that one of the House Tea Party candidates won't say something stupid but I suspect that party discipline is at an all time high.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Derideo_Te said:


> Fascinating numbers.
> 
> Essentially a stalemate *but one that slightly favors Dems over the GOP*. The "wave" still has time to form given that we are still 7 weeks out but I am no longer expecting any "surprises" given that the Tea Party senate candidates were eliminated in the primaries. Doesn't mean that one of the House Tea Party candidates won't say something stupid but I suspect that party discipline is at an all time high.



Not enough.

With the DEMS essentially already ceding MT, SD and WV, that puts the GOP at 48.

They can easily win in AR and LA, which then puts them at 50. Assume that the GOP loses KS, then they are at 48 again. Meanwhile, both AK is also within reach, but with the complications on the gubernatorial (unity independent ticket), I think that Begich will eek this one out.

Why I don't think it is a wave is because four major seats are all moving toward the Democrats.

But no matter how you slice it, the GOP still has the better cards in it's hands.

When he hit the break away point at t-minus 21 days or so, then we will all know better.

BTW, the voter registration data I just collected and am analysing is showing essentially the same climate as in 2010, but with more unaffiliateds and slightly less R and D. Thread goes out on Thursday.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Statistikhengst said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating numbers.
> 
> Essentially a stalemate *but one that slightly favors Dems over the GOP*. The "wave" still has time to form given that we are still 7 weeks out but I am no longer expecting any "surprises" given that the Tea Party senate candidates were eliminated in the primaries. Doesn't mean that one of the House Tea Party candidates won't say something stupid but I suspect that party discipline is at an all time high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not enough.
> 
> With the DEMS essentially already ceding MT, SD and WV, that puts the GOP at 48.
> 
> They can easily win in AR and LA, which then puts them at 50. Assume that the GOP loses KS, then they are at 48 again. Meanwhile, both AK is also within reach, but with the complications on the gubernatorial (unity independent ticket), I think that Begich will eek this one out.
> 
> Why I don't think it is a wave is because four major seats are all moving toward the Democrats.
> 
> But no matter how you slice it, the GOP still has the better cards in it's hands.
> 
> When he hit the break away point at t-minus 21 days or so, then we will all know better.
> 
> BTW, the voter registration data I just collected and am analysing is showing essentially the same climate as in 2010, but with more unaffiliateds and slightly less R and D. Thread goes out on Thursday.
Click to expand...


I can understand why there are more unaffiliated voters these days since neither party is "attractive". Midterms are always more about local politics too so they are an interesting dynamic. The poll watchers tend to focus on the party faithful for midterms as being the most "reliable" in terms of who will vote but I am sensing that the unaffiliated bloc contains a segment of "reliable voters" who are just as interested in politics as the party faithful and who will be voting come November. Which way they will vote remains to be seen but I strongly suspect that it will be towards whichever candidate most resonates with their pain in individual races rather than a "wave" for either party. If one were to track and rank the issues, the candidates positions on those issues  and then how the unaffiliated voters cast their ballots I am willing to bet that there would be a correlation in there.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Derideo_Te said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating numbers.
> 
> Essentially a stalemate *but one that slightly favors Dems over the GOP*. The "wave" still has time to form given that we are still 7 weeks out but I am no longer expecting any "surprises" given that the Tea Party senate candidates were eliminated in the primaries. Doesn't mean that one of the House Tea Party candidates won't say something stupid but I suspect that party discipline is at an all time high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not enough.
> 
> With the DEMS essentially already ceding MT, SD and WV, that puts the GOP at 48.
> 
> They can easily win in AR and LA, which then puts them at 50. Assume that the GOP loses KS, then they are at 48 again. Meanwhile, both AK is also within reach, but with the complications on the gubernatorial (unity independent ticket), I think that Begich will eek this one out.
> 
> Why I don't think it is a wave is because four major seats are all moving toward the Democrats.
> 
> But no matter how you slice it, the GOP still has the better cards in it's hands.
> 
> When he hit the break away point at t-minus 21 days or so, then we will all know better.
> 
> BTW, the voter registration data I just collected and am analysing is showing essentially the same climate as in 2010, but with more unaffiliateds and slightly less R and D. Thread goes out on Thursday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can understand why there are more unaffiliated voters these days since neither party is "attractive". Midterms are always more about local politics too so they are an interesting dynamic. The poll watchers tend to focus on the party faithful for midterms as being the most "reliable" in terms of who will vote but I am sensing that the unaffiliated bloc contains a segment of "reliable voters" who are just as interested in politics as the party faithful and who will be voting come November. Which way they will vote remains to be seen but I strongly suspect that it will be towards whichever candidate most resonates with their pain in individual races rather than a "wave" for either party. If one were to track and rank the issues, the candidates positions on those issues  and then how the unaffiliated voters cast their ballots I am willing to bet that there would be a correlation in there.
Click to expand...



The rise in the unaffiliateds is not an extreme rise, we are talking just a couple of percentage points overall.  But the trend is interesting to watch.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Statistikhengst said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating numbers.
> 
> Essentially a stalemate *but one that slightly favors Dems over the GOP*. The "wave" still has time to form given that we are still 7 weeks out but I am no longer expecting any "surprises" given that the Tea Party senate candidates were eliminated in the primaries. Doesn't mean that one of the House Tea Party candidates won't say something stupid but I suspect that party discipline is at an all time high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not enough.
> 
> With the DEMS essentially already ceding MT, SD and WV, that puts the GOP at 48.
> 
> They can easily win in AR and LA, which then puts them at 50. Assume that the GOP loses KS, then they are at 48 again. Meanwhile, both AK is also within reach, but with the complications on the gubernatorial (unity independent ticket), I think that Begich will eek this one out.
> 
> Why I don't think it is a wave is because four major seats are all moving toward the Democrats.
> 
> But no matter how you slice it, the GOP still has the better cards in it's hands.
> 
> When he hit the break away point at t-minus 21 days or so, then we will all know better.
> 
> BTW, the voter registration data I just collected and am analysing is showing essentially the same climate as in 2010, but with more unaffiliateds and slightly less R and D. Thread goes out on Thursday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can understand why there are more unaffiliated voters these days since neither party is "attractive". Midterms are always more about local politics too so they are an interesting dynamic. The poll watchers tend to focus on the party faithful for midterms as being the most "reliable" in terms of who will vote but I am sensing that the unaffiliated bloc contains a segment of "reliable voters" who are just as interested in politics as the party faithful and who will be voting come November. Which way they will vote remains to be seen but I strongly suspect that it will be towards whichever candidate most resonates with their pain in individual races rather than a "wave" for either party. If one were to track and rank the issues, the candidates positions on those issues  and then how the unaffiliated voters cast their ballots I am willing to bet that there would be a correlation in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The rise in the unaffiliateds is not an extreme rise, we are talking just a couple of percentage points overall.  But the trend is interesting to watch.
Click to expand...


I agree that it is not extreme but those who have joined the ranks come from 3 sources. The first 2 are the disaffected from the parties and the third is from the demographic changes at play. These voters want a viable alternative which is why they are the key to these tight races in my opinion.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Derideo_Te said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating numbers.
> 
> Essentially a stalemate *but one that slightly favors Dems over the GOP*. The "wave" still has time to form given that we are still 7 weeks out but I am no longer expecting any "surprises" given that the Tea Party senate candidates were eliminated in the primaries. Doesn't mean that one of the House Tea Party candidates won't say something stupid but I suspect that party discipline is at an all time high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not enough.
> 
> With the DEMS essentially already ceding MT, SD and WV, that puts the GOP at 48.
> 
> They can easily win in AR and LA, which then puts them at 50. Assume that the GOP loses KS, then they are at 48 again. Meanwhile, both AK is also within reach, but with the complications on the gubernatorial (unity independent ticket), I think that Begich will eek this one out.
> 
> Why I don't think it is a wave is because four major seats are all moving toward the Democrats.
> 
> But no matter how you slice it, the GOP still has the better cards in it's hands.
> 
> When he hit the break away point at t-minus 21 days or so, then we will all know better.
> 
> BTW, the voter registration data I just collected and am analysing is showing essentially the same climate as in 2010, but with more unaffiliateds and slightly less R and D. Thread goes out on Thursday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can understand why there are more unaffiliated voters these days since neither party is "attractive". Midterms are always more about local politics too so they are an interesting dynamic. The poll watchers tend to focus on the party faithful for midterms as being the most "reliable" in terms of who will vote but I am sensing that the unaffiliated bloc contains a segment of "reliable voters" who are just as interested in politics as the party faithful and who will be voting come November. Which way they will vote remains to be seen but I strongly suspect that it will be towards whichever candidate most resonates with their pain in individual races rather than a "wave" for either party. If one were to track and rank the issues, the candidates positions on those issues  and then how the unaffiliated voters cast their ballots I am willing to bet that there would be a correlation in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The rise in the unaffiliateds is not an extreme rise, we are talking just a couple of percentage points overall.  But the trend is interesting to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that it is not extreme but those who have joined the ranks come from 3 sources. The first 2 are the disaffected from the parties and the third is from the demographic changes at play. These voters want a viable alternative which is why they are the key to these tight races in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Imagine how important Alaska could become on election night. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## rdean

When only one side shows up to vote, it isn't a battle.  It's laziness.

Besides, what do Republicans have to offer?  They scream at Democrats for legislating and get a pass on doing nothing but obstructionism.  USMB Republicans will say "GOP bills are being ignored" but ask them to explain what it is those bills do and they have no clue.


----------



## Statistikhengst

rdean said:


> When only one side shows up to vote, it isn't a battle.  It's laziness.
> 
> Besides, what do Republicans have to offer?  They scream at Democrats for legislating and get a pass on doing nothing but obstructionism.  USMB Republicans will say "GOP bills are being ignored" but ask them to explain what it is those bills do and they have no clue.




They are winning in 2014 because divided government lies deeper within the fabric of our Union than people want to realize. Even the most popular of presidents (Grant 1870 and 1874/ T. Roosevelt 1902 and 1906 / Wilson 1918 / Harding 1922 / Coolidge 1926 / Hoover 1930/ FDR 1938 and 1942 / Ike 1954 and 1958 / Nixon 1970 / Reagan 1986 / Clinton 1994 suffered major losses to the opposition party in mid-terms:

Congressional Elections compared to Presidential Terms 1855-present US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Link to a large excel table there.

End-quote:



> So, what can we learn from this information?
> 
> 1.) We have had divided government a lot more than most people realize.
> 
> 2.) The statistical probability that the President's party suffers major losses in a mid-term election, especially in a 2nd term mid-term, is extremely high.
> 
> 3.) Divided government is not necessarily a bad thing. See: Eisenhower, Clinton. Likewise, unified government is not necessarily good. See: Hoover, Carter.
> 
> So, before the pundits go blabbing their mouths off about the 2014 elections, know that history is on the side of the GOP in this election.



I just wanna remind again: I published that thread on January 14th, 2014, 9 months ago.


----------



## Statistikhengst

To make this even easier for people, I have screenshotted the excel tables. Wherever the colors between the executive and the legislative *don't match up*, this means that we had divided gov't during that legislative session. Sometimes the colors in the SWING columns are not the same as the actual raw margin columns. This is because the swing compares the margin from that election to the mid-term two years before.

Click on the pics to enlarge.

First, the Senate (2 screenshots):



 



 




And the HOR:


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> the TPs will not control the caucus after January thank God: they have had to many loses and will have no more than 11 seats in the house
> 
> JB is safe and there will be no impeachment; the Senate Republican leadership have told the GOP House leadership they will listen to the indictment and then acquit BHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 11 seats in the house???  Try 70+
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You  had 70 in 2011, 35 in 2013, and will have 11 in 2015.
> 
> Mike Lee for instance cozied with TeaPs in the past but now is being nice to Dems in Utah because of his vulnerability in 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mike Lee has no vulnerability to any Democrat in Utah.
Click to expand...


Mikey is not worried about Dems.  He is worried about the GOP in Cache, Davis, Weber, and Salt Lake counties that are very tired of his kissing Cruz ass et al.  The open primary nextr year has br'er Lee very worried.  Rightly so.  Even da guv is doing quiet polling of the senatorial voters.  Personally, I think Herbert could beat Lee in a primary, and I would vote for him in a heart beat.


----------



## rightwinger

Looks to me like Democrats will control the Senate 55-45 in 2014


----------



## Statistikhengst

rightwinger said:


> Looks to me like Democrats will control the Senate 55-45 in 2014




The democratic cheerleader within me* wants* to agree with you.

The guy who loves numbers cannot, however. The numbers are neutral and I stay just as neutral.

The GOP IS going to pick up MT, ND and WV. That brings the GOP to 48 right there.

In order to get the GOP back down to 45, the DEMS would have to pick up GA and KY and Orman would need to win in KS (he probably will) and then caucus with the Democrats. Right now, both KY and GA are slipping out of the DEMs hands, they are going to have to act swiftly to keep those races tight.

But there are just too many other races hanging in the balance: LA, AR, IA, AK, possibly CO.

I give Braley and Begich good chances at surviving this. Mark Pryor, I am not so sure. And Mary Landrieu, my Lord, it could all come down to Lousiana, and since Louisana does a Jungle-Primary thing for mid-terms, this could come to a hotly contested runoff on December 6th, 2014. Libertarian Rob Maness has been polling between 8% and 13% in the latest polls. The balance of power in the Senate may not be clear until mid-December.

The GOP has a much, much easier path to getting to 51 than the DEMS have at holding 50, much less 55.

If the DEMS, however, can hold AR and LA, then the picture indeed looks tough for the GOP, but then the GOP only needs to get to 50, not 51, and that is assuming that it loses KS. Then, the Senate would be 50R, 48D, 2I and only one of those I's would need to decide to caucus with the R's and then that's that.

Facit: advantage GOP all the way. That's what the current numbers say and they have been saying it all year long.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Maybe the dam is going to begin seriously leaking this year than in 2016.

If the GOP can't take the Senate this year, they never will again.  Another two years of doing House, and it will go blue.


----------



## Derideo_Te

JakeStarkey said:


> Maybe the dam is going to begin seriously leaking this year than in 2016.
> 
> If the GOP can't take the Senate this year, they never will again.  Another two years of doing House, and it will go blue.



The GOP will take the Senate but it will require them to offer heavy bribes to King and Orman in my opinion. If they are smart they will retain their right to vote independently if they don't like the way the GOP is trying to force things on the nation (e.g. defund the ACA.)

In which case it will be a lame duck "majority". Yes, the same could be said for the Dems but they are not trying to destroy the economy for partisan gain.


----------



## rightwinger

Statistikhengst said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks to me like Democrats will control the Senate 55-45 in 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The democratic cheerleader within me* wants* to agree with you.
> 
> The guy who loves numbers cannot, however. The numbers are neutral and I stay just as neutral.
> 
> The GOP IS going to pick up MT, ND and WV. That brings the GOP to 48 right there.
> 
> In order to get the GOP back down to 45, the DEMS would have to pick up GA and KY and Orman would need to win in KS (he probably will) and then caucus with the Democrats. Right now, both KY and GA are slipping out of the DEMs hands, they are going to have to act swiftly to keep those races tight.
> 
> But there are just too many other races hanging in the balance: LA, AR, IA, AK, possibly CO.
> 
> I give Braley and Begich good chances at surviving this. Mark Pryor, I am not so sure. And Mary Landrieu, my Lord, it could all come down to Lousiana, and since Louisana does a Jungle-Primary thing for mid-terms, this could come to a hotly contested runoff on December 6th, 2014. Libertarian Rob Maness has been polling between 8% and 13% in the latest polls. The balance of power in the Senate may not be clear until mid-December.
> 
> The GOP has a much, much easier path to getting to 51 than the DEMS have at holding 50, much less 55.
> 
> If the DEMS, however, can hold AR and LA, then the picture indeed looks tough for the GOP, but then the GOP only needs to get to 50, not 51, and that is assuming that it loses KS. Then, the Senate would be 50R, 48D, 2I and only one of those I's would need to decide to caucus with the R's and then that's that.
> 
> Facit: advantage GOP all the way. That's what the current numbers say and they have been saying it all year long.
Click to expand...

Take my word

Dems will have a 55-45 senate advantage in 2014.  Republicans don't have a chance


----------



## BreezeWood

rightwinger said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks to me like Democrats will control the Senate 55-45 in 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The democratic cheerleader within me* wants* to agree with you.
> 
> The guy who loves numbers cannot, however. The numbers are neutral and I stay just as neutral.
> 
> The GOP IS going to pick up MT, ND and WV. That brings the GOP to 48 right there.
> 
> In order to get the GOP back down to 45, the DEMS would have to pick up GA and KY and Orman would need to win in KS (he probably will) and then caucus with the Democrats. Right now, both KY and GA are slipping out of the DEMs hands, they are going to have to act swiftly to keep those races tight.
> 
> But there are just too many other races hanging in the balance: LA, AR, IA, AK, possibly CO.
> 
> I give Braley and Begich good chances at surviving this. Mark Pryor, I am not so sure. And Mary Landrieu, my Lord, it could all come down to Lousiana, and since Louisana does a Jungle-Primary thing for mid-terms, this could come to a hotly contested runoff on December 6th, 2014. Libertarian Rob Maness has been polling between 8% and 13% in the latest polls. The balance of power in the Senate may not be clear until mid-December.
> 
> The GOP has a much, much easier path to getting to 51 than the DEMS have at holding 50, much less 55.
> 
> If the DEMS, however, can hold AR and LA, then the picture indeed looks tough for the GOP, but then the GOP only needs to get to 50, not 51, and that is assuming that it loses KS. Then, the Senate would be 50R, 48D, 2I and only one of those I's would need to decide to caucus with the R's and then that's that.
> 
> Facit: advantage GOP all the way. That's what the current numbers say and they have been saying it all year long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take my word
> 
> Dems will have a 55-45 senate advantage in 2014.  Republicans don't have a chance
Click to expand...

.



> *RW*: Dems will have a 55-45 senate advantage in 2014.  Republicans don't have a chance.




and does that prediction include net democratic gains in the House ? -

sucess for the democrats in both chambers would be a Grand Slam ... something the recent surge in the pols by the republicans would seem highly unlikely if not impossible.

.


----------



## rightwinger

BreezeWood said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks to me like Democrats will control the Senate 55-45 in 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The democratic cheerleader within me* wants* to agree with you.
> 
> The guy who loves numbers cannot, however. The numbers are neutral and I stay just as neutral.
> 
> The GOP IS going to pick up MT, ND and WV. That brings the GOP to 48 right there.
> 
> In order to get the GOP back down to 45, the DEMS would have to pick up GA and KY and Orman would need to win in KS (he probably will) and then caucus with the Democrats. Right now, both KY and GA are slipping out of the DEMs hands, they are going to have to act swiftly to keep those races tight.
> 
> But there are just too many other races hanging in the balance: LA, AR, IA, AK, possibly CO.
> 
> I give Braley and Begich good chances at surviving this. Mark Pryor, I am not so sure. And Mary Landrieu, my Lord, it could all come down to Lousiana, and since Louisana does a Jungle-Primary thing for mid-terms, this could come to a hotly contested runoff on December 6th, 2014. Libertarian Rob Maness has been polling between 8% and 13% in the latest polls. The balance of power in the Senate may not be clear until mid-December.
> 
> The GOP has a much, much easier path to getting to 51 than the DEMS have at holding 50, much less 55.
> 
> If the DEMS, however, can hold AR and LA, then the picture indeed looks tough for the GOP, but then the GOP only needs to get to 50, not 51, and that is assuming that it loses KS. Then, the Senate would be 50R, 48D, 2I and only one of those I's would need to decide to caucus with the R's and then that's that.
> 
> Facit: advantage GOP all the way. That's what the current numbers say and they have been saying it all year long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take my word
> 
> Dems will have a 55-45 senate advantage in 2014.  Republicans don't have a chance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *RW*: Dems will have a 55-45 senate advantage in 2014.  Republicans don't have a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and does that prediction include net democratic gains in the House ? -
> 
> sucess for the democrats in both chambers would be a Grand Slam ... something the recent surge in the pols by the republicans would seem highly unlikely if not impossible.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I still see the Dems having 55 Senators in 2014

Haven't looked at the house


----------



## HenryBHough

rightwinger said:


> I still see the Dems having 55 Senators in 2014
> 
> Haven't looked at the house



Time to change vendors.  That stuff cut with powdered milk will clot the arteries in what used to pass for a brain!


----------



## rightwinger

HenryBHough said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still see the Dems having 55 Senators in 2014
> 
> Haven't looked at the house
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time to change vendors.  That stuff cut with powdered milk will clot the arteries in what used to pass for a brain!
Click to expand...

 No way Republicans can have more than 45 Senate seats in 2014

Live with it


----------



## Moonglow

Statistikhengst said:


> Real Clear Politics does a pretty good compilation of polling (aggregate).
> 
> Here is their Senate website:
> 
> RealClearPolitics - 2014 Election Maps - Battle for the Senate
> 
> (the graphic is interactive - clickable, and pretty much everything is hyperlinked)
> 
> 
> This is how RCP sees the battle for the Senate right now:
> 
> 
> View attachment 31070​
> 
> It sees nine seats in play. The GOP needs 4 of those nine seats. It needs 6 seats in order to win the Senate, but 2 of them are already clearly strongly R right now, and pretty much ceded to the GOP: Montana and South Dakota. Both are show on the graphic as "Likely R", and I concur.
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the* safe D* seats:
> 
> The Northeast: *Delaware, Massachusetts, Rhode Island*
> The Midwest: *Illinois*
> The Southwest: *New Mexico*
> 
> 5 seats
> 
> No one is expecting these seats to flip, even in the case of a massive GOP wave in the Fall.
> 
> Let's take a look as the *safe R* seats:
> 
> 
> The South: *Alabama, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oklahoma (special) South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas*
> The breadbasket: *Kansas, Nebraska*
> Big Sky: *Idaho, Wyoming*
> The Northeast: *Maine*
> 
> 12 seats.
> 
> No one is expecting these seats to flip, even in the case that a GOP wave does not materialize in the Fall.
> 
> Already, the GOP has a massive SAFE seat advantage over the Dems of more than 2:1
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the *likely D* seats:
> 
> The West: *Hawaii, Oregon*
> The Midwest: *Minnesota*
> The Northeast: *New Jersey*
> The South: *Virginia*
> 
> 
> These are the five states where the GOP is not really investing. Mark Warner is likely to win the biggest for the DEMS in this cycle, making him a future presidential candidate as well.  Another important story here is the story of the power of the incumbency. Al Franken (D) barely won his Senate seat in 2008, but right now, his average over challenger Mike McFadden (R) is *+10.4*, which is a landslide aggregate margin. Of these states, the one state that could end up being a surprise on the senatorial level could be Hawaii.
> 
> 
> And let's take a look at the *likely GOP* seats:
> 
> The South: *Mississippi*
> The Big Sky/Breadbasket: *Montana, South Dakota (O)*
> 
> Here are already two pretty much guaranteed pick-ups for the Republicans in the Fall (MT, SD).
> 
> Now the next is where RCP and I don't completely agree about the level, but we do agree about the direction.
> 
> Under the *leaning D* states:
> 
> The Northeast: New Hampshire
> 
> The only problem I have with that is that Jean Shahean (D), according to RCP polling averages, is leading Republican Scott Brown by *+10.4*, which is exactly the same landslide margin that was shown for Al Franken (D) in Minnesota, so why one state should be considered likely D, but the other state is listed as leaning D is a mystery to me. Of course, the NH primary is first on September 9th, so right now the assumption is that Scott Brown, the former Republican Senator from Massachusetts, will become the Republican Senatorial nominee. Perhaps this is why RCP is classifying the two races in two different ways. Wait and see.
> 
> And under the* leaning R* states:
> 
> 
> The South: West Virginia (O)
> 
> Again, I wonder why RCP is classifying this as leaning R, because right now, Republican Shelly Capito is leading Democrat Natalie Tennent by *+9.3*, which is a near-landslide margin.
> 
> 
> Maybe RCP is just trying to be overly careful, but it sure seems to me that in both cases, those states are more "likely" for either D or R than "leaning", which means that most likely, the GOP already has 3 pick-ups in the bag: MT, SD and WV. Which means it only needs 3 of the statistical tossup states in order to outright have 51 Senate seats and therefore, the majority:
> 
> 
> That leaves us with nine statistical tossups:
> 
> 
> The South: Arkansas, Georgia (O), Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina
> The Midwest: Iowa (O) , Michigan (O )
> The Southeast / Mountain States: Colorado
> The Pacific: Alaska
> 
> 
> *This is where the strategema looks extremely grim for the Democrats.* Of those nine statistical tossups, five of those races are with Democratic incumbents who are all locked in tight races. There is only one race where a Republican incumbent is locked in a tight race (Kentucky - Mitch McConnell), and of the open races, two of the three are currently Democratic seats.
> 
> Here are the averages:
> 
> Alaska: AK has not had it's primary yet, but the values range from Begich (D) *+0.4* over Treadwell (R) to Begich *+12.0* over Miller. However, it looks as if Miller has no chance of winning the GOP primary (he beat Murkowski in 2010 and then lost to her as a write-in candidate in the Fall of that year).
> 
> Arkansas: Cotton (R) *+3*, and incumbent Mark Pryor has not won in a poll since April.
> 
> Colorado: Udall (D) *+1.5*
> 
> Georgia: Perdue (R) *+3.2*
> 
> Iowa: Ernst (R) *+0.8*
> 
> Kentucky: McConnell (R) *+2.5*
> 
> Louisiana: Cassidy (R) *+1*
> 
> Michigan: Peters (D) *+4*
> 
> North Carolina: Tillis *+1.3*
> 
> 
> _Please remember that the aggregate values I am quoting are from today, 11 August 2014, and could already change again in the next days._
> 
> Now, 8 of those 9 margins (aggregates) are well within the MoE and the Michigan margin is just outside the standard MoE, but right now, the GOP is a nose ahead in 6 of those 9 races. And remember, the GOP only needs to win 3, assuming that MT, SD and WV all go as pretty much everyone expects them to go.
> 
> 
> Almost eight months ago, I put out this thread:
> 
> 
> Congressional Elections compared to Presidential Terms 1855-present US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Quote at the end:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, what can we learn from this information?
> 
> 1.) We have had divided government a lot more than most people realize.
> 
> 2.) The statistical probability that the President's party suffers major losses in a mid-term election, especially in a 2nd term mid-term, is extremely high.
> 
> 3.) Divided government is not necessarily a bad thing. See: Eisenhower, Clinton. Likewise, unified government is not necessarily good. See: Hoover, Carter.
> 
> So, before the pundits go blabbing their mouths off about the 2014 elections, *know that history is on the side of the GOP in this election*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed, what we are seeing right now is exactly in line with electoral history.
> 
> And then there is Angus King (I - ME), who, should the GOP only win 5 seats for some reason, could play kingmaker and decide to caucus with the GOP.  So, in reality, the GOP only needs to win 5 seats, but 6-8 are very likely.
> 
> Now, there are two seats that the Democrats really COULD win:
> 
> Georgia - and - Kentucky.
> 
> But even that is dicey.
> 
> And for this reason, the mention of Angus King. Should the GOP win 7 seats, but lose 2, it could still control the Senate, with Angus King (I) switching sides.
> 
> When the last primaries are over with and the polling for the key races comes in, then I will be following the numbers quite closely, but the aggregates, from pollsters from all over the spectrum, *are pointing to a very, very good outcome for the GOP in November*.
> 
> What's the absolute top-line?
> 
> Well, I will take RCP's take, which currently shows 45 DEM seats in the basket, and were Angus King to switch sides, then the Senate could move from 54 (D) - 45 (R) 1 (I) to 54 (R) - 45 (D) - 1 (I). It could go from D+9 to R+9, which would then be a partisan shift of R+18.
> 
> Please notice that I included the geography when listing the states. This is because the South is playing an enormous role in this: there are four southern states where the Dems could easily lose seats: WV, AR, NC, LA.
> 
> My gut tells me that the GOP is going to do better than *+6* in the fall, maybe* +7* or *+8*, but could definitely lose one seat. This is also not uncommon in electoral history. Even in historic wave mid-terms, the "other side" has often picked up at least one seat. So, that's also not a big surprise.
> 
> The next step in all of this is to see where the GOP places it's money in advertising and the sending in heavy hitters from other areas to help.
> 
> I will be updating this thread again in late August.
> 
> Oh, and  [MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION], what was that again about "partisan hack"?
Click to expand...



You need like an introduction song or music presentation...not to mention power point...laser pointer..


----------



## Statistikhengst

Like, a brass fanfare???  lol...


----------



## pepperpot

I am new here, but I love statistics and polling.  Have been watching both gubernatorial and senate races.  Currently, Maine's governors race is exciting as is Massachusetts, Kansas  and Connecticut.  As for Senate, Alaska is heating up while New Hampshire's has gotten much closer.  November will be exciting!


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

The recent polls for the Senate Democrats are not looking good.  The only toss up state where it looks like they might be pulling away is North Carolina.  All the others they have lost ground in, especially Louisiana.


----------



## BreezeWood

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> The recent polls for the Senate Democrats are not looking good.  The only toss up state where it looks like they might be pulling away is North Carolina.  All the others they have lost ground in, especially Louisiana.


.


> GA-Sen Neil Bush Denounces Perdue s R Shameful Claims Linking Michelle Nunn D To Terrorists
> 
> One day after Republican David Perdue pocketed the endorsement of George H.W. Bush in the race for U.S. Senate, a son of the 90-year-old former president denounced as “shameful” and “disrespectful” Perdue-endorsed claims that a Bush-established foundation once headed by Democratic rival Michelle Nunn “gave money to organizations linked to terrorists.”




not surprising after the recent republican surge - except how close most still remain.

the Rs may have peaked, there really is nothing but the republican Middle East wars in the news and that may have been what stopped their momentum.

and the above article is an example of how the momentum may be about to change from one to the other.

.


----------



## Statistikhengst

pepperpot said:


> I am new here, but I love statistics and polling.  Have been watching both gubernatorial and senate races.  Currently, Maine's governors race is exciting as is Massachusetts, Kansas  and Connecticut.  As for Senate, Alaska is heating up while New Hampshire's has gotten much closer.  November will be exciting!




Welcome to this thread, pepperpot, hope you have a good time here and in USMB overall.

-Stat


----------



## Statistikhengst

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> The recent polls for the Senate Democrats are not looking good.  The only toss up state where it looks like they might be pulling away is North Carolina.  All the others they have lost ground in, especially Louisiana.


 1/2, 1/2, I would say.

Not enough data out of Lousiana yet.

I also want to remind that polling in Colorado, NV, New Mexico and California was just atrocious in 2010, because most every polling company grossly underestimated the Latino vote. That happened also to a good extent in 2012. So, when I see Udall up by only one point in a Rasmussen survey, I am pretty confident inside that he is up at least 5.

I am 100% sure that the GOP takes MT, SD and WV. Then, probably both LA and AR. After that, it's a crapshoot.

Mark Begich already fought his way tooth and nail through a tough election in 2008, and he won.
I already just wrote about Udall.
Iowa could end up being very interesting, and could go even into a recount. Maybe.

But no matter how you slice it, just as was the case 3, 6 and 9 months ago, it's: advantage GOP, exactly in line with 160 years of mid-term election electoral history. So, none of this surprises me at all.


----------



## pepperpot

Statistikhengst said:


> pepperpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am new here, but I love statistics and polling.  Have been watching both gubernatorial and senate races.  Currently, Maine's governors race is exciting as is Massachusetts, Kansas  and Connecticut.  As for Senate, Alaska is heating up while New Hampshire's has gotten much closer.  November will be exciting!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to this thread, pepperpot, hope you have a good time here and in USMB overall.
> 
> -Stat
Click to expand...

Thank you!


----------



## pepperpot

Statistikhengst said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The recent polls for the Senate Democrats are not looking good.  The only toss up state where it looks like they might be pulling away is North Carolina.  All the others they have lost ground in, especially Louisiana.
> 
> 
> 
> 1/2, 1/2, I would say.
> 
> Not enough data out of Lousiana yet.
> 
> I also want to remind that polling in Colorado, NV, New Mexico and California was just atrocious in 2010, because most every polling company grossly underestimated the Latino vote. That happened also to a good extent in 2012. So, when I see Udall up by only one point in a Rasmussen survey, I am pretty confident inside that he is up at least 5.
> 
> I am 100% sure that the GOP takes MT, SD and WV. Then, probably both LA and AR. After that, it's a crapshoot.
> 
> Mark Begich already fought his way tooth and nail through a tough election in 2008, and he won.
> I already just wrote about Udall.
> Iowa could end up being very interesting, and could go even into a recount. Maybe.
> 
> But no matter how you slice it, just as was the case 3, 6 and 9 months ago, it's: advantage GOP, exactly in line with 160 years of mid-term election electoral history. So, none of this surprises me at all.
Click to expand...



Very good analysis.  I keep hearing about the South and Midwest but what about New England and the West?  I have heard both Oregon and New Hampshire could be competitive as well.  Does anyone think Brown or Wehby could pull it off?  Also, isn't Angus King going to caucus with republicans?


----------



## Statistikhengst

There is a phenomenon in polling that I haven't broached on this forum yet, namely, the well established sinus-curve in measuring an aggregate of polls.

It's very common for the aggregate to expand for a number of days, and then contract. When it contracts, the losing side is usually whooping and hollering, but it really doesn't mean anything.

You know that a candidate is heading for a win when the expansion phases are always a little larger than the contractions.

The 2008 election of Obama is a text-book classic example in many cases, the best of which is *Virginia*:

in the Spring of 2008, the aggregate for *Virginia* was roughly: McCain +4, which then contracted to McCain +2, but only reopened to McCain +3.

By June, it was McCain +1 (if at all), which contracted to Obama +1, but only expanded back to a tie at best.

As of August, Obama had a narrow +2 aggregate, which then contracted to +1 two weeks later, but opened to +3, and so for and so one.

I remember this very well as I was following the polling daily in 2008.

When McCain picked Palin for the VP slot, he went back into the lead in VA, but when the markets crashed, Obama went into the lead.

As of 42 days before the election (exactly 7 weeks), I published nightly battleground reports.

09/26 was the day where Obama retook the aggregate lead in VA:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond BATTLEGROUND STATE REPORT 09 26

On 09/25, the lead had been McCain +1.3, but after new polls came into the two week time frame and others fell out, it was Obama +0.40.

By 09/30, after having contracted from +0.40 to +0.20 (between 09/25 and 09/29), Obama's lead then expanded to +2.40:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond BATTLEGROUND STATE REPORT 09 30


On 10/01, that aggregate sprang to +3.40 and then shrunk to +3.30 on 10/02:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond BATTLEGROUND STATE REPORT 10 02

(you see, each little cycle that the aggregate expands more than the next contraction)

On 10/05, Obama was back down to +3.30 (having lost only 0.10)

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond NIGHTLY BATTLEGROUND REPORT 10 05

As of 10/07 and 10/08, Obama's aggregate in Virginia was: +5.50 ( a 2 point jump)

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond BATTLEGROUND STATE REPORT 10 08

As of 10/10, that aggregate had jumped to +6.54

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond BATTLEGROUND STATE REPORT 10 10

On 10/13, that shrank to +6.43:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond BATTLEGROUND STATE REPORT 10 13

By 10/17, he was at an aggregate of +8.18 and I took Virginia off the battleground list:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond BATTLEGROUND STATE REPORT 10 17

On 10/21, though no longer on the battleground list, his aggregate in Virginia climbed to +8.45:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond BATTLEGROUND STATE REPORT 10 20


In the last three days before the GE, a number of Right Wing polls came in showing Obama with considerable lower leads, which moved his aggregate to +4.93 on the eve of the election:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond FINAL POLL CONVERGENCE No. 12

Actual result: Obama +6.30 in Virginia.

The two pollsters who NAILED Virginia in the last two days: PPP (D) and Zogby.

The pollster who was off to the Right in Virginia right before the 2008 election: Mason-Dixon.

So, you see, I really do track these things, down to the finite details.

And since you are a REALLY good member of USMB and a damned good mod, @Dont Taz Me Bro , I decided to take 1/2 hour of my free time to share those links with you. Go take a gander...   of course, the information is for everyone else here, too.


----------



## Statistikhengst

pepperpot said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The recent polls for the Senate Democrats are not looking good.  The only toss up state where it looks like they might be pulling away is North Carolina.  All the others they have lost ground in, especially Louisiana.
> 
> 
> 
> 1/2, 1/2, I would say.
> 
> Not enough data out of Lousiana yet.
> 
> I also want to remind that polling in Colorado, NV, New Mexico and California was just atrocious in 2010, because most every polling company grossly underestimated the Latino vote. That happened also to a good extent in 2012. So, when I see Udall up by only one point in a Rasmussen survey, I am pretty confident inside that he is up at least 5.
> 
> I am 100% sure that the GOP takes MT, SD and WV. Then, probably both LA and AR. After that, it's a crapshoot.
> 
> Mark Begich already fought his way tooth and nail through a tough election in 2008, and he won.
> I already just wrote about Udall.
> Iowa could end up being very interesting, and could go even into a recount. Maybe.
> 
> But no matter how you slice it, just as was the case 3, 6 and 9 months ago, it's: advantage GOP, exactly in line with 160 years of mid-term election electoral history. So, none of this surprises me at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Very good analysis.  I keep hearing about the South and Midwest but what about New England and the West?  I have heard both Oregon and New Hampshire could be competitive as well.  Does anyone think Brown or Wehby could pull it off?  Also, isn't Angus King going to caucus with republicans?
Click to expand...



Absolutely no chance for the GOP in Oregon, that is just wishful thinking. In NH, it only looks close, but the Democratic incumbent is going to win. Brown is just enjoying his post-primary bounce, it is very normal.


----------



## Statistikhengst

pepperpot said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pepperpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am new here, but I love statistics and polling.  Have been watching both gubernatorial and senate races.  Currently, Maine's governors race is exciting as is Massachusetts, Kansas  and Connecticut.  As for Senate, Alaska is heating up while New Hampshire's has gotten much closer.  November will be exciting!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to this thread, pepperpot, hope you have a good time here and in USMB overall.
> 
> -Stat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you!
Click to expand...



Gern geschehen!


----------



## pepperpot

Statistikhengst said:


> pepperpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The recent polls for the Senate Democrats are not looking good.  The only toss up state where it looks like they might be pulling away is North Carolina.  All the others they have lost ground in, especially Louisiana.
> 
> 
> 
> 1/2, 1/2, I would say.
> 
> Not enough data out of Lousiana yet.
> 
> I also want to remind that polling in Colorado, NV, New Mexico and California was just atrocious in 2010, because most every polling company grossly underestimated the Latino vote. That happened also to a good extent in 2012. So, when I see Udall up by only one point in a Rasmussen survey, I am pretty confident inside that he is up at least 5.
> 
> I am 100% sure that the GOP takes MT, SD and WV. Then, probably both LA and AR. After that, it's a crapshoot.
> 
> Mark Begich already fought his way tooth and nail through a tough election in 2008, and he won.
> I already just wrote about Udall.
> Iowa could end up being very interesting, and could go even into a recount. Maybe.
> 
> But no matter how you slice it, just as was the case 3, 6 and 9 months ago, it's: advantage GOP, exactly in line with 160 years of mid-term election electoral history. So, none of this surprises me at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Very good analysis.  I keep hearing about the South and Midwest but what about New England and the West?  I have heard both Oregon and New Hampshire could be competitive as well.  Does anyone think Brown or Wehby could pull it off?  Also, isn't Angus King going to caucus with republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely no chance for the GOP in Oregon, that is just wishful thinking. In NH, it only looks close, but the Democratic incumbent is going to win. Brown is just enjoying his post-primary bounce, it is very normal.
Click to expand...


Was Webhy the one that was a stalker or something like that?  That's bound to hurt.  Oregon is fairly blue so I can see her losing.  As for Brown, I think he still might lose but it will be close.  Apparently he has just got the endorsement of the Foley family (son was beheaded by ISIS) so that might continue to give him quite a bump for awhile.


----------



## pepperpot

Statistikhengst said:


> pepperpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pepperpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am new here, but I love statistics and polling.  Have been watching both gubernatorial and senate races.  Currently, Maine's governors race is exciting as is Massachusetts, Kansas  and Connecticut.  As for Senate, Alaska is heating up while New Hampshire's has gotten much closer.  November will be exciting!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to this thread, pepperpot, hope you have a good time here and in USMB overall.
> 
> -Stat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gern geschehen!
Click to expand...


Gesundheit!  lol


----------



## Statistikhengst

pepperpot said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pepperpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The recent polls for the Senate Democrats are not looking good.  The only toss up state where it looks like they might be pulling away is North Carolina.  All the others they have lost ground in, especially Louisiana.
> 
> 
> 
> 1/2, 1/2, I would say.
> 
> Not enough data out of Lousiana yet.
> 
> I also want to remind that polling in Colorado, NV, New Mexico and California was just atrocious in 2010, because most every polling company grossly underestimated the Latino vote. That happened also to a good extent in 2012. So, when I see Udall up by only one point in a Rasmussen survey, I am pretty confident inside that he is up at least 5.
> 
> I am 100% sure that the GOP takes MT, SD and WV. Then, probably both LA and AR. After that, it's a crapshoot.
> 
> Mark Begich already fought his way tooth and nail through a tough election in 2008, and he won.
> I already just wrote about Udall.
> Iowa could end up being very interesting, and could go even into a recount. Maybe.
> 
> But no matter how you slice it, just as was the case 3, 6 and 9 months ago, it's: advantage GOP, exactly in line with 160 years of mid-term election electoral history. So, none of this surprises me at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Very good analysis.  I keep hearing about the South and Midwest but what about New England and the West?  I have heard both Oregon and New Hampshire could be competitive as well.  Does anyone think Brown or Wehby could pull it off?  Also, isn't Angus King going to caucus with republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely no chance for the GOP in Oregon, that is just wishful thinking. In NH, it only looks close, but the Democratic incumbent is going to win. Brown is just enjoying his post-primary bounce, it is very normal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was Webhy the one that was a stalker or something like that?  That's bound to hurt.  Oregon is fairly blue so I can see her losing.  As for Brown, I think he still might lose but it will be close.  Apparently he has just got the endorsement of the Foley family (son was beheaded by ISIS) so that might continue to give him quite a bump for awhile.
Click to expand...


@pepperpot - this information might be of interest to you.


Oregon, like Washington State, is really like two states: what is west of the Cascade Mountains is primarily blue and what is east of the cascades is primarily very deep red.

Only, the blue side is a lot bigger in terms of sheer numbers.

We have seen this happen for 14 years now, where people thought Republicans could win in Oregon and Washington State, but it doesn't happen very much.

In 2000, the networks waited 3 days - or longer - to call Oregon for Gore, but at the end of the day, he won it by a razor thin +0.44. Four years later, as President George W. Bush improved his national average by almost 3 points, John Kerry won Oregon by +4.16. This means that Oregon swam against the national tide. Obama landslided here in both 2008 and 2012. Skewed polling was showing him only +5 points up on Romney on election eve, but on election day, Obama won Oregon by +12.09%, so the polling in Oregon and Washington State tends to be off more often than not.

In 2010, the final polling aggregate for the Washington State senatorial Patty Murray vs. Dino Rossi showed a statistical tie, with Murray +0.3. In reality, she won by +4.72, so the entire polling aggregate was off to the right by +4.4. The final Rasmussen poll, btw, had Rossi up by +1, so Rasmussen was off by almost 6 points.


----------



## Statistikhengst

pepperpot said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pepperpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pepperpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am new here, but I love statistics and polling.  Have been watching both gubernatorial and senate races.  Currently, Maine's governors race is exciting as is Massachusetts, Kansas  and Connecticut.  As for Senate, Alaska is heating up while New Hampshire's has gotten much closer.  November will be exciting!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to this thread, pepperpot, hope you have a good time here and in USMB overall.
> 
> -Stat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gern geschehen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gesundheit!  lol
Click to expand...


Gute Besserung!!


----------



## pepperpot

Statistikhengst said:


> pepperpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pepperpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pepperpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am new here, but I love statistics and polling.  Have been watching both gubernatorial and senate races.  Currently, Maine's governors race is exciting as is Massachusetts, Kansas  and Connecticut.  As for Senate, Alaska is heating up while New Hampshire's has gotten much closer.  November will be exciting!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to this thread, pepperpot, hope you have a good time here and in USMB overall.
> 
> -Stat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gern geschehen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gesundheit!  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gute Besserung!!
Click to expand...

I cant keep up with you!  Google translation will be my friend here I guess!  lol  Where are you from?


----------



## Statistikhengst

pepperpot said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pepperpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pepperpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to this thread, pepperpot, hope you have a good time here and in USMB overall.
> 
> -Stat
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gern geschehen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gesundheit!  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gute Besserung!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cant keep up with you!  Google translation will be my friend here I guess!  lol  Where are you from?
Click to expand...


Lol. ..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst

So, it's now just 6 weeks before the 2014 mid-terms.

Let's compare the current aggregate to that from from one week ago and also to the OP:

2014 battle for control of the US Senate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(That was on August 11, 2014).

2014 battle for control of the US Senate Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(That was on September 16, 2014)

*MOVING TOWARD THE DEMOCRATS:*​




Aggregate, NC:

August 11, 2014: *Tillis +1.3*
September 16, 2014: *Hagan +3.7*
Today: *Hagan +5.0*

Hagan has now moved the needle 6.3 points in her direction since the OP was written. But poll values are all over the place, from a statistical tie at Hagan +1 (SUSA, which has a good reputation) to Hagan +10 (American Insights, a REPUBLICAN polling firm). A +5 is relatively lean, but it is out of the MoE. Hagan is gaining ground.







Aggregate, NH:

August 11, 2014: *Shaheen +10.4*
September 16, 2014: *Shaheen +3.5*
Today: *Shaheen +5.0*

On the surface, it looks like Shaheen is regaining some of what she lost, but a lot of this statistic is _either_ being propped up by a +11 poll for her that was conducted at exactly the same time as a CNN poll showing an absolute tie. Or you can say that this statistic is being pulled down by an outlier CNN poll. One thing is for sure: *those two values absolutely cannot exist in the same universe at the same time*. For Georgia, I write something similar about another firm that is likely an outlier right now. That being said, if you remove both CNN and New England college, then the average is: *Shaheen +4.9*.

So, no matter how you slice it, incumbent Shaheen is ahead and has moved the needle 1.4 point in her direction since last week.







Aggregate, MI:

August 11, 2014: *Peters +4.0*
September 16, 2014: *Peters +5.2*
Today: *Peters +5.4*

As in NC, the Democratic incumbent is maintaining enough daylight between himself and his Republican opponent.  Peters has not moved the needle as much as Hagan in the last week, but he is in the same  zone as she is, one that is just outside of the MoE.
​

*MOVING TOWARD THE GOP:*​






Aggregate, CO:

August 11, 2014: *Udall +3.7*
September 16, 2014: *Udall +1.5*
Today: *Udall +0.6*

Right now, it is a statistical tie and Gardner (R) has moved the need 3.1 points in his direction.
True tossup.




 

Aggregate, IA:

August 11, 2014: *Ernst +0.8*
September 16, 2014: *Braley +1.4*
Today: *Braley +0.1*

Right now, it is a statistical tie and almost a mathematical tie. Braley most the needle 2.2 in his direction a week ago and then lost 1.3 of it going into this week. This race could absolutely go either way and no one should take anything for granted.

Georgia is not as close an aggregate as Iowa, but essentially, the race is standing still right now:



 

Aggregate, GA:

August 11, 2014: *Perdue +3.2*
September 16, 2014: *Perdue +3.0*
Today: *Perdue +3.3*

This is a race where the polling aggregate sinus-curve is barely moving, in spite of a likely outlier Perdue +10 poll from InsiderAdvantage, a firm that was WAY off in Florida in 2012 and which hides it's internals behind a paywall. The final IA poll of Florida showed Romney +5, Obama won by +1, so IA was off by 6. Food for thought.

That being said, Perdue is ahead here and Nunn seems unable to erase his lean but resilient lead.





 

It was already discussed a week ago that LA does a jungle primary and then a runoff if no one reaches 50.
The aggregate for Cassidy in a two-man race is being bolstered by a poll from FOX that is mathematically an outlier. That being said, Cassidy is putting more and more light between himself and Democratic incumbent Landrieu. I wrote one week ago that there was too much old polling data in the aggregate. Now, there is 1 new poll for each category, but only one, still mixed with much older polling. We need a larger polling DNA for this state.



*Completely unchanged since last week (no new polling):*​


 

Aggregate, AK:

August 11, 2014: -no aggregate was possible-
September 16, 2014: *Sullivan +1.3*
Today: *Sullivan +1.3*



Similarly:



 

No change since last week, no new polling.

Aggregate, AR:

September 16, 2014: *Cotton +2.5*
Today: *Cotton +2.5*

Likewise, in Kentucky:



 


Aggregate, KY:

August 11, 2014: *McConnell +2.5*
September 16, 2014: *McConnell +5.2*
Today: *McConnell +5.2*

No new polling in KY in the last week.




*MOVING TOWARD IND:*​
Kansas:



 


Aggregate, KS:
Today: *Orman +1.2
*
So, with Democrat Chad Taylor now officially off the ballot after Kansas Republican SOS lost his argument at the KS Supreme Court, none of these current values mean much of anything. BUT, this does show how the polling wars work. Here we have two pollsters who were the two best pollsters of 2012 (PPP, SUSA) showing an Orman lead and two of the very worst pollsters of 2012 (Rasmussen, FOX) showing a Roberts lead.

In a pure two-man race, the PPP poll showed Orman +10 over incumbent Roberts. Until more 2-way race data comes in, only one poll to go on is not enough. But for now, in outdated 3-way polling, Orman is ahead.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*FACIT:*

The aggregates for three Senate races moved toward the Democrats over the last week: NC, NH, MI

The aggregates for five Senate races moved toward the Republicans over the last week. CO, IA, LA, GA (barely)

The aggregates for three Senate races were unchanged over last week: AK, AR, KY.

A new aggregate is being created for KS, which is not moving toward the Independent candidate.

The GOP already has three former DEM seats in their pocket, so to speak (MT, SD, WV), so they only need three of the five races where the needle keeps moving in their direction.

It's still advantage: GOP

Will post an update again next week.


----------



## HenryBHough

Oregon used to be a state.

Now it's a people's republic.

It will send to the senate the most extremely left candidate management will decree.

They only have elections in Oregon for cosmetic effect.


----------



## Nyvin

It's quite a stark divergence between the states going blue and states going red.   Colorado and Iowa remain virtually impossible to predict as they have been for some time now.    For most of the rest of the states it's looking like the data is all converging and people are more or less making up their minds.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Looking at the open air policies, I expect the gop to take and keep the Congress for a while.

many of the tos up areas are coal and fracking regions, the dnc is against these and these bring jobs, jobs that are not replaced by so called green jobs.


----------



## pepperpot

Two Thumbs said:


> Looking at the open air policies, I expect the gop to take and keep the Congress for a while.
> 
> many of the tos up areas are coal and fracking regions, the dnc is against these and these bring jobs, jobs that are not replaced by so called green jobs.



I think there are several issues that are making people change their minds sometimes.  Energy, coal, gun control and religion are some of them.


----------



## Nyvin

Two Thumbs said:


> Looking at the open air policies, I expect the gop to take and keep the Congress for a while.
> 
> many of the tos up areas are coal and fracking regions, the dnc is against these and these bring jobs, jobs that are not replaced by so called green jobs.



Coal has definitely played a big role in the Kentucky and West Virginia races, in Kentucky particularly I think it saved McConnell.   

Fracking is a little less clear.    Fracking is big in Kansas and Michigan, but in those races the Senate is trending either Dem or Ind.     Also fracking isn't popular across the country, especially in places like Louisiana and Oklahoma, where it's actually causing some big problems.


----------



## Nyvin

HenryBHough said:


> Oregon used to be a state.
> 
> Now it's a people's republic.
> 
> It will send to the senate the most extremely left candidate management will decree.
> 
> They only have elections in Oregon for cosmetic effect.



Actually Wyden probably is the most liberal senator in the country....so you have a point I suppose, kind of.


----------



## Bush92

Democrats are toast.


----------



## Two Thumbs

pepperpot said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at the open air policies, I expect the gop to take and keep the Congress for a while.
> 
> many of the tos up areas are coal and fracking regions, the dnc is against these and these bring jobs, jobs that are not replaced by so called green jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are several issues that are making people change their minds sometimes.  Energy, coal, gun control and religion are some of them.
Click to expand...

That's some of them

the whole clinging to their guns and bibles thing should have sent many people to thinking 'hey, my grandparents went to church and my....'
and then the venom spewed at anyone that questions liberal stances and then hear them talk about being tolerant


----------



## Two Thumbs

Nyvin said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at the open air policies, I expect the gop to take and keep the Congress for a while.
> 
> many of the tos up areas are coal and fracking regions, the dnc is against these and these bring jobs, jobs that are not replaced by so called green jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coal has definitely played a big role in the Kentucky and West Virginia races, in Kentucky particularly I think it saved McConnell.
> 
> Fracking is a little less clear.    Fracking is big in Kansas and Michigan, but in those races the Senate is trending either Dem or Ind.     Also fracking isn't popular across the country, especially in places like Louisiana and Oklahoma, where it's actually causing some big problems.
Click to expand...

Fracking hasn't caused any problems anywhere.

those "earthquakes" were ALL below the level of being felt.

so the hype against this job creator is as fake as those against nuclear power


----------



## Nyvin

Two Thumbs said:


> Fracking hasn't caused any problems anywhere.
> 
> those "earthquakes" were ALL below the level of being felt.
> 
> so the hype against this job creator is as fake as those against nuclear power



Not just earthquakes...bad drinking water, sinkholes, burnable water...the list goes on and on.


----------



## HenryBHough

Nyvin said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fracking hasn't caused any problems anywhere.
> 
> those "earthquakes" were ALL below the level of being felt.
> 
> so the hype against this job creator is as fake as those against nuclear power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just earthquakes...bad drinking water, sinkholes, burnable water...the list goes on and on.
Click to expand...


And don't forget *The Johnstown Flood*!

Obviously because somebody was thinking about fracking sometime in the future.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Nyvin said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fracking hasn't caused any problems anywhere.
> 
> those "earthquakes" were ALL below the level of being felt.
> 
> so the hype against this job creator is as fake as those against nuclear power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just earthquakes...bad drinking water, sinkholes, burnable water...the list goes on and on.
Click to expand...

and it's all complete bullshit

and you've been shown that it is bullshit, every  fucking  time


----------



## Nyvin

Two Thumbs said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fracking hasn't caused any problems anywhere.
> 
> those "earthquakes" were ALL below the level of being felt.
> 
> so the hype against this job creator is as fake as those against nuclear power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just earthquakes...bad drinking water, sinkholes, burnable water...the list goes on and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and it's all complete bullshit
> 
> and you've been shown that it is bullshit, every  fucking  time
Click to expand...


I have?  When?   That's news to me.

Sounds like you just listen to Big Oil & Gas companies.   It's not a process we fully understand (we actually understand very little of it...).    No one can make any conclusions about anything.   The fact of the matter is...there are earthquakes, there is bad water, the problems are there.   A lot of people don't like it, it's becoming unpopular.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Nyvin said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fracking hasn't caused any problems anywhere.
> 
> those "earthquakes" were ALL below the level of being felt.
> 
> so the hype against this job creator is as fake as those against nuclear power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just earthquakes...bad drinking water, sinkholes, burnable water...the list goes on and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and it's all complete bullshit
> 
> and you've been shown that it is bullshit, every  fucking  time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have?  When?   That's news to me.
> 
> Sounds like you just listen to Big Oil & Gas companies.   It's not a process we fully understand (we actually understand very little of it...).    No one can make any conclusions about anything.   The fact of the matter is...there are earthquakes, there is bad water, the problems are there.   A lot of people don't like it, it's becoming unpopular.
Click to expand...

Yes
in every fracking thread
no it's not news
no, I looked everything up
we do understand it
but you jumped to conclusions
there have always been quakes, fracking doesn't cause them
there is no bad water

it's only unpopular with the "ooo, it's big evul oil" croud


----------



## Nyvin

Two Thumbs said:


> Yes
> in every fracking thread
> no it's not news
> no, I looked everything up
> we do understand it
> but you jumped to conclusions
> there have always been quakes, fracking doesn't cause them
> there is no bad water
> 
> it's only unpopular with the "ooo, it's big evul oil" croud



This post screams "Deny! Deny! DENY!"


----------



## Two Thumbs

Nyvin said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
> in every fracking thread
> no it's not news
> no, I looked everything up
> we do understand it
> but you jumped to conclusions
> there have always been quakes, fracking doesn't cause them
> there is no bad water
> 
> it's only unpopular with the "ooo, it's big evul oil" croud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post screams "Deny! Deny! DENY!"
Click to expand...



in other words, I"m right, you know I'm right, but you're to much of a pussy to admit it.

pardon me while I quell my surprise


----------



## Nyvin

Two Thumbs said:


> in other words, I"m right, you know I'm right, but you're to much of a pussy to admit it.
> 
> pardon me while I quell my surprise



Rofl...right about what???  Blanket claims with absolutely nothing behind them???   Wow, yeah, heavy case here "I looked everything up...there have always been quakes, fracking doesn't cause them, there is no bad water"   UTTERLY AMAZING!!

I don't feel like a lengthy debate about a subject that's probably one of the most controversial in the nation right now, so no I'm not responding to simpleton petty little comments like that.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Nyvin said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in other words, I"m right, you know I'm right, but you're to much of a pussy to admit it.
> 
> pardon me while I quell my surprise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rofl...right about what???  Blanket claims with absolutely nothing behind them???   Wow, yeah, heavy case here "I looked everything up...there have always been quakes, fracking doesn't cause them, there is no bad water"   UTTERLY AMAZING!!
> 
> I don't feel like a lengthy debate about a subject that's probably one of the most controversial in the nation right now, so no I'm not responding to simpleton petty little comments like that.
Click to expand...

uhm, you just did.

aside from that, keep your head in the sand and don't educate yourself ever, it's funnier this way


----------



## Nyvin

Two Thumbs said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in other words, I"m right, you know I'm right, but you're to much of a pussy to admit it.
> 
> pardon me while I quell my surprise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rofl...right about what???  Blanket claims with absolutely nothing behind them???   Wow, yeah, heavy case here "I looked everything up...there have always been quakes, fracking doesn't cause them, there is no bad water"   UTTERLY AMAZING!!
> 
> I don't feel like a lengthy debate about a subject that's probably one of the most controversial in the nation right now, so no I'm not responding to simpleton petty little comments like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> uhm, you just did.
> 
> aside from that, keep your head in the sand and don't educate yourself ever, it's funnier this way
Click to expand...


That's a lengthy debate for you huh?   wow.

I find it funny you think we understand everything about fracking when really we know extremely little about the effects of it.


----------



## Old Rocks

HenryBHough said:


> Oregon used to be a state.
> 
> Now it's a people's republic.
> 
> It will send to the senate the most extremely left candidate management will decree.
> 
> They only have elections in Oregon for cosmetic effect.



Well, since most of the people the the GOP puts up for governor end up in the pen a short time later for fraud, why on earth would we want a Republican representing us?


----------



## HenryBHough

Old Rocks said:


> Well, since most of the people the the GOP puts up for governor end up in the pen a short time later for fraud, why on earth would we want a Republican representing us?



Perhaps because you've aged out on Obamacare and have to find a job so you can buy your mandatory health insurance?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Senate poll crunching report comes out tomorrow - t-minus 5 weeks.


----------



## SmileyFaze

Fingers crossed.......


----------



## BreezeWood

HenryBHough said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since most of the people the the GOP puts up for governor end up in the pen a short time later for fraud, why on earth would we want a Republican representing us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps because you've aged out on Obamacare and have to find a job so you can buy your mandatory health insurance?
Click to expand...




> *HB:* Perhaps because you've aged out on Obamacare and have to find a job so you can buy your mandatory health insurance?


.
having age out of the ACA would mean their responsibilities for the national health care law have been fulfilled, perhaps you are thinking of retarded republicans that shirked their duty and are now being audited by the IRS ... in your case, getting a 2nd job would indeed be a prudent decision.

.


----------



## HenryBHough

BreezeWood said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since most of the people the the GOP puts up for governor end up in the pen a short time later for fraud, why on earth would we want a Republican representing us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps because you've aged out on Obamacare and have to find a job so you can buy your mandatory health insurance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HB:* Perhaps because you've aged out on Obamacare and have to find a job so you can buy your mandatory health insurance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> having age out of the ACA would mean their responsibilities for the national health care law have been fulfilled, perhaps you are thinking of retarded republicans that shirked their duty and are now being audited by the IRS ... in your case, getting a 2nd job would indeed be a prudent decision.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Your confusion is easy to understand.

"Age out" in context means to have reached age 26 and no longer federally counted as an i_nfant_.  Therefore no longer able to piggy-back on parents health insurance.

When you start getting close to 26 let's have this conversation again, OK?


----------



## BreezeWood

HenryBHough said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since most of the people the the GOP puts up for governor end up in the pen a short time later for fraud, why on earth would we want a Republican representing us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps because you've aged out on Obamacare and have to find a job so you can buy your mandatory health insurance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HB:* Perhaps because you've aged out on Obamacare and have to find a job so you can buy your mandatory health insurance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> having age out of the ACA would mean their responsibilities for the national health care law have been fulfilled, perhaps you are thinking of retarded republicans that shirked their duty and are now being audited by the IRS ... in your case, getting a 2nd job would indeed be a prudent decision.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your confusion is easy to understand.
> 
> "Age out" in context means to have reached age 26 and no longer federally counted as an i_nfant_.  Therefore no longer able to piggy-back on parents health insurance.
> 
> When you start getting close to 26 let's have this conversation again, OK?
Click to expand...


.


> "Age out" in context means to have reached age 26 and no longer federally counted as an i_nfant_.  Therefore no longer able to piggy-back on parents health insurance.



.
sorry, the confusion stems then from your belief people only begin looking for a job at age 26 and do so in order to cover their health insurance premium ... not many ( adults ) have had the same life experience you seem to be going through, do try and understand.

* just tell your parents they can continue paying your share by opening a separate policy in your name.

.


----------



## Nyvin

It's looking extremely likely that Alaska, Iowa, Colorado, and Kansas will be the 4 states that control of the Senate comes down to.


----------



## pepperpot

Nyvin said:


> It's looking extremely likely that Alaska, Iowa, Colorado, and Kansas will be the 4 states that control of the Senate comes down to.


I see Ernst is way up now.  Alaska seems to be heading towards GOP as does Colorado in latest polls.  How much does anyone think ISIS and ebola will have an effect?  To be honest I haven't heard any candidates talking about anything else lately.


----------



## Nyvin

pepperpot said:


> I see Ernst is way up now.  Alaska seems to be heading towards GOP as does Colorado in latest polls.  How much does anyone think ISIS and ebola will have an effect?  To be honest I haven't heard any candidates talking about anything else lately.



Ernst has been getting good polling recently.   Alaska polling is always wonky and unreliable,  no idea what'll happen there.   Colorado is still extremely close.  

Two races that could be surprises (although not "likely") are Georgia and Louisiana, which are both looking to be heading for runoffs.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Nyvin said:


> It's looking extremely likely that Alaska, Iowa, Colorado, and Kansas will be the 4 states that control of the Senate comes down to.




Even without those four, the GOP can come in at 50:

Montana
South Dakota
West Virginia
Arkansas
Louisiana

Which would probably tip the independent from Maine right there. Which brings the GOP to 51, unless Roberts loses in KS, which means the GOP is at 50. It only needs one seat more.  This reminds me a lot of 2006, where the dems just got to 51 seats and we were watching the McCaskill race until late into the night.

The Colorado polls may be just as off as they were in 2008, 2010 and 2012, where, for the third time in a row, the latino vote was grossly miscalculated. And indeed, polling in Alaska is weird and wonky.  However, Ernst (R) is definitely putting daylight between herself and Braley.

And my money is on Orman (I) winning the senatorial in Kansas.

Both Democratic campaigns are plateauing out in both Kentucky and Georgia - a bad sign overall for the Democrats.


----------



## BreezeWood

DJIA : 16793  - 245.40 ... Wednesday October 1 3:42

I suppose the falling stock market will prove to be a republican advantage as well -

could be another 2010 runaway train wreck for the democrats.

.


----------



## pepperpot

BreezeWood said:


> DJIA : 16793  - 245.40 ... Wednesday October 1 3:42
> 
> I suppose the falling stock market will prove to be a republican advantage as well -
> 
> could be another 2010 runaway train wreck for the democrats.
> 
> .


I would imagine ISIS and ebola would be to republicans advantage as well.


----------



## Nyvin

Statistikhengst said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's looking extremely likely that Alaska, Iowa, Colorado, and Kansas will be the 4 states that control of the Senate comes down to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even without those four, the GOP can come in at 50:
> 
> Montana
> South Dakota
> West Virginia
> Arkansas
> Louisiana
> 
> Which would probably tip the independent from Maine right there. Which brings the GOP to 51, unless Roberts loses in KS, which means the GOP is at 50. It only needs one seat more.  This reminds me a lot of 2006, where the dems just got to 51 seats and we were watching the McCaskill race until late into the night.
> 
> The Colorado polls may be just as off as they were in 2008, 2010 and 2012, where, for the third time in a row, the latino vote was grossly miscalculated. And indeed, polling in Alaska is weird and wonky.  However, Ernst (R) is definitely putting daylight between herself and Braley.
> 
> And my money is on Orman (I) winning the senatorial in Kansas.
> 
> Both Democratic campaigns are plateauing out in both Kentucky and Georgia - a bad sign overall for the Democrats.
Click to expand...


What will be incredibly bizarre is if the GOP does get the majority through those states listed and loses CO and IA...then they will have won the majority without winning over a "single state" that Obama won in 2012 (provided that MI and NH go dem, which is likely at this point).

It doesn't set much a precedent if the only way you get a majority is winning the states you already won two years ago anyway.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I don't think the GOP will come in less than 51.


----------



## JakeStarkey

This election is not an outlier for 2016.

That will depend on millennials, women, minorities, and how the GOP treats them.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Nyvin said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's looking extremely likely that Alaska, Iowa, Colorado, and Kansas will be the 4 states that control of the Senate comes down to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even without those four, the GOP can come in at 50:
> 
> Montana
> South Dakota
> West Virginia
> Arkansas
> Louisiana
> 
> Which would probably tip the independent from Maine right there. Which brings the GOP to 51, unless Roberts loses in KS, which means the GOP is at 50. It only needs one seat more.  This reminds me a lot of 2006, where the dems just got to 51 seats and we were watching the McCaskill race until late into the night.
> 
> The Colorado polls may be just as off as they were in 2008, 2010 and 2012, where, for the third time in a row, the latino vote was grossly miscalculated. And indeed, polling in Alaska is weird and wonky.  However, Ernst (R) is definitely putting daylight between herself and Braley.
> 
> And my money is on Orman (I) winning the senatorial in Kansas.
> 
> Both Democratic campaigns are plateauing out in both Kentucky and Georgia - a bad sign overall for the Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What will be incredibly bizarre is if the GOP does get the majority through those states listed and loses CO and IA...then they will have won the majority without winning over a "single state" that Obama won in 2012 (provided that MI and NH go dem, which is likely at this point).
> 
> It doesn't set much a precedent if the only way you get a majority is winning the states you already won two years ago anyway.
Click to expand...



I didn't say it was going to work out that way. I said it _can_ work out that way. And, in the run of history we have seen weirder things happen.  But generally, the bulk of battleground states tend to fall like dominos to the winning side.

The GOP has had the better cards all year long and I see nothing changing one month away from the 2014 mid-term elections.


----------



## Statistikhengst

JakeStarkey said:


> This election is not an outlier for 2016.
> 
> That will depend on millennials, women, minorities, and how the GOP treats them.



No real correspondence between the results of a mid-term and the next presidential GE. See: Truman 1946 vs. 1948, Nixon 1970 vs. 1973, Reagan 1982 vs. 1984, Clinton 1994 vs. 1996, Obama 2010 vs. 2012.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The figure to watch for an incumbent president running for a second term is the poll ratings for the president who got smashed in the previous mid term: 1946, 1954, 1994, and 2010.  If the president stays above 46%, as all four did, he will probably win.


----------



## Statistikhengst

So, it's now less than 5 weeks before the 2014 mid-terms, and time to compare to last weeks polling aggregate snapshots.

Here was the last go-round:

2014 battle for control of the US Senate Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum (September 22, 2014)


And now, today:

*DEMOCRATS LEADING:*​




Aggregate, MI:

August 11, 2014: *Peters +4.0*
September 16, 2014: *Peters +5.2*
September 22, 2014: *Peters +5.4*
Today: *Peters +6.0*

The needle has moved +0.6 in Peters' direction over the last week. Of the competitive Senate races, this one is probably the safest for the Democrats at this time.






Aggregate, NC:

August 11, 2014: *Tillis +1.3*
September 16, 2014: *Hagan +3.7*
September 22,2014: *Hagan +5.0*
Today: *Hagan +4.2*

Technically, this has moved 0.8 points away from Kay Hagan and toward Thom Tillis, only, the most right leaning of all the pollsters, Civitas (R),is showing Hagan with +7 and also hitting the 50% mark.






Aggregate, NH:

August 11, 2014: *Shaheen +10.4*
September 16, 2014: *Shaheen +3.5*
September 22, 2014: *Shaheen +5.0*
Today: *Shaheen +4.0*

A week ago, I wrote the following:



> On the surface, it looks like Shaheen is regaining some of what she lost, but a lot of this statistic is _either_ being propped up by a +11 poll for her that was conducted at exactly the same time as a CNN poll showing an absolute tie. Or you can say that this statistic is being pulled down by an outlier CNN poll. One thing is for sure: *those two values absolutely cannot exist in the same universe at the same time*. For Georgia, I write something similar about another firm that is likely an outlier right now. That being said, if you remove both CNN and New England college, then the average is: *Shaheen +4.9*.




As of today, the needle has moved 1 point in Scott Brown's (R) direction, but the disparity in polling is just nothing less than amazing. To have a tie poll and a Shaheen +10 poll conducted within pretty much the same time frame are too things that cannot exist in the same universe at the same time. And ARG has a conservative mathematical bias, not a liberal one. Conversely, New England College has a slight liberal mathematical bias, not a conservative bias. As has been discussed by me VERY OFTEN, Rasmussen has a verifiable mathematical bias of 4 points to the right almost all of the time, so a Ras +6 for Shaheen (though the poll is now 3 weeks old) jives with an ARG +10 for Shaheen.

She is definitely ahead, but should a large GOP wave form, this could change practically overnight.

*GOP candidates leading:*​





Aggregate, CO:

August 11, 2014: *Udall +3.7*
September 16, 2014: *Udall +1.5*
September 22, 2014: *Udall +0.6*
Today: *Gardner +1.5*

Since 09/22, the needle has moved 2.1 points in Gardner's direction. A lot of this is being propped up by the Quinnipiac +8 for Gardner, which very much looks like an outlier.  Take a look at the Rasmussen margin: Gardner +1. 

Now, let's go back in history to the 2010 mid-terms. This was the RCP final average in 2010:



 

This is enlightening. In 2010, RCP had as it's aggregate Buck +3. Bennett won on election night by +1. This means that the RCP aggregate was off by 4 points to the right. Even PPP (D) was off to the Right. Afterwards, most analysts wrote that the Latino vote in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico was grossly underestimated and calculated.

For this very reason, regardless whether the needle shows Udall +1.5 or Gardner +1.5, I would say that if there is a state where the aggregate could be way off, it would be a state like Colorado.

In other words, it's still very much a dogfight in Colorado. No one has put this race away.




 


Aggregate, IA:

August 11, 2014: *Ernst +0.8*
September 16, 2014: *Braley +1.4*
September 22: *Braley +0.1*
Today: *Ernst +2.8*

The needle has moved 2.9 points in Jodi Ernst's (R) direction and the most damning piece of evidence is the Des Moines Register poll, which is one of the two real GOLD STANDARD polls in Iowa. Ernst is taking the lead in this state, but as you can see from the four aggregate values above, this pendulum could swing again.



 


Aggregate, AK:

August 11, 2014: -no aggregate was possible-
September 16, 2014: *Sullivan +1.3*
September 22, 2014: *Sullivan +1.3*
Today: *Sullivan +4.7*

Technically, the needle has moved 3.4 points toward Sullivan (R). Unbelievably, RCP still has a poll from AUGUST in the aggregate. The more accurate aggregate would be: Sullivan +4. Plus there are two polls from other pollsters not listed in RCP showing the race much closer. That being said, Sullivan is currently in the lead.






Aggregate, GA:

August 11, 2014: *Perdue +3.2*
September 16, 2014: *Perdue +3.0*
September 22, 2014: *Perdue +3.3*
Today: *Perdue +3.4*

One week ago, I wrote:



> This is a race where the polling aggregate sinus-curve is barely moving, in spite of a likely outlier Perdue +10 poll from InsiderAdvantage, a firm that was WAY off in Florida in 2012 and which hides it's internals behind a paywall. The final IA poll of Florida showed Romney +5, Obama won by +1, so IA was off by 6. Food for thought.
> 
> That being said, Perdue is ahead here and Nunn seems unable to erase his lean but resilient lead.



So, the Insider Advantage poll, which is now 3 weeks old, is still in the aggregate and Rasmussen shows half of that margin and SUSA, which was one of the 2 best pollsters in 2008, 2010 and 2012, shows Perdue +1.
That being said, the Landmark poll showing Nunn ahead by +3 is just as old as the IA poll, neither of them should be in the aggregate anymore and if you average just the last two polls, it's still: *Perdue +3*. And the needle barely budged between September 22 and today.

I will remind that GA, like LA, has a 50% hurdle to get over in the GE, otherwise, this goes to a runoff election at the beginning of December. This happened in 2008, and there is a Libertarian on the ballot, Amanda Swafford. So, in a 3-point race, it is conceivable that neither Nunn nor Perdue get over 50%. Forewarned = prepared.

Speaking of Louisiana:






One week ago, I wrote:



> It was already discussed a week ago that LA does a jungle primary and then a runoff if no one reaches 50.
> The aggregate for Cassidy in a two-man race is being bolstered by a poll from FOX that is mathematically an outlier. That being said, Cassidy is putting more and more light between himself and Democratic incumbent Landrieu. I wrote one week ago that there was too much old polling data in the aggregate. Now, there is 1 new poll for each category, but only one, still mixed with much older polling. We need a larger polling DNA for this state.




And indeed, we now have some fresh polling DNA, which helps. In the Jungle Primary, Landrieu is definitely ahead: *Landrieu +1.2*, and that stat is being held down by one CBS poll that is now 4 weeks old and was already flawed in that is was conducted over a 2-week time span, which is ridiculous. Without that poll, the aggregate would be: _Landrieu +2.3_.

That's the good news for Landrieu. The bad news is that in direct two-man polling, Cassidy is clearly ahead with an aggregate of *+4.6* (it is likely lower, since the FOX +13 is quite obviously an outlier) and since it is highly unlikely that 3rd party candidate Maness (who is polling about 9-10%) will not win the jungle primary, it is highly likely that this thing goes into overtime and there will be a runoff election. Especially if the fate of the Senate would be decided in LA, this race could become especially interesting.

Either way, it's: advantage Cassidy (R).







Aggregate, AR:

September 16, 2014: *Cotton +2.5*
September 22, 2014: *Cotton +2.5*
Today: *Cotton +3.6*

People may notice that I have been criticizing the inclusion of "cold coffee" polls in RCP's aggregate and I do so just as much when removing old polls is actually to the BENEFIT of the GOP, which is the case here.. Both the CNN and the NBC polls are about one month old. Take them out and then you only have 3 polls, the average of which is *Cotton +3.7*.

I will point out that getting this close to +4 usually means that a candidate's numbers are outside of the MoE and there has been definite movement in this race toward the GOP.  It looks very much to me as if both Democratic incumbents from AR and LA are probably going to be out of a job come January 2015. The next time people will want to paint me as a Democratic hack and my analyses as hackish, just remember this moment.


*Completely unchanged:*​






Aggregate, KY:

August 11, 2014: *McConnell +2.5*
September 16, 2014: *McConnell +5.2*
September 22: *McConnell +5.2*
Today: *McConnell +5.3*

No new polling in KY in the last week. In fact, no new polling since the report on September 16th. The needle moved +0.1 toward McConnell because an older poll fell out of the statistic. To be honest, both the CNN and the Rasmussen polls are both too old, so is the Marist poll, that is all "cold coffee". We need new polling data in KY to get a better picture. This race is anything but settled, to be sure.

And finally:


*INDEPENDENT leading:*​





Aggregate, KS:
September 22, 2014: *Orman +1.2*
Today: *Orman +5.3*

The needle has moved 4.1 points toward Orman since September 22, 2014.

To get perspective on this, Orman's aggregate lead over incumbent Republican Roberts in one of the most Republican states in the Union is HIGHER than the Republican aggregate leads in GA, LA, AR, IA, CO, AK and also higher than the Democratic aggregate leads in NH and NC. The only candidate with a higher aggregate lead than Orman (and McConnell) is Peters in Michigan. That being said, Orman is not at 50% and in a state with a red-tilt this heavy, anything can happen. On the other hand, things don't happen in a vaccuum and in this case it would be helpful for us to take a look at the KS-GUB aggregate as well:





Davis, a Democrat, is leading by a very consistent +4 and that value is probably higher since both Rasmussen and FOX has a verifiable mathematical bias on the order of 4 points to the Right. And since this will be the same electorate that will be voting in the KS-SEN race, it looks very much as if Orman will become the second IND in the US Senate.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FACIT: movement toward the GOP in many races. The GOP is winning this mid-term right now and were the election held today, based on these values, the GOP would pick up:

MT, SD, WV, AR, LA, IA, CO and AK, giving them 53 seats. But they would lose KS, giving them 52 seats.

Does this point to a wave? No. Not yet. The margins have not expanded enough to be able to say that with any credibility and also, the generic ballot does not show this, either:





As compared to 2010:






Please note the Gallup GOP +15 poll, which was 9.3 points off in 2010. BTW, the final results listed at +6.8 at RCP is false: it was +5.7. What a shame that RCP never updated this figure.

So, a GOP +2.9 on the generic, considering that the aggregate from 2010 was off 3.7 points to the Right, could actually mean a tie in the generic right now, which is why I cannot, with any credibility, call this a GOP wave.

What is obvious, however, is that the GOP is currently winning where it needs to win, just as I have been predicting for months on end.

Next update:  07 October 2014


----------



## Statistikhengst

@Czernobog -please see the posting above.

I have put together a mention list for people who like election updates from me. Would you like to be on that list?


----------



## pepperpot

Statistikhengst said:


> @Czernobog -please see the posting above.
> 
> I have put together a mention list for people who like election updates from me. Would you like to be on that list?


You could put me on the list as well please!  Your post was great!  Do you do that research yourself?  Also, do you have any threads here on gubernatorial races or do you just follow the senate?  I live in New England and it has become fascinating here this year.  States like Massachusetts and Connecticut seem to be pulling right for the governors races and Scott Brown seems to be tied up in New Hampshire.  Coakley has been a weak candidate for Massachusetts previously while Foley in Connecticut seems to be ahead because of Malloys gun legislation.  As for Scott Brown he has taken advantage of the free staters up there in New Hampshire as they seem to be growing in numbers.  It wouldn't surprise me to see NH swing completely right like they were decades ago.


----------



## Statistikhengst

pepperpot said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> @Czernobog -please see the posting above.
> 
> I have put together a mention list for people who like election updates from me. Would you like to be on that list?
> 
> 
> 
> You could put me on the list as well please!  Your post was great!  Do you do that research yourself?  Also, do you have any threads here on gubernatorial races or do you just follow the senate?  I live in New England and it has become fascinating here this year.  States like Massachusetts and Connecticut seem to be pulling right for the governors races and Scott Brown seems to be tied up in New Hampshire.  Coakley has been a weak candidate for Massachusetts previously while Foley in Connecticut seems to be ahead because of Malloys gun legislation.  As for Scott Brown he has taken advantage of the free staters up there in New Hampshire as they seem to be growing in numbers.  It wouldn't surprise me to see NH swing completely right like they were decades ago.
Click to expand...



Thanks for the nice words. As they say in love and war: "know where to pick your battles". During mid-terms, I generally focus most on the Senate. Occasionally, a really strategically important gubernatorial race comes up, for instance, Virginia in November 2013. And I am already following the Hillary Clinton trail right now.

Report in about 3 hours on HRC.


----------



## mamooth

As of today, Oct. 2, polls show the Republicans ending up with 52 senate seats.

While there's always the temptation to explain why the polls have to be wrong if your own side is behind, doing that just makes you look extra-stupid after the election. The polls are what they are, and looked at in aggregate, they do a good job. The polls show the Republicans ahead because they are ahead.

Still, a month to go. And Republicans have a history of doing stupid things. Well, Tea Partiers mainly have that history. And not so many of them around this time, so we probably can't count on the stupid factor to save the Democrats.


----------



## Nyvin

mamooth said:


> As of today, Oct. 2, polls show the Republicans ending up with 52 senate seats.
> 
> While there's always the temptation to explain why the polls have to be wrong if your own side is behind, doing that just makes you look extra-stupid after the election. The polls are what they are, and looked at in aggregate, they do a good job. The polls show the Republicans ahead because they are ahead.
> 
> Still, a month to go. And Republicans have a history of doing stupid things. Well, Tea Partiers mainly have that history. And not so many of them around this time, so we probably can't count on the stupid factor to save the Democrats.



The GOP winning 52 seats is entirely reasonable.


----------



## pepperpot

mamooth said:


> As of today, Oct. 2, polls show the Republicans ending up with 52 senate seats.
> 
> While there's always the temptation to explain why the polls have to be wrong if your own side is behind, doing that just makes you look extra-stupid after the election. The polls are what they are, and looked at in aggregate, they do a good job. The polls show the Republicans ahead because they are ahead.
> 
> Still, a month to go. And Republicans have a history of doing stupid things. Well, Tea Partiers mainly have that history. And not so many of them around this time, so we probably can't count on the stupid factor to save the Democrats.





Nyvin said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> As of today, Oct. 2, polls show the Republicans ending up with 52 senate seats.
> 
> While there's always the temptation to explain why the polls have to be wrong if your own side is behind, doing that just makes you look extra-stupid after the election. The polls are what they are, and looked at in aggregate, they do a good job. The polls show the Republicans ahead because they are ahead.
> 
> Still, a month to go. And Republicans have a history of doing stupid things. Well, Tea Partiers mainly have that history. And not so many of them around this time, so we probably can't count on the stupid factor to save the Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP winning 52 seats is entirely reasonable.
Click to expand...

I will have to agree. I can see it here.  People are constantly talking about foreign policy and ebola.  Also, for some reason democrats don't seem to care about midterms much.  But if you think about it the senators that get elected next month will be there for the entire first term of whoever the next president is.  A full 6 years of having to work with them so one would think people would turn out but instead they will complain.


----------



## BreezeWood

.
that puts them at 54 with the two independents, same as the Ds at present.

there is a long ways to go, in fact the most interesting time is just beginning. the democrats, harry reid are just now spending their money on advertising.

.


----------



## Nyvin

BreezeWood said:


> .
> that puts them at 54 with the two independents, same as the Ds at present.
> 
> there is a long ways to go, in fact the most interesting time is just beginning. the democrats, harry reid are just now spending their money on advertising.
> 
> .



Orman seems to be more liberal then King,  which is why the GOP is opposed to him so much.   I wouldn't count on Orman helping the GOP much.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Nyvin said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> that puts them at 54 with the two independents, same as the Ds at present.
> 
> there is a long ways to go, in fact the most interesting time is just beginning. the democrats, harry reid are just now spending their money on advertising.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Orman seems to be more liberal then King,  which is why the GOP is opposed to him so much.   I wouldn't count on Orman helping the GOP much.
Click to expand...


Orman will go with whoever wins the majority, in my opinion.  King won't be switching allegiances.


----------



## Nyvin

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Orman will go with whoever wins the majority, in my opinion.  King won't be switching allegiances.



I think it's almost the exact opposite.   It was King that stated he would side with whichever party held the majority,  Orman declined to comment when asked which party he'll vote for Majority leader.


----------



## Bush92

Hopefully the weasel Orman will lose. Why is he being so coy? No. You must be truthful with the people about your political ideology. Orman is a Democrat, liberal, plain and simple. End of discussion.


----------



## HenryBHough

We gotta stop talking about "Ebola".

The new name, as articulated by Our Kenyan President this very day is "Ebolii" - said as "e-bowl-EYE"


----------



## Statistikhengst

Bush92 said:


> Hopefully the weasel Orman will lose. Why is he being so coy? No. You must be truthful with the people about your political ideology. Orman is a Democrat, liberal, plain and simple. End of discussion.




Your ignorance is on display.

Learn:

Greg Orman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Orman has been a registered Republican and a registered Democrat.


----------



## Statistikhengst

HenryBHough said:


> We gotta stop talking about "Ebola".
> 
> The new name, as articulated by Our Kenyan President this very day is "Ebolii" - said as "e-bowl-EYE"




Are you even remotely capable of contributing something cogent and sane to any thread at all, or is your main purpose in life simply to be THE troll of USMB?

Now, go take a look at the fucking OP and see if you can actually contribute some data, like the adults in the room do.


----------



## Statistikhengst

So, it's now exactly four weeks before the 2014 mid-terms, and time to compare to last week's polling aggregate snapshots to today.

Here were the aggregates from last Thursday (October 2, 2014):

2014 battle for control of the US Senate Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


And now, here are the aggregates as of today, October 7, 2014:

*DEMOCRATS LEADING:*​


 

Aggregate, MI:

August 11, 2014: *Peters +4.0*
September 16, 2014: *Peters +5.2*
September 22, 2014: *Peters +5.4*
October 2, 2014: *Peters +6.0*
October 7, 2014: *Peters +6.7*

The needle has moved +0.7 in Peters' direction over the last week. Of the competitive Senate races, this one is probably the safest for the Democrats at this time. Peters is heading into the safe zone.




 

Aggregate, NH:

August 11, 2014: *Shaheen +10.4*
September 16, 2014: *Shaheen +3.5*
September 22, 2014: *Shaheen +5.0*
October 2, 2014: *Shaheen +4.0*
October 7, 2014: *Shaheen +4.6*


Last Thursday, I wrote the following:



> As of today, the needle has moved 1 point in Scott Brown's (R) direction, but the disparity in polling is just nothing less than amazing. *To have a tie poll and a Shaheen +10 poll conducted within pretty much the same time frame are too things that cannot exist in the same universe at the same time. *And ARG has a conservative mathematical bias, not a liberal one. Conversely, New England College has a slight liberal mathematical bias, not a conservative bias. As has been discussed by me VERY OFTEN, Rasmussen has a verifiable mathematical bias of 4 points to the right almost all of the time, so a Ras +6 for Shaheen (though the poll is now 3 weeks old) jives with an ARG +10 for Shaheen.



If we eliminate polls older than two weeks old from this aggregate would be _Shaheen +5.6_. That is the more accurate statistic right now. Right now, she is doing better than the RCP aggregate indicates, because of "cold coffee" polls that should have been cycled out by now.





 

Aggregate, NC:

August 11, 2014: *Tillis +1.3*
September 16, 2014: *Hagan +3.7*
September 22,2014: *Hagan +5.0*
October 2, 2014: *Hagan +4.2*
October 7, 2014: *Hagan +3.7*

Technically, this has moved 0.5 points away from Kay Hagan and toward Thom Tillis, only, the most right leaning of all the pollsters, Civitas (R),is showing Hagan with +7 and also hitting the 50% mark. If you reduce the time frame down to the last two weeks (14 days), then the bottom three polls would drop out and the average of the top four polls would be _Hagan +3.75_, so we are seeing a lean, but stable lead for incumbent Hagan (D) in the Tarheel state. That being said, in a wave, a +4 aggregate can be overcome. Kay Hagan is in no way in safe waters.


*REPUBLICANS leading:*​


 


Aggregate, CO:

August 11, 2014: *Udall +3.7*
September 16, 2014: *Udall +1.5*
September 22, 2014: *Udall +0.6*
October 2, 2014: *Gardner +1.5*
October 7, 2014: *Gardner +0.6*

Since last Thursday, the aggregate needle has moved 0.9 toward incumbent Udall (D). This is, on paper, a true dogfight, but please remember that one week ago, I pointed to the RCP end-average from 2010 for Colorado. Here it is again:






And one week ago, I wrote the following:



> This is enlightening. In 2010, RCP had as it's aggregate Buck +3. Bennett won on election night by +1. This means that the RCP aggregate was off by 4 points to the right. Even PPP (D) was off to the Right. Afterwards, most analysts wrote that the Latino vote in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico was grossly underestimated and calculated.
> 
> For this very reason, regardless whether the needle shows Udall +1.5 or Gardner +1.5, I would say that if there is a state where the aggregate could be way off, it would be a state like Colorado.
> 
> In other words, it's still very much a dogfight in Colorado. No one has put this race away.



And that testimony from one week ago still stands. We now have historical evidence from 2008, 2010 and 2012 that polling in the western states where there are sizeable Latino communities has been unreliable. And the polling statisticians from both sides, I am sure, are keenly aware of this historical fact.

Just to underscore this, here was the RCP average for the Reid (D-inc) / Angle (R) senatorial from 2010:



 

No, your eyes are not fooling you. The end aggregate for NV (which has a sizeable Latino population, similar to CO and NM, also CA) showed Angle +2.7, but Reid won by +5.6, which means that the aggregate was off by 8.3 points. That is WAY off. And notice that even PPP (D) showed an Angle win. All polling firms in 2010 miscalculated the Latino impact on the overall vote in the SW of the USA.

Just remember these historical facts when looking at the aggregates for CO and NM this time around.




 

Aggregate, IA:

August 11, 2014: *Ernst +0.8*
September 16, 2014: *Braley +1.4*
September 22: *Braley +0.1*
October 2, 2014: *Ernst +2.8*
October 2, 2014: *Ernst +1.9*

Since October 2, 2014, the needle has moved 0.9 toward Braley.

Just to show how volatile this race is, one week ago, I wrote the following:



> The needle has moved 2.9 points in Jodi Ernst's (R) direction and the most damning piece of evidence is the Des Moines Register poll, which is one of the two real GOLD STANDARD polls in Iowa. Ernst is taking the lead in this state, *but as you can see from the four aggregate values above, this pendulum could swing again*.



If these numbers hold, then it appears that CO and IA may be the two cliffhanger races on election night, 2014.  This is every bit as much a dogfight at Colorado at this moment.




 
Aggregate, AK:

August 11, 2014: -no aggregate was possible-
September 16, 2014: *Sullivan +1.3*
September 22, 2014: *Sullivan +1.3*
October 2, 2014: *Sullivan +4.7*
October 7, 2014: *Sullivan +4.7*

Despite new polls, Sullivan is maintaining a +4.7, because the CBS poll from August that showed Sullivan +6 has been replaced by the newer CBS poll showing exactly the same margin.

Now, Democrats can take the tack that polling in Alaska is notoriously unreliable, but a +5 is pretty hard to get around. Sullivan is definitely in the lead.



 



Aggregate, GA:

August 11, 2014: *Perdue +3.2*
September 16, 2014: *Perdue +3.0*
September 22, 2014: *Perdue +3.3*
October 2, 2014: *Perdue +3.4*
October 7, 2014: *Perdue +3.1*

Just as Kay Hagan has demonstrated a lean but resilient lead in NC, in Georgia, Republican Perdue is demonstrating a lean but resilient circa +3 to +3.5 lead. The needle has moved only +0.3 toward Nunn (D), which could just as well be nothing more than so-called "statistical noise". All of these polls are essentially within the two week time frame. Now, last week, I leveled some well-founded criticism of InsiderAdvantage, a firm notorious for inflated R-margins and also a firm that hides it's data behind a paywall and even then, does not release critical internals. That being said, two other firms are also showing the same margin for Perdue. I would really like to see a PPP (D) result from this state for comparison and will also remind that for most of the South, SUSA has somewhat become the gold standard. SUSA only shows +1 for Perdue, but that poll will soon fall out of the two-week window. However, no matter how you slice it, Perdue is still in the lead.  But as is the case with LA, there is a third party candidate on the ballot (which most pollsters are ignoring, at their own peril) and like LA, GA has a 50% hurdle to overcome, otherwise, there is a runoff election in December.

Speaking of Louisiana:



 

Double aggregate, LA:

Jungle Primary, October 2, 2014: *Landrieu +1.2*
Jungle Primary, October 7, 2014: *Landrieu +2.7*

Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 2, 2014: *Cassidy +4.6*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 2, 2014: *Cassidy +5.6*

We are now getting some solid data-points with which to work. In the Jungle primary, the needle has move 1.5 points to Landrieu. But, and this is the kicker: Rob Maness (R running as a third party candidate) has an aggregate of 8 points. And in the two-way polling, the needle has moved 1 point toward Cassidy. Crazy, what? Now, watch the math closely:

100 - 8 = 92.

92 / 2 = 46

46% (without the Maness 8%) is temporarily the new "50 yard line", if you will.
a Landrieu aggregate +2.7 means that the margin is spead on the top and the bottom of 46%, by 1.35. (2.7 / 2 = 1.35)

46 + 1.35 extrapolates Landrieu at 47.35%.
46 - 1.35 extrapolates Cassidy at 44.65%
Manness 8.00%
Total: 100.00%
Margin: Landrieu +2.7

That is ASSUMING that the 8% for Maness is reality, for 3rd party candidates tend to do worse on election night than aggregate polling often shows.

But with Manness at 8%, if these figures hold, then there is no conceivable way for Landrieu to get to 50%, which means there will be a runoff, and if the runoff "two way" numbers hold, then all the Jungle Primary does is to stave-off the inevitable: a Cassidy +5 to +6 win. In other words, what hurts Cassidy in the Jungle Primary may help him come December.

Last week, I wrote:



> And indeed, we now have some fresh polling DNA, which helps. In the Jungle Primary, Landrieu is definitely ahead: *Landrieu +1.2*, and that stat is being held down by one CBS poll that is now 4 weeks old and was already flawed in that is was conducted over a 2-week time span, which is ridiculous. Without that poll, the aggregate would be: _Landrieu +2.3_.
> 
> That's the good news for Landrieu. The bad news is that in direct two-man polling, Cassidy is clearly ahead with an aggregate of *+4.6* (it is likely lower, since the FOX +13 is quite obviously an outlier) and since it is highly unlikely that 3rd party candidate Maness (who is polling about 9-10%) will not win the jungle primary, it is highly likely that this thing goes into overtime and there will be a runoff election. *Especially if the fate of the Senate would be decided in LA, this race could become especially interesting.*







 

Aggregate, AR:

September 16, 2014: *Cotton +2.5*
September 22, 2014: *Cotton +2.5*
October 2, 2014: *Cotton +3.6*
October 7, 2014: *Cotton +3.7*

As is the case with Hagan (D) in NC and Perdue (R) in GA, Tom Cotton (R) is maintaining a lean but resilient lead in AR against Democratic incumbent Pryor. Two cold-coffee polls have now been cycled out and one new poll has been cycled in, and the aggregate result is practically identical to last week.

Two important data-points here: Rasmussen has a proven mathematical bias of around +4 to the Right and right now, the +7 for Cotton from RAS is 3.3 points to the Right of the aggregate. None of this surprises me. What DOES surprise me is the quirky result from Suffolk, which, in 2012 ended up with alot of egg on it's face by going on TV on FOX one full month before the Presidential election and declaring that it would do no more polling in battlegrounds VA, NC and FL, that it had already "painted those states red" for the GE. Of course, when Obama won both VA and FL, this made Suffolk look pretty silly. Here is a link to prove what I just wrote:

Suffolk Poll Romney To Win Virginia Florida N.C. - Business Insider

So, with a proven Conservative bias in the states that mattered in 2012, it is indeed strange to see a +2 for Pryor in a state that Romney swept by +24 just two years ago.

Another damning piece of evidence is the PPP (D) poll, which also shows a Cotton +6. Conservatives love to say that PPP is biased to the left, but actually, in 2010, it has a very slight aggregate bias to the RIGHT.

No matter how you slice it, Tom Cotton is currently leading in Arkansas.



 

Aggregate, KY:

August 11, 2014: *McConnell +2.5*
September 16, 2014: *McConnell +5.2*
September 22, 2014: *McConnell +5.2*
October 2, 2014: *McConnell +5.3*
October 7, 2014:* McConnell +4.2*

Technically, after weeks of unchanged numbers in the Bluegrass state, the needle has moved 1.1 points toward Democrat Alison Grimes, but on another thread, I did a quick analysis of the "Bluegrass poll"s track record over the last 6 years and discovered a strong mathematical bias to the LEFT, a very strong one at that. You can read the findings here:

Mcconnell Falls Behind In Kentucky US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Incumbent McConnell is still ahead here. He already prevailed in a close election in 2008, and like Harry Reid (D-NV), he knows how to fight a close race. Remember, I am writing this praise as an avowed Democrat.

*INDEPENDENT leading:*​


 


Aggregate, KS:
September 22, 2014: *Orman +1.2*
October 2, 2014: *Orman +5.3*
October 2, 2014: *Orman +5.3*

The needle has moved 4.0 points toward Orman since September 22, 2014.

The most damning piece of evidence that Roberts (R) is probably going to lose is the big +10 for Orman from Marist, and I will note again that is statistically impossible for a +10 for one candidate and a mathematical tie for that same candidate to appear at the same time in two polls. One of those two polls is definitely off.

Either way, Orman is ahead, demonstrably.

BTW, I made a thread about a very good, concise assessment of Mr. Orman, here:

Good Concise Assessment Of Greg Orman i-ks Sen US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I suspect that in the next two weeks, Mr. Orman will hit the 50 mark in some polls.


----------------------------------------------------------------

*FACIT:* movement in both directions since last week, but the likely GOP pickups have not changed and the two states that are real dog-fights have also not changed. The GOP is still on target to pick up at least 6 seats net and therefore get to 51 (majority) in the US Senate.

That being said, in the generic aggregate, the GOP lead has actually shrunk since last week:



 

Generic aggregate, October 2, 2014: *GOP +2.9*
Generic aggregate, October 2, 2014:* GOP +2.1*

Still no statistical signs of a wave, but plenty of evidence that the GOP is winning where it needs to, which is exactly in line with 160 years of US mid-term election history:

Congressional Elections compared to Presidential Terms 1855-present US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Mac1958

Well, we're less than a month away from the elections and the GOP has clearly decided not to provide the electorate with a unified, dynamic, positive vision of the future of the country.

Evidently their platform is "we're not Obama.  Cut taxes".

Does such a party really deserve control of the Senate?

.


----------



## Nyvin

Looks like the Republicans don't want to waste any more money on Land in Michigan:

Republicans just gave up on the Senate race in Michigan - Vox


----------



## Bush92

Statistikhengst said:


> And that testimony from one week ago still stands. We now have historical evidence from 2008, 2010 and 2012 that polling in the western states where there are sizeable Latino communities has been unreliable. And the polling statisticians from both sides, I am sure, are keenly aware of this historical fact.


This is because of the high number of illegals in the Hispanic community. They are afraid to answer questions from pollsters for fear of it being a government trap and they will get deported. All the more reason for voter ID laws to prevent election fraud.


----------



## Nyvin

Bush92 said:


> This is because of the high number of illegals in the Hispanic community. They are afraid to answer questions from pollsters for fear of it being a government trap and they will get deported. All the more reason for voter ID laws to prevent election fraud.



You prove your citizenship during the voter registration process.    

Also...why in the heck would they be afraid of answering a polling firm's questions?


----------



## Bush92

Because if you go door-to-door in a Hispanic community, as I have, the clip board, shirt and tie makes some run and hide or refuse to answer questions. I have known illegals with three different names on three different types of ID. So if they register with simplified form distributed from a registrar with a liberal agenda, it is not checked. Voter fraud in states by illegals is rampant.


----------



## Nyvin

Bush92 said:


> Because if you go door-to-door in a Hispanic community, as I have, the clip board, shirt and tie makes some run and hide or refuse to answer questions. I have known illegals with three different names on three different types of ID. So if they register with simplified form distributed from a registrar with a liberal agenda, it is not checked. Voter fraud in states by illegals is rampant.



If they can register to vote then chances are they have some form of ID to show.   Voter ID laws would not prevent undocumented people from voting.


----------



## Dot Com

I was looking for this thread ystrdy. Looks like the Repub secret $$$ machine pulled out of Michigan

Is the Michigan Senate Race Over - NBC News


> Democrats have received a bit of good news. They might no longer have to worry about the Michigan Senate race.
> 
> An arm of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the NRSC, has just pulled its investment in television advertising backing GOP candidate Terri Lynn Land.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

No reason to stay in Michigan.  She's not going to win.  At this point in the game you need to concentrate your resources where they matter most.  They may need to start throwing some money into South Dakota given today's poll and the Rounds scandal brewing up again.


----------



## Dot Com

I want the Repubs to win the senate so that the Dems get it back in '16 along w/ the Presidency BUT:

As South Dakota Race Breaks Open Bizarre Turn Of Events Could Save Senate For Democrats


----------



## Statistikhengst

So, it's now 20 days before the 2014 Mid-Term elections across our great Union.
Many pols, pollsters, pundits and statisticians call the 3-week mark the "break-away point", where one candidate begins to take a decisive lead in a race that was already leaning his way.

I am seeing less signs of a "break-away point" this year. In fact, I am seeing it in only one race right now.

Here were the aggregates from Tuesday last week (October 7, 2014):

2014 battle for control of the US Senate Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And now, today (October 15, 2014):

*DEMOCRATS LEADING:*​





Aggregate, MI:

August 11, 2014: *Peters +4.0*
September 16, 2014: *Peters +5.2*
September 22, 2014: *Peters +5.4*
October 2, 2014: *Peters +6.0*
October 7, 2014: *Peters +6.7*
October 15, 2014: *Peters +9.0*

The needle has moved +2.3 in Peters' direction over the last week. Last week, I wrote:



> Of the competitive Senate races, this one is probably the safest for the Democrats at this time. Peters is heading into the safe zone.



And indeed, Peters is now in the safe zone. This race goes off the battlegrounds next week.







Aggregate, NH:

August 11, 2014: *Shaheen +10.4*
September 16, 2014: *Shaheen +3.5*
September 22, 2014: *Shaheen +5.0*
October 2, 2014: *Shaheen +4.0*
October 7, 2014: *Shaheen +4.6*
October 15, 2014: *Shaheen +3.5*


The needle has moved 1.1 points in Scott Brown's (R) direction. The New England College poll is the first one in a while to show Brown slightly in the lead. That being said, incumbent Shaheen (D) still has an aggregate lead that is right at the cusp of the MoE (Margin of Error).








Aggregate, NC:

August 11, 2014: *Tillis +1.3*
September 16, 2014: *Hagan +3.7*
September 22,2014: *Hagan +5.0*
October 2, 2014: *Hagan +4.2*
October 7, 2014: *Hagan +3.7*
October 15, 2014: *Hagan +1.5*


The needle has moved 2.2 points toward Tillis (R) and this race is tightening up.  Still, it has been two months since Tillis had an aggregate lead.


*REPUBLICANS leading:*​





Aggregate, IA:

August 11, 2014: *Ernst +0.8*
September 16, 2014: *Braley +1.4*
September 22: *Braley +0.1*
October 2, 2014: *Ernst +2.8*
October 7, 2014: *Ernst +1.9*
October 15, 2014: *Ernst +1.2*

Technically, the needle has moved 0.7 toward Braley (R), but Ernst still has an aggregate lead and lead in most recent polls. But an aggregate 1.2 is well within the MoE, anything can happen in this race. Neither candidate has "put it away".






Aggregate, CO:

August 11, 2014: *Udall +3.7*
September 16, 2014: *Udall +1.5*
September 22, 2014: *Udall +0.6*
October 2, 2014: *Gardner +1.5*
October 7, 2014: *Gardner +0.6*
October 15, 2014: *Gardner +1.4*

This aggregate, like the one in Iowa, is well within the MoE - it can go either way. Only, the pollsters in 2008, 2010 and 2012 were massively off in CO, NV, NM, etc.... in states with heavy Latino populations, which I showed graphically on October 2nd and 7th.  Technically, Gardner has the aggregate lead, but this could end up being the surprise of the night, just as Colorado and Nevada were the big surprises of the night in 2010. Wait and see.








Aggregate, AK:

August 11, 2014: -no aggregate was possible-
September 16, 2014: *Sullivan +1.3*
September 22, 2014: *Sullivan +1.3*
October 2, 2014: *Sullivan +4.7*
October 7, 2014: *Sullivan +4.7*
October 15, 2014: *Sullivan +4.4*

Sullivan's (R) aggregate lead over incumbent Begich (D) has been in the +4 zone now for 3 weeks and holding steady.  Unless Mark Begich has a trump card we are not seeing somewhere up his sleeve, if this races opens more, I suspect that it is then a done deal for Sullivan.  Begich just barely won in 2008 in a squeaker in one of the reddest states in the nation, it is therefore no wonder that he is struggling in the mid-terms of a 2nd term Presidency where the opposition party generally makes substantial gains in congress. That being said, there were some polls that showed a Begich lead, RCP however has not reported them. Even so, Sullivan would still be in the lead, albeit somewhat narrower.









Aggregate, GA:

August 11, 2014: *Perdue +3.2*
September 16, 2014: *Perdue +3.0*
September 22, 2014: *Perdue +3.3*
October 2, 2014: *Perdue +3.4*
October 7, 2014: *Perdue +3.1*
October 15, 2014: *Perdue +2.7*


This is Perdue's (R) narrowest aggregate lead since August, and yet, he is still in the lead. To note: The landmark poll is from a Republican polling firm, not a Democratic firm and the SUSA poll only shows a 1 point lead for Perdue. So, the tie poll is not necessarily an outlier at all. The last three polls are well within the MoE and the other 3 (older polls) are just outside the MoE.  This race is anything but done. No one should be uncorking the champagne yet. But since GA has a 50% hurdle and there is indeed a third party candidate on the ballot, this race could very well go into overtime, into December.








Aggregate, AR:

September 16, 2014: *Cotton +2.5*
September 22, 2014: *Cotton +2.5*
October 2, 2014: *Cotton +3.6*
October 7, 2014: *Cotton +3.7*
October 15, 2014: *Cotton +4.4*

The needle has moved 0.7 in Cotton's (R) direction.   However, an ORA poll is missing from RCP's calculations:

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ADPOctober2014SurveyMemo.pdf

It shows Pryor +2 and was released on October 7. If you calculate that poll in the mix, then the aggregate would be _Cotton +3.3_. And if you remove old polls and have just the three polls from October, including ORA, then the aggregate would be_ Cotton +3.0_. Either way, Cotton still has a lean but resilient lead. He is very likely to upset incumbent Mark Pryor (D).








Double aggregate, LA:

Jungle Primary, October 2, 2014: *Landrieu +1.2*
Jungle Primary, October 7, 2014: *Landrieu +2.7*
Jungle Primary, October 15, 2014: *Landrieu +2.7*

Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 2, 2014: *Cassidy +4.6*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 7, 2014: *Cassidy +5.6*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 15, 2014: *Cassidy +5.6*

Absolutely no change over last week. This too could and will very likely go into overtime, with 3rd party candidate Maness at about 8%.  I did the mathematical extrapolation for this on October 7th.









Aggregate, KY:

August 11, 2014: *McConnell +2.5*
September 16, 2014: *McConnell +5.2*
September 22, 2014: *McConnell +5.2*
October 2, 2014: *McConnell +5.3*
October 7, 2014:* McConnell +4.2*
October 15, 2014:* McConnell +3.0*

The needle has moved +1.2 toward Grimes (D), but McConnell (R-inc) still has the aggregate lead. The DNC just pulled funds from this race, if I read the news correctly, which is a tellling sign. Grimes may make this race close and make a name for herself for the future, but McConnell is likely to retain his seat.

*INDEPENDENT tied:*​






Aggregate, KS:
September 22, 2014: *Orman +1.2*
October 2, 2014: *Orman +5.3*
October 7, 2014: *Orman +5.3*
October 15, 2014: *mathematical tie*

The needle has moved 5.3 points toward Roberts (R) since last week.

This is an interesting development, but may just be smoke and mirrors.  Poll aggregates are like sinus curves, the open and close some. We have three polls showing Roberts ahead (with the largest lead, unsurprisingly, from the FOX poll) and two polls showing Orman ahead. The SUSA poll is probably the one pollster with absolutely no horse in this race, it is likely the best overall indicator.

Next week will show if this was just a sinus curve movement or if the GOP really is regaining ground in ruby Red Kansas.  It should be noted that the Remington poll also shows Governor Brownback (R-inc), who has been considerably behind in every single other poll, ahead of his Democratic opponent. And this is a good moment to note that lesser known partisan pollsters for the Democrats are generally excluded from RCP's calculations, but this lesser known GOP pollster was included in the statistics as quickly as possible. Interesting, eh?

Mathematically, this is currently a tie. Polling history from 2008, 2010 and 2012 tells me that PPP and SUSA are by far the decidely more accurate pollsters, Orman (I) is very likely still ahead. Wait and see.


*FACIT:* movement in both directions since last week, but the likely GOP pickups have not changed and the two states that are real dog-fights have also not changed. The GOP is still on target to pick up at least 6 seats net and therefore get to 51 (majority) in the US Senate, albeit not necessarily on election night.

That being said, in the generic aggregate, the GOP lead has barely budged since last week:



 

Generic aggregate, October 2, 2014: *GOP +2.9*
Generic aggregate, October 7, 2014:* GOP +2.1*
Generic aggregate, October 15, 2014:* GOP +2.4*

The generic polling is also all over the place: Gallup (a completely discredited polling outfit in my eyes), which showed GOP +15 on the eve of the 2010 mid-terms and end up being off by 9.3 points, currently only shows GOP +1. And Rasmussen, which tends to be 4 points off to the Right in practically everything, shows a tie.
But NBC, which is accused of being in the tank for the Left, also shows GOP +1. It's also been two weeks since any generic poll showed a team-blue lead, so this GOP aggregate is likely to grow again by next week. However, at this point in time in 2010, the aggregate for the GOP was between +5 and +6.

Therefore, there are still no statistical signs of a wave, but plenty of evidence that the GOP is winning where it needs to, which is exactly in line with 160 years of US mid-term election history:

Congressional Elections compared to Presidential Terms 1855-present US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is all going to be a matter of voter interest and GOTV, plain and simple.



I see a strong possibility that IA cannot be called on election night, that CO may be a real surprise for the pollsters, that SD, which was considered a shoo-in for the GOP, could suddenly become interesting. And I want to show you why:






Aggregate, SD:

October 1, 2014: *Rounds +14*
October 15, 2014: *Rounds +9*

But within a week or two, those polls from September fall out of the statistic and then the aggregate could be: _Rounds +3.5_ to  _Rounds +4.0_. I fully expect that a bevy of polls may come out of South Dakota in the next week.

Therefore, as Michigan is obviously leaving the battlegrounds, it is very possible that South Dakota, first considered a guaranteed GOP pick-up, may _enter_ the battlegrounds. That being said, 3 or 4-man races can be very, very hard to poll.

The point of this is that on election night, the GOP may get to 49 or 50, but not to 51, because both Louisiana and Georgia are very likely to go into overtime.

I am not expecting a decisive call for the US Senate until the first week in December.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Bush92 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that testimony from one week ago still stands. We now have historical evidence from 2008, 2010 and 2012 that polling in the western states where there are sizeable Latino communities has been unreliable. And the polling statisticians from both sides, I am sure, are keenly aware of this historical fact.
> 
> 
> 
> This is because of the high number of illegals in the Hispanic community. They are afraid to answer questions from pollsters for fear of it being a government trap and they will get deported. All the more reason for voter ID laws to prevent election fraud.
Click to expand...



You have absolutely not evidence to back up this claim. You realize that states keep track of voter registration right? And many do it according to gender and race. 

But your ugly bigotry is duly noted.


----------



## Dot Com

Statistikhengst said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that testimony from one week ago still stands. We now have historical evidence from 2008, 2010 and 2012 that polling in the western states where there are sizeable Latino communities has been unreliable. And the polling statisticians from both sides, I am sure, are keenly aware of this historical fact.
> 
> 
> 
> This is because of the high number of illegals in the Hispanic community. They are afraid to answer questions from pollsters for fear of it being a government trap and they will get deported. All the more reason for voter ID laws to prevent election fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have absolutely not evidence to back up this claim. You realize that states keep track of voter registration right? And many do it according to gender and race.
> 
> But your ugly bigotry is duly noted.
Click to expand...

no surprise there. I think no matter who wins, the Dems win in `16


----------



## HenryBHough

Dot Com said:


> no surprise there. I think no matter who wins, the Dems win in `16



Provided any of the present "front runners" remember to run or have been pardoned in order to become eligible?


----------



## birddog

The Rs will end up with 51 or 52 in the upcoming election.  Louisiana will go to the R, likely in December.


----------



## Statistikhengst

So, in 14 days, we Americans will go to the polls and elect a new US-Congress. Actually, many of us have already voted. I sent in my absentee ballot this week.

The time frame between 3 weeks before this election and 2 weeks before this election has been more marked by stillstand instead of change, in terms of polling. The real shift right now is being seen in Georgia, where Democrat Michelle Nunn is picking up steam and it really does look like a tied-up horserace.

I wrote one week ago that Gary Peters (D) was going to leave the battlegrounds, and indeed there has been no more polling of Michigan. His aggregate stands at *+9*, which is well inside the comfort zone. The RNC has also pulled money out of MI, which means they have given up on it. Similary, the DNC has pulled funds out of Kentucky and it looks like Mitch McConnell will be re-elected, if these numbers hold. However, the KY aggregate still shows a battleground statistic, at least for now.

Also, one week ago, I noted that usually around the -3 to -2 week period, pols, pollsters, pundits and the like often call it the break-away period, where one candidate starts to surge into a major lead. We are not seeing that, either. *This year is somehow just a little different that other mid-terms*.

Here was the posting from one week ago:

2014 battle for control of the US Senate Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


And here are the aggregates as of today, October 21, 2014:


*DEMOCRATS LEADING:*​


 


Aggregate, NH:

August 11, 2014: *Shaheen +10.4*
September 16, 2014: *Shaheen +3.5*
September 22, 2014: *Shaheen +5.0*
October 2, 2014: *Shaheen +4.0*
October 7, 2014: *Shaheen +4.6*
October 15, 2014: *Shaheen +3.5*
October 21, 2014: *Shaheen +2.6*

The needle has moved 0.9 in Scott Brown's direction, but Shaheen has lead in 4 of the last 5 polls. That being said, Shaheen has lost a lot of ground since August. This race could easily tip at the last minute, but for now, we are seeing a small but resilient lead for the incumbent Democrat.




 


Aggregate, NC:

August 11, 2014: *Tillis +1.3*
September 16, 2014: *Hagan +3.7*
September 22,2014: *Hagan +5.0*
October 2, 2014: *Hagan +4.2*
October 7, 2014: *Hagan +3.7*
October 15, 2014: *Hagan +1.5*
October 21, 2014:* Hagan +1.2*

Technically, the needle has moved 0.3 toward Thom Tillis (R) but like Jean Shaheen in New Hampshire, Kay Hagan has a small but resilient lead. And early voting is already underway in NC.  That being said, an aggregate +1.2 is well within the MoE, Tillis could actually be leading right now. Dogfight.


*REPUBLICANS leading:*​


 

Aggregate, GA:

August 11, 2014: *Perdue +3.2*
September 16, 2014: *Perdue +3.0*
September 22, 2014: *Perdue +3.3*
October 2, 2014: *Perdue +3.4*
October 7, 2014: *Perdue +3.1*
October 15, 2014: *Perdue +2.7*
October 21, 2014: *Perdue +0.6*

The needle has moved *1.9* points toward Michelle Nunn (D), making the aggregate for this race the closest aggregate at this time and the largest shift over last week.  *Horserace*. No one is putting this race away and it could easily go for either candidate. But just as the motion has been for Joni Ernst (R) in Iowa, the motion is for Nunn (D) in Georgia at this moment. This is the ONLY big change between week 3 before the election and week 2 before the election. BTW, the Georgia Gubernatorial is also tightening up quite considerably.



 

Aggregate, IA:

August 11, 2014: *Ernst +0.8*
September 16, 2014: *Braley +1.4*
September 22: *Braley +0.1*
October 2, 2014: *Ernst +2.8*
October 7, 2014: *Ernst +1.9*
October 15, 2014: *Ernst +1.2*
October 21, 2014: *Ernst +2.5*


The needle has moved 1.3 points toward Ernst, she is putting a little daylight between herself and Bruce Braley. Her lead is very similar to Shaheen's lead in NH.




 

Aggregate, CO:

August 11, 2014: *Udall +3.7*
September 16, 2014: *Udall +1.5*
September 22, 2014: *Udall +0.6*
October 2, 2014: *Gardner +1.5*
October 7, 2014: *Gardner +0.6*
October 15, 2014: *Gardner +1.4*
October 21, 2014: *Gardner +3.0*

The needle has moved +1.6 points in Gardner's direction. In the postings from October 15th and from October 7th, I reminded how very off polling was in Colorado and in Nevada in 2010, also in 2012. Reason: gross miscalculation of the Latino vote.  But on paper, Gardner has the lead.


New addition to the battlegrounds:




 


Aggregate:

October 21, 2014 (RCP): *Rounds +9.8*
actual aggregate: *Rounds +3.5*


The RCP aggregate for this is WAY off. First, the Nielson Brothers and CBS polls are way too old. This leaves Rounds at a real aggregate of +3.5 for now. Surely a bevy of polling will follow in this state in the next 14 days.



 


Aggregate, AK:

August 11, 2014: -no aggregate was possible-
September 16, 2014: *Sullivan +1.3*
September 22, 2014: *Sullivan +1.3*
October 2, 2014: *Sullivan +4.7*
October 7, 2014: *Sullivan +4.7*
October 15, 2014: *Sullivan +4.4*
October 21, 2014:* Sullivan +4.4*

No new polling from last week and absolutely no change in the aggregate.




 



Aggregate, AR:

September 16, 2014: *Cotton +2.5*
September 22, 2014: *Cotton +2.5*
October 2, 2014: *Cotton +3.6*
October 7, 2014: *Cotton +3.7*
October 15, 2014: *Cotton +4.4*
October 21, 2014: *Cotton +3.6*

The needle, after having moved 0.7 in Cotton's (R) direction last week, has moved 0.8 toward Mark Pryor (D) this week.   And the ORA poll I quoted last week is still missing from RCP's statistics. +3.6 is just barely out of the standard MoE. Cotton has the lead.




 

Double aggregate, LA:

Jungle Primary, October 2, 2014: *Landrieu +1.2*
Jungle Primary, October 7, 2014: *Landrieu +2.7*
Jungle Primary, October 15, 2014: *Landrieu +2.7*
Jungle Primary, October 21, 2014: *Landrieu +2.8*

Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 2, 2014: *Cassidy +4.6*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 7, 2014: *Cassidy +5.6*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 15, 2014: *Cassidy +5.6*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 21, 2014: *Cassidy +5.3*


Very little change over last week, could be just statistical noise - in both cases. This too could and will very likely go into overtime, with 3rd party candidate Maness at about 8%.  I did the mathematical extrapolation for this on October 7th.




 


Aggregate, KY:

August 11, 2014: *McConnell +2.5*
September 16, 2014: *McConnell +5.2*
September 22, 2014: *McConnell +5.2*
October 2, 2014: *McConnell +5.3*
October 7, 2014:* McConnell +4.2*
October 15, 2014:* McConnell +3.0*
October 21, 2014:* McConnell +4.7*


The needle has moved +1.7 toward McConnell (R-inc), who still has the aggregate lead. The DNC just pulled funds from this race last week, which is a tellling sign. Triage-time has come. Grimes may make this race close and make a name for herself for the future, but McConnell is likely to retain his seat.


*INDEPENDENT tied:*​



 


Aggregate, KS:
September 22, 2014: *Orman +1.2*
October 2, 2014: *Orman +5.3*
October 7, 2014: *Orman +5.3*
October 15, 2014: *mathematical tie*
October 21, 2014: *mathematical tie*


No change since last week, or maybe yes, but it means the same outcome.

Monmouth has released a poll of KS:

http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32...1087/145f0962-9f03-4ef3-a9e7-78534f38d6d2.pdf

Orman 46 / Roberts 46.

Again, a mathematical tie, which would not change the aggregate, but rather, confirm it. It's all tied up in KS. But where one poll showed Brownback (R) surging back in the KS gubernatorial, this poll shows Davis (D) winning.


*FACIT:* outside of Georgia, a lot of NON-MOVEMENT this last week, but the likely GOP pickups have not changed and the states that are real dog-fights have grown from 2 to 3 (+Georgia). The GOP is still on target to pick up at least 6 seats net and therefore get to 51 (majority) in the US Senate, _albeit not necessarily on election night_.

That being said, in the generic aggregate, the GOP lead has slightly increased since last week:



 

Generic aggregate, October 2, 2014: *GOP +2.9*
Generic aggregate, October 7, 2014:* GOP +2.1*
Generic aggregate, October 15, 2014:* GOP +2.4*
Generic aggregate, October 21, 2014:* GOP +3.4*
*
*
+3.4 is within the MoE.

For comparision purposes, here is the generic aggregate from 2010, with the polls in just about the same time frame boxed in green:




 

That makes for ten polls, which makes for an average of GOP +7 at this corresponding two-week time frame from 4 years ago.  I want to remind again that on the eve of the election, Gallup predicted GOP +15. The actual result (which is incorrectly stated here in the RCP graphic), was: GOP +5.7. Gallup was off by 9.3 points four years ago. Politico/GWU/Battleground, CBS and McClatchy came the closest.

Wait and see what happens this time.

The generic ballot still does not show a GOP wave forming, but the critical point is that the GOP is winning where it needs to win, which is exactly in line with 160 years of US mid-term election history:

Congressional Elections compared to Presidential Terms 1855-present US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

*This is all going to be a matter of voter interest and GOTV, plain and simple.* And I bet that the control of the Senate will go into overtime in both Georgia and Louisiana. And to make matters worse, according to Georgia's calendar:

2014 elections and voter registration calendar

federal runoffs are not in December, they are in JANUARY. The runoff date for the Senatorial, if I have read this correctly, is Tuesday, January 5th, 2015, after the next session of Congress has already begun. That is just crazy.  The runoff in Louisiana is on December 2nd, 2014.

Those are the current stats.

-Stat


PS. I suspect there will be a massive flurry of polls starting, well, about today.  Stay tuned.


----------



## pepperpot

Statistikhengst said:


> So, in 14 days, we Americans will go to the polls and elect a new US-Congress. Actually, many of us have already voted. I sent in my absentee ballot this week.
> 
> The time frame between 3 weeks before this election and 2 weeks before this election has been more marked by stillstand instead of change, in terms of polling. The real shift right now is being seen in Georgia, where Democrat Michelle Nunn is picking up steam and it really does look like a tied-up horserace.
> 
> I wrote one week ago that Gary Peters (D) was going to leave the battlegrounds, and indeed there has been no more polling of Michigan. His aggregate stands at *+9*, which is well inside the comfort zone. The RNC has also pulled money out of MI, which means they have given up on it. Similary, the DNC has pulled funds out of Kentucky and it looks like Mitch McConnell will be re-elected, if these numbers hold. However, the KY aggregate still shows a battleground statistic, at least for now.
> 
> Also, one week ago, I noted that usually around the -3 to -2 week period, pols, pollsters, pundits and the like often call it the break-away period, where one candidate starts to surge into a major lead. We are not seeing that, either. *This year is somehow just a little different that other mid-terms*.
> 
> Here was the posting from one week ago:
> 
> 2014 battle for control of the US Senate Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> And here are the aggregates as of today, October 21, 2014:
> 
> 
> *DEMOCRATS LEADING:*​
> View attachment 33122
> 
> 
> Aggregate, NH:
> 
> August 11, 2014: *Shaheen +10.4*
> September 16, 2014: *Shaheen +3.5*
> September 22, 2014: *Shaheen +5.0*
> October 2, 2014: *Shaheen +4.0*
> October 7, 2014: *Shaheen +4.6*
> October 15, 2014: *Shaheen +3.5*
> October 21, 2014: *Shaheen +2.6*
> 
> The needle has moved 0.9 in Scott Brown's direction, but Shaheen has lead in 4 of the last 5 polls. That being said, Shaheen has lost a lot of ground since August. This race could easily tip at the last minute, but for now, we are seeing a small but resilient lead for the incumbent Democrat.
> 
> 
> View attachment 33123
> 
> 
> Aggregate, NC:
> 
> August 11, 2014: *Tillis +1.3*
> September 16, 2014: *Hagan +3.7*
> September 22,2014: *Hagan +5.0*
> October 2, 2014: *Hagan +4.2*
> October 7, 2014: *Hagan +3.7*
> October 15, 2014: *Hagan +1.5*
> October 21, 2014:* Hagan +1.2*
> 
> Technically, the needle has moved 0.3 toward Thom Tillis (R) but like Jean Shaheen in New Hampshire, Kay Hagan has a small but resilient lead. And early voting is already underway in NC.  That being said, an aggregate +1.2 is well within the MoE, Tillis could actually be leading right now. Dogfight.
> 
> 
> *REPUBLICANS leading:*​
> View attachment 33125
> 
> Aggregate, GA:
> 
> August 11, 2014: *Perdue +3.2*
> September 16, 2014: *Perdue +3.0*
> September 22, 2014: *Perdue +3.3*
> October 2, 2014: *Perdue +3.4*
> October 7, 2014: *Perdue +3.1*
> October 15, 2014: *Perdue +2.7*
> October 21, 2014: *Perdue +0.6*
> 
> The needle has moved *1.9* points toward Michelle Nunn (D), making the aggregate for this race the closest aggregate at this time and the largest shift over last week.  *Horserace*. No one is putting this race away and it could easily go for either candidate. But just as the motion has been for Joni Ernst (R) in Iowa, the motion is for Nunn (D) in Georgia at this moment. This is the ONLY big change between week 3 before the election and week 2 before the election. BTW, the Georgia Gubernatorial is also tightening up quite considerably.
> 
> View attachment 33124
> 
> Aggregate, IA:
> 
> August 11, 2014: *Ernst +0.8*
> September 16, 2014: *Braley +1.4*
> September 22: *Braley +0.1*
> October 2, 2014: *Ernst +2.8*
> October 7, 2014: *Ernst +1.9*
> October 15, 2014: *Ernst +1.2*
> October 21, 2014: *Ernst +2.5*
> 
> 
> The needle has moved 1.3 points toward Ernst, she is putting a little daylight between herself and Bruce Braley. Her lead is very similar to Shaheen's lead in NH.
> 
> 
> View attachment 33127
> 
> Aggregate, CO:
> 
> August 11, 2014: *Udall +3.7*
> September 16, 2014: *Udall +1.5*
> September 22, 2014: *Udall +0.6*
> October 2, 2014: *Gardner +1.5*
> October 7, 2014: *Gardner +0.6*
> October 15, 2014: *Gardner +1.4*
> October 21, 2014: *Gardner +3.0*
> 
> The needle has moved +1.6 points in Gardner's direction. In the postings from October 15th and from October 7th, I reminded how very off polling was in Colorado and in Nevada in 2010, also in 2012. Reason: gross miscalculation of the Latino vote.  But on paper, Gardner has the lead.
> 
> 
> New addition to the battlegrounds:
> 
> 
> View attachment 33129
> 
> 
> Aggregate:
> 
> October 21, 2014 (RCP): *Rounds +9.8*
> actual aggregate: *Rounds +3.5*
> 
> 
> The RCP aggregate for this is WAY off. First, the Nielson Brothers and CBS polls are way too old. This leaves Rounds at a real aggregate of +3.5 for now. Surely a bevy of polling will follow in this state in the next 14 days.
> 
> View attachment 33128
> 
> 
> Aggregate, AK:
> 
> August 11, 2014: -no aggregate was possible-
> September 16, 2014: *Sullivan +1.3*
> September 22, 2014: *Sullivan +1.3*
> October 2, 2014: *Sullivan +4.7*
> October 7, 2014: *Sullivan +4.7*
> October 15, 2014: *Sullivan +4.4*
> October 21, 2014:* Sullivan +4.4*
> 
> No new polling from last week and absolutely no change in the aggregate.
> 
> 
> View attachment 33131
> 
> 
> 
> Aggregate, AR:
> 
> September 16, 2014: *Cotton +2.5*
> September 22, 2014: *Cotton +2.5*
> October 2, 2014: *Cotton +3.6*
> October 7, 2014: *Cotton +3.7*
> October 15, 2014: *Cotton +4.4*
> October 21, 2014: *Cotton +3.6*
> 
> The needle, after having moved 0.7 in Cotton's (R) direction last week, has moved 0.8 toward Mark Pryor (D) this week.   And the ORA poll I quoted last week is still missing from RCP's statistics. +3.6 is just barely out of the standard MoE. Cotton has the lead.
> 
> 
> View attachment 33132
> 
> Double aggregate, LA:
> 
> Jungle Primary, October 2, 2014: *Landrieu +1.2*
> Jungle Primary, October 7, 2014: *Landrieu +2.7*
> Jungle Primary, October 15, 2014: *Landrieu +2.7*
> Jungle Primary, October 21, 2014: *Landrieu +2.8*
> 
> Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 2, 2014: *Cassidy +4.6*
> Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 7, 2014: *Cassidy +5.6*
> Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 15, 2014: *Cassidy +5.6*
> Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 21, 2014: *Cassidy +5.3*
> 
> 
> Very little change over last week, could be just statistical noise - in both cases. This too could and will very likely go into overtime, with 3rd party candidate Maness at about 8%.  I did the mathematical extrapolation for this on October 7th.
> 
> 
> View attachment 33133
> 
> 
> Aggregate, KY:
> 
> August 11, 2014: *McConnell +2.5*
> September 16, 2014: *McConnell +5.2*
> September 22, 2014: *McConnell +5.2*
> October 2, 2014: *McConnell +5.3*
> October 7, 2014:* McConnell +4.2*
> October 15, 2014:* McConnell +3.0*
> October 21, 2014:* McConnell +4.7*
> 
> 
> The needle has moved +1.7 toward McConnell (R-inc), who still has the aggregate lead. The DNC just pulled funds from this race last week, which is a tellling sign. Triage-time has come. Grimes may make this race close and make a name for herself for the future, but McConnell is likely to retain his seat.
> 
> 
> *INDEPENDENT tied:*​
> 
> View attachment 33134
> 
> 
> Aggregate, KS:
> September 22, 2014: *Orman +1.2*
> October 2, 2014: *Orman +5.3*
> October 7, 2014: *Orman +5.3*
> October 15, 2014: *mathematical tie*
> October 21, 2014: *mathematical tie*
> 
> 
> No change since last week, or maybe yes, but it means the same outcome.
> 
> Monmouth has released a poll of KS:
> 
> http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32...1087/145f0962-9f03-4ef3-a9e7-78534f38d6d2.pdf
> 
> Orman 46 / Roberts 46.
> 
> Again, a mathematical tie, which would not change the aggregate, but rather, confirm it. It's all tied up in KS. But where one poll showed Brownback (R) surging back in the KS gubernatorial, this poll shows Davis (D) winning.
> 
> 
> *FACIT:* outside of Georgia, a lot of NON-MOVEMENT this last week, but the likely GOP pickups have not changed and the states that are real dog-fights have grown from 2 to 3 (+Georgia). The GOP is still on target to pick up at least 6 seats net and therefore get to 51 (majority) in the US Senate, _albeit not necessarily on election night_.
> 
> That being said, in the generic aggregate, the GOP lead has slightly increased since last week:
> 
> View attachment 33135
> 
> Generic aggregate, October 2, 2014: *GOP +2.9*
> Generic aggregate, October 7, 2014:* GOP +2.1*
> Generic aggregate, October 15, 2014:* GOP +2.4*
> Generic aggregate, October 21, 2014:* GOP +3.4
> 
> *
> +3.4 is within the MoE.
> 
> For comparision purposes, here is the generic aggregate from 2010, with the polls in just about the same time frame boxed in green:
> 
> 
> View attachment 33136
> 
> That makes for ten polls, which makes for an average of GOP +7 at this corresponding two-week time frame from 4 years ago.  I want to remind again that on the eve of the election, Gallup predicted GOP +15. The actual result (which is incorrectly stated here in the RCP graphic), was: GOP +5.7. Gallup was off by 9.3 points four years ago. Politico/GWU/Battleground, CBS and McClatchy came the closest.
> 
> Wait and see what happens this time.
> 
> The generic ballot still does not show a GOP wave forming, but the critical point is that the GOP is winning where it needs to win, which is exactly in line with 160 years of US mid-term election history:
> 
> Congressional Elections compared to Presidential Terms 1855-present US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> *This is all going to be a matter of voter interest and GOTV, plain and simple.* And I bet that the control of the Senate will go into overtime in both Georgia and Louisiana. And to make matters worse, according to Georgia's calendar:
> 
> 2014 elections and voter registration calendar
> 
> federal runoffs are not in December, they are in JANUARY. The runoff date for the Senatorial, if I have read this correctly, is Tuesday, January 5th, 2015, after the next session of Congress has already begun. That is just crazy.  The runoff in Louisiana is on December 2nd, 2014.
> 
> Those are the current stats.
> 
> -Stat
> 
> 
> PS. I suspect there will be a massive flurry of polls starting, well, about today.  Stay tuned.


----------



## pepperpot

Been hearing about runoffs in Georgia and another state, I cant recall.  How does that work and how do the pundits think that will work out?


----------



## Statistikhengst

pepperpot said:


> Been hearing about runoffs in Georgia and another state, I cant recall.  How does that work and how do the pundits think that will work out?




The top two vote-getters from the GE go into a runoff if one of them has not gotten over 50% on election night, thus removing third party and write ins from the runoff ballot.

Georgia and Lousiana have a runoff system, both races are very likely to go into runoffs.


----------



## birddog

I have been predicting the Rs will end up with 51-52.  It is likely now that the Rs could end up with 52-53.  Scott Brown and Tillis are key players.


----------



## BreezeWood

.
price of gas at pump falling - Middle East stabelizing - no new ebola cases - Obama able to draw enthusiastic crows when campaigning recently ...

the Ds have a chance to rally the troops and hold the Senate, in the last two weeks if Obama draws crowds the Ds should go on the offensive.

.


----------



## Nyvin

Nunn has an aggregate lead now in the polls, with the last three showing her with a lead and another previous one showing a tie.

Georgia is surprisingly still competitive...

RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Georgia Senate - Perdue vs. Nunn


----------



## Nyvin

So another poll just came out in the Georgia Senate race....FOUR polls in a row now show Nunn with a lead, and the fifth most recent one shows a tie.    Is this race going to be an October surprise?    Granted Nunn needs to break 50% or it goes to run off.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Nyvin said:


> So another poll just came out in the Georgia Senate race....FOUR polls in a row now show Nunn with a lead, and the fifth most recent one shows a tie.    Is this race going to be an October surprise?    Granted Nunn needs to break 50% or it goes to run off.




This is an interesting development and an ominous sign for the GOP in the 2016 presidential election.   Hillary has an extremely good chance of picking-up Georgia by a relatively comfortable margin.

Reason: demographics.


----------



## Dot Com

NBC News Marist Polls Show Tight Contests in Key States - NBC News


----------



## HenryBHough

I cannot count the number of telephone pollsters I have filled so full of shit that their eyes turned brown.  I'm sure both sides are doing the same thing so trust those polls as much as your low IQ allows!


----------



## Statistikhengst

HenryBHough said:


> I cannot count the number of telephone pollsters I have filled so full of shit that their eyes turned brown.  I'm sure both sides are doing the same thing so trust those polls as much as your low IQ allows!




And yet, in spite of deliberate shit-fillers like you, the aggregate polling in 2012 was actually very accurate, even when mathematically slightly tilted to the Right.


----------



## HenryBHough

Keep on believing, Statist.  Your emotional condition depends on it.


----------



## Dot Com

HBH is good at space-filler, posts  My gawd but Repub voters have a lot of hate 

As to the OP, keep up the good work of posting the updates.


----------



## HenryBHough

And there she goes, calling once more on strangers....


----------



## Dot Com

^ place-filler post


----------



## rightwinger

HenryBHough said:


> I cannot count the number of telephone pollsters I have filled so full of shit that their eyes turned brown.  I'm sure both sides are doing the same thing so trust those polls as much as your low IQ allows!


I call bullshit


----------



## JakeStarkey

rightwinger said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot count the number of telephone pollsters I have filled so full of shit that their eyes turned brown.  I'm sure both sides are doing the same thing so trust those polls as much as your low IQ allows!
> 
> 
> 
> I call bullshit
Click to expand...


HBH being surveyed by phone.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Since lots of polls are conducted on the weekend, I suspect that a *bevy* of end-polling results will be coming out today and tomorrow, so I may wait until very late on Tuesday to do the weekly analysis. Thereafter, if time permits (and that is a big IF right now, stuff going on in my life), I may do an analysis once a day.

One thing, however, is absolutely sure: mathematically, we are *NOT* seeing evidence of a GOP wave anywhere. The generic aggregate margin for the GOP is decidedly lower than it was at this point in time in 2010, a number of races (IA, AR, AK, CO) that should have opened way up for the GOP  - were there a real wave - are just as close as they were two weeks ago, if not closer, esp. in the case of Iowa. And don't forget, the RCP aggregate in 2010 was almost 4 points to the Right of reality, due mostly in part to very, very bad polling from both Gallup (a now discredited organization) and FOX News. This means that the real possibility exists that a +3.7 for the GOP on paper may actually mean a tie in the generic aggregate.  That is the beauty of building a historical database, we learn a lot about trends over time. Really, it's not rocket science.

In Georgia,* the possibility* of the GOP actually losing a seat, at least on November 4, is now *very, very large*, but hope abounds for the GOP that this goes into overtime and in a pure two-way runoff, that Perdue can yet prevail.

In Kansas, *the possibility* of the GOP losing a seat to an Independent is *very, very large*. So, where the GOP needed 6 to get to 51, it _may_ very well need 8. However, if Angus King (I-ME) were to switch sides, then the GOP would only need 7. That is a doable task, but again, MATHEMATICALLY, there is no sign of a large GOP wave, not even a sign of a small wave.

The GOP is narrowly ahead in  a number of traditionally crimson red states where Democratic incumbents or open seat contenders are struggling. That does not constitute a wave. Were this a wave, then, for instance, Tom Cotton (R) would be at least +10 over incumbent Pryor (D-inc) in Arkansas, a state that Mitt Romney (R) carried by +24 points.

And I will remind again that there is a distinct possibility that polling in Colorado is off, just as it was off in 2008, 2010 and 2012 - to the RIGHT, to note, *because of the gross miscalculation of the Latino vote*. That's not the partisan in me speaking, that is historical fact speaking, something I've addressed a number of times on this thread.


----------



## Statistikhengst

On a side note, I turned in my absentee ballot last week and did my civic duty. That is always a good feeling.

I want to encourage everyone in USMB to go vote.  I don't care who you vote for, that is your business, but go vote. Do your civic duty.


----------



## pepperpot

pepperpot said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since lots of polls are conducted on the weekend, I suspect that a *bevy* of end-polling results will be coming out today and tomorrow, so I may wait until very late on Tuesday to do the weekly analysis. Thereafter, if time permits (and that is a big IF right now, stuff going on in my life), I may do an analysis once a day.
> 
> One thing, however, is absolutely sure: mathematically, we are *NOT* seeing evidence of a GOP wave anywhere. The generic aggregate margin for the GOP is decidedly lower than it was at this point in time in 2010, a number of races (IA, AR, AK, CO) that should have opened way up for the GOP  - were there a real wave - are just as close as they were two weeks ago, if not closer, esp. in the case of Iowa. And don't forget, the RCP aggregate in 2010 was almost 4 points to the Right of reality, due mostly in part to very, very bad polling from both Gallup (a now discredited organization) and FOX News. This means that the real possibility exists that a +3.7 for the GOP on paper may actually mean a tie in the generic aggregate.  That is the beauty of building a historical database, we learn a lot about trends over time. Really, it's not rocket science.
> 
> In Georgia,* the possibility* of the GOP actually losing a seat, at least on November 4, is now *very, very large*, but hope abounds for the GOP that this goes into overtime and in a pure two-way runoff, that Perdue can yet prevail.
> 
> In Kansas, *the possibility* of the GOP losing a seat to an Independent is *very, very large*. So, where the GOP needed 6 to get to 51, it _may_ very well need 8. However, if Angus King (I-ME) were to switch sides, then the GOP would only need 7. That is a doable task, but again, MATHEMATICALLY, there is no sign of a large GOP wave, not even a sign of a small wave.
> 
> The GOP is narrowly ahead in  a number of traditionally crimson red states where Democratic incumbents or open seat contenders are struggling. That does not constitute a wave. Were this a wave, then, for instance, Tom Cotton (R) would be at least +10 over incumbent Pryor (D-inc) in Arkansas, a state that Mitt Romney (R) carried by +24 points.
> 
> And I will remind again that there is a distinct possibility that polling in Colorado is off, just as it was off in 2008, 2010 and 2012 - to the RIGHT, to note, *because of the gross miscalculation of the Latino vote*. That's not the partisan in me speaking, that is historical fact speaking, something I've addressed a number of times on this thread.
Click to expand...



Been watching a lot of the televised debates lately vs the candidates and have noticed there is a lack of what seems to be preparation by the democrats.  Most of my family are dems and they just sit and yell at the screen, its amusing.  I mean ebola and ISIS are the big topics it seems, why don't they have prepared answers?  I noticed at the Shaheen vs Brown debate and the Hagan vs Tillis debates whenever the Koch brothers came up, the audience booed.  I think its becoming a losing tactic and they need to go more aggressively after the republicans.  They seem to be stuck using the same two or three themes that worked in 2012, but its a brave new world now.


----------



## Statistikhengst

pepperpot said:


> pepperpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since lots of polls are conducted on the weekend, I suspect that a *bevy* of end-polling results will be coming out today and tomorrow, so I may wait until very late on Tuesday to do the weekly analysis. Thereafter, if time permits (and that is a big IF right now, stuff going on in my life), I may do an analysis once a day.
> 
> One thing, however, is absolutely sure: mathematically, we are *NOT* seeing evidence of a GOP wave anywhere. The generic aggregate margin for the GOP is decidedly lower than it was at this point in time in 2010, a number of races (IA, AR, AK, CO) that should have opened way up for the GOP  - were there a real wave - are just as close as they were two weeks ago, if not closer, esp. in the case of Iowa. And don't forget, the RCP aggregate in 2010 was almost 4 points to the Right of reality, due mostly in part to very, very bad polling from both Gallup (a now discredited organization) and FOX News. This means that the real possibility exists that a +3.7 for the GOP on paper may actually mean a tie in the generic aggregate.  That is the beauty of building a historical database, we learn a lot about trends over time. Really, it's not rocket science.
> 
> In Georgia,* the possibility* of the GOP actually losing a seat, at least on November 4, is now *very, very large*, but hope abounds for the GOP that this goes into overtime and in a pure two-way runoff, that Perdue can yet prevail.
> 
> In Kansas, *the possibility* of the GOP losing a seat to an Independent is *very, very large*. So, where the GOP needed 6 to get to 51, it _may_ very well need 8. However, if Angus King (I-ME) were to switch sides, then the GOP would only need 7. That is a doable task, but again, MATHEMATICALLY, there is no sign of a large GOP wave, not even a sign of a small wave.
> 
> The GOP is narrowly ahead in  a number of traditionally crimson red states where Democratic incumbents or open seat contenders are struggling. That does not constitute a wave. Were this a wave, then, for instance, Tom Cotton (R) would be at least +10 over incumbent Pryor (D-inc) in Arkansas, a state that Mitt Romney (R) carried by +24 points.
> 
> And I will remind again that there is a distinct possibility that polling in Colorado is off, just as it was off in 2008, 2010 and 2012 - to the RIGHT, to note, *because of the gross miscalculation of the Latino vote*. That's not the partisan in me speaking, that is historical fact speaking, something I've addressed a number of times on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Been watching a lot of the televised debates lately vs the candidates and have noticed there is a lack of what seems to be preparation by the democrats.  Most of my family are dems and they just sit and yell at the screen, its amusing.  I mean ebola and ISIS are the big topics it seems, why don't they have prepared answers?  I noticed at the Shaheen vs Brown debate and the Hagan vs Tillis debates whenever the Koch brothers came up, the audience booed.  I think its becoming a losing tactic and they need to go more aggressively after the republicans.  They seem to be stuck using the same two or three themes that worked in 2012, but its a brave new world now.
Click to expand...



Most of the debates I cannot see from where I live, but I am not so sure Democrats are unprepared in terms of information. They are probably just not expecting any sane person to use a health crisis as a battering ram in an election, but as in love and war, in elections, (almost) anything is fair game.


----------



## rightwinger

Statistikhengst said:


> pepperpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pepperpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since lots of polls are conducted on the weekend, I suspect that a *bevy* of end-polling results will be coming out today and tomorrow, so I may wait until very late on Tuesday to do the weekly analysis. Thereafter, if time permits (and that is a big IF right now, stuff going on in my life), I may do an analysis once a day.
> 
> One thing, however, is absolutely sure: mathematically, we are *NOT* seeing evidence of a GOP wave anywhere. The generic aggregate margin for the GOP is decidedly lower than it was at this point in time in 2010, a number of races (IA, AR, AK, CO) that should have opened way up for the GOP  - were there a real wave - are just as close as they were two weeks ago, if not closer, esp. in the case of Iowa. And don't forget, the RCP aggregate in 2010 was almost 4 points to the Right of reality, due mostly in part to very, very bad polling from both Gallup (a now discredited organization) and FOX News. This means that the real possibility exists that a +3.7 for the GOP on paper may actually mean a tie in the generic aggregate.  That is the beauty of building a historical database, we learn a lot about trends over time. Really, it's not rocket science.
> 
> In Georgia,* the possibility* of the GOP actually losing a seat, at least on November 4, is now *very, very large*, but hope abounds for the GOP that this goes into overtime and in a pure two-way runoff, that Perdue can yet prevail.
> 
> In Kansas, *the possibility* of the GOP losing a seat to an Independent is *very, very large*. So, where the GOP needed 6 to get to 51, it _may_ very well need 8. However, if Angus King (I-ME) were to switch sides, then the GOP would only need 7. That is a doable task, but again, MATHEMATICALLY, there is no sign of a large GOP wave, not even a sign of a small wave.
> 
> The GOP is narrowly ahead in  a number of traditionally crimson red states where Democratic incumbents or open seat contenders are struggling. That does not constitute a wave. Were this a wave, then, for instance, Tom Cotton (R) would be at least +10 over incumbent Pryor (D-inc) in Arkansas, a state that Mitt Romney (R) carried by +24 points.
> 
> And I will remind again that there is a distinct possibility that polling in Colorado is off, just as it was off in 2008, 2010 and 2012 - to the RIGHT, to note, *because of the gross miscalculation of the Latino vote*. That's not the partisan in me speaking, that is historical fact speaking, something I've addressed a number of times on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Been watching a lot of the televised debates lately vs the candidates and have noticed there is a lack of what seems to be preparation by the democrats.  Most of my family are dems and they just sit and yell at the screen, its amusing.  I mean ebola and ISIS are the big topics it seems, why don't they have prepared answers?  I noticed at the Shaheen vs Brown debate and the Hagan vs Tillis debates whenever the Koch brothers came up, the audience booed.  I think its becoming a losing tactic and they need to go more aggressively after the republicans.  They seem to be stuck using the same two or three themes that worked in 2012, but its a brave new world now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the debates I cannot see from where I live, but I am not so sure Democrats are unprepared in terms of information. They are probably just not expecting any sane person to use a health crisis as a battering ram in an election, but as in love and war, in elections, (almost) anything is fair game.
Click to expand...

 
The biggest challenge for Dems in this election cycle has been Republicans have kept their mouths shut. They have been schooled in not talking about legitimate rape, birth control and immigration


----------



## pepperpot

rightwinger said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pepperpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pepperpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since lots of polls are conducted on the weekend, I suspect that a *bevy* of end-polling results will be coming out today and tomorrow, so I may wait until very late on Tuesday to do the weekly analysis. Thereafter, if time permits (and that is a big IF right now, stuff going on in my life), I may do an analysis once a day.
> 
> One thing, however, is absolutely sure: mathematically, we are *NOT* seeing evidence of a GOP wave anywhere. The generic aggregate margin for the GOP is decidedly lower than it was at this point in time in 2010, a number of races (IA, AR, AK, CO) that should have opened way up for the GOP  - were there a real wave - are just as close as they were two weeks ago, if not closer, esp. in the case of Iowa. And don't forget, the RCP aggregate in 2010 was almost 4 points to the Right of reality, due mostly in part to very, very bad polling from both Gallup (a now discredited organization) and FOX News. This means that the real possibility exists that a +3.7 for the GOP on paper may actually mean a tie in the generic aggregate.  That is the beauty of building a historical database, we learn a lot about trends over time. Really, it's not rocket science.
> 
> In Georgia,* the possibility* of the GOP actually losing a seat, at least on November 4, is now *very, very large*, but hope abounds for the GOP that this goes into overtime and in a pure two-way runoff, that Perdue can yet prevail.
> 
> In Kansas, *the possibility* of the GOP losing a seat to an Independent is *very, very large*. So, where the GOP needed 6 to get to 51, it _may_ very well need 8. However, if Angus King (I-ME) were to switch sides, then the GOP would only need 7. That is a doable task, but again, MATHEMATICALLY, there is no sign of a large GOP wave, not even a sign of a small wave.
> 
> The GOP is narrowly ahead in  a number of traditionally crimson red states where Democratic incumbents or open seat contenders are struggling. That does not constitute a wave. Were this a wave, then, for instance, Tom Cotton (R) would be at least +10 over incumbent Pryor (D-inc) in Arkansas, a state that Mitt Romney (R) carried by +24 points.
> 
> And I will remind again that there is a distinct possibility that polling in Colorado is off, just as it was off in 2008, 2010 and 2012 - to the RIGHT, to note, *because of the gross miscalculation of the Latino vote*. That's not the partisan in me speaking, that is historical fact speaking, something I've addressed a number of times on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Been watching a lot of the televised debates lately vs the candidates and have noticed there is a lack of what seems to be preparation by the democrats.  Most of my family are dems and they just sit and yell at the screen, its amusing.  I mean ebola and ISIS are the big topics it seems, why don't they have prepared answers?  I noticed at the Shaheen vs Brown debate and the Hagan vs Tillis debates whenever the Koch brothers came up, the audience booed.  I think its becoming a losing tactic and they need to go more aggressively after the republicans.  They seem to be stuck using the same two or three themes that worked in 2012, but its a brave new world now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the debates I cannot see from where I live, but I am not so sure Democrats are unprepared in terms of information. They are probably just not expecting any sane person to use a health crisis as a battering ram in an election, but as in love and war, in elections, (almost) anything is fair game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The biggest challenge for Dems in this election cycle has been Republicans have kept their mouths shut. They have been schooled in not talking about legitimate rape, birth control and immigration
Click to expand...

There is an article about just that this morning.  It basically says the reason for that is the GOP has picked more women to run.

How the war on women is changing - CNN.com


----------



## Statistikhengst

So, in 6 days, we Americans will go to the polls and elect a new US-Congress. Actually, many of us have already voted. I sent in my absentee ballot 10 days ago.  

Regardless of your political orientation, which is no one's business but your own, I encourage EVERYONE who is a US citizen to go vote. It is a right enumerated in the US-Constitution and I personally consider it to be a civic duty.

The time frame between 2 weeks before this election and 1 week before this election has seen a number of races tighten-up more rather than open-up. This already flys in the face of conventional wisdom and electoral polling statistics, which means that in many ways, the 2014 mid-terms will be a set of elections for the record-books, I suspect.

The real shift right now continues seen in Georgia, where Democrat Michelle Nunn is picking up steam and it really does look like a tied-up horserace. There are, for my way of thinking, four real horseraces: *Georgia* (Perdue vs. Nunn), *Kansas* (Roberts vs. Orman), *North Carolina* (Tillis vs. Hagan) and *Iowa* (Ernst vs. Braley)

I wrote two weeks ago that Gary Peters (D-MI) was going to leave the battlegrounds. His aggregate stood at *+9* last week which was well inside the comfort zone.  This week, it now stands at *+11*, so the decision to remove him from the battlegrounds was a correct decision. The RNC has also pulled money out of MI, which means they have given up on it.

In Kentucky, the DNC had pulled funds out of Kentucky and it looked like Mitch McConnell will be re-elected, but then newer polling convinced the DNC to switch course, probably all for naught.

Also, one week ago, I noted that usually around the -3 to -2 week period, pols, pollsters, pundits and the like often call it the break-away period, where one candidate starts to surge into a major lead. We are not seeing that, either. *This year is somehow just a little different that other mid-terms*.

Here was the posting from eight days ago:

2014 battle for control of the US Senate Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


And here are the aggregates as of today, October 29, 2014:


*DEMOCRATS LEADING:*​







Aggregate, NH:

August 11, 2014: *Shaheen +10.4*
September 16, 2014: *Shaheen +3.5*
September 22, 2014: *Shaheen +5.0*
October 2, 2014: *Shaheen +4.0*
October 7, 2014: *Shaheen +4.6*
October 15, 2014: *Shaheen +3.5*
October 21, 2014: *Shaheen +2.6*
October 29, 2014:* Shaheen +2.2*

The needle has moved 0.4 in Scott Brown's (R) direction, but Shaheen has lead in 5 of the last 6 polls, and they are all well within the 2-week standard time-frame for making realistic aggregate values. That being said, Shaheen has lost a lot of ground since August. This race could easily tip at the last minute, but for now, we are seeing a small but resilient lead for the incumbent Democrat. A disadvantage for Shaheen is that New Hampshire is one of 14 states in our Union that does NOT allow early voting, so she has had no way to "bank" some votes before election day. That being said, the last round of polling for New Hampshire, in 2012, was off to Right by about 3.4 points (Obama vs. Romney): see the bottom of this posting.


*REPUBLICANS leading:*​



 


Aggregate, AK:

August 11, 2014: -no aggregate was possible-
September 16, 2014: *Sullivan +1.3*
September 22, 2014: *Sullivan +1.3*
October 2, 2014: *Sullivan +4.7*
October 7, 2014: *Sullivan +4.7*
October 15, 2014: *Sullivan +4.4*
October 21, 2014:* Sullivan +4.4*
October 29, 2014:* Sullivan +2.2*

There has been new polling in Alaska (finally) and the needle has moved +2.2 points toward Begich (D-inc),  a considerable shift and pretty much a mirror-image of the New Hampshire race. An aggregate +2.2 is well with the MoE, so were this figure to hold, these races could easily be coin-flips. In both cases, the underdog has made gains.

​



Aggregate, CO:

August 11, 2014: *Udall +3.7*
September 16, 2014: *Udall +1.5*
September 22, 2014: *Udall +0.6*
October 2, 2014: *Gardner +1.5*
October 7, 2014: *Gardner +0.6*
October 15, 2014: *Gardner +1.4*
October 21, 2014: *Gardner +3.0*
October 29, 2014: *Gardner +3.3*

The needle has moved +0.3 points in Gardner's direction. In the postings from October 15th and from October 7th, I reminded how very off polling was in Colorado and in Nevada in 2010, also in 2012. Reason: gross miscalculation of the Latino vote.  But on paper, Gardner has the lead. +3.3 is still within the MoE.





 


Aggregate, KY:

August 11, 2014: *McConnell +2.5*
September 16, 2014: *McConnell +5.2*
September 22, 2014: *McConnell +5.2*
October 2, 2014: *McConnell +5.3*
October 7, 2014:* McConnell +4.2*
October 15, 2014:* McConnell +3.0*
October 21, 2014:* McConnell +4.7*
October 29, 2014: *McConnell +4.4*

The needle has moved +0.3 toward Grimes (D)- which is statistical noise, but this race has been at +3 to +5 for McConnell now for 6 weeks straight. He has a somewhat slim but very stable lead over his Democratic challenger. Now only that, McConnell has won in tight races before, he is a survivor. And he is winning in a ruby-red state that Mitt Romney carried by almost +23 point two years ago.









Aggregate, AR:

September 16, 2014: *Cotton +2.5*
September 22, 2014: *Cotton +2.5*
October 2, 2014: *Cotton +3.6*
October 7, 2014: *Cotton +3.7*
October 15, 2014: *Cotton +4.4*
October 21, 2014: *Cotton +3.6*
October 29, 2014: *Cotton +5.0*

The needle has jumped +1.4 toward Republican challenger Tom Cotton and +5 is definitely outside the MoE. If these numbers hold, then Cotton will easily defeat Pryor (D-inc) in a ruby-red state that Mitt Romney carried by almost 24 points two years ago.

Please notice the numeric relation between the current aggregates in both Arkansas and Kentucky vis-a-vis the 2012 electoral statistic: in both states, the Republican candidates for US-Senate are running ca. 19 points behind Romney's landslide margins from 2012. Both states are in the South and both states are part of the "Bible Belt".




 

Double aggregate, LA:

Jungle Primary, October 2, 2014: *Landrieu +1.2*
Jungle Primary, October 7, 2014: *Landrieu +2.7*
Jungle Primary, October 15, 2014: *Landrieu +2.7*
Jungle Primary, October 21, 2014: *Landrieu +2.8*
Jungle Primary, October 29, 2014: *Landrieu +4.2*

Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 2, 2014: *Cassidy +4.6*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 7, 2014: *Cassidy +5.6*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 15, 2014: *Cassidy +5.6*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 21, 2014: *Cassidy +5.3*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 29, 2014: *Cassidy +4.5*

There has been an interesting change in this double aggregate. In the Jungle primary; the needle just moved +1.4 toward Landrieu (D-inc), definitely outside of the MoE. And the needle moved +0.8 toward her in the polling for a possible runoff.  Only, third party candidate Maness is really holding well at an aggregate of 9 points. This means that Landrieu needs at least a +6 aggregate to have a chance of getting over 50% in the Jungle Primary This  will very likely go into overtime.  I did the mathematical extrapolation for this on October 7th.



New addition to the battlegrounds, which will leave the battlegrounds after today:




 


Aggregate:

October 21, 2014 (RCP): *Rounds +9.8*
actual aggregate: *Rounds +3.5*
October 29, 2014 (RCP): *Rounds +12.0*

The newer polling shows that Rounds is very likely to win in SD, after all. SD goes off the battleground list after today.  The possibility of him losing in a three man race, with the opposition so split against him, is null.



*THE REAL DOGFIGHTS - DOWN TO THE WIRE:*​






Aggregate, IA:

August 11, 2014: *Ernst +0.8*
September 16, 2014: *Braley +1.4*
September 22: *Braley +0.1*
October 2, 2014: *Ernst +2.8*
October 7, 2014: *Ernst +1.9*
October 15, 2014: *Ernst +1.2*
October 21, 2014: *Ernst +2.5*
October 29, 2014: *Ernst +1.7*

The needle has moved 0.8 points toward Braley (D), Ernst has lost ground since last week, with one poll showing an absolute tie one poll showing Braley ahead by a nose. If you remove all polls that are more than two weeks old (the two bottom polls), then the aggregate is: _*Ernst +1.6*_, practically the same. Iowa is living up to it's tradition of being a real battleground/tossup state: in large national waves for President, Iowa goes easily with the national winner (Clinton '92 and '96, Obama '08). In squeaker elections, it goes by a hair for the winner in the national popular vote (Gore '00, Bush '04) and in a moderate election win, it goes with a moderate value (Obama '12) for the winner. In presidential politics, you have to go back 26 years to find Iowa bucking the national trend. 

In statewide politics, we have had less of a chance to see how "battlegroundy" (not a word, but should be  ) this state can be, due to long-term incumbents at the Senatorial level. A +1.7 for any candidate going into the final days of an election cycle can only mean that this may just as well be coin toss. And I suspect that directly before election day, this race will get tighter.  *Polls in Iowa close at 10 PM, EDT* and I strongly suspect that this race will not be called until the next day. The disadvantage for Braley is that Iowa does early voting and no-excuse absentee voting and this means that lots of voters had a chance to already cast ballots when Ernst (R) was at a higher-water-mark.





 



Aggregate, NC:

August 11, 2014: *Tillis +1.3*
September 16, 2014: *Hagan +3.7*
September 22,2014: *Hagan +5.0*
October 2, 2014: *Hagan +4.2*
October 7, 2014: *Hagan +3.7*
October 15, 2014: *Hagan +1.5*
October 21, 2014:* Hagan +1.2*
October 29, 2014:* Hagan +1.2*

The needle has not budged since October 21 and there have now been three tied polls. Within five weeks time, Hagan's aggregate has shrunk from +5 (right at the outer edge of the true battleground zone) to a mere +1.2. The one factor in Hagan's favor is that she has maintained an aggregate lead now for 7 weeeks and North Carolina, like Iowa, does early voting and no-excuse absentee ballots.  *The polls in North Carolina close at 7:30 PM EDT* on election day and I strongly suspect that this race will not be called until either well into the next morning or day.








Aggregate, GA:

August 11, 2014: *Perdue +3.2*
September 16, 2014: *Perdue +3.0*
September 22, 2014: *Perdue +3.3*
October 2, 2014: *Perdue +3.4*
October 7, 2014: *Perdue +3.1*
October 15, 2014: *Perdue +2.7*
October 21, 2014: *Perdue +0.6*
October 29, 2014: *Perdue +0.5*

The needle has moved *0.1* points toward Michelle Nunn (D), which is nothing more than statistical noise.  This race has stood still over over week and every single one of those polls are new polls.

This makes this race one of the two closest aggregates at this time and the largest overall shift over last two weeks. The problem is, with a third party candidate likely to score at least 2 points or more, a +.5 to +1 win for either major candidate means that no one gets over 50%, which means that Georgia, like Louisiana, is very likely to go into overtime.  The polls close in all of Georgia at 7 PM, EDT and I am pretty sure that this race will not be called for many hours, if not for a day. Georgia, like North Carolina and Iowa, has early voting and no excuse absentee ballots. And Georgia *also* has a problem with some 40,000 ballot applications that for some mysterious reason have still not been processed, which is in and of itself downright negligent, if not criminal. Those ballot applications, presumably all from legal US Citizens and citzens of the state of Georgia, come from heavily African-American voting areas, so legal challenges to voters who were outright suppressed by heavy-handed tactics on the part of some election officials in GA could muddy up this race even more.




 


Aggregate, KS:
September 22, 2014: *Orman +1.2*
October 2, 2014: *Orman +5.3*
October 7, 2014: *Orman +5.3*
October 15, 2014: *mathematical tie*
October 21, 2014: *mathematical tie*
October 29, 2014: *Orman +0.9*

The needle has move 0.9 toward Orman (I), putting him close to where he was 5 weeks ago, but nowhere near his high-water mark from October 7th.

One week ago, I noted this:



> Monmouth has released a poll of KS:
> 
> http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32...1087/145f0962-9f03-4ef3-a9e7-78534f38d6d2.pdf
> 
> Orman 46 / Roberts 46.



That poll, from a respected national pollster, has *still* not been included in the aggregate, which I find quite suspect. If you include the poll into the aggregate, then Orman's lead shrinks ever so slightly to *+0.7*. This is a pretty sure sign that the GOP base is coming back to Roberts (R). This question is: _is that enough?_ 

For KS, contrary to conventional wisdom, is NOT a GOP-majority state in terms of voter registration. It is a high GOP minority state with a substantial plurality against the D's, currently: *R (44.11%)*, I (30.84%), D (24.33%), margin: R +19.78%.



 

Source.

This can only mean that for Orman to be doing this well, he is sweeping both the D and I vote and taking probably about 11% of the R vote at this time. I will do a better extrapolation of this later. Kansas does both early voting and no-excuse absentee voting, just like North Carolina, Iowa and Georgia. The polls for most all of Kansas close at 8 PM EDT, but because of at least one county that closes at 9 PM EDT, the state will not even be releasing votes until 9 PM EDT.

*I cannot imagine any calls from any credible news sources for North Carolina, Iowa, Georgia or Kansas until well into the night, or even the next day.  *

In New Hampshire, however, the call may come earlier than people think.  In 2012, the polling aggregate in NH for President Obama was: +2.50.  In reality, Obama won by *+5.58%* and New Hampshire was called for the President at 10:03 PM EDT on election night on CNN and it was called even earlier for him on: CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC and FOX.

*FACIT:* we have seen races tighten up or stay exquisitely tight in: Alaska, New Hampshire, Iowa, North Carolina, Georgia and Kansas.

We have seen the races open or close very slightly in: Kentucky and Colorado.

We have seen the races open in a statistically important way in: Arkansas and Lousiana.

That being said, in the generic aggregate, the GOP lead SHRUNK since last week:







Generic aggregate, October 2, 2014: *GOP +2.9*
Generic aggregate, October 7, 2014:* GOP +2.1*
Generic aggregate, October 15, 2014:* GOP +2.4*
Generic aggregate, October 21, 2014:* GOP +3.4*
Generic aggregate, October 29, 2014:* GOP +2.0*

Shift: +1.4 toward the Democratic Party.
+2.0 is well within the MoE.

For comparision purposes, the generic aggregate from 2010, with the polls in just about the same time frame, was *GOP +8.2*. 



 

So, the GOP is 6 full aggregate points BEHIND where it was in 2010 and that end aggregate was off by more than 3 points to the Right. So, the generic may be actually tied-up right now.

The generic ballot still does not show a GOP wave forming, but the critical point is that *the GOP is winning where it needs to win*, which is exactly in line with 160 years of US mid-term election history:

Congressional Elections compared to Presidential Terms 1855-present US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

*This is all going to be a matter of voter interest and GOTV, plain and simple.* And I bet that the control of the Senate will go into overtime in both Georgia and Louisiana. And to make matters worse, according to Georgia's calendar:

2014 elections and voter registration calendar

federal runoffs for Georgia are not in December, they are in JANUARY. The runoff date for the Senatorial, if I have read this correctly, is Tuesday, January 5th, 2015, after the next session of Congress has already begun. That is just crazy.  The runoff in Louisiana is on December 2nd, 2014.

Those are the current stats.

-Stat


----------



## Interpol

Yup, it's all GOTV at this point for control of the Senate. Although it looks to be a down year for the Democrats, in the overall it's hard to ignore that they're more competitive in some places that have historically been easier for Republicans to win. It looks like the best McConnell can do is about 53-47. No one can say he's got the "Big Mo" in that race. In fact, it appears he is one of the candidates out there who isn't finishing strong. 

Joni Ernst isn't finishing strong either. Jean Shaheen and Kay Hagan on the Democratic side are in the same boat as Ernst in that voters are a little more reluctant to say they support them when polled because they're incumbents, not the most popular thing to be this year. 

Perdue isn't finishing strong either while Michelle Nunn seems to be starting to turn the tide in Georgia. That race and the one in Kansas appear to be dead heats. 

Mark Begich has come out of nowhere in recent days to lead in a couple or three polls in Alaska. 

Pryor needs a big turnout, but it looks like Arkansas is slipping away from the Democrats. Same too with Udall in Colorado and Landrieu in Louisiana, even if she wins the first vote. 

Even though RCP now shows 45-45 with 10 undecided states, I'm going to say 49-45 for the GOP with 6 way-too-close-to-call states. GOP has to go 2-4 for control while Democrats have to go 5-1. 

Harder for the Dems to keep control, but things look a lot tighter than a few weeks ago. No longer a GOP wave as much as it is a shift.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Interpol said:


> Yup, it's all GOTV at this point for control of the Senate. Although it looks to be a down year for the Democrats, in the overall it's hard to ignore that they're more competitive in some places that have historically been easier for Republicans to win. It looks like the best McConnell can do is about 53-47. No one can say he's got the "Big Mo" in that race. In fact, it appears he is one of the candidates out there who isn't finishing strong.
> 
> Joni Ernst isn't finishing strong either. Jean Shaheen and Kay Hagan on the Democratic side are in the same boat as Ernst in that voters are a little more reluctant to say they support them when polled because they're incumbents, not the most popular thing to be this year.
> 
> Perdue isn't finishing strong either while Michelle Nunn seems to be starting to turn the tide in Georgia. That race and the one in Kansas appear to be dead heats.
> 
> Mark Begich has come out of nowhere in recent days to lead in a couple or three polls in Alaska.
> 
> Pryor needs a big turnout, but it looks like Arkansas is slipping away from the Democrats. Same too with Udall in Colorado and Landrieu in Louisiana, even if she wins the first vote.
> 
> Even though RCP now shows 45-45 with 10 undecided states, I'm going to say 49-45 for the GOP with 6 way-too-close-to-call states. GOP has to go 2-4 for control while Democrats have to go 5-1.
> 
> Harder for the Dems to keep control, but things look a lot tighter than a few weeks ago. No longer a GOP wave as much as it is a shift.


Indeed.  3 key Democratic retirements are making some of this possible,  + the GOP is winning in some states that default Republican in prez cycles.  I would not place too much value on the polling for Colorado. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst

So, in 3 days and a couple of hours, we Americans will start to go to the polls and elect a new US-Congress. In about 4 days, most of the results, but not all, will be in.

This is a quick in-between analysis, because I am quite sure there will be flurry of last minute polls both conducted and published this weekend.

On Monday, I will open up a 2014 results thread with links to all sorts of sources.


There are, for my way of thinking, four real horseraces: *Georgia* (Perdue vs. Nunn), *Kansas* (Roberts vs. Orman), *North Carolina* (Tillis vs. Hagan) and *Iowa* (Ernst vs. Braley)

I wrote two weeks ago that Gary Peters (D-MI) was going to leave the battlegrounds. His aggregate stood at *+9* last week which was well inside the comfort zone.  Four days ago, it stood at *+11*, it is now at *+12.2* so the decision to remove him from the battlegrounds was a correct decision. The RNC has also pulled money out of MI, which means they have given up on it. Likewise, in South Dakota, Mike Rounds is now up to *+12.2*, so logically, SD is no longer in the analysis.


*DEMOCRATS LEADING:*​






Aggregate, NH:

August 11, 2014: *Shaheen +10.4*
September 16, 2014: *Shaheen +3.5*
September 22, 2014: *Shaheen +5.0*
October 2, 2014: *Shaheen +4.0*
October 7, 2014: *Shaheen +4.6*
October 15, 2014: *Shaheen +3.5*
October 21, 2014: *Shaheen +2.6*
October 29, 2014:* Shaheen +2.2*
November 1, 2014: *Shaheen +3.4*

The needle has moved 1.2 back toward incumbent Shaheen, who has lead in 6 of the last 8 polls, and they are all well within the 2-week standard time-frame for making realistic aggregate values.


*REPUBLICANS leading:*​


 



Aggregate, AK:

August 11, 2014: -no aggregate was possible-
September 16, 2014: *Sullivan +1.3*
September 22, 2014: *Sullivan +1.3*
October 2, 2014: *Sullivan +4.7*
October 7, 2014: *Sullivan +4.7*
October 15, 2014: *Sullivan +4.4*
October 21, 2014:* Sullivan +4.4*
October 29, 2014:* Sullivan +2.2*
November 1, 2014: *Sullivan +2.6*

There has been new polling in Alaska (finally) and the needle has moved +0.4 points toward Sullivan. It's still close, but Sullivan has a lean but consistent lead.






Aggregate, CO:

August 11, 2014: *Udall +3.7*
September 16, 2014: *Udall +1.5*
September 22, 2014: *Udall +0.6*
October 2, 2014: *Gardner +1.5*
October 7, 2014: *Gardner +0.6*
October 15, 2014: *Gardner +1.4*
October 21, 2014: *Gardner +3.0*
October 29, 2014: *Gardner +3.3*
November 1, 2014: *Udall +3.6*

The needle has moved again +0.3 points in Gardner's direction. In the postings from October 15th and from October 7th, I reminded how very off polling was in Colorado and in Nevada in 2010, also in 2012. Reason: gross miscalculation of the Latino vote.  But on paper, Gardner has the lead. +3.6 is still just within the MoE.








Aggregate, KY:

August 11, 2014: *McConnell +2.5*
September 16, 2014: *McConnell +5.2*
September 22, 2014: *McConnell +5.2*
October 2, 2014: *McConnell +5.3*
October 7, 2014:* McConnell +4.2*
October 15, 2014:* McConnell +3.0*
October 21, 2014:* McConnell +4.7*
October 29, 2014: *McConnell +4.4*
November 1, 2014:* McConnell +5.5*

The needle has moved 1.1 points toward incumbent McConnell. He is winning in a ruby-red state that Mitt Romney carried by almost +23 point two years ago.




 


Aggregate, AR:

September 16, 2014: *Cotton +2.5*
September 22, 2014: *Cotton +2.5*
October 2, 2014: *Cotton +3.6*
October 7, 2014: *Cotton +3.7*
October 15, 2014: *Cotton +4.4*
October 21, 2014: *Cotton +3.6*
October 29, 2014: *Cotton +5.0*
November 1, 2014:* Cotton +7.0*

The needle has jumped +2.0 toward Republican challenger Tom Cotton and +7 is definitely outside the MoE, and now outside the battlegrounds. If these numbers hold, then Cotton will easily defeat Pryor (D-inc) in a ruby-red state that Mitt Romney carried by almost 24 points two years ago.



 


Double aggregate, LA:

Jungle Primary, October 2, 2014: *Landrieu +1.2*
Jungle Primary, October 7, 2014: *Landrieu +2.7*
Jungle Primary, October 15, 2014: *Landrieu +2.7*
Jungle Primary, October 21, 2014: *Landrieu +2.8*
Jungle Primary, October 29, 2014: *Landrieu +4.2*
Jungle Primary, November 1, 2014: *Landrieu +4.2*

Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 2, 2014: *Cassidy +4.6*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 7, 2014: *Cassidy +5.6*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 15, 2014: *Cassidy +5.6*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 21, 2014: *Cassidy +5.3*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 29, 2014: *Cassidy +4.5*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 29, 2014: *Cassidy +4.5*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, November 1, 2014: *Cassidy +4.5*

No change since Wednesday. A runoff is absolutely going to happen in this state.



*THE REAL DOGFIGHTS - DOWN TO THE WIRE:*​



 


Aggregate, IA:

August 11, 2014: *Ernst +0.8*
September 16, 2014: *Braley +1.4*
September 22: *Braley +0.1*
October 2, 2014: *Ernst +2.8*
October 7, 2014: *Ernst +1.9*
October 15, 2014: *Ernst +1.2*
October 21, 2014: *Ernst +2.5*
October 29, 2014: *Ernst +1.7*
November 1, 2014: *Ernst +1.2*

The needle has moved 0.5 points toward Braley (D). Flip a coin.




 



Aggregate, NC:

August 11, 2014: *Tillis +1.3*
September 16, 2014: *Hagan +3.7*
September 22,2014: *Hagan +5.0*
October 2, 2014: *Hagan +4.2*
October 7, 2014: *Hagan +3.7*
October 15, 2014: *Hagan +1.5*
October 21, 2014:* Hagan +1.2*
October 29, 2014:* Hagan +1.2*
November 1, 2014: *Hagan +1.6*


After two weeks of the needle not budging at all, it has now moved +0.4 toward Hagan (D-inc). Within six weeks time, Hagan's aggregate has shrunk from +5 (right at the outer edge of the true battleground zone) to a mere +1.6.Dogfight. Flip a coin.



 


Aggregate, GA:

August 11, 2014: *Perdue +3.2*
September 16, 2014: *Perdue +3.0*
September 22, 2014: *Perdue +3.3*
October 2, 2014: *Perdue +3.4*
October 7, 2014: *Perdue +3.1*
October 15, 2014: *Perdue +2.7*
October 21, 2014: *Perdue +0.6*
October 29, 2014: *Perdue +0.5*
October 29, 2014: *Perdue +0.5*

The needle has moved agin *0.1* points toward Michelle Nunn (D), which is nothing more than statistical noise.  This race has stood still over over week and every single one of those polls are new polls.

This makes this race one of the two closest aggregates at this time and the largest overall shift over last two weeks. The problem is, with a third party candidate likely to score at least 2 points or more, a +.5 to +1 win for either major candidate means that no one gets over 50%, which means that Georgia, like Louisiana, is very likely to go into overtime.  The polls close in all of Georgia at 7 PM, EDT and I am pretty sure that this race will not be called for many hours, if not for a day. 

Flip a coin.




 


Aggregate, KS:
September 22, 2014: *Orman +1.2*
October 2, 2014: *Orman +5.3*
October 7, 2014: *Orman +5.3*
October 15, 2014: *mathematical tie*
October 21, 2014: *mathematical tie*
October 29, 2014: *Orman +0.9*
November 1, 2014:* Orman +1.0*

The needle has moved 0.1 toward Orman (I) - statistical noise - putting him close to where he was 5 weeks ago, but nowhere near his high-water mark from October 7th. Flip a coin.

*FACIT:* in the last three days, we have seen races tighten up or stay exquisitely tight in: Alaska,  Iowa, North Carolina, Georgia and Kansas.

We have seen the races open or close very slightly in:  Colorado.

We have seen the races open in a statistically important way in: New Hampshire, Arkansas and Kentucky.

In the Generic ballot:




 

Generic aggregate, October 2, 2014: *GOP +2.9*
Generic aggregate, October 7, 2014:* GOP +2.1*
Generic aggregate, October 15, 2014:* GOP +2.4*
Generic aggregate, October 21, 2014:* GOP +3.4*
Generic aggregate, October 29, 2014:* GOP +2.0*
Generic aggregate, November 1, 2014:* GOP +2.5*

Shift: +0.5 toward the GOP.
+2.5 is well within the MoE.


Compared to the generic from 4 years ago:




 


Right before election day 2010, the generic aggregate stood at: *GOP +9.4*

Now, election day 2010 was on November 2nd, not on November 4th, and RCP's final calculation is only for the last week of polls. If we extend that to the final two weeks but eliminate all polls conducted at an end day of 10/30/2010 (3 days before the election, which would be today in this cycle, and those polls have not yet been published in this cycle), then the aggregate would be *GOP +8.3*.

Right now, the generic aggregate shows the GOP 5.8 points behind 4 years ago.


So, the changes over the last three days only confirm movement we expected to see in two of the deepest of red states: *Kentucky* and *Arkansas*. It also confirms that the race is still a pure dogfight in *Georgia, Kansas, Iowa* and *North Carolina*.

The GOP is still winning, but still, no sign of a wave.

BTW, YouGov is predicting on the HOR level that the GOP will pick up between 6-12 seats. I have been predicting all year long about 11 seats.

Final analysis on Tuesday afternoon, and some individual polls may be analysed in between.


----------



## Statistikhengst

So, tomorrow, Americans will go to the polls to elect a new congress.  Actually, assuming a 40% voter turnout from 184 million registered voters, that means that about 73.6 million ballots will be cast, and of those ballots, 17.1 (or about 23%) million or so have ALREADY been cast, per early voting:






Before comparing the aggregates to the last days and weeks, I want to provide what is called a *"funnel-view"*, based on the aggregates from RealClearPolitics (a Right-leaning sight, but like HuffPo and TPM, does a very good job of collecting the numbers most of the time):

*Way outside of the battlegrounds:*
SD*: *Rounds (R) +12.2*
MI*: *Peters (D) +12.2*
(those two were in battleground-consideration for a while, now no longer)

_*Outside of the battlegrounds, likely to be non-competitive:*_
AR*: *Cotton (R) +7.1*
KY:* McConnell (R-inc) +6.5*
LA*: *Landrieu (D-inc) +5.5 (LA "Jungle-Primary)*

_*Inside the battlegrounds, outside the MoE:*_
CO*: *Gardner (R) +3.9*

_*Inside the battlegrounds, within the MoE, directly outside the tossops (+2):*_
AK*: *Sullivan (R) +2.4*

_*Tossups (less than +2):*_
IA*:* Ernst (R) +1.8*
GA*: *Perdue (R) +1.8*
NC*: *Hagan (D-inc) +1.6*
NH: *Shaheen (D-inc) +1.4*
KS*: *Orman (I) +0.7*

*states with early voting. See: map




Here is a link to that map:

Absentee and Early Voting

That map is clickable so that you can see the exact parameters for states that do early voting. This is important, for in races that have tightened up on the last week in states with early voting, that may be of little help to the losing side, for the winning side may have "banked" enough votes in order to get over the finish-line. This applies to BOTH parties and also to Independent candidate Orman (KS).  So, of the states that many have been tracking as battlegrounds over the last month, only New Hampshire and Kentucky do not have early voting of any kind at all.


I am also organizing the categories differently this time:

Outside of the battlegrounds.

Within the battlegrounds.

Within the MoE.

True-tossups.

Likely to go into overtime:


*Outside of the BATTLEGROUNDS:*​




Aggregate, AR:

September 16, 2014: *Cotton +2.5*
September 22, 2014: *Cotton +2.5*
October 2, 2014: *Cotton +3.6*
October 7, 2014: *Cotton +3.7*
October 15, 2014: *Cotton +4.4*
October 21, 2014: *Cotton +3.6*
October 29, 2014: *Cotton +5.0*
November 1, 2014:* Cotton +7.0*
November 3, 2014: *Cotton +7.1*

The needle has jumped +0.1 toward Cotton (R) - this is statistical noise. Cotton is going to pick-up Arkansas for the GOP and AR will likely be the first state to be called _as a loss for a Democratic incumbent on election night_. The polls close at 8:30 PM EDT (07:30 CDT) and I suspect that within one hour after poll closings, the race will be called.



 

Aggregate, KY:

August 11, 2014: *McConnell +2.5*
September 16, 2014: *McConnell +5.2*
September 22, 2014: *McConnell +5.2*
October 2, 2014: *McConnell +5.3*
October 7, 2014:* McConnell +4.2*
October 15, 2014:* McConnell +3.0*
October 21, 2014:* McConnell +4.7*
October 29, 2014: *McConnell +4.4*
November 1, 2014:* McConnell +5.5*
November 3, 2014: *McConnell +6.5*

The needle has moved 1 point toward incumbent McConnell over this weekend, and this is statisticall important. Mitch McConnell (R-inc) is going to retain his seat and what started as a very close, competitive contest has opened up to a comfortable lead for him. In fact, I suspect that his end-margin will surpass his 2008 margin. Some of the polls in Kentucky close at 6:30 PM EDT, the rest close at 7:00 PM EDT (6:00 PM CDT) on election night, and if this aggregate holds, the networks should be able to call this race by 08:30 PM at the latest. They will probably wait until enough of the Louisville vote is in to confirm that the votes out of this Democratic stronghold would not be able to overcome a McConnell lead elsewhere.



 


Double aggregate, LA:

Jungle Primary, October 2, 2014: *Landrieu +1.2*
Jungle Primary, October 7, 2014: *Landrieu +2.7*
Jungle Primary, October 15, 2014: *Landrieu +2.7*
Jungle Primary, October 21, 2014: *Landrieu +2.8*
Jungle Primary, October 29, 2014: *Landrieu +4.2*
Jungle Primary, November 1, 2014: *Landrieu +4.2*
Jungle Primary, November 3, 2014: *Landrieu +5.5*

Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 2, 2014: *Cassidy +4.6*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 7, 2014: *Cassidy +5.6*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 15, 2014: *Cassidy +5.6*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 21, 2014: *Cassidy +5.3*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 29, 2014: *Cassidy +4.5*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 29, 2014: *Cassidy +4.5*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, November 1, 2014: *Cassidy +4.5*
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, November 1, 2014: *Cassidy +4.6*

So, an interesting thing is happening in Louisiana: Democratic incumbent Landrieu's margin is increasing, which means it is extremely likely that she wins the Jungle-Primary tomorrow night. The bad news is that 4 of the last 5 polls show third party Maness (R) with double digits (11, 13, 15, 15), so there is absolutely no way that Landrieu is going to get to 50%. I can already now call overtime for this race and then it is a matter of motivating enough voters to come out and vote a second time for the US-Senate. Maness is guaranteed to lose and the assumption is that the R vote that went for him will likely shift to Cassidy in the runoff. The polls close in all of Louisana at 9:00 PM EDT (8:00 PM local time) and I assume this race will be called within two hours. A +5.5 lead is pretty easy to determine.  The stations will wait long enough to see what kind of margin Landrieu is getting out of New Orleans in order to call the race overall.

Traditionally, third party candidates' percentages tend to be lower in the actual count as compared to the poll aggregates, but in this case, Maness' percentage has climbed so dramatically, I am not sure that his will drop. He really COULD hit 15%.

*Within the battlegrounds:*​


 

Aggregate, CO:

August 11, 2014: *Udall +3.7*
September 16, 2014: *Udall +1.5*
September 22, 2014: *Udall +0.6*
October 2, 2014: *Gardner +1.5*
October 7, 2014: *Gardner +0.6*
October 15, 2014: *Gardner +1.4*
October 21, 2014: *Gardner +3.0*
October 29, 2014: *Gardner +3.3*
November 1, 2014: *Gardner +3.6*
Novermber 3, 2014: *Gardner +3.9*

The needle has moved again +0.3 points in Gardner's direction, for the third time in a row. Just as reminder that polling in the SW has been very, very off in the last 4 election cycles, we will really need to wait and see how this truly shapes up. The polls close in CO at 9:00 EDT (7:00 PM MDT) and I don't expect this race to be called for at least 3 hours, if not considerably longer.  Hunker down for a long count in this race.

*Within the MoE:*​


 

Within the MoE, but not yet a tossup:

Aggregate, AK:

August 11, 2014: -no aggregate was possible-
September 16, 2014: *Sullivan +1.3*
September 22, 2014: *Sullivan +1.3*
October 2, 2014: *Sullivan +4.7*
October 7, 2014: *Sullivan +4.7*
October 15, 2014: *Sullivan +4.4*
October 21, 2014:* Sullivan +4.4*
October 29, 2014:* Sullivan +2.2*
November 1, 2014: *Sullivan +2.6*
November 3, 2014: *Sullivan +2.4*

There has been new polling in Alaska  the needle has moved +0.2 points toward Begich, which is likely statistical noise. It's still close, but Sullivan has a lean but consistent lead. However,  the Democrats are claiming that they have visited virtually every single Inuit village to campaign for votes, and those Inuits don't have telephone lines or internet access, so, wait and see. The polls close in AK at 01:00 AM EDT on November 5th and I doubt this race will be called anytime until late on Wednesday.

*THE TOSSUPS (5):*​

 

Aggregate, IA:

August 11, 2014: *Ernst +0.8*
September 16, 2014: *Braley +1.4*
September 22: *Braley +0.1*
October 2, 2014: *Ernst +2.8*
October 7, 2014: *Ernst +1.9*
October 15, 2014: *Ernst +1.2*
October 21, 2014: *Ernst +2.5*
October 29, 2014: *Ernst +1.7*
November 1, 2014: *Ernst +1.2*
November 3, 2014: *Ernst +1.8*

The needle has moved 0.6 back toward Ernst, a reversal from two days ago. Flip a coin. That being said, Ernst has now led in the aggregate consistently for one month.  Neither candidate has put this race away, it is purely a matter of GOTV. Same thing for Georgia. The polls close at 10 PM EDT (9 PM CDT) in Iowa and I am sure this race will not be called for hours, if not a day or more.




 


Aggregate, GA:

August 11, 2014: *Perdue +3.2*
September 16, 2014: *Perdue +3.0*
September 22, 2014: *Perdue +3.3*
October 2, 2014: *Perdue +3.4*
October 7, 2014: *Perdue +3.1*
October 15, 2014: *Perdue +2.7*
October 21, 2014: *Perdue +0.6*
October 29, 2014: *Perdue +0.5*
November 1, 2014: *Perdue +0.5*
November 3, 2014: *Perdue +1.8*

The needle has moved 1.3 points toward Perdue, however, for weeks, we have seen a Leap-frog of polls for the opposing sides: a week for Perdue, a week for Nunn. With a Libertarian on the ballot, it is unlikely that either Perdue or Nunn get to 50%, so as is the case with Louisiana: overtime. The polls close in the Peach state at 7:00 PM EDT and this race will surely not be called until the wee hours of the morning.



 


Aggregate, NC:

August 11, 2014: *Tillis +1.3*
September 16, 2014: *Hagan +3.7*
September 22,2014: *Hagan +5.0*
October 2, 2014: *Hagan +4.2*
October 7, 2014: *Hagan +3.7*
October 15, 2014: *Hagan +1.5*
October 21, 2014:* Hagan +1.2*
October 29, 2014:* Hagan +1.2*
November 1, 2014: *Hagan +1.6*
November 3, 2014: *Hagan +1.6*

No change over the weekend. Dogfight. Flip a coin. With such a narrow aggregate, early voting probably doesn't help either side in this case. The polls close in NC at 7:30 PM EDT and I suspect this race will not be called until 3 or 4 AM on November 5th, maybe even days later.





 

Aggregate, NH:

August 11, 2014: *Shaheen +10.4*
September 16, 2014: *Shaheen +3.5*
September 22, 2014: *Shaheen +5.0*
October 2, 2014: *Shaheen +4.0*
October 7, 2014: *Shaheen +4.6*
October 15, 2014: *Shaheen +3.5*
October 21, 2014: *Shaheen +2.6*
October 29, 2014:* Shaheen +2.2*
November 1, 2014: *Shaheen +3.4*
November 3, 2014: *Shaheen +1.4*

The needle has moved 2.2  points to Republican challenger Brown, making this race, statistically, a sudden dogfight. That being said, Rasmussen, a statistically proven Right-leaning pollster, just put out a poll showing Shaheen up by +7 and over the 50 mark, even at 52, which Rasmussen rarely, if ever, does with Democratic incumbents (see: Obama in Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa & Colorado in 2012, Harry Reid in NV 2010, Patty Murray in Washington 2010, etc, etc, etc). Again, that being said, reduce the time-frame for this race down to just one week (five polls instead of 7), then the margin is _Shaheen +1_. In 11 weeks, Shaheen has lost 10 points on her aggregate and gone from being a pretty safe D-win to a true dogfight. Flip a coin. Scott Brown (R) could conceivably pull out the upset of the night here, for New Hampshire does not do early voting, so Shaheen has had no opportunity to "bank" early votes. The polls close in NH at 8 PM EDT and I suspect this race will not be called until 3 or 4 am on November 5th.



 

Aggregate, KS:

September 22, 2014: *Orman +1.2*
October 2, 2014: *Orman +5.3*
October 7, 2014: *Orman +5.3*
October 15, 2014: *mathematical tie*
October 21, 2014: *mathematical tie*
October 29, 2014: *Orman +0.9*
November 1, 2014:* Orman +1.0*
November 3, 2014: *Orman +0.7*

The needle has moved 0.3 toward Roberts (R) - statistical noise, but what I do not understand is why the latest Rasmussen poll, from 10/23/2014, showing Orman up +5:

Election 2014 Kansas Senate - Rasmussen Reports trade 

has already been pulled out of the statistic. RCP has polls in the end statistic for other states that are as old as 10/12, so why remove this poll? This is very, very inconsistent and frankly, suspect.  When you recalculate that aggregate for a two week time-frame, with Rasmussen, which would be consistent, then the aggregate is:

*Orman +1.6*.

I just want to make it very clear the RCP, a Right-leaning sight, deliberately *removed* a poll that is not yet 14 days old (as of Wednesday, it should be removed from the statistic for a two-week time frame, but it was already removed on Sunday) because the result did not jive with what they want to see. Take a look back at Arkansas, Kentucky, Lousiana, Colorado, Alaska and Iowa. In all of those aggregates, you will see polls older than 10/23.  So, essentially, I just caught RCP red-handed and have screenshots to prove it for the future.

That being said, if you limit the time frame to one week, then it is an absolute tie 



 


That's what HuffPo shows. But RCP has decided to arbitrarily (and I believe, deliberately) pick a time frame BETWEEN one and two weeks, completely inconsistent with it's other aggregates. That is BAD methodology.

Orman's saving grace is that early voting has been underway in KS since last Tuesday.  Most polls close in KS at 8:00 PM EDT (7:00 PM local time) but some on the western border to Colorado close at 9:00 PM EDT and so the state will not be releasing any numbers until 9 PM EDT.  As is the case with NH, GA, NC and IA, I suspect that this race will not be counted until the wee hours of November 5th, or maybe days later.


*OVERTIME:*​
Already listed above, both Georgia and Louisiana are very, very likely to go into overtime. In fact, Louisiana is guaranteed to go into overtime.


----------------------------------------------

*FACIT:* over the weekend, we have seen races tighten up or stay exquisitely tight in: Alaska, Iowa, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Georgia and Kansas.

We have seen the races open or close very slightly in:  Colorado and Arkansas.

We have seen the races open in a statistically important way in: Kentucky.

In the Generic ballot:




 

Generic aggregate, October 2, 2014: *GOP +2.9*
Generic aggregate, October 7, 2014:* GOP +2.1*
Generic aggregate, October 15, 2014:* GOP +2.4*
Generic aggregate, October 21, 2014:* GOP +3.4*
Generic aggregate, October 29, 2014:* GOP +2.0*
Generic aggregate, November 1, 2014:* GOP +2.5*
Generic aggregate, November 3, 2014: *GOP +2.2*

Shift: +0.3 toward the Democratic party.
+2.2 is well within the MoE.

Here the generic from 2010:



 

The current generic is *7.2 points UNDER the GOP lead from 2010*, and that lead was 3 points off to the Right (the statistic here at RCP is FALSE, the GOP won the House with *+6.1* and the Senate with *+5.7* in 2010), so a +2.2 GOP generic can just as well mean that the Democrats may actually WIN in the NPV on Tuesday.

The GOP is still winning where it needs to, but still, no sign of a wave.

On election night, MT, SD and WV will probably be called immediately for the GOP. Those are all open seats in deep RED states where the Democratic Senator is retiring.

*That brings the GOP to 48*. However, the race in KS will surely be undecided for hours, so this brings the GOP to *47*, actually.

The races in KY and AR should be called pretty quickly, for incumbent McConnell (R) and challenger Cotton (R), making Arkansas the first GOP pick-up of the night. *That brings the GOP to 49*.

As of 10 PM EDT, that should be the state of affairs on election night. The polls will have been closed for 2.5 hours in NC, 2 hours in GA and NH, 1 hour in CO and KS and they will have just closed in IA. The polls will close 3 hours later in AK.  I STRONGLY suspect that few key races will be called between 10-11 PM EDT, apart from Louisiana, which will then go into overtime, anyway. *This means that the GOP stays at 49 for the time being*.


Five of the six races mentioned are officially true dogfights - no one with any sense in his head should be making 100% calls right now. And CO, as I have pointed out repeatedly, may end up being a surprise.  *Either CO or AK may bring the GOP to 50 as of 2 AM, but that's pretty much that*.

The rest is a crap-shoot.

The real bad news of the weekend is for Shaheen (D) in NH.  Scott Brown (R) really COULD flip this race.

The other real bad news of the wekeend is for the GOP in Kansas. On the eve of the election, an Independent is still ahead in the Senatorial and a Democrat is decidedly ahead in the Gubernatorial. I suspect that bedrock RED Kansas is about to experience a historic tectonic shift in it's politics.

*Either way, when all is said and done, the statistical probability that the GOP gets to 51 seats is around 90% now. It may take days or weeks to get there, but the GOP will get there* and President Obama will join the ranks of Eisehower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Clinton, Bush 41 and Bush 43 - of having a complete opposition Congress.

Final report tomorrow at around 5:30 PM to 6:00 PM EDT.

-Stat


----------



## WelfareQueen

It looks the GOP will control the Senate 52-48.  I see the Dems holding on to NC and NH but they lose Colorado and Iowa.  All the other close races go to the GOP except Kansas.  There...I have no clue.  

Orman has promised he'll caucus with whichever side wins (i.e. GOP or Dems).  The Dems seem to think he'll automatically caucus with them....I would say if Orman is being truthful, that remains to be seen.  

Latest Nate Silver prediction is GOP control Senate 75% probability.


----------



## Mindful

I'm following these events with interest, but difficult to keep up, due  to travelling. I'm in Greece right now, the U.S. next week.

When is the actual voting happening? Thanks.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Mindful said:


> I'm following these events with interest, but difficult to keep up, due  to travelling. I'm in Greece right now, the U.S. next week.
> 
> When is the actual voting happening? Thanks.



Right now!


----------



## Statistikhengst

So, voting is underway in this great land of ours. Here are the end-polling statistics, as provided in aggregate by RealClearPolitics (RCP).

As I did two days ago, first, the funnel-view:

*Way outside of the battlegrounds:*
SD: *Rounds (R) +12.2*
MI: *Peters (D) +12.8* (+0.6 over November 2)
(those two were in battleground-consideration for a while, now no longer)


Tonight's marquee races:
KY:* McConnell (R-inc) +7.2 *(+0.7 over November 2)
AR: *Cotton (R) +7.0 *(-0.1 over November 2)
LA: *Landrieu (D-inc) +5.7 *(+0.2 over November 2) 
CO: *Gardner (R) +2.5 *(-1.4 over November 2)
AK: *Sullivan (R) +2.4 *(unchanged over November 2)
GA: *Perdue (R) +2.8 *(+1.0 over November 2)
IA:* Ernst (R) +2.3 *(+0.5 over November 2)
NC: *Hagan (D-inc) +1.2 *(-0.4 over November 2)
NH: *Shaheen (D-inc) +0.8* (-0.6 over November 2)
KS:* Orman (I) +0.8 *(+0.1 over November 2)


And here the end-polling graphics from RCP (also in funnel-view order):














 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 

No need for a huge analysis anymore, the people are voting even right now.  But there was lots of information and predictions in the analysis from November 2, 2014:

2014 battle for control of the US Senate Page 10 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


In the Generic ballot, the end-statistic is: GOP +2.4



 

That is 6.9 points UNDER the GOP generic aggregate value from the 2010 mid-term elections.


Two final points and then I'm done. On to watch the returns come in soon.

One single poll can be wrong. It's always possible. But a slew of polls all showing the same result, from independent-from-each-other pollster, cannot all be wrong. For all of the races where the aggregate spread is +2.5 and above, every single poll went for the candidate that we assume is going to win.

Anything from +2.4 down to +0.8 is a crap-shoot, a coin-flip. That aggregate is so within the standard MoE, anything can happen. That being said, Ernst (R), Sullivan (R) and Perdue (R) all hold the better cards in their hands.

The big shift from Sunday is the downward shift for Gardner in CO, and I have already written many, many times over that polling in the SW is notoriously off. Were a real surprise to happen tonight, it may very well be in Colorado.

Prepare for a long count, folks.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Not going to bother waiting for anything past 9 pm because by then we will know whether or not it will be a wave.

Then it will simply be a matter of checking tomorrow to see where the chips ended up falling even though the outcome is a foregone conclusion.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Nate Silver's last write up.  Very fair analysis imho.  He states all seven NY Times computer models have the OP winning the Senate.  However...it all depends on the accuracy of the polling data and turnout.  

Basically....the Dems can still hold on, but they have to draw an inside straight.  


Final Update Republicans Have A 3 In 4 Chance Of Winning The Senate FiveThirtyEight


----------



## Mindful

Derideo_Te said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm following these events with interest, but difficult to keep up, due  to travelling. I'm in Greece right now, the U.S. next week.
> 
> When is the actual voting happening? Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right now!
Click to expand...


Okay thanks. The result came in while I was up in the air.


----------



## Mindful

OTOH:


*“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.”*

Mark Twain.


----------



## Mindful

So........what did it really mean?

Midterms Were About Something An Anti-Obama Wave Commentary Magazine


----------



## Derideo_Te

Results are pretty much as expected. The GOP now controls the Senate. It would only have been surprising if that was not the case.

The consequences will come later when the Republicans have to deal with raising the debt ceiling and try to find an electable candidate for 2016. How they handle the first issue will have a direct impact on the second in my opinion.

In the meantime I anticipate that filibustering and the veto will be used to keep the insanity in check for the next 2 years.


----------



## Mindful

Wondering who could be an electable Repub candidate.

Having said that, wondering even more so who could be a Dem candidate.

Unless the Dems do their magic trick of pulling another snake oil candidate out of the hat.


----------



## Picaro

The only surprise for me was Nunn losing in Georgia. I thought she would be a shoo in.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Derideo_Te said:


> Results are pretty much as expected. The GOP now controls the Senate. It would only have been surprising if that was not the case.
> 
> The consequences will come later when the Republicans have to deal with raising the debt ceiling and try to find an electable candidate for 2016. How they handle the first issue will have a direct impact on the second in my opinion.
> 
> In the meantime I anticipate that filibustering and the veto will be used to keep the insanity in check for the next 2 years.




De....it did end up being a wave election....which is truly what I thought would happen for over a year.  


Political Expert Larry Sabato. The Dems will get Shellacked in 2014. Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Yes....the Democrats will get a blizzard of bills thrown at them.  The last I heard Harry Reid had spiked over 300 bills where he would not allow a vote.  

The Democrats will become the obvious Party of obstruction and no.  I don't think it will be a smart strategy going into 2016....but I agree with you.....they will never compromise.  It will be nothing but fillibusters and vetos.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Mindful said:


> Wondering who could be an electable Repub candidate.
> 
> Having said that, wondering even more so who could be a Dem candidate.
> 
> Unless the Dems do their magic trick of pulling another snake oil candidate out of the hat.



The Dems will run Hilary because she will pull in the women's vote which is the single largest voting bloc of all.

The Republicans have a dilemma on their hands because the TP'ers will see 2014 as a "victory" for their "platform" and absolutely insist on running an extremist at the top of the ticket. So it will be Rand Paul or Ted Cruz or someone of that ilk in my opinion.


----------



## Mindful

Derideo_Te said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wondering who could be an electable Repub candidate.
> 
> Having said that, wondering even more so who could be a Dem candidate.
> 
> Unless the Dems do their magic trick of pulling another snake oil candidate out of the hat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dems will run Hilary because she will pull in the women's vote which is the single largest voting bloc of all.
> 
> The Republicans have a dilemma on their hands because the TP'ers will see 2014 as a "victory" for their "platform" and absolutely insist on running an extremist at the top of the ticket. So it will be Rand Paul or Ted Cruz or someone of that ilk in my opinion.
Click to expand...


You could say the Dems already have a candidate? And the Repubs have yet to find one?


----------



## Derideo_Te

WelfareQueen said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Results are pretty much as expected. The GOP now controls the Senate. It would only have been surprising if that was not the case.
> 
> The consequences will come later when the Republicans have to deal with raising the debt ceiling and try to find an electable candidate for 2016. How they handle the first issue will have a direct impact on the second in my opinion.
> 
> In the meantime I anticipate that filibustering and the veto will be used to keep the insanity in check for the next 2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De....it did end up being a wave election....which is truly what I thought would happen for over a year.
> 
> 
> Political Expert Larry Sabato. The Dems will get Shellacked in 2014. Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Yes....the Democrats will get a blizzard of bills thrown at them.  The last I heard Harry Reid had spiked over 300 bills where he would not allow a vote.
> 
> The Democrats will become the obvious Party of obstruction and no.  I don't think it will be a smart strategy going into 2016....but I agree with you.....they will never compromise.  It will be nothing but fillibusters and vetos.
Click to expand...


If it was a wave election then why did the polls fail to predict it?

Why did Hagen lose in NC after all the polls showed her with a lead? They showed Davis beating Brownback too. 

The polls were wrong so the question in my mind is why were they wrong?

As far as McConnell trying to swamp the Dems with bills he has to start from scratch because all of those old bills need to be passed again in the House first.

Putting that aside the Dems will obstruct for the same reasons that the GOP did. They don't want the Republicans to succeed. We are talking about childish antics and both sides are guilty of it. But from a strategic perspective the Dems have an end game and the GOP doesn't because they still have to deal with the TP. 

So the next 2 years will be much the same as the last couple. The major difference will be the budgets and the debt ceiling. The TP'ers could wreck the economy for real this time and it would be to their advantage politically to make that happen. If they do they will harm hundreds of millions of innocent Americans for purely partisan political purposes.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Mindful said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wondering who could be an electable Repub candidate.
> 
> Having said that, wondering even more so who could be a Dem candidate.
> 
> Unless the Dems do their magic trick of pulling another snake oil candidate out of the hat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dems will run Hilary because she will pull in the women's vote which is the single largest voting bloc of all.
> 
> The Republicans have a dilemma on their hands because the TP'ers will see 2014 as a "victory" for their "platform" and absolutely insist on running an extremist at the top of the ticket. So it will be Rand Paul or Ted Cruz or someone of that ilk in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could say the Dems already have a candidate? And the Repubs have yet to find one?
Click to expand...


Both parties will have primaries but Hilary is the odds on favorite for the Dems.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Derideo_Te said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wondering who could be an electable Repub candidate.
> 
> Having said that, wondering even more so who could be a Dem candidate.
> 
> Unless the Dems do their magic trick of pulling another snake oil candidate out of the hat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dems will run Hilary because she will pull in the women's vote which is the single largest voting bloc of all.
> 
> The Republicans have a dilemma on their hands because the TP'ers will see 2014 as a "victory" for their "platform" and absolutely insist on running an extremist at the top of the ticket. So it will be Rand Paul or Ted Cruz or someone of that ilk in my opinion.
Click to expand...



I disagree.  The GOP clearly learned it's lesson.  They were very disciplined.  Their primary process will get the right person.  A far right winger has never been nominated by the GOP nor will it. 

As for Hillary....the minority voters that got Obama into office largely abandoned the Dems when a black man wasn't on the top of the ticket during both mid-terms. 

That turnout model was reserved for a charismatic black man, who happened to be Barack Obama.  That is gone.   

The GOP will likely put a woman on the ticket (Condi Rice?).  They will not make the Sarah Palin mistake again (someone who is very charismatic but a lightweight.  Think Alison Lundergren Grimes).  

2016 should be interesting.  I have no idea how it will go...but I will make one prediction.  It is by no means going to be an easy road for Dems.  Hillary is not charismatic nor is she a very good candidate.

Hoping for the Obama minority turnout for her is a pipe dream.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Derideo_Te said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Results are pretty much as expected. The GOP now controls the Senate. It would only have been surprising if that was not the case.
> 
> The consequences will come later when the Republicans have to deal with raising the debt ceiling and try to find an electable candidate for 2016. How they handle the first issue will have a direct impact on the second in my opinion.
> 
> In the meantime I anticipate that filibustering and the veto will be used to keep the insanity in check for the next 2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De....it did end up being a wave election....which is truly what I thought would happen for over a year.
> 
> 
> Political Expert Larry Sabato. The Dems will get Shellacked in 2014. Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Yes....the Democrats will get a blizzard of bills thrown at them.  The last I heard Harry Reid had spiked over 300 bills where he would not allow a vote.
> 
> The Democrats will become the obvious Party of obstruction and no.  I don't think it will be a smart strategy going into 2016....but I agree with you.....they will never compromise.  It will be nothing but fillibusters and vetos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was a wave election then why did the polls fail to predict it?
> 
> Why did Hagen lose in NC after all the polls showed her with a lead? They showed Davis beating Brownback too.
> 
> The polls were wrong so the question in my mind is why were they wrong?
> 
> As far as McConnell trying to swamp the Dems with bills he has to start from scratch because all of those old bills need to be passed again in the House first.
> 
> Putting that aside the Dems will obstruct for the same reasons that the GOP did. They don't want the Republicans to succeed. We are talking about childish antics and both sides are guilty of it. But from a strategic perspective the Dems have an end game and the GOP doesn't because they still have to deal with the TP.
> 
> So the next 2 years will be much the same as the last couple. The major difference will be the budgets and the debt ceiling. The TP'ers could wreck the economy for real this time and it would be to their advantage politically to make that happen. If they do they will harm hundreds of millions of innocent Americans for purely partisan political purposes.
Click to expand...




I agree...the polls were way, way off.  The TP has been largely marginalized in this election.  The nutty "legitimate rape" screwballs are politically dead.  

I do think the libertarian trend in the GOP is growing.....and I do not know what the consequences will be.


----------



## HenryBHough

The results strongly suggest that Americans didn't so much vote for any Republican candidate as they voted against Democrats.  Especially those who gifted them with the Great Obamacare Turkey.

So is it a mandate to compromise and wimp out?

Had that been the case I do not believe that as many Democrats would have lost.  

Feels more like a mandate to make Obama stop his transformation of America into a European Socialist third-world nation.

But we'll see if there is any backbone in the new lot.  I am not overly optimistic.


----------



## Mindful

HenryBHough said:


> The results strongly suggest that Americans didn't so much vote for any Republican candidate as they voted against Democrats.  Especially those who gifted them with the Great Obamacare Turkey.
> 
> So is it a mandate to compromise and wimp out?
> 
> Had that been the case I do not believe that as many Democrats would have lost.
> 
> Feels more like a mandate to make Obama stop his transformation of America into a European Socialist third-world nation.
> 
> But we'll see if there is any backbone in the new lot.  I am not overly optimistic.



Watching Mitch McConnell's speech on British television, I have to say I was more impressed with his manner and rhetoric than Harry Reid's. 

But you are probably right. It was a protest vote.


----------



## WelfareQueen

HenryBHough said:


> The results strongly suggest that Americans didn't so much vote for any Republican candidate as they voted against Democrats.  Especially those who gifted them with the Great Obamacare Turkey.
> 
> So is it a mandate to compromise and wimp out?
> 
> Had that been the case I do not believe that as many Democrats would have lost.
> 
> Feels more like a mandate to make Obama stop his transformation of America into a European Socialist third-world nation.
> 
> But we'll see if there is any backbone in the new lot.  I am not overly optimistic.




Great analysis.  I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Derideo_Te

WelfareQueen said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wondering who could be an electable Repub candidate.
> 
> Having said that, wondering even more so who could be a Dem candidate.
> 
> Unless the Dems do their magic trick of pulling another snake oil candidate out of the hat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dems will run Hilary because she will pull in the women's vote which is the single largest voting bloc of all.
> 
> The Republicans have a dilemma on their hands because the TP'ers will see 2014 as a "victory" for their "platform" and absolutely insist on running an extremist at the top of the ticket. So it will be Rand Paul or Ted Cruz or someone of that ilk in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  The GOP clearly learned it's lesson.  They were very disciplined.  Their primary process will get the right person.  A far right winger has never been nominated by the GOP nor will it.
> 
> As for Hillary....the minority voters that got Obama into office largely abandoned the Dems when a black man wasn't on the top of the ticket during both mid-terms.
> 
> That turnout model was reserved for a charismatic black man, who happened to be Barack Obama.  That is gone.
> 
> The GOP will likely put a woman on the ticket (Condi Rice?).  They will not make the Sarah Palin mistake again (someone who is very charismatic but a lightweight.  Think Alison Lundergren Grimes).
> 
> 2016 should be interesting.  I have no idea how it will go...but I will make one prediction.  It is by no means going to be an easy road for Dems.  Hillary is not charismatic nor is she a very good candidate.
> 
> Hoping for the Obama minority turnout for her is a pipe dream.
Click to expand...


If that was a lesson learned then they clearly didn't grasp the subject matter in the first place.

The clear victor in this election was Citizens United. The billionaires now own more members of Congress than ever before. The spending was totally out of control and, sad to say, it is probably a mere prelude to 2016.

As far as the crazies go you now have a bunch who can caucus with Ted Cruz in the Senate so he won't have to run across to the House as often. 

There are two major hurdles that McConnell is facing in his immediate future. First and foremost are the budget and debt ceiling. If he allows the crazies to shut down the government and jeopardize/wreck the economy there will be serious repercussions in 2016. The second aspect is now that he has crazies in the Senate they will be pressuring him to repeal Obamacare. (Something he promised to do.) If McConnell kowtows to the crazies on that topic he hands the Dems a massive issue to campaign on in 2016. 

Once he is past those hurdles he has to deal with Immigration and Tax reform. Without a compromise deal he will face filibusters. If he does compromise his own crazies will be swinging from the chandeliers.

Be careful what you wish for is something that McConnell is about to regret in my opinion. I might be wrong in which case it will be a pleasant surprise but past behavior says otherwise.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Derideo_Te said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wondering who could be an electable Repub candidate.
> 
> Having said that, wondering even more so who could be a Dem candidate.
> 
> Unless the Dems do their magic trick of pulling another snake oil candidate out of the hat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dems will run Hilary because she will pull in the women's vote which is the single largest voting bloc of all.
> 
> The Republicans have a dilemma on their hands because the TP'ers will see 2014 as a "victory" for their "platform" and absolutely insist on running an extremist at the top of the ticket. So it will be Rand Paul or Ted Cruz or someone of that ilk in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  The GOP clearly learned it's lesson.  They were very disciplined.  Their primary process will get the right person.  A far right winger has never been nominated by the GOP nor will it.
> 
> As for Hillary....the minority voters that got Obama into office largely abandoned the Dems when a black man wasn't on the top of the ticket during both mid-terms.
> 
> That turnout model was reserved for a charismatic black man, who happened to be Barack Obama.  That is gone.
> 
> The GOP will likely put a woman on the ticket (Condi Rice?).  They will not make the Sarah Palin mistake again (someone who is very charismatic but a lightweight.  Think Alison Lundergren Grimes).
> 
> 2016 should be interesting.  I have no idea how it will go...but I will make one prediction.  It is by no means going to be an easy road for Dems.  Hillary is not charismatic nor is she a very good candidate.
> 
> Hoping for the Obama minority turnout for her is a pipe dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that was a lesson learned then they clearly didn't grasp the subject matter in the first place.
> 
> The clear victor in this election was Citizens United. The billionaires now own more members of Congress than ever before. The spending was totally out of control and, sad to say, it is probably a mere prelude to 2016.
> 
> As far as the crazies go you now have a bunch who can caucus with Ted Cruz in the Senate so he won't have to run across to the House as often.
> 
> There are two major hurdles that McConnell is facing in his immediate future. First and foremost are the budget and debt ceiling. If he allows the crazies to shut down the government and jeopardize/wreck the economy there will be serious repercussions in 2016. The second aspect is now that he has crazies in the Senate they will be pressuring him to repeal Obamacare. (Something he promised to do.) If McConnell kowtows to the crazies on that topic he hands the Dems a massive issue to campaign on in 2016.
> 
> Once he is past those hurdles he has to deal with Immigration and Tax reform. Without a compromise deal he will face filibusters. If he does compromise his own crazies will be swinging from the chandeliers.
> 
> Be careful what you wish for is something that McConnell is about to regret in my opinion. I might be wrong in which case it will be a pleasant surprise but past behavior says otherwise.
Click to expand...




De...sorry man....but crazies do not want to repeal Obamacare.  The majority of the American people want Obamacare repealed and have since it's inception. 

Elections have consequences. 

As for the money issue....the biggest super pac in terms of t.v. ad dollars spent was Harry Reid's.  More than a little ironic...wouldn't you say? 

And what U.S. Senators do you consider "crazy."  Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are a little out there.....but any less so than  a Bernie Sanders for example? 

Look...this election cycle the Dems took it on the chin.  Just like the GOP in 2008 and 2012.  It happens. 

The Dems will now be the party of no.  It will be interesting to see how the Media and American People perceive it.


----------



## Derideo_Te

WelfareQueen said:


> And what U.S. Senators do you consider "crazy."



"Sen. Hagan has failed the people of North Carolina and the nation by not securing our border," Tillis said during an Oct. 7 debate with Hagan. "Ladies and gentlemen, we have an Ebola outbreak, we have bad actors who can come across the border. We need to seal the border and secure it." Thom Tillis

"Groups like the Islamic State collaborate with drug cartels in Mexico who have clearly shown they’re willing to expand outside the drug trade into human trafficking and potentially even terrorism," Cotton said at a recent town hall-style gathering. “They could infiltrate our defenseless border and attack us right here in places like Arkansas. This is an urgent problem and it’s time we got serious about it, and I’ll be serious about it in the United States Senate.” Tom Cotton

Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions accused President Obama, Attorney General Holder, and Vice President Biden of “deliberately collapsing” the nation’s immigration law enforcement system. This is pure John Birch Society paranoia:

"Our law enforcement system is in a state of collapse, and it’s a deliberate plan by the president of the United States, and it’s wrong. And, people need to be aware of it and need to stand up to it and I believe the American people are beginning to do so."

"I do think that yes, he should face those repercussions, and whether that's removal from office, whether that's impeachment," Ernst said in response.

Joni Ernst went on to say that as a U.S. Senator it's important not to be "silent" on actions that warranted Obama's impeachment.

"And unfortunately we have a number of legislators right now that simply let these things happen. They're not speaking up against these actions," Ernst said. "They're not speaking out against the president when he oversteps his bounds, when he makes those appointments, when he's appointing czars, when he is producing executive orders in a threat to a Congress that won't do as he wishes. So he has become a dictator."


----------



## Nyvin

I'm amazed how off the polls were,  utterly surprised really.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Complete analysis AFTER the final canvasses are published.


----------



## WelfareQueen

*The canvas data may move things a fraction in either direction.  The essential point remains.  The pollsters did a horrible job...and were heavily biased against the GOP.  Here are the actual numbers.  


I just did an analysis. Every key battleground States were off....most big....and all but one were heavily biased against the GOP. *

*Don't let anyone one spin you....The Pollsters screwed up. This is exactly how far off they were. *



*KS -11.5 off.*

*AR -10.0 off*

*VA -9.1 off*

*AK -1.3 off*

*IA -6.2 off*

*CO -1.7 off*

*KY -8.2 off*

*NC -2.4 off*

*GA -4.9 off*

*LA -4.5 off*

*NH +3.0 off This is the only State that had a GOP polling bias of the key States. *


*Of the key States listed....The aggregate polling bias was -5.4% against the GOP. *

*A huge failure and will need to be explained. *


----------



## Nyvin

I actually agree with WelfareQueen....*gasp*


----------



## Statistikhengst

Nyvin said:


> I actually agree with WelfareQueen....*gasp*




I wait until the final canvasses in order to get completely exact stats. I am a stickler for things being numerically perfect.

Probably has to do with my name....


----------



## Statistikhengst

Of course, we are still waiting for absentee ballots from Coridan IV and the outer colonies of Beta Eri Epsidon and once they are in, then we DEMS have this one in the bag!!!!


----------



## HenryBHough

Polling is an inexact exercise.

Especially when enough registered voters start filling pollsters with shit to the extent that their baby blues turn brown.

Yes, there was one hell of a lot of intentional misleading.


----------



## Nyvin

HenryBHough said:


> Polling is an inexact exercise.
> 
> Especially when enough registered voters start filling pollsters with shit to the extent that their baby blues turn brown.
> 
> Yes, there was one hell of a lot of intentional misleading.



I'm skeptical if there was intentional misleading, just like there wasn't in 2012 when the bias was the other way.   

I'd say the problem lies more with the polling firms themselves.   Either there's some internal conformity problem where the media wants to portray a "close election" and the polling firms get intimidated to stand out and they all go along with the story showing an election closer then it is, or political polling in general just isn't up to speed in US for the modern age (cell phones, much lower response rates then a few decades ago, etc)


----------



## Nyvin

Geez,  looking over these numbers the polls look like they were WAAAY off...Iowa polling for Senate was downright terrible, same with Kentucky and Arkansas.  The Virginia race was polled really bad too.

I don't think I've ever seen polling this bad,  what a failure


----------



## Statistikhengst

Nyvin said:


> I'm skeptical if there was intentional misleading, just like there wasn't in 2012 when the bias was the other way.
> 
> I'd say the problem lies more with the polling firms themselves.   Either there's some internal conformity problem where the media wants to portray a "close election" and the polling firms get intimidated to stand out and they all go along with the story showing an election closer then it is, or political polling in general just isn't up to speed in US for the modern age (cell phones, much lower response rates then a few decades ago, etc)




Had all polling firms in 2012 accepted the PARTISAN SELF-IDENTIFICATION of the voters, their results would have been more accurate. Same thing for 2014. The problem appears to be the modeling that most all firms used.

A reminder: many of the margins were off. But 8 of 10 _aggregates_ for the marquee races in the Senate still correctly pointed toward the winner. And one of the two aggregates that was off (NC) was off by 2.8 (currently), which is well within the MoE. That being said, off still means off, only, in a closely contested race, one can almost forgive this one.  The one aggregate that showed a statistical tie but pointing toward the Independent and the margins were way off was: KANSAS

So, when we are talking about firms being off, we are now talking about the actual calls, we are talking about the margins. And we are not talking at all about the 26 "safe" Senate races that also happened, nor are we talking about the polling for the 435 HOR races that happened. However, the marquee races are the ones where we measure voter intensity, and rightfully so.

But just a foretastes of how my analysis will be in about 3 months:

NC, PPP (D), final poll: Tillis +2
Current end result, NC: Tillis +1.7
PPP = bullseye

NH, UMass and Boston/Suffolk polls: Shaheen +3 _(but these polls are just outside the 7 day timeframe and were not in the end-polling aggregate)_
NH, PPP (D) final poll: Shaheen +2
Current end-result: Shaheen +3.1
UMass and Suffolk = bullseyes
PPP = off to the RIGHT by 1. Close to a bullseye, but no bullseye
PPP came the closest of all the end-polls.

AR, The Arkansas Poll: Cotton +13
AR: PPP (D): Cotton +8
Actual margin at current: Cotton +17
Even the best poll, from a hometown pollster, was off by 4 points to the LEFT. And that was the best pollster. PPP, the second best pollster of the end-polls, was off by 9 points. That is inacceptable. What a mess.

KS, PPP (D), final poll:  Orman +1
Actual result (current stats): Roberts +10.4
PPP (D) was off by 10.4. That is absolutely inacceptable.
Of the 5 end polls, according to the strict time frame of 7 days (this is the usual method), not a single one got closer than 9.4 points away from the truth. They were ALL off.

I just quoted PPP (D) four times to show that even a very good, solid pollster like PPP, which nailed 11 of 12 battlegrounds in 2012 and 22 of 23 states overall in 2012, had at least one bullseye, was off to the Right by a little and in at least one poll, was off to the LEFT by a lot in at least two polls, and I mean, a lot.

We will discover that for this cycle, even some of the best hometown pollsters were off. Not all, but some.

This is going to be a fun one to analyse.


----------



## Derideo_Te

How many voters actually voted?

NC had a record high midterm turnout while NJ had a record low.

Does anyone have any actual figures because I am having a hard time finding any.


----------



## rightwinger

Hard to believe that polls were so far off to the point of being useless

There was no catastrophic event right before the election that would cause voters to run towards the Republicans. In fact, the Ebola and ISIS scares died down and economic reports were very good

Races that were identified as too close to call for months turned out to be landslides once the votes were cast. I can accept some voter remorse once they enter the booth, but a widespread jump to the right in EVERY race at every level is hard to understand

The pollsters need to rexamine their methodology. Their predictions are no more reliable than Dick Morris'


----------



## Geaux4it

rightwinger said:


> Hard to believe that polls were so far off to the point of being useless
> 
> There was no catastrophic event right before the election that would cause voters to run towards the Republicans. In fact, the Ebola and ISIS scares died down and economic reports were very good
> 
> Races that were identified as too close to call for months turned out to be landslides once the votes were cast. I can accept some voter remorse once they enter the booth, but a widespread jump to the right in EVERY race at every level is hard to understand
> 
> The pollsters need to rexamine their methodology. Their predictions are no more reliable than Dick Morris'



 or that dipshit Karl Rove

-Geaux


----------



## Derideo_Te

rightwinger said:


> Hard to believe that polls were so far off to the point of being useless
> 
> There was no catastrophic event right before the election that would cause voters to run towards the Republicans. In fact, the Ebola and ISIS scares died down and economic reports were very good
> 
> Races that were identified as too close to call for months turned out to be landslides once the votes were cast. I can accept some voter remorse once they enter the booth, but a widespread jump to the right in EVERY race at every level is hard to understand
> 
> The pollsters need to rexamine their methodology. Their predictions are no more reliable than Dick Morris'



I think that there may be an answer in here somewhere.

Democrats word of warning Page 17 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Goodbye to All That Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult

"Over the last four decades, the Republican Party has transformed from a loyal opposition into an insurrectionary party that flouts the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the minority. It is the party of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but also of the government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999. If there is an earlier American precedent for today's Republican Party, it is the antebellum Southern Democrats of John Calhoun who threatened to nullify, or disregard, federal legislation they objected to and who later led the fight to secede from the union over slavery."

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard." This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s - a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn ("Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).


----------



## Statistikhengst

Derideo_Te said:


> How many voters actually voted?
> 
> NC had a record high midterm turnout while NJ had a record low.
> 
> Does anyone have any actual figures because I am having a hard time finding any.


We won't know for sure until all final canvasses are in.  3 to 6 weeks. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Picaro

No mystery here; the Democratic Party needs to go back to its traditional roots as a liberal Party, and leave off the race-baiting and sociopathic identity politics that serves no one except the personal pseudo-intellectual and infantile emotional needs of BoBoes who are pretty much clueless about everything outside their little bubbles. A nice run-down of their problems is in this little essay. 

The Neo-Liberal War on Blue-Collar Whites and the Breakup of the Democratic Party NO QUARTER USA NET



> Chris Bowers, Obama supporter and writer at Open Left, dreams of a cultural change in an Obama Democratic Party which is almost a parody of the brie and Chardonnay stereotype:
> There should be a major cultural shift in the party, where the southern Dems and Liebercrat elite will be largely replaced by rising creative class types. Obama has all the markers of a creative class background, from his community organizing, to his Unitarianism, to being an academic, to living in Hyde Park to shopping at Whole Foods and drinking PBR. These will be the type of people running the Democratic Party now, and it will be a big cultural shift from the white working class focus of earlier decades.
> 
> Further illustrating their break with traditional liberalism, Markos Moulitsas has declared himself a libertarian Democrat, in other words: a politically correct Republican. These neo-liberals are really proposing a Party run by those who have little need for government and instead focus on identity politics, environmentalism, post-partisan government, and the rejection of American exceptionalism. The neo-liberals demonize the traditional Democratic base of poor white voters precisely because these voters rely on government and expect their leadership to fight partisan battles on their behalf. They are also deeply patriotic and weary of the moral relativism put forward by the likes of Jeremiah Wright.



...



> The class warfare now raging in the Democratic Party, while both sides ostensibly are on the Left, is actually the classic struggle between the proletariat workers (blue-collar whites and Latinos) and the petite bourgeoisie (neo-liberals). African Americans have mostly gone to Obama because of the historic nature of his candidacy; many, however, were pushed to Obama by the race-baiting wedge utilized by Obama and the neo-liberals, a tactic identical in form and result as that used by Lee Atwater and other Republican operatives. Obama’s hostility towards the white working class, as seen with his bitter-gate remarks, is the exact framework from which many of the neo-liberals view this struggle:
> 
> Obama’s dismissal of white working people represents a sea-change in the Democrats’ basic identity as the workingman’s party – one that has been coming since the late 1960s, when large portions of the Left began regarding white workers as hopeless and hateful reactionaries.
> 
> Arthur Schlesinger, eminent historian and New Frontiersman, foresaw the dangers of identity politics as a substitute for progressive policy. He believed in an activist government which should be used “to improve opportunities and to enlarge freedoms for ordinary people.” The Obama campaign’s desire to win the nomination, regardless of its illegitimacy, and their hostility towards poor white Americans is a movement which is tearing the Democratic Party apart. Many of us believe that the best way to fight for working Americans — regardless of color — is to make sure this movement is defeated.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Derideo_Te WelfareQueen

The preliminary totals for the 36 senatorial races in 34 states are coming through at uselectionatlas (dot) org.
Dave Leip does excellent work at getting the figures in as quickly as possible and also, updating them. I often helped him per email in 2008 and 2012 to know when updates were available, due to the time zone difference between the BRD and the East Coast of the USA.

The 2014 figures are just preliminary figures and of course,  do not cover all 50 states, but they are useful to compare the battle for the Senate, 2014 over 2010:





Right now, some 42.6 million votes have been tallied. But we are not at the end of counting, not by a longshot.


Here's a comparative table to former Senatorials. I have made a green-box to show the GOP winning margins since the 1990s:





*Don't let the colors fool you*. Dave Leip at uselectionatlas uses reverse colors for the parties. At his statistics site, blue = GOP, red = DEM.

Right now, the GOP margin is *+4.87%*. In 2010, it was *+5.53%* and in 1994, also a massive wave year, it was *+5.90%*. Now, that +4.87% margin is bound to change, it is only preliminary. And also, the raw vote total will change. In 2010, the end total was 66.6 million (big senatorial in Californiaand Florida that year, don't forget), the current tally is 20 million under that total, so I am pretty sure that that raw-vote total is bound to rise considerably. Which is why, WelfareQueen , I wait patiently until the final canvasses are in to make any permanent comparisons.  But we can all see that the GOP needs less of a margin to make a big dent in the Senate. In 2006, the DEM margin in the Senate was a landslide *+11.52%* and yet, the DEMS captured only 6 seats, and two of them just barely. To pick up six seats in 2010, the GOP only needed a *+5.53 *margin, a little less than 1/2 of the Democratic margin from four years before. Sometimes, it's great strategy, sometimes it's kismet, sometimes it a little bit of everything.

On to the gubernatorial numbers:





In the gubernatorial, 60.8 million votes have already been tallied.

And, as I did with the senatorials, here, a comparison:






Currently, the GOP is at *+5.39%* over the DEMS, a statistic that is only about 1/2 point larger than the current senatorial statistic, so _we are seeing consistency across the board_.  In 2010, here in the gubernatorials, the DEMS actually won, by *+0.73%*. How is this possible? California, New York and Illinois were in the gubernatorial picture And those DEM gub races, where they won, were big wins for them.

In 2010, 70.8 million votes were cast in the gubernatorials and so, right now, we are 10 million under that total. This raw count is also likely to grow over the next 6 weeks as well. Only, most of the states with gubernatorials this time around were many of the smaller states (breadbasket, plains states), and they tend to get their results in earlier than the massive states. So, whether the gubernatorial totals will hit 70.8 million, I am not so sure.

I have no stats yet on all 435 House races, that is a total pain in that ass to double check, noting again, until the final canvasses are in.

But these two preliminary sets of totals might be of help to both of you fine gentlemen.

I will update this set of data in two weeks from now. It will be interesting to see what has changed in the meantime.


----------



## pepperpot

rightwinger said:


> Hard to believe that polls were so far off to the point of being useless
> 
> There was no catastrophic event right before the election that would cause voters to run towards the Republicans. In fact, the Ebola and ISIS scares died down and economic reports were very good
> 
> Races that were identified as too close to call for months turned out to be landslides once the votes were cast. I can accept some voter remorse once they enter the booth, but a widespread jump to the right in EVERY race at every level is hard to understand
> 
> The pollsters need to rexamine their methodology. Their predictions are no more reliable than Dick Morris'


Democrats ran away plain and simple.  They treated Pres Obama like he was GW Bush and didn't ask him for help or could barely speak his name.  They ran to the Clintons looking for help instead.  The could have ran on some positive issues but instead chose to run on womens issues and the Koch brothers.  Losing issues for any male or millennial voters.  Independents like the ones in my family want to hear about issues, not crap.  It was the democrats to lose and they chose to go on the defense and not the offense.  Republicans said they would try to do something about the mandates, tax reform, Keystone pipeline and getting rid of the medical device tax.  Americans mostly can agree there and they voted accordingly.  The democrat in me says that the left cant keep going after the millennial vote when they are still in debt and living home with mom and dad.  If they want them to vote in midterms they need to get them into good jobs and homes where they care who is on the ballot for dog catcher and mayor.  Now given all that, the GOP must do something, not sit on their laurels.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Statistikhengst said:


> Derideo_Te WelfareQueen
> 
> The preliminary totals for the 36 senatorial races in 34 states are coming through at uselectionatlas (dot) org.
> Dave Leip does excellent work at getting the figures in as quickly as possible and also, updating them. I often helped him per email in 2008 and 2012 to know when updates were available, due to the time zone difference between the BRD and the East Coast of the USA.
> 
> The 2014 figures are just preliminary figures and of course,  do not cover all 50 states, but they are useful to compare the battle for the Senate, 2014 over 2010:
> 
> View attachment 33883
> 
> Right now, some 42.6 million votes have been tallied. But we are not at the end of counting, not by a longshot.
> 
> 
> Here's a comparative table to former Senatorials. I have made a green-box to show the GOP winning margins since the 1990s:
> 
> View attachment 33884
> 
> *Don't let the colors fool you*. Dave Leip at uselectionatlas uses reverse colors for the parties. At his statistics site, blue = GOP, red = DEM.
> 
> Right now, the GOP margin is *+4.87%*. In 2010, it was *+5.53%* and in 1994, also a massive wave year, it was *+5.90%*. Now, that +4.87% margin is bound to change, it is only preliminary. And also, the raw vote total will change. In 2010, the end total was 66.6 million (big senatorial in Californiaand Florida that year, don't forget), the current tally is 20 million under that total, so I am pretty sure that that raw-vote total is bound to rise considerably. Which is why, WelfareQueen , I wait patiently until the final canvasses are in to make any permanent comparisons.  But we can all see that the GOP needs less of a margin to make a big dent in the Senate. In 2006, the DEM margin in the Senate was a landslide *+11.52%* and yet, the DEMS captured only 6 seats, and two of them just barely. To pick up six seats in 2010, the GOP only needed a *+5.53 *margin, a little less than 1/2 of the Democratic margin from four years before. Sometimes, it's great strategy, sometimes it's kismet, sometimes it a little bit of everything.
> 
> On to the gubernatorial numbers:
> 
> View attachment 33885
> 
> In the gubernatorial, 60.8 million votes have already been tallied.
> 
> And, as I did with the senatorials, here, a comparison:
> 
> View attachment 33886
> 
> 
> Currently, the GOP is at *+5.39%* over the DEMS, a statistic that is only about 1/2 point larger than the current senatorial statistic, so _we are seeing consistency across the board_.  In 2010, here in the gubernatorials, the DEMS actually won, by *+0.73%*. How is this possible? California, New York and Illinois were in the gubernatorial picture And those DEM gub races, where they won, were big wins for them.
> 
> In 2010, 70.8 million votes were cast in the gubernatorials and so, right now, we are 10 million under that total. This raw count is also likely to grow over the next 6 weeks as well. Only, most of the states with gubernatorials this time around were many of the smaller states (breadbasket, plains states), and they tend to get their results in earlier than the massive states. So, whether the gubernatorial totals will hit 70.8 million, I am not so sure.
> 
> I have no stats yet on all 435 House races, that is a total pain in that ass to double check, noting again, until the final canvasses are in.
> 
> But these two preliminary sets of totals might be of help to both of you fine gentlemen.
> 
> I will update this set of data in two weeks from now. It will be interesting to see what has changed in the meantime.



Thanks, Stat.  

The House races are most likely to give us the best total of voters nationwide because they are the only national elections in the off years. Comparing them to prior off years will be an indication of whether we had more or less turnout. My own inclination is to go with less because there wasn't the same motivation as there was in 2010 and 2006.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Derideo_Te said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te WelfareQueen
> 
> The preliminary totals for the 36 senatorial races in 34 states are coming through at uselectionatlas (dot) org.
> Dave Leip does excellent work at getting the figures in as quickly as possible and also, updating them. I often helped him per email in 2008 and 2012 to know when updates were available, due to the time zone difference between the BRD and the East Coast of the USA.
> 
> The 2014 figures are just preliminary figures and of course,  do not cover all 50 states, but they are useful to compare the battle for the Senate, 2014 over 2010:
> 
> View attachment 33883
> 
> Right now, some 42.6 million votes have been tallied. But we are not at the end of counting, not by a longshot.
> 
> 
> Here's a comparative table to former Senatorials. I have made a green-box to show the GOP winning margins since the 1990s:
> 
> View attachment 33884
> 
> *Don't let the colors fool you*. Dave Leip at uselectionatlas uses reverse colors for the parties. At his statistics site, blue = GOP, red = DEM.
> 
> Right now, the GOP margin is *+4.87%*. In 2010, it was *+5.53%* and in 1994, also a massive wave year, it was *+5.90%*. Now, that +4.87% margin is bound to change, it is only preliminary. And also, the raw vote total will change. In 2010, the end total was 66.6 million (big senatorial in Californiaand Florida that year, don't forget), the current tally is 20 million under that total, so I am pretty sure that that raw-vote total is bound to rise considerably. Which is why, WelfareQueen , I wait patiently until the final canvasses are in to make any permanent comparisons.  But we can all see that the GOP needs less of a margin to make a big dent in the Senate. In 2006, the DEM margin in the Senate was a landslide *+11.52%* and yet, the DEMS captured only 6 seats, and two of them just barely. To pick up six seats in 2010, the GOP only needed a *+5.53 *margin, a little less than 1/2 of the Democratic margin from four years before. Sometimes, it's great strategy, sometimes it's kismet, sometimes it a little bit of everything.
> 
> On to the gubernatorial numbers:
> 
> View attachment 33885
> 
> In the gubernatorial, 60.8 million votes have already been tallied.
> 
> And, as I did with the senatorials, here, a comparison:
> 
> View attachment 33886
> 
> 
> Currently, the GOP is at *+5.39%* over the DEMS, a statistic that is only about 1/2 point larger than the current senatorial statistic, so _we are seeing consistency across the board_.  In 2010, here in the gubernatorials, the DEMS actually won, by *+0.73%*. How is this possible? California, New York and Illinois were in the gubernatorial picture And those DEM gub races, where they won, were big wins for them.
> 
> In 2010, 70.8 million votes were cast in the gubernatorials and so, right now, we are 10 million under that total. This raw count is also likely to grow over the next 6 weeks as well. Only, most of the states with gubernatorials this time around were many of the smaller states (breadbasket, plains states), and they tend to get their results in earlier than the massive states. So, whether the gubernatorial totals will hit 70.8 million, I am not so sure.
> 
> I have no stats yet on all 435 House races, that is a total pain in that ass to double check, noting again, until the final canvasses are in.
> 
> But these two preliminary sets of totals might be of help to both of you fine gentlemen.
> 
> I will update this set of data in two weeks from now. It will be interesting to see what has changed in the meantime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Stat.
> 
> The House races are most likely to give us the best total of voters nationwide because they are the only national elections in the off years. Comparing them to prior off years will be an indication of whether we had more or less turnout. My own inclination is to go with less because there wasn't the same motivation as there was in 2010 and 2006.
Click to expand...


Logically, the highest voter count in mid-term years will be from the HOR elections, since all 50 states are in the mix.  But I do find it helpful to compare all three major types of elections.


----------



## NLT




----------



## WelfareQueen

Derideo_Te said:


> How many voters actually voted?
> 
> NC had a record high midterm turnout while NJ had a record low.
> 
> Does anyone have any actual figures because I am having a hard time finding any.




Me too.  The President was complaining in his press conference yesterday that 2/3 of voters didn't show up....but an analyst immediately said the President was basically lying and the numbers were quite a bit higher.

But of course, no number was mentioned.   


I would really like to know.  I have a link that says the lowest turnout Nationally was Indiana at 36.6% and the highest was Maine at 59.3%.  So I guess all I can say is clearly the President lied again.  Shocking!!!  But the final turnout number I cannot find.  

Here's a link to the data I could find.  


We Had The Lowest Voter Turnout Since 1940 s


----------



## Statistikhengst

WelfareQueen said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many voters actually voted?
> 
> NC had a record high midterm turnout while NJ had a record low.
> 
> Does anyone have any actual figures because I am having a hard time finding any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me too.  The President was complaining in his press conference yesterday that 2/3 of voters didn't show up....but an analyst immediately said the President was basically lying and the numbers were quite a bit higher.
> 
> But of course, no number was mentioned.
> 
> 
> I would really like to know.  I have a link that says the lowest turnout Nationally was Indiana at 36.6% and the highest was Maine at 59.3%.  So I guess all I can say is clearly the President lied again.  Shocking!!!  But the final turnout number I cannot find.
> 
> Here's a link to the data I could find.
> 
> 
> We Had The Lowest Voter Turnout Since 1940 s
Click to expand...

When the final canvasses are in,  then we will know for sure. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## WelfareQueen

Statistikhengst said:


> Derideo_Te WelfareQueen
> 
> The preliminary totals for the 36 senatorial races in 34 states are coming through at uselectionatlas (dot) org.
> Dave Leip does excellent work at getting the figures in as quickly as possible and also, updating them. I often helped him per email in 2008 and 2012 to know when updates were available, due to the time zone difference between the BRD and the East Coast of the USA.
> 
> The 2014 figures are just preliminary figures and of course,  do not cover all 50 states, but they are useful to compare the battle for the Senate, 2014 over 2010:
> 
> View attachment 33883
> 
> Right now, some 42.6 million votes have been tallied. But we are not at the end of counting, not by a longshot.
> 
> 
> Here's a comparative table to former Senatorials. I have made a green-box to show the GOP winning margins since the 1990s:
> 
> View attachment 33884
> 
> *Don't let the colors fool you*. Dave Leip at uselectionatlas uses reverse colors for the parties. At his statistics site, blue = GOP, red = DEM.
> 
> *Right now, the GOP margin is +4.87%. *In 2010, it was *+5.53%* and in 1994, also a massive wave year, it was *+5.90%*. Now, that +4.87% margin is bound to change, it is only preliminary. And also, the raw vote total will change. In 2010, the end total was 66.6 million (big senatorial in Californiaand Florida that year, don't forget), the current tally is 20 million under that total, so I am pretty sure that that raw-vote total is bound to rise considerably. Which is why, WelfareQueen , I wait patiently until the final canvasses are in to make any permanent comparisons.  But we can all see that the GOP needs less of a margin to make a big dent in the Senate. In 2006, the DEM margin in the Senate was a landslide *+11.52%* and yet, the DEMS captured only 6 seats, and two of them just barely. To pick up six seats in 2010, the GOP only needed a *+5.53 *margin, a little less than 1/2 of the Democratic margin from four years before. Sometimes, it's great strategy, sometimes it's kismet, sometimes it a little bit of everything.
> 
> On to the gubernatorial numbers:
> 
> View attachment 33885
> 
> In the gubernatorial, 60.8 million votes have already been tallied.
> 
> And, as I did with the senatorials, here, a comparison:
> 
> View attachment 33886
> 
> 
> Currently, the GOP is at *+5.39%* over the DEMS, a statistic that is only about 1/2 point larger than the current senatorial statistic, so _we are seeing consistency across the board_.  In 2010, here in the gubernatorials, the DEMS actually won, by *+0.73%*. How is this possible? California, New York and Illinois were in the gubernatorial picture And those DEM gub races, where they won, were big wins for them.
> 
> In 2010, 70.8 million votes were cast in the gubernatorials and so, right now, we are 10 million under that total. This raw count is also likely to grow over the next 6 weeks as well. Only, most of the states with gubernatorials this time around were many of the smaller states (breadbasket, plains states), and they tend to get their results in earlier than the massive states. So, whether the gubernatorial totals will hit 70.8 million, I am not so sure.
> 
> I have no stats yet on all 435 House races, that is a total pain in that ass to double check, noting again, until the final canvasses are in.
> 
> But these two preliminary sets of totals might be of help to both of you fine gentlemen.
> 
> I will update this set of data in two weeks from now. It will be interesting to see what has changed in the meantime.




I bolded the key preliminary stat above.  The pollsters used a +2-2.3% GOP turnout model.  The actual margin is close to 5%.  It appears they were off roughly 100% or more. 

A terrible performance that will require a detailed explanation.


----------



## Derideo_Te

WelfareQueen said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many voters actually voted?
> 
> NC had a record high midterm turnout while NJ had a record low.
> 
> Does anyone have any actual figures because I am having a hard time finding any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me too.  The President was complaining in his press conference yesterday that 2/3 of voters didn't show up....but an analyst immediately said the President was basically lying and the numbers were quite a bit higher.
> 
> But of course, no number was mentioned.
> 
> 
> I would really like to know.  I have a link that says the lowest turnout Nationally was Indiana at 36.6% and the highest was Maine at 59.3%.  So I guess all I can say is clearly the President lied again.  Shocking!!!  But the final turnout number I cannot find.
> 
> Here's a link to the data I could find.
> 
> 
> We Had The Lowest Voter Turnout Since 1940 s
Click to expand...


Calling someone a liar for the difference between 33.3% and 36.6%? If I were going to round it up for the benefit of a press conference I would have gone with 2/3 rds myself so you can call me a liar too.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Found data that claims preliminary voter turnout Nationally was 36.6% which is likely to go quite a bit higher.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Derideo_Te said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many voters actually voted?
> 
> NC had a record high midterm turnout while NJ had a record low.
> 
> Does anyone have any actual figures because I am having a hard time finding any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me too.  The President was complaining in his press conference yesterday that 2/3 of voters didn't show up....but an analyst immediately said the President was basically lying and the numbers were quite a bit higher.
> 
> But of course, no number was mentioned.
> 
> 
> I would really like to know.  I have a link that says the lowest turnout Nationally was Indiana at 36.6% and the highest was Maine at 59.3%.  So I guess all I can say is clearly the President lied again.  Shocking!!!  But the final turnout number I cannot find.
> 
> Here's a link to the data I could find.
> 
> 
> We Had The Lowest Voter Turnout Since 1940 s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling someone a liar for the difference between 33.3% and 36.6%? If I were going to round it up for the benefit of a press conference I would have gone with 2/3 rds myself so you can call me a liar too.
Click to expand...



He was butt hurt and fudged the numbers to make himself feel better.  And no....he was not telling the truth.


----------

