Posted on 10/28/2010 5:49:03 AM PDT by randita
The Crystal Ball’s Final Calls
Larry J. Sabato, Director, U.Va. Center for Politics
October 28th, 2010
The time has finally come in this two-year election cycle to make the final calls. Thanks to everyone who has helped us by providing background info, tips, private polls, observations, and constructive criticism. We operate on the proverbial shoestring and we’re outside the Beltway (a plus and a minus), so we can always use the assistance.
Our tradition is that we make a prediction in every contest. We’ve been studying these states, districts, and candidates for many years, and we feel entitled! We’re proud of our record over the years, but inevitably we will be wrong with some calls. Apologies for those in advance.
Students sometimes ask how I ever got into this game. I first published a state-by-state set of predictions in 1978. To my surprise, the exercise turned out well. In 1980 I won a DC-based election pool, and with that cash incentive, I was hooked. (No, I haven’t bet on elections in decades, and professional prognosticators shouldn’t.)
HOUSE
The Crystal Ball was the first nonpartisan ratings service to call the House for the Republicans this year. Before Labor Day we issued a projection of +47 net gains for the Republicans. We based this both on a district-by-district analysis and also a careful review of the underlying election variables, from the generic ballot to presidential job approval to likely statewide coattail.
We believe +47 was the right call, though at the time the number was considered startling to most. The likely switch of the House to the GOP was fiercely disputed by Democrats at that time. Many other nonpartisan prognosticators had estimated Republican gains as being below the 39 net required for a GOP takeover.
Even at this late date, we see no need to do anything but tweak the total R gains, based on more complete information now available to all. Thus, we are raising the total to +55 net R seats. We consider 47 to be in the ballpark still, but more of a floor than a ceiling. In fact, if you’ll go back to our pre-Labor Day analysis, that’s exactly what we suggested +47 would end up being.
The new total matches our district-by-district chart:
SENATE
The Crystal Ball has operated within a very narrow range all year. When others were projecting GOP Senate gains of just +3-4, we were already at +6. Depending on the primary results and other circumstances, we’ve landed between +6 and +9 in the last half-year. We have never gotten to +10, the number needed for Republican takeover of the Senate, and we do not do so in this final forecast either. To us, the number of GOP gains looks to be +8. Ten was always a stretch.
We believe the GOP will hold all its open seats (FL, KY, MO, NH, OH). This is quite an accomplishment in itself, since the early assumption was that at least a couple would switch sides. In addition, Republicans will probably pick up most of the following: AR, CO, IL, IN, NV, ND, PA, and WI. The closest appear to be CO, IL, NV, and PA. These races, especially the first three, are so tight that a strong breeze could change the result, so the GOP may well come up one or two short in this category. By the way, if Republicans do win the +8 we have projected, then they only have to unexpectedly pick off two of the following states to take control: CA, CT, WA, or WV. CT seems least likely, WA most likely–but any of the foursome would be an upset.
In our pre-Labor Day analysis, however, we noted a historical anomaly: Since World War II, the House has changed parties six times, and in every case, the Senate switched, too. In five of the six cases, most prognosticators did not see the Senate turnover coming. (Only in 2006 did some guess correctly, including the Crystal Ball.) So if we have a big surprise on election night, this could be it, despite the pre-election odds against it.
Note on Alaska: We were skeptical about the possible success of a write-in candidacy by Sen. Lisa Murkowski—which would be the first triumphant one since Sen. Strom Thurmond in 1954—but Joe Miller’s constant gaffes and controversies have actually put Murkowski in a position to win. It could be close and take many days to determine the winner, but it does not matter since Democrat Scott McAdams will not win and either Miller or Murkowski would sit in the Republican caucus. It matters to Alaskans whether Miller or Murkowski takes the seat, but not to the Crystal Ball’s tally.
We will continue to monitor the closest races all the way through election eve. If we decide to change a rating, we will post it on this website. We will also take another look at tight races for Governor and House.
GOVERNORS
The Crystal Ball was the first to project a likely GOP pick-up of +8 statehouses. While a few gubernatorial contests have teetered back and forth, we haven’t wavered far from that number, settling at +8-9 Republican gains, while recognizing that the final tally could vary by one in either direction.
The Republicans are likely to pick up 14 governorships: FL, IL, IA, KS, ME, MI, NM, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN, WI, and WY. The Democrats appear to be gaining 5 statehouses: CA, CT, HI, MN, and VT. The closest of these are CA, CT, IL, MN, OR, and VT. In each case we have had highly reliable, well-placed sources insist that our frontrunner could end up on the short end come Tuesday. So again, we will keep an eagle eye on these states over the weekend, for a possible Monday update.
Note on Georgia: Under Georgia law, the winner must get 50% plus one. There is some chance Deal will not reach that mark, but most believe he will. If he does not, a runoff will be held a month later and Deal will be heavily favored.
Note on Vermont: Vermont, like Georgia, has a 50% plus one rule. Dubie may lead Shumlin in the vote on Election Day, but will probably be under 50%. Instead of a runoff, as in Georgia, Vermont law would then require the legislature to choose a winner by secret ballot. As long as Shumlin is reasonably close to Dubie, the heavily Democratic legislature will probably pick Shumlin. However, this contest has been described to us repeatedly as a squeaker, one way or another.
The Crystal Ball has also projected that Republicans will gain 500+ new state legislative berths, and will probably capture at least a dozen additional state legislative chambers.
All of this has considerable implications for the redistricting process in 2011.
(There are breakdown charts at the website.)
The number “79” has stuck in my mind for about 6 weeks as a gain in the house. No specific information, just a hunch.
I have no clue what will happen in the senate. I expect heavy and widespread democrat cheating in Nevada, Pennsylvania, and California.
There was a column on national review online a few week ago..”The 70% rule”...looked back at all the wave elections..the ones where both the House and Senate switched..in every case...about 70% of the “seats in play” changed hands..Now, admittedly, “seats in play” can be vague..but this year, we see, from many political analysts, a range from 80-110...so that could give us a 56-77 seat pick-up...
On the House, I think he’s low. I’m thinking GOP picks up 80+ seats, and it could be quite a few more, possibly 100.
On the Senate I think he’s close, but I think WV will be a GOP pickup, and I think WA is a likely pickup for +9. The X factor is voter fraud in King County which could wind up stealing it for the rats.
I just don’t see CA going GOP although I would dearly love to see Boxer go down.
These are gut feel calls...your milage may vary.
The percentage of voting-age citizens who actually cast ballots has been in the low to mid 50 percent range in presidential years, and in the high 30s in elections like this one. You are, I believe, quite correct in noting that there is a lot of room on the upside.
That means that about 1/6 or 16% of voters think enough of the process to drag their butts to the polls to vote for President, but they can't be bothered two years later. Assuming that about half of that 16% are republicans (or independents who are now leaning republican) who are extremely motivated, we could get an off-year number that could be as high as 45% (or even more.) That would make all of the current predictions south of optimistic Dick Morris seem way too conservative and not Conservative enough.
They did field a good candidate in O’Donnell, she saved us from Castle.
**********************
Christine O’Donnell has already done two superb things, one which will have a long lasting effect. She has ousted Castle, and she has outed Rove. The GOP “insiders” are revealed for the backstabbing Democrat fifth column that we have increasingly suspected. Now there is zero doubt.
The revelation of Rove’s et al’s determined opposition completely changes the way things go forward. From now on, the fight against the statist ruling class within the GOP will be as fiercely fought as the battle against the leftist-statist Democrats. Crist and Murkowski helped this along, but they were self interested officeholders. Rove reveals the corrupted institution, the quislings within. Now the masks are off and the daggers drawn.
THANK YOU ROVE, YOU MAGNIFICENT TURDBLOSSOM!
don’t get me started..
We could have found a strong conservative candidate instead of O’Donnell (let’s be honest, she is an awful candidate and losing by a landslide).
Even Castle would have been better than the Marxist-D candidate (vote for Senate Majority Leader is the most important one, along with voting with conservatives 40% of votes).
Losing the control of Senate by 1 seat (because of DE disaster) may be fun for you, but I’m not amused. Nor is the country.
...and delivered us unto Coons.
I say 65+ in the House
7-8+ in the Senate
Governors +7 (but don’t know this too well... have been paying more attention the House and Senate)
***** Anyone want to start a predictions thread?
“So WHY DIDN’T THEY?”
This is the question we all can think for the next two years, under the rule of Senate Majority Leader Schumer.
Gee, I guess I have been over-Obamacized. I misread the report as the Crystal Blow report. Or have I been over-Sinclairicized?
Who do you think would have "control of the Senate" if Castle would have won? Certainly not conservatives and probably not even Republicans. Being beat over the head with Castle's liberal votes proving "bipartisanship" also would not have been "amusing".
Castle was not conservative, but he was from GOP and would have voted for GOP Senate Majority Leader (the most important vote) allowing GOP enormous amount of control. We would not have filibuster-proof control anyway.
Based on his earlier votes, he would have voted with GOP often (say, 40% of important votes, compared to Coons 0%). Scott Brown had already voted against GOP several times, but I still like him. Fred Thompson voted against conservatives several times with in your face attitude (free speech restrictions etc Centrist Coalition bs), but he was still better than Dem candidate.
DE is deep-blue state. Conservatives have little chance there, only outstanding candidates (say, Marco Rubio) would have any chance. Bad jokes like O’Donnell are losing by landslide.
And won’t Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins still have seats in the Senate? Not to mention Scott Brown and Lindsey Graham. So, control will be effectively Democratic for a while longer even if the Reps do win 10+ seats. The only difference will be who wields the gavel in the committees. This is not a trivial difference, but the rubber meets the road on the floor in the Senate. It’s in the House where committee chairmanship is vital.
We should know more today. The Wilmington paper reported today that the Frankin & Marshall poll has been updated (she was behind by something like 18% last time)and the results will be reported at a presser at 11:30 this morning. We’ll see if this race has tightened as much as we all hope it has. The poll’s turnout model is suspect, but the % improvement, if any, would be relevant.
Well, Alaska is a win/win. Miller may be self destructing, but if Murkowski wins it's still an (R) hold.
I think we are likely to win in IL. Kirk is a RINO, but it's still a win and a vote for McConnell.
NY seems to have been a wasted opportunity. DioGuardi just hasn't caught on at all.
Delaware was a self inflicted wound. To turn an almost sure win with an imperfect candidate into a certain defeat with a candidate that meets some purity test but has no chance of victory was just dumb.
So yeah, hopefully next cycle we can get some more competitive candidates in places like New York, Delaware, etc.
“If the American people are angry enough at how they are being lied to by MaObama, the Democrats and the Media, particularly, they see the real truth about this economy, it will be Democrat road kill”
If they were, they’d all be FREEPERS. So we still have work to do.
From what I've seen, the numbers are reasonably straightforward for most of the Senate races. For the close ones, I suppose it will come down to whatever "October surprises" are sprung today or tomorrow.
I'll be expecting something of the sort here in Colorado, regarding Ken Buck. Michael Bennet has been going with the "too extreme" theme for weeks now, with good effect.
As an example, Bennet just came out with an ad featuring a Buck statement that he "opposes separation of church and state." Buck is now in full back-pedaling mode, of course. Again. After having spent several days back-pedaling from his unsolicited and unneccessary comments on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
There's also a story about how Buck refused to prosecute a rape case, back in 2005... the decision may have been OK or shaky or wrong, depending on what side of the story you most believe. That story hasn't made big headway, but it's out there.
The problem is, Buck has made so many unguarded and ill-advised comments in his campaign, that there's a wealth of things to choose from. You have to figure that Bennet's campaign is saving the best for last. I guess we'll find out today or tomorrow...
And here's a thought....the GOP gubernatorial candidate in Hawaii in only a few points down..th race is winnable...and Hawaii's TWO Dem senators have a combined age close to Methusaleh....no way wishing anyone ill, but actuarial tables may come into play unexpectedly..
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.