Sabato's Crystal Ball - Sixty Days To Go

[FBaggins]

In the Senate, we now believe the GOP will do a bit better than our long-time prediction of +7 seats. Republicans have an outside shot at winning full control (+10), but are more likely to end up with +8 (or maybe +9, at which point it will be interesting to see how senators such as Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and others react). GOP leaders themselves did not believe such a result was truly possible just a few months ago. If the Republican wave on November 2 is as large as some polls are suggesting it may be, then the surprise on election night could be a full GOP takeover. Since World War II, the House of Representatives has flipped parties on six occasions (1946, 1948, 1952, 1954, 1994, and 2006). Every time, the Senate flipped too, even when it had not been predicted to do so. These few examples do not create an iron law of politics, but they do suggest an electoral tendency.

The seat switches are probably coming in Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware (but only if the eventual GOP nominee is Rep. Mike Castle), Indiana, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania. We expect Republicans to pick off at least a couple of these states: California, Illinois, Nevada, Washington, and Wisconsin. While it is possible that Republicans will lose one or two of their own open seats, the only 50-50 chance of that right now is in Florida—and it might not happen even there. There can also be unanticipated shockers if a GOP wave develops. While we rate Gov. Joe Manchin (D) the early favorite to fill the late Sen. Robert Byrd’s seat, his Republican opponent, John Raese, is a self-funder in a strongly anti-Obama state.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Senate is on the bubble, with only a slight lean at Labor Day toward Democratic retention.

The statehouses will provide the third leg of the Republicans’ 2010 victory. We have long suggested the GOP would gain a net +6 governorships. We now believe they will win +8. This boon to the GOP for redistricting will be enhanced by a gain of perhaps 300 to 500 seats in the state legislatures, and the addition of Republican control in 8 to 12 legislative chambers around the country.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ljs2010090201/

[Douglas Carpenter]

1. damn this makes me want a drink -a big strong double-shot malt whiskey perhaps

[FBaggins]

2. Gonna be lots of that on 11/3... one way or the other.

Here's hoping they're raised in celebration.

[Va Lefty]

3. Does NOT look good

To quote Bob Dylan "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

[Robbins]

4. The Problem

Obama's numbers are showing Improvements and too many people are taking the Gallup Generic poll too seriously.This may be 1982
and not 2006.Polls can change people.Look at Obama's and some senate candiates numbers In August 2008 were not as good as they
got In November.Back In 2006 It wasn't till the Foley Scandal and republicans covering up for him which broke In September that the MSM was forced to admit Democrats could take congress.Polls can change and can even be wrong.This year look at Mass,PA,CT,Minnesotta,and Alaska as states the polls were wrong or races changed.To take back the senate Republicans need to win
every compative race.If Obama Is at mid to late forties in Approval before election Day the odds of that happening are slim.Even
back In 1994 Republicans only won 8 seats,and clinton was between 35 and 40 percent approval.When Bush was In his 30's Democrats
only won 6.As I keep saying Generic ballet should be Ignored.We had years of Democrats ahead but Republicans keeping congress.And
there are other nonGallup polls the MSM never talks about with the generic ballet eather tied or slight lead for Republicans.

CNN,and MSNBC'S ratings are going to be screwed If they keep up with the inevitial Republican victory talk because Democrats and Liberals may not watch them during the election.Republicans watch Fox.

[FBaggins]

9. "too many people are taking the Gallup Generic poll too seriously"

And far too many aren't taking it seriously enough. All of these guys (Silver/Sabato/Cook/etc) aren't exactly new to this game. One Gallup poll doesn't mean much, but the overwhelming weight of the generic polls out there agree that the current environment is worse than we've seen in quite some time.

Polls can change people

Sure... and polls change for a reason. These recent polls tell us where we are (and the analysts tell us what that implies electorally). Wishing that it will all go away doesn't change much.

take back the senate Republicans need to win every compative race.

Almost every one... that's true.

The problem is that we don't yet know whether this will be a national/wave type election or a "all politics is local" type of election. In a national election (2008, 1994, etc) the party with the wave does win all of the competitive races (and often one or two that weren't supposed to be competitive).

It's time to start considering this as a possibility this year and think about what needs to be done differently from a tactical standpoint. It's possible that we need to concentrate on races like WV,CT,NY,WA,CA

As I keep saying Generic ballet should be Ignored.We had years of Democrats ahead but Republicans keeping congress

That's not because the generic is useless... it's because the generic understates the problem. Which is just what Gallup said when they released it. Republicans are (generally) more likely to turn out in mid-term elections (compared to polling) and the generic doesn't take into account the enthusiasm gap (which was a really big deal in '94).

[AlinPA]

5. In PA, Toomey has a big lead on Sestak in the polls and is totally swamping the TV with ads along

with the Koch brothers' "Americans for Prosperity". At this stage, it looks very dim for Sestak. Toomey is loaded with money judging by the blizzard of ads running the last two months. We will be doing door to door in October.

[FBaggins]

10. The top of the ticket is a problem too.

It would help if the Gov race didn't appear to be a drag on the ticket.

[AlinPA]

16. Corbett(R) TV ads are shown a lot; nothing from Onorato (D) yet here in W. PA.

Maybe thy think he is known enough around here and are concentrating on E. PA.

[impik]

6. People will get what they deserve. This conuntry is so stupid, it's really sad

[WI_DEM]

7. balderdash

I believe the dems will do better than the pundits now say. In the end turnout will be better than expected by Dems thru our superior gotv efforts and cash advantage. Right now all the pollsters are using a formula that anticipates a big GOP turnout--I don't think it will be nearly as big an advantage as they say. NOt that Dems won't lose seats in the house and senate, but we will keep control of both chambers is my prediction. Furthermore if Dems play their turnout and money advantage right they can pick up at least three GOP seats, imo, Kentucky, North Carolina and Alaska.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

8. Good grief it's not even Labor Day. The next two months is the real campaign.

There is an upside to this media narrative. If the Republicans fail to take either the House or the Senate, they are going to look like the biggest losers in the universe. It will be the first step in actually breaking the back of the GOP (second step landslide reelection of Pres. Obama). We need to get out there and work (and contribute). There are plenty of fine deserving candidates across the country. Let's make it happen.

[Mass]

11. Sabato says presidential race 'close' (Sept 9, 2010).

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/sep/09/sabato-says-presidential-race-close/

Not saying that the situation is not bleak, but spending too much time reading in the tea leaves with people like Sabato will not help. All they do is look at polls and assume these polls are correct, and they are as often right than wrong at this stage of a race, because polls dont really matter.

[FBaggins]

12. That's Sept 2008... and the race WAS close then

Sabato's prediction for election day was possibly the closest of any analyst. I think he missed the EC gap by one.

[Mass]

13. So, things can change. This was my point. Stop worrying about what pundits are

saying. These polls are way too volatile to be meaningful, particularly the Gallup polls.

And predicting 2008 was not exactly that difficult, a few days before the election, everybody with a modicum of common sense knew Obama was going to win big. What Sabato missed totally in his analysis was that Palin would be McCain's fall.

[FBaggins]

15. A team that's down five runs in the eight can still win.

The fact that "things change" does not change the fact that they need to change (and change rapidly), or we're up an electoral creek without a paddle.

Saying "I don't look at the scoreboard until the game is over" isn't particularly helpful. If you're calling sacrifice bunts to get a single runner into scoring position... you're more likely to lose the game.

[Mass]

18. And spending your time whining about polls not being good is not very useful either.

If our leaders need media polls to know what to do, let's just say we have already lost the two chambers. I dont make these strategic decisions, and I would hope you dont, because if you do that on the basis of these media polls, we are in a tough *t.

[FBaggins]

19. On the contrary.

Living in reality gives your team a better chance to outperform because you call the right plays.

Unlike a sporting event, the score actually matters - not just who wins the game. Losing 40 house seats is better than losing 55, even though both cost us control.

Imagine a football game where you were down by 15 with 90 seconds left to play and the ball on the opponent's 15 and it's 4th and goal. You could argue that it's still possible to win. You're going to have to go for the TD and 2-pt conversion... then recover the onside kick and try to score another TD. It could happen (and has happened in the past).

But say the overall win/loss wasn't all there was to the game. That losing by nine points was much better than losing by 15. You wouldn't risk it all on that 4th and goal... you would kick the FG and take the three points. Then you might try an onside kick or you might rely on your timeouts and defense to get you the ball in time for another FG try.

It's the same thing here. It's possible that we need to give up on four or five races that aren't really as close as we had hoped and concentrate on some of the senate races that we didn't think were going to be competitive. If we fight hard to limit the loss to say 3-4 seats (or heaven help us, pretend as some do here that we could actually gain a seat in the senate), we might end up giving away the senate entirely. If we instead concentrate on seats 6-10 we might be able to save them... and reasonably spin it as a victory in an environment where people begin to expect us to lose the senate.

IOW... oh yes, whining about polls can help a great deal. Far FAR better than whining about the results on 11/3.

[Imajika]

14. "Because polls dont really matter"

That is what everyone who don't like the poll results says.

One day Gallup is good, the next they are a right wing outfit. Same for Rasmussen, PPP and every other polling firm.

Don't like the result? Then the poll must be BS. Like the result? Post it all over and use it as evidence your side is winning.

The polls matter in the sense that they give you a pretty good idea of how the public intends to vote. No one poll is perfect, and they do bounce around - but they are still a good indicator of what is on the horizon.

Do I think we are going to do as poorly as Sabato suggests? No. I think these polls provide us a good warning and the we will trim our losses enough to hold both the House and Senate. I don't reject the polls at all, I just think we can use them to get our act together.

[Mass]

17. No, media polls dont matter in general, good or bad. Of course, it is more pleasant to read

them when they go your way, but they still dont matter.

There are people who work seriously in data analysis and are able to give you very useful data one a race, but this is not what the Gallup polls are about. They have to be quick and flashy in order to please the media. Just another reality show.

We dont need these polls to know Democrats are not in a good place. At least, I dont. But Sabato's column on the very dubious Gallup polls accomplish exactly ONE thing. Get him some air time on the RW media. For the rest, whether you like it or not, media polls dont matter, particularly when presented by people who dont even understand what they are presented. Not Sabato's case, I give you this, but that does not mean I am going to spend a lot of time on his column.