Senate Forecast, November 4th: Republican Net Gain of Four

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 15:00


Current 2010 Senate Outlook: Net Republican Gain of 4 Seats
Republican-Held Seats
Democratic Pickups: 1-2 (One or two of Kentucky, Missouri and Ohio)
State Type Democrat Republican Margin #Polls
Ohio
OH D Primary Fisher + 9.0 2
OH Open Fisher Portman* D 5.0 2
OH Open Brunner Portman* D 1.5 2
Missouri
MO Open Carnahan Blunt* D 1.5 2
Kentucky
KY D Primary Mongiardo + 8.7 3
KY R Primary Grayson + 7.3 3
KY Open Conway Paul D 4.5 4
KY Open Mongiardo Paul D 0.5 4
KY Open Conway Grayson R 4.3 4
KY Open Mongiardo Grayson R 6.8 4
New Hampshire
NH Open Hodes* Ayotte R 7.3 3
Louisiana
LA Incumbent Melancon Vitter R 10.0 1
North Carolina
NC Incumbent Marshall* Burr R 11.3 4
Florida
FL R Primary Crist +20.0 4
FL Open Meek* Rubio R 8.3 3
FL Open Meek* Crist R 17.0 3
(Others to keep an eye on: Iowa, Texas)

Democratic-Held Seats
Democratic Losses: 5-6 (Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware and Nevada, plus one or two of Arkansas, Illinois and Pennsylvania)
State Type Democrat Republican Margin #Polls
Colorado
CO D Primary Bennet + 14.0 1
CO Incumbent Bennet Norton* R 9.0 1
CO Open Romanoff Norton* R 8.0 1
Nevada
NV R Primary Tarkanian + 8.5 2
NV Incumbent Reid Tarkanian R 6.6 3
NV Incumbent Reid Lowden R 6.6 5
Connecticut
CT Incumbent Dodd* Simmons* R 6.3 3
Delaware
DE Special Biden** Castle R 3.0 2
Pennsylvania
PA D Primary Sestak Specter R 16.7 7
PA Open Sestak Toomey R 2.3 7
PA Incumbent Specter Toomey D 0.1 8
Illinois
IL Special Giannoulis*** Kirk* R 1.8 4
Arkansas
AR Incumbent Lincoln Baker R 0.5 2
AR Incumbent Lincoln Coleman D 3.0 2
AR Incumbent Lincoln Cox D 7.0 2
AR Incumbent Lincoln Hendren D 8.0 2
California
CA R Primary Fiorina + 1.0 1
CA Incumbent Boxer Fiorina D 15.0 3
CA Incumbent Boxer DeVore D 16.7 3
(Others to keep an eye on: New York, North Dakota, Washington, Wisconsin)

Methodology and notes in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: Senate Forecast, November 4th: Republican Net Gain of Four
Methodology:

  1. The forecast is entirely based on polling.

  2. For now, use the simple mean of all polls where the majority of interviews were conducted since August 1st, when the new political equilibrium began.

  3. As the election draws closer, restrict the timeframe for polls included in the averages. During the final six weeks of an election, use the simple mean from the last 15 days.

  4. Campaigns where one party is ahead by 6.0 or more are considered "solid." Campaigns between 2.7 and 5.9 are considered "leans." Campaigns within 2.6 or less are considered "toss-ups." These categories are subject to refinement based on continued research into past elections.

  5. "Solid" and "lean" seats are considered pickups, while toss-ups are 50-50 for each party. States with mixed results will be considered 50-50 until the primary election. The overall forecast is the most likely seat change based on the current forecast.  This is also subject to refinement.

  6. Do not include Zogby Interactive polls and Columbus Dispatch polls, due to their horrendous past performance and questionable methodologies.

  7. Do not include Strategic Vision polls, as it is starting to seem likely those are not real polls.

  8. Include campaign-funded polls. Further, if there is more than one poll from a single organization, include all of them.
The basic idea is to cram as many polls with sound methodologies into the averages as possible, and weight them evenly to include more overall data in the sample. Because voter preferences don't really change that much in high-profile elections, I thought this method might produce a more accurate result through logic of regression to the mean. It seems to work pretty well, as my research has shown so far.

This is different from my 2006 and 2008 methodology in that it includes polls from 15 days out from an election, instead of only 8. Further, campaign funded polls, and multiple polls from a single polling firm, are now included. All of these changes were made to include more polls in the averages, since my previous methodology was about 10-20% less accurate than Pollster.com and fivethrityeight.com. Since they had already raised the bar so high, and since they will probably improve their methodologies for 2010 even more, it was time for Open Left to step it up.

Notes:
*= Faces primary, but heavy favorite
**= Not an announced candidate at this time
***= Faces serious primary challenges, but only candidate for which general election polling is available.


Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
can we get a replacement for Dodd? (0.00 / 0)
Please. Yes, he's done some good things in the past. It's gold watch time. Pat on your back, thanks, and goodbye.

This seat, in a blue state, will be much easier to win with a damage-free candidate.  


Lamont? (0.00 / 0)
I've been hoping that Dodd would step aside for Lamont.  But I don't see that happening, of course.  And I am sure Lamont doesn't want to get into another ugly primary battle.

Has CT plugged the sore loser loophole yet?


[ Parent ]
Lamont is running for govenor... n/t (4.00 / 1)


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
I know (0.00 / 0)
So far I'm not convinced that anyone can defeat Rell if she chooses to run.

[ Parent ]
Lamont would be horrible (4.00 / 1)
His GE campaign in 2006 is a study in how not to run for office.

[ Parent ]
I'm sure he's learned from his mistakes (4.00 / 1)
hopefully... I mean a lot of successful candidates have screwed up at least once early on.  Including our current President.

[ Parent ]
I may be wrong (4.00 / 1)
But it likes Dodd's polling numbers vs Simmons have tightened.  THe race is a year out, Dodd is a good campaigner.  I'm not as worried about Dodd or Reid in this one, although if we face an anti incumbent wave, that will obviously hurt them.    Biden's numbers look better as well.  

Before its all said and done I think we end up either even or -1 or 2.


[ Parent ]
Dodd's dead. But can't do better on the numbers?? (0.00 / 0)
The country is united on one growing and raging issue - Wall Street is the enemy. So I think anyone connected to it, including Obama, will have deep trouble wading through the tomatoes.
And thanks to Rahm and Schumer, the Dems are infested with capitalists.

Don't Progressives have time to take advantage of such an opportunity and find more new guys like Grayson to oust more ConservaDems??  Only 30 Senate Dems signed up for the PO.

It's time for a second look and some tough love on the other 28!

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.


[ Parent ]
It wildly sucks ... (4.00 / 2)
That we have a real good shot at losing the President's former seat, the VP's, and the Interior Secretary's.  And as a PA resident, we had better rally the base and not risk freaking Pat Toomey.  But ... given that the Democrats will most likely learn exactly the wrong lesson on how to proceed, I'm not hopeful.  A turnout-driven slaughter looks pretty unavoidable right now.  At least there's still time.

Illinois (4.00 / 1)
We won't lose this seat.  I'll say it right now.

[ Parent ]
DE is a toss-up (4.00 / 1)
I love how everyone thinks DE is a lock for Castle when really it's a straight toss-up (assuming Biden runs).

And every time one of these Senate forecasts comes up I look at Toomey's numbers and shake my head.  Toomey winning the general?  Really?

As for CO, Bennet sucks in general, though Romanoff doesn't seem to be doing much better.  Unfortunately, between Bennet, the Salazars, Ritter and now Udall, CO doesn't seem like very friendly territory for liberals in general.


[ Parent ]
So the left-wing blogosphere is out of the Smug™ mode (0.00 / 0)
it has been in since 08?

Good!

Perhaps now we can get back to the business of cultural transformation.

 


Deceiving Numbers (4.00 / 1)
To be completely honest, I don't think these numbers are harbingers of a Democratic implosion.

Although that could happen, and it will certainly be a tough year, I don't consider poll numbers very meaningful until the elections really get under way. Some voters may vote decisively Democrat or Republican, but many remain "Undecided" until the signs start going up on yards, ads start playing on the telly, and each candidate is able to define him/herself (or his/her opponent, as it happens).


I think they can lose California (0.00 / 0)
With a Republican candidate like Carly Fiorina

I they can't lose (0.00 / 0)
With Carly Fiorina

[ Parent ]
Primaries (0.00 / 0)
How many of these Democratic primaries are 1) up for grabs and 2) consequential in terms of getting better Democrats or adding progressive leaders to the caucus?  

PA obviously fits the bill, and I would think that OH is in that category as well.  How about the rest?  

Also, what about MA?

Who are the best keepers of the people's liberties? The people themselves. The sacred trust can be no where so safe as in the hands most interested in preserving it.
James Madison


Good questions (0.00 / 0)
I have no definitive answers, except to say that we should prioritize getting the maximum liberal Senator out of MA (since it's one of the most liberal states in the country, and this is the seat of Ted Kennedy to boot) and that primaries in CO and IL are probably also important.

We might also want to look at the FL race, since Kendrick Meek isn't exactly super liberal.


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search