2014 battle for control of the US Senate

[Moonglow]

Real Clear Politics does a pretty good compilation of polling (aggregate).

Here is their Senate website:

RealClearPolitics - 2014 Election Maps - Battle for the Senate

(the graphic is interactive - clickable, and pretty much everything is hyperlinked)


This is how RCP sees the battle for the Senate right now:

View attachment 31070​

It sees nine seats in play. The GOP needs 4 of those nine seats. It needs 6 seats in order to win the Senate, but 2 of them are already clearly strongly R right now, and pretty much ceded to the GOP: Montana and South Dakota. Both are show on the graphic as "Likely R", and I concur.


Let's take a look at the safe D seats:

The Northeast: Delaware, Massachusetts, Rhode Island
The Midwest: Illinois
The Southwest: New Mexico

5 seats

No one is expecting these seats to flip, even in the case of a massive GOP wave in the Fall.

Let's take a look as the safe R seats:


The South: Alabama, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oklahoma (special) South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas
The breadbasket: Kansas, Nebraska
Big Sky: Idaho, Wyoming
The Northeast: Maine

12 seats.

No one is expecting these seats to flip, even in the case that a GOP wave does not materialize in the Fall.

Already, the GOP has a massive SAFE seat advantage over the Dems of more than 2:1


Let's take a look at the likely D seats:

The West: Hawaii, Oregon
The Midwest: Minnesota
The Northeast: New Jersey
The South: Virginia


These are the five states where the GOP is not really investing. Mark Warner is likely to win the biggest for the DEMS in this cycle, making him a future presidential candidate as well. Another important story here is the story of the power of the incumbency. Al Franken (D) barely won his Senate seat in 2008, but right now, his average over challenger Mike McFadden (R) is +10.4, which is a landslide aggregate margin. Of these states, the one state that could end up being a surprise on the senatorial level could be Hawaii.


And let's take a look at the likely GOP seats:

The South: Mississippi
The Big Sky/Breadbasket: Montana, South Dakota (O)

Here are already two pretty much guaranteed pick-ups for the Republicans in the Fall (MT, SD).

Now the next is where RCP and I don't completely agree about the level, but we do agree about the direction.

Under the leaning D states:

The Northeast: New Hampshire

The only problem I have with that is that Jean Shahean (D), according to RCP polling averages, is leading Republican Scott Brown by +10.4, which is exactly the same landslide margin that was shown for Al Franken (D) in Minnesota, so why one state should be considered likely D, but the other state is listed as leaning D is a mystery to me. Of course, the NH primary is first on September 9th, so right now the assumption is that Scott Brown, the former Republican Senator from Massachusetts, will become the Republican Senatorial nominee. Perhaps this is why RCP is classifying the two races in two different ways. Wait and see.

And under the leaning R states:


The South: West Virginia (O)

Again, I wonder why RCP is classifying this as leaning R, because right now, Republican Shelly Capito is leading Democrat Natalie Tennent by +9.3, which is a near-landslide margin.


Maybe RCP is just trying to be overly careful, but it sure seems to me that in both cases, those states are more "likely" for either D or R than "leaning", which means that most likely, the GOP already has 3 pick-ups in the bag: MT, SD and WV. Which means it only needs 3 of the statistical tossup states in order to outright have 51 Senate seats and therefore, the majority:


That leaves us with nine statistical tossups:


The South: Arkansas, Georgia (O), Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina
The Midwest: Iowa (O) , Michigan (O )
The Southeast / Mountain States: Colorado
The Pacific: Alaska


This is where the strategema looks extremely grim for the Democrats. Of those nine statistical tossups, five of those races are with Democratic incumbents who are all locked in tight races. There is only one race where a Republican incumbent is locked in a tight race (Kentucky - Mitch McConnell), and of the open races, two of the three are currently Democratic seats.

Here are the averages:

Alaska: AK has not had it's primary yet, but the values range from Begich (D) +0.4 over Treadwell (R) to Begich +12.0 over Miller. However, it looks as if Miller has no chance of winning the GOP primary (he beat Murkowski in 2010 and then lost to her as a write-in candidate in the Fall of that year).

Arkansas: Cotton (R) +3, and incumbent Mark Pryor has not won in a poll since April.

Colorado: Udall (D) +1.5

Georgia: Perdue (R) +3.2

Iowa: Ernst (R) +0.8

Kentucky: McConnell (R) +2.5

Louisiana: Cassidy (R) +1

Michigan: Peters (D) +4

North Carolina: Tillis +1.3


Please remember that the aggregate values I am quoting are from today, 11 August 2014, and could already change again in the next days.

Now, 8 of those 9 margins (aggregates) are well within the MoE and the Michigan margin is just outside the standard MoE, but right now, the GOP is a nose ahead in 6 of those 9 races. And remember, the GOP only needs to win 3, assuming that MT, SD and WV all go as pretty much everyone expects them to go.


Almost eight months ago, I put out this thread:


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


Quote at the end:

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.

And indeed, what we are seeing right now is exactly in line with electoral history.

And then there is Angus King (I - ME), who, should the GOP only win 5 seats for some reason, could play kingmaker and decide to caucus with the GOP. So, in reality, the GOP only needs to win 5 seats, but 6-8 are very likely.

Now, there are two seats that the Democrats really COULD win:

Georgia - and - Kentucky.

But even that is dicey.

And for this reason, the mention of Angus King. Should the GOP win 7 seats, but lose 2, it could still control the Senate, with Angus King (I) switching sides.

When the last primaries are over with and the polling for the key races comes in, then I will be following the numbers quite closely, but the aggregates, from pollsters from all over the spectrum, are pointing to a very, very good outcome for the GOP in November.

What's the absolute top-line?

Well, I will take RCP's take, which currently shows 45 DEM seats in the basket, and were Angus King to switch sides, then the Senate could move from 54 (D) - 45 (R) 1 (I) to 54 (R) - 45 (D) - 1 (I). It could go from D+9 to R+9, which would then be a partisan shift of R+18.

Please notice that I included the geography when listing the states. This is because the South is playing an enormous role in this: there are four southern states where the Dems could easily lose seats: WV, AR, NC, LA.

My gut tells me that the GOP is going to do better than +6 in the fall, maybe +7 or +8, but could definitely lose one seat. This is also not uncommon in electoral history. Even in historic wave mid-terms, the "other side" has often picked up at least one seat. So, that's also not a big surprise.

The next step in all of this is to see where the GOP places it's money in advertising and the sending in heavy hitters from other areas to help.

I will be updating this thread again in late August.

Oh, and [MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION], what was that again about "partisan hack"?

You need like an introduction song or music presentation...not to mention power point...laser pointer..

 

[Statistikhengst]

Like, a brass fanfare??? lol...

 

[pepperpot]

I am new here, but I love statistics and polling. Have been watching both gubernatorial and senate races. Currently, Maine's governors race is exciting as is Massachusetts, Kansas and Connecticut. As for Senate, Alaska is heating up while New Hampshire's has gotten much closer. November will be exciting!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The recent polls for the Senate Democrats are not looking good. The only toss up state where it looks like they might be pulling away is North Carolina. All the others they have lost ground in, especially Louisiana.

 

[BreezeWood]

The recent polls for the Senate Democrats are not looking good. The only toss up state where it looks like they might be pulling away is North Carolina. All the others they have lost ground in, especially Louisiana.

.

GA-Sen Neil Bush Denounces Perdue s R Shameful Claims Linking Michelle Nunn D To Terrorists

One day after Republican David Perdue pocketed the endorsement of George H.W. Bush in the race for U.S. Senate, a son of the 90-year-old former president denounced as “shameful” and “disrespectful” Perdue-endorsed claims that a Bush-established foundation once headed by Democratic rival Michelle Nunn “gave money to organizations linked to terrorists.”

not surprising after the recent republican surge - except how close most still remain.

the Rs may have peaked, there really is nothing but the republican Middle East wars in the news and that may have been what stopped their momentum.

and the above article is an example of how the momentum may be about to change from one to the other.

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I am new here, but I love statistics and polling. Have been watching both gubernatorial and senate races. Currently, Maine's governors race is exciting as is Massachusetts, Kansas and Connecticut. As for Senate, Alaska is heating up while New Hampshire's has gotten much closer. November will be exciting!

Welcome to this thread, pepperpot, hope you have a good time here and in USMB overall.

-Stat

 

[Statistikhengst]

The recent polls for the Senate Democrats are not looking good. The only toss up state where it looks like they might be pulling away is North Carolina. All the others they have lost ground in, especially Louisiana.

1/2, 1/2, I would say.

Not enough data out of Lousiana yet.

I also want to remind that polling in Colorado, NV, New Mexico and California was just atrocious in 2010, because most every polling company grossly underestimated the Latino vote. That happened also to a good extent in 2012. So, when I see Udall up by only one point in a Rasmussen survey, I am pretty confident inside that he is up at least 5.

I am 100% sure that the GOP takes MT, SD and WV. Then, probably both LA and AR. After that, it's a crapshoot.

Mark Begich already fought his way tooth and nail through a tough election in 2008, and he won.
I already just wrote about Udall.
Iowa could end up being very interesting, and could go even into a recount. Maybe.

But no matter how you slice it, just as was the case 3, 6 and 9 months ago, it's: advantage GOP, exactly in line with 160 years of mid-term election electoral history. So, none of this surprises me at all.

 

[pepperpot]

I am new here, but I love statistics and polling. Have been watching both gubernatorial and senate races. Currently, Maine's governors race is exciting as is Massachusetts, Kansas and Connecticut. As for Senate, Alaska is heating up while New Hampshire's has gotten much closer. November will be exciting!

Welcome to this thread, pepperpot, hope you have a good time here and in USMB overall.

-Stat

Thank you!

 

[pepperpot]

The recent polls for the Senate Democrats are not looking good. The only toss up state where it looks like they might be pulling away is North Carolina. All the others they have lost ground in, especially Louisiana.

1/2, 1/2, I would say.

Not enough data out of Lousiana yet.

I also want to remind that polling in Colorado, NV, New Mexico and California was just atrocious in 2010, because most every polling company grossly underestimated the Latino vote. That happened also to a good extent in 2012. So, when I see Udall up by only one point in a Rasmussen survey, I am pretty confident inside that he is up at least 5.

I am 100% sure that the GOP takes MT, SD and WV. Then, probably both LA and AR. After that, it's a crapshoot.

Mark Begich already fought his way tooth and nail through a tough election in 2008, and he won.
I already just wrote about Udall.
Iowa could end up being very interesting, and could go even into a recount. Maybe.

But no matter how you slice it, just as was the case 3, 6 and 9 months ago, it's: advantage GOP, exactly in line with 160 years of mid-term election electoral history. So, none of this surprises me at all.

Very good analysis. I keep hearing about the South and Midwest but what about New England and the West? I have heard both Oregon and New Hampshire could be competitive as well. Does anyone think Brown or Wehby could pull it off? Also, isn't Angus King going to caucus with republicans?

 

[Statistikhengst]

There is a phenomenon in polling that I haven't broached on this forum yet, namely, the well established sinus-curve in measuring an aggregate of polls.

It's very common for the aggregate to expand for a number of days, and then contract. When it contracts, the losing side is usually whooping and hollering, but it really doesn't mean anything.

You know that a candidate is heading for a win when the expansion phases are always a little larger than the contractions.

The 2008 election of Obama is a text-book classic example in many cases, the best of which is Virginia:

in the Spring of 2008, the aggregate for Virginia was roughly: McCain +4, which then contracted to McCain +2, but only reopened to McCain +3.

By June, it was McCain +1 (if at all), which contracted to Obama +1, but only expanded back to a tie at best.

As of August, Obama had a narrow +2 aggregate, which then contracted to +1 two weeks later, but opened to +3, and so for and so one.

I remember this very well as I was following the polling daily in 2008.

When McCain picked Palin for the VP slot, he went back into the lead in VA, but when the markets crashed, Obama went into the lead.

As of 42 days before the election (exactly 7 weeks), I published nightly battleground reports.

09/26 was the day where Obama retook the aggregate lead in VA:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond BATTLEGROUND STATE REPORT 09 26

On 09/25, the lead had been McCain +1.3, but after new polls came into the two week time frame and others fell out, it was Obama +0.40.

By 09/30, after having contracted from +0.40 to +0.20 (between 09/25 and 09/29), Obama's lead then expanded to +2.40:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond BATTLEGROUND STATE REPORT 09 30


On 10/01, that aggregate sprang to +3.40 and then shrunk to +3.30 on 10/02:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond BATTLEGROUND STATE REPORT 10 02

(you see, each little cycle that the aggregate expands more than the next contraction)

On 10/05, Obama was back down to +3.30 (having lost only 0.10)

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond NIGHTLY BATTLEGROUND REPORT 10 05

As of 10/07 and 10/08, Obama's aggregate in Virginia was: +5.50 ( a 2 point jump)

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond BATTLEGROUND STATE REPORT 10 08

As of 10/10, that aggregate had jumped to +6.54

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond BATTLEGROUND STATE REPORT 10 10

On 10/13, that shrank to +6.43:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond BATTLEGROUND STATE REPORT 10 13

By 10/17, he was at an aggregate of +8.18 and I took Virginia off the battleground list:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond BATTLEGROUND STATE REPORT 10 17

On 10/21, though no longer on the battleground list, his aggregate in Virginia climbed to +8.45:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond BATTLEGROUND STATE REPORT 10 20


In the last three days before the GE, a number of Right Wing polls came in showing Obama with considerable lower leads, which moved his aggregate to +4.93 on the eve of the election:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond FINAL POLL CONVERGENCE No. 12

Actual result: Obama +6.30 in Virginia.

The two pollsters who NAILED Virginia in the last two days: PPP (D) and Zogby.

The pollster who was off to the Right in Virginia right before the 2008 election: Mason-Dixon.

So, you see, I really do track these things, down to the finite details.

And since you are a REALLY good member of USMB and a damned good mod, @Dont Taz Me Bro , I decided to take 1/2 hour of my free time to share those links with you. Go take a gander... of course, the information is for everyone else here, too.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The recent polls for the Senate Democrats are not looking good. The only toss up state where it looks like they might be pulling away is North Carolina. All the others they have lost ground in, especially Louisiana.

1/2, 1/2, I would say.

Not enough data out of Lousiana yet.

I also want to remind that polling in Colorado, NV, New Mexico and California was just atrocious in 2010, because most every polling company grossly underestimated the Latino vote. That happened also to a good extent in 2012. So, when I see Udall up by only one point in a Rasmussen survey, I am pretty confident inside that he is up at least 5.

I am 100% sure that the GOP takes MT, SD and WV. Then, probably both LA and AR. After that, it's a crapshoot.

Mark Begich already fought his way tooth and nail through a tough election in 2008, and he won.
I already just wrote about Udall.
Iowa could end up being very interesting, and could go even into a recount. Maybe.

But no matter how you slice it, just as was the case 3, 6 and 9 months ago, it's: advantage GOP, exactly in line with 160 years of mid-term election electoral history. So, none of this surprises me at all.

Very good analysis. I keep hearing about the South and Midwest but what about New England and the West? I have heard both Oregon and New Hampshire could be competitive as well. Does anyone think Brown or Wehby could pull it off? Also, isn't Angus King going to caucus with republicans?

Absolutely no chance for the GOP in Oregon, that is just wishful thinking. In NH, it only looks close, but the Democratic incumbent is going to win. Brown is just enjoying his post-primary bounce, it is very normal.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I am new here, but I love statistics and polling. Have been watching both gubernatorial and senate races. Currently, Maine's governors race is exciting as is Massachusetts, Kansas and Connecticut. As for Senate, Alaska is heating up while New Hampshire's has gotten much closer. November will be exciting!

Welcome to this thread, pepperpot, hope you have a good time here and in USMB overall.

-Stat

Thank you!

Gern geschehen!

 

[pepperpot]

The recent polls for the Senate Democrats are not looking good. The only toss up state where it looks like they might be pulling away is North Carolina. All the others they have lost ground in, especially Louisiana.

1/2, 1/2, I would say.

Not enough data out of Lousiana yet.

I also want to remind that polling in Colorado, NV, New Mexico and California was just atrocious in 2010, because most every polling company grossly underestimated the Latino vote. That happened also to a good extent in 2012. So, when I see Udall up by only one point in a Rasmussen survey, I am pretty confident inside that he is up at least 5.

I am 100% sure that the GOP takes MT, SD and WV. Then, probably both LA and AR. After that, it's a crapshoot.

Mark Begich already fought his way tooth and nail through a tough election in 2008, and he won.
I already just wrote about Udall.
Iowa could end up being very interesting, and could go even into a recount. Maybe.

But no matter how you slice it, just as was the case 3, 6 and 9 months ago, it's: advantage GOP, exactly in line with 160 years of mid-term election electoral history. So, none of this surprises me at all.

Very good analysis. I keep hearing about the South and Midwest but what about New England and the West? I have heard both Oregon and New Hampshire could be competitive as well. Does anyone think Brown or Wehby could pull it off? Also, isn't Angus King going to caucus with republicans?

Absolutely no chance for the GOP in Oregon, that is just wishful thinking. In NH, it only looks close, but the Democratic incumbent is going to win. Brown is just enjoying his post-primary bounce, it is very normal.

Was Webhy the one that was a stalker or something like that? That's bound to hurt. Oregon is fairly blue so I can see her losing. As for Brown, I think he still might lose but it will be close. Apparently he has just got the endorsement of the Foley family (son was beheaded by ISIS) so that might continue to give him quite a bump for awhile.

 

[pepperpot]

I am new here, but I love statistics and polling. Have been watching both gubernatorial and senate races. Currently, Maine's governors race is exciting as is Massachusetts, Kansas and Connecticut. As for Senate, Alaska is heating up while New Hampshire's has gotten much closer. November will be exciting!

Welcome to this thread, pepperpot, hope you have a good time here and in USMB overall.

-Stat

Thank you!

Gern geschehen!

Gesundheit! lol

 

[Statistikhengst]

The recent polls for the Senate Democrats are not looking good. The only toss up state where it looks like they might be pulling away is North Carolina. All the others they have lost ground in, especially Louisiana.

1/2, 1/2, I would say.

Not enough data out of Lousiana yet.

I also want to remind that polling in Colorado, NV, New Mexico and California was just atrocious in 2010, because most every polling company grossly underestimated the Latino vote. That happened also to a good extent in 2012. So, when I see Udall up by only one point in a Rasmussen survey, I am pretty confident inside that he is up at least 5.

I am 100% sure that the GOP takes MT, SD and WV. Then, probably both LA and AR. After that, it's a crapshoot.

Mark Begich already fought his way tooth and nail through a tough election in 2008, and he won.
I already just wrote about Udall.
Iowa could end up being very interesting, and could go even into a recount. Maybe.

But no matter how you slice it, just as was the case 3, 6 and 9 months ago, it's: advantage GOP, exactly in line with 160 years of mid-term election electoral history. So, none of this surprises me at all.

Very good analysis. I keep hearing about the South and Midwest but what about New England and the West? I have heard both Oregon and New Hampshire could be competitive as well. Does anyone think Brown or Wehby could pull it off? Also, isn't Angus King going to caucus with republicans?

Absolutely no chance for the GOP in Oregon, that is just wishful thinking. In NH, it only looks close, but the Democratic incumbent is going to win. Brown is just enjoying his post-primary bounce, it is very normal.

Was Webhy the one that was a stalker or something like that? That's bound to hurt. Oregon is fairly blue so I can see her losing. As for Brown, I think he still might lose but it will be close. Apparently he has just got the endorsement of the Foley family (son was beheaded by ISIS) so that might continue to give him quite a bump for awhile.

@pepperpot - this information might be of interest to you.


Oregon, like Washington State, is really like two states: what is west of the Cascade Mountains is primarily blue and what is east of the cascades is primarily very deep red.

Only, the blue side is a lot bigger in terms of sheer numbers.

We have seen this happen for 14 years now, where people thought Republicans could win in Oregon and Washington State, but it doesn't happen very much.

In 2000, the networks waited 3 days - or longer - to call Oregon for Gore, but at the end of the day, he won it by a razor thin +0.44. Four years later, as President George W. Bush improved his national average by almost 3 points, John Kerry won Oregon by +4.16. This means that Oregon swam against the national tide. Obama landslided here in both 2008 and 2012. Skewed polling was showing him only +5 points up on Romney on election eve, but on election day, Obama won Oregon by +12.09%, so the polling in Oregon and Washington State tends to be off more often than not.

In 2010, the final polling aggregate for the Washington State senatorial Patty Murray vs. Dino Rossi showed a statistical tie, with Murray +0.3. In reality, she won by +4.72, so the entire polling aggregate was off to the right by +4.4. The final Rasmussen poll, btw, had Rossi up by +1, so Rasmussen was off by almost 6 points.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I am new here, but I love statistics and polling. Have been watching both gubernatorial and senate races. Currently, Maine's governors race is exciting as is Massachusetts, Kansas and Connecticut. As for Senate, Alaska is heating up while New Hampshire's has gotten much closer. November will be exciting!

Welcome to this thread, pepperpot, hope you have a good time here and in USMB overall.

-Stat

Thank you!

Gern geschehen!

Gesundheit! lol

Gute Besserung!!

 

[pepperpot]

I am new here, but I love statistics and polling. Have been watching both gubernatorial and senate races. Currently, Maine's governors race is exciting as is Massachusetts, Kansas and Connecticut. As for Senate, Alaska is heating up while New Hampshire's has gotten much closer. November will be exciting!

Welcome to this thread, pepperpot, hope you have a good time here and in USMB overall.

-Stat

Thank you!

Gern geschehen!

Gesundheit! lol

Gute Besserung!!

I cant keep up with you! Google translation will be my friend here I guess! lol Where are you from?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Welcome to this thread, pepperpot, hope you have a good time here and in USMB overall.

-Stat

Thank you!

Gern geschehen!

Gesundheit! lol

Gute Besserung!!

I cant keep up with you! Google translation will be my friend here I guess! lol Where are you from?

Lol. ..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, it's now just 6 weeks before the 2014 mid-terms.

Let's compare the current aggregate to that from from one week ago and also to the OP:

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

(That was on August 11, 2014).

2014 battle for control of the US Senate Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(That was on September 16, 2014)

MOVING TOWARD THE DEMOCRATS:​

Aggregate, NC:

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

Hagan has now moved the needle 6.3 points in her direction since the OP was written. But poll values are all over the place, from a statistical tie at Hagan +1 (SUSA, which has a good reputation) to Hagan +10 (American Insights, a REPUBLICAN polling firm). A +5 is relatively lean, but it is out of the MoE. Hagan is gaining ground.

Aggregate, NH:

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

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.

So, no matter how you slice it, incumbent Shaheen is ahead and has moved the needle 1.4 point in her direction since last week.

Aggregate, MI:

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

As in NC, the Democratic incumbent is maintaining enough daylight between himself and his Republican opponent. Peters has not moved the needle as much as Hagan in the last week, but he is in the same zone as she is, one that is just outside of the MoE.

​

MOVING TOWARD THE GOP:​

Aggregate, CO:

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

Right now, it is a statistical tie and Gardner (R) has moved the need 3.1 points in his direction.
True tossup.

Aggregate, IA:

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

Right now, it is a statistical tie and almost a mathematical tie. Braley most the needle 2.2 in his direction a week ago and then lost 1.3 of it going into this week. This race could absolutely go either way and no one should take anything for granted.

Georgia is not as close an aggregate as Iowa, but essentially, the race is standing still right now:

Aggregate, GA:

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

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.

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.

Completely unchanged since last week (no new polling):​

Aggregate, AK:

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



Similarly:

No change since last week, no new polling.

Aggregate, AR:

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

Likewise, in Kentucky:

Aggregate, KY:

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

No new polling in KY in the last week.

MOVING TOWARD IND:​

Kansas:

Aggregate, KS:
Today: Orman +1.2

So, with Democrat Chad Taylor now officially off the ballot after Kansas Republican SOS lost his argument at the KS Supreme Court, none of these current values mean much of anything. BUT, this does show how the polling wars work. Here we have two pollsters who were the two best pollsters of 2012 (PPP, SUSA) showing an Orman lead and two of the very worst pollsters of 2012 (Rasmussen, FOX) showing a Roberts lead.

In a pure two-man race, the PPP poll showed Orman +10 over incumbent Roberts. Until more 2-way race data comes in, only one poll to go on is not enough. But for now, in outdated 3-way polling, Orman is ahead.

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

FACIT:

The aggregates for three Senate races moved toward the Democrats over the last week: NC, NH, MI

The aggregates for five Senate races moved toward the Republicans over the last week. CO, IA, LA, GA (barely)

The aggregates for three Senate races were unchanged over last week: AK, AR, KY.

A new aggregate is being created for KS, which is not moving toward the Independent candidate.

The GOP already has three former DEM seats in their pocket, so to speak (MT, SD, WV), so they only need three of the five races where the needle keeps moving in their direction.

It's still advantage: GOP

Will post an update again next week.

 

[HenryBHough]

Oregon used to be a state.

Now it's a people's republic.

It will send to the senate the most extremely left candidate management will decree.

They only have elections in Oregon for cosmetic effect.