2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNew FiveThirtyEight tab on Senate outcome...
70.1% probability of Dems holding Senate (est. 51-49 breakdown).
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
New new polling for Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Indiana, I'm feeling more confident as well.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,019 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Not disrespecting your OP, but it's going to be close. We need the HoR as well, to get the appropriations.
flamingdem
(39,321 posts)voter "irregularities" for example.
mucifer
(23,565 posts)Almost every day, I get e-mails and Twitter messages asking me about the effect of voter identification laws on turnout. Most of these messages, I presume, are from Democrats. They worry that more onerous laws, like those in Pennsylvania, could make it more difficult for Democratic-leaning voting groups like African-Americans and young voters to participate in this Novembers election.
The effects of the adjustment are ultimately fairly minor. In Pennsylvania, for instance, it reduced Mr. Obamas chances of winning the state to 82.6 percent from 84.2 percent, according to the models estimate. Still, it makes Pennsylvania a little closer, and slightly increases the chance that it will be the tipping point state in the election.
One last thing to consider: although I do think these laws will have some detrimental effect on Democratic turnout, it is unlikely to be as large as some Democrats fear or as some news media reports imply and they can also serve as a rallying point for the party bases. So although the direct effects of these laws are likely negative for Democrats, it wouldnt take that much in terms of increased base voter engagement and increased voter conscientiousness about their registration status to mitigate them.
The full article is at :http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/