Skip to comments.Political Junkie's Guide To The Elections - Week Ending October 27, 2012 (Senate Slowly Swinging)
Posted on 10/27/2012 2:21:24 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too
October 20, 2012
October 13, 2012
August 11, 2012
August 4, 2012
July 21, 2012
Premier - July 4, 2012
Here is the latest update of my Rasmussen state-by-state presidential model.
The model begins with the final results of the 2008 election, and updates those results with current Rasmussen state polls as they are published.
Final 2008 Electoral College results were Obama 365, McCain 173. My model begins with Obama 364, McCain 174, due to not handling the few split-win states.
Furthermore, 2010 apportionment favored Republicans, leaving us with a starting point of Obama 358, Romney 180.
This Edition's Updates:
The Race for the White House
Since the last report, Romney is finally pulling ahead of Obama. Obama's Electoral College count has gone down from 259 to 243 Electoral Votes. Romney has risen from 248 to 261, leaving 34 EV up for grabs. Romney's lead is soft, however, because he has to defend 48 Leaning Electoral Votes to Obama's 6. Obama has a stronger base of 237 Electoral Votes to Romney's 217.
If the election were held today, the race would be nearly tied. Probabilistically, Romney has 266 Electoral Votes, and a 44% chance of winning, up from 36% last week. If I add a Democrat bias adjustment to the model, Romney has 291 EV (and a P90 of 317) with an 85% chance of winning.
This week, Rasmussen polled Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Let's look at each state.
In Arizona, Romney sustained his 52% support, while Obama gained +2% from a late September poll to 44%. Arizona remains Safe for Romney.
In Colorado, Romney is pulling ahead of Obama. Romney gained +1% from two weeks ago to 50%. Obama lost -2% to 46%. Colorado moves from Toss-up to Strong for Romney, giving Romney 9 Electoral votes.
In Florida, the race tightened again this week. Romney lost -1% to 50%, and Obama gained +2% to 48%. Florida downgrades from Strong to Leans for Romney.
In Iowa, Romney gained +1% and Obama lost -1% from two weeks ago. Iowa is now tied at 48%, and moves from Leans Obama to Toss-up, and takes away 6 Electoral votes from Obama.
In Nevada, a re-poll from last week shows Obama sustaining his 50%, but Romney gained +1% to 48%. Nevada remains Leans Obama.
In New Hampshire, another re-poll from last week reverses the positions of Obama and Romney. Obama falls from 50% to 48%, while Romney gains from 49% to 50%. New Hampshire moves from Toss-up to Leans Romney, adding another 4 Electoral Votes for Romney.
In North Carolina, yet another re-poll from last week shows the state is unchanged at 52%-46% for Romney. North Carolina remains Strong for Romney.
In Ohio, a re-poll from last week shows Obama losing his +1% lead. Romney remained steady, making Ohio tied at a 48% Toss-up.
In Pennsylvania, the state is unchanged from two weeks ago. Obama still leads by 51%-46%. Pennsylvania remains Strong for Obama.
In Virginia, the fourth consecutive week of polling has Romney holding onto his 50%, while Obama gains +1% to 48%. Virginia remains a Lean for Romney.
In Wisconsin, the third week of polls has Obama losing -1% each week from 51% to 49%. Romney gained back the +1% he lost last week, making the state a 49% tie. Wisconsin moves back into Toss-Up, and 10 Electoral votes are taken away from Obama.
Below is the latest round of state poll movements. The first number is the change in GOP result from the last poll (or last election if no prior poll), and the second number is the separation from the Democrat candidate's result.
Summary of Electoral College breakdown
|Obama - 243||Romney - 261|
|3||District of Columbia||16||Michigan||18||Ohio||13||Virginia||16||Georgia||3||Alaska|
2008 Final Results
Link to 2008 Final Election Map
Current State Leanings
Link to Current Electoral College Map
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:
Link to Probability Chart
And over in the Senate...
The Republican GOP Senate campaign has made slight gains this week, taking back one seat. Republicans were looking at a near certainty to take control of the Senate before the conventions.
This is the latest run of my Rasmussen state-by-state Senate model.
The model begins with the final results of the last Class 1 election, and I will update those results with current Rasmussen state polls as they are published.
Final 2010 Senate results were Republicans taking 47 seats, and Democrats caucusing 53 seats. My model begins with here.
As of now, the Senate looks to be a 51-49 Democrat hold, with a probability of 19.2% for Republicans taking over. If I add the same Democrat bias correction as above, the Seneate becomes a 52-48 take-over for Republicans, with an 86% chance of occuring.
Since the last report, Rasmussen polled Arizona, Connecticut, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin Senate races.
In Arizona, both Republican Flake and Democrat Carmona gained +3%, keeping the race a +6% lead for Flake at 50%-44% and a hold for Republicans.
In Connecticut, the past two weeks shows a +1% gain for Republican McMahon and a -3% loss for Democrat Murphy, making the race now a 48%-47% lead for Murphy. Hopefully, the momentum is swinging in McMahon's direction.
In Minnesota, the first poll of the election shows Democrat Klobucher easily keeping her seat with a 56%-33% lead over Repulican Bills.
In Nevada, the third poll in a row shows Republican Heller holding onto his 50%, but Democrat Berkley gained back the +2% she lost two weeks ago. The race is now a 50%-45% Hold for Republicans.
In North Dakota, the first poll since mid-July has Republican Berg gaining +1% to 50%, but Democrat Heitkamp is closing with a +5% gain to 45%. The race is a pick-up for Republicans that they haven't given back.
In Ohio, a third week of polling has the Democrat Brown losing -1% and Republican Mandel unchanged. The race is now 48%-44% for Brown, and a Hold for Democrats.
In Virginia, a fourth week of polling has the race closing in. Over the month, Republican Allen gained +3% and Democrat Kaine lost -3%, making the race 49%-48% Hold for Kaine.
In Wisconsin, Republican Thompson gained +1% from two weeks ago, and Democrat Baldwin lost -5%. The race is now 48%-46% pick-up for Republicans, and a re-take of a lost gain in the race.
Below is the latest round of state polls. The first number is the change in GOP result from the last poll (or seat election if no prior poll), and the second number is the separation from the Democrat candidate's result.
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:
Link to Senate Probability Chart
Voted for Hoekstra here hoping for the upset.
Voted for Hoekstra here hoping for the upset.
It would be excellent to win the Senate, but politically dangerous. If we control it all and the economy isn’t moving 4 years hence the GOP will be hard pressed to hold on.
Exactly what has happened to cause Obama to gain points in Florida this week? New York liberals moving down for the winter, and getting ready to vote a second time?
They said that Republicans were so used to being in the minority that they didn't know how to (or were just plain uncomfortable at) using majority tactics.
Republicans shouldn't fear leading, but I'm afraid that they too often cower from power.
Just like how liberals try to shame America from using its strength against others (i.e., proportional response), they are also successful at convincing Republicans against using their strength when they take control of Congress. Democrats slam Republicans at every turn, but always make Republicans "reach across the aisle" for "bipartisan compromise" when Republicans have control.
Very astute, and spot on.. I have the same reluctance about the Senate, and holding a razor thin majority.. Consequently, the Dems would do to us, basically what we did to them, and force a super majority to pass most every meaningful bill without a prolong fight..
Having to negotiate with weak Dems with a purple state, gives a win with cover and a bipartisan conclusion that Obambam never had..
I would give up my favorite copper-bottom skillet, to have a super majority and skate to utopia but it ain't gonna happen this time..
Note the differentiation between the seats that represent GOP Holds and those that represent opportunities for Gains. Democrats currently control 53 seats in the Senate (including two independents who caucus with the Democrats), Republicans 47. If Republicans hold all the seats they have currently, they will need to gain four more seats to have a majority.
Links to GOP primary winners' websites are included so you can learn more about the candidates and donate, if you feel so inclined.
If you're interested in all polling on Senate races, check out Real Clear Politics Senate Polls
|10/27/12 Race for the U.S. Senate Ranked Roughly From Most to Least Likely GOP Win|
|Republican Candidate||Democrat/IND Candidate||Hold OR Gain|
|NE*||Debra Fischer||Bob Kerrey||GAIN|
|ND*||Rick Berg||Heidi Heitcamp||GAIN|
|WI*||Tommy Thompson||Tammy Baldwin||GAIN|
|NV||Dean Heller+||Shelley Berkley||HOLD|
|IN*||Richard Mourdock||Joe Donnelly||HOLD|
|AZ*||Jeff Flake||Richard Carmona||HOLD|
|MT||Denny Rehberg||Jon Tester||GAIN|
|MA||Scott Brown+||Elizabeth Warren||HOLD|
|VA*||George Allen||Tim Kaine||GAIN|
|OH||Josh Mandel||Sherrod Brown+||GAIN|
|FL||Connie Mack||Bill Nelson+||GAIN|
|CT*||Linda McMahon||Chris Murphy||GAIN|
|PA||Tom Smith||Bob Casey+||GAIN|
|MO||Todd Akin||Claire McCaskill+||GAIN|
|MI||Pete Hoekstra||Debbie Stabenow+||GAIN|
|NM*||Heather Wilson||Martin Heinrich||GAIN|
|NJ||Joe Kyrillos||Bob Menendez+||GAIN|
|HI*||Linda Lingle||Mazie Hirono||GAIN|
|ME*||Charles Summers||Angus King (Ind.)||HOLD|
|*Open Seat +Incumbent|
The "danger" is that Harry Reid and another Democrat Senate roadblock everything that Romney and the GOP House undertake to correct the economy...and, as a consequence, the economy stays in the tank for the next four years.
And one vital key to correcting the economy is repealing Obamacare. And, if we don't have the Senate, that's not going to happen.
"Politically dangerous", my butt! The only opportunity we have to succeed is to take the Senate along with the Presidency.
Schumer and Leahy are still lurking out there, waiting to pounce on "out of the mainstream" judges.
Killing Obamacare immediately reduces the future spending by $3 trillion.
It's a start...
Good work, thanks. Of course, only as accurate as the polling data...
My bias correction routine randomly adds between 0-3 points to Republicans, and takes away the same from Democrats. That adjustment is worth 30 EV for Romney.
What is the point if we can’t get anything done, which we won’t if the rats hold the Senate?
PRIORITY!!! DeathCare has got to be repealed or we can all bend over and kiss our rears goodbye. Anyone over 65 needs to re-read their history books about Nazi Germany, IMO. ObamaCare/DeathCare is Holocaust II!!! People over 65 can forget getting medical care as Big Bro will deny you care and ship you to a Hospice Center. It’s already begun.
I’ll second your statements. Facts well written.
Romney’s pollster did a poll in which he also tested Mandell’s numbers (as he has for months). He has had Mandell at -4 for some time. Then, last week, Mandell shot into a 1-point lead. Just one more indicator that the national polls are very sluggish when it comes to OH.
Agree completely. I don’t want to play too loose, but we know there’ll be treachery in our own ranks. Controlling the Senate gives us control over committees, but if Dems undermine us every step of the way they’ll run on they had control of everything, etc. You can see how this will go.
Come January you know they’ll have stories about hobos, women dying from back room abortions, children starving to death, etc.
If they can take and hold and take and hold over the next 8 years perhaps your wish will come true, but given that Obama would be winning, but for this bad economy I’m not hopeful.
What’s the history of GOP-controlled Senates with razor-thin majorities? Are they able to do whatever they want? Keep budgets down? When was the last GOP SCOTUS nominee dumped and why?
That’s a supposition as well. The abortion coalition is in tatters and I don’t think they’ll be able to derail a nominee so easily anymore. There just isn’t an Iron Media Curtain and they haven’t won that many fights. Bork wasn’t a loss. Sure we got Kennedy, but that was the last big fight.
You’re not going to have a Ted Kennedy (D-Dead) state:
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring,
“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.”
Those days are over. I think you could easily get a Scalia or Thomas through the process. Libs will fight hard and long, but they’re powder is wet. We’ve heard it all.
If there is one thing that Democrats excel at, it's the tit-for-tat retaliation.
Who would expect a liberal to be a petulant, immature, vengeful brat?
That said, Limbaugh also said in 2004-2006 that Democrats had to count on America failing for them to do better. He accused Democrats and the MSM of "talking down the economy," and they were unwilling to acknowledge any success that Bush might have achieved.
Fast-forward to today, and we're back to a time when the economy is poor, unemployment is high with record numbers of people giving up, crushing tax increases around the corner as Obama's going-away present, health care in limbo, and the world on fire, and again the Democrats are going to be rooting for Romney to fail to turn things around.
This time, failure for Romney and America really is a Leftist win if America as we know it collapses.
“It would be excellent to win the Senate, but politically dangerous. If we control it all and the economy isnt moving 4 years hence the GOP will be hard pressed to hold on.”
If Political Junkie Too’s predictions hold, and the ‘rats keep the Senate, expect NOTHING to get done for at least two years. They will obstruct EVERYTHING that Romney and the Republican House attempt to do.
The ‘rats know that the Senate will be their “last line of defense”, and will use whatever power they have there accordingly.
Expect to see political division in 2013 as you have never seen it before.
Others in this country have seen such divisions — in the 1850’s...
Thanks for the ping!
Really? How does the Senate work now? Not holding it or holding it at parity can be very powerful as well. If the GOP uses it correctly.
Would you include me on your ping list, as well, please?
Boy I hope you’re right. I’ve been wondering if Mandel is hurt by how young he looks.
Let's talk about that.
Do you think the businessman or Governor in Romney would stand for Harry Reid continuing to fail to pass a budget in the Senate? What "power" would Romney deploy to get the Senate to change?
First, Romney would try compromising with Democrats, but then he would realize that, to Democrats, compromise is really just a stalling tactic to delay Republicans from implementing their agenda while the MSM pounds on them day after day, week after week, until Republicans give it up, whatever "it" is. See Jay Rockefeller's famous "pull the trigger" memo for an example of "pulling Republicans along as far as we can" until they "have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority."
Second, Romney would try peer pressure to try to pick off one or two Democrat Senators to vote with Republicans. Democrats are notorious for their solidarity, while Republicans are often weak and unreliable, undercutting each other when negotiating comes down to brinksmanship. Just witness how Mitch McConnell interfered at the last minute with House negotations over the debt limit increase to see what I'm talking about.
Third, Romney will need to take control as the head of the party and create a party discipline around messaging that doesn't exist today. Democrats also excel at messaging discipline across the House, Senate, and White House. Republicans never seem to have a coordinated plan in how they communicate on issues. There doesn't seem to be anybody who story-boards the GOP agenda so that the party leadership not only is consistently on-message, but that there is a strategy to the message that everybody understands.
Fourth, it's time for new leadership in the Senate and House. McConnell is to old and tired, too stuck in the past regarding "traditions" that his long-departed friends and foes demanded. It's a new time in politics, and we need new leaders who's first reactions aren't so predictable. We need bold leadership now, people who won't shrink from the MSM's portrayals of them. Or worse, won't shrink from their suppositions of what the MSM will say about them -- but haven't yet -- and then talk themselves out of action before they even get started.
The last one starts with the "freshman orientation" that is intended to indoctrinate new-comers into not rocking the boatload of old-timers. Let's stop disillusioning people as soon as they get to Washington. Let's give new people a chance on committees to show what they can do. Again, the likes of McConnell and Boehner need to be swept aside for this to happen. If that happens, we can see if they go the way of Richard Lugar and try to undermine those who replaced them, or will they behave higher than that, and mentor the new-comers from behind for the good of the party?
Disagree with some of this list. Connie Mack has been a complete bomb, and even with these favorable conditions it will take a miracle for him to win. On the other hand Tom Smith and Linda McMahon are running ahead of Romney in their states, and if Romney wins the popular vote nationally by more than few percentage points, I think they’ll be swept in. Even Todd Akin has been polling better than Mack - so much for the predictions of a blowout there.
Kyrillos is a complete non-entity, and I’d rank him behind Summers, who could pull out an upset if the Dem candidate over-performs and Romney puts some focus on ME-2 in the closing days, and Lingle who at least is well known and liked. I’d like to see Ras or someone remotely respectable poll in ME and HI, because lately it’s been nothing but those untrustworthy newspaper polls there.
You make some great points here. On messaging, one problem Republicans have had that Democrats haven’t is that the politicians on our side are less likely to fully embrace the general philosophy. I’m convinced that literally ALL of the Democrats are true believers in hardcore socialism, and that they will ALWAYS get away with every tiny bit as much as they think their constituents will put up with. There are no ‘blue dogs,’ there are only socialists smart enough to know which votes for socialist policy are permissible in the eyes of their state/district, as well as with an eye towards future higher office.
But on our side, we often have to fight members of our caucus, even those who are representing conservative states/districts. Imagine trying to do the kind of messaging you’re talking about, in the past decade, with some of the Republicans we’ve had in the Senate, for example. Could we have really trusted Lincoln Chafee, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, Greg Voinovich, Lisa Murkowski, Lindsay Graham, Bob Bennet etc. to carry out conservative messaging?
Could you imagine Dems representing Dem states breaking their messaging? Never in a million years.
Mack vs. Nelson polls have swung wildly so it’s really hard to know what’s going on there. If Romney does well in FL, he may carry Mack to a victory. I do agree that Mack has been a total bomb, but he may end up being a lucky bomb.
Lingle is doing okay - single digits as of the last poll. I think she will probably lose, but it won’t be a rout.
ME hasn’t been polled lately, but the last poll had King comfortably ahead with Dill in the single digits - not peeling off near enough support from King to help Summers, who is a good candidate.
Menendez is not popular and has ethics problems, but Oct. polls have him well ahead.
I dropped a few long shots off the list before this update and will drop NJ in the next one.
Mourdock may slip some. A couple of weeks ago Ras had him +5.
There are quite a few which could go either way clumped in the middle of this list. Romney’s performance may send some in the GOP direction, but nothing’s a sure bet. It will go down to the wire regarding the U.S. Senate, IMO.
So Romney needs 90 EVs from states that Obama won in '08 to reach the magic 270. It's conventional wisdom now that he wins Florida (29), North Carolina (15), Virginia (13), and Indiana (11). That totals 68, so he needs 22 more from the list of states still in doubt. With toss-up Ohio (18), he needs only four more which he could get with little New New Hampshire (4) or any other toss-up state. But even without Ohio, there are several possible combinations of three or four states that add up to the 22 he needs. Since he has a fairly decent shot in Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire, and Nevada and there is a possibility he could even get a surprise win in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Oregon or Minnesota, I'd say that the odds of a Romney electoral college win nationally are better than the 44.18% that you indicate.
Dick Morris is thinking pretty much along the same lines, even more bullish on Romney's chances.
BTW, it is statistically very highly unlikely that a three-point leader in the national popular vote (which R0omney has now pretty much maintained for a week in Rasmussen and even Gallup) can lose the electoral college.
So far, based on Rasmussen polls to-date, Romney's probability of getting 270 Electoral votes or more is 44%.
I may post a mid-week report this week if things change drastically before Saturday.
With respect to you, I don't think that is true. It doesn't matter how many millions you have for Romney in already known red states and doesn't matter how many millions Hussein has in already known blue states - it DOES matter if you have a majority for Romney in a swing state, even it is one vote that makes that a majority in order to get those electoral votes.
I really only care about states that are not decided at this time so close to the election.
It’s happening already:
The narrative needs to immediately be the “Do-Nothing Reid Senate”. No matter if the GOP takes the Senate or not you need to accurately portray the enemy, identify his obstruction and convince the American people that we need the Senate to get the economy going.
Bury progressivisim under its own weight.
I'd call it the "Run from Responsibility Reid Senate."
Ask Harry Reid what he's so afraid of that he's unwilling to offer the American People a proper Senate budget?
Make it about fear and incompetence, not about obstruction.
Convince the People that Democrats are afraid to tell the people what they really think.
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.