2014 battle for control of the US Senate

[Statistikhengst]

@Derideo_Te - I thought this update from the posting above would interest you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Fascinating numbers.

Essentially a stalemate but one that slightly favors Dems over the GOP. The "wave" still has time to form given that we are still 7 weeks out but I am no longer expecting any "surprises" given that the Tea Party senate candidates were eliminated in the primaries. Doesn't mean that one of the House Tea Party candidates won't say something stupid but I suspect that party discipline is at an all time high.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Fascinating numbers.

Essentially a stalemate but one that slightly favors Dems over the GOP. The "wave" still has time to form given that we are still 7 weeks out but I am no longer expecting any "surprises" given that the Tea Party senate candidates were eliminated in the primaries. Doesn't mean that one of the House Tea Party candidates won't say something stupid but I suspect that party discipline is at an all time high.

Not enough.

With the DEMS essentially already ceding MT, SD and WV, that puts the GOP at 48.

They can easily win in AR and LA, which then puts them at 50. Assume that the GOP loses KS, then they are at 48 again. Meanwhile, both AK is also within reach, but with the complications on the gubernatorial (unity independent ticket), I think that Begich will eek this one out.

Why I don't think it is a wave is because four major seats are all moving toward the Democrats.

But no matter how you slice it, the GOP still has the better cards in it's hands.

When he hit the break away point at t-minus 21 days or so, then we will all know better.

BTW, the voter registration data I just collected and am analysing is showing essentially the same climate as in 2010, but with more unaffiliateds and slightly less R and D. Thread goes out on Thursday.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Fascinating numbers.

Essentially a stalemate but one that slightly favors Dems over the GOP. The "wave" still has time to form given that we are still 7 weeks out but I am no longer expecting any "surprises" given that the Tea Party senate candidates were eliminated in the primaries. Doesn't mean that one of the House Tea Party candidates won't say something stupid but I suspect that party discipline is at an all time high.

Not enough.

With the DEMS essentially already ceding MT, SD and WV, that puts the GOP at 48.

They can easily win in AR and LA, which then puts them at 50. Assume that the GOP loses KS, then they are at 48 again. Meanwhile, both AK is also within reach, but with the complications on the gubernatorial (unity independent ticket), I think that Begich will eek this one out.

Why I don't think it is a wave is because four major seats are all moving toward the Democrats.

But no matter how you slice it, the GOP still has the better cards in it's hands.

When he hit the break away point at t-minus 21 days or so, then we will all know better.

BTW, the voter registration data I just collected and am analysing is showing essentially the same climate as in 2010, but with more unaffiliateds and slightly less R and D. Thread goes out on Thursday.

I can understand why there are more unaffiliated voters these days since neither party is "attractive". Midterms are always more about local politics too so they are an interesting dynamic. The poll watchers tend to focus on the party faithful for midterms as being the most "reliable" in terms of who will vote but I am sensing that the unaffiliated bloc contains a segment of "reliable voters" who are just as interested in politics as the party faithful and who will be voting come November. Which way they will vote remains to be seen but I strongly suspect that it will be towards whichever candidate most resonates with their pain in individual races rather than a "wave" for either party. If one were to track and rank the issues, the candidates positions on those issues and then how the unaffiliated voters cast their ballots I am willing to bet that there would be a correlation in there.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Fascinating numbers.

Essentially a stalemate but one that slightly favors Dems over the GOP. The "wave" still has time to form given that we are still 7 weeks out but I am no longer expecting any "surprises" given that the Tea Party senate candidates were eliminated in the primaries. Doesn't mean that one of the House Tea Party candidates won't say something stupid but I suspect that party discipline is at an all time high.

Not enough.

With the DEMS essentially already ceding MT, SD and WV, that puts the GOP at 48.

They can easily win in AR and LA, which then puts them at 50. Assume that the GOP loses KS, then they are at 48 again. Meanwhile, both AK is also within reach, but with the complications on the gubernatorial (unity independent ticket), I think that Begich will eek this one out.

Why I don't think it is a wave is because four major seats are all moving toward the Democrats.

But no matter how you slice it, the GOP still has the better cards in it's hands.

When he hit the break away point at t-minus 21 days or so, then we will all know better.

BTW, the voter registration data I just collected and am analysing is showing essentially the same climate as in 2010, but with more unaffiliateds and slightly less R and D. Thread goes out on Thursday.

I can understand why there are more unaffiliated voters these days since neither party is "attractive". Midterms are always more about local politics too so they are an interesting dynamic. The poll watchers tend to focus on the party faithful for midterms as being the most "reliable" in terms of who will vote but I am sensing that the unaffiliated bloc contains a segment of "reliable voters" who are just as interested in politics as the party faithful and who will be voting come November. Which way they will vote remains to be seen but I strongly suspect that it will be towards whichever candidate most resonates with their pain in individual races rather than a "wave" for either party. If one were to track and rank the issues, the candidates positions on those issues and then how the unaffiliated voters cast their ballots I am willing to bet that there would be a correlation in there.

The rise in the unaffiliateds is not an extreme rise, we are talking just a couple of percentage points overall. But the trend is interesting to watch.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Fascinating numbers.

Essentially a stalemate but one that slightly favors Dems over the GOP. The "wave" still has time to form given that we are still 7 weeks out but I am no longer expecting any "surprises" given that the Tea Party senate candidates were eliminated in the primaries. Doesn't mean that one of the House Tea Party candidates won't say something stupid but I suspect that party discipline is at an all time high.

Not enough.

With the DEMS essentially already ceding MT, SD and WV, that puts the GOP at 48.

They can easily win in AR and LA, which then puts them at 50. Assume that the GOP loses KS, then they are at 48 again. Meanwhile, both AK is also within reach, but with the complications on the gubernatorial (unity independent ticket), I think that Begich will eek this one out.

Why I don't think it is a wave is because four major seats are all moving toward the Democrats.

But no matter how you slice it, the GOP still has the better cards in it's hands.

When he hit the break away point at t-minus 21 days or so, then we will all know better.

BTW, the voter registration data I just collected and am analysing is showing essentially the same climate as in 2010, but with more unaffiliateds and slightly less R and D. Thread goes out on Thursday.

I can understand why there are more unaffiliated voters these days since neither party is "attractive". Midterms are always more about local politics too so they are an interesting dynamic. The poll watchers tend to focus on the party faithful for midterms as being the most "reliable" in terms of who will vote but I am sensing that the unaffiliated bloc contains a segment of "reliable voters" who are just as interested in politics as the party faithful and who will be voting come November. Which way they will vote remains to be seen but I strongly suspect that it will be towards whichever candidate most resonates with their pain in individual races rather than a "wave" for either party. If one were to track and rank the issues, the candidates positions on those issues and then how the unaffiliated voters cast their ballots I am willing to bet that there would be a correlation in there.

The rise in the unaffiliateds is not an extreme rise, we are talking just a couple of percentage points overall. But the trend is interesting to watch.

I agree that it is not extreme but those who have joined the ranks come from 3 sources. The first 2 are the disaffected from the parties and the third is from the demographic changes at play. These voters want a viable alternative which is why they are the key to these tight races in my opinion.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Fascinating numbers.

Essentially a stalemate but one that slightly favors Dems over the GOP. The "wave" still has time to form given that we are still 7 weeks out but I am no longer expecting any "surprises" given that the Tea Party senate candidates were eliminated in the primaries. Doesn't mean that one of the House Tea Party candidates won't say something stupid but I suspect that party discipline is at an all time high.

Not enough.

With the DEMS essentially already ceding MT, SD and WV, that puts the GOP at 48.

They can easily win in AR and LA, which then puts them at 50. Assume that the GOP loses KS, then they are at 48 again. Meanwhile, both AK is also within reach, but with the complications on the gubernatorial (unity independent ticket), I think that Begich will eek this one out.

Why I don't think it is a wave is because four major seats are all moving toward the Democrats.

But no matter how you slice it, the GOP still has the better cards in it's hands.

When he hit the break away point at t-minus 21 days or so, then we will all know better.

BTW, the voter registration data I just collected and am analysing is showing essentially the same climate as in 2010, but with more unaffiliateds and slightly less R and D. Thread goes out on Thursday.

I can understand why there are more unaffiliated voters these days since neither party is "attractive". Midterms are always more about local politics too so they are an interesting dynamic. The poll watchers tend to focus on the party faithful for midterms as being the most "reliable" in terms of who will vote but I am sensing that the unaffiliated bloc contains a segment of "reliable voters" who are just as interested in politics as the party faithful and who will be voting come November. Which way they will vote remains to be seen but I strongly suspect that it will be towards whichever candidate most resonates with their pain in individual races rather than a "wave" for either party. If one were to track and rank the issues, the candidates positions on those issues and then how the unaffiliated voters cast their ballots I am willing to bet that there would be a correlation in there.

The rise in the unaffiliateds is not an extreme rise, we are talking just a couple of percentage points overall. But the trend is interesting to watch.

I agree that it is not extreme but those who have joined the ranks come from 3 sources. The first 2 are the disaffected from the parties and the third is from the demographic changes at play. These voters want a viable alternative which is why they are the key to these tight races in my opinion.

Imagine how important Alaska could become on election night.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[rdean]

When only one side shows up to vote, it isn't a battle. It's laziness.

Besides, what do Republicans have to offer? They scream at Democrats for legislating and get a pass on doing nothing but obstructionism. USMB Republicans will say "GOP bills are being ignored" but ask them to explain what it is those bills do and they have no clue.

 

[Statistikhengst]

When only one side shows up to vote, it isn't a battle. It's laziness.

Besides, what do Republicans have to offer? They scream at Democrats for legislating and get a pass on doing nothing but obstructionism. USMB Republicans will say "GOP bills are being ignored" but ask them to explain what it is those bills do and they have no clue.

They are winning in 2014 because divided government lies deeper within the fabric of our Union than people want to realize. Even the most popular of presidents (Grant 1870 and 1874/ T. Roosevelt 1902 and 1906 / Wilson 1918 / Harding 1922 / Coolidge 1926 / Hoover 1930/ FDR 1938 and 1942 / Ike 1954 and 1958 / Nixon 1970 / Reagan 1986 / Clinton 1994 suffered major losses to the opposition party in mid-terms:

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

Link to a large excel table there.

End-quote:

So, what can we learn from this information?

1.) We have had divided government a lot more than most people realize.

2.) The statistical probability that the President's party suffers major losses in a mid-term election, especially in a 2nd term mid-term, is extremely high.

3.) Divided government is not necessarily a bad thing. See: Eisenhower, Clinton. Likewise, unified government is not necessarily good. See: Hoover, Carter.

So, before the pundits go blabbing their mouths off about the 2014 elections, know that history is on the side of the GOP in this election.

I just wanna remind again: I published that thread on January 14th, 2014, 9 months ago.

 

[Statistikhengst]

To make this even easier for people, I have screenshotted the excel tables. Wherever the colors between the executive and the legislative don't match up, this means that we had divided gov't during that legislative session. Sometimes the colors in the SWING columns are not the same as the actual raw margin columns. This is because the swing compares the margin from that election to the mid-term two years before.

Click on the pics to enlarge.

First, the Senate (2 screenshots):

And the HOR:

 

[JakeStarkey]

the TPs will not control the caucus after January thank God: they have had to many loses and will have no more than 11 seats in the house

JB is safe and there will be no impeachment; the Senate Republican leadership have told the GOP House leadership they will listen to the indictment and then acquit BHO.

11 seats in the house??? Try 70+

You had 70 in 2011, 35 in 2013, and will have 11 in 2015.

Mike Lee for instance cozied with TeaPs in the past but now is being nice to Dems in Utah because of his vulnerability in 2016.

Mike Lee has no vulnerability to any Democrat in Utah.

Mikey is not worried about Dems. He is worried about the GOP in Cache, Davis, Weber, and Salt Lake counties that are very tired of his kissing Cruz ass et al. The open primary nextr year has br'er Lee very worried. Rightly so. Even da guv is doing quiet polling of the senatorial voters. Personally, I think Herbert could beat Lee in a primary, and I would vote for him in a heart beat.

 

[rightwinger]

Looks to me like Democrats will control the Senate 55-45 in 2014

 

[Statistikhengst]

Looks to me like Democrats will control the Senate 55-45 in 2014

The democratic cheerleader within me wants to agree with you.

The guy who loves numbers cannot, however. The numbers are neutral and I stay just as neutral.

The GOP IS going to pick up MT, ND and WV. That brings the GOP to 48 right there.

In order to get the GOP back down to 45, the DEMS would have to pick up GA and KY and Orman would need to win in KS (he probably will) and then caucus with the Democrats. Right now, both KY and GA are slipping out of the DEMs hands, they are going to have to act swiftly to keep those races tight.

But there are just too many other races hanging in the balance: LA, AR, IA, AK, possibly CO.

I give Braley and Begich good chances at surviving this. Mark Pryor, I am not so sure. And Mary Landrieu, my Lord, it could all come down to Lousiana, and since Louisana does a Jungle-Primary thing for mid-terms, this could come to a hotly contested runoff on December 6th, 2014. Libertarian Rob Maness has been polling between 8% and 13% in the latest polls. The balance of power in the Senate may not be clear until mid-December.

The GOP has a much, much easier path to getting to 51 than the DEMS have at holding 50, much less 55.

If the DEMS, however, can hold AR and LA, then the picture indeed looks tough for the GOP, but then the GOP only needs to get to 50, not 51, and that is assuming that it loses KS. Then, the Senate would be 50R, 48D, 2I and only one of those I's would need to decide to caucus with the R's and then that's that.

Facit: advantage GOP all the way. That's what the current numbers say and they have been saying it all year long.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Maybe the dam is going to begin seriously leaking this year than in 2016.

If the GOP can't take the Senate this year, they never will again. Another two years of doing House, and it will go blue.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Maybe the dam is going to begin seriously leaking this year than in 2016.

If the GOP can't take the Senate this year, they never will again. Another two years of doing House, and it will go blue.

The GOP will take the Senate but it will require them to offer heavy bribes to King and Orman in my opinion. If they are smart they will retain their right to vote independently if they don't like the way the GOP is trying to force things on the nation (e.g. defund the ACA.)

In which case it will be a lame duck "majority". Yes, the same could be said for the Dems but they are not trying to destroy the economy for partisan gain.

 

[rightwinger]

Looks to me like Democrats will control the Senate 55-45 in 2014

The democratic cheerleader within me wants to agree with you.

The guy who loves numbers cannot, however. The numbers are neutral and I stay just as neutral.

The GOP IS going to pick up MT, ND and WV. That brings the GOP to 48 right there.

In order to get the GOP back down to 45, the DEMS would have to pick up GA and KY and Orman would need to win in KS (he probably will) and then caucus with the Democrats. Right now, both KY and GA are slipping out of the DEMs hands, they are going to have to act swiftly to keep those races tight.

But there are just too many other races hanging in the balance: LA, AR, IA, AK, possibly CO.

I give Braley and Begich good chances at surviving this. Mark Pryor, I am not so sure. And Mary Landrieu, my Lord, it could all come down to Lousiana, and since Louisana does a Jungle-Primary thing for mid-terms, this could come to a hotly contested runoff on December 6th, 2014. Libertarian Rob Maness has been polling between 8% and 13% in the latest polls. The balance of power in the Senate may not be clear until mid-December.

The GOP has a much, much easier path to getting to 51 than the DEMS have at holding 50, much less 55.

If the DEMS, however, can hold AR and LA, then the picture indeed looks tough for the GOP, but then the GOP only needs to get to 50, not 51, and that is assuming that it loses KS. Then, the Senate would be 50R, 48D, 2I and only one of those I's would need to decide to caucus with the R's and then that's that.

Facit: advantage GOP all the way. That's what the current numbers say and they have been saying it all year long.

Take my word

Dems will have a 55-45 senate advantage in 2014. Republicans don't have a chance

 

[BreezeWood]

Looks to me like Democrats will control the Senate 55-45 in 2014

The democratic cheerleader within me wants to agree with you.

The guy who loves numbers cannot, however. The numbers are neutral and I stay just as neutral.

The GOP IS going to pick up MT, ND and WV. That brings the GOP to 48 right there.

In order to get the GOP back down to 45, the DEMS would have to pick up GA and KY and Orman would need to win in KS (he probably will) and then caucus with the Democrats. Right now, both KY and GA are slipping out of the DEMs hands, they are going to have to act swiftly to keep those races tight.

But there are just too many other races hanging in the balance: LA, AR, IA, AK, possibly CO.

I give Braley and Begich good chances at surviving this. Mark Pryor, I am not so sure. And Mary Landrieu, my Lord, it could all come down to Lousiana, and since Louisana does a Jungle-Primary thing for mid-terms, this could come to a hotly contested runoff on December 6th, 2014. Libertarian Rob Maness has been polling between 8% and 13% in the latest polls. The balance of power in the Senate may not be clear until mid-December.

The GOP has a much, much easier path to getting to 51 than the DEMS have at holding 50, much less 55.

If the DEMS, however, can hold AR and LA, then the picture indeed looks tough for the GOP, but then the GOP only needs to get to 50, not 51, and that is assuming that it loses KS. Then, the Senate would be 50R, 48D, 2I and only one of those I's would need to decide to caucus with the R's and then that's that.

Facit: advantage GOP all the way. That's what the current numbers say and they have been saying it all year long.

Take my word

Dems will have a 55-45 senate advantage in 2014. Republicans don't have a chance

.

RW: Dems will have a 55-45 senate advantage in 2014. Republicans don't have a chance.

and does that prediction include net democratic gains in the House ? -

sucess for the democrats in both chambers would be a Grand Slam ... something the recent surge in the pols by the republicans would seem highly unlikely if not impossible.

.

 

[rightwinger]

Looks to me like Democrats will control the Senate 55-45 in 2014

The democratic cheerleader within me wants to agree with you.

The guy who loves numbers cannot, however. The numbers are neutral and I stay just as neutral.

The GOP IS going to pick up MT, ND and WV. That brings the GOP to 48 right there.

In order to get the GOP back down to 45, the DEMS would have to pick up GA and KY and Orman would need to win in KS (he probably will) and then caucus with the Democrats. Right now, both KY and GA are slipping out of the DEMs hands, they are going to have to act swiftly to keep those races tight.

But there are just too many other races hanging in the balance: LA, AR, IA, AK, possibly CO.

I give Braley and Begich good chances at surviving this. Mark Pryor, I am not so sure. And Mary Landrieu, my Lord, it could all come down to Lousiana, and since Louisana does a Jungle-Primary thing for mid-terms, this could come to a hotly contested runoff on December 6th, 2014. Libertarian Rob Maness has been polling between 8% and 13% in the latest polls. The balance of power in the Senate may not be clear until mid-December.

The GOP has a much, much easier path to getting to 51 than the DEMS have at holding 50, much less 55.

If the DEMS, however, can hold AR and LA, then the picture indeed looks tough for the GOP, but then the GOP only needs to get to 50, not 51, and that is assuming that it loses KS. Then, the Senate would be 50R, 48D, 2I and only one of those I's would need to decide to caucus with the R's and then that's that.

Facit: advantage GOP all the way. That's what the current numbers say and they have been saying it all year long.

Take my word

Dems will have a 55-45 senate advantage in 2014. Republicans don't have a chance

.

RW: Dems will have a 55-45 senate advantage in 2014. Republicans don't have a chance.

and does that prediction include net democratic gains in the House ? -

sucess for the democrats in both chambers would be a Grand Slam ... something the recent surge in the pols by the republicans would seem highly unlikely if not impossible.

.

I still see the Dems having 55 Senators in 2014

Haven't looked at the house

 

[HenryBHough]

I still see the Dems having 55 Senators in 2014

Haven't looked at the house

Time to change vendors. That stuff cut with powdered milk will clot the arteries in what used to pass for a brain!

 

[rightwinger]

I still see the Dems having 55 Senators in 2014

Haven't looked at the house

Time to change vendors. That stuff cut with powdered milk will clot the arteries in what used to pass for a brain!

No way Republicans can have more than 45 Senate seats in 2014

Live with it