When Richard Mourdock torpedoed his own campaign by talking about how God intends women to deliver rape babies, a lot of people noted that Mourdock was the only Senate candidate in the country for whom Mitt Romney had cut a television commercial. That is no longer true. Romney has just cut an advertisement in support of Danny Rehberg who is running against Sen. Jon Tester in Montana. That can only be a good sign for Sen. Tester. I am not saying that he welcomes Mitt Romney’s effort on behalf of his opponent, but the ad would not have been created if Rehberg was not in deep jeopardy of losing. When I did my previous predictions for the Senate elections, I predicted that Jon Tester would lose. But I am rethinking that assumption. Of the two most recent polls, one shows the race tied and the other shows Tester up by two points. I have to consider that the strongest available evidence about that status of the race is that Romney just intervened.
On the other hand, I have grown more pessimistic about Shelley Berkley’s chances in Nevada. If she wins, she will outperform her polling substantially. Don’t forget that Harry Reid did exactly that just two years ago. But the early voting advantage the Democrats have amassed in Nevada is underwhelming enough that I think Berkley is in trouble. Rather than predict she will win, I feel more comfortable saying that it will be very, very close.
The only other change I want to make from my last set of predictions is that Bob Kerrey’s chances in Nebraska continue to improve. Today, he is rolling out the endorsement of Chuck Hagel, which I think is probably the most important endorsement he could have received. A recent Omaha World-Herald poll had Kerrey down by only three points. There is no question that Kerrey has all the momentum in the race, but the question is whether or not he will run out of road before he can pass Deb Fischer. I know most progressives are ambivalent at best about Bob Kerrey returning to the Senate, but these are six year terms. Every seat matters. I am not ready to predict that Kerrey will win, but I will no longer be shocked at all if he does.
I still think Richard Carmona will pull it out in Arizona and that the Democrats will pick up seats in Maine, Massachusetts and Indiana. I also think Heidi Heitkamp will win in North Dakota. In other words, my only change is to put Tester into the ‘win’ column and to put Berkley into the ‘loss’ column, but the overall result would be the same. Instead of picking up five seats and losing two, I have us picking up four seats and losing one. And, if Bob Kerrey wins, I have us losing no seats and netting four. So, 56-44 without Kerrey and 57-43 with him.
That’s certainly the optimistic projection, though undoubtedly plausible.
I don’t know. It could turn out like 2004, where Thune upset Daschle and that idiot Bunning held on by less than 1%.
You expect red states to elect Republican senators. It’s hard to imagine Romney winning all three states yet Dems win the senate seats in Nebraska and Montana and North Dakota. Seems probable one of the three will be lost to partisan inertia.
yes, that’s why I had us losing two of three a few days ago and still have us losing one of three.
The GOP brand is pretty toxic right now … of course, a lot of that toxicity is from teavangelicals who think the GOP is too liberal/marxist.
I see, though, where the trend of wingnuts to ID as independents instead of GOP started reversing after the first debate. Like sheep, they are.
Heitkamp, Kerrey, and Tester are white and citizens of their States, not black and not from Hawaii/Illinois. That could make the difference.
I have no real hope that Carmona or Kerrey will pull through. Nothing against Chuck Hegel, but asking an endorsement for a no-longer-in-office long-time GOP apostate to close what is at best a three point gap seems wildly optimistic to me.
On the other hand, I’m feeling somewhat more optimistic about NV because of the way Reid pulled it out two years ago, and because the state seems to be leaning pretty hard to the President at the moment. I still think Berkley has less than a 50% chance, but I could see 40%.
Arizona is a toss-up. I just think Carmona has done enough to win.
In all probability there are lots of “unlikely” Hispanic voters in AZ that have not been polled, but will actually vote (for Carmona … and Obama, for that matter).
I just want our guy Sharrod Brown to beat Josh Mandel here in Ohio. Mandel is a lying, cheating punk who has no business running for Senator. Brown is a good Democrat and a good person as well.
Fingers crossed!
Brown will crush him.
That’s what I’m hoping for. 🙂
Off topic, but weird. I just got a call from a Denver area code number saying they were conducting a nationwide political survey with only two questions – te first was who would I support if voting today – Obama or Romney. I asked who it was and she wouldn’t identify the firm, just to say they were non-partisan. I declined to participate and didn’t hear the second question.
This was obviously not a real poll (or if it was it was by rank amateurs). Anyone have any idea what this was about?
Researched the number on the web – yep, it was an anti-Obama push poll from the American Future Fund.
GOP: they never stop lying.
You say, “I know most progressives are ambivalent at best about Bob Kerrey returning to the Senate.”
I don’t know why, other than to guess that Kerrey is to middle of the road.
I do not know anything about Kerrey’s previous Senate Record.
I know that he was an officer in the U.S. Navy, a Navy SEAL back near the beginning when the SEALs were creating themselves (not a modern day faux hero), lost a leg during that period and the SEALs named one of their advanced training camps after him.
I might have had a different view had I not spent 21 years in the U.S. Navy.
Whatever the exact outcome in the senate, I regard it as a remarkable achievement for Democrats to maintain control. I remember not so long ago when this was considered a very long shot.
I’m also curious as to what this tells us about the present politics of this country, and about the house and presidential contests. Not necessarily in terms of prediction, but in terms of analysis. Obviously the best time to talk about this is after the election, but I’ve been wondering for a while what it all means that we appear to be making such a strong showing in the senate but not so well with the House (redistricting has something to do with it I’m sure). According to Nate Silver. “A crude estimate we made last year is that Democrats might need to have a 3 or 4 point edge on the generic ballot — not a mere tie — to have even odds of winning the House.” That’s a high hurdle; through most of the year, Democrats have had an edge of more like one point on the generic House ballot.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/do-democrats-have-a-shot-at-the-house/
As for the presidential race, the fact is that Obama has been in the lead from the beginning right up until now, and I don’t think it has ever been quite the cliffhanger it’s been made out to be. But we shall see.
Update, here’s an interesting article somewhat along these lines.
But I’m also interested in WHY we did so well with the Senate, not just the consequences of that.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/why-the-gop-agenda-is-likely-dead-even-if-romney-wins.php
?ref=fpnewsfeed
The Republican Agenda is not dead as long as the President sees Simpson-Bowles as a blueprint for a Grand Bargain.
Realistically, if the GOP retains control of the House, as seems likely, why would they cease being obstructionist just because Romney loses? They don’t need 60 Senate votes. They don’t need ANY Senate votes except to block judges. The House controls the purse strings and they have already shown that this puts them in the driver’s seat. The President and the Senate can’t get a dollar for anything without House approval. The GOP has already shown that they are ready to shut down the entire government to get their way. The only thing Obama can do, if they push it, is give in or exact Patriot II powers to force an Enabling Act. i.e. arrest every Republican Congressman as a terrorist suspect and bury them in the gulag at Guantanamo. Patriot II being the equivalent of the power to proscribe.
Remember that the pessimism was because the geography put so many Democratic Senate seats on the line this year.
Right, but we seem to have beaten the odds.
Oh, now I think I see what you mean. There are a lot of Democratic senate seats up for grabs, but in each case the Dem candidate “merely” has to get a simple majority of votes. And yes, a lot of seats, but starting from a position where we already control the senate.
In the case of the generic vote in the House, because of unfavorable redistricting around the country, statistically Dems, to regain the majority, would have to win by 3 to 4 percentage points across the board — starting from a position where Dems are considerably in the minority.
So although we’re not comparing exactly the same thing, even from this rough parallel it can be seen why it would be harder to win back the House than to hold the Senate. As it is we are likely to increase the raw number of Democratic House seats. To regain control is not totally impossible, but not likely. Unless the ground game nationally is way ahead of the polls.
Poor little Scott Brown, running ads about “Pick the person, not the party”.
If that’s really his message and people follow his advice then he’s doomed.