Political Scientists Say Democratic Control [of House] a "Near Certainty"

Political Wire ^ | October 25, 2006 | Taegan Goddard

[Torie]

In a new research paper, three political scientists attempt to use the results of generic congressional polls to predict the outcome of the midterm elections.

"Via computer simulation based on statistical analysis of historical data, we show how generic vote polls can be used to forecast the election outcome. We convert the results of generic vote polls into a projection of the actual national vote for Congress and ultimately into the partisan division of seats in the House of Representatives. Our model allows both a point forecast-our expectation of the seat division between Republicans and Democrats-and an estimate of the probability of partisan control. Based on current generic ballot polls, we forecast an expected Democratic gain of 32 seats with Democratic control (a gain of 18 seats or more) a near certainty."

[adam_smith_76]

Well given all these studies and polls, we might as well call off the election. The Democrats have already won. It's over, and we'll save time and money if we just use the pollsters to coronate those who are now ahead. Besides, it will save black people the horror of the Republican harassment and dirty tricks that always keep them from voting. We might as well turn over the Senate, too, since the Democrats should rightly have it. Of course Bush actually lost two times, so he needs to go too.

A glimpse into the mind of a liberal.

[Torie]

"somatic cel nuclear transfer"

I don't have a clue either as to what that means. Just another average voter I guess. In any event, is it not possible that even if it occurs, it could still be illegal to bring John Walsh redux to full term? Of course, federal law bans human cloning in any event does it not, and would preempt? Just asking.

[Torie]

If you have a link to the text, I will read the language I admit I don't understand, just because. :)

[bootless]

Gee, why bother voting, then? /sarc

[AmishDude]

Political Science isn't one.

[jwalsh07]

This will get you up to speed on the science and there is a link to the amendment in the opening paragraph.

Enjoy!

[Torie]

Thanks.

[onyx]

[Torie]

Hi there! I finally opined on it all, as to to the merits, about a 100 posts later. I printed out the study, and read it at lunch, between chews on some rather good BBQ, at the Memphis Cafe.

[onyx]

It's too late for me to engage in any serious reading. The graphic I posted to you is more of a placemark for tomorrow. Mere mention of BBQ has made me hungry. :)

[AntiGuv]

This seems like an excellent thread to post my latest House ratings as of 12 days left before the election.

First, I want to comment with regard to the raging debate about whether or not an election wave is imminent. As even the dimmest political junkie must realize, opinions range from Bob Novak, who not only rejects the notion for 2006 but even insists that "the famous Gingrich election of 1994 was not a wave," to Stuart Rothenberg, who holds that "Republicans probably are at risk to lose as few as 45 seats and as many as 60 seats" (though his official prediction is nowhere near that extreme, yet). Whatever the right or wrong of that debate, this question of waves has created a real dilemma for me, which is only magnified by the fact that I not only rate the House seats but rank them as well. In my view, the relative susceptibility of given districts to a 'normal' localized election differs from the relative susceptibility to a nationalized 'wave' election.

To cut the long story short, I've decided to resolve this dilemma but making dual predictions. On my latest list I have inserted arrows at two levels: The first, as before, is my prediction based on a race-by-race 'normal' election analysis. The second is my prediction with a 'wave factor' included, based on the scale of wave that I think most plausible. As for ratings, a wave simply jacks up each category, so that the Toss Ups become Lean Dem and the Lean GOPs become Toss Up, etc. So, with no further ado, here goes!

Lean Democratic

01 (TX-22) DeLay*
02 (AZ-08) Kolbe*
03 (PA-10) Sherwood
04 (IN-08) Hostettler
05 (NY-24) Boehlert*
06 (CO-07) Beauprez*
07 (PA-07) Weldon
08 (OH-15) Pryce
09 (IA-01) Nussle*
10 (PA-06) Gerlach
11 (IN-02) Chocola
12 (FL-16) Foley*

Toss Up

13 (NM-01) Wilson
14 (NC-11) Taylor
15 (OH-18) Ney*
16 (CT-04) Shays
17 (IN-09) Sodrel
18 (WI-08) Green*
19 (CT-02) Simmons
20 (IL-06) Hyde* <<
21 (NY-26) Reynolds
22 (OH-01) Chabot
23 (MN-06) Kennedy*
24 (VA-02) Drake
25 (WA-08) Reichert
26 (NY-29) Kuhl
27 (PA-08) Fitzpatrick
28 (FL-13) Harris*

Lean Republican

29 (KY-04) Davis
30 (NY-20) Sweeney
31 (CT-05) Johnson
32 (FL-22) Shaw
33 (AZ-05) Hayworth
34 (NY-25) Walsh
35 (KY-03) Northup
36 (MN-01) Gutknecht
37 (ID-01) Otter*
38 (NV-03) Porter
39 (AZ-01) Renzi
40 (NH-02) Bass
41 (NV-02) Gibbons*
42 (WY-AL) Cubin <<
43 (OH-12) Tiberi
44 (PA-04) Hart
45 (NY-19) Kelly
46 (CA-11) Pombo
47 (CO-04) Musgrave
48 (OH-02) Schmidt
49 (IA-02) Leach
50 (NY-03) King
51 (VA-10) Wolf
52 (NC-08) Hayes
53 (CO-05) Hefley*
54 (NJ-07) Ferguson
55 (IL-10) Kirk
56 (TX-23) Bonilla

Likely Republican

57 (NE-01) Fortenberry
58 (IN-03) Souder
59 (CA-04) Doolittle
60 (FL-08) Keller
61 (CA-50) Bilbray
62 (NE-03) Osborne*
63 (KY-02) Lewis
64 (WA-05) McMorris
65 (KS-02) Ryun
66 (MN-02) Kline
67 (MI-08) Rogers
68 (OH-14) LaTourette
69 (IL-11) Weller
70 (FL-09) Bilirakis*

I'll save my latest ratings for Dem-held seats for a subsequent post. It's worth noting, BTW, that my personal confidence level has gone up sharply since my last House revision. That doesn't mean I'm any more right, of course, it just means that I'm more sure that I'm on the right track than I thought I was before.. And, yes, I realize that my ratings aren't exactly cause for celebration, but c'est la vie!

PS. Note that the TX-23 contest is now predicted to be decided in a runoff between Henry Bonilla (R) and Lukin Gilliland (D).

[AntiGuv]

Here are my latest ratings for Dem-held House seats.

Lean Democratic

01 (GA-08) Marshall
02 (IL-08) Bean
03 (WV-01) Mollohan
04 (VT-AL) Sanders(I)*
05 (GA-12) Barrow
06 (IA-03) Boswell
07 (LA-03) Melancon
08 (OR-05) Hooley

Likely Democratic

09 (IL-17) Evans*
10 (IN-07) Carson
11 (CO-03) Salazar
12 (SC-05) Spratt
13 (TX-17) Edwards
14 (NC-13) Miller
15 (LA-02) Jefferson
16 (KS-02) Moore

If anyone really wants me to I could also post my 14 seat Watch List of GOP-held seats. They are all 'officially' rated Safe and I'm disinclined to post them together with the seats I'm rating as competitive. (I also have a 4 seat Watch List of Dem-held districts, fwiw).

[RobFromGa]

Thanks for the ping to your House race predictions. We need a great GOTV effort to maintain control of the House. There are just too many "bad" contests where there are odd-ball circumstances, and none of them are in Dem seats.

I think we will win GA-08, and GA-12 is a tossup in my analysis. Those two seats would help, and we need Ohio seats to be less of a disaster than they are currently appearing to be.

And I just don't see how the Delay seat could be number 1 most vulnerable, I see how it is in play but #1? Here is a seat where I think we have a chance to win because the problems are not of a political nature, but because of the write-in mechanics.

Thanks for all the work that goes into your predictions.

[HostileTerritory]

Do you think there is a majority of voters in TX-22 that know that the Republican candidate is Sekula-Gibbs and have decided to support her and write in her name?

[RobFromGa]

I don't know how many people are going to vote, and her name is found on the ballot in a special election. I am NOT saying that she will win, I am questioning how she could be #1 most likely to lose.

This is the same district that elected Delay, and I would expect many of them do not want to be represented by a Democrat.

[Torie]

What caused you to put NY-24 so high?

[AntiGuv]

I moved TX-22 back into first place because I think the write-in procedures are too burdensome. The eSlate write-in method is quite clumsy and then there's the problem of straight party voting - a straight GOP vote will not register anything for TX-22. The voter will have to separately write in Sekula-Gibbs. Finally, I think that the appearance of Sekula-Gibbs in the special election (which will precede the general election) will cause some number to be misled, thinking that if they voted for her there they need not write it in too.

Moreover, as of October 18 Lampson had $1,113,813 cash on hand while Sekula-Gibbs had $163,253 cash on hand, and the RNCC has not been making up the difference. There is also a second active GOP campaign (by Don Richardson) that is also being played up in DCCC ads and there's the Libertarian on the ballot who's polling around 10%.

[AntiGuv]

First of all NY-24 is an open seat and it's not nearly as GOP as many seem to represent it: GWB got 52.6% of the vote in 2004 and 48.2% of the vote in 2000. Second, the only independent poll has Arcuri (D) leading Meier (R) by 52% to 43%. Third, I think the GOP vote will be depressed in NY due to the top-ballot collapse; there is no doubt Spitzer and Clinton will heavily carry NY-24. Fourth, Arcuri has more cash on hand than Meier ($313,233 v $248,162) has spent more in October ($548,864 v $333,896) and has spent more in total ($1,323,710 v $1,025,987). Fifth, Meier has been hit hard for voting to raise taxes in Albany, never good for a Republican, and the silly porn-line ad from the NRCC seems to have backfired bigtime. Last but not least, I've watched all the campaign ads from both campaigns and my gut feeling is that Arcuri will win easily.

PS. And it's worth noting that I rate all the NY districts higher than they are generally rated by others, and that I have done so all cycle long, and that it's the rest of the political junkie sphere that's been playing catch up to me. :)

[Clintonfatigued]

I think that Ohio District 13 (Senate nominee Sherrod Brown) is still in play. Dem nominee Betty Sutton feels the need to run negative ads against her opponent, which ought to tell you something. And the Republicans have a great candidate, although even he has a tough time in this solidly Democratic district.

[AntiGuv]

Make that NRCC. I hardly ever seem to get that acronym right!