What will Voter Intensity and Turn Out be in the 2014 Mid-Terms?

[Statistikhengst]

For you Nate Silver fans......His breakdown. As most of you know...he was very accurate in 2012.


Senate Update With 4 Days Left Here 8217 s The State Of The Races FiveThirtyEight

I agree with Silver's assessment, it is almost identical to my own.

 

[NLT]

I early voted yesterday and the place was packed. Not too many African American voters to bee seen tho.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The GOP advantage this cycle will be at least equal to the 2010 mid-terms, and will probably exceed them.

I disagree! 2010 was a wave year for the GOP. There is nothing to suggest that there is a similar wave in 2014.

The advantage lies with the GOP but they won't sweep to victory. It will be a nail biter with way too many races too close to call after the polls close and perhaps even a run off or two afterwards. Ultimately they will prevail in my opinion but it won't be a repeat of 2010.

De....you may be right. But Pew Research (I posted a link earlier in the thread) among other are seeing it very similar to 2010. We'll see....but I think most of the pollsters have it right.

I think they have hedged to be "right" on the final outcome but the odds of a wave are still far from certain because the Generic Polls are simply not showing the necessary "wave" uniformity.

This article gives a better insight into what I am seeing out there.

Races I 8217 ll Be Watching On Election Night

We won't know if there is going to be a wave until we see the returns on the early races. It might just end up as a GOP "ripple" instead.

The GOP advantage this cycle will be at least equal to the 2010 mid-terms, and will probably exceed them.

I disagree! 2010 was a wave year for the GOP. There is nothing to suggest that there is a similar wave in 2014.

The advantage lies with the GOP but they won't sweep to victory. It will be a nail biter with way too many races too close to call after the polls close and perhaps even a run off or two afterwards. Ultimately they will prevail in my opinion but it won't be a repeat of 2010.

The link you provided to the Princeton information is interesting....but I would say appears to be a decided outlier and is tilting heavily to the left. They give odds of a GOP Senate at 55%.

Nate Silver (who I do not think anyone could accuse of being a GOP Fanboy....) has it at 68.5% Larry Sabato (who I actually have known for years and worked as Democrat operative) also predicts a GOP Senate majority with a 2/3 probability.

Larry J. Sabato s Crystal Ball Bet on a Republican Senate Majority


Of course, all of them could be wrong.


De....I repeat...I have no idea what will happen....and I am by no means saying you're wrong. But I will make two predictions. I think overall turnout will be a little heavier than expected (3%-5%)....and I think most of the major pollsters are correct. After the last few election cycles I have learned to not bet against Nate Silver. The fact Stat seems to mostly agree with him as well is telling to me.

I really became interested in turnout and voting patterns in the last two election cycles. The facts on the ground largely supersede my political biases (I think the same goes for you and Stat).

It's a horse race baby...I want to see which ponies cross the line first and whether or not the handicappers were correct.

 

[Nyvin]

I'm thinking the GOP will take the Senate this year. Probably 52 seats, maybe less depending on Kansas and Georgia.

What's looking almost certain is that the Democrats won't have more than 50 including Orman and King.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The GOP advantage this cycle will be at least equal to the 2010 mid-terms, and will probably exceed them.

I disagree! 2010 was a wave year for the GOP. There is nothing to suggest that there is a similar wave in 2014.

The advantage lies with the GOP but they won't sweep to victory. It will be a nail biter with way too many races too close to call after the polls close and perhaps even a run off or two afterwards. Ultimately they will prevail in my opinion but it won't be a repeat of 2010.

De....you may be right. But Pew Research (I posted a link earlier in the thread) among other are seeing it very similar to 2010. We'll see....but I think most of the pollsters have it right.

I think they have hedged to be "right" on the final outcome but the odds of a wave are still far from certain because the Generic Polls are simply not showing the necessary "wave" uniformity.

This article gives a better insight into what I am seeing out there.

Races I 8217 ll Be Watching On Election Night

We won't know if there is going to be a wave until we see the returns on the early races. It might just end up as a GOP "ripple" instead.

The GOP advantage this cycle will be at least equal to the 2010 mid-terms, and will probably exceed them.

I disagree! 2010 was a wave year for the GOP. There is nothing to suggest that there is a similar wave in 2014.

The advantage lies with the GOP but they won't sweep to victory. It will be a nail biter with way too many races too close to call after the polls close and perhaps even a run off or two afterwards. Ultimately they will prevail in my opinion but it won't be a repeat of 2010.

The link you provided to the Princeton information is interesting....but I would say appears to be a decided outlier and is tilting heavily to the left. They give odds of a GOP Senate at 55%.

Nate Silver (who I do not think anyone could accuse of being a GOP Fanboy....) has it at 68.5% Larry Sabato (who I actually have known for years and worked as Democrat operative) also predicts a GOP Senate majority with a 2/3 probability.

Larry J. Sabato s Crystal Ball Bet on a Republican Senate Majority


Of course, all of them could be wrong.


De....I repeat...I have no idea what will happen....and I am by no means saying you're wrong. But I will make two predictions. I think overall turnout will be a little heavier than expected (3%-5%)....and I think most of the major pollsters are correct. After the last few election cycles I have learned to not bet against Nate Silver. The fact Stat seems to mostly agree with him as well is telling to me.

I really became interested in turnout and voting patterns in the last two election cycles. The facts on the ground largely supersede my political biases (I think the same goes for you and Stat).

It's a horse race baby...I want to see which ponies cross the line first and whether or not the handicappers were correct.

That is kind of you, WQ.

Silver, like myself, goes where the numbers take him. The label next to the number (D, R, I) is, at that moment, unimportant.

It's based on the idea that one poll can be very wrong, but a slew of them, from independent-from-each-other pollsters, all showing the same results, albeit with varying margins, perhaps, cannot all be wrong.

The other thing that helps is electoral history, not just of the results, but a comparison of those results to END polling. There, I have been building a baseline since 2008.

It is statistical, irrefutable fact that the polling aggregates in the SW of our great Union have been quite off. They were off in 2008, 2010 and 2012. I am referring to: Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, and to a smaller extent, even Utah. The reason is quite clear: a gross miscalculation of the Latino vote in all cases. It is was caused the presidential aggregate for California to be 8 full points to the Right in 2012. In 2010, polling end-aggregates miscalled the senatorial races in both Colorado and Nevada. It also miscalled the Senatorial in Washington State.

It is also statistical, irrefutable fact that the exit-polls for 2012 were the best on record. What a shame that not all 50 states were exit polled this time around.

It is also statistical fact that even the two or three best pollsters of 2012 (PPP, SUSA, Quinnipiac) all still had CONSERVATIVE mathematical biases based on their end polling, not LIBERAL mathematical biases.

It is also statistical, irrefutable fact that two polling firms in 2012 were by and far the worst of them all: Gallup and Rasmussen.

I give the GOP a 100% chance of taking 50 seats in the US-Senate, a 75% chance of taking 51 seats, a 63.4% chance of 52 seats, a 47% chance of 53 seats and a 25% or less chance of 54 seats. I give the GOP null chance at picking up 10 seats. It ain't gonna happen.

The GOP will pick up a maximum of 11 House seats, making for a maximum margin shift of R+22.

I am quite sure that both Louisiana and Georgia will go into overtime, both with runoff elections. I am also more than reasonably sure that both Kansas and Iowa will not be called on election night until either very late into the morning or the next day. Recounts in both states are extremely likely. Much more on this on Monday, when I will put out a results thread with tons of links to all sorts of stuff, plus my predictions as to when things will be called and the general margin range. With LA and GA still undecided until runoffs and both KS and IA likely to not be called right away, this means that the following states will be called relatively quickly for the GOP on election night: MT, SD, WV, AR. That gets the GOP to 49 without sweating.

It will take longer to call it, but the networks will call Kentucky for McConnell probably around 10:00-10:30 PM EDT, bringing the GOP to 50.

The other races I already covered and Alaska doesn't come in until 01:00 EDT and even in a close race, it will likely not be called until the next day.

My gut wants to predict that the DEMS hold NH, NC and CO, but that is not enough. The DEMS also have a more than 60% chance of picking up Georgia, but maybe only temporarily, since I doubt that either Perdue or Nunn will come in over 50%.

Be prepared for some recounts, maybe a court challenge or two, and a lot of nail-biting.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The GOP advantage this cycle will be at least equal to the 2010 mid-terms, and will probably exceed them.

I disagree! 2010 was a wave year for the GOP. There is nothing to suggest that there is a similar wave in 2014.

The advantage lies with the GOP but they won't sweep to victory. It will be a nail biter with way too many races too close to call after the polls close and perhaps even a run off or two afterwards. Ultimately they will prevail in my opinion but it won't be a repeat of 2010.

De....you may be right. But Pew Research (I posted a link earlier in the thread) among other are seeing it very similar to 2010. We'll see....but I think most of the pollsters have it right.

I think they have hedged to be "right" on the final outcome but the odds of a wave are still far from certain because the Generic Polls are simply not showing the necessary "wave" uniformity.

This article gives a better insight into what I am seeing out there.

Races I 8217 ll Be Watching On Election Night

We won't know if there is going to be a wave until we see the returns on the early races. It might just end up as a GOP "ripple" instead.

The GOP advantage this cycle will be at least equal to the 2010 mid-terms, and will probably exceed them.

I disagree! 2010 was a wave year for the GOP. There is nothing to suggest that there is a similar wave in 2014.

The advantage lies with the GOP but they won't sweep to victory. It will be a nail biter with way too many races too close to call after the polls close and perhaps even a run off or two afterwards. Ultimately they will prevail in my opinion but it won't be a repeat of 2010.

The link you provided to the Princeton information is interesting....but I would say appears to be a decided outlier and is tilting heavily to the left. They give odds of a GOP Senate at 55%.

Nate Silver (who I do not think anyone could accuse of being a GOP Fanboy....) has it at 68.5% Larry Sabato (who I actually have known for years and worked as Democrat operative) also predicts a GOP Senate majority with a 2/3 probability.

Larry J. Sabato s Crystal Ball Bet on a Republican Senate Majority


Of course, all of them could be wrong.


De....I repeat...I have no idea what will happen....and I am by no means saying you're wrong. But I will make two predictions. I think overall turnout will be a little heavier than expected (3%-5%)....and I think most of the major pollsters are correct. After the last few election cycles I have learned to not bet against Nate Silver. The fact Stat seems to mostly agree with him as well is telling to me.

I really became interested in turnout and voting patterns in the last two election cycles. The facts on the ground largely supersede my political biases (I think the same goes for you and Stat).

It's a horse race baby...I want to see which ponies cross the line first and whether or not the handicappers were correct.

Absolutely agree that Princeton is on the far left and I am not disagreeing with you, Stat or Nate Silver either.

I am just not seeing anything like the 2010 wave in any of the polling from anywhere. The GOP will prevail but it is going to be limping over the line rather than crushing the Dems into the dirt. Given everything that was going for the GOP it should have been a crushing defeat but they are getting better and better as making themselves look like the worse than the Dems. In that respect they are actually helping the Dems more than hurting them. If they persist in this direction then 2016 could be a wave election but it won't be a great year for them either.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The GOP advantage this cycle will be at least equal to the 2010 mid-terms, and will probably exceed them.

I disagree! 2010 was a wave year for the GOP. There is nothing to suggest that there is a similar wave in 2014.

The advantage lies with the GOP but they won't sweep to victory. It will be a nail biter with way too many races too close to call after the polls close and perhaps even a run off or two afterwards. Ultimately they will prevail in my opinion but it won't be a repeat of 2010.

De....you may be right. But Pew Research (I posted a link earlier in the thread) among other are seeing it very similar to 2010. We'll see....but I think most of the pollsters have it right.

I think they have hedged to be "right" on the final outcome but the odds of a wave are still far from certain because the Generic Polls are simply not showing the necessary "wave" uniformity.

This article gives a better insight into what I am seeing out there.

Races I 8217 ll Be Watching On Election Night

We won't know if there is going to be a wave until we see the returns on the early races. It might just end up as a GOP "ripple" instead.

The GOP advantage this cycle will be at least equal to the 2010 mid-terms, and will probably exceed them.

I disagree! 2010 was a wave year for the GOP. There is nothing to suggest that there is a similar wave in 2014.

The advantage lies with the GOP but they won't sweep to victory. It will be a nail biter with way too many races too close to call after the polls close and perhaps even a run off or two afterwards. Ultimately they will prevail in my opinion but it won't be a repeat of 2010.

The link you provided to the Princeton information is interesting....but I would say appears to be a decided outlier and is tilting heavily to the left. They give odds of a GOP Senate at 55%.

Nate Silver (who I do not think anyone could accuse of being a GOP Fanboy....) has it at 68.5% Larry Sabato (who I actually have known for years and worked as Democrat operative) also predicts a GOP Senate majority with a 2/3 probability.

Larry J. Sabato s Crystal Ball Bet on a Republican Senate Majority


Of course, all of them could be wrong.


De....I repeat...I have no idea what will happen....and I am by no means saying you're wrong. But I will make two predictions. I think overall turnout will be a little heavier than expected (3%-5%)....and I think most of the major pollsters are correct. After the last few election cycles I have learned to not bet against Nate Silver. The fact Stat seems to mostly agree with him as well is telling to me.

I really became interested in turnout and voting patterns in the last two election cycles. The facts on the ground largely supersede my political biases (I think the same goes for you and Stat).

It's a horse race baby...I want to see which ponies cross the line first and whether or not the handicappers were correct.

Absolutely agree that Princeton is on the far left and I am not disagreeing with you, Stat or Nate Silver either.

I am just not seeing anything like the 2010 wave in any of the polling from anywhere. The GOP will prevail but it is going to be limping over the line rather than crushing the Dems into the dirt. Given everything that was going for the GOP it should have been a crushing defeat but they are getting better and better as making themselves look like the worse than the Dems. In that respect they are actually helping the Dems more than hurting them. If they persist in this direction then 2016 could be a wave election but it won't be a great year for them either.

In fact, due to gerrymandering, it would even be possible for the Democratic Party to WIN in the NPV on Tuesday, nationally, and still LOSE seats in the HOR and lose control of the US Senate. The conventional wisdom for the HOR is that the DEMS need at least an aggregate +7 in the generic, and I mean a STEADY +7, in order to take the HOR back some day.

So, the point stands. The GOP doesn't even need a wave to increase it's lead in the HOR and also to take the Senate. And the long-term ramifications of this will be seen in the months to come.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I think the GOP takes Iowa and Colorado. Marc "Uterus" Udall has run a terrible campaign and has the charisma of a bowl of cold oatmeal. Jodi Ernst in Iowa has run an excellent campaign and I think is a template for the type of candidates the GOP can run in the future.

The Dems hold on to New Hampshire (where they did not initially expect a battle) and may hold on to North Carolina. Kay Hagan is not a real good politician or campaigner....but her opponent seems pretty extreme right and has not run a good campaign at all.

I agree with Nate Silver and Larry Sabato regarding GOP pick ups in Alaska, Montana, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia and South Dakota.

The two races I think are most interesting are Georgia and Kansas. And frankly....in both of those races I have no clue.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The GA and LA races will go into overtime if the current polling holds in my opinion. If they do then both will end up in the GOP column.

Kansas is a wild card because I can see the Gov race going Dem and there may be "coattails" for Orman to unseat Roberts. That is pure speculation on my part because I don't have any data to back that up.What I do have is the "attitude for throwing the bums out" ALA 2010 but it is local only to KS because of what Brownback has done to the state. It is not completely outside the realm of possibility that KS might even end up with a Dem legislature albeit that is remote.

Overall KS is the least predictable of all outcomes because it has Red state voter motivation who just happen to be very unhappy with the GOP/TP/Libertarian economic policies that have devastated the state. We know what happens when voters are unhappy and even more so when they are on the right. How this plays out is going to be fascinating.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The GA and LA races will go into overtime if the current polling holds in my opinion. If they do then both will end up in the GOP column.

Kansas is a wild card because I can see the Gov race going Dem and there may be "coattails" for Orman to unseat Roberts. That is pure speculation on my part because I don't have any data to back that up.What I do have is the "attitude for throwing the bums out" ALA 2010 but it is local only to KS because of what Brownback has done to the state. It is not completely outside the realm of possibility that KS might even end up with a Dem legislature albeit that is remote.

Overall KS is the least predictable of all outcomes because it has Red state voter motivation who just happen to be very unhappy with the GOP/TP/Libertarian economic policies that have devastated the state. We know what happens when voters are unhappy and even more so when they are on the right. How this plays out is going to be fascinating.

I'm not so sure about Georgia.... never underestimate a Nunn.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm not so sure about Georgia.... never underestimate a Nunn.

Do you really expect that 50% will vote for Nunn of the Above?

 

[WelfareQueen]

The Florida Governors race is also a complete unknown. Crist was up slightly for months but over the last two months it's been a virtual tie.

Scott is not very well liked nor is he hated. Crist seems much more polarized.....(i.e. as many seem to love him as hate him).

How the the Governors race in Florida turns out might be a harbinger for the rest of the Country.