View RSS Feed

Perotista

PEROTISTA’S 2018 SENATE and HOUSE FORECAST 1 November 2018

Rate this Entry
PEROTISTA’S 2018 SENATE and HOUSE FORECAST 1 November 2018

I might add another update on the states of Arizona, Nevada, Montana, Indiana, Missouri if warranted prior to the election.

Currently there are 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats in the Current Senate. There are 26 Democratic seats up for re-election vs. 9 for the Republicans.

Safe Democratic seats 20: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota (Klobuchar), Minnesota Special (Smith), New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin.

Democratic at-risk seats of switching 6: Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota.

Safe Republican seats 5: Mississippi (Wicker), Mississippi (Hyde-Smith), Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming

The Republicans have 4 at risk seats of switching this election cycle, Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas.

Arizona Flake R –Republican McSally pulled ahead of Democrat Kyrsten Sinema in three mid-October polls. This was when Green Party candidate Angela Green was polling around 6% of the vote. Since then Green has dropped back to approximately 2% of the vote, Sinema has retaken the lead. Sinema wins a very tight race. Democratic gain R 50 D 50

Florida Nelson D – Nelson has maintained around a three-point lead for the month of October. This is the upper limits of the margin of error, but still within it. With the advantage of incumbency, Nelson holds onto his seat. Democratic hold R 50 D 50

Indiana – Donnelly D – Donnelly’s nay vote on Kavanaugh has vaulted Republican Mike Braun into a slight lead in the last three polls. But these polls haven’t taken Libertarian Candidate Lucy Brenton into consideration. She is polling around 5% of the vote when included. The Libertarian could very well cost Braun the seat. This is a pure coin flip race. Probably decided by one percent or less. Based solely on the advantage of incumbency and thinking the lasting effect of Donnelly nay vote on Kavanaugh doesn’t have legs, I’m going with Donnelly to keep his seat. Democratic Hold R 50 D 50

Missouri McCaskill D – This is the second race that could be decided by less than a single percentage point. McCaskill has been able to keep slightly ahead or even with Republican Hawley by spending 33 million dollars so far to Hawley’s 7 million. Cash on hand is now in Hawley’s favor, he has 3 million to McCaskill’s 2 million. If McCaskill pulls this one out, it will strictly be because of the money advantage she has had since the beginning. But in Missouri, I don’t think that will be enough. McCaskill voted Nay on Kavanaugh although the majority of Missourian’s wanted her to vote AYE. I’m switching Missouri to a Republican gain. R 51 D 49

Montana Tester D – Tester’s nay vote against Kavanaugh hasn’t hurt him. In fact, Tester has increased his lead over Republican Matt Rosendale from two to four points average. Tester wins. Democratic hold. R 51 D 49

New Jersey D – Menendez – I added New Jersey to my watch list due to Menendez having a 5-point lead over Republican challenger Bob Hugin. Menendez lead is just outside the margin of error. I fully expect Menendez to win by close to 8 points. But Hugin keeping this race within single digits in a deep blue state merits the addition. Democratic Hold R 51 D 49

Nevada Heller R – Incumbent Heller has continued his momentum gaining a slight lead over Jacky Rosen which they were tied a month ago. Stick with the candidate that has the momentum. Republican Hold. R 51 D 49

North Dakota Heitkamp D – Incumbent Democrat Heitkamp’s nay vote on Kavanaugh has doomed her chances of reelection in this deep red state. Republican challenger Kevin Cramer has shot up from four-point advantage to double digits. Republican gain. R 52 D 48

Tennessee Corker R – Republican Marsha Blackburn has increased her average polling advantage over ex-Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen to six points through October. Blackburn wins. Republican Hold R 52 D 48

Texas Cruz R – Incumbent Cruz has increased his lead over Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke to seven points average. It seems Republicans in Texas are coming home to back Cruz. Give Beto credit for keeping this close for as long as he did. Republican hold R 52 D 48


Miscellaneous record Keeping – Ohio and Minnesota Special, Smith has been moved from Democratic not competitive to safe Democratic. I moved West Virginia off my watch list to safe Democratic. Then I added New Jersey to my watch list from Democratic non-competitive. Remember Mississippi special (Hyde-Smith) will have a runoff to secure her seat after election day, but her seat is safe Republican. The big news is I switched Missouri from a Democratic hold to a Republican gain. As I stated last month I would address the Kavanaugh fall out in the five deep red states with incumbent Democrats. Tester’s nay vote didn’t hut him in Montana, Heitkamp’s nay vote doomed any chance of reelection for her in North Dakota. Donnelly and McCaskill’s nay votes narrowed their leads to where Donnelly might survive and McCaskill probably won’t. But Indiana and Missouri are so close, those two states could go either way. That closeness was caused by their nay vote on Kavanaugh when most folks in those states wanted an AYE vote. Manchin, the only Democratic senator to vote AYE cemented his reelection in West Virginia.

There’s still a lot of flux in this year’s senate races. The best I can see the Democrats doing is a net gain of one. To accomplish that the Democrats must win both Nevada and Arizona along with winning every seat they have up for reelection outside of North Dakota which is a lost cause. The Republicans if they managed to hang onto Arizona and Nevada, then win Montana, North Dakota, Indiana and Missouri could gain four seats if everything went perfect for them. Neither will happen. The results will be Republicans 52, Democrats 48, a net gain of one seat for the GOP. With 26 seats up for reelection vs 9 for the Republicans, this still would be a huge win for the Democrats in my opinion. Especially considering five of the Democrats seats are in deep red states that Trump won by 20 points or more. Indiana, Missouri, West Virginia, North Dakota and Montana.

House of Representatives

Currently the House of Representative consists of 240 Republicans and 195 Democrats. For 2018 the Republicans have 62 seats at risk of switching parties, up four from last month vs. 8 for the Democrats, up two from last month. The Democrats need a net gain of 23 seats to take control of the House. They’ll gain 38, 15 more than needed. This is the same projected increase as last month. The number of safe seats in the House now stands at 178 seats for the Republicans, 187 for the Democrats. The rest are up for grabs. The new House will have 233 Democrats to 202 Republicans. There is an outside possibility the Democrats could gain as many as 50 seats, not likely, but not out of the realm of possibility. On the Republican side, holding their losses to 30 seats is the minimum losses that are possible. Regardless, the Democrats will regain control of the house, it is now just a question of how many seats.

History
2017
October Senate 51 R 49 D, House 221 R 214 D
November Senate 51 R 49 D, House 221 R 214 D
December Senate 49 R 51 D, House 218 R 217 D
2018
January Senate 50 R 50 D, House 211 R 224 D
February Senate 50 R 50 D, House 213 R 222 D
March Senate 50 R 50 D, House 209 R 226 D
April Senate 49 R 51 D, House 204 R 231 D
May Senate 49 R 51 D, House 207 R 228 D
June Senate 50 R 50 D, House 210 R 225 D
July Senate 50 R 50 D, House 208 R 227 D
August Senate 51 R 49 D, House 206 R 229 D
September Senate 51 R 49 D, House 205 R 230 D
October Senate 51 R 49 D, House 202 R 233 D
November Senate 52 R 48 D, House 202 R 233 D
Categories
Member Blog

Comments

  1. pilot16's Avatar
    Just curious, what do you think changes, if anything, in the Montana senate race now that the libertarian has dropped out and given support to the GOP candidate?
  2. Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    I am going to be cautiously optimistic

    My best case scenario: The democrats win control of both the house and the senate. The Democrats gain 50+ house seats. The democrats win control of the senate by flipping Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee, and Texas while managing to keep control of every vulnerable seat held by Democratic incumbents.

    Final outcome: the 53 Democrats versus 47 Republicans
  3. Perotista's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by pilot16
    Just curious, what do you think changes, if anything, in the Montana senate race now that the libertarian has dropped out and given support to the GOP candidate?
    Hard to tell. Most polls don't include the Libertarian Candidate. The two polls I found that did, Breckenridge received two and three percent. Tester according to RCP has a 4.2 point lead.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ster-6306.html

    but that lead and those polls hadn't included the Libertarian. If and this is a big if, if those who planned on voting for Breckenridge do actually vote for Rosendale, that cuts Tester's lead down to 2 or 3 points. Which would put it within the margin of error. Then there are approximately 7% of the Montana electorate who haven't made up their minds yet.

    I think this bares watching, it could change the dynamics. But I don't think it will change it enough for Tester to lose. If Tester's Kavanaugh Nay vote didn't narrow his lead, Breckenridge dropping out and endorsing the Republican probably won't be enough to put Rosendale over the top.
  4. Perotista's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13
    I am going to be cautiously optimistic

    My best case scenario: The democrats win control of both the house and the senate. The Democrats gain 50+ house seats. The democrats win control of the senate by flipping Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee, and Texas while managing to keep control of every vulnerable seat held by Democratic incumbents.

    Final outcome: the 53 Democrats versus 47 Republicans
    This is indeed over optimistic. I think Tennessee and Texas have moved towards the Republican in each race that I don't think they will flip. Nevada and Arizona are pure tossups in which I made an educational guess at the winner. North Dakota, Heitkampt trailing now by double digits ensure in my mind at least one Democratic loss. Indiana and Missouri are two more states that are pure tossups.

    There have been years, elections where one party or the other wins all the close ones. So minus North Dakota which isn't close picking up Arizona and Nevada while keeping all the rest is possible.

    The reverse is also true.
  5. Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista
    This is indeed over optimistic. I think Tennessee and Texas have moved towards the Republican in each race that I don't think they will flip. Nevada and Arizona are pure tossups in which I made an educational guess at the winner. North Dakota, Heitkampt trailing now by double digits ensure in my mind at least one Democratic loss. Indiana and Missouri are two more states that are pure tossups.

    There have been years, elections where one party or the other wins all the close ones. So minus North Dakota which isn't close picking up Arizona and Nevada while keeping all the rest is possible.

    The reverse is also true.
    But polls are not the entire story, are they? Poll 1000 people and you only get the information of 1000 people.

    This midterm election seems different, people Are energized and early voting numbers have been off the scale.

    After 2016 I no longer take elections for granted.
  6. Perotista's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13
    But polls are not the entire story, are they? Poll 1000 people and you only get the information of 1000 people.

    This midterm election seems different, people Are energized and early voting numbers have been off the scale.

    After 2016 I no longer take elections for granted.
    2016 was unique and unprecedented. The polls basically got it right on the popular vote. But it is the electoral college that elects the president, not popular votes. Popular votes only count in the states determining how the state itself will cast it electoral votes.

    The polls had Clinton winning by 3, she won the popular vote by 2. Well within the margin of error, so the polls were correct.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nton-5491.html

    A rule of the thumb is if the polling figures fall within the margin of error, consider the race a tie. Polls are but a tool to be used to gauge where things stand on any particular day. What we need to do is look at the trends. Is a candidate closing or adding to their lead. This in my opinion is much more important than the numbers the poll provides.

    North Dakota, the trend has been with the Republican, adding to his lead from four to eleven since June. I'd put this one in the safe Republican category. Nevada, Rosen had the lead between 2 to 4 points from April through September. Within the margin of error, but the trend was going her way. Then something happened in Nevada in October. What I don't know. Heller took the lead averaging by two points. Still within the margin of error. But this shows a change in the trend.

    This make Heller the slight favorite, very slight, but with the trend going his way, I picked him. Rosen could easily win, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if she did. It's that close. But in my forecasts, I must pick a winner even if the race is a pure tossup. Nevada is, North Dakota isn't.

    Use polls as a tool, a tool that provide trends. If the trend continues, the Democrats will pick up between 30-45 house seats. The GOP will probably gain one in the senate due to the advantage they have of having only 9 seats up for reelection vs. 26 for the Democrats. If I were a Democrat, I would be very happy to escape 2018 with a net loss of one, considering the numbers up for reelection. That would go down in my book as a victory.
  7. imagep's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13
    But polls are not the entire story, are they? Poll 1000 people and you only get the information of 1000 people.

    This midterm election seems different, people Are energized and early voting numbers have been off the scale.

    After 2016 I no longer take elections for granted.
    Polls aren't the entire story, but it's the best info that we have to go by. If you go by your "feelings", then you are going to be wrong about half the time (unless you are pulling for Alabama Football of course).

    The polling for the 2016 election really wasn't off by much. Every swing vote state that went for trump ended up within the margin of error, and Shillery did win the popular vote as predicted.

    The one thing that polls do really poorly on, is not being able to predict factors such as turnout, and the fact that democrats are simply less motivated to vote than republicans are. I suspect that we tend to become more conservative as we age, and older people are more likely to vote than youngins. Basically, assuming average turnout, we could probably shave a half point off the democrats numbers and add that to the republican number, even more so if turnout is low. High turnout almost always works in favor of democrats.
  8. Perotista's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by imagep
    Polls aren't the entire story, but it's the best info that we have to go by. If you go by your "feelings", then you are going to be wrong about half the time (unless you are pulling for Alabama Football of course).

    The polling for the 2016 election really wasn't off by much. Every swing vote state that went for trump ended up within the margin of error, and Shillery did win the popular vote as predicted.

    The one thing that polls do really poorly on, is not being able to predict factors such as turnout, and the fact that democrats are simply less motivated to vote than republicans are. I suspect that we tend to become more conservative as we age, and older people are more likely to vote than youngins. Basically, assuming average turnout, we could probably shave a half point off the democrats numbers and add that to the republican number, even more so if turnout is low. High turnout almost always works in favor of democrats.
    Simple explanation on how the high voter turnout always helps or seems to help the Democrats. The Democratic Party has always been the larger of the two major parties since FDR. still is. But by a smaller margin than in the 1960's and 70's.

    Trends in Party Identification, 1939-2014 | Pew Research Center
  9. Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista
    Simple explanation on how the high voter turnout always helps or seems to help the Democrats. The Democratic Party has always been the larger of the two major parties since FDR. still is. But by a smaller margin than in the 1960's and 70's.

    Trends in Party Identification, 1939-2014 | Pew Research Center
    Where are the polls of first time voters then? That is a number most polls seem to overlook
  10. Perotista's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13
    Where are the polls of first time voters then? That is a number most polls seem to overlook
    I go look at as many polls as possible. I only seen the question asked whether or not you were a first time voter on exit polls. I never seen it asked prior. Now most polls, let's use the generic congressional poll do ask the age of the participant. Polls then break down the age groups 18-29, 30-44, 45-64 and 65 and older. Question 88. There is a ton of good information if one goes inside these polls and doesn't just look at the horse race number. Take a gander at all the questions asked.

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...nTabReport.pdf

    18-29 Democratic candidate 60-21
    30-44 Democratic candidate 57-28
    45-64 republican candidate 48-42
    65 and older Republican candidate 55-40

    I've found out over the years that the older one gets, the more conservative they usually become. Also older people tend to vote more often than younger ones.

    What has caught my eye is the region numbers. The South, my region, polling wise it is going to the democratic candidates 46-42. I'm not sure I believe that. Then there is the West where one would think would be very strong Democratic. But the west states Democratic Candidate 45-44 over Republican candidates.

    Follow that up by going to question 52A, the favorable ratings of Trump. In the south Trump has a 40% favorable, 52% unfavorable. The west, 41% favorable, 57% unfavorable. This I think explains why the south would be leaning toward the democratic candidates, but not the closeness of the west.
  11. imagep's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista
    Simple explanation on how the high voter turnout always helps or seems to help the Democrats. The Democratic Party has always been the larger of the two major parties since FDR. still is. But by a smaller margin than in the 1960's and 70's.

    Trends in Party Identification, 1939-2014 | Pew Research Center
    Also, republicans tend to be more likely to vote - so when the turnout is unusually large, republican candidates don't gain as many voters as dems do because because most republicans would have voted even if it wasn't a big turnout year. A big turnout tends to mean that dems are more energized to vote, so lot's of dems who aren't normally inclined to vote turn out to vote.

    And you also mentioned older people tend to become more conservative. Since older people are the most likely people to vote, then they contribute a lot towards to skewing our elections towards republicans. A bigger than normal turnout doesn't mean that a lot more older people will turn out, because they already turn out, it means that people who have a lower propensity to vote are showing up at the polls, and those people tend to be younger folks who are more likely to vote for democrats.
  12. imagep's Avatar
    It would seem that the big turnout of early voters would work in dems favor, but I'm thinking it's not really going to this time. I suspect that early voting has just become more popular, not really sure that increases in early votes will translate into an increase in overall voters. And even if it is an indication of a large voter turnout, there doesn't appear to be any evidence that those early voters are democrats. A couple of liberal friends of mine who early voted said that there were few minorities early voting and that they suspected (based upon the chatter that they heard in line) most of the people in line to early voters were republicans.
    Updated 11-05-18 at 06:28 PM by imagep
  13. Perotista's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by imagep
    Also, republicans tend to be more likely to vote - so when the turnout is unusually large, republican candidates don't gain as many voters as dems do because because most republicans would have voted even if it wasn't a big turnout year. A big turnout tends to mean that dems are more energized to vote, so lot's of dems who aren't normally inclined to vote turn out to vote.

    And you also mentioned older people tend to become more conservative. Since older people are the most likely people to vote, then they contribute a lot towards to skewing our elections towards republicans. A bigger than normal turnout doesn't mean that a lot more older people will turn out, because they already turn out, it means that people who have a lower propensity to vote are showing up at the polls, and those people tend to be younger folks who are more likely to vote for democrats.
    Exactly, lots of variables enter the fray. You hit on a lot of them.
  14. Perotista's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by imagep
    It would seem that the big turnout of early voters would work in dems favor, but I'm thinking it's not really going to this time. I suspect that early voting has just become more popular, not really sure that increases in early votes will translate into an increase in overall voters. And even if it is an indication of a large voter turnout, there doesn't appear to be any evidence that those early voters are democrats. A couple of liberal friends of mine who early voted said that there were few minorities early voting and that they suspected (based upon the chatter that they heard in line) most of the people in line to early voters were republicans.
    My take is most early voters are party loyalist who would vote anyway. Early voters are the ones who pay the most attention to government and politics in general. I don't know if early voters gives an advantage to one party or the other. Probably depends on the state and the degree of how many are from each party.

    In other words, a heavy early vote in a deep red state benefits the GOP, same for a deep blue state benefiting the Democrats. I never paid much attention to the early voting stats.
  15. <alt>doxygen's Avatar
    Maybe the polls were not able to capture the effect of that 5 week GOTV for the GOP that the right wing media ecosystem put on. Trump/GOP propaganda was 24/7 on Fox, and I assume the radio syndicates had the same perpetual Fear and Loathing operation going on.
  16. Perotista's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by <alt>doxygen
    Maybe the polls were not able to capture the effect of that 5 week GOTV for the GOP that the right wing media ecosystem put on. Trump/GOP propaganda was 24/7 on Fox, and I assume the radio syndicates had the same perpetual Fear and Loathing operation going on.
    Democrats and liberals go around blaming Fox, Republicans and conservative blame CNN and MSNBC. I think there is little doubt, at least in my mind that those cable news networks are extremely bias in their news reporting. Especially political news. Of course this has been going on for 20 years or perhaps more.

    If Fox was so successful, I don't think trump would be stuck at around 40% approval or the GOP wouldn't have lost the House yesterday. The overall media, the press isn't looked upon with much trust. At the end of 2017 public trust in the media was at 32% to report the news fully, fairly and accurately.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/195542/...s-new-low.aspx

    We, if we are of a conservative nature we flock to Fox, of a liberal nature, to CNN and MSNBC. Those channels are out to make money. The best way is to keep their viewers happy by presenting the news in a way that their viewers want them to. The higher the rating, the more people who watch their networks, the more they can charge for ads and commercials. The more money they can make. So as far as I'm concerned, cable news regardless of the outlet isn't really interested in reporting the political news fully, fairly and accurately. They will slant the news to suit their audience. My two cents on cable news anyway.

Trackbacks

Total Trackbacks 0
Trackback URL: