2014 battle for control of the US Senate

[Statistikhengst]

Senate poll crunching report comes out tomorrow - t-minus 5 weeks.

 

[SmileyFaze]

Fingers crossed.......

 

[BreezeWood]

Well, since most of the people the the GOP puts up for governor end up in the pen a short time later for fraud, why on earth would we want a Republican representing us?

Perhaps because you've aged out on Obamacare and have to find a job so you can buy your mandatory health insurance?

HB: Perhaps because you've aged out on Obamacare and have to find a job so you can buy your mandatory health insurance?

.
having age out of the ACA would mean their responsibilities for the national health care law have been fulfilled, perhaps you are thinking of retarded republicans that shirked their duty and are now being audited by the IRS ... in your case, getting a 2nd job would indeed be a prudent decision.

.

 

[HenryBHough]

Well, since most of the people the the GOP puts up for governor end up in the pen a short time later for fraud, why on earth would we want a Republican representing us?

Perhaps because you've aged out on Obamacare and have to find a job so you can buy your mandatory health insurance?

HB: Perhaps because you've aged out on Obamacare and have to find a job so you can buy your mandatory health insurance?

.
having age out of the ACA would mean their responsibilities for the national health care law have been fulfilled, perhaps you are thinking of retarded republicans that shirked their duty and are now being audited by the IRS ... in your case, getting a 2nd job would indeed be a prudent decision.

.

Your confusion is easy to understand.

"Age out" in context means to have reached age 26 and no longer federally counted as an infant. Therefore no longer able to piggy-back on parents health insurance.

When you start getting close to 26 let's have this conversation again, OK?

 

[BreezeWood]

Well, since most of the people the the GOP puts up for governor end up in the pen a short time later for fraud, why on earth would we want a Republican representing us?

Perhaps because you've aged out on Obamacare and have to find a job so you can buy your mandatory health insurance?

HB: Perhaps because you've aged out on Obamacare and have to find a job so you can buy your mandatory health insurance?

.
having age out of the ACA would mean their responsibilities for the national health care law have been fulfilled, perhaps you are thinking of retarded republicans that shirked their duty and are now being audited by the IRS ... in your case, getting a 2nd job would indeed be a prudent decision.

.

Your confusion is easy to understand.

"Age out" in context means to have reached age 26 and no longer federally counted as an infant. Therefore no longer able to piggy-back on parents health insurance.

When you start getting close to 26 let's have this conversation again, OK?

.

"Age out" in context means to have reached age 26 and no longer federally counted as an infant. Therefore no longer able to piggy-back on parents health insurance.

.
sorry, the confusion stems then from your belief people only begin looking for a job at age 26 and do so in order to cover their health insurance premium ... not many ( adults ) have had the same life experience you seem to be going through, do try and understand.

* just tell your parents they can continue paying your share by opening a separate policy in your name.

.

 

[Nyvin]

It's looking extremely likely that Alaska, Iowa, Colorado, and Kansas will be the 4 states that control of the Senate comes down to.

 

[pepperpot]

It's looking extremely likely that Alaska, Iowa, Colorado, and Kansas will be the 4 states that control of the Senate comes down to.

I see Ernst is way up now. Alaska seems to be heading towards GOP as does Colorado in latest polls. How much does anyone think ISIS and ebola will have an effect? To be honest I haven't heard any candidates talking about anything else lately.

 

[Nyvin]

I see Ernst is way up now. Alaska seems to be heading towards GOP as does Colorado in latest polls. How much does anyone think ISIS and ebola will have an effect? To be honest I haven't heard any candidates talking about anything else lately.

Ernst has been getting good polling recently. Alaska polling is always wonky and unreliable, no idea what'll happen there. Colorado is still extremely close.

Two races that could be surprises (although not "likely") are Georgia and Louisiana, which are both looking to be heading for runoffs.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's looking extremely likely that Alaska, Iowa, Colorado, and Kansas will be the 4 states that control of the Senate comes down to.

Even without those four, the GOP can come in at 50:

Montana
South Dakota
West Virginia
Arkansas
Louisiana

Which would probably tip the independent from Maine right there. Which brings the GOP to 51, unless Roberts loses in KS, which means the GOP is at 50. It only needs one seat more. This reminds me a lot of 2006, where the dems just got to 51 seats and we were watching the McCaskill race until late into the night.

The Colorado polls may be just as off as they were in 2008, 2010 and 2012, where, for the third time in a row, the latino vote was grossly miscalculated. And indeed, polling in Alaska is weird and wonky. However, Ernst (R) is definitely putting daylight between herself and Braley.

And my money is on Orman (I) winning the senatorial in Kansas.

Both Democratic campaigns are plateauing out in both Kentucky and Georgia - a bad sign overall for the Democrats.

 

[BreezeWood]

DJIA : 16793 - 245.40 ... Wednesday October 1 3:42

I suppose the falling stock market will prove to be a republican advantage as well -

could be another 2010 runaway train wreck for the democrats.

.

 

[pepperpot]

DJIA : 16793 - 245.40 ... Wednesday October 1 3:42

I suppose the falling stock market will prove to be a republican advantage as well -

could be another 2010 runaway train wreck for the democrats.

.

I would imagine ISIS and ebola would be to republicans advantage as well.

 

[Nyvin]

It's looking extremely likely that Alaska, Iowa, Colorado, and Kansas will be the 4 states that control of the Senate comes down to.

Even without those four, the GOP can come in at 50:

Montana
South Dakota
West Virginia
Arkansas
Louisiana

Which would probably tip the independent from Maine right there. Which brings the GOP to 51, unless Roberts loses in KS, which means the GOP is at 50. It only needs one seat more. This reminds me a lot of 2006, where the dems just got to 51 seats and we were watching the McCaskill race until late into the night.

The Colorado polls may be just as off as they were in 2008, 2010 and 2012, where, for the third time in a row, the latino vote was grossly miscalculated. And indeed, polling in Alaska is weird and wonky. However, Ernst (R) is definitely putting daylight between herself and Braley.

And my money is on Orman (I) winning the senatorial in Kansas.

Both Democratic campaigns are plateauing out in both Kentucky and Georgia - a bad sign overall for the Democrats.

What will be incredibly bizarre is if the GOP does get the majority through those states listed and loses CO and IA...then they will have won the majority without winning over a "single state" that Obama won in 2012 (provided that MI and NH go dem, which is likely at this point).

It doesn't set much a precedent if the only way you get a majority is winning the states you already won two years ago anyway.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't think the GOP will come in less than 51.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This election is not an outlier for 2016.

That will depend on millennials, women, minorities, and how the GOP treats them.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's looking extremely likely that Alaska, Iowa, Colorado, and Kansas will be the 4 states that control of the Senate comes down to.

Even without those four, the GOP can come in at 50:

Montana
South Dakota
West Virginia
Arkansas
Louisiana

Which would probably tip the independent from Maine right there. Which brings the GOP to 51, unless Roberts loses in KS, which means the GOP is at 50. It only needs one seat more. This reminds me a lot of 2006, where the dems just got to 51 seats and we were watching the McCaskill race until late into the night.

The Colorado polls may be just as off as they were in 2008, 2010 and 2012, where, for the third time in a row, the latino vote was grossly miscalculated. And indeed, polling in Alaska is weird and wonky. However, Ernst (R) is definitely putting daylight between herself and Braley.

And my money is on Orman (I) winning the senatorial in Kansas.

Both Democratic campaigns are plateauing out in both Kentucky and Georgia - a bad sign overall for the Democrats.

What will be incredibly bizarre is if the GOP does get the majority through those states listed and loses CO and IA...then they will have won the majority without winning over a "single state" that Obama won in 2012 (provided that MI and NH go dem, which is likely at this point).

It doesn't set much a precedent if the only way you get a majority is winning the states you already won two years ago anyway.

I didn't say it was going to work out that way. I said it can work out that way. And, in the run of history we have seen weirder things happen. But generally, the bulk of battleground states tend to fall like dominos to the winning side.

The GOP has had the better cards all year long and I see nothing changing one month away from the 2014 mid-term elections.

 

[Statistikhengst]

This election is not an outlier for 2016.

That will depend on millennials, women, minorities, and how the GOP treats them.

No real correspondence between the results of a mid-term and the next presidential GE. See: Truman 1946 vs. 1948, Nixon 1970 vs. 1973, Reagan 1982 vs. 1984, Clinton 1994 vs. 1996, Obama 2010 vs. 2012.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The figure to watch for an incumbent president running for a second term is the poll ratings for the president who got smashed in the previous mid term: 1946, 1954, 1994, and 2010. If the president stays above 46%, as all four did, he will probably win.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, it's now less than 5 weeks before the 2014 mid-terms, and time to compare to last weeks polling aggregate snapshots.

Here was the last go-round:

2014 battle for control of the US Senate Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum (September 22, 2014)


And now, today:

DEMOCRATS LEADING:​

Aggregate, MI:

August 11, 2014: Peters +4.0
September 16, 2014: Peters +5.2
September 22, 2014: Peters +5.4
Today: Peters +6.0

The needle has moved +0.6 in Peters' direction over the last week. Of the competitive Senate races, this one is probably the safest for the Democrats at this time.

Aggregate, NC:

August 11, 2014: Tillis +1.3
September 16, 2014: Hagan +3.7
September 22,2014: Hagan +5.0
Today: Hagan +4.2

Technically, this has moved 0.8 points away from Kay Hagan and toward Thom Tillis, only, the most right leaning of all the pollsters, Civitas (R),is showing Hagan with +7 and also hitting the 50% mark.

Aggregate, NH:

August 11, 2014: Shaheen +10.4
September 16, 2014: Shaheen +3.5
September 22, 2014: Shaheen +5.0
Today: Shaheen +4.0

A week ago, I wrote the following:

On the surface, it looks like Shaheen is regaining some of what she lost, but a lot of this statistic is either being propped up by a +11 poll for her that was conducted at exactly the same time as a CNN poll showing an absolute tie. Or you can say that this statistic is being pulled down by an outlier CNN poll. One thing is for sure: those two values absolutely cannot exist in the same universe at the same time. For Georgia, I write something similar about another firm that is likely an outlier right now. That being said, if you remove both CNN and New England college, then the average is: Shaheen +4.9.

As of today, the needle has moved 1 point in Scott Brown's (R) direction, but the disparity in polling is just nothing less than amazing. To have a tie poll and a Shaheen +10 poll conducted within pretty much the same time frame are too things that cannot exist in the same universe at the same time. And ARG has a conservative mathematical bias, not a liberal one. Conversely, New England College has a slight liberal mathematical bias, not a conservative bias. As has been discussed by me VERY OFTEN, Rasmussen has a verifiable mathematical bias of 4 points to the right almost all of the time, so a Ras +6 for Shaheen (though the poll is now 3 weeks old) jives with an ARG +10 for Shaheen.

She is definitely ahead, but should a large GOP wave form, this could change practically overnight.

GOP candidates leading:​

Aggregate, CO:

August 11, 2014: Udall +3.7
September 16, 2014: Udall +1.5
September 22, 2014: Udall +0.6
Today: Gardner +1.5

Since 09/22, the needle has moved 2.1 points in Gardner's direction. A lot of this is being propped up by the Quinnipiac +8 for Gardner, which very much looks like an outlier. Take a look at the Rasmussen margin: Gardner +1.

Now, let's go back in history to the 2010 mid-terms. This was the RCP final average in 2010:

This is enlightening. In 2010, RCP had as it's aggregate Buck +3. Bennett won on election night by +1. This means that the RCP aggregate was off by 4 points to the right. Even PPP (D) was off to the Right. Afterwards, most analysts wrote that the Latino vote in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico was grossly underestimated and calculated.

For this very reason, regardless whether the needle shows Udall +1.5 or Gardner +1.5, I would say that if there is a state where the aggregate could be way off, it would be a state like Colorado.

In other words, it's still very much a dogfight in Colorado. No one has put this race away.

Aggregate, IA:

August 11, 2014: Ernst +0.8
September 16, 2014: Braley +1.4
September 22: Braley +0.1
Today: Ernst +2.8

The needle has moved 2.9 points in Jodi Ernst's (R) direction and the most damning piece of evidence is the Des Moines Register poll, which is one of the two real GOLD STANDARD polls in Iowa. Ernst is taking the lead in this state, but as you can see from the four aggregate values above, this pendulum could swing again.

Aggregate, AK:

August 11, 2014: -no aggregate was possible-
September 16, 2014: Sullivan +1.3
September 22, 2014: Sullivan +1.3
Today: Sullivan +4.7

Technically, the needle has moved 3.4 points toward Sullivan (R). Unbelievably, RCP still has a poll from AUGUST in the aggregate. The more accurate aggregate would be: Sullivan +4. Plus there are two polls from other pollsters not listed in RCP showing the race much closer. That being said, Sullivan is currently in the lead.

Aggregate, GA:

August 11, 2014: Perdue +3.2
September 16, 2014: Perdue +3.0
September 22, 2014: Perdue +3.3
Today: Perdue +3.4

One week ago, I wrote:

This is a race where the polling aggregate sinus-curve is barely moving, in spite of a likely outlier Perdue +10 poll from InsiderAdvantage, a firm that was WAY off in Florida in 2012 and which hides it's internals behind a paywall. The final IA poll of Florida showed Romney +5, Obama won by +1, so IA was off by 6. Food for thought.

That being said, Perdue is ahead here and Nunn seems unable to erase his lean but resilient lead.

So, the Insider Advantage poll, which is now 3 weeks old, is still in the aggregate and Rasmussen shows half of that margin and SUSA, which was one of the 2 best pollsters in 2008, 2010 and 2012, shows Perdue +1.
That being said, the Landmark poll showing Nunn ahead by +3 is just as old as the IA poll, neither of them should be in the aggregate anymore and if you average just the last two polls, it's still: Perdue +3. And the needle barely budged between September 22 and today.

I will remind that GA, like LA, has a 50% hurdle to get over in the GE, otherwise, this goes to a runoff election at the beginning of December. This happened in 2008, and there is a Libertarian on the ballot, Amanda Swafford. So, in a 3-point race, it is conceivable that neither Nunn nor Perdue get over 50%. Forewarned = prepared.

Speaking of Louisiana:

One week ago, I wrote:

It was already discussed a week ago that LA does a jungle primary and then a runoff if no one reaches 50.
The aggregate for Cassidy in a two-man race is being bolstered by a poll from FOX that is mathematically an outlier. That being said, Cassidy is putting more and more light between himself and Democratic incumbent Landrieu. I wrote one week ago that there was too much old polling data in the aggregate. Now, there is 1 new poll for each category, but only one, still mixed with much older polling. We need a larger polling DNA for this state.

And indeed, we now have some fresh polling DNA, which helps. In the Jungle Primary, Landrieu is definitely ahead: Landrieu +1.2, and that stat is being held down by one CBS poll that is now 4 weeks old and was already flawed in that is was conducted over a 2-week time span, which is ridiculous. Without that poll, the aggregate would be: Landrieu +2.3.

That's the good news for Landrieu. The bad news is that in direct two-man polling, Cassidy is clearly ahead with an aggregate of +4.6 (it is likely lower, since the FOX +13 is quite obviously an outlier) and since it is highly unlikely that 3rd party candidate Maness (who is polling about 9-10%) will not win the jungle primary, it is highly likely that this thing goes into overtime and there will be a runoff election. Especially if the fate of the Senate would be decided in LA, this race could become especially interesting.

Either way, it's: advantage Cassidy (R).

Aggregate, AR:

September 16, 2014: Cotton +2.5
September 22, 2014: Cotton +2.5
Today: Cotton +3.6

People may notice that I have been criticizing the inclusion of "cold coffee" polls in RCP's aggregate and I do so just as much when removing old polls is actually to the BENEFIT of the GOP, which is the case here.. Both the CNN and the NBC polls are about one month old. Take them out and then you only have 3 polls, the average of which is Cotton +3.7.

I will point out that getting this close to +4 usually means that a candidate's numbers are outside of the MoE and there has been definite movement in this race toward the GOP. It looks very much to me as if both Democratic incumbents from AR and LA are probably going to be out of a job come January 2015. The next time people will want to paint me as a Democratic hack and my analyses as hackish, just remember this moment.

Completely unchanged:​

Aggregate, KY:

August 11, 2014: McConnell +2.5
September 16, 2014: McConnell +5.2
September 22: McConnell +5.2
Today: McConnell +5.3

No new polling in KY in the last week. In fact, no new polling since the report on September 16th. The needle moved +0.1 toward McConnell because an older poll fell out of the statistic. To be honest, both the CNN and the Rasmussen polls are both too old, so is the Marist poll, that is all "cold coffee". We need new polling data in KY to get a better picture. This race is anything but settled, to be sure.

And finally:

INDEPENDENT leading:​

Aggregate, KS:
September 22, 2014: Orman +1.2
Today: Orman +5.3

The needle has moved 4.1 points toward Orman since September 22, 2014.

To get perspective on this, Orman's aggregate lead over incumbent Republican Roberts in one of the most Republican states in the Union is HIGHER than the Republican aggregate leads in GA, LA, AR, IA, CO, AK and also higher than the Democratic aggregate leads in NH and NC. The only candidate with a higher aggregate lead than Orman (and McConnell) is Peters in Michigan. That being said, Orman is not at 50% and in a state with a red-tilt this heavy, anything can happen. On the other hand, things don't happen in a vaccuum and in this case it would be helpful for us to take a look at the KS-GUB aggregate as well:

Davis, a Democrat, is leading by a very consistent +4 and that value is probably higher since both Rasmussen and FOX has a verifiable mathematical bias on the order of 4 points to the Right. And since this will be the same electorate that will be voting in the KS-SEN race, it looks very much as if Orman will become the second IND in the US Senate.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FACIT: movement toward the GOP in many races. The GOP is winning this mid-term right now and were the election held today, based on these values, the GOP would pick up:

MT, SD, WV, AR, LA, IA, CO and AK, giving them 53 seats. But they would lose KS, giving them 52 seats.

Does this point to a wave? No. Not yet. The margins have not expanded enough to be able to say that with any credibility and also, the generic ballot does not show this, either:

As compared to 2010:

Please note the Gallup GOP +15 poll, which was 9.3 points off in 2010. BTW, the final results listed at +6.8 at RCP is false: it was +5.7. What a shame that RCP never updated this figure.

So, a GOP +2.9 on the generic, considering that the aggregate from 2010 was off 3.7 points to the Right, could actually mean a tie in the generic right now, which is why I cannot, with any credibility, call this a GOP wave.

What is obvious, however, is that the GOP is currently winning where it needs to win, just as I have been predicting for months on end.

Next update: 07 October 2014

 

[Statistikhengst]

@Czernobog -please see the posting above.

I have put together a mention list for people who like election updates from me. Would you like to be on that list?

 

[pepperpot]

@Czernobog -please see the posting above.

I have put together a mention list for people who like election updates from me. Would you like to be on that list?

You could put me on the list as well please! Your post was great! Do you do that research yourself? Also, do you have any threads here on gubernatorial races or do you just follow the senate? I live in New England and it has become fascinating here this year. States like Massachusetts and Connecticut seem to be pulling right for the governors races and Scott Brown seems to be tied up in New Hampshire. Coakley has been a weak candidate for Massachusetts previously while Foley in Connecticut seems to be ahead because of Malloys gun legislation. As for Scott Brown he has taken advantage of the free staters up there in New Hampshire as they seem to be growing in numbers. It wouldn't surprise me to see NH swing completely right like they were decades ago.