Posted on 10/22/2006 9:41:44 AM PDT by ClarenceThomasfan
It makes me nervous to see this in print! SHHHHHHHH....
I don't trust Zogby polls even if they show me what I want to see.
As much as I'd like to see that happen, there is no way the GOP is going to have a net pick up in either the House or the Senate. They do have a chance to hold onto one or both, but they will lose seats.
Yes they are, even here in liberal Travis county. There was one who called the morning show on KLBJ who was livid at the treatment Foley got compared to Studds.
Safe Democratic
California
Connecticut*
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Massachusetts
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Vermont (I)*
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Likely Democratic
Michigan
Minnesota*
Nebraska
Pennsylvania (R)
Washington
Lean Democratic
Maryland*
Montana (R)
New Jersey
Ohio (R)
Rhode Island (R)
Toss Up
Missouri (R)
Tennessee* (R)
Virginia (R)
Lean Republican
Arizona
Likely Republican
Nevada
Safe Republican
Indiana
Maine
Mississippi
Texas
Utah
Wyoming
My ratings have been fairly stable since I last posted two weeks ago, with only two changes: New Jersey goes from Toss Up to Lean Dem and Virginia moves from Lean GOP to Toss Up. In particular since my ratings are hardly showing an upswing for the GOP, I will break from routine and comment on all the races currently in the competitive categories.
Michigan: As anyone that follows my ratings is well-aware, I do not even read Zogby internet polls, much less incorporate them into my lists. In the four real polls taken in October Stabenow leads Bouchard by an average 13.5% and as of Sept 30 Stabenow had a 2 to 1 cash on hand advantage. These are both clearly in the Likely Dem range.
Minnesota: Kennedy seems to have lost control of this open seat race months ago ... correction, Kennedy never had control of this race ... and even excluding the Minneapolis Red Star-Tribune poll Klobuchar has an average 14% lead in the last four polls (Rasm., SUSA, M-D, and U of MN) with support ranging from 51% to 57%.
Nebraska: I almost moved this one to Safe Dem but again I'm reminded of 2000 when Ben Nelson barely eked out a win despite a hefty poll lead. As of Sept 30 Ricketts had a 4 to 1 cash on hand advantage ($1,674,362 to $449,213) and although Nelson is most recently polling at 54% the only pollster to poll the Nebraska Senate race this year is Rasmussen.
Pennsylvania: Santurum has not polled above 43% all year long, and in that same Rasmussen poll where Santorum gets 43% Casey gets 55%. What else is there to say?
Washington: Technically this race is polling at the cusp between Lean Dem and Likely Dem (Cantwell +10% average) but in reality this one's probably on the verge of Safe Dem. Why? Some 80% of Washington State votes will be early votes and a hefty chunk of those will be mailed back by the end of this week. McGavick is just about out of time.
Maryland: The exciting Survey USA poll that had Steele and Cardin tied at 46% is actually a slight improvement for Cardin from the last Survey USA poll where he trailed by one (48% Steele to 47% Steele). Meanwhile, the other four independent pollsters in this race have the margin at 9% (Rasmussen), 8% (Reuters/Zogby), 15% (Gallup), and 6% (Mason-Dixon). For whatever reason, both SUSA polls this year show Maryland tied up while most everyone else has shown Cardin ahead. Even the two GOP pollsters show Cardin with leads of 4% (Public Opinion Strategies) and 5% (Voter Consumer Research). If Steele wins, or even comes especially close, it'll be a coup for Survey USA (not to mention the GOP), but by the rules of my rating system, this race still clearly Leans Dem.
Montana: Tester leads by an average 6% and the closest margin Rasmussen poll still had him at 49%. Tester has not trailed in a poll since April, and Burns has not polled above 46%. However, I do think this is the narrowest D advantage of the Lean D seats - in part because of Montana's conservative fundamentals and in part because Burns led Tester more than 3 to 1 in cash on hand as of Sept 30.
New Jersey: Menendez has led in seven of the last eight independent polls including all the independent polls taken in October (note again that I do not regard Zogby internet polls as legitimate polling). The polling margin is an average 5.8% Menendez advantage and as of Sept 30 Menendez had a 2 to 1 cash on hand advantage too: $5,511,207 versus $2,279,311 for Kean Jr. The national GOP is still deciding whether and how much to play, but especially in a state that favors Dems and has a recent history of solid Dem wins despite teasing the GOP with close polling, it's probably too little too late. The NRSC should've tried to put Menendez away back in early September, but Liddy Dole had other priorities I guess..
Ohio: This one's very close to moving into the Likely Dem category, which is where it should be based on the polls alone: a 10.6% average lead for Sherrod Brown. The abysmal state of the Ohio GOP is hardly a cause for optimism either. That all said, as of Sept 30 Mike DeWine led by $4,503,735 in cash on hand versus $1,209,059 for Sherrod Brown and the Ohio GOP infrastructure at the local level is much superior to that of the Dem infrastructure in Ohio.
Rhode Island: Linc Chafee has not led in a 'real' poll since August (43% to 42% in a Fleming Poll) and June before that (led 43% to 40% in a RI College Poll), and the most Dem state in the union seems ready to ditch the Democrat Republican for the just plain Democrat. It doesn't help that the contentious primary left Chafee at a 3 to 1 money disadvantage: $1,537,178 Whitehouse versus $582,844 Chafee as of Sept 30.
Missouri: The last two Rasmussen polls were a 1% Talent edge and a 1% McCaskill edge - that's a good summary of how this race has been all year long. Otherwise, Talent leads by 4% in the Reuters/Zogby poll and McCaskill leads by 3% in the Gallup poll; the two are tied at 43% in Mason-Dixon. Finally, Survey USA gave McCaskill a 9% lead of 51% to 42% a week ago. I think it's as likely that McCaskill leads by 9% as it is that Steele and Cardin are tied in Maryland. Talent clearly has the money edge ($4,204,741 CoH to a pathetic $246,724 CoH) but the significance of this is diminished with the national committees fully engaged. Nonetheless, this along with the state's GOP inclination does in my view give a Slight GOP edge to an overall Toss Up contest.
Tennessee: Corker has been a miserable candidate while Ford Jr has been an exceptional candidate. However, Tennessee has a fairly solid GOP lean and Ford Jr carries a lot of baggage. The latest polls are split between a 48% to 46% Ford lead in Rasmussen and a 48% to 46% Corker lead in Survey USA. Before that, Reuters/Zogby had the race tied while both Gallup and Mason-Dixon gave Ford the lead (+5% and +1% respectively). Ford also had a slight money advantage as of Sept 30 - $771,674 cash on hand versus $497,583 for Corker - but that's insignificant for a race of this caliber with the national parties involved.
Virginia: This is easily my biggest rating dilemma. Jim Webb has never led in a 'real' poll, having done no better than a 43% tie in a late September Mason-Dixon poll. However the overall polling margin has steadily narrowed and the last two polls had the race at a 3% margin (Rasmussen) and a 2% margin (Washington Post) with Allen at 49% and Webb at 46%/47%. That is clearly within Toss Up range by my ordinary standards, except for the consistent Allen lead (to date). However, not only is the trend clearly not in Allen's favor but the DSCC is suddenly plunging in to compensate for Webb's money disadvantage (which is itself reduced considerably) and also the under-acknowledged factor that the Dems have actually overperformed the polls in Virginia since the mid-90s, and increasingly so. Now, that all said, I would not personally dispute a Lean GOP rating for this seat because, once again, Webb has never actually led in a poll (Zogby internet polls routinely excluded).
Arizona: Three of the last five legitimate polls have this race in Lean GOP territory and two have it in Likely GOP territory. The polling average is right smack on the fence at a 10% Kyl lead. Kyl had a daunting 5 to 1 cash on hand advantage as of Sept 30 but Pederson is still giving his campaign personal funds (another $700,000 last week) so it's unclear what the real money situation will be. So, anyway, Arizona is on the borders of Lean and Likely and I chose the former if for no other reason than to clearly separate AZ from NV, which is on the borders of Likely and Safe.
Nevada: This is no doubt the last Senate seat to slide into the competitive categories and my basic view is the same as Chuck Todd's: "Because of the national wave possibility, don't be surprised if Ensign's winning number is lower than polls are showing." This is another race with a major discrepancy in the polling: Back in September Mason-Dixon and Research 2000 gave Ensign a 23% lead and a 21% lead respectively. Meanwhile, Rasmussen insists on polling this race close - a 9% margin in Sept and a 9% margin again in Oct. That's really the only thing that keeps NV hanging on, but ultimately my ranking would be virtually the same as that of Chuck Todd (I'd only switch NJ and VA), so that puts Nevada at #15 overall and just a twitch shy of Safe GOP.
So, I guess that's it! Barring a major surprise development, these Senate ratings may very well stand right on through Election Day. In my view, the shape of the Senate contests looks fairly set at this point and I suspect that at most we'll see a clear breakout in one or more of the Toss Up contests. My ratings predict a Dem net gain of 5 seats: PA, OH, RI, MT, and one of the Toss Ups.
Comments or concerns are more than welcome!
I think you are way too pessemistic, and I believe that the poll numbers are grossly wrong in a number of these races, oversampling Dems. I also believe that our GOTV methods are superior to the Dems. The only thing they beat us in is the voter fraud.
We'll see in two weeks.
I pray that there are enough of you out there in "God's country" push Santorum over the top (and kick Murtha out). Here in Philly, we Republicans are sadly few and far between.
To be realistic here is what I see ( and you can get back to me when this does not happen, but I believe it will.... ).
THE GOP WILL STILL CONTROL BOTH HOUSES after the 2006 elections. BUT IT WILL BE WITH A DIMINISHED MAJORITY !
In a sense it will be a good thing for us. It will teach the GOP a lesson -- when they call themselves conservatives, they better DARN WELL ACT LIKE ONE WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE, not like RINO's ( for instance, I will RELISH seeing Lincoln Chafee get booted. He's useless as a Republican anyway ).
It will also teach the Dems that they're platform of cut-and-run and weakness on the war on terror will guarantee that they DON'T ATTAIN POWER. This will be highlighted by the certain defeat of Ned Lamont and the victory of new Independent -- Joe Lierbermann.
I know that, and we all have to stick together or we won't be able to get Santorum elected....
Just keep it Republican and we will be ok....:)
Here is a posting for New Jersey that you might not have gotten:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1723736/posts
Kean has narrowed the money gap and the NRSC is now putting this race in the top tier.
Also, Menendez has been implicated in another scandal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojOyfmk2oPM
While everything you said about New Jersey is true, I think that Menendez may be too much even for his constituants' notoriously strong stomaches.
The fraud in the Philadelphia area is sooo huge that I've always been stunned that NO REPUBLICAN aside from Curt Weldon has even tried to have it investigated. In 2004 Weldon (on videotape no less) caught two democratic operatives leaving a prison with boxes of absentee ballots filled out by the INMATES! Weldon screamed from the rooftops but nobody bothered to listen.
There was a democratic poll worker in the hotel that I work at "bragging" that he votes close to 100 times each election for those that are registered but never vote.
The former head of security here at work found out in 1998 when a couple of campaign volunteers showed up at his house that his father who died in 1991 was still on the rolls. Not only was his dad still registered to vote but, somehow was still voting six years after he died!
And crap like that goes on all the time and just gets laughted off.
Hope you're right Harleylady. Say a pray for Curt Weldon on election day. He's one of the few really good guys. You can tell that just by the savage attacks leveled at him recently (bogus investigation).
Oh I know, isn't that sad??? And if ALL Republicans dont vote Republican this election we are going to be living that all over again just like we did with the klinton 8 years of heck....
He has information, and they don't want it out....I just hope he makes this election, if so, it will come out.....
THEREFORE, I still think that the polls are tilted toward the Dems, and that Burns and Chafee are already tied, Santorum only down 2-3 and that all the rest in good shape.
Moreover, since this doesn't take into account turnout, my final result has Santorum, Chafee, Talent, Burns, Allen, Kean, and Steele all winning, Bouchard coming up just short.
I can't believe that Santorum is doing as badly in the polls as is reported.
Of every Senatorial candidate, I'd most hate to see him lose because I can't stand that low-life, lying, panty-waist, empty suit, lispy, little fruit Bob Casey Jr.
Which, the more optimistic views?
Kean's ads are hard hitting, I will give him credit for that.
Is it a question of more honest polling, or just regrouping the populations that they already have? Here's what I mean:
Don't the polling companies keep calling until they reach a certain number of statistical responses, and then they pare away at the population until they configure a sample that is representative? If this is true, one can assume that they can configure many samples from the same overall polling population. One sample would be the over-sampled Democrats that you read about in the early weeks, and which becomes the basis for all the "blowout" reports designed to depress Republican turnout.
But other samples could also be configured simultaneously from the same polling population, perhaps one that is more balanced in its makeup. You have to believe that the polling companies know the spread in their polls due to different configurations, and then report all of that to the organizations that commissioned the polls.
They then emphasize what they want to, and ignore what they don't want you to know.
Is this really how it works?
-PJ
A new scandal certainly qualifies as a major development and I was not aware of that. I was aware of the money moves but that still gives an ambivalent picture of the NRSC's involvement. $500,000 is just not enough to move New Jersey in a significant way. You need at least $2 million and preferably at least $4 million divided between the two TV markets (NYC & Philly).
In any case, if the new scandal gains traction then I can certainly see NJ moving back to Toss Up, or even Lean GOP. We'll know in the next few days!
Plus 4 Dem because I think the odds are better than even the GOP will win one of the leaning Dem seats. In my absence, it appears that the GOP prospects in the House have gone into the dumpster. I am shocked at the number of GOP seats seemingly in play now. I don't see much changing between now and election day in the House. Plus 20-25 Dem seats it looks like. Plus 30 would not shock me.
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.