KeyHouseRaces 30 October Update - We added MA-04, ME-01, MO-03 and TX-27 to the Master List

KeyHouseRaces.com ^ | 30 October 2010 | Interceptpoint

[InterceptPoint]

Please add MA-5 Golnik (R) vs Tsongas (D)to this list.

Running out of time for MA-05. It doesn't seem to be on anybody's radar screen. Do you know something we don't?

[Political Junkie Too]

It is true that I am treating each race as an independent event, and not part of some larger regional trend. So why would the Central Limit Theorem apply here if I'm not breaking down some larger event into uncorrelated smaller events, that is, that these races are all local to begin with?

-PJ

[SnuffaBolshevik]

"I also hope to post a pdf file for the Master List and possibly the Tier 2 and just maybe a Longshot List for downloading and printing on Tuesday."

That would be great, I.P.

I'm afraid I might have information overload and a sheet of paper and a sharpie to check them off as they fall would be excellent.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

Okay so you understand why the covariance is important. Have some fun and read this article. It’s a sobering lesson,

Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=all

The problem with applying the central limit theorem is that even if the covariance is zero (in which case the CLT can still apply), you don’t have an estimate of the variation, only the mean. The sampling error that the pollsters report is an estimate of the uncertainty of the mean. It is not an estimate of the variation.

Note that there are TWO kinds of statements that the pollsters make. One is an estimate of how individual races will go. The second is the total number of seats that will turn over. Each estimate requires TWO different models with different, proprietary, assumptions. You are mixing apples and oranges.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Interesting Times]

Thanks again for this really well-done aggregation project.

[Political Junkie Too]

I guess we'll see on Wednesday.

What the pollsters are telling us is, if the election were held today this would be the result, with a range of error around each candidate's result. If the result that they publish is really a mean of repeated sampling, with some error of the location of the mean represented by the margin of error, so be it. All I care about is that this is the expert's prediction of the result if the election were held today. I take their predictions, and use the margin of error around that prediction to create a probability of the leader actually winning. That is all.

I don't think I'm mixing apples and oranges.

-PJ

[1035rep]

Great job! Thank you.

[God luvs America]

will try and remember to lend a hand and freepmail you with results...thanks

[SharpRightTurn]

BUMP

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

It’s childish responses like that which encourage me to bust your chops. I tried to be helpful in my last post. My mistake. Apparently you only got a sinking feeling realization that you try to cover up with bravado.

If I flip a coin, you guess heads and the coin lands heads, it doesn’t change the fact that you were guessing. At best, a child would insist that they “knew” the coin would land heads. At worse, a liar would say he “knew” the coin would land heads.

It’s not your misunderstanding which bothers me. It’s the fact that you’re deliberately prey on the innocent by using the authority of numbers to state your opinion.

[excopconservative]

My two cents worth—

AL 2 Bobby Bright Incumbent D
Heavy Republican district. Big turnout will mean victory for Palin endorsed Martha Roby

AR 1 Open D
Republican Crawford will win easily.

AR 2 Open D
Should be another open seat Republican victory.

AZ 1 Ann Kirkpatrick
Democrats will have a hard time in AZ this year. The lawsuit and reporting AZ to the UN Human Rights Commission will resound in every race. Even AZ4, Ed Pastor’s seat might not be a lock for dems. Republican Paul Gosar will win here, another Palin pick.

AZ 5 Harold Mitchell
Republican Dave Schweikert wins this one.

AZ 7 Raúl Grijalva
Grijalva advocated a boycott of his own state over the immigration law. In a fair election,Palin endorsed Ruth McClung wins. Let’s see what happens.

AZ 8 Gabrielle Giffords
This race is very close. I think Jesse Kelly will win due to a general rejection of democrats in AZ.
CA 3 Dan Lungren
Republican seat. Republican wins.

CA 11 Jerry McNerney
David Harmer has been leading in polls. Healthcare vote may have sealed McNerney’s fate.

WATCH — CA18 Dennis Cardoza
Mike Berryhill has not been a great candidate, but this is the other district held by a democrat where the water was turned off. Berryhill should be way back in the polls, but he has been from 2 to 8 points down and Cardoza has been running hit ads. An upset could happen.

CA 20 Jim Costa
This district had water to its farmers cut off by dems. Should be an easy win for Andy Vidak.

CA 47 Loretta Sanchez
This seat will be won by turnout and close scrutiny. If latinos vote, Sanchez wins. If white and Vietnamese vote heavily, Van Tran wins. If the voting isn’t carefully watched, Sanchez wins. (B-1 Bob Dornan’s old district)

WATCH——— CA51 Bob Filner
“Gunny Pop” Nick Popaditch is running an inspired race against the old progressive caucus member Filner. No polls here. Lots of action on the ground for Nick.

CO 3 John Salazar
Scott Tipton wins.

CO 4 Betsy Markey
Should be an easy win for Palin endorsed Cory Garner

CO 7 Ed Perlmutter
A tough race for Palin endorsed Ryan Frazier. A wave for Tancredo might put him over the top but it appears Perlmutter may be re-elected.

CT 4 Jim Himes
If Dan Debicella wins, it will be an early indication of a very big wave. Looks like Himes at this point although a very recent poll had Debicella up by two points.

CT 5 Christopher Murphy
This district is rated D+2 by Cook, so any small wave will make Caliguiri the winner, which I predict.
DE AL Open R
Democrat Carney should win over conservative Urquhart, but if Christine O’Donnell manages to pull out a victory in the Senate race, Glen could have a chance.
FL 2 Allen Boyd
Steve Southerland should win this seat.

FL 8 Alan Grayson
Outrageous Grayson will be defeated by Dan Webster.

FL 22 Ron Kline
Democrats are going all out to save this seat and keep Allen West out of Congress. West will prevail.

FL 24 Suzanne Kosmas
Dems have already given up on saving this one.

FL 25 Open R
Republican David Rivera will keep this seat in the party.
GA 2 Sanford Bishop
Mike Keown should win this in what will be a sweep by Republicans of the south.

GA 8 Jim Marshall
No problems for Austin Scott on this one in a Republican district.
HI 1 Charles Djou
By all rights, Republicans should lose this race, but voters seem to be inclined to give recently elected Djou a chance.

more later....

[Political Junkie Too]

Using the expert ratings above, the results of 32,000 simulated elections are listed in the table below. The definitions of the columns are:

• "GOP House Seats P10” – the value where the probability of the actual number being lower is 10%.
• ”GOP House Seats EV” – the expected value (mean) or probability-weighted average of the simulation.
• ”GOP House Seats P90” – the value where the probability of the actual number being lower is 90%. Or, it is the value where the probability of the actual number being higher is 10%.
• ”Probability of 218” – The probability associated with value 218 (the House majority goal).
• ”GOP Gain” – The difference between the GOP EV and the current number of seats (179), rounded down.

Week	GOP House Seats P10	GOP House Seats EV	GOP House Seats P90	Probability of 218	GOP Gain
09-Apr-10	199	204.77	210	0.18%	26
16-Apr-10	199	205.09	211	0.22%	26
22-Apr-10	200	205.28	211	0.37%	26
01-May-10	201	206.22	212	0.73%	27
08-May-10	201	206.33	212	0.66%	27
19-Jun-10	203	208.44	214	2.29%	29
10-Jul-10	203	208.49	214	2.43%	29
17-Jul-10	203	208.49	214	2.34%	29
24-Jul-10	203	209.25	215	3.37%	30
31-Jul-10	203	209.06	215	2.96%	30
07-Aug-10	203	209.15	215	3.11%	30
14-Aug-10	204	209.33	215	3.33%	30
21-Aug-10	204	209.86	216	4.47%	31
28-Aug-10	205	210.91	217	7.03%	32
04-Sep-10	206	211.88	218	10.45%	33
11-Sep-10	208	213.67	220	20.31%	35
18-Sep-10	208	214.1	220	23.14%	35
25-Sep-10	209	214.72	221	27.54%	36
02-Oct-10	210	216.44	222	41.34%	37
09-Oct-10	212	218.48	225	58.13%	39
16-Oct-10	215	220.78	227	75.42%	42
23-Oct-10	217	223.28	229	88.59%	44
30-Oct-10	220	226.71	233	97.00%	48

Alternatively, below is a model that uses the most recent poll instead of the expert assessment, when there is one. I "expire" the poll if it is greater than 60 days old and revert back to the expert assessment until a new poll is taken. If the trend is moving downward, I suspect it is because a poll expired and the expert asssessment is lagging public opinion.

This week, the polls cover 79% of the 110 races being tracked. 87 polls are being used out of 99 that were captured, for a poll utilization of 88%.

Using the expert ratings above and recent poll data, the results of 32,000 simulated elections are listed in the table below. The definitions of the columns are:

• "GOP House Seats P10” – the value where the probability of the actual number being lower is 10%.
• ”GOP House Seats EV” – the expected value (mean) or probability-weighted average of the simulation.
• ”GOP House Seats P90” – the value where the probability of the actual number being lower is 90%. Or, it is the value where the probability of the actual number being higher is 10%.
• ”Probability of 218” – The probability associated with value 218 (the House majority goal).
• ”GOP Gain” – The difference between the GOP EV and the current number of seats (179), rounded down.

Week	GOP House Seats P10	GOP House Seats EV	GOP House Seats P90	Probability of 218	GOP Gain
31-Jul-10	207	211.93	217	8.43%	33
07-Aug-10	205	210.66	216	4.51%	32
14-Aug-10	205	210.56	216	4.44%	32
21-Aug-10	208	212.88	218	11.83%	34
28-Aug-10	211	216.78	220	42.58%	38
04-Sep-10	213	217.53	222	50.40%	39
11-Sep-10	214	219.05	224	66.39%	40
18-Sep-10	214	218.54	223	62.30%	40
25-Sep-10	214	218.46	223	61.17%	39
02-Oct-10	217	220.83	225	83.86%	42
09-Oct-10	219	223.48	228	96.15%	44
16-Oct-10	222	225.93	230	99.33%	47
23-Oct-10	224	228.38	233	99.94%	49
30-Oct-10	227	231.29	236	100.00%	52

And in the Senate...

This final week has brought little change from recent weeks.

In California, Carly Fiorina continues to trail Barbara Boxer, with Boxer gaining an addition 1% over Fiorina. In Colorado, Ken Buck makes back 2% on his lead over Michael Bennet. In Connecticut, Linda MacMahon falls out of the margin of error again. In Illinois, Mark Kirk sustains his 4% lead over Alexi Giannioulias. In Nevada, Sharron Angle edges ahead of Harry Reid with an additional 1% gain. In New Hampshire, Kelly Ayotte pulls safely beyond the margin of error over Paul Hodes. In Pennsylvania, Pat Toomy sustains his 4% lead over Joe Sestak. In Washington, Dino Rossi returns to a 1% lead over Patty Murray. In West Virginia, John Raese trails Joe Manchin again, giving up a 7% lead. In Wisconsin, Ron Johnson sustains his 7% lead over Russ Feingold.

• California 1: -1% (R -32%)
• Colorado 2: +2% (R +4%)
• Connecticut 1: -8% (R -13%) - drops out of the margin of error
• Illinois 2: +0% (R +4%)
• Nevada 2: +1% (R +4%)
• New Hampshire 1: +8% (R +15%) - drops out of the margin of error
• Pennsylvania 2: +0% (R +4%)
• Washington 2: +4% (R +1%)
• West Virginia 1: -10% (R -3%)
• Wisconsin 1: +0% (R +7%)

Using the most recent Rasmussen polls, the results of 32,000 simulated elections are listed in the table below. The definitions of the columns are:

• "GOP Senate Seats P10” – the value where the probability of the actual number being lower is 10%.
• ”GOP Senate Seats EV” – the expected value (mean) or probability-weighted average of the simulation.
• ”GOP Senate Seats P90” – the value where the probability of the actual number being lower is 90%. Or, it is the value where the probability of the actual number being higher is 10%.
• ”Probability of 51” – The probability associated with value 51 (the Senate majority goal).
• ”GOP Gain” – The difference between the GOP EV and the current number of seats (41), rounded down.

Week	GOP Senate Seats P10	GOP Senate Seats EV	GOP Senate Seats P90	Probability of 51	GOP Gain
17-Jul-10	47	48.84	50	6.95%	7
24-Jul-10	47	48.95	50	7.69%	7
31-Jul-10	47	48.18	50	1.29%	7
07-Aug-10	47	48.13	50	1.46%	7
14-Aug-10	47	48.46	50	2.92%	7
21-Aug-10	47	48.69	50	3.05%	7
28-Aug-10	47	48.86	50	5.88%	7
04-Sep-10	48	49.21	51	14.19%	8
11-Sep-10	49	50.08	52	37.67%	9
18-Sep-10	48	48.95	50	3.67%	7
25-Sep-10	47	48.35	49	0.30%	7
02-Oct-10	48	49.7	51	21.47%	8
09-Oct-10	50	50.55	51	58.69%	9
16-Oct-10	49	50.08	51	35.48%	9
23-Oct-10	48	49.7	51	21.70%	8
30-Oct-10	48	49.5	51	14.19%	8

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

Nonsense.

You flip a coin, I guess heads because I know it's a 50-50 probability.

But I'm not "guessing" when a pollster says that candidate A is leading candidate B by 3% with a 4% margin of error. My model, and my equation that fits the model, tells me that a 3% lead with a 4% MOE is equivalent to the leader winning 80.4% of the time.

Perhaps that is the part that you are not understanding.

-PJ

[Tennessean4Bush]

just can't see WA voting an R in there right now

If they don't vote R this year they never will.

[little jeremiah]

Do you have any info about the OR race of DeFazio vs Art Robinson? I heard they were neck and neck but don’t get the local paper and don’t believe it anyway since its editorials are all liberal trash.

DeFazio has been truly thuglike during this campaign. I live in SW OR and see at least 25 or 35 Robinson signs to DeFazio. Maybe even bigger margien. And 0thugga won this county.

[rhinohunter]

You are doing excellent work!

That said, I can't see how a perennial swing district like KY-3 doesn't make the list.

[InterceptPoint]

That said, I can't see how a perennial swing district like KY-3 doesn't make the list.

It's on our Tier 2 list. Been there a long time. It just didn't jump onto the radar screens of most of our "Experts".

[InterceptPoint]

Nice trend. Charts and data have been updated on KHR.

Looking at the plot which just keeps going up makes one wonder if the estimate that is projected by the "Experts" plus the polls is still lagging behind the reality on the ground. One would have expected a flattening of the curve as is the case with the Senate estimate.

Are the "Experts" still running well behind the trend?

Another explanation is the possibility that there are just too many Toss-Ups in the mix. A toss-up is simply an "Expert" refusing to go on the record - a cop out so to speak. To their credit both Sabato and Election Projection do not have any un-called races on their lists. In fact Election Projection doesn't even have a Toss-Up category. Sabato eliminated the category in his final update. It will be interesting to see which of them is has the more accurate projection.

Just to be clear, I'm picking on the "Experts" and perhaps the pollsters but not the simulation which I think is excellent. The current projection of 52 seats is amazingly close to NYT/Silver at 53, Rasmussen at 55 and Sabato at 55 and those are well established pundits.

Anyone who wants to pick on this simulation needs to explain how it is so close to the projections by these well known sources.