Skip to comments.Why DONíT these factors apply to Senate races?
Posted on 10/28/2010 11:13:12 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
Gallup is saying 57% of likely voters are calling themselves conservatives compared to just 21% saying they are liberals and the rest self identify as moderates. Independents are running away from Democrats and running toward conservative Republicans.
With the recent USAToday release that those intending to vote for conservative Republicans 26% more enthusiastic about voting, several major voting blocks that supported Obama in 2008 deserting Democrats, Catholics now planning to vote 25% more for Republicans, voter generic preferences running from 6% to 12% in favor of Republicans and Gallup Cook and Rasmussen predicting huge gains for Republicans, why should I believe that none of these factors will positively affect the electoral fortunes of Republican Senatorial candidates?
I believe we will see more straight ticket voting this year than weve seen in recent elections, because the ticket splitting moderates and Independents seem to have learned their lesson about dancing on the dark side to show how clever they are.
What am I missing? Where are the grounds for the predictions of losses in close Senate races?
I believe that the numbers represent national samples and not statewide ones. “Blue” states are going to have a different demographic makeup than “Red” states so they will have more liberals and Dems to count on. Now in the House you have Congressional Districts carved up in the various states some will be more blue or red in the varying states and in varying degrees which may be more or less liberal/conservative than the state at large. CA has a ton of congressional districts some of which are really competitive this year despite the CA governorhip looking like the D will win. why because some of these congressional districts are not going to have the big Urban and democratic enclaves that may let a D win statewide.
hope this makes sense
Very simplistic explanation.
Say a state has 4 House Districts and also a Senate election.
District 1 is a “swing” district. Dem incumbent who won 53/47 in 2008. This seat will go GOP this time by about 58/42.
District 2 is an inner city urban district. In 2008, the Dem won 91/9, and he’ll win again this time, 83/17.
District 3 is a Dem-leaning district but the GOP will pull it off this time. In 2008, the Dem won 57/43, but this time he’ll lose, 53/47 to the GOP candidate.
District 4 is a GOP district. Last time, the incumbent R won 59/41, this time he’ll win 70/30.
If you assume that all four districts have the same turnout and same population, and vote for the same party in the Senate race as the House races, you’d have THIS final result in the Senate race:
So the Dem wins the Senate despite the fact that the GOP gained two House seats in the same state and the GOP overall had over a 10 pt improvement in each district.
“Republican Districts” have a smaller average GOP margin than “Democrat Districts” have a Democrat margin.
There are a lot more districts like the one I live in (Elijah Cummings, D-USSR, MD-7) that routinely vote 80/20 Dem than there are districts that vote 80/20 Republican.
I do know that because Senators have 6 year terms, only about 1/3 of the 100 Senators are up for election this cycle. So, the numbers are smaller. Some of the worst ones are not up for election this cycle. We have to do what we can in 2010 and then in 2012 start over.
Part of it is just the basic math. All of the House is up for re-election so a 10% change in voter habit creates a 10% change in the make up of the House; only 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election so a 10% change in voter habit only creates a 3% change in the make of the Senate.
But in the Rat district turnout will probably be down. They have a lock to win and they are lazy to begin with...so they will jsut sit at home.
The close house races will get a good turnout so that will be in our favor (assuming republicans have more passion to vote). In the republican districts they will turnout regardless to register their disgust with the current administration.
Re post 8. I agree with you. Plus, don’t they always undercount repubs by 3-5%?
I have no way to prove this - but across the nation if Republicans win some astounding number of House seats in a huge wave of voter support - say 90 to 100 House seats - then I believe we will get the 10 Senate seats... That much voter enthusiasm would surely spill over into the close Senate races... in my way of thinking.
From my understanding the large voter turnout scenario used by some pollsters use the premise that a larger turnout would be based on minorities of various types - and Democrats of all natures... But I agree with an alternate premise - this time around the large turnout will be due to Tea Party generated mass enthusiasm helped along by Republicans and Conservatives in general... Actually, I believe most of the BIG WAVE turn out will be due to wanting to STOP obama and the reid - pelosi agenda - STOP IT COLD... And we stop obama - reid and pelosi by cutting off the Congressional support... one by one.
If obama was running this election against most any Republican - he would lose 75% to 25%
I also don’t understand how the GOP “could” pick up 5-6 House seats in New York and still lose both Senate seats. Are people really going the throw the bums out of the House and vote 2 bums back to the Senate at the same time?
I’m in NYS as well. I don’t understand how Gillibrand walks away with a win. chuckie is virtually unopposed.
The pollsters are not using the correct methodology in polling, underestimating the GOP turnout, basing it on the 2008 model.
The GOP will win the Senate and we are going to do so by 10% more than the pollster's estimated.
So, this is not going to be limited to simply House seats.
The last time the House switched hands and the Senate didn't was in 1917.
This is a 'wave' that is coming, and it is going to turn Red States redder, Blue states Red and deep Blue States purple.
It is rare when it DOESN'T.
I believe Schummer runs in 2012.
That's the bad news. The good news is that even if these candidates lose, they have forever moved the country more to the right for the next election cycle. I cannot think of a better reason for the Senate to go Repub in 2012 than our current candidates running again against Obama's reelection run.
I didn’t say they wouldn’t change hands. Part of what goes on with the Senate is because of the 1/3 cycle it changes slowly so it tends to stay pretty close to even. This is the 3rd election cycle since the “mad at Bush” 2nd midterms that gave the Dems control of both chambers, which mean the crop of Senators facing re-election next week never managed to face re-election when the populace was mad at Bush. This batch completely avoided losing Rs in the anti-Bush years but will lose Ds due to anti-Obama fever. And the crop of Senators that came in with Obama doesn’t face re-election until 2014, which could be the mid-term of his replacement, and depending on how things shake out those Ds will either benefiting from anti-replacement fever, or suffer from I-cant-believe-we-couldnt-get-rid-of-him fever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.