Why DON’T these factors apply to Senate races?

vanity | October 28, 2010 | Kevin "Coach" Collins

[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 we’ve 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?

[jmaroneps37]

If anyone can explain how these huge GOP advantages at the House will fail to help Republican Senate candidates I'd like to hear it.

[DM1]

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

[RockinRight]

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:

Dem 50.5%
GOP 49.5%

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.

[Question Liberal Authority]

Generally speaking, the Senate fancies themselves as a deliberative gentlemen's club, while the House is usually where you'll find very partisan ideological types. House districts are drawn up along partisan lines, so someone like Nancy Pelosi is going to have no trouble keeping her seat in San Francisco, while those same people voting in a California-wide election will have less sway in a Barbara Boxer / Carly Fiorina matchup.

Also, every single house seat is voted upon every 2 years, while only 1/3 of the Senate is. In order for the GOP to take the house, they have to flip about 20% of the seats which are on the ballot and held by Democrats. In order to take the Senate, they have to flip about 70% of the seats which are on the ballot and held by Democrats.

[usflagwaver]

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.

[discostu]

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.

[fluffdaddy]

The GOP advantages will help Senate candidates even more than the current polling suggests. Rossi, Angle and Raese will win going away. Carly will be in a very tight race. Somebody (McMahon?) will pull off a completely astonishing victory. You are absolutely right to suggest that the generic ballot data simply doesn't square with the data on individual Senate races. What that means is that the Senate polling, all of it, is grossly unrealistic. This is going to be a fun place to be next Tuesday.

[for-q-clinton]

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.

[Former Proud Canadian]

Re post 8. I agree with you. Plus, don’t they always undercount repubs by 3-5%?

[ICCtheWay]

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.

[jmaroneps37]

No argument just a few honest questions. If these Senate projections are
built on turn out as “usual” meaning large Black and rank and file White Democrat and 70% Hispanic
are not changed by the very large generic and enthusiasm gaps then how can anyone say the House will change hands?
Also isn't it true that with only 1932 as an exception each time the House changes hands the Senate does as well?
If the House changes with over 70 new Republicans how can that wave possibly not flip the Senate?
I understand this might not hold in Delaware because there is only one CD, but elsewhere doesn't it make sense?

[ICCtheWay]

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%

[HapaxLegamenon]

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?

[jmaroneps37]

I’m in NYS as well. I don’t understand how Gillibrand walks away with a win. chuckie is virtually unopposed.

[fortheDeclaration]

Your question is a logical one, and we are going to take the Senate.

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.

[fortheDeclaration]

In a 'wave' election, you have massive losses for the governing Party on ALL levels, State and Federal, which is what the pollsters are expecting.

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.

[fortheDeclaration]

That is a very interesting mathematical theory, considering that everytime the House has changed hands since 1917, the Senate has as well.

It is rare when it DOESN'T.

[fortheDeclaration]

There is only one Senate seat up for election in NY.

I believe Schummer runs in 2012.

[pabianice]

IMHO, it's a case of pushing the envelope. The Tea Parties have succeeded in nominating far more conservative people to run as Republicans. I believe this works best in a congressional district, where the land area is small and a candidate can do a good job of meeting local people and giving speeches. Voters get to meet them. But in senate races, we are talking about an entire state. Senate candidates cannot meet as many people personally or talk to as many as are within the state. The Liberal Lie of their being "crazy" is harder to wipe-off when most state voters will never have a chance to see or hear a conservative running for office.

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.

[discostu]

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.