Google Ads


Site Stats

Using Charlie Cook's historical & current ratings to predict next month's midterm......

by: DCCyclone

Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 2:06 PM EDT


I'm not one who's provided a race-by-race breakdown to predict the House elections.  But I finally decided to come up with my own rudimentary model, with Charlie Cook's ratings as a guide.
DCCyclone :: Using Charlie Cook's historical & current ratings to predict next month's midterm......
My model relies on Cook's late September ratings in 2008 and 2006, both wave elections, and compares them to the most recent Cook ratings now.  Relying on late September ensures an apples-to-apples comparison.

The hardest races to forecast are the disfavored party's tossups and "lean" races in an anti-majority party wave.  Those are the races that decide whether the House flips.

What I found is interesting, and discouraging for us.

Cook's 2006 ratings in late September had 18 GOP-held tossups and 16 GOP-held "lean R" seats.  Of those, 10 from each category flipped.  Also flipping were 6 of 19 "likely R" GOP-held seats, as well as 2 GOP-held open seats Cook already had flipping in late September.  And 2 "safe" seats from Cook's late September ratings flipped, those being Boyda over Ryun in Kansas and Altmire over Hart in PA-04.  NO Dem-held seats flipped, and indeed in late September Cook had all Dem-held seats as lean, likely, or safe, with NO tossups.

Cook's 2008 ratings in late September had 19 GOP-held tossups and 14 GOP-held "lean R" seats.  Of those, 13 tossups and 6 leans flipped.  None of 20 "likely R" seats flipped this time, nor did any safe seats.  Meanwhile, Dems had more vulnerable seats this time in Cook's late September ratings, and 2 of 10 Dem-held tossups flipped as did the lean D seat of Tim Mahoney due to his late-breaking sex scandal, and in a runoff the safe D seat of Bill Jefferson due to his being a crook.  Also flipping but excluded from my consideration was Don Cazayoux's seat, which I exclude because he won it as a Dem pick-up in a special election earlier in the year before losing it in November, and that makes it awkward to include in any count discussing 2008 gains or losses.  I note, too, that

Here's the interesting thing per Cook's late September ratings:  the total number of seats the Rs lost from Cook's tossup and lean R columns almost perfectly matched the number of R-held seats in Cook's tossup column.  In 2006, Cook listed 18 GOP-held tossups, and the GOP lost 20 seats total from the tossup and lean R columns.  In 2008, Cook listed 19 GOP-held tossups, and the GOP lost exactly the same number total from the tossup and lean R columns.

The difference in 2008 was that no likely R seats flipped, compared to 6 in 2006.  The reason for this is obvious:  the likely R seats in 2006 were much lower-hanging fruit than the 2008 likely R seats, since the remaining Republcan-held seats were much more conservative and safer after the Dems already had made big gains one cycle earlier.

Applying the same princples to 2008, Cook in late September had 43 Dem-held seats as tossups, and 31 as lean D.  If the election follows the same pattern as the previous 2 waves, we should lose 43 seats total from those 2 categories.  We also should lose all the Dem-held seats that Cook counts as lean R or likely R, and that's 10 more.  That's a gross gain of 53 for the bad guys.  But there are 4 GOP-held seats we should pick up by everyone's predictions, seats that Cook lists as lean D or tossups, and that knocks down the net GOP gain to 49.

That would give the Republicans a 228-207 majority.  And sadly it's a very reasonable prediction that lines up perfectly with ALL the published predictions out there.

Here's where I think we either can have some confidence or where we're deluding ourselves, election day determining which it is:  when I look at Cook's "lean D" seats, it's just really hard to see hardly any of them flipping.  My "feeling" is that we hold almost all of them.  And even on our tossups, I did a quick count and found 25 I'll say are gone.  That adds up to total losses of 15 fewer than my rudimentary model would predict, and of course it means we hold the House with 222 seats for the good guys.

The optimistic seat-by-seat breakdown is essentially what conspiracy and StephenCLE and others are engaging in with their own breakdowns posted in occasional diaries here.

And I can see exactly how they get there.

But sadly history shows that a lot more tossups and leans flip in a wave, and that's where we might find out we're deluding ourselves.

I just hope our candidates and party committees continue hammering the opposing candidates and getting voters to reject enough of them to keep us at 218 on election night.  But I just don't feel good about it.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

I've been playing around with projections based on 4 rankings
If you make the following assumptions:

1. All seats that are considered safe will break completely for that party.

*2. All seats that are considered "Likely" will break 80-20 for the favored party.

*3. All seats that are considered "Leans" will break 65-35 for the favored party.

4. All toss-ups will be split 50/50

*What this means is that if 50 Democratic and Republican held seats are considered Leans Democratic, then the Democrats would take 30 seats and the Republicans would take 20 seats (or vice-versa).

So I took Cook, Rothenberg, Swing State Project, and CQ and with those assumptions in mind, I got the following projections (I didn't distinguish between tilting races for Rothenberg, the difference it made was not large enough to worry about it).

Cook: 215-220 (R+5)
Rothenberg: 221-214 (D+4)
SSP: 216-219 (R+3)
CQ: 221-214 (D+4)

This averages to... 218-217 (D+1)

The real difference between SSP/Cook and Rothenberg/CQ is that Rothenberg and CQ see more safe seats for the Democrats (all four seem to be in rough agreement with where the Republicans are).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!


Going by Cook
Combining 2006 and 2008 only finds 5 Republican seats not in the Tossup column changing hands out of 64 seats total.

Today he has 57 Democratic seats Leaning or Favored for retention. To be generous I'll give them six seats from there.

I'll give them 22 of the 43 Tossups then add those to the seats Cook already has in the GOP column. Minus five Dem gains makes 33 for me.

None of this takes into account the following.

http://publicpolicypolling.blo...


[ Parent ]
I think perhaps NOTHING on Cook's "likely D" list will flip because...
...he already has 74 Dem-held seats on the "tossup" and "lean D" lists, and once you get past those you're talking about the core seats that we never lose.

If we had, say, only 35 seats total on the Dem-held tossup and "lean D" lists, then yes we'd likely lose some "likely D" seats.  But with 74 at risk before you get to "likely D," I think the likely Ds are almost all safe in reality.

Now, for other prognosticators who treat far fewer Dem-held seats as being at risk, yes their "likely D" or "Dem favored" seats will have some flips.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
I think that is evidence
To support my contention that he is allowing for a bigger wave because of macro factors.

[ Parent ]
I think Cook does that because he's scared of losing his good reputation
He puts any seat that could ever, ever flip in a wave election at "Likely" at this time of year. That's why folks like Maurice Hinchey and Russ Carnahan find themselves at Likely D this year, and Charles Boustany and Tom Cole were at Likely R last year.

This way, if a major upset happens Cook can point to the rating and say that while the challenger was an underdog, he did not consider the incumbent safe. And, if none of the Likelies fall, he can say that he called them all for the correct party.

Great job with the diary--49 is a little higher than what I'm predicting now (40-45), but definitely a reasonable number comparable to 1994.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08


[ Parent ]
CYA is alive and well ;-)


[ Parent ]
It depends on how many tossups
He has on November the 2nd. The caveat is that Charlie is on record saying he is judging things differently this year - macro rather than micro. This is the explanation for why he was late to predict a Dem takeover in 2006 and early to predict a GOP takeover this cycle.

My model is already apples-to-apples and relies on Cook's late SEPTEMBER projections in 2006 and 2008......
My Cook-based model doesn't need Cook to have moved from micro-to-macro.

UNLESS what you're saying is that he's using a system NOW that would have put more GOP-held seats at risk in September 2006 and September 2008 than he did.  If THAT'S what you mean, then OK, that opens the possibility of Cook overstating Dem losses.

But somehow I'm skeptical Cook has changed his race ratings for individual seats, I don't get the impression his macro approach affects his race-by-race analysis that way.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
I think it a natural tendency
If you already think the House will flip then, even sub-conciously, you make assumptions that support that.

[ Parent ]
I have to agree...
I think Cook is "feeling the wave" a little too much this year.

I'm still looking for signs of some great GOP love affair, but I'm not seeing it. Yes, Democrats are in tough shape nationally because of the crappy economy... But poll after poll after poll keeps showing voters still assign much of the blame to George Bush.

Especially when looking at the district polling, all this talk of this massive "Red Tide" sounds pretty ridiculous. Will Dems lose seats? Most likely, since this is a midterm and voters are frustrated about the economy. But when the GOP offers nothing but laughably bad teabagger candidates and silly "pledges" that mean nothing, I have a hard time seeing voters rush to them.  

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)


[ Parent ]
I have no fancy models
but given 1) the huge outside spending to support Republicans/attack Democrats, 2) the generally poor quality of the DCCC ads (in my opinion), 3) the way Congress bungled the Bush tax cuts and failed to accomplish anything significant since the summer, and 4) the crappy state of the economy, my "feeling" is we lose between 40 and 50 seats. Six weeks ago I figured we would lose around 30. It just looks ugly to me out there.

Anecdote I value on Dems' failure to act on tax rates......
My wife is an apolitical liberal-leaning independent, votes mostly for Democrats but not always, doesn't always vote, and generally cares most about issues that affect her personally.  And we're a relatively high-income couple.

All the above background established, she really is unhappy with Dems on failing to do anything with tax rates before the election.  She rarely brings up politics in a discussion with me on her own initiative, but she did on this subject the other day as it affects us directly (it affects EVERYONE directly), and she said it could affect her vote (which is irrelevant here in VA-10 since Frank Wolf is safe anyway, but it matters in all the contested districts where everyone is similarly concerned about taxes).

In truth we're in the highest bracket where our taxes go up unless all the Bush tax cuts are extended, but I support letting all of them expire, or as a compromise the Obama plan which would let the highest bracket revert to the pre-2001 rate.

But Josh Marshall and crew at TPM are right that the Dems really blew it by doing nothing.

This is one issue where I can see how the Democratic echo chamber in the House and Senate caucuses is really out of touch with everyday Americans' concerns.  I'm not cynical about our elected officials or the state of our democracy like so many people, but this is a window for me into the cynicism being justified.  They needed to hold a vote on extending the tax cuts on the lower rates before the election, and by blowing it I wouldn't be surprised if it tips the scales against us in a few seats we might otherwise win.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
IF we stay below 40
I will be relativly happy. I have this fear, though, that the Massachusetts race was the canary in the coal mine.

I think we are going to lose the Senate.  The House I am less sure about - ironically the blue dogs are showing some strength.


[ Parent ]
Are you serious? I don't think anyone thinks we lose the Senate but keep the House......
That's not something anyone at all has predicted.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
I don't wear glasses
Most here were predicting crazy numbers last cycle. I said no more than 30 and probably less. If anything I'm trying my hardest to be pessimistic when I work this stuff out.

[ Parent ]
Reply meant for right in ny below
Meant to say I think it is at least possible and have said so before now.

[ Parent ]
'06 and '08 are not enough of a database
If I remember right, both years had events that broke for the "wave party" near election day. And that does not always happen.

Sometimes such events are surprises -- so there's no way to know which way they will break.

One possible surprise in our direction is turnout. Assuming Rs have "maxed out" in current polls, additional turnout can only help us.

So I think it's equally likely that the "loss" will be closer to 30 seats.

Nevertheless, I think we have a bracket of possible losses, somewhere between 25-55 seats.

Losses above and below that range are highly unlikely.  


What "events" in 06 and 08 are you talking about?......There were none...
...that I remember.

If for '08 you're talking about the financial meltdown, I don't know that it changed anything in the House math.  I don't think it did.  And my rudimentary model used Cook's ratings in late-September, post-meltdown.  Even if the electoral impact hadn't yet been fully felt in polling and other indicators, my recollection is that things stayed about the same.

I don't remember anything at all changing the trajectory of the '06 election late in the cycle.

All you guys who are such optimists whose opinions I respect, tietack and conspiracy and others, I really hope you're right, because I don't see us NOT losing the House at this point.  My realistic optimistic scenario is that we BARELY lose it, that we're no more than a half-dozen pickups from winning it back in '12.  I, too, dream that we'll do better than that.

As I said in my diary, I look at the Cook ratings and when I look at his tossups and lean D seats race-by-race, I picture a lot more Dem incumbents winning than Cook and others expect, and in fact I struggle to find any lean D incumbents or more than 25 or so of the 43 tossups who I can admit are likely to lose.  But I can't help but thinking those are my blue glasses I'm looking through, that what's really going on is worse for us than that.

Just in the last day one of the GOP commenters here reported that Todd Young's lawyer told him that Baron Hill is down and toast per Young's internal polling.  I don't dismiss that out of hand like some do.  Maybe the comment itself was a lie, or maybe the relayed internal numbers are a lie, or maybe the relayed internal polling is honest but a bad poll......but my gut tells me no, that's probably where where the race is.

There are going to be surprises on election night, and yes there are incumbent Dems who many thought goners who will end up on top.  But I suspect we're going to find a LOT MORE incumbent Dems a lot of SSPers thought would survive but who go down, in some cases by jaw-dropping margins.  I suspect on election night here a lot of us are going to be posting comments that say, "holy shit, I thought for sure he'd make it!"...over and over and over again.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
The "events" in '06 and '08 weren't direct surprises
Foley in '06 froze the news cycle, preventing R bounce back closer to election day. While Foley himself didn't have much of an effect, Rs should have come closer -- if I remember right, their pre '06 majorities gave them a significant advantage in fundraising that should have allowed them to close the gap.

One potential "surprise" against us in a similar mode could relate to Charlie Rangel.

The success of OfA in'08 was a surprise to many of us -- the turnout and vote banking courtesy of early voting IMO enhanced the D results that year.

Those events do point to two elements that --could-- save the D majority:

1) natural tightening in the generic ballot -- since the "promise with America" is falling flat, that's still in the cards
2) OfA -- what are they doing in the states where Ds are falling flat, esp in the Midwest? Can they make a dent against the apathy of many of our voters?

OTOH, if this RCP report http://realclearpolitics.blogs... is true, then the momentum will be all the other way, ref

Additionally, preliminary modeling of the likely electorate using Gallup's traditional likely voter questions (more on this next week) suggests that if current patterns persist, Republicans could have a double-digit lead in the national House vote on Election Day, which would translate into Republicans gaining well above the number of seats necessary to control the House.


[ Parent ]
I don't even listen to RCP anymore
You should take a look at their rankings page, it borders on being a joke.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!


[ Parent ]
Here's the direct link from Gallup
http://2010central.gallup.com/...

and the refutation from Steve Singiser http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

courtesy of PPP


- In the special House election in Pennsylvania last month our polling found Republican Tim Burns up 60-38 with very excited voters. He trailed 50-46 with somewhat excited voters and 53-37 with not very excited voters. Burns lost the election because the Democrats, excited or not, still turned out.

Nevertheless, the anticipated move of Gallup to LV would adversely affect the narrative.


[ Parent ]
I'd read that Gallup piece earlier and still say "meh." The reality is...
...I expect us to suffer a gross loss of mid-40s to mid-50s, and a net loss of low-40s to 50.

I don't buy that the aggregated national House vote will be GOP+10.  I also don't know what "well above" 39 seats means.  I suppose my prediction of 49 per my Cook-based model could be called "well above," in which case I'd agree.

Larry Sabato just tweeted today that Republicans fantasizing a 60-seat gain (or more) are delusional.  Cook and Rothenberg and others essentially say the same, that the gains expected are in the 40s or possibly 50s for the GOP.

Sean Trende links to the Gallup piece to feed his fantasy of Republicans taking D+10 districts.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
My intent was to provide realistic reasons for hope
Steve S's refutation to Gallup is appropriate -- but the unknown is how such "breaking news" drives the MSM narrative in these last few weeks.

Read Steve's refutation (and his link to Tom Jenson's article). Example: if only enthused voters went to the polls, Mark Critz would have lost big time in PA-12.

Thus, I believe that early voting, OfA, etc. can help stem the extent of losses.

You may have noted my range of expected losses in the House:

25-55 seats

While that's a broad range, I suggest that losses above or below that range are highly unlikely.

(While skepticism of RCP is IMO appropriate, even Sean Trende's arguments have to be evaluated on the merits.)


[ Parent ]
Follow-up: the "well above 39 seats" thing
It's based on the Gallup generic vote model -- ref http://www.gallup.com/poll/124...

Scroll down to the table of "Predictions of Democratic House Seats, based on Ultimate Democratic Share of Vote"


[ Parent ]
I see that, and the problem is...
...we lost the aggregate popular vote in the 1994 House elections 52-45, and we still held 204 seats.  You can argue the 2-party vote share, to make it comparable to Gallup's chart, was 46% for Democrats.

And yet Gallup says at 46% the "best" prediction for Dems is to hold 197 seats, with a range of 186-208.  So in 1994 we actually were toward the high end of the range, in our biggest disaster since the Truman Administration.

So fair enough on the range, but their model still ultimately overstates how many seats we'll lose.  To fall under 200 we'd have to lose 60 seats gross, given that we'll likely pick up 4.  I doubt GOP strategists are seeing that in their polling.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
...and more actual historical data......
In 1996, Dems won the national popular vote by three-tenths of a percent, 48.1% total, and won 206 seats.

In 2002, we dropped down to 205 seats losing the popular vote 50-45.

In 2004, we lost 49-47 and still won only 202 seats.

In 2006, Dems won the national House popular vote 52-44, and still the GOP had 202 seats.

In 2008, Dems won 53-43 and the GOP won 178 seats.

My point here is that this stuff is very inexact.  You can be at 44 and win 202, or be at 48 and still win only 206!

I think the only common denominator I see is that the more seats you have to start, the better up you end up, no matter how low your popular vote goes.  That's the only thing remotely close to a "pattern" I see.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
Which is why I've been saying
that the "break even" for Ds in the House this year will be at about a 6-7 point differential (unlike Gallup's 4 point differential). No question there is some effect from the generic vote. But I believe it's assuaged by the quality of our candidates.  

From what I've seen, the quality of our candidates will overcome the generic vote in many cases.

But as for the other elections you've cited, that was based on a different seat baseline -- i.e. incumbency makes for a different "break-even" point. In other words, if the current House were 218-217, the break-even would be essentially at a 0 differential.

In other words, there are three (or 4) variables in the generic vote equation:

1) Current incumbents -- i.e. a larger number of incumbents for one party means the generic vote has to be larger for the other party to take over the House.

2) Overall national environment, translated to the generic vote, translated to the actual total vote. (the generic vote as polled and the actual total vote are often different)

3) Candidate quality -- and the closely related variable -- local factors in individual races. Assuming equal smarts on each side, it should balance out. But there can be differences in individual years, and I believe that's the case in our favor this year. But that's just a feeling that I cannot back up statistically.

4) I'm now seeing a fourth variable -- turnout of the unenthused. The prevalence of early voting makes it easier for the "unenthused" to actually get out and vote. That brings the "likely" and "unlikely" voter models used by "standard" polls into serious question. If what PPP has seen in PA-12 (and other places) is translated on a national scale next month, then that will be the big adjustment in how polls are done for 2012.

(aka, imagine if the average mistake most pollsters made in PA-12 is translated on a national scale -- instead of losing say 45 seats, I suspect that number would be reduced to the 20s.)

Since these four variables are essentially independent, a true model would take a Fourier series of equations similar to what airlines do to find optimal fares -- with higher degrees of uncertainty.

Finally, back to the generic vote thing -- the Gallup model is linear. But linearity makes sense only if the effective lean of all 435 districts followed a linear pattern. I suspect that the model is somewhat more jerky -- given the degree of gerrymandering, bigger chunks of seats would fall at some key inflection points -- at points I suspect that's beyond the differentials that can be expected in normal election years.


[ Parent ]
D'oh! forgot the fifth "variable"
The voting rights act. As implemented, it leads to districts with very high PVIs -- which is essentially "inefficiencies" in votes for Ds. It's a bit of a handicap relative to the generic vote. But in many ways, it's more of a constant than a variable, at least for the (usually) 10 years that VRA districts are in effect for a district.

[ Parent ]
Random aside (which your post reminded me of)
The last time Democrats controlled fewer than 200 seats was 1946-1948 (which, interestingly, was also the last time the Republicans controlled the House until 1994).

Also, the sheer number of seats that changed hands every cycle in the first half of the 20th century is insane, could anyone here imagine a net movement of 150 seats today, even under apocalyptic circumstances?

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!


[ Parent ]
One exception, we DID drop down below 200 seats in 1995-1996...
...when some Dems switched parties.  The GOP's high point in that Congress was 236 after all the switches.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
What's funny to me is this is groundhog day to me, I remember the same discussions in reverse through 2008......
I think it was sometime in the summer in 2008 that I read an online political article, maybe on Politico, where one anonymous GOP strategist pointed out "an unenthusiastic vote counts the same as an enthusiastic one," so the enthusiasm gap was an overrated measure.

I agreed at that time.

And sure enough, and this NEVER gets mentioned, McCain got THE THIRD MOST VOTES EVER by a Presidential candidate, behind only Obama '08 and Bush '04.  McCain surpassed Kerry '04 by 900,000 votes.  And everyone in 2004, before and after the election, said the Democratic vote was enthusiastic that year and would/did turn out in record numbers.  McCain outperforms Kerry by almost a million votes the very next election, but somehow the GOP base was unenthusiastic and turnout depressed.

All this stuff about the enthusiasm gap, and yet another model, this time by Gallup, to measure its impact on turnout disparity, only makes me yawn at this point.  Almost all the models produce results in the same ballpark, just like almost all polls in a given race taken around the same time produce results in the same ballpark.  So you don't learn anything new in yet another model.

My little model here is no more useful than the others.  I end up in the same place.  I did it for entertainment and for one more way of trying to get my head around what is likely to happen, but I could've just as easily said "yeah, what Nate Silver said."

In truth the only interesting models or analyses are the ones by you guys who keep saying our losses will be net sub-39 and we'll keep the House.  And those will be interesting only if you're right, and I hope you are.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
tietack Sean Trende who authored the post you link was predicting 90 pickups...
...a few months ago.

Seriously.

Ninety.

Seriously.

He's not very bright, nor is anyone over at RCP.  I have little respect for anyone's analysis over there.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
See the direct link from Gallup
and the refutation from Steve S at DK, courtesy of PPP.

ref http://www.swingstateproject.c...

aka, Steve Singiser didn't ignore the analysis -- and neither should we.


[ Parent ]
Agree completely with diary
I also think way too many people are getting caught up in the head-to-head stuff and wearing well, violet-tinted glasses. Look at SSP's master list, it is--not quite--but close to being off by an entire column. Imagine you wanted to be in congress next year and could magically be given the chances of another candidate running. Would you rather be one of these challengers: Hamer(ca11)/ runyan (nj3)/Altsculer (ny1)/patano(nc7) or halvorsen (il11)/ kosmas(fl24)/ markey(co4)/perriello (va5)?  If you put stock in that list, you should go with the latter who are in "toss ups" rather than the former.    

[ Parent ]
I don't where glasses
Most here were predicting crazy numbers last cycle. I said no more than 30 and probably less. If anything I'm trying my hardest to be pessimistic when I work this stuff out.

[ Parent ]
Argh
Spelling was right the first time. Wear.

[ Parent ]
Violet-tinted glasses
I wasn't here last cycle so I can't speak to predictions then. Are you saying that you were predicting the dems would win no more than 30 seats in 08? Or the GOP won't win more than 30 this year? I think it will take a dramatic shift in the dynamics for the GOP to win less than 30 seats in November.  We will find out in a matter of weeks.  

I Was speaking more to the tendency of partisans (of all stripes) to have a difficult time conceding that they will lose until it is beyond clear that they will. Some of the dem incumbents I listed in "toss up " races are only in toss ups to the extent that they haven't actually given heir concession speeches and there are always some improbable survivors.  The outcomes of those supposed toss-up races are less certain than many of the suppsedly leaning-dem races I referenced.  

There is a bit of a feedback loop too as people spend more time spinng some way Nye, etc.  can win ("and if he can win, then ....") than backing up and looking at the big picture which is  characterized by exposure to a huge number of potential losses.    The enormous size of the playing field is what matters, not the number of certain losses (0) or how many can still pull it out somehow (all of them).    


[ Parent ]
I predicted 30 Dem gains in both 2006
And in 2008. I could very well end up with an election eve projection of Republicans winning enough seats to take control but I'm not there yet. I just call it as I see it. Take a look at my latest diary of Senate and Gubernatorial projections. I don't think that is affected by tint of any kind.

[ Parent ]
I think at least a vocal minority of users here
if not a majority -- are predicting that Ds will have somewhere between 210-225 seats from the '10 elections.

While there are partisans here who do have highly tinted glasses, most users here I believe are looking at things realistically.

Perhaps there is also some tint towards close races -- and a closer overall result in the House/Senate, as that is the nature of people who focus on the "horse race".

If you want to test this presumption, I suggest that you write a diary with a poll, allowing the user base here to cite their numeric projections.


[ Parent ]
Glasses
Quick edit: I meant to say that the outcomes of those toss ups are more certain than the leaing races.

conspiracy, I think your sen/gov rankings are totally reasonable.  I think house races are a bit tougher since they are less individual races that have been extensively and reliably polled. The pollster/RCP averages support your conclusions. The house races are different. My overall point is that it seems sounder to approach them the way this diary does (lose 80% of races in column a, 50% in column b) and not trying to predict individual ones.

Tie tack, that is probably correct that most people have a more reasonable take on things. I guess it is the minority of koolaid drinkers that stand out more sometimes ("Hodes has the momentum," "wait 'til voters here how Toomey voted on the 1998 budget")    


[ Parent ]
That is the way I'm doing
Not by individual races. See upthread how I get to 33.

[ Parent ]

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox