American Elections 2014

Politics US Politics
1

It’s that time again. What are your predictions?

I predict the Democrats will hold onto their majority in the Senate, but will lose seats down to a razor thin majority. The Republicans will maintain their solid majority in the House but will lose a few seats. Democrats will regain some lost governorships and state legislative positions (in 2010, Democrats lost big in state races, even in blue states). The Republicans will generally lose municipal elections in the big cities, as usual. However, I think they stand a good chance of recovering San Diego, given the corruption of the previous mayor.

The establishment wing of the Republican Party will reassert its authority and defeat most of their Tea Party challengers. This effect will be stronger in Senate races (the Tea Party will remain competitive in safe Republican House districts).

With the benefits of Obamacare kicking in for millions of Americans, Democrats will start highlighting those benefits and vow to defend them if (re)elected. Republicans running in swing districts will start talking about “reforming” rather than “repealing” Obamacare. Republicans in red states will continue to treat Obamacare like the end of civilization.

2

Mitch McConnell looks to be in trouble.

I predict more lost House seats for Teabaggers.

3

There are a number of very tight races, but Republicans look to have a strong chance, about 60%, of retaking the Senate. Here is a link to the New York Times statistical model.

nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/

The NYT estimates that the Democrats have 45 seats that are likely Democratic, the Republicans have 46 seats likely Republican, and there are 9 competitive races. The site has a cool feature where you can “spin”, and the model shows you the likely outcome. The general idea is that if you spin it 100 times, Republicans win the Senate 60 times, Democrats 40 times.

There is essentially no question that the Republicans will win the House, due to gerrymandering and self-gerrymandering, i.e., the tendency of Democrats to live in urban areas. This means that the Democrats may actually win the popular vote in the House, as they did in 2012 (by about 1.5 million votes), but will still lose the House no matter what. Mathematically, Democrats cannot possibly win the House unless there is a massive wave election in favor of Democrats. The chances of that happening while their party control the White House is effectively nil.

Republicans also have an edge in the enthusiasm gap, which combined with their much better turnout in mid-term elections, means 2014 is shaping up to be a great year for Republicans. Most likely, they will control Congress entirely for the remaining years of Obama’s presidency.

4

The NYT gives Senator McConnell an 82% chance of winning re-election. He appeared to be in trouble early on, but Grimes hasn’t been able to gain an edge.

5

Here’s another link for my fellow policy wonks. It’s a comparison of the NYT statistical model and similar models like 538 and the Washington Post.

nytimes.com/newsgraphics/201 … isons.html

As you can see, there is broad agreement among the various organizations that Republicans will probably take the Senate.

Interesting side note, 538 hasn’t released a new projection since June 8. For those of you not familiar with it, 538, led by Nate Silver, is a website that employs data-driven reporting. It makes predictions about sports and politics, but also uses statistics to analyze different aspects of American society. It’s quite interesting, though admittedly a little dry at times. 538 accurately predicted how every single state would vote in the last presidential election. That was when it was part of the NYT, but has since been bought out by ESPN. The 538 website is a lot more diverse now, but has yet to launch its full statistical model for the 2014 election.

6

[quote=“Gao Bohan”]
With the benefits of Obamacare kicking in for millions of Americans,[/quote]

I wouldn’t take that to the bank.

7

My prediction in the original post was that Democrats will start campaigning on the benefits of Obamacare this year, and they are. One of the most vulnerable incumbent Democratic senators is Kay Hagan (North Carolina), and she is flying the flag high, defending Obamacare down the line. This marks a big change from 2010 and even 2012, when “Obamacare” was anathema to any Democrat in a competitive district/state. Mark Prior, another vulnerable Democrat in a red state, has stated that he stands by his vote for Obamacare and would do it all over again. Steve Beshear, the Democratic governor of deep red Kentucky is a major advocate of Obamacare. He persuaded his Republican legislature to create a state exchange and expand Medicaid. I don’t think he’s up for re-election this year, but he’s another example of a Democrat forcefully defending Obamacare.

I’m not saying that Obamacare is going to be a winner for Democrats in every district/state, but with millions now receiving benefits, Democrats are finally standing up and supporting the law. I think you’ll agree this marks a change from the previous two elections.

8

Something I find interesting is that some of the most high profile campaigns are in fact some of the least competitive. For example, Alison Grimes is attempting to unseat Mitch McConnell, but she only has a 21% chance of doing so. Similarly, Michelle Nunn is running a high profile campaign in Georgia for an open senate seat, but she only has a 41% chance of succeeding. Scott Brown, the famous Republican who won a special election for Ted Kennedy’s old seat in Mass. before being defeated by Elizabeth Warren in the next election, has only a 6% chance of unseating Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire.

9

Statistics are well, just statistics, to talk about 41% or 21% as if these were absolutes is silly, there is room for disagreement. You might want to check out some postings by Nate Silver, Democrats Are in a Perilous Position in 2014 Senate Races

Its not all that different from your forecasts, except to say he has put a range on some of those statistics, those just using polls, lets say and those which he forecasts after adding in other factors. A Republican majority, albeit a very slim one, is the most likely, it could be a dead heat (which means democrats retain control), or a Republican romp. Democrats gaining seems almost impossible.

10

[quote=“Mick”]Statistics are well, just statistics, to talk about 41% or 21% as if these were absolutes is silly, there is room for disagreement. You might want to check out some postings by Nate Silver, Democrats Are in a Perilous Position in 2014 Senate Races

Its not all that different from your forecasts, except to say he has put a range on some of those statistics, those just using polls, lets say and those which he forecasts after adding in other factors. A Republican majority, albeit a very slim one, is the most likely, it could be a dead heat (which means democrats retain control), or a Republican romp.[/quote]

I never said the statistics were absolutes. I merely stated that I think it’s interesting how some of the most high profile campaigns have among the smallest chances of success. I read all of Nate Silver’s articles on politics, but thanks just the same.

Nobody said they would.

11

Democrats had wave years in 2006 and 2008, which is why 2012 was and 2014 will be tough years for Senate Democrats. Democrats were only able to hold on to the Senate last year because the Republicans ran some highly undesirable candidates who made stupid gaffes, and Obama carried some purple state Democrats on his coattails. Republicans have chosen much stronger candidates (less nutcases) this year, and Democratic turnout is usually weak in midterm elections. Democrats have a tough map this year. Having said that, 2010 was a wave year for Republicans, and they’ll be facing a tough map of their own in 2016. Even if they retake the Senate this year, that’s no guarantee they’ll keep it in 2016.

12

New polls showing some of the red state Dems with bigger leads has reduced the GOP’s chance of winning the Senate to 53%.

nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/

13

Here is a fascinating analysis of the gender gap in the North Carolina Senate race between incumbent Kay Hagan (D) and challenger Thom Tillis ®.

[quote]A tight race for one of North Carolina’s Senate seats is turning into a veritable battle of the sexes, with a huge and growing gulf between male and female voters.

A new Suffolk University/USA Today poll shows that Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) is leading her challenger, State House Speaker Thom Tillis ®, by 18 points among women voters. But Tillis leads by 14 points among men, adding up to a whopping 32-point gender gap in the race – significantly wider than the 20-point gender gap that launched President Barack Obama to victory in 2012.

Overall, Hagan leads Tillis by only two percentage points, 45 percent to 43 percent. But Hagan leads among women voters by a margin of 52 to 34 percent, while Tillis leads among men by 52 to 38 percent. Women voters outnumber men in North Carolina by about 500,000, so Hagan’s re-election chances could hinge on whether those women turn out to vote. [/quote]

huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/2 … 97624.html

The gender gap in American politics is well-known, with most women supporting Democrats and most men supporting Republicans, but the 32-point gap in North Carolina is stunning. As the article mentioned, Obama rode a 20-point gender gap to victory in 2012, noted at the time as the biggest in American history. And yet this race stretches the gap another 12 points. Of course part of the gap is due to Hagan being female, but I suspect a much larger reason is that Republicans in North Carolina and across the nation have systematically limited access to birth control and abortion. It is very possible that the battle for the Senate could boil down to this race, and the women of North Carolina.

14

fivethirtyeighthas made their early prediction:
fivethirtyeight.com/interactives … -forecast/

Currently the Republicans have the edge, 65.0% of a Republican majority.

Iowa, North Carolina, Colorado, and Alaska are the only possible swing states.

15

Yup, things aren’t looking good for Democrats. No real surprises here, the polls have been consistent since March.

16

What’s the matter with Kansas? A bizarre turn of events there. The Democratic challenger, Chad Taylor, is attempting to drop out of the race against Republican Senator Pat Roberts to clear the field for independent challenger Greg Orman. However, Republican Secretary of State says according to the law Taylor can’t get his name off the ballot.

[quote] “Any person who has been nominated by any means for any national, state, county or township office who declares that they are incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected may cause such person’s name to be withdrawn from nomination by a request in writing, signed by the person and acknowledged before an officer qualified to take acknowledgments of deeds.”

At issue is the “who declares that they are incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected.” Taylor’s letter did not so declare, and it looks like the deadline has passed. Now what?[/quote]

electionlawblog.org/?p=64981

It would appear that this provision was intended for cases such as injuries, strokes, (jail terms?) etc.

Polls: [quote] Several recent polls going back to mid-July drove this decision. But two in particular did it. One from mid-August from PPP: Roberts 32%, Taylor 25%, Orman 23% and a late August one from SurveyUSA: Roberts 37%, Taylor 32%, Orman 20%. A Rasmussen poll from a week earlier didn’t given Orman as an option. And even in that case Roberts only topped Taylor by 4 points.
Now, given that Taylor is ahead of Orman you may be asking, why isn’t Orman dropping out? The answer is

Now, given that Taylor is ahead of Orman you may be asking, why isn’t Orman dropping out? The answer is Kansas . [/quote] …

i.e. that there are a lot of people who really don’t like not only Roberts but, more importantly, the current leadership of the Kansas GOP, specifically wingnut Sam Brownback. Brownback put into place beloved conservative policies of massive tax cuts especially aimed at the wealthy, and promptly tanked the state.
He also led a massive purge of the Republican Establishment leading to a lot of hard feelings.

OTOH, these are a lot of moderate Republicans who could never hold their nose and vote for the party of Barack Obama.

[quote] Indeed, when PPP put Orman and Roberts head to head without Taylor, Roberts stayed right down where he was at 33% and Orman shot up to 43%, a ten point margin.

As I noted earlier, the national GOP sees clearly that they’ve got a severe problem on their hands. They sent in one of the party’s top operatives today to take over Roberts’ campaign. It’s clear that a substantial majority of the state electorate does not want to reelect Roberts. So what this is really going to come down to is whether the Republicans can change Orman into “Mr. Obamacrat” and nationalize the race over Senate control.[/quote]

Orman is a social moderate but fairly fiscally conservative i.e. ‘centrist’. He is likely to caucus with the Dems- or he may not. It’s getting weird in Flatland- and senate control may hang on it.

17

[quote=“hansioux”]fivethirtyeighthas made their early prediction:
fivethirtyeight.com/interactives … -forecast/

Currently the Republicans have the edge, 65.0% of a Republican majority.

Iowa, North Carolina, Colorado, and Alaska are the only possible swing states.[/quote]

OTOH Sam Wang who has been even more accurate than Nate (albeit by a very slim margin) is giving it a lean to the Democrats:

I would have given it to the Repubs 52-48 or 51-49. Now it’s 51-49 or 50-50 with the tie-breaker going to Joe “Gates of Hell” Biden.
election.princeton.edu/

And Kansas:[quote] However, the Election Day prediction does not take into account yesterday’s developments in the Kansas race. If Kansas were redefined as a tossup race, the Election Day probability of Democratic/Independent control would rise to between 70% and 85%. I am thinking about how (and whether) to implement that.[/quote]

18

Getting tight

Chances of Republicans taking the Senate
538- Republicans 53% (down from 64% in August)
Upshot (NYT)- 50% (Aug 62%)
Wash Post- 50% (Aug 53%)
Huffpo- 47% (up from 40% in August)
Dailykos- 48% (Aug 45%)
Sam Wang- 25% :ponder: (Aug 30%)

Obviously Sam’s the outlier here, and he’s been having clashes with Nate Silver.

19

The polls haven’t changed too much. The Republicans will probably take the Senate with a small majority, and expand their already large majority in the House. Not a good year for Democrats.

20

Tend to agree, but there are some strange indications coming out of some of the polls that could bend the results.
For example, the possibility that South Dakota might become another Kansas.

And then of course there’s the Koch Bros. and their fellow travellers: if you can’t win honestly, try another way.

“Mailers Sent By Koch Group Appear Designed to Misdirect Voters in Key U.S. Senate Race.”
prospect.org/article/mailers-sen … enate-race