Projected 2010 Senate: Democrats 52-48 (assuming no caucus switches)
Senate forecast overview
Dems*
GOP
Not up for election
41
23
Currently safe
8
12
Sub-total
49
35
Current polling
2.67
13.33
Projected total
52
48
* = Because they caucus with Senate Democrats, Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are considered Democrats
The 16 Senate seats that might switch partisan control Republicans would have to win all 16 of these campaigns to take control of the Senate (Campaigns where incumbent party currently leads by 18.5% or more are considered "safe," and not listed) Democrats: 2.67 (3)
Republicans: 13.33 (13)
In an attempt to make the Senate forecast a little easier on the eyes, I have produced a chart showing the polling averages only for the current frontrunners for the Democratic and Republican nominations. The full chart, which includes all of the primary campaigns and potential general election matchups, can be found in the extended entry. the methodology and notes to these charts can be found there, too
As disastrous as this looks, it is still possible for Democrats to have a more effective Senate majority in 2011 than they have right now. With filibuster reform pending, a 52-seat Democratic majority might actually be stronger than the current 59-seat incarnation. If the Democratic electoral situation improves, which could happen if the jobless rate declines and if Rasmussen polls become a smaller percentage of the averages, Democrats could keep a 54 or 55 seat majority. If combined with filibuster reform, a majority of that size would make Mary Lanrieu, Ben Nelson, and Joe Lieberman irrelevant.
There is still hope for change yet. More info in the extended entry.
Projected 2010 Senate: Democrats 52-48 (assuming no caucus switches)
****
Due to upward ticks in Illinois and Indiana, Democrats have slightly improved their overall stand this week. They are still at only 52 seats, though, and not much ahead of 51.
Still haven't hit the bottom, but we are close to it. The situation could still get worse in Wisconsin, Missouri and California, even to the point where control of the Senate becomes a question mark.
Senate forecast overview
Dems*
GOP
Not up for election
41
23
Currently safe
8
12
Sub-total
49
35
Current polling
2.65
13.35
Projected total
52
48
* = Because they caucus with Senate Democrats, Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are considered Democrats
The 16 Senate seats that might switch partisan control (Campaigns where incumbent party currently leads by 18.5% or more are considered "safe," and not listed) Democrats: 2.65 (3)
Republicans: 13.35 (13)
Projected 2010 Senate: Democrats 52-48 (assuming no caucus switches)
****
Evan's Bayh's departure has dropped Democrats down nearly a full seat in the forecast. At this point, Democrats are barely projected to even reach 52 seats.
Republicans are still not in a position to retake the Senate, fortunately. However, as I mentioned earlier in the week, if George Pataki (NY), Rino Rossi (WA) or Tommy Thompson (WI) were to enter the fray, then they would be.
An we are nowhere close to the bottom, either. Even if the senate picture improves a bit for Democrats in 2010, from 2012-2014 Democrats must defend 43 of the 66 Senate seats up for election. Given that Barack Obama will still be President in 2012, and that the economy will still probably stink, Democrats are going to the party in charge that voters blame for at least the 2012 elections (ala Republicans in 2008, even though Democrats controlled the House). In other words, we are not going to hit the bottom until sometime around 2013-2015.
This continued plummet is just so damn frustrating. If we had passed, as Matthew Yglesias wrote, what progressives had wanted:
- A $1.2 trillion stimulus.
- The forcible breakup of large banks.
- Universal health care with a public option linked to Medicare rates.
- An economy-wide cap on carbon emissions, with the permits auctioned.
- Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
- A path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
- An exit strategy from Afghanistan.
- An end to special exemption of military spending from fiscal discipline.
- An independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
- The Employee Free Choice Act.
If all that had passed, plus D.C. representation, then really it wouldn't be so bad. For one thing, the political situation probably be a bit better (because the economy would be a bit better and activists would be really pumped). For another thing, at that point I would just say fine, you can have the Senate back--we made a big difference that will change the country for a generation.
But none of that list passed. Instead, we are looked at a huge wasted opportunity, and a massive electoral disaster to boot. Great, just great.
The complete Senate forecast chart can be found in the extended entry.
Projected 2010 Senate: Democrats 53-47 (assuming no caucus switches)
Democrats continue their downward spiral in the Senate forecast, reaching their lowest point to date. Right now, Democrats are forecasted to win only 52.63 seats, and there hasn't been upward movement in a while.
One positive sign is that Senate Democrats are increasingly warming to the possibility of destroying the filibuster. Today, after the filibuster of a routine nominee, Senators Leahy and Levin signaled their openness to filibuster reform:
"I'm in my thirty-sixth year. I've never seen anything like it," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), noting that no previous Republican Senate leader would have allowed his party to filibuster such a routine nomination.
Leahy said that the overuse of filibusters by the GOP was leading Democrats to consider ways to modify it.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), another long-serving member, said that abuse of the filibuster is unsustainable. "I think it will either fall of its own weight -- it should fall of its own weight -- or it will fall after some massive conflict on the floor, which has happened in the past where there have been rulings from the chair that have led to reform," Levin told the Huffington Post, adding that the filibuster should be restricted to major issues.
Of course, Democrats will have to maintain control of the Senate in order to destroy the filibuster (it can be done on the first say the Senate is in session next year, with only 50 votes plus the Vice-President). As the Senate chart shows in the extended entry, they still have a good chance to do so, barring significant downward movement in the California, Indiana, Missouri and Wisconsin Senate campaigns.
Following up on last night's Illinois primary, Republican nominee Mark Kirk releases an internal poll showing up ahead by 12% against Democratic nominee Alexis Giannoulias:
Magellan Strategies for Mark Kirk (R)
2/2/10; 885 likely voters, 3.3% margin of error Kirk: 47%
Giannoulias: 35%
Now, because this is an internal poll, and was conducted on only one night, many people will be prone to doubt it. However, this is the first poll to be released since the banking scandal around Giannoulias broke, making it entirely possible that the campaign has changed dramtically. Further, Charles Franklin has previous noted that internal polls favor the candidate who purchased them by an average of 5%. Even with that deviation in mind, it would not be surprising in the slightest that Giannoulias has taken a huge hit with the general voting population as a result of the scandal.
While we should wait for more polls to draw any conclusions, this seems to suggest the worst fears of those who thought Giannoulias became a severely damaged candidate from the banking scandal were warranted. Now, Illinois is up from grabs, threatening to become a second Massachusetts.
Also, it had previously escaped my notice that there is an Indiana poll featuring Evan Bayh versus an announced Republican candidate, John Hostettler. That poll shows Bayh leading by only 3%, 44%-41%. No word on what polling will look like with newly announced Republican Dan Coates in the campaign.
The New York campaign is included in this chart, but will not appear in the overall forecast because it is not quite close enough (I only forecast campaigns where the incumbent part leads by less than 18.50%).
Senate forecast overview
Democrats*
Republicans
Not up for election
41
23
Currently safe
8
12
Sub-total
49
35
Current polling
3.93
12.07
Projected total
53
47
* = Because they caucus with Senate Democrats, Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are considered Democrats
This sidecar update drops Democrats down to a projected 53 seats after 2010, equaling their lowest point in the forecast. It also opens the door, ever so slightly, to the prospect of Republicans actually taking control of the Senate after 2010. With only 49 safe Democrats seats, and with big potential Republican recruits still possible in Wisconsin (Tommy Thompson) and New York (George Pataki), Republicans may yet control the Senate in 2011-2012. Even Washington State may yet enter the realm of competitive campaigns, depending on Republican recruiting there.
Projected 2010 Senate: Democrats 54-46 (assuming no caucus switches)
News
Illinois primary tonight. The Illinois primary is tonight. For our purposes at Open Left, the Democratic Senate primary is the featured matchup. It is likely that either Alexis Giannoulisor David Hoffman will win. Giannoulis has long been the frontrunner, and is perhaps the more lefty candidate. However he has recently been beset with a banking scandal, is spinning his wheels in the polls and, even before the scandal, trailed Hoffman badly among people who know both candidates. As such, Giannoulis's polling advantage is probably a mirage.
Arkansas--Blanche Lincoln is toast. I hope Blanche Lincoln enjoyed her time in the Senate, because it will end in less than a year. New Arkansas polling from PPP put her down 23 points to forthcoming challenger John Boozman. Rasmussen has her down by 19%. At this point, running a primary challenger against Blanche Lincoln has more to do with electability than anything else. Given her deficit, there is no real point or possibility of pushing her to the left. She is done.
Florida--Charlie Crist is also toast. As the charts in the extended entry show, Marco Rubio has taken a substantial, 7.2% lead on Charlie Crist in the Florida Republican primary. It is hard to see any conceivable way that an incumbent comes back from such a deficit, given the extremely pro-Rubio trendlines. This is a political environment where being in prominent, elected office is bad for a campaign.
It is also worth noting that Crist's demise does not help presumptive Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek at all. Meek currently trails Rubio by 11.8%, compared to his 10.2% deficit against Crist. IT is difficult for me to see how Meek overcomes that sort of deficit, given the current political environment and strong, pro-Rubio trendlines. Florida is rapidly moving out of play.
Massachusetts--Scott Brown to be sworn in on February 11th. Scott Brown will be sworn in on Friday, February 11th, at 12:45 p.m. Given that Democrats only reached 60, active, voting Senators on Friday, September 25th, at 3:30 p.m., that means the Democratic supermajority for 138 days, 21 hours, and 15 minutes. Hope they enjoyed it because, as the forecast shows in the extended entry, it won't be coming back anytime soon.
Complete forecast charts can be found in the extended entry.
Projected 2010 Senate: Democrats 54-46 (assuming no caucus switches)
Even though it is only January, developments in the 2010 Senate picture keep coming in every day. So, it is time for another major update to the Senate picture.
****
Today's forecast shows the Democratic situation has improved in a number of states: Missouri, Colorado, Nevada, and North Carolina. Much of this was due to new statewide polling from Polimetrix. While those all of those states except Missouri still show significant leans, they have moved back into more competitive territory.
While still grim, the situation is far from hopeless for Democrats. A national swing of 3%--which is very doable given the dominance of Rasmussen in the polls here and if the employment situation improves--would add another 2 seats to their total. Keeping a majority of 56 seats would actually be pretty respectable, given that Republicans haven't had a majority like that since the 1928 elections.
Senate forecast overview
Democrats*
Republicans
Not up for election
41
23
Currently safe
9
12
Sub-total
50
35
Current polling
3.68
11.32
Projected total
54
46
* = Because they caucus with Senate Democrats, Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are considered Democrats
The 15 currently competitive Senate campaigns ("Competitive" is defined as campaigns where incumbent party currently leads by 18% or less in current polling among announced candidates) Democrats: 3.68 (4)
Republicans: 11.32 (11)
The continuing Democratic decline in the Senate forecast led me to start wondering: could Republicans actually retake the Senate in 2010?
While it remains a real longshot, Republicans are only one or two more top recruits from actually putting the Senate in play.
Here are the current Senate matchups that polling shows to be within 18% or closer. For the sake of clarity, only the leaders of the most recent primary poll is included:
That is a pretty bad environment for Democrats. However, even if Republicans win every single one of these campaigns--which right now is not very likely at all--they would still only have 50 seats in the Senate. Since Joe Biden would still be Vice-President, Democrats would retain control even in that nightmare scenario.
So, in order to retake the Senate, Republicans are going to have to put more seats into play. Here are their best options:
* = Poll from February 2009. Political environment has significantly worsened for Democrats since that time.
Before any of the 19 campaigns listed here are decided, Democrats have a 47-34 edge in the Senate. Since Democrats hold the tiebreaker, in order to retake the Senate, Republicans need to win 17 of these campaigns. This means they need at least one of the three recruits in the "potential" section before they even have a shot. And, even then, they would need to shoot the moon.
While it is an extreme longshot that Republicans retake the Senate, that it is even possible at all is quite remarkable. It is a testament to just how negative the political situation has become for Democrats.
Jan 25 Senate update: Democratic loss of 6.01 seats (six)
Change from Jan 21: Democrats down 1.21 seats
Project 2010 Senate: Democrats 53-47 (assuming no caucus switches)
In what is becoming almost a daily routine, today brings even more bad news for Democrats in the 2010 Senate outlook.
In Delaware, Beau Biden has declared he is not running. This means Delaware from a 38% chance for a Democratic victory to, pending the announcement of another Democratic candidate, a 0% chance of victory.
In Indiana, Evan Bayh might actually be in real trouble. A new Rasmussen poll shows Bayh losing to Representative Mike Pence, 47%-44%. The NRSC has been trying to recruit Pence into the campaign, and he would also be a favorite of the teabaggers. This would give Pence a nice combination of grassroots and establishment support, plus a strong poll standing to start with. So, throw another potential Republican pickup opportunity onto the pile:
These two shifts push Democratic chances down further, to a loss of 6.01 seats (from 4.80 seats). This makes a 53-47 Democratic majority currently the most likely outcome based on polling, primary outcomes, and recruiting.
This is turning into a bloodbath. The Senate Forecast methodology can be found here.
Jan 21 Senate update: Democratic loss of 4.80 seats (five)
Change from Jan 20: Democrats down 0.49 seats
Project 2010 Senate: Democrats 54-46 (assuming no caucus switches)
Adding to the sense of impending collapse, Democrats hit a new low in today's Senate forecast update. For the first time, I am now projecting Democrats to retain only 54 seats in the Senate--and that includes independents Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders. New polling from California (Field), Missouri (Rasmussen), North Carolina (PPP) and Pennsylvania (Rasmussen) were the contributing factors to this downgrade.
It is worth noting that North Carolina is one of only two Senate campaigns in the country right now (Illinois is the other) where the likely Democratic nominee, Elaine Marshall, is trending up:
This also happens to be only one of two campaigns (Louisiana is the other) where Democrats are seriously looking to knock off a Republican incumbent. I will have to look into this more, but I wonder if competitive seats featuring a Republican incumbent will be easier for Democrats to win than competitive open seats. This thought makes me cautiously optimistic about North Carolina.
The situation continues to deteriorate for Democrats. Even after Massachusetts, Republicans have six pickup opportunities better than the top Democratic pickup chance (Missouri). They have a 7th opportunity, Illinois, equal to Missouri.
So, now that the country and the Democratic Party face major crises, what's the Democratic response? Claim they can't do anything! (emphasis mine)
Dem Talking Points On Brown Victory
MASSACHUSETTS ELECTION MEANS THAT SENATE REPUBLICANS HAVE MORE RESPONSIBILITY TO GOVERN, NOT OBSTRUCT
· We welcome Scott Brown to the Senate.
· While Senator-elect Brown's victory changes the political math in the Senate, it does not change the challenges are country faces or the need to address them.
· We remain committed to strengthening our economy, creating good paying jobs and ensuring all Americans can access affordable health care.
· Senate Republicans have an obligation to the American people to join us in governing our nation through these difficult times and to help clean up the mess they left behind.
· It is mathematically impossible for Democrats to pass legislation on our own. Senate Republicans to come to the table with ideas for improving our nation and not obstructionist tactics.
Based on that model, I feel pretty confident Scott Brown will not win by as much as 6.9%, as Pollster.com is currently estimating. Unfortunately, I feel pretty confident Scott Brown will win anyway. The polling is converging and, as such, so are the electoral forecasts.
Further, the error in my model will probably favor Brown at this point. This is because the polls from the second to last week of the campaign are more favorable to Coakley than the polls over the final week. A report by NCPP showed that polls taken in the second to last week of the campaign are about 15% less accurate than polls taken during the final week of the campaign. While I have not yet tested to see if applying this negative 15% weight to polls taken during the penultimate week of the campaign would produce even more accurate results, I suspect it would.
So, I think it will be closer than many are forecasting, but I still think Scott Brown will win. While a Coakley win is not out of the question, at this point it is not very likely.
Charles Franklin of Pollster.com, whose polling analysis I respect greatly, has posted an article claiming:
But no matter how you slice the data, the only reasonable conclusion is that Scott Brown has moved from well behind to a lead somewhere between 4 and 11 points.
I disagree, for two reasons:
Pollster.com methodology over-emphasizes recent polls. There is empirical evidence that Franklin's methodology overemphasizes recent polls (that is, polls in the final week of the campaign over polls in the second and third weeks). In this case, that means Pollster.com is probably overstating the rapid shift toward Brown.
As I noted on Friday, here is a comparison of the 2008 average error rates from final estimation to final vote margin for 538 (which weights polls on a variety of factors, including recentness), Pollster.com (whose Loess method pretty much only weights polls on recentness) and a simple, 15-day mean which does not weight polls based on recentness (or really, anything at all):
Error rates, final predicted margin to final vote margin, 52 closest campaigns, 2008
Pollster
538
Simple 15-day mean
Mean error
2.76
2.88
2.56
Median error
2.14
2.16
1.68
By not placing any extra weight on more recent polling, the simple, 15-day mean actually produced results about 22% more accurate on the median than more recentness-focused methodologies. This wasn't a fluke, either. Looking back to 2004, across 143 campaigns, including older polls at equal weight did not harm the accuracy of the simple mean:
Mean error rate, various date ranges, simple polling mean, 143 campaigns, 2004-2009
30-day
25-day
20-day
15-day
10-day
Mean error
2.63
2.60
2.56
2.54
2.59
All of this makes it a good bet that the Pollster.com trendline is overstating the trend toward Brown. It doesn't mean that the trend doesn't exist, just that it is smaller than the trend posited by Franklin.
It is likely that there are a lot of flawed polls on the campaign. There is a very good reason not to trust the available data (aka, the polling) on the Massachusetts special election. Later in the same article, Franklin notes:
Finally but significantly, we are seeing more pollster variation in this race than normal. If we look at the residuals around the trend estimates, past experience with 2004, 2006 and 2008 state and national contests has pretty consistently found that most of the polls (about 95%) fall within +/- 5 points of the trend estimate. Now that is an empirical observation, not a theoretical one.(...)
Only half of the current polls are inside +/-5 points of the linear trends.
Normally, 19 out of 20 polls group together, which also happens to be the percentage of polls that should group together given polling error rates. But in this case, the polls are not grouping together at all. Half of all polls on the special election are outliers. The odds of this occurring naturally are astronomical--how often does a 1 in 20 shot happen 5 times out of 10?.
There are two more likely explanations for the outlying data: a rapidly trending campaign, or massive error in the polls. Now as I explained above, apparent rapid movement in a Democratic vs. Republican campaign turns out to be illusory--or at least significantly overstated--more often than not. As such, this means the most likely explanation is that the polling data is itself f*cked heavily flawed.
If the polling data is heavily flawed, then we are potentially dealing with a situation that outlies from the 4-11% Scott Brown lead that Franklin posited based on existing data. In that scenario, is it more likely that Scott Brown is ahead by less than 4%, or that he is ahead by more than 11%? I agree that Scott Brown may well win--I actually give him a 48% chance at this point. However, the idea that he will win by more than 11% strains credulity. As Nate Silver notes, such a Scott Brown victory would require the electorate in Massachusetts to be more conservative than the country as a whole. Not bloody likely.
As such, one can be reasonable, and conclude based empirical observations of polling dynamics that Scott Brown is ahead by less than 4%, or even slightly behind. There is good reason to believe that much of the polling data (cough, Pajamas Media, cough) is screwy, and overstating the extent of Scott Brown's rise.
I rate this campaign as extremely close, and believe it will be decided by less than 2%. The forecasts currently showing the campaign as "lean Brown" are overstating the extent of Scott Brown's rise. This is both because a focus on late polls has historically overstated campaign trends, and because it is likely there is something screwy in the existing data.
Based on a study I conducted of the 143 closet, statewide general elections from 2004-2009, I have been making some bold predictions in the Massachusetts Senate race of late. Even though virtually every other election forecaster has moved this campaign to "toss-up" or "lean Brown" arguing that it is still "lean Coakley."
According to that study, Coakley would still have a 67% chance to win. This is because the final, 15-polling average erred by at least 1.09% in 94 of the 143 elections in the study, and since there are equal chances the polls could be wrong in favor of either candidate. Given how few elections ever come so close to even odds, that is close enough for me to describe the election as a "toss-up."
However, this is a special election, not a general election. Even though some local election officials are seeing signs that turnout will be very high, perhaps it is best not to apply a general election study to this campaign, but instead to use a study of primary and special election results. As such, today I looked at the 37 closest (final polling margin within 18.50%) Presidential primaries in 2008, along with the two general, House special elections in 2009. The study compared Pollster.com's final estimates for those 39 campaigns with the simple polling mean of the last-15 days of those campaigns. Here are the results:
Primary and special election error, 39 campaigns
Pollster.com
Simple 15-day
Mean error
7.03
6.41
Median error
5.76
4.80
Closest
18
20
Two things jump out from this chart. First, the simple, 15-day polling mean again proved slightly more accurate. Second, the error rate from both methods is catastrophic--more150% the error for general elections.
If this election is more akin to a Presidential primary and a special election for the U.S. House, then Coakley's chances of winning are 56% in my methodology (which is extremely close to Nate Silver's 57% estimate), and only 12% according to Pollster.com's current trendline (Brown +7.9%). That is a clear toss-up on my end, and a strong lean toward Brown at Pollster.com.
Next, I took the comparison a step further Looking only at the 13 campaigns for which Pollster.com used its ''Loess' iterative locally weighted least squares regression" (which it only does with campaigns with eight or more polls), and where Pollster.com differed from the 15-day, simple mean by 2.1% or more, I ran some more numbers:
Primary and special election error, 13 late trending campaigns
Pollster.com
Simple 15-day
Mean error
7.46
8.38
Median error
7.36
6.46
Closest
8
5
These 13 cases compare apparent late-trending campaigns. These are important, because my 15-day simple methodology should miss the late trends (because I weight older polls more heavily) while the more sensitive, Loess regression should better pick up the trend. Although the error rate for both methods is terrible, although there are few cases, and although the simple, 15-day mean does better in terms of median error, the Loess regression still does a slightly better job overall of predicting the final results. In 8 out of 13 cases, putting more weight on later polls through a regression method was more accurate.
Now, it should be noted that there are a couple of famous cases where the simple 15-day mean accurately predicted that an apparent, massive late trend was overstated: the 2008 New Hampshire Democratic primary, and the 2009 New York 23rd special election. In both cases, which happen to be the two most prominent of the 13 in the final "study," the simple 15-day mean picked up a much smaller amount of movement toward Barack Obama and Doug Hoffman respectively. It still predicted the wrong winners (just like everyone else), but the elections were predicted to be very close and the eventual error rate was less than catastrophic.
Add it all up, and the campaign is, from a Democratic perspective, a toss-up at best. My gut, and my research, tells me that it won't be a runaway Scott Brown victory, ala the Pollster.com trendline. If I were to go out on a limb without any hard data, I would drop the Pajamas Media poll, and weight the pre-January 12th polls at only 85% of their value. That shows Coakley by 2.3%. If for no other reason, I like that as a prediction (barring more polls), because it still allows me to be contradictory with everyone else. As an election forecaster, when you are lacking a definitive conclusion, it is best to go against the herd. There is just more of an upside to being right in those cases.
However, even I can't deny that the numbers are improving for Brown seemingly everyday, and that he has a good chance of winning right now.
A 3.00% lead for Coakley gives her an 83% chance of victory, according to my numbers. To put it a different way, of the 143 closest elections from 2004-2009, in 48 cases the final polling margin differed from the final result by 3.00% or more. This means the candidate leading by 3.00% has an 83% chance of victory.
Does this conflict with other election forecasters right now? Of course! In fact, the main reason I rolled out my new election forecasting method today, along with the research backing it up, it precisely because it conflicts with other election forecasters. I had been excited about this new methodology for a while, but what better time to introduce it then when it conflicts with virtually all other election forecasters?
I could end up looking like an idiot. It wouldn't be the first time. However, I believe there is strong evidence that this is the most accurate method currently available. Right now, my numbers still put Coakley at a clear advantage, and I am kind excited that everyone disagrees with me (which, in my experience, usually means I will end up looking like an idiot).
(Just to be clear, in case I turn out to be way off, this forecast is mine, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of anyone else at Open Left. - promoted by Chris Bowers)
The new consensus among election forecasters is that the Massachusetts special election is a "toss-up." Stuart Rothenberg, Charlie Cook and Nate Silver have all described the election as such. Pollster.com only shows Coakley ahead by 1.9%, which probably qualifies as a toss-up in their book.
This is a case where I am going to disagree with the consensus of election forecasters, and instead argue that the Massachusetts Senate campaign still shows a distinct lean toward Democratic nominee Martha Coakley. I do this not based upon a desire to be contradictory, but instead upon a different reading of the empirical evidence available on the campaign.
As the only empirical data on voter preference available, polling data remains at the heart of any election forecast. My research into the accuracy of various methods of reading polling data shows that the most accurate method still gives Martha Coakley a decided edge in the campaign.
(While it is quite possible the Black Rock poll is juiced, until proof of that emerges, it will remain in the average. Also, there are rumors of internal polling, but until those polls are released to the public, I am not including them.).
The simple mean of the eight polls conducted, and released to the public, on the campaign in 2010 still show Martha Coakley ahead by 3.75%. That may not sound like a lot, but from 2004-2009, only 34 of the closest 143 campaigns for President (both state-level and national), Senate and Governor saw a swing of greater than 3.75% from the final, 15-day, simple polling mean to the final result. Further, my research shows that the final, 15-day, simple polling mean was more accurate than any election website in predicting the results of these elections. As such, I still see Martha Coakley as the strong favorite in this campaign. Even with the Black Rock poll included, I still give her an 88% chance to win.
It is pretty bold to claim that I have a more accurate means of predicting elections than websites like Pollster.com and fivethirtyeight, especially given that both websites took me to school in 2008. In the extended entry, I explain the basis for this claim, and in so doing the basis for arguing that Martha Coakley is still the favorite in Massachussets.
Massachusetts--Coakley up by 8%: A new poll on the Massachusetts Senate campaign shows Martha Coakley up by 8% over Scott Brown, 49%--41%. This is precisely in line with the overall polling average, which now gives Coakley a lead of 8.2%, down / up from 8.2% yesterday. Coakley's win % remains at 91%.
Just in case there was any doubt, a Coakley loss means that health care reform is over. Expect some Blue Dogs to balk at any bill if Scott Brown wins, and expect some Progressives to balk at voting for the Baucus version of the bill if Brown wins.
Connecticut--Blumenthal dominant, Lieberman despised: Quinnipiac is the latest polling firm to find Richard Blumnthal way, way ahead for Senate in Connecticut. He leads the Demcoratic primary 85%-4%, and the general election by 35% over Rob Simmons and 41% over Linda McMahon. This campaign ended the day that Dodd retired, and Blumenthal entered. I only follow general elections within 18.50%, so unless something changes dramatically, this will not appear on my Senate forecast updates.
Also of note--Quinnipiac provides further evidence that Joe Lieberman suffered real damage from his actions on the health care bill:
Connecticut voters disapprove 54 - 39 percent of the job Sen. Joseph Lieberman is doing, one point off his worst grade ever and a steep drop from a 49 - 44 percent approval November 12. Republicans approve 61 - 35 percent while Democrats disapprove 67 - 27 percent and independent voters disapprove 57 - 36 percent.
It is small comfort, but Joe Lieberman's health care backstab made him very unpopular in Connecticut. This is probably his last term in the Sneate.
Nevada--polling alternatives to Reid: A new PPP poll looks at alternatives to Harry Reid in the Nevada Senate race. The results are not good for Democrats:
PPP tested Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, and Secretary of State Ross Miller as possible alternatives to Reid.
Goodman comes out the best, leading Lowden 42-40 and tied with Tarkanian at 41. 43% of voters in the state have a favorable opinion of him to 21% unfavorable, and he's viewed positively by Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
Berkley and Miller both post numbers pretty similar to Reid. Berkley trails Lowden and Tarkanian by identical eight point margins and Miller has a 10 point deficit against Tarkanian and an 11 point one against Lowden.
The problem for Democrats is that Oscar Goodman is already mulling a run for Governor--and as an independent, not as a Democrat. As such, it is highly unlikely that Democrats would ever clear the field for him. and he is, um, colorful. He really is more Governor material than Senate material.
Ignoring the numerous horserace machups in the PPP poll for a moment, here are the favorable ratings of the candidates they polled:
Oscar Goodman (I): Favorable 43%--21% Unfavorable
Danny Tarkanian (R): Favorable 33%--24% Unfavorable
Sue Lowden (R): Favorable 29%--22% Unfavorable
Ross Miller (D): Favorable 18%--16% Unfavorable
Shelley Berkley (D): Favorable 27%--27% Unfavorable
Harry Reid's favorables were not tested, but he does have an approval rating of 36%--58%. This likely makes Shelley Berkley a better bet. Even if she doesn't poll better right now, she has more potential.
Ohio--Brunner closes gap on Fisher: Rasmussen has new numbers on the Ohio Senate race. Like their December numbers, they show Republican frontrunner Rob Portman ahead of both major Democrats. In a reverse of their December numbers, Jennifer Brunner (down 3%) does better than Lee Fisher (down 7%). In December, Brunner trailed by 7%, and Fisher trailed by 2%.
Here are updated victory odds for the Ohio Senate race, looking only at Brunner vs. Portman and Fisher vs. Portman:
The DSCC has threatened to back Fisher over Brunner's lack of funding and her standing in the polls, but this poll might cause them to step back a bit.
In Ohio, the filing deadline for the Democratic primary is February 18th, and the primary is on May 4th. In Nevada, the filing deadline is on March 12th, and the primary is on June 8th. See all filing deadlines and primary dates here.
The big change in this forecast is the inclusion of win percentages for each campaign. The win percentage is based on if the election were held today. The specific percentage is based on my research into the 138 closest statewide campaigns from 2004-2009. It projects the likelihood of a Democratic victory given the current polling average.
In campaigns where the general election matchup has not been decided, the win percentage used in the overall forecast features the two candidates I believe will win their respective primaries. That number can be seen in boldface in the win % column. The number is usually based on polling, but is not entirely based on polling. For example, I believe that Rubio will be the Republican nominee in Florida, even though polling says otherwise right now.
Overall, the inclusion of win percentages has very slightly improved the Democratic position in the forecast. Two weeks ago, I projected Democrats would have 55 Senators in 2011-2012. Today, I project 56.
