Rick Perry vs World

01 November 2010

House +70, Senate +9

I've already laid out my House predictions, now it's time to lay out my Senate predictions. The topline numbers are +70 House and +9 Senate.

Arkansas -- R. This race has actually been decided for about 4 months, yet shockingly a few pundits kept it on a less than safe Republican rating.

Connecticut -- D. Margin of error could be surprising.

Colorado -- R. Michael Bennett has probably run one of the better Dem campaigns, but I don't think it's going to be enough to hold off Buck.

Delaware -- Republicans nominated a bad candidate. Even a generic conservative R might have had a chance here -- which is truly remarkable -- but O'Donnell doesn't. D

Florida -- R. Crist probably made the right move by trying to engineer a Meek dropout, even though it was a long-shot. I think it may have hurt his final numbers though. I think it's a closer question whether Meek beats Crist than whether Crist beats Rubio.

Illinois -- R. Polls show Kirk ahead, though it's a blue state and voters are very unhappy with their choices. I think Kirk pulls it out, though some Green support in polls will likely melt into Democratic support just enough that it might put the Dem nominee over the top. Again, the enthusiasm gap probably gets Kirk there.

Nevada -- Harry Reid v Sharron Angle really tests the theory of just how far voters will go to vote against an incumbent they despise. Angle is historically incompetent as a candidate, with a plethora of gaffes and her current avoid-the-media-at-all-costs strategy. Harry Reid is despised by Nevadans, but while he is not a candidate who is made for TV, he does know how to punch and campaign. If this were any other election -- even 1994 -- I think Reid might pull it off. But this is 2010, and I predict Angle squeaks it out. R.

New Hampshire: R. Paul Hodes rode the wave into the House, and now he's going to ride the wave out. Investors often talk about beta, I think Hodes is a great example of beta in a politician: he moves with the market.

Ohio: R. How amazing is it that one of the closest House members to W (and later joined the administration) basically just had his D opponent give up against him? Wow.

Pennsylvania: R. How amazing is it that Pat Toomey is the likely winner? Watching Toomey's moves over the next six years will be very interesting. He wins in 2010, he wins in 1994, but in very few other environments can a politician of Toomey's reputation win a statewide federal race in Pennsylvania.

Wisconsin: R. Feingold is just a very weird fit for Wisconsin who had gotten a little lucky until now. If I were him I'd move to New York and try again.

* Finally, the really difficult races to predict. *

Alaska: R. This is the rare race which is less affected by national trends. Miller seems to be trying to lose; meanwhile at a local talk show host's urging, a few hundred Alaskans put their names on the ballot as possible write-ins, including several Lisa M. That step probably increases Miller's chances to win...but also increases McAdams's chances, which is a net gain for Democrats. Strategic voting might change the voting decision of a small but significant portion of the swing and Dem electorate. The most likely case is still a Miller win (60-65%?), but Dems probably have like a 10-15% chance of fluking this seat, just like they did with Alaska's other Senate seat in 2008. Give Murkowski a 25% chance or so, even given that legitimate write-in candidates probably run 10-15% behind what they would if their name was on the ballot. A truly awful campaign from Miller is what gives her a remarkably high possibility for a write-in candidate.

California: D. If the marijuana initiative wasn't on the ballot, I might be inclined to think that Fiorina could beat Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer. Boxer might be the most underwhelming member of the Democratic Senate caucus who has essentially won previous races in California by yelling "Democrat! Roe v Wade!" ad nauseum. Her closing TV adbuy is Obama's endorsement speech of her. A recent poll had Obama under 45% job approval in California, but even if it were in the 50-55 range, I think it's a weak ad. The average undecided or least-committed-to-Boxer voter probably neutral to lukewarm on Obama, so it doesn't really persuade them. The argument is that Boxer is ineffective, and the ad doesn't fight that. I think the race is likely to be closer than polls indicate, although I think the marijuana initiative might bring out some younger voters who will vote for Boxer.

Washington: R. In a recount? If history is a guide, Rossi probably has a disadvantage in a recount, and he's now on the ballot statewide for the 3rd time in 6 years without winning, so I subtract a few points for that too. Obama won by 17 points here in 2008 while Rossi lost his rematch by 7. Patty Murray is a pretty undistinguished incumbent, probably a point or two behind a generic D. This is truly a tossup, and if I could fudge and predict 8.5 seats instead of 9 seats, then I probably would. But forced to pick, I think the enthusiasm gap will just barely tip the scales in Rossi's favor. That's an awfully tough pick to make in an Obama +17% state.

West Virginia: D. Dem Manchin's approval rating is something like 72/24, while Republican Raese's is something like 47/47. WV is a unique state in that it's really not a Republican state -- a generic D is a favorite over a generic R in a gubernatorial race. However, WV is a very anti-Obama, anti-cap-and-trade state. Manchin is super popular as governor -- does Manchin = Obama Rubber Stamp work? I'm inclined to think not, as Manchin has very clearly delineated himself from Obama, although Raese is airing some clips of Manchin supporting ObamaCare. The average WV swing voter at this point strongly dislikes Obama, thinks Manchin is a good governor, and is lukewarm about Raese. At one point in my predictions, I wrote "Democrats will win one and Republicans will win one of the West Virginia and Washington races. I just don't know which one." This race could surprise and be an R, but my best guess is Manchin squeaks it out.

Senate: +9. As I already called, House +70.

Races that are most likely that I called incorrectly: West Virginia and Washington. California if the wave is truly large. For idiosyncratic reasons, Nevada and Alaska. If the wave is smaller -- which I doubt -- Illinois and Colorado too.

By the way, what's with my stringing-all-my-words-together recently? No idea.

Posted by Evan @ 11/01/10 07:18 PM | Comments (2)

The final countdown

1. Bill White and Rick Perry were in upper-middle class suburbs. White is trying to keep Perry's margin down, rather than come up with a game changer. According to the Austin press corps, Perry is running for president.

2. The Tea Party seems to be energized to stick around post-election. How will that impact the Texas Legislature?

3. 95% of insiders predict a Perry victory, says the TT. Who are those other 5%? I bet they wouldn't be willing to be identified.

4. Excerpts from Rick Perry's new book are available.

5. I happened to notice that someone from a US House computer has spent their day going through my archives. Umm...hi.

* From a Vanity Fair article on the talk show wars, where Conan told this joke about how he was getting removed:

'"I'm trying very hard to stay positive here, and I want to tell you something. This is honest. Hosting The Tonight Show has been the fulfillment of a lifelong dream for me. And I just want to say to the kids out there watching: you can do anything you want in life. Yeah, yeah -- unless Jay Leno wants to do it, too.

At NBC, the joke represented the point of no return. All throughout the legal wrangling, even after the manifesto, Jeff Gaspin maintained a quiet wish that Conan would examine his options one more time and decide that staying at NBC still made the most sense.

After the joke, that dream vaporized.

Gaspin got a call from Jay about the joke. This one did not strike Jay as funny. He asked Gaspin, Why the **** am I giving up a half-hour for this guy?

Asterisks added so Google doesn't put me in the safesearch filter.

It's pretty amusing to me how the late night show hosts make a living pillorying politicians, yet one small joke about each other is seen as a huge, massive deal. That's something to keep in mind when demonizing the politicial opposition: they put themselves out there and take insults that make normal people (to the extent that talk show hosts are normal people) take umbrage.

Title brought to you by Europe:

Posted by Evan @ 11/01/10 02:36 PM | Comments (0)

Call this a reminder to myself

In my judgment, 538 has made some significant model errors as well as questionable political assumptions. I think I'll write a detailed piece about this after election day. Even if his numbers are closer than mine, my points are still valid.

Posted by Evan @ 11/01/10 01:58 PM | Comments (0)

Starting off the week

* In my opinion, it is harsh, but before the race is even over, pundits are already speculating over who the Democrats will nominate in 2014 for governor. Will it be Julian Castro, as floated by Evan Smith? Paul Burka says "all there is to [the idea]" is that he is "the most prominent Hispanic politician in the state." Jan Jarboe Russell doesn't seem enthused by the trial balloon either.

* The AP reports on Perry and White's last minute campaigning. Including this about the campaign finance reports:

Meanwhile, both candidates received a big infusion of campaign cash last week. According to the San Antonio Express-News, telegram reports to the Texas Ethics Commission show that $5.1 million poured into Texas political campaign accounts in four days last week.

Most of the cash went to influence a dozen state House races, the Perry and White campaigns got about $911,000 combined. Perry received 58.5 percent of the money, while White got 41.5 percent, the Express-news reported.

Sounds like Mostyn or Matt Angle found a better bet. Meanwhile, DallasBlog says that Texas House Republicans still have the financial edge.

* Major Garrett on a Boehner speakership style.

* Dallas is key in the gubernatorial race, says the DMN.

* Is this a sign of a prescient prediction or Democratic consultants managing expectations?

* Nat Gas drilling not really much of an issue here like in other states.

Posted by Evan @ 11/01/10 12:43 AM | Comments (0)

31 October 2010

Update on Gallup numbers

While writing my explanation, Gallup released the final poll before the election. They get 55-40 as their final result, assuming a 45% turnout model. So, even when they boost turnout by 13% over the max for the last 40 years, they still get a massive Republican lead that is twice what it was in 1994. By the way, the most Gallup has ever been off is 4.5% in 1998. If you assume Gallup is off by 4.5% in this election, the result would still be the all-time high for Republicans.

The results are from Gallup's Oct. 28-31 survey of 1,539 likely voters. It finds 52% to 55% of likely voters preferring the Republican candidate and 40% to 42% for the Democratic candidate on the national generic ballot -- depending on turnout assumptions. Gallup's analysis of several indicators of voter turnout from the weekend poll suggests turnout will be slightly higher than in recent years, at 45%.

One final note: I put so much weight on Gallup's results for three reasons: 1) historical record, 2) methodology, and 3) because it matches what I see in the congressional and senatorial polls.

Posted by Evan @ 10/31/10 09:27 PM | Comments (1)

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 | Comments (0)

My current US House projection: +70 GOP.

I just ran my model, and I'm projecting a 69-70 seat Republican gain in the US House. FYI, as of right now, all the major political horse race pundits are predicting 50-55.

Scarily enough for Democrats, I have some potential tweaks coming that might predict larger Republican gains than 70.

Posted by Evan @ 10/31/10 06:44 AM | Comments (0)

If Bill White had run this ad...

This would probably be harder to pull off in Texas, as Texas Democrats are probably more liberal, as well as more multipolar ideologically.

Still, an interesting hypothetical.

Posted by Evan @ 10/31/10 05:11 AM | Comments (0)

30 October 2010

Weekend links

* The Statesman looks at where Perry and White go to church.

* Jason Embry also does a pre-election post-election perspective on the gubernatorial race.

* White says it's not over.

UPDATE: The WashPost does a late profile on Canseco v Rodriguez in CD23, which I currently have marked on my scorecard as a "Republican takeover."

Posted by Evan @ 10/30/10 09:47 PM | Comments (0)

Think Perry vs White is negative?

Check out these campaign commercials:

Posted by Evan @ 10/30/10 06:41 PM | Comments (0)

[Previous 10 Entries] [Next 10 Entries]

SITE MENU

+ Rick Perry vs World
+ About Me

+ Archives

+ Email:
perryvsworld* at *gmail dot com

ADVERTISING

SYNDICATION

DISCLAIMER

Rick Perry vs. World is powered by Nucleus.

Site design and Nucleus customization by Kevin Whited.