News & discussion on house and senate races

I'm hearing mixed messages about the senate; some say it's too close to call, and others are saying the republicans will keep it by one or two seats.

0 Replies

Whoa!

Ok, here's a useful last minute warning.

You know, when I looked at new polls coming in, I always responded - I thought - pretty sceptically.

McCaskill led by 1%? Meaningless, could go either way.
Webb led by 2%? Well, thats nice. But I still dont actually expect him to win.
Tester's lead is down to 3%? Hmm.. so the Dems do still have a good chance... probably that race will go down to the wire...
Menendez is up by 4,5%? OK, he should be safe, I dont need to worry about that one.

Right?

Wrong.

Here's a sobering historical poll analysis by Charles Franklin at pollster.com for you:

From Poll Margin to Wins: Polls as Predictors

He took all eve-of-election statewide polls for Senate, Governor and President races in 2000 and 2002. And he calculated - for example, he took all polls that had the Dem leading by 5%, and then looked at how many of these races were actually won by a Dem.

And yes, it has a pretty, if at first sight bewildering graph to go with it.

But here's a finding for you:

Quote:

By the time we see a 10 point lead in the poll for the Dem, about 90% of the Dems [also actually] win. When we see a 10 point margin for the Rep, about 90% of Reps win. [This] means that polls rarely miss the winner with a 10 point lead, but they DO miss it 10% of the time.

And:

Quote:

A 5 point lead, on the other hand, turns out to be right only about 60-65% of the time. [..] And for 1 or 2 point leads (as in some of our closer races tomorrow) the polls are only barely better than 50% right in picking the winner.

So. Expect some whom you thought safe, with 5+% leads in the last poll out, to fail regardless. On either side.

Expect some surprises ;-)

0 Replies

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see the Senate race end with a 50-50 tie for the next session. I think the House will shift to the Democrats and I'm even holding out hope for Dan Seals to beat Mark Kirk in the IL-10th District. He was -25 points in early Oct and +2 last week (I did my part).

One comment of note, and I'm not sure if this belongs here or on the Obama thread: Obama and Dick Durbin D-IL were stumping for Democratic candidates in close races in northern IL yesterday. From the media perspective at least, Durbin, who is the Democratic Whip of the Senate, was "also present" and Obama was the draw. I wonder how he feels about that?

0 Replies

In the past, never has the House been taken without the Senate following suit.

Is this cycle that different?

0 Replies

I will see how National Public Radio's election coverage starts out in an hour. I will certainly not be watching network tv, with their steady parade of talking heads and spin docctors and self proclaimed "experts" and exit polls.

I return again to the numbers of folks who voted prior to today (absentee) or who may have run into a problem (and cast provisional ballots). That population may be as large as 25% of the total votes. And in some cases it may take up to two weeks to tally them..Let me repeat that. As many as 25% of the votes may not be counted for another week or so. I thought I heard that Ohio has scanned all of the absentee ballots buts has not hit the "total" button But they will just after the polls close.

The broadcast media will be breathless through much of the night, but they may end up with only 75% of the story.

0 Replies

I definitely had a problem, some weeks ago someone called and asked if I wanted to vote early by mail and I said ok and then the lady Diane said she didn't feel confident with that and we should do the regular vote thing so I tossed the mail-in ballot and then showed up to vote today but found I was crossed out as having cast a mail-in ballot so I ended up having to cast a provisional ballot which is not even counted unless there is a contested vote. I am not a happy camper this evening.

0 Replies

rjb, I even heard that some counts may not be completed until Friday. Is that correct?

0 Replies

ugh, dys, I hear you.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Whoa! Ok, here's a useful last minute warning.

You know, when I looked at new polls coming in, I always responded - I thought - pretty sceptically.

McCaskill led by 1%? Meaningless, could go either way.
Webb led by 2%? Well, thats nice. But I still dont actually expect him to win.
Tester's lead is down to 3%? Hmm.. so the Dems do still have a good chance... probably that race will go down to the wire...
Menendez is up by 4,5%? OK, he should be safe, I dont need to worry about that one.

Right?

Wrong.

Here's a sobering historical poll analysis by Charles Franklin at pollster.com for you:

From Poll Margin to Wins: Polls as Predictors

He took all eve-of-election statewide polls for Senate, Governor and President races in 2000 and 2002. And he calculated - for example, he took all polls that had the Dem leading by 5%, and then looked at how many of these races were actually won by a Dem.

And yes, it has a pretty, if at first sight bewildering graph to go with it.

But here's a finding for you:

Quote:
By the time we see a 10 point lead in the poll for the Dem, about 90% of the Dems [also actually] win. When we see a 10 point margin for the Rep, about 90% of Reps win. [This] means that polls rarely miss the winner with a 10 point lead, but they DO miss it 10% of the time.

And:

Quote:
A 5 point lead, on the other hand, turns out to be right only about 60-65% of the time. [..] And for 1 or 2 point leads (as in some of our closer races tomorrow) the polls are only barely better than 50% right in picking the winner.

So. Expect some whom you thought safe, with 5+% leads in the last poll out, to fail regardless. On either side.

Expect some surprises ;-)

Which demonstrates to me why psephology is junk.

0 Replies

MSNBC has called Vermont for Socialist candidate Bernie Saunders.

No surprise, but I cant help it making me smile. A socialist in Senate! Razz

0 Replies

Yes of course, I rely on phrenology and fortune cookies.

0 Replies

Here's one to watch:

Kentucky - House district 3. Louisville and suburbs. Five-term incumbent Anne Northup vs Democratic challenger John Yarmuth.

In 2004, Northup won 60% to 38%. Both the NYTimes and Congressional Quarterly have the race rated as "Leans Republican".

At the moment, 37% of the votes are in, and Democrat Yarmuth is leading 51% to 48%.

0 Replies

55% on that race, Yarmuth trailing by 400 votes.

Close one

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Where are yall getting you info? Thanks.

0 Replies

CNN. Sucks but up to date.

here

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/house/index.html

here too

http://www.tpmcafe.com/race/overview

Yarmuth is up by 4k with 65% in... whew!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Hey rjb, for Kentucky I was using both the Kentucky Secretary of State site (thanks to Timber for the tip) and the MSNBC House races page.

The MSNBC one is more up-to-date - but not as up-to-date as whatever source Cyclo is using! Razz

0 Replies

MSNBC streaming video just went down for me -- "This video is in high demand - Please try again later". Ha! High demand indeed... interest sure seems intense this time.

0 Replies

Dornan! Is he still alive and kicking??

0 Replies

Strickland defeats Blackwell in Ohio, say MSNBC and CNN.

Predictable, but still worth a definite cheer.

Vermont's House race is called too - Democrat Welch defeats Rainville, who at one point was considered a real contender, and received national Republican money.

0 Replies

What's the 'score' so far? D and R?

0 Replies

News & discussion on house and senate races

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know