Why Republicans win 70 seats; an explanation of my projection

Jon Ralston:

First, let me be clear on this tradition of predictions. It is not a wish list but a walking out on a limb, so I can either crow afterward or eat same. I base them on data I am privy to and my gut. I have had much success in the past -- look it up. But if ever there were a year for my lifetime batting average to take a hit, this is the one.
Every word of this rings true for me. Of course, I say something like this every election. But it's really true this time.

This election is truly difficult to predict. On the House side -- as this post deals with my projection that the Republicans pick up 70 seats -- most of the seats that were originally expected to be the battleground appear to be leaning towards Republicans at the very least, even if you're a wave-skeptic. The seats that are now the true tossups usually have less than first-string Republican candidates and a complete dearth of independent public polls.

These questions aren't reflective of the model by which the projection was made, but are certainly indicative of how I view this election.

1. What is the most analogous cycle? 2008? 2006? 2002? 1994?
A pretty key question that will determine how you project the election. I'd argue that the view from 10,000 feet looks similar to 1994, and arguably much worse for Democrats. There are simply way more seats in play this election, mainly due to two factors: 1) Democratic gains, and 2) redistricting. The first, Democratic gains, is fairly obvious. Democrats won lots of previously Republican held seats in the 2006 and 2008 elections. These are swing districts with non-entrenched candidates who have elected Republicans in recent memory, moreso than in 2006 or 1994. The second is redistricting: we're in the last election of the 10-year cycle that occurs between the Censuses. Districts change and demographics are farthest away from the original cartographical intent.

Also, I'd note that Gallup's generic ballot is at an all-time high for Republicans. The high turnout model has a 52-43 Republican edge, while the low-turnout model has Republicans at 55-41, whereas in 1994 it was 53.5 R - 46.5 D. Big difference -- this year is twice the 1994 gap, and Gallup's polls have historically been very close.

2. What will turnout be like?
Your answer to the first question will certainly affect your view of turnout.

And wait! I referred to the low turnout model as if it was an apples-to-apples comparison to Gallup's historical results. But, aha! It is the same model! The low-turnout model -- the one most favorable for Republicans -- is their traditional model. It caps turnout at 40%; basically choosing the 40% of voters most likely to vote and throwing away the rest of the sample. Crazy huh? Well, not only has that been predictive for a long time, but we haven't had over 40% turnout in a mid-term election for 40 years. Gallup's high turnout model takes the top 55%, which is more reflective of a presidential campaign. So if you think Obama can turn out his voters like it was 2008 again, then you might think Gallup's high-turnout model is worth using.

Of course, even Gallup's high turnout model has Republicans leading 52-43...which is higher than Republicans have ever polled in Gallup before an election, even 1994.

3. Is Democratic enthusiasm spiking?
While people quickly forget, Republican enthusiasm spiked right before the 2006 election. Partisanship finally kicked in a little bit...and that means that Republicans only had a 59 seat swing. I have no doubt that Democratic enthusiasm is in fact spiking right now...it's just highly unlikely to spike enough.

Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of anecdotal evidence, so of course in this circumstance I'm just going to cite an anecdote: Obama's last rally in Cleveland today was half-full. 2008, this is not, even though Nate Silver still makes assumptions like it is.

Frankly, having gone through a fair amount of crosstabs in the last few days, it appears to me that pollsters are being overly influenced by the 2006 and 2008 election results. Now, perhaps those elections really were a paradigm shift; but it's at least as likely that those results are unduly influencing partisan turnout models.

4. What does a 46-44 poll mean?
It's a tossup, right? Wrong. I'd argue that a Democratic incumbent who is polling at 44% and down 2 is a likely loss given the enthusiasm gap.

Finally, I leave you with a Rorschach test: TX 27. Ortiz v Farenthold. Obama won the district in 2008 53-46, which is exactly the national result, if I recall correctly. However, W beat Kerry 55-45 as well as essentially tied Gore 50-50. Ortiz carried the district by 20% in 08 against a perennial token opponent who spent very little money. The only poll we have is by a Republican polling firm that has Farenthold up 8. Silver has Farenthold as a 23% chance to win. I have Farenthold as about a 40% chance. However, looking through the rest of OnMessage's polls for the cycle, I have to conclude that their numbers appear to be generally speaking within an acceptable range in other races. Congressional races are not independent events.

One thing I'd note: at the time I predicted 70 seats, Larry Sabato had the GOP gain at 55, Nate Silver at something like 51, Rothenberg says 55-65, Charlie Cook has the number in the 50s. Point being that I could easily pick a lower number (eg, 61) and lower my chances of looking silly, while still looking better than all the professional political pundits. The smartest thing for me to do, from a reputation standpoint, is just to pick 61 and say I got it better than everyone else.

On the other hand, I was upset when the Texans picked Mario Williams. I screwed that up; mea culpa.

Posted by Evan @ 10/31/10 08:40 PM

 
 

Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry



Comments

No comments yet

Add Comments

No flames or impolite behavior. HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.

 


Comments must be approved before being published.

SITE MENU

+ Rick Perry vs World
+ About Me

+ Archives

+ Email:
  perryvsworld* at *gmail dot com

DISCLAIMER

All content © Rick Perry vs. World and the respective authors.

Rick Perry vs. World is powered by Nucleus.

Site design and Nucleus customization by Kevin Whited.


ARCHIVES

+August 2017
+July 2017
+June 2017
+May 2017
+April 2017
+March 2017
+February 2017
+January 2017
+December 2016
+November 2016
+October 2016
+September 2016
+August 2016
+July 2016
+June 2016
+May 2016
+April 2016
+March 2016
+February 2016
+January 2016
+December 2015
+November 2015
+October 2015
+September 2015
+August 2015
+July 2015
+June 2015
+May 2015
+April 2015
+March 2015
+February 2015
+January 2015
+December 2014
+November 2014
+October 2014
+September 2014
+August 2014
+July 2014
+June 2014
+May 2014
+April 2014
+March 2014
+February 2014
+January 2014
+December 2013
+November 2013
+October 2013
+September 2013
+August 2013
+July 2013
+June 2013
+May 2013
+April 2013
+March 2013
+February 2013
+January 2013
+December 2012
+November 2012
+October 2012
+September 2012
+August 2012
+July 2012
+June 2012
+May 2012
+April 2012
+March 2012
+February 2012
+January 2012
+December 2011
+November 2011
+October 2011
+September 2011
+August 2011
+July 2011
+June 2011
+May 2011
+April 2011
+March 2011
+February 2011
+January 2011
+December 2010
+November 2010
+October 2010
+September 2010
+August 2010
+July 2010
+June 2010
+May 2010
+April 2010
+March 2010
+February 2010
+January 2010
+December 2009
+November 2009
+October 2009
+September 2009
+August 2009
+July 2009
+June 2009
+May 2009
+April 2009
+March 2009
+February 2009
+January 2009
+December 2008
+November 2008
+October 2008
+September 2008
+August 2008
+July 2008
+June 2008
+May 2008
+April 2008
+March 2008
+February 2008
+January 2008
+December 2007
+November 2007
+October 2007
+September 2007
+August 2007
+July 2007
+June 2007
+May 2007
+April 2007
+March 2007
+February 2007
+January 2007
+December 2006
+November 2006
+October 2006
+September 2006
+August 2006
+July 2006
+June 2006
+May 2006
+April 2006
+March 2006
+February 2006
+January 2006
+December 2005
+November 2005
+October 2005
+September 2005
+August 2005
+July 2005
+June 2005
+May 2005
+April 2005
+March 2005
+February 2005
+January 2005
+December 2004
Links:
+Acton MBA
+EVN
+Ethereum News
+ICO Calendar
+How to prepare for CFA exams