Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

[Kepler]

We had a 2nd term thread and a 2016 campaign thread but not a 2014 campaign thread. UNTIL NOW!!!

This is pretty spiffy, not for the article (though that's interesting) but for the nice graphical representation of the 2014 Senate cycle to the right and the detailed drill down. I'm sure when 538 gets its act together it will do an even better job (with a better selection of polling, too). I haven't gone deeply into it but I am assuming Kos is including Dem polling ops but excluding GOP ones, which will skew the results slightly towards the Dems. (The correct thing to do is to toss out all partisan polling.)

BTW, the Dems need 16 of the 36 2014 seats (33 class 2 plus 3 special elections) to hold the Senate. The 16th state on the right hand graphic is LA.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Interesting they have Michigan's open Senate seat at 81% for the Democrats. It's no secret that Terri Lynn Land is not well-liked by the wingnuts in her own party (she's the Republican Hillary Clinton, sans the national exposure), but her ability to spend is considerably greater than Gary Peters'. The trouble she's started to run into in the past several months is that she's been refusing to debate Peters, and she's deliberately avoided the media as much as possible after a disastrous impromptu press conference awhile back, for which she was caught totally unprepared and acted like a deer in the headlights.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

We had a 2nd term thread and a 2016 campaign thread but not a 2014 campaign thread. UNTIL NOW!!!

This is pretty spiffy, not for the article (though that's interesting) but for the nice graphical representation of the 2014 Senate cycle to the right and the detailed drill down. I'm sure when 538 gets its act together it will do an even better job (with a better selection of polling, too). I haven't gone deeply into it but I am assuming Kos is including Dem polling ops but excluding GOP ones, which will skew the results slightly towards the Dems. (The correct thing to do is to toss out all partisan polling.)

BTW, the Dems need 16 of the 36 2014 seats (33 class 2 plus 3 special elections) to hold the Senate. The 16th state on the right hand graphic is LA.

That whole graph is meaningless as is most predictions at this point that don't revolve around independent polling, which has been on and off depending on the race.

Come October, if polling continues to show even (within margin of error) races in 9 states (NC, LA, AR, AK, GA, KY, IA, KS and CO) it essentually becomes a turnout election. I would think the KY, GA, IA, and CO seats will revert to their norms. That leaves 5 races (AK, AR, LA, NC, and KS) to decide to election after giving the GOP the MT, WVA, and ND seats. They'll need 3 out of 4 and the wildcard in KS to sort itself out.

I am amused by some of the crack analysis I'm seeing though. Stu Rotherberg, a guy who stated the 2012 Prez election was a toss up and he couldn't make a call, is now stating based not on polls but on his own analysis that the GOP will win at least 8 seats and maybe more! That would mean they win every competitive seat up for grabs while holding all of their own seats AND defeat no less than 5! Dem incumbent Senators, which hasn't happened since...wait for it...1980! A year most older, white, male, 60 something year old pundits seem to view every election through its prism.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

That whole graph is meaningless as is most predictions at this point that don't revolve around independent polling, which has been on and off depending on the race.

Come October, if polling continues to show even (within margin of error) races in 9 states (NC, LA, AR, AK, GA, KY, IA, KS and CO) it essentually becomes a turnout election. I would think the KY, GA, IA, and CO seats will revert to their norms. That leaves 5 races (AK, AR, LA, NC, and KS) to decide to election after giving the GOP the MT, WVA, and ND seats. They'll need 3 out of 4 and the wildcard in KS to sort itself out.

I am amused by some of the crack analysis I'm seeing though. Stu Rotherberg, a guy who stated the 2012 Prez election was a toss up and he couldn't make a call, is now stating based not on polls but on his own analysis that the GOP will win at least 8 seats and maybe more! That would mean they win every competitive seat up for grabs while holding all of their own seats AND defeat no less than 5! Dem incumbent Senators, which hasn't happened since...wait for it...1980! A year most older, white, male, 60 something year old pundits seem to view every election through its prism.

The "not since 1980" is meaningless -- Senate elections aren't independent rolls of the same dice, they're all different because the seat makeup changes. This is a particularly bad cycle for the Dems because they have more seats up and they include several highly vulnerable seats in states Romney carried. And look at your own analysis: the GOP needs 4 of 5 from {AK, AR, LA, NC, and KS}. That looks very, very doable. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they take all 5.

I agree about the polling, though. There just aren't enough solid sources yet. Though obviously about 26 of the 36 seats don't even need polling -- we already know where they're going.

If the GOP does run up a +6 or +8 they may wind up destroying themselves for 2016. Anybody with the temerity to suggest they can't win nationally on their fundy dinosaur platform will be hooted down by pointing to the 2014 results. The full electorate will turn out in 2016, in a Senate cycle as bad for the GOP as this one is good, and they could be staring at a Dem hat trick, particularly if they put some wing ding like Cruz or Ryan at the top of the ticket.

 

[unofan]

That whole graph is meaningless as is most predictions at this point that don't revolve around independent polling, which has been on and off depending on the race.

Come October, if polling continues to show even (within margin of error) races in 9 states (NC, LA, AR, AK, GA, KY, IA, KS and CO) it essentually becomes a turnout election. I would think the KY, GA, IA, and CO seats will revert to their norms. That leaves 5 races (AK, AR, LA, NC, and KS) to decide to election after giving the GOP the MT, WVA, and ND seats. They'll need 3 out of 4 and the wildcard in KS to sort itself out.

I am amused by some of the crack analysis I'm seeing though. Stu Rotherberg, a guy who stated the 2012 Prez election was a toss up and he couldn't make a call, is now stating based not on polls but on his own analysis that the GOP will win at least 8 seats and maybe more! That would mean they win every competitive seat up for grabs while holding all of their own seats AND defeat no less than 5! Dem incumbent Senators, which hasn't happened since...wait for it...1980! A year most older, white, male, 60 something year old pundits seem to view every election through its prism.

Iowa is looking more and more like it's going red. The governor's race isn't even close, the stache is up like 20 points, which will hinder turnout even more. Braley still has more money than Ernst, aka Palin-lite, but his campaign has sucked and his super PAC support ads have almost entirely been swings and misses (one was so comically bad it looked like an outtake from a b-rated movie). Meanwhile, Rove and the Kochs use his 47% moment (his comment about Grassley being a farmer from Iowa in a negative light) against him every chance they get.

Frankly, Braley deserves to lose, even if I'll hold my nose and vote for him because if nothing else, he's not a tea party nut job like his opponent.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

The "not since 1980" is meaningless -- Senate elections aren't independent rolls of the same dice, they're all different because the seat makeup changes. This is a particularly bad cycle for the Dems because they have more seats up and they include several highly vulnerable seats in states Romney carried. And look at your own analysis: the GOP needs 4 of 5 from {AK, AR, LA, NC, and KS}. That looks very, very doable. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they take all 5.

I agree about the polling, though. There just aren't enough solid sources yet. Though obviously about 26 of the 36 seats don't even need polling -- we already know where they're going.

If the GOP does run up a +6 or +8 they may wind up destroying themselves for 2016. Anybody with the temerity to suggest they can't win nationally on their fundy dinosaur platform will be hooted down by pointing to the 2014 results. The full electorate will turn out in 2016, in a Senate cycle as bad for the GOP as this one is good, and they could be staring at a Dem hat trick, particularly if they put some wing ding like Cruz or Ryan at the top of the ticket.

You need not go back to 1980. Look at the last few elections. How many incumbents lost their seats to a wave by the other party? In 2012 Scott Brown lost and....anybody else? Lugar lost in the primary but that really doesn't count for our purposes here. In 2010 I believe Lincoln in Ark & Feingold were the only Dem incumbents who lost.

Having said that, it comes down to polling. Right now none of the aforementioned Dem incumbents are any worse than a 50/50 shot to win, although if Landrieu goes to a run off I don't like her chances. Same odds go for GOP incumbents McConnell and Roberts although the quirks of the Roberts race make his road a little tougher. If we go into election night with a bunch of tie races I feel pretty good because 1) Dems have a bit better turnout machine, and 2) polls tend to overestimate the older white demographic as they're much more likely to tell pollsters that they'll definitely vote.

First thing to look for is if McConnell, Roberts and Perdue (the GOP candidate in GA) start getting outside the margin of error in independent polling. On the other side, look to see if Udall (CO) and Braley (IA) do the same. Absent either one of those things happening, gear up the ground troops and have at it all of these races.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

You need not go back to 1980. Look at the last few elections. How many incumbents lost their seats to a wave by the other party?

The point is, it doesn't matter. You're falling into a common statistical fallacy -- you're trying to extrapolate a future event based on past events that are not related to it or one another. You can project things like presidential elections because they always involve the entire electorate which changes very little from term to term. That's comparing the past weather in St. Paul to the future weather in St. Paul. But you can't call the past Senate elections a dataset on which to base future projections of Senate elections. That's like projecting David Wright's batting average based on Daniel Murphy's, Curtis Granderson's, and Travis d'Arnaud's.

All that matters for 2014 is the 2014 landscape and when you look at all the independent likelihoods of individual races it looks like a pretty good bet that the GOP will get +6. When you factor in that the races are not truly independent of one another because there is also a national baseline that pulls parties up or down, that means though the mean is still around +6 a +8 is a little more likely than a situation of true independence. Of course, so is a +4 and a GOP failure.

If I had to bet today I'd say GOP +6 if they don't shut the government down again and +4 if they do.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

The point is, it doesn't matter. You're falling into a common statistical fallacy -- you're trying to extrapolate a future event based on past events that are not related to it or one another. You can project things like presidential elections because they always involve the entire electorate which changes very little from term to term. That's comparing the past weather in St. Paul to the future weather in St. Paul. But you can't call the past Senate elections a dataset on which to base future projections of Senate elections. That's like projecting David Wright's batting average based on Daniel Murphy's, Curtis Granderson's, and Travis d'Arnaud's.

All that matters for 2014 is the 2014 landscape and when you look at all the independent likelihoods of individual races it looks like a pretty good bet that the GOP will get +6. When you factor in that the races are not truly independent of one another because there is also a national baseline that pulls parties up or down, that means though the mean is still around +6 a +8 is a little more likely than a situation of true independence. Of course, so is a +4 and a GOP failure.

If I had to bet today I'd say GOP +6 if they don't shut the government down again and +4 if they do.

I think you're being influenced by your oft stated idea that people don't split their votes. If that was the case Susan Collins in Maine would be facing a lot tougher election. For whatever reason, some incumbents have juice with people who voted for the other party in the last Presidential election. Pryor would be the best example of that as perhaps he's keeping the Clinton voters in his base, or maybe its his family name. The problem the "just look at if its a red/blue state" theory runs into is 1/3rd of the Senate representing states their party lost in recent elections. A weak challenger also helps, and while there's no Todd Akin's out there (Tillis in NC probably comes the closest) not every GOP candidate is Republican Jesus any more than Michelle Nunn is for the Dems.

I'd be surprised to see any party run the table on all competitive seats. That's asking a lot.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

I think you're being influenced by your oft stated idea that people don't split their votes. If that was the case Susan Collins in Maine would be facing a lot tougher election. For whatever reason, some incumbents have juice with people who voted for the other party in the last Presidential election. Pryor would be the best example of that as perhaps he's keeping the Clinton voters in his base, or maybe its his family name. The problem the "just look at if its a red/blue state" theory runs into is 1/3rd of the Senate representing states their party lost in recent elections. A weak challenger also helps, and while there's no Todd Akin's out there (Tillis in NC probably comes the closest) not every GOP candidate is Republican Jesus any more than Michelle Nunn is for the Dems.

I'd be surprised to see any party run the table on all competitive seats. That's asking a lot.

That's reasonable. We'll see.

 

[unofan]

I think you're being influenced by your oft stated idea that people don't split their votes. If that was the case Susan Collins in Maine would be facing a lot tougher election. For whatever reason, some incumbents have juice with people who voted for the other party in the last Presidential election. Pryor would be the best example of that as perhaps he's keeping the Clinton voters in his base, or maybe its his family name. The problem the "just look at if its a red/blue state" theory runs into is 1/3rd of the Senate representing states their party lost in recent elections. A weak challenger also helps, and while there's no Todd Akin's out there (Tillis in NC probably comes the closest) not every GOP candidate is Republican Jesus any more than Michelle Nunn is for the Dems.

I'd be surprised to see any party run the table on all competitive seats. That's asking a lot.

The issue is that this year's crop were last elected in a blue wave year during a presidential election. They're now facing at best a neutral year and at worst a slight gop-wave in an off year election. All else being equal, you'd expect the dems to lose seats simply because those two changes probably give the GOP a five point advantage over 6 years ago.

That said, the same thing will happen in two years, just reversed. The 2010 tea party wave will be up and facing an electorate that is probably five points bluer than six years prior.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

The issue is that this year's crop were last elected in a blue wave year during a presidential election. They're now facing at best a neutral year and at worst a slight gop-wave in an off year election. All else being equal, you'd expect the dems to lose seats simply because those two changes probably give the GOP a five point advantage over 6 years ago.

That said, the same thing will happen in two years, just reversed. The 2010 tea party wave will be up and facing an electorate that is probably five points bluer than six years prior.

Also exaggerating it is the on/off cycle switch. 2008 was a blue wave and an on year; 2010 was a red wave and an off year. There's about a 2 point swing to the Dems in on year elections, and while that doesn't sound like much it's actually pretty important, since it pushes all the "photo finishes" first to one side, then to the other.

Some day the Dems will have enough of a majority to reform federal elections, moving election day to at least a national holiday or a weekend and hopefully to a full week. With people actually being able to get to the polls, the difference between on and off cycles should diminish. Obviously the GOP is going to fight any measure that increases turnout, since the harder they can make it for ordinary people to vote the better they do (hence all the voter suppression laws on the books in red states).

 

[joecct]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Also exaggerating it is the on/off cycle switch. 2008 was a blue wave and an on year; 2010 was a red wave and an off year. There's about a 2 point swing to the Dems in on year elections, and while that doesn't sound like much it's actually pretty important, since it pushes all the "photo finishes" first to one side, then to the other.

Some day the Dems will have enough of a majority to reform federal elections, moving election day to at least a national holiday or a weekend and hopefully to a full week. With people actually being able to get to the polls, the difference between on and off cycles should diminish. Obviously the GOP is going to fight any measure that increases turnout, since the harder they can make it for ordinary people to vote the better they do (hence all the voter suppression laws on the books in red states).

National Election Day 7/4 as we should celebrate the results with bonfires and illuminations
Inauguration Day - Some time in early/mid September.
Congress reports for duty on 8/15 and immediately adjourns so everyone can go to the Eastern Shore/Jersey Shore.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

National Election Day 7/4 as we should celebrate the results with bonfires and illuminations
Inauguration Day - Some time in early/mid September.
Congress reports for duty on 8/15 and immediately adjourns so everyone can go to the Eastern Shore/Jersey Shore.

This would be awesome.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Rover's gonna love this story.

tl; dr: When you look at generic polling the Dems are doomed, but when you look at individual race polling the Dems are slightly less doomed.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

538 Senate Model is up and running.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Subscribed because my senator > your senator.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Also exaggerating it is the on/off cycle switch. 2008 was a blue wave and an on year; 2010 was a red wave and an off year. There's about a 2 point swing to the Dems in on year elections, and while that doesn't sound like much it's actually pretty important, since it pushes all the "photo finishes" first to one side, then to the other.

Some day the Dems will have enough of a majority to reform federal elections, moving election day to at least a national holiday or a weekend and hopefully to a full week. With people actually being able to get to the polls, the difference between on and off cycles should diminish. Obviously the GOP is going to fight any measure that increases turnout, since the harder they can make it for ordinary people to vote the better they do (hence all the voter suppression laws on the books in red states).

"The easier Democrats make it to round up bus loads of derelict "voters" and transport them to polling places where their eligibility is carefully vetted, the better." We should certainly do away with those racist citizenship requirements. The bills expanding voting to an entire week should also include free taxi rides to and from the polls and a gallon of Ripple. "Ordinary" people get thirsty, doncha know? Especially the ones with extensive criminal records. And we should make "walking around money" tax deductible. And closing times at various key inner city precincts should be flexible, to permit compensating for unexpectedly high turnout by "non ordinary" voters in other precincts.

 

[joecct]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Ah yes. Civics 101, courtesy of MSNBC.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/does-msnbcs-sharpton-think-gop-runs-senate

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Ah yes. Civics 101, courtesy of MSNBC.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/does-msnbcs-sharpton-think-gop-runs-senate

In addition to being a thoroughly disreputable p.o.s, he's also an ignorant a*shat. Give the man more "skillets."

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Rover's gonna love this story.

tl; dr: When you look at generic polling the Dems are doomed, but when you look at individual race polling the Dems are slightly less doomed.

I'm less intersted in that and more interested in a recent Pew Research poll showing Dems up 5 with registered voters but down like 2 to "likely" voters.

So, its basically a "do Dems turn out" election. Its not too much more complicated than that. If you take a poll in August of likely voters, aka those who are a 10 on scale of 1-10 of likehood to vote, you're going to get a lot of conservatives. Why? Most people under 50 are on vacation with their kids or moving to attend college/grad school, while old people are the ones still answering their land lines. Next, righties are in a perpetual state of rage, hence their answer that they'll definitely vote.

What screwed Gallup last time around was not including voters who were a 7 or less when they said whether they'd vote. Turned out they all did, and Mittens got his @ ss kicked along with his party up and down the ballot (gains in Senate and House for Dems).

So, take a race like Arkansas. Pryor probably has enough crossover support from Romney/McCain voters to win, but ONLY if his core supporters show up in enough #'s to put him over. Same thing in North Carolina.

On the flip side, if Purdue gets his people to the polls I don't think Nunn can beat him purely on her last name. In McConnell's case, he's unpopular enough to lose swing voters, so he really needs the hardcore righty Teabaggers to come out for him, even though he epitomizes everything they hate, a dealmaking lifetime DC politician.

Beyond that, again look for trends. Michigan race is probably off the boards. Look to see if the "next 4" of CO, IA, KY, and GA start to drift in the direction of the state's lean. As I've said before, I see this election coming down to NC, Alaska, Arkansas and Louisiana with the Kansas wildcard too unclear at this point.