Sam Spade's 2012 Congress/Governor Predictions

[Sam Spade]

SENATE

Safe D
California
Delaware
Maryland
Minnesota
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
Vermont (I)
Washington

Likely D   
Connecticut*
Hawaii*
Maine* (R) (the shift to I is most likely here)
Michigan
Pennsylvania
West Virginia

Lean D
Florida
Ohio

Toss-up
Massachusetts (R) (Scott Brown is obviously very happy to have Romney around)
Missouri (D) (honestly, McCaskill looks like a doomed incumbent to me, but we'll see...)
Montana (D) (same here - kinda reminds me of 1988 really)
Nevada (R) (my read is that Berkley is the wrong candidate, but that being said, we can't really trust Nevada polling, of course Ralston says Heller has slight lead right now, so there)
New Mexico* (D) (I have never been one to underestimate Heather Wilson)
Virginia* (D) (what else is there to say)
Wisconsin* (D) (ditto - I do think Baldwin is the wrong candidate here also)

Lean R   
Arizona*

Likely R
Indiana (btw, if Lugar wins, it's Safe R, but I expect him to lose, if Mourdock wins, then Likely R, Obama's campaign not being around here in 2012 is a major reason why, also the general disaster that the Indiana Democratic party has been since 2008 is another reason why)
Nebraska* (D)
North Dakota* (D)
Texas* (I never put open Senate seats in safe until after the primary, but here it's really tempting)

Safe R
Mississippi
Tennessee
Utah
Wyoming

GOVERNOR

Safe D
Delaware
Vermont

Likely D/Lean D
Missouri
West Virginia

Toss-up
Montana* (D)
New Hampshire* (D)
North Carolina* (D) (I know what the polls say, but I'm treating this more conservatively than most, that being said, the NC Dem party is presently in disaster mode)
Washington* (D)
Wisconsin (R)

Likely R/Lean R
Indiana*

Safe R
North Dakota
Utah

[Sam Spade]

Quite generous to Ben Nelson.

You're probably right, but give it time.

[Sam Spade]

Why do you see NC as toss-up rather than Lean or Likely R?

This early out, I'm really leery of putting incumbents at anything more than tossup.  In fact, I'm always leery of doing it before primaries.

Though I will admit, the polls on both North Carolina Gov and Nebraska Senate suggest more of a Lean R than tossup, Nebraska depending on the candidate.  Polls out this far only give us generalized views, though.

You have to hedge a lot at this point, though I must admit that right now Republican candidate recruitment looks a lot better than Democratic recruitment.

[Sam Spade]

As Chrisy Matthews would say, tell me something I don't know Sam. Shock me, surprise me, give me a buzz. Is that to much to ask? 

I think that making calls on Lean and Likely and not just throwing everything into Safe or Toss-up like a tv pundit is pretty gutsy.

Even at this early point, one should be able to determine what is safe and what is not, barring scandal or dropping out or new candidates, or whatever.

[Sam Spade]

Why do you see NC as toss-up rather than Lean or Likely R?

This early out, I'm really leery of putting incumbents at anything more than tossup.  In fact, I'm always leery of doing it before primaries.

Though I will admit, the polls on both North Carolina Gov and Nebraska Senate suggest more of a Lean R than tossup, Nebraska depending on the candidate.  Polls out this far only give us generalized views, though.

You have to hedge a lot at this point, though I must admit that right now Republican candidate recruitment looks a lot better than Democratic recruitment.

Is there any evidence that incumbents have an advantage controlling for polling? My guess is they don't - most of their advantage is already reflected in the polling, so if they're trailing early, they're in real trouble.

Not always.  Besides, when it is *this* early, advantages can come and go.

[Sam Spade]

Why do you have Massachusetts at Lean R?

Being cautious, which seems appropriate, though if Obama continues to have trouble where the polls say, Massachusetts will continue to be less D at the Presidential level (not competitive, but you know what I mean), thereby helping Brown immensely.

[Sam Spade]

bump

Any particular reason?  I'm not doing House yet.

The only changes I would make right now are West Virginia Gov from Likely D to Lean D and New Hampshire Gov from Likely D to Toss-up.  But it's not worth making a formal change.

If this is in regards to MA Senate, you need to wait about 6 weeks or so to see how the race settles out.  Large bumps like what we're seeing right now often occur at announcement time of candidates that get attention, and then 2 months later, we're back to where we were (or something similar).  Wait.

[Sam Spade]

Updated.  I'm going to try to do the House in the next few weeks. 

In the House, Dems need to win 25 seats net to take back the majority (26 if they lose AZ-08).  My read on redistricting/2010 wave election is that Republicans won in-between 10-15 seats more than they should have in a neutral contest with the present incumbent advantage.  That being said, the Dems are probably going to have 5-10 seats taken away from them due to untimely retirements in the Deep South and map changes. The present polls highly suggest that this year will be a return to the 1996-2004 world at all levels, and not a wave year.  As such, Dem chances of winning the House should be placed at >10%, and probably >5%.
 
In the Senate, at present, Republicans would need to win 4 out of 7 tossups with Romney win or 5 out of 7 with Obama win to take back the Senate.  Maybe slightly under 50% chance of that occurring right now.  Kinda like the Presidency really.