2014 battle for control of the US Senate

[Statistikhengst]

Derideo_Te WelfareQueen

The preliminary totals for the 36 senatorial races in 34 states are coming through at uselectionatlas (dot) org.
Dave Leip does excellent work at getting the figures in as quickly as possible and also, updating them. I often helped him per email in 2008 and 2012 to know when updates were available, due to the time zone difference between the BRD and the East Coast of the USA.

The 2014 figures are just preliminary figures and of course, do not cover all 50 states, but they are useful to compare the battle for the Senate, 2014 over 2010:

View attachment 33883

Right now, some 42.6 million votes have been tallied. But we are not at the end of counting, not by a longshot.


Here's a comparative table to former Senatorials. I have made a green-box to show the GOP winning margins since the 1990s:

View attachment 33884

Don't let the colors fool you. Dave Leip at uselectionatlas uses reverse colors for the parties. At his statistics site, blue = GOP, red = DEM.

Right now, the GOP margin is +4.87%. In 2010, it was +5.53% and in 1994, also a massive wave year, it was +5.90%. Now, that +4.87% margin is bound to change, it is only preliminary. And also, the raw vote total will change. In 2010, the end total was 66.6 million (big senatorial in Californiaand Florida that year, don't forget), the current tally is 20 million under that total, so I am pretty sure that that raw-vote total is bound to rise considerably. Which is why, WelfareQueen , I wait patiently until the final canvasses are in to make any permanent comparisons. But we can all see that the GOP needs less of a margin to make a big dent in the Senate. In 2006, the DEM margin in the Senate was a landslide +11.52% and yet, the DEMS captured only 6 seats, and two of them just barely. To pick up six seats in 2010, the GOP only needed a +5.53 margin, a little less than 1/2 of the Democratic margin from four years before. Sometimes, it's great strategy, sometimes it's kismet, sometimes it a little bit of everything.

On to the gubernatorial numbers:

View attachment 33885

In the gubernatorial, 60.8 million votes have already been tallied.

And, as I did with the senatorials, here, a comparison:

View attachment 33886


Currently, the GOP is at +5.39% over the DEMS, a statistic that is only about 1/2 point larger than the current senatorial statistic, so we are seeing consistency across the board. In 2010, here in the gubernatorials, the DEMS actually won, by +0.73%. How is this possible? California, New York and Illinois were in the gubernatorial picture And those DEM gub races, where they won, were big wins for them.

In 2010, 70.8 million votes were cast in the gubernatorials and so, right now, we are 10 million under that total. This raw count is also likely to grow over the next 6 weeks as well. Only, most of the states with gubernatorials this time around were many of the smaller states (breadbasket, plains states), and they tend to get their results in earlier than the massive states. So, whether the gubernatorial totals will hit 70.8 million, I am not so sure.

I have no stats yet on all 435 House races, that is a total pain in that ass to double check, noting again, until the final canvasses are in.

But these two preliminary sets of totals might be of help to both of you fine gentlemen.

I will update this set of data in two weeks from now. It will be interesting to see what has changed in the meantime.

Thanks, Stat.

The House races are most likely to give us the best total of voters nationwide because they are the only national elections in the off years. Comparing them to prior off years will be an indication of whether we had more or less turnout. My own inclination is to go with less because there wasn't the same motivation as there was in 2010 and 2006.

Logically, the highest voter count in mid-term years will be from the HOR elections, since all 50 states are in the mix. But I do find it helpful to compare all three major types of elections.

 

[NLT]

 

[WelfareQueen]

How many voters actually voted?

NC had a record high midterm turnout while NJ had a record low.

Does anyone have any actual figures because I am having a hard time finding any.

Me too. The President was complaining in his press conference yesterday that 2/3 of voters didn't show up....but an analyst immediately said the President was basically lying and the numbers were quite a bit higher.

But of course, no number was mentioned.


I would really like to know. I have a link that says the lowest turnout Nationally was Indiana at 36.6% and the highest was Maine at 59.3%. So I guess all I can say is clearly the President lied again. Shocking!!! But the final turnout number I cannot find.

Here's a link to the data I could find.


We Had The Lowest Voter Turnout Since 1940 s

 

[Statistikhengst]

How many voters actually voted?

NC had a record high midterm turnout while NJ had a record low.

Does anyone have any actual figures because I am having a hard time finding any.

Me too. The President was complaining in his press conference yesterday that 2/3 of voters didn't show up....but an analyst immediately said the President was basically lying and the numbers were quite a bit higher.

But of course, no number was mentioned.


I would really like to know. I have a link that says the lowest turnout Nationally was Indiana at 36.6% and the highest was Maine at 59.3%. So I guess all I can say is clearly the President lied again. Shocking!!! But the final turnout number I cannot find.

Here's a link to the data I could find.


We Had The Lowest Voter Turnout Since 1940 s

When the final canvasses are in, then we will know for sure.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[WelfareQueen]

Derideo_Te WelfareQueen

The preliminary totals for the 36 senatorial races in 34 states are coming through at uselectionatlas (dot) org.
Dave Leip does excellent work at getting the figures in as quickly as possible and also, updating them. I often helped him per email in 2008 and 2012 to know when updates were available, due to the time zone difference between the BRD and the East Coast of the USA.

The 2014 figures are just preliminary figures and of course, do not cover all 50 states, but they are useful to compare the battle for the Senate, 2014 over 2010:

View attachment 33883

Right now, some 42.6 million votes have been tallied. But we are not at the end of counting, not by a longshot.


Here's a comparative table to former Senatorials. I have made a green-box to show the GOP winning margins since the 1990s:

View attachment 33884

Don't let the colors fool you. Dave Leip at uselectionatlas uses reverse colors for the parties. At his statistics site, blue = GOP, red = DEM.

Right now, the GOP margin is +4.87%. In 2010, it was +5.53% and in 1994, also a massive wave year, it was +5.90%. Now, that +4.87% margin is bound to change, it is only preliminary. And also, the raw vote total will change. In 2010, the end total was 66.6 million (big senatorial in Californiaand Florida that year, don't forget), the current tally is 20 million under that total, so I am pretty sure that that raw-vote total is bound to rise considerably. Which is why, WelfareQueen , I wait patiently until the final canvasses are in to make any permanent comparisons. But we can all see that the GOP needs less of a margin to make a big dent in the Senate. In 2006, the DEM margin in the Senate was a landslide +11.52% and yet, the DEMS captured only 6 seats, and two of them just barely. To pick up six seats in 2010, the GOP only needed a +5.53 margin, a little less than 1/2 of the Democratic margin from four years before. Sometimes, it's great strategy, sometimes it's kismet, sometimes it a little bit of everything.

On to the gubernatorial numbers:

View attachment 33885

In the gubernatorial, 60.8 million votes have already been tallied.

And, as I did with the senatorials, here, a comparison:

View attachment 33886


Currently, the GOP is at +5.39% over the DEMS, a statistic that is only about 1/2 point larger than the current senatorial statistic, so we are seeing consistency across the board. In 2010, here in the gubernatorials, the DEMS actually won, by +0.73%. How is this possible? California, New York and Illinois were in the gubernatorial picture And those DEM gub races, where they won, were big wins for them.

In 2010, 70.8 million votes were cast in the gubernatorials and so, right now, we are 10 million under that total. This raw count is also likely to grow over the next 6 weeks as well. Only, most of the states with gubernatorials this time around were many of the smaller states (breadbasket, plains states), and they tend to get their results in earlier than the massive states. So, whether the gubernatorial totals will hit 70.8 million, I am not so sure.

I have no stats yet on all 435 House races, that is a total pain in that ass to double check, noting again, until the final canvasses are in.

But these two preliminary sets of totals might be of help to both of you fine gentlemen.

I will update this set of data in two weeks from now. It will be interesting to see what has changed in the meantime.

I bolded the key preliminary stat above. The pollsters used a +2-2.3% GOP turnout model. The actual margin is close to 5%. It appears they were off roughly 100% or more.

A terrible performance that will require a detailed explanation.

 

[Derideo_Te]

How many voters actually voted?

NC had a record high midterm turnout while NJ had a record low.

Does anyone have any actual figures because I am having a hard time finding any.

Me too. The President was complaining in his press conference yesterday that 2/3 of voters didn't show up....but an analyst immediately said the President was basically lying and the numbers were quite a bit higher.

But of course, no number was mentioned.


I would really like to know. I have a link that says the lowest turnout Nationally was Indiana at 36.6% and the highest was Maine at 59.3%. So I guess all I can say is clearly the President lied again. Shocking!!! But the final turnout number I cannot find.

Here's a link to the data I could find.


We Had The Lowest Voter Turnout Since 1940 s

Calling someone a liar for the difference between 33.3% and 36.6%? If I were going to round it up for the benefit of a press conference I would have gone with 2/3 rds myself so you can call me a liar too.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Found data that claims preliminary voter turnout Nationally was 36.6% which is likely to go quite a bit higher.

 

[WelfareQueen]

How many voters actually voted?

NC had a record high midterm turnout while NJ had a record low.

Does anyone have any actual figures because I am having a hard time finding any.

Me too. The President was complaining in his press conference yesterday that 2/3 of voters didn't show up....but an analyst immediately said the President was basically lying and the numbers were quite a bit higher.

But of course, no number was mentioned.


I would really like to know. I have a link that says the lowest turnout Nationally was Indiana at 36.6% and the highest was Maine at 59.3%. So I guess all I can say is clearly the President lied again. Shocking!!! But the final turnout number I cannot find.

Here's a link to the data I could find.


We Had The Lowest Voter Turnout Since 1940 s

Calling someone a liar for the difference between 33.3% and 36.6%? If I were going to round it up for the benefit of a press conference I would have gone with 2/3 rds myself so you can call me a liar too.

He was butt hurt and fudged the numbers to make himself feel better. And no....he was not telling the truth.