2014 Senate Update: GOP Remains at ~58% Chance to Reclaim Senate

[Hoosier4Liberty]

The following was my first analysis of the US Senate.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/337481-gop-has-60-chance-of-taking-back-senate-in-2014-a.html

I've explained how the analysis works in the prior thread.

I have made a few slight updates to my model:
1. The following races have received ratings changes: KY(lowered McConnell's chances of winning due to bad poll numbers), GA(increased GOP chances of winning due to Dem problems in runoff + unlikelihood of Broun clinching the nomination due to poor fundraising), AR(Cotton gets higher chance due to poor Pryor polling that's been consistently against him), CO(Cory Gardner's entrance turned this into a real pickup opportunity for the GOP, giving 50% chance of win there).


A few things of note:
1. I changed from ~1500 simulations to over 16000, minimizing random error.
2. The GOP's chances of gaining more than 21 seats increased significantly, particularly due to Cory Gardner's entrance into the race.

EDIT: I made a mistake on my original Excel document. I changed my probabilities in Column B, but I forgot to change them in Column C(I should've done static references using dollar signs; I will change that).

I've corrected my probabilities and posted new images.

Note: Even though the odds are 10% higher than before, this isn't actually that huge of a difference. 9 times out of 10, the results would still be the same as if it were a 58% chance.

I still consider anything below 75% or above 25% as a "toss up" in my book. Maybe not a perfectly-weighted coin, but still a tossup. Anything could change here, and I do admit that a few of my projections may be generous toward the GOP.

Personally, I'd say the actual GOP chances are around 60-64% , assuming that my estimates are a bit rosy(again, for people who think I should change the probabilities, tell me what you would make them and I'll run a simulation.

 

[RandomVariable]

I'll run through some of the logic as I get a chance but two quick questions: 1) Are you using realpolitics for the polling numbers, 2) Granted Gardner is a different candidate and will be a better funded candidate but is there anything else you are factoring in that makes it a 50/50 race now? I also notice you're one month to a day. Very methodical of you.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

I'll run through some of the logic as I get a chance but two quick questions: 1) Are you using realpolitics for the polling numbers, 2) Granted Gardner is a different candidate and will be a better funded candidate but is there anything else you are factoring in that makes it a 50/50 race now? I also notice you're one month to a day. Very methodical of you.

First, I'm going to be honest that I'm creating the probabilities based on things like PVI as well as candidate strength, realclearpolitics numbers, and Sabato's probabilities.

Again, as I think I mentioned before, if you'd like to make adjustments to my probabilities, mention them and I can run another simulation.

I think it's a 50/50 race now due to the recall of several Senate Democrats in Colorado and the increasing unpopularity of liberalism there. Also, Ken Buck was only down 3 to Udall in recent polling, and I'd sure think Gardner would do better.

EDIT: Honestly, there's not enough data for me to construct a detailed probability estimate for each state. I'm just going off of my readings on forums like US Election Atlas along with the polling for me to get a "feel" of the state. If you have alternate probabilities, again, I welcome you to suggest them and I can re-run the simulations.

For instance, I could definitely entertain a lower % probability of the GOP winning Georgia if I see that Nunn has enough support to avoid a runoff. A runoff = automatic GOP win(see 2008).

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

Also, I'd like to point out that the prospects are getting better and better thanks to Senate lineups when it comes to the GOP. With the exceptions of KY/GA, it's pretty good for us right now; it's in our court.

 

[RandomVariable]

Also, I'd like to point out that the prospects are getting better and better thanks to Senate lineups when it comes to the GOP. With the exceptions of KY/GA, it's pretty good for us right now; it's in our court.

I believe that was the first time in your two threads that you have said something like, "our" and "us". Letting your bias show?

 

[American4Americ]

The following was my first analysis of the US Senate.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/337481-gop-has-60-chance-of-taking-back-senate-in-2014-a.html

I've explained how the analysis works in the prior thread.

I have made a few slight updates to my model:
1. The following races have received ratings changes: KY(lowered McConnell's chances of winning due to bad poll numbers), GA(increased GOP chances of winning due to Dem problems in runoff + unlikelihood of Broun clinching the nomination due to poor fundraising), AR(Cotton gets higher chance due to poor Pryor polling that's been consistently against him), CO(Cory Gardner's entrance turned this into a real pickup opportunity for the GOP, giving 50% chance of win there).


A few things of note:
1. I changed from ~1500 simulations to over 16000, minimizing random error.
2. The GOP's chances of gaining more than 21 seats increased significantly, particularly due to Cory Gardner's entrance into the race.

Actually, you are wrong. The facts, and most true patriots will proclaim the fact the GoP will sweep the Democrat party like Hulagu Khan swept the Abbasids from Baghdad.

 

[The Rabbi]

I recall a lot of projections showed Obama losing or a narrow race. Of course the projections did not account for extensive voter fraud.
The Democratic party is in serious trouble. They know it. That's why so many are taking the opportunity to retire. Feels like 2010 again.
But the primaries will be interesting on the GOP side. If we have a Congress stuffed with Boehners and McConnells then what's the point?

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

Also, I'd like to point out that the prospects are getting better and better thanks to Senate lineups when it comes to the GOP. With the exceptions of KY/GA, it's pretty good for us right now; it's in our court.

I believe that was the first time in your two threads that you have said something like, "our" and "us". Letting your bias show?

I'm a libertarian Republican and am biased, just like you or any other voter is.

When it comes to analysis/interpretation/prediction, if you think my probabilities are inaccurate, explain why and I can run another simulation.

 

[RandomVariable]

Also, I'd like to point out that the prospects are getting better and better thanks to Senate lineups when it comes to the GOP. With the exceptions of KY/GA, it's pretty good for us right now; it's in our court.

I believe that was the first time in your two threads that you have said something like, "our" and "us". Letting your bias show?

I'm a libertarian Republican and am biased, just like you or any other voter is.

When it comes to analysis/interpretation/prediction, if you think my probabilities are inaccurate, explain why and I can run another simulation.

Don't get me wrong. I fully support you in both aspects of who you are (more or less ). If there appears to be any overlap of the first over the second however it raises questions about the unbiased nature of the second. I applaud your effort to analyze/interpret/predict the midterms and hope others feel the same. If I believe there are flaws in your conclusions, trust me, I will say so without delay. I am still running through information by the way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The facts, and most true patriots will proclaim the fact the GoP will sweep the Democrat party like Hulagu Khan swept the Abbasids from Baghdad."

Yup, like we swept Obama from office and took over the Senate in 2012.

Keep quiet. That way we can wonder if you are silly instead of knowing it.

Brewer's veto was a great step forward. If the GOP concentrates on only the economy, we could take the Senate.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

I believe that was the first time in your two threads that you have said something like, "our" and "us". Letting your bias show?

I'm a libertarian Republican and am biased, just like you or any other voter is.

When it comes to analysis/interpretation/prediction, if you think my probabilities are inaccurate, explain why and I can run another simulation.

Don't get me wrong. I fully support you in both aspects of who you are (more or less ). If there appears to be any overlap of the first over the second however it raises questions about the unbiased nature of the second. I applaud your effort to analyze/interpret/predict the midterms and hope others feel the same. If I believe there are flaws in your conclusions, trust me, I will say so without delay. I am still running through information by the way.

I agree. And I don't attempt to be biased when I make my predictions, but there is the chance of bias sweeping through.

However, everything besides the probabilities is just using math to calculate distributions.

I may be giving the GOP too much of a chance to win in the following states(IMO):
-New Hampshire(really dependent on whether or not Brown runs, which is up in the air)
-Virginia(Warner is pretty popular, for now)
-Louisiana(I am very uncertain about how the turnout will be for the runoff.....while Georgia runoffs are very Republican, Louisiana runoffs aren't always so. However, Landrieu's 37% approval rating from PPP is a huge liability, hence the 60% chance Cassidy wins
-Kentucky and Georgia(Grimes is polling well, but Kentucky is deep, deep red. I really don't know how the undecideds will break here. With regards to Georgia, I just can't see Nunn avoiding a runoff, hence her low chances)
-South Dakota(Larry Pressler could complicate the race. I just don't know.

 

[RandomVariable]

"The facts, and most true patriots will proclaim the fact the GoP will sweep the Democrat party like Hulagu Khan swept the Abbasids from Baghdad."

Yup, like we swept Obama from office and took over the Senate in 2012.

Keep quiet. That way we can wonder if you are silly instead of knowing it.

Brewer's veto was a great step forward. If the GOP concentrates on only the economy, we could take the Senate.

What would you say about the economy?

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

The following is an interesting article explaining what I've described with my model.
Fresh hope for GOP to take over Senate | New York Post

 

[velvtacheeze]

I hope the GOP does take the Senate.

It will make taking back the House, Senate and keeping the WH easier for the Dems in 2016.

The GOP will, as they always do, overplay their hand. They will misinterpret a Senate takeover as a mandate for conservatism, and the assault popular spending programs, assault women's sexual freedom, assault homosexuals, assault minorities and declare war on countries willy nilly. Just as they did in the House after 2010, which led to the great Dem comeback election of 2012.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

I hope the GOP does take the Senate.

It will make taking back the House, Senate and keeping the WH easier for the Dems in 2016.

The GOP will, as they always do, overplay their hand. They will misinterpret a Senate takeover as a mandate for conservatism, and the assault popular spending programs, assault women's sexual freedom, assault homosexuals, assault minorities and declare war on countries willy nilly. Just as they did in the House after 2010, which led to the great Dem comeback election of 2012.

Great. I hope you just don't contest the Senate in 2014 and we get close to 60 seats. Would be amazing.

And 2012 economic conditions actually narrowly predicted Obama's reelection. Growth was tepid, but not enough to offset incumbent advantage. Along with demographics, that clinched it for the Dems. In 2011, it looked like Obama was dead, which was the height of the "GOP Congress stupidity".

 

[sarahgop]

i think it will be 50/50

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

i think it will be 50/50

What are your predictions for the individual races?

 

[ron4342]

The following was my first analysis of the US Senate.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/337481-gop-has-60-chance-of-taking-back-senate-in-2014-a.html

I've explained how the analysis works in the prior thread.

I have made a few slight updates to my model:
1. The following races have received ratings changes: KY(lowered McConnell's chances of winning due to bad poll numbers), GA(increased GOP chances of winning due to Dem problems in runoff + unlikelihood of Broun clinching the nomination due to poor fundraising), AR(Cotton gets higher chance due to poor Pryor polling that's been consistently against him), CO(Cory Gardner's entrance turned this into a real pickup opportunity for the GOP, giving 50% chance of win there).


A few things of note:
1. I changed from ~1500 simulations to over 16000, minimizing random error.
2. The GOP's chances of gaining more than 21 seats increased significantly, particularly due to Cory Gardner's entrance into the race.

EDIT: I made a mistake on my original Excel document. I changed my probabilities in Column B, but I forgot to change them in Column C(I should've done static references using dollar signs; I will change that).

I've corrected my probabilities and posted new images.

Note: Even though the odds are 10% higher than before, this isn't actually that huge of a difference. 9 times out of 10, the results would still be the same as if it were a 58% chance.

I still consider anything below 75% or above 25% as a "toss up" in my book. Maybe not a perfectly-weighted coin, but still a tossup. Anything could change here, and I do admit that a few of my projections may be generous toward the GOP.

Personally, I'd say the actual GOP chances are around 60-64% , assuming that my estimates are a bit rosy(again, for people who think I should change the probabilities, tell me what you would make them and I'll run a simulation.

Hummmmm .... The odds for republicans to retake the Senate. Hummmm.... Let's see, it is April 4. That means we have almost all of April left. We also have May, June, July, August September, October, and the first few days in November before the election. Now, both parties tend to step in the mud but the gop has far exceeded the Democratic party in that respect. With all that time until the election the gop has plenty of time to attack women, Blacks, Hispanics, the unemployed, and pretty much the rest of the population. About the only group they will not attack are old, white males (their base). The bottom line is this, a prediction of what is going to happen in November makes as much sense as trying to predict what the weather will be like on election day. It is pure speculation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually, you are wrong. The facts, and most true patriots will proclaim the fact the GoP will sweep the Democrat party like Hulagu Khan swept the Abbasids from Baghdad.

Same attitude that elected President Romney.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The facts, and most true patriots will proclaim the fact the GoP will sweep the Democrat party like Hulagu Khan swept the Abbasids from Baghdad."

Yup, like we swept Obama from office and took over the Senate in 2012.

Keep quiet. That way we can wonder if you are silly instead of knowing it.

Brewer's veto was a great step forward. If the GOP concentrates on only the economy, we could take the Senate.

What would you say about the economy?

Concentrate on that Obama and the Dems screwed up, keep bleating about ACA (though we can't change it) to keep the sheeple far right in the game, and work our tails off.