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.)
And here's a thought....the GOP gubernatorial candidate in Hawaii is only a few points down..the 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..
Because the Tea Party folks resolutely yrefuse to organize themselves, and thus were not ready to recruit and promote a viable candidate.
And the Delaware GOP already had a candidate who most likely would have won the general election.
If GA-5 goes into the R column, there'd be no Democrats left in Georgia's Congressional delegation. It's a minority-majority district that's D+26, making it the 30th most Democrat district in the country.
GA-8 in middle Georgia (Marshall) and GA-2 in SW Georgia (Bishop) are competitive and are ripe for the picking. GA-12 South-Central GA (Barrow) is possible.
But GA-13 South/Western ATL suburbs(Scott) GA-4 Dekalb/Rockdale(Johnson) and GA-5 Atlanta (Lewis) have to be super tsunami scenarios to go into the D column -- in that order. There wouldn't be any Democrats left if Lewis loses.
And doing so in the glow of smug satisfaction about "doing the right thing."
I think Sabato is spot on! I don’t think the senate is in play, but we’ll take over the House(a given) and some Gov races, other than that I think he hit it on top of the nail....sorry, but I think he is absolutely correct. BUT, I’ll be proud to eat all the CROW you folks fork over...gladly!! I’ll even pour some Louisiana Hot Sauce on it too! :)
I see. So conservatives in Delaware have nobody to blame but themselves.
Just sayin'
“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.”
Per usual, and I don’t know why it is so, conservatives are on the wrong foot in framing this issue. The point to drive home and drive hard is the Constitutional guarantees and traditional exercise of freedom of religion, and the free exercise thereof.
Directly attacking the existing jurisprudential twisting of the 1st Amendment plays to their strengths, whereas emphasizing the freedom of conscience undermines the sovietish “freedom from religion” jurisprudence.
It is unfortunate and bewildering to me that the case for freedom is usually presented as crudely and awkwardly as possible. As much as any factor, Reagan’s eloquence is what moved his agenda forward, and even persuaded people over to it. Expanding the base can be done on principles stated well, not merely by pandering.
no expert hat here, more of a question.
Of all those times both the house and Senate flipped, what was the most Senate seats?
It just seem like a lot to gain 8, 9, 10 or 11 in one cycle.
Looking at Sabato’s data, he’s just about right on both forecasts as of today. It is entirely possible that the wave on the Congressional side grows into the 70-80 range. I don’t think IL-10 is at risk for example.
On the Senate side, 8 is cautious and reasonable. A last minute shift can add WV and WA into the R column. CA is also in play and CT is a fringe reach. I could see the Senate going 51-49 either way at the end of the day.
Not entirely. But to end up with Christine O'Donnell as the Republican candidate .... yeah, conservatives should be doing some serious soul-searching look at their role in turning an almost sure R seat over to a weak Democrat.
If there was going to be a serious attempt to challenge Mike Castle in the primary, shouldn't they have done so by putting up a person who had a shot in hell of winning the general election?
Recent Sabato Tweets:
Many candidates are winning mainly because they have an R next to their name. Even on ‘Wheel of Fortune’, no letter is as valuable in ‘10.
3 minutes ago via web
See how little has changed since Crystal Ball was 1st to call House for GOP in August? (+47R then). Fundamentals rule.
about 2 hours ago via web
The Republicans gained 56 seats in the House and 13 in the Senate when they took control of both chambers in 1947.
The Democrats gained 97 House seats and 12 Senate seats when they took control of both chambers in 1933. (Republicans lost 101 in that Great Depression election that swept FDR into power).
The biggest Republican gain was a 120 seat gain in 1895. They added six Senate seats to control the chamber. (This shift was induced by the Panic of 1893).
**********************
What interested me was that despite a relatively modest Republican gain in the house, he projects what is pretty much an optimum figure for the xenate. Senators are hard to take down.
My personal prediction 6 weeks ago and today remains 80 and 8. 100 and 10 would delight me. We'll see.
Jim
Trust me, if I were still living in GA-5, I’d be voting for Little until the cows come home. I had to write in candidates in the past when Lewis was running unopposed.
However, with that said, you’re talking about a D +26 district that’s 63% minority, 37% white and has a sizeable gay and lesbian community. Lewis won the district 70-30 in the 1994 wave election and will win by at least 20 this year. It’s as blue as blue districts come in the country.
I think there are a couple of reasons for that.
First, we just tend to assume that everybody shares our basic philosophy, and plays by the same rules we do. And thus, to us, it's enough simply to point to a few words in the Constitution and that's enough to convince everybody else.
The problem is, if the other guy doesn't share our assumptions to begin with, the old "point and shout" mode of debate is not just ineffective, but actually counter-productive. It turns people off, and it makes us look stupid and narrow, which just makes it more difficult for us next time around. (Interestingly, this applies equally well where Scriptural discussions are concerned....)
Second, I think we conservatives don't really have a good handle on what we believe anymore, and we certainly haven't got a good way to present it convincingly to those who disagree with us.
We need to change that -- but, unfortunately, there's also a populist bent to the Tea Party movement that positively rejects "elitists," including those intellectuals (such as Buckley or Russell Kirk in the old days).
Those are the ones who have the background and means to do the necessary heavy lifting of explaining our principles within the context of the modern world and, more importantly, reconciling the various competing conservative ideas into a somewhat coherent platform -- and doing so in a way that makes sense to those (the majority of Americans, btw) who are not already convinced.
And finally ... we're impatient. We don't lay any groundwork, we just tend to wade in and say things that people are not prepared to hear. Of course they dismiss us.
GAs 5th is Black and Blue for sure. This optomist also understands the realism of our historical demographic challenges. However, things have changed here over past decade, all in Fenn’s favor. You will soon see.
I agree with all these points.
Good, clear summary.
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.