2014 battle for control of the US Senate

[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?

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.

Thanks for the nice words. As they say in love and war: "know where to pick your battles". During mid-terms, I generally focus most on the Senate. Occasionally, a really strategically important gubernatorial race comes up, for instance, Virginia in November 2013. And I am already following the Hillary Clinton trail right now.

Report in about 3 hours on HRC.

 

[mamooth]

As of today, Oct. 2, polls show the Republicans ending up with 52 senate seats.

While there's always the temptation to explain why the polls have to be wrong if your own side is behind, doing that just makes you look extra-stupid after the election. The polls are what they are, and looked at in aggregate, they do a good job. The polls show the Republicans ahead because they are ahead.

Still, a month to go. And Republicans have a history of doing stupid things. Well, Tea Partiers mainly have that history. And not so many of them around this time, so we probably can't count on the stupid factor to save the Democrats.

 

[Nyvin]

As of today, Oct. 2, polls show the Republicans ending up with 52 senate seats.

While there's always the temptation to explain why the polls have to be wrong if your own side is behind, doing that just makes you look extra-stupid after the election. The polls are what they are, and looked at in aggregate, they do a good job. The polls show the Republicans ahead because they are ahead.

Still, a month to go. And Republicans have a history of doing stupid things. Well, Tea Partiers mainly have that history. And not so many of them around this time, so we probably can't count on the stupid factor to save the Democrats.

The GOP winning 52 seats is entirely reasonable.

 

[pepperpot]

As of today, Oct. 2, polls show the Republicans ending up with 52 senate seats.

While there's always the temptation to explain why the polls have to be wrong if your own side is behind, doing that just makes you look extra-stupid after the election. The polls are what they are, and looked at in aggregate, they do a good job. The polls show the Republicans ahead because they are ahead.

Still, a month to go. And Republicans have a history of doing stupid things. Well, Tea Partiers mainly have that history. And not so many of them around this time, so we probably can't count on the stupid factor to save the Democrats.

As of today, Oct. 2, polls show the Republicans ending up with 52 senate seats.

While there's always the temptation to explain why the polls have to be wrong if your own side is behind, doing that just makes you look extra-stupid after the election. The polls are what they are, and looked at in aggregate, they do a good job. The polls show the Republicans ahead because they are ahead.

Still, a month to go. And Republicans have a history of doing stupid things. Well, Tea Partiers mainly have that history. And not so many of them around this time, so we probably can't count on the stupid factor to save the Democrats.

The GOP winning 52 seats is entirely reasonable.

I will have to agree. I can see it here. People are constantly talking about foreign policy and ebola. Also, for some reason democrats don't seem to care about midterms much. But if you think about it the senators that get elected next month will be there for the entire first term of whoever the next president is. A full 6 years of having to work with them so one would think people would turn out but instead they will complain.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
that puts them at 54 with the two independents, same as the Ds at present.

there is a long ways to go, in fact the most interesting time is just beginning. the democrats, harry reid are just now spending their money on advertising.

.

 

[Nyvin]

.
that puts them at 54 with the two independents, same as the Ds at present.

there is a long ways to go, in fact the most interesting time is just beginning. the democrats, harry reid are just now spending their money on advertising.

.

Orman seems to be more liberal then King, which is why the GOP is opposed to him so much. I wouldn't count on Orman helping the GOP much.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

.
that puts them at 54 with the two independents, same as the Ds at present.

there is a long ways to go, in fact the most interesting time is just beginning. the democrats, harry reid are just now spending their money on advertising.

.

Orman seems to be more liberal then King, which is why the GOP is opposed to him so much. I wouldn't count on Orman helping the GOP much.

Orman will go with whoever wins the majority, in my opinion. King won't be switching allegiances.

 

[Nyvin]

Orman will go with whoever wins the majority, in my opinion. King won't be switching allegiances.

I think it's almost the exact opposite. It was King that stated he would side with whichever party held the majority, Orman declined to comment when asked which party he'll vote for Majority leader.

 

[Bush92]

Hopefully the weasel Orman will lose. Why is he being so coy? No. You must be truthful with the people about your political ideology. Orman is a Democrat, liberal, plain and simple. End of discussion.

 

[HenryBHough]

We gotta stop talking about "Ebola".

The new name, as articulated by Our Kenyan President this very day is "Ebolii" - said as "e-bowl-EYE"

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hopefully the weasel Orman will lose. Why is he being so coy? No. You must be truthful with the people about your political ideology. Orman is a Democrat, liberal, plain and simple. End of discussion.

Your ignorance is on display.

Learn:

Greg Orman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Orman has been a registered Republican and a registered Democrat.

 

[Statistikhengst]

We gotta stop talking about "Ebola".

The new name, as articulated by Our Kenyan President this very day is "Ebolii" - said as "e-bowl-EYE"

Are you even remotely capable of contributing something cogent and sane to any thread at all, or is your main purpose in life simply to be THE troll of USMB?

Now, go take a look at the fucking OP and see if you can actually contribute some data, like the adults in the room do.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, it's now exactly four weeks before the 2014 mid-terms, and time to compare to last week's polling aggregate snapshots to today.

Here were the aggregates from last Thursday (October 2, 2014):

2014 battle for control of the US Senate Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


And now, here are the aggregates as of today, October 7, 2014:

DEMOCRATS LEADING:
​

Aggregate, MI:

August 11, 2014: Peters +4.0
September 16, 2014: Peters +5.2
September 22, 2014: Peters +5.4
October 2, 2014: Peters +6.0
October 7, 2014: Peters +6.7

The needle has moved +0.7 in Peters' direction over the last week. Of the competitive Senate races, this one is probably the safest for the Democrats at this time. Peters is heading into the safe zone.

Aggregate, NH:

August 11, 2014: Shaheen +10.4
September 16, 2014: Shaheen +3.5
September 22, 2014: Shaheen +5.0
October 2, 2014: Shaheen +4.0
October 7, 2014: Shaheen +4.6


Last Thursday, I wrote the following:

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.

If we eliminate polls older than two weeks old from this aggregate would be Shaheen +5.6. That is the more accurate statistic right now. Right now, she is doing better than the RCP aggregate indicates, because of "cold coffee" polls that should have been cycled out by now.

Aggregate, NC:

August 11, 2014: Tillis +1.3
September 16, 2014: Hagan +3.7
September 22,2014: Hagan +5.0
October 2, 2014: Hagan +4.2
October 7, 2014: Hagan +3.7

Technically, this has moved 0.5 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. If you reduce the time frame down to the last two weeks (14 days), then the bottom three polls would drop out and the average of the top four polls would be Hagan +3.75, so we are seeing a lean, but stable lead for incumbent Hagan (D) in the Tarheel state. That being said, in a wave, a +4 aggregate can be overcome. Kay Hagan is in no way in safe waters.

REPUBLICANS leading:​

Aggregate, CO:

August 11, 2014: Udall +3.7
September 16, 2014: Udall +1.5
September 22, 2014: Udall +0.6
October 2, 2014: Gardner +1.5
October 7, 2014: Gardner +0.6

Since last Thursday, the aggregate needle has moved 0.9 toward incumbent Udall (D). This is, on paper, a true dogfight, but please remember that one week ago, I pointed to the RCP end-average from 2010 for Colorado. Here it is again:

And one week ago, I wrote the following:

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.

And that testimony from one week ago still stands. We now have historical evidence from 2008, 2010 and 2012 that polling in the western states where there are sizeable Latino communities has been unreliable. And the polling statisticians from both sides, I am sure, are keenly aware of this historical fact.

Just to underscore this, here was the RCP average for the Reid (D-inc) / Angle (R) senatorial from 2010:

No, your eyes are not fooling you. The end aggregate for NV (which has a sizeable Latino population, similar to CO and NM, also CA) showed Angle +2.7, but Reid won by +5.6, which means that the aggregate was off by 8.3 points. That is WAY off. And notice that even PPP (D) showed an Angle win. All polling firms in 2010 miscalculated the Latino impact on the overall vote in the SW of the USA.

Just remember these historical facts when looking at the aggregates for CO and NM this time around.

Aggregate, IA:

August 11, 2014: Ernst +0.8
September 16, 2014: Braley +1.4
September 22: Braley +0.1
October 2, 2014: Ernst +2.8
October 2, 2014: Ernst +1.9

Since October 2, 2014, the needle has moved 0.9 toward Braley.

Just to show how volatile this race is, one week ago, I wrote the following:

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.

If these numbers hold, then it appears that CO and IA may be the two cliffhanger races on election night, 2014. This is every bit as much a dogfight at Colorado at this moment.

Aggregate, AK:

August 11, 2014: -no aggregate was possible-
September 16, 2014: Sullivan +1.3
September 22, 2014: Sullivan +1.3
October 2, 2014: Sullivan +4.7
October 7, 2014: Sullivan +4.7

Despite new polls, Sullivan is maintaining a +4.7, because the CBS poll from August that showed Sullivan +6 has been replaced by the newer CBS poll showing exactly the same margin.

Now, Democrats can take the tack that polling in Alaska is notoriously unreliable, but a +5 is pretty hard to get around. Sullivan is definitely in the lead.

Aggregate, GA:

August 11, 2014: Perdue +3.2
September 16, 2014: Perdue +3.0
September 22, 2014: Perdue +3.3
October 2, 2014: Perdue +3.4
October 7, 2014: Perdue +3.1

Just as Kay Hagan has demonstrated a lean but resilient lead in NC, in Georgia, Republican Perdue is demonstrating a lean but resilient circa +3 to +3.5 lead. The needle has moved only +0.3 toward Nunn (D), which could just as well be nothing more than so-called "statistical noise". All of these polls are essentially within the two week time frame. Now, last week, I leveled some well-founded criticism of InsiderAdvantage, a firm notorious for inflated R-margins and also a firm that hides it's data behind a paywall and even then, does not release critical internals. That being said, two other firms are also showing the same margin for Perdue. I would really like to see a PPP (D) result from this state for comparison and will also remind that for most of the South, SUSA has somewhat become the gold standard. SUSA only shows +1 for Perdue, but that poll will soon fall out of the two-week window. However, no matter how you slice it, Perdue is still in the lead. But as is the case with LA, there is a third party candidate on the ballot (which most pollsters are ignoring, at their own peril) and like LA, GA has a 50% hurdle to overcome, otherwise, there is a runoff election in December.

Speaking of Louisiana:

Double aggregate, LA:

Jungle Primary, October 2, 2014: Landrieu +1.2
Jungle Primary, October 7, 2014: Landrieu +2.7

Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 2, 2014: Cassidy +4.6
Two-"man" race, possible runoff, October 2, 2014: Cassidy +5.6

We are now getting some solid data-points with which to work. In the Jungle primary, the needle has move 1.5 points to Landrieu. But, and this is the kicker: Rob Maness (R running as a third party candidate) has an aggregate of 8 points. And in the two-way polling, the needle has moved 1 point toward Cassidy. Crazy, what? Now, watch the math closely:

100 - 8 = 92.

92 / 2 = 46

46% (without the Maness 8%) is temporarily the new "50 yard line", if you will.
a Landrieu aggregate +2.7 means that the margin is spead on the top and the bottom of 46%, by 1.35. (2.7 / 2 = 1.35)

46 + 1.35 extrapolates Landrieu at 47.35%.
46 - 1.35 extrapolates Cassidy at 44.65%
Manness 8.00%
Total: 100.00%
Margin: Landrieu +2.7

That is ASSUMING that the 8% for Maness is reality, for 3rd party candidates tend to do worse on election night than aggregate polling often shows.

But with Manness at 8%, if these figures hold, then there is no conceivable way for Landrieu to get to 50%, which means there will be a runoff, and if the runoff "two way" numbers hold, then all the Jungle Primary does is to stave-off the inevitable: a Cassidy +5 to +6 win. In other words, what hurts Cassidy in the Jungle Primary may help him come December.

Last week, I wrote:

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.

Aggregate, AR:

September 16, 2014: Cotton +2.5
September 22, 2014: Cotton +2.5
October 2, 2014: Cotton +3.6
October 7, 2014: Cotton +3.7

As is the case with Hagan (D) in NC and Perdue (R) in GA, Tom Cotton (R) is maintaining a lean but resilient lead in AR against Democratic incumbent Pryor. Two cold-coffee polls have now been cycled out and one new poll has been cycled in, and the aggregate result is practically identical to last week.

Two important data-points here: Rasmussen has a proven mathematical bias of around +4 to the Right and right now, the +7 for Cotton from RAS is 3.3 points to the Right of the aggregate. None of this surprises me. What DOES surprise me is the quirky result from Suffolk, which, in 2012 ended up with alot of egg on it's face by going on TV on FOX one full month before the Presidential election and declaring that it would do no more polling in battlegrounds VA, NC and FL, that it had already "painted those states red" for the GE. Of course, when Obama won both VA and FL, this made Suffolk look pretty silly. Here is a link to prove what I just wrote:

Suffolk Poll Romney To Win Virginia Florida N.C. - Business Insider

So, with a proven Conservative bias in the states that mattered in 2012, it is indeed strange to see a +2 for Pryor in a state that Romney swept by +24 just two years ago.

Another damning piece of evidence is the PPP (D) poll, which also shows a Cotton +6. Conservatives love to say that PPP is biased to the left, but actually, in 2010, it has a very slight aggregate bias to the RIGHT.

No matter how you slice it, Tom Cotton is currently leading in Arkansas.

Aggregate, KY:

August 11, 2014: McConnell +2.5
September 16, 2014: McConnell +5.2
September 22, 2014: McConnell +5.2
October 2, 2014: McConnell +5.3
October 7, 2014: McConnell +4.2

Technically, after weeks of unchanged numbers in the Bluegrass state, the needle has moved 1.1 points toward Democrat Alison Grimes, but on another thread, I did a quick analysis of the "Bluegrass poll"s track record over the last 6 years and discovered a strong mathematical bias to the LEFT, a very strong one at that. You can read the findings here:

Mcconnell Falls Behind In Kentucky US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Incumbent McConnell is still ahead here. He already prevailed in a close election in 2008, and like Harry Reid (D-NV), he knows how to fight a close race. Remember, I am writing this praise as an avowed Democrat.

INDEPENDENT leading:​

Aggregate, KS:
September 22, 2014: Orman +1.2
October 2, 2014: Orman +5.3
October 2, 2014: Orman +5.3

The needle has moved 4.0 points toward Orman since September 22, 2014.

The most damning piece of evidence that Roberts (R) is probably going to lose is the big +10 for Orman from Marist, and I will note again that is statistically impossible for a +10 for one candidate and a mathematical tie for that same candidate to appear at the same time in two polls. One of those two polls is definitely off.

Either way, Orman is ahead, demonstrably.

BTW, I made a thread about a very good, concise assessment of Mr. Orman, here:

Good Concise Assessment Of Greg Orman i-ks Sen US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I suspect that in the next two weeks, Mr. Orman will hit the 50 mark in some polls.


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

FACIT: movement in both directions since last week, but the likely GOP pickups have not changed and the two states that are real dog-fights have also not changed. The GOP is still on target to pick up at least 6 seats net and therefore get to 51 (majority) in the US Senate.

That being said, in the generic aggregate, the GOP lead has actually shrunk since last week:

Generic aggregate, October 2, 2014: GOP +2.9
Generic aggregate, October 2, 2014: GOP +2.1

Still no statistical signs of a wave, but plenty of evidence that the GOP is winning where it needs to, which is exactly in line with 160 years of US mid-term election history:

Congressional Elections compared to Presidential Terms 1855-present US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Mac1958]

Well, we're less than a month away from the elections and the GOP has clearly decided not to provide the electorate with a unified, dynamic, positive vision of the future of the country.

Evidently their platform is "we're not Obama. Cut taxes".

Does such a party really deserve control of the Senate?

.

 

[Nyvin]

Looks like the Republicans don't want to waste any more money on Land in Michigan:

Republicans just gave up on the Senate race in Michigan - Vox

 

[Bush92]

And that testimony from one week ago still stands. We now have historical evidence from 2008, 2010 and 2012 that polling in the western states where there are sizeable Latino communities has been unreliable. And the polling statisticians from both sides, I am sure, are keenly aware of this historical fact.

This is because of the high number of illegals in the Hispanic community. They are afraid to answer questions from pollsters for fear of it being a government trap and they will get deported. All the more reason for voter ID laws to prevent election fraud.

 

[Nyvin]

This is because of the high number of illegals in the Hispanic community. They are afraid to answer questions from pollsters for fear of it being a government trap and they will get deported. All the more reason for voter ID laws to prevent election fraud.

You prove your citizenship during the voter registration process.

Also...why in the heck would they be afraid of answering a polling firm's questions?

 

[Bush92]

Because if you go door-to-door in a Hispanic community, as I have, the clip board, shirt and tie makes some run and hide or refuse to answer questions. I have known illegals with three different names on three different types of ID. So if they register with simplified form distributed from a registrar with a liberal agenda, it is not checked. Voter fraud in states by illegals is rampant.

 

[Nyvin]

Because if you go door-to-door in a Hispanic community, as I have, the clip board, shirt and tie makes some run and hide or refuse to answer questions. I have known illegals with three different names on three different types of ID. So if they register with simplified form distributed from a registrar with a liberal agenda, it is not checked. Voter fraud in states by illegals is rampant.

If they can register to vote then chances are they have some form of ID to show. Voter ID laws would not prevent undocumented people from voting.

 

[Dot Com]

I was looking for this thread ystrdy. Looks like the Repub secret $$$ machine pulled out of Michigan

Is the Michigan Senate Race Over - NBC News

Democrats have received a bit of good news. They might no longer have to worry about the Michigan Senate race.

An arm of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the NRSC, has just pulled its investment in television advertising backing GOP candidate Terri Lynn Land.