FL-13: This one's a bit of a dilemma for me. It's one of my lower confidence ratings (OH-02 also pops to mind in that regard). The buzz has definitely grown on this one but I'm somewhat perplexed as to why. The only independent poll that I'm aware of was the Constituent Dynamics that put Jennings at a slight 47% to 44% lead. But quite significantly, the C-D poll was conducted Oct 8-10, at the peak of the Foley clamor in the neighboring FL-16 district. Otherwise, there are a trio of polls showing a daunting lead by Jennings, but they are all internal polls and I must all but disregard them.
Then, not only was this a 55.8% GWB district in '04, but there's the major financial advantage for the self-funding Buchanan, as you noted. That's hardly chump change: Buchanan gave his campaign $975,000 today 10/27 on top of $800,000 on 10/20; he'd already spent a somewhat astounding $5,926,098 as of 10/18. Meanwhile, Jennings had just $176,901 CoH as of 10/18, so she'll be outspent on the order of about 7 to 1 in the closing two weeks.
In short, it's unclear to me why you'd think Buchanan is behind and probably outside the MoE. Is there something important I've missed? It does happen! :)
NV-03 & NV-02: The DCCC isn't playing in NV-03 but the NRCC has spent $395,575 there in the past week. The NRCC spent $245,553 in NV-02 in the same timeframe (10/20-10/27). BTW, I'll follow up with a post linking to where you can quickly look up such figures. Anyhow, there's also the obvious difference in partisan lean: NV-02 was 57.2% Bush in '04 while NV-03 was 49.9% Bush in '04. Another big factor in my ratings was that Hafen led Porter in the 9/30 CoH figure which I used for that round of ratings. As of 10/18 Porter led $225,171 versus $181,573 for Hafen, but it's noteworthy that between 9/30 and 10/18 Hafen nonetheless outspent Porter by $407,339 to $60,958, so the $44,000 10/18 CoH differential will hardly make up the difference. Porter has also been hit by allegations of ethical lapses (Google him) and by ads claiming that he voted to cut military/veterans benefits.
Meanwhile, Heller leads Derby by $251,991 CoH versus $123,192 CoH as of 10/18 reports. In October Heller outspent Derby by $255,058 versus $219,391 and has outspent her in total by $1,237,515 versus $1,123,631. A late September Mason-Dixon poll had Heller leading 45%-42% while Research 2000 had Heller leading 45%-37%. Getting outspent in a district where she's at a 10% partisan disadvantage is not the way for Derby to overcome Heller's polling lead, even if that lead was weak. In a political environment where Dem crossover voting seems to have all but dissipated, I think the district partisanship outweighs the advantage of incumbency so that NV-02 is a bit firmer than NV-03. That being said, I am still rating both with a decisive GOP lean.
NH-02: I can't think of any good reason why Bass would've suffered such a spectacular collapse unless there were a tsunami sweeping across the GOP nationwide and if that were the case we'd be seeing it in polling from all over, and we're not. So, my assumption is that the Becker Institute poll is whacked. To begin with, I would note that I've largely broken free from the polls in this revision to a more 'holistic' analysis of the various districts. Regardless of that, my assessment is that Bass probably had the hefty 20% or so lead that was registering as of late summer, with his support around 50% and Hodes about 30%, and the undecideds generally inclined to vote Dem. Since then, I think UNH probably revealed an genuine autumn tightening to a 10% margin, with Bass at 46% and Hodes at 36% in late Sept. Now I'd say it's probably inside of that but nowhere near the Becker figure. In short, I think Bass likely still has a firm edge and that it's somewhere around 5%-8%. So, I'm basically rejecting the Becker poll, rightly or wrongly.
TX-23: I am effectively assuming that a 51.5% or so GOP district is very unlikely to give Bonilla an outright majority in a 'jungle primary' this year, and that the $700,000 that Gilliland has spent on his campaign should easily get him into second place (and the presumptive runoff). As for polls, the only one I know of is the Aug 25 Dem poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner that had the combined Dem total at 47% and Bonilla at 44%. Gilliland was not included in that poll, and the mildly ridiculous Ciro Rodriguez led the Dem pack at 24%.
OK, I think I've covered everything you asked about. Sorry it took longer than I thought to get back to this!
On FL-13: In the link to one of Jennings' internal, I found this remark, which fuels my suspicions.
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/15848966.htm
"Buchanan dismissed the results, saying his internal polling shows him trailing "within the margin of error" of Jennings. He did not divulge details, and has not publicly released any of his poll results since the September primary."
I buy your rationales on NV-02, NV-03 and NH-02 and thanks for the link on the monthly DCCC, NRCC party stats. I often look at the day-by-day stuff, but I never could figure out how to get the monthlies. (my computer expertise sometimes leaves a lot to be desired) Also, the Becker Institute was a terrible NH polling company in 2004, so I can understand that.
On TX-23, I really think you should be counting Bonilla's number @ around Bush's 2004 number, not the base Republican number, simply because he's perhaps the one Republican candidate in Texas who can pull similar numbers at this time and place. (even though I know his Latino figures have been declining over the years) I also think the Republican breakdown in this area is going to be less than it is nationwide (just a gut feeling).
The real question I have in this "jungle primary" continues to be (and I can't answer it): Even if you vote a straight-party ticket, you still have to vote in the special election. How is this going to affect the numbers?
In a normal election, roughly 30%-35% of the voters in Bexar County vote straight party. These voters tend to fairly evenly divided (considering the usual low turnout among Democrats in south-side Bexar). The rural counties exhibit much less straight-party voting patterns on the whole.
For that reason, I think polling of this race is next to impossible and the poll we've both seen is stale anyway.
This also reminds me of a big Gilliland problem. Those South Siders that were added to the CD are simply not going to vote for a white guy at the local level, regardless of party. He's going to have to pick up votes from the border areas or Bonilla strongholds in order to make a runoff, imho.
I still think he makes it past a runoff, but that's just me. I doubt we really know for sure until Election Day.