Sam Spade's 2010 Predictions

[Sam Spade]

Moved Maryland GOV up to Lean D with Ehrlich's entry.

Also moved AR-01* to Lean D and MA-10* to Tossup as mentioned before.  Added MI-01 to Watch List for obvious reasons (plus addition of primary challenger supported by abortion folks).  Am close to moving SD-AL to Lean D too because of primary challenger to the left supported by Hildebrand but didn't do it now.

[Sam Spade]

Torie - first of all remember that this list, at least as with regards to Governor and Senate, is more about where things are right now than where they are going to be.

Based on the polling, California Governor should be a Toss-up, not Lean R or Lean D - I'll make the change now.

In California Senate, Boxer is only getting the benefit of the doubt for me because of her historical talent.  Honestly, the polling we're getting right now and the fact that at least one poll shows Republicans ahead usually means toss-up to me, fwiw.  Another couple of polls showing the race tied or Republicans ahead here will force me to move it to toss-up.

I will admit that Boxer's approval ratings spell trouble to me - at least historically. 

[Sam Spade]

Also moved ND-AL to tossup and IN-09 to Lean D.

[Sam Spade]

I actually disagree with you here on a couple of points. 

I'm willing to bet good money that Brown is viewed more as the incumbent than Whitman (for any number of obvious reasons).  Besides, the great X-factor here is whether Brown will piss off the women voters as he is wont to do.  We'll see - but this one deserves to be called a toss-up now based on the polling and otherwise.

As for Boxer, her approval numbers spell trouble and sometimes even money and talent doesn't save that (which I agree that she has in spades).  I want to see what the numbers are after the primary is over before I say more though.  You see, with incumbent politicians, it's the trajectory that is most important to pay attention to, not the individual little details.

[Sam Spade]

Moved HI-01 to Toss-up.  Not making any other big changes for now.

[Sam Spade]

Moving Illinois Gov to toss-up and I'm close to moving Illinois Senate back there.

[Sam Spade]

Moved TX-23 from Watch List to Likely D based on the fact a GOPer with a Hispanic name will appear on the ballot.

[Sam Spade]

Moved TX-23 from Watch List to Likely D based on the fact a GOPer with a Hispanic name will appear on the ballot.

And people thought I was nuts when I put TX-23 as going GOP in a 1994 like result with House Interactive Map.

Why?  You have a solid GOP base of white voters who will show up, a solid Dem base of Hispanic (and a few black) voters who will sometimes show up (i.e. unreliable) and some wacky rural voters who have been historically Democratic voters but have been known to swing in odd ways in more recent years. 

Canseco is far from the right candidate to attract the rurals, but under the right conditions you never know what they'll do.  And the Hispanic name will get some Hispanic votes - it always does in Texas.

Keep in mind, though, this is only Likely D, not more, not now.  But a Hispanic on the ballot is worth me paying attention here.

[Sam Spade]

Doesn't that swing both ways though with the Hispanic name?   Those kooky rurals and all?

The rurals out there are mostly Hispanic/Mexican in origin.  If you separate Medina County (Uvalde, white and GOP-dominated) from the numbers, nationally it's probably close to 60-40 Dem at the Prez level in 2008 and even more Hispanic.

[Sam Spade]

btw, I meant to also move FL-25 from Watch List to Likely R, sorry.

[Sam Spade]

Doesn't that swing both ways though with the Hispanic name?   Those kooky rurals and all?

The rurals out there are mostly Hispanic/Mexican in origin.  If you separate Medina County (Uvalde, white and GOP-dominated) from the numbers, nationally it's probably close to 60-40 Dem at the Prez level in 2008 and even more Hispanic.

Fine, whatevsky, I meant the group you defined as "historically Democratic voters" [pretty much the most PC term I can imagine for them ]

In the old days, the correct term would have been "machine" voters.  Still is in some counties - Zavala and Dimmit are part of this CD.

But that's not where you look for the swings - Val Verde and Maverick are the keys, as they hold the most voters.

[Sam Spade]

Now that I have my hands on some more fundraising stuff, some decent changes will be occurring here in the next few days.

[Sam Spade]

Move IL Sen back to toss-up and NH Gov to Likely D.

You'll notice I've made a couple of House changes, but I am far from finished in updates there.  May happen this weekend.

[Sam Spade]

http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=ysd83puwg9xiu6

I guess someone who knows how the database works should put this one in there?

I don't, but I will email a mod to help us.

Primary polls don't get put in the database, FYI.

See next post for more polling details.

[Sam Spade]

The poll Ford is referencing comes from Probolsky Research (a Republican firm) working with a Dem firm which I need to re-read the article to figure out who it is: 

http://probolskyresearch.com/documents/CapitolWeekly-ProbolskyResearch-CAPoll-ReportonResults-Prop14andMarijuana.pdf

Governor
47% Whitman
19% Poizner

Senate
31% Campbell
17% Fiorina
14% DeVore

SUSA (to me the gold standard in polling weird primary races) also released a poll a few days ago that had these results:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=17776e13-400d-4a95-a794-8272ea7277c3

Governor
49% Whitman
27% Poizner

Senate
34% Campbell
27% Fiorina
14% DeVore

[Sam Spade]

Don't pay any attention to the rest of the House crap, which has still not been updated, but PA-12 is being moved to Lean R.

[Sam Spade]

Updated with House/Senate/Governor...

Important Note on House Predictions

FWIW, I presently have 57 Democratic seats in the most vulnerable Democratic labels (Likely R, Lean R, Toss-up and Lean D) and 8 Republican seats in the most vulnerable Republican labels (Likely D, Lean D, Toss-up and Lean R).  In contrast to past years, I have tried to establish some sort of guidelines for how I imagine things within this type of map:

1) All of the Likelies fall
2) 3/4 of the Lean R fall
3) 1/2 of the Toss-up fall
4) 1/4 of the Lean D fall

If a wave occurs, then you add a 1/4 to each section where the wave hits (not necessary for likelies) and take away 1/4 from the other side's section.

My prediction for last month or so has been a net 25-30 seat Republican gain.  It's what the numbers say.  With the present map, a wave would result in probably in a 40-50 seat Republican gain, which could result in retaking the House.

Rothenberg is at 50 Democratic seats in his most vulnerable categories, with 18 seats in the less vulnerable Democratic favored (68 total).  He also has 6 Republican seats in his most vulnerable categories, with 5 seats in the less vulnerable Republican favored (11 total).

Charlie Cook is at 65 Democratic seats in his most vulnerable categories (Likely R/Lean R/Toss-up/Lean D), with 34 seats in the less vulnerable Likely D category (99 total).  He also has 5 Republican seats in his most vulnerable categories (Likely D/Lean D/Toss-up/Lean R), with 12 seats in the less vulnerable Likely R category (17 total)

I tend to, at this early date, put a good bit more seats in the lesser categories (Likely D/DEM Watch List; Likely R/GOP Watch List) than Rothenberg's somewhat similar Democratic Favored.  All of my vulnerable categories tend to fall under Charlie Cook's Likely D/Likely R model.

Right now, I've narrowed it down to 18 Likely D seats and 20 Dem Watch List, but a case could certainly be made for 30 Dem Watch List, and it would cover almost every seat I think could be potentially interesting.

Most importantly, towards the model, none of these fall except during a wave where I expect a few of the Likelies on the side the wave hits to go.  Even at that point, none of the Watch List should go.

[Sam Spade]

Notes about the changes:

House

1. LA-03*:  Republicans got a top-notch candidate to run here.  Louisiana can be odd in its politics, but with a decent candidate, hard to see how Republicans lose here this year.
2. CO-04:  Basically, everything's starting to look harder for Dems in Colorado this year and the GOP should have never lost this seat in the first place.  Other than that, I'm not going to give a reason for the move, just that it should be done.
3. IN-08*:  I moved every seat in Indiana up a notch after this week's primary.  Primary results, to me, are basically worthless.  However, I saw the same patterns that I saw in 2006 pop up again this week and Indiana is, and shall always be, a weird state that acts funny.
4. MD-01: Harris outraised Kratovil in 1Q2010.  GOP should have never lost this seat in the first place either and got another break when Ehrlich announced.
5. NY-29*: GOP united behind Reed.  The Dem candidate may have, may not.  Regardless, this is another seat the GOP should never have lost in the first place.
6. OH-15: Stivers' performance in the primary last Tuesday was the most impressive of the evening.  Everything else I've seen out of that campaign has been above par too.  Just a feeling.
7. AR-01*: Rick Crawford fundraised just as well as his Dem opponents and won't have to face that primary clusterf-ck.  Besides, it's Arkansas right now...
8. FL-24: Both Rothenberg and Cook moved this race to toss-up because the Republicans have someone who can self-fund a bit now in the race.  I concur.
9. IL-14: Somewhat similar to FL-24 in that Rothenberg and Cook moved it to toss-up.  Hultgren also had his best fundraising quarter in 1Q2010 but is still behind in fundraising.  I'm tempted to put it in Lean D, but for now will give into conventional thinking...
10. IN-09: See IN-08.  Young got money from Blankenship, which I guess could make a difference.  He is, however, new blood, has raised the most money and this CD's demographics continue to get worse for Hill imo.
11. PA-12* (special): I realized that I overreacted putting it in Lean R.  This area of the world is nearly impossible to poll, anyways, so why am I putting faith in polls?    FWIW, I think HI-01 is almost close to being a lost cause (unless the polling is wrong, always possible in Hawaii), whereas this is the one where Dems will pin their hopes.
12. VA-05: The GOP candidates aren't raising any money here and look weak, whereas Perriello is raising a lot of cash.  The environment may well doom him anyway, but the candidate quality could let him sneak by.
13. WI-07*: Seat opened up.  Obvious call.
14. WV-01: There's about a 50-50 chance Mollohan won't get through the primary.  The GOP is having a similar drag-out brawl, but both candidates have money, so here we go.  Last Tuesday's results, btw, suggest to me problems with Dems in Appalachia.  I want to see PA-12 before saying for sure, however, even though special elections are often less predictive than primaries.
15. GA-08: Austin Scott moved from the Governor's primary to this race last week and can presumably move at least some of funds here too.  Marshall is never going to be "safe" in this seat imo, but much less so when he has a legit opponent.
16. NM-01: Barela had a strong fundraising quarter in 1Q2010 (after a weak one before) and this seat has always been less Democratic than it probably should be (2008 excepted).
17. NY-01: As Lunar mentioned, the giant primary fight and the possibility of split tickets should push this one down a notch.  Though if things mend up in the end for the NY GOP, Bishop will probably be in a decent amount of anger because there's a lot of money flowing here.
18. OH-18: The RNCs choice pick got through the primary mess, Space has money but doesn't seem as strong as a few months ago.  Moreover, as mentioned above with WV-01, I didn't see much good news for Dems in Appalachia last Tuesday.
19. PA-08: Fitz pulled nearly $500K in 1Q2010.  So did Murphy, but that's extremely impressive in my book.
20. VA-09: Morgan Griffith pulled $100K in his first two weeks.  Boucher's got a ton of money, of course, but Appalachia and the candidate's haul (not to mention that Griffith is a strong candidate) pulls the ranking up from where it was.
21. VA-11: The GOPers are raising a respectable amount of money here.  But more important than that (and this goes with all Virginia races this year), there's no Senate/Governor's race this year to boost turnout.
22. AZ-01: Kirkpatrick has a major fundraising advantage, of course.  But it just feels to me like it should be in Likely D not Watch List.  Freshman incumbent also matters.
23. FL-02: Boyd has a ton of money.  However, the main GOPer that the NRCC seems to be uniting around, Steve Southerland, had a pretty strong quarter in 1Q2010.  Thus, because of the generics of this CD, I feel it should be bumped up a notch.
24. IL-11: Kinzinger pulled in as much funds as Halvorson last quarter, and seems to have a decent following.  Freshman incumbent too.
25. IN-02: See IN-08 and IN-09.  Also, Walorski's primary performance was the second most impressive of last Tuesday's, imo.
26. NJ-03: Runyan's fundraising sucked 1Q2010 and Adler has gobs of money, which takes this one down a notch.
27. NY-13: The GOPers here are actually fundraising pretty well enough for me to move it up a bit.  Freshman incumbent.
28. NY-20: Republicans finally coalesced around a candidate, who doesn't look that bad.  Not terrible fundraising either for being in the race a few weeks.  Murphy is fundraising well imo.  Freshman incumbent.  Still deserves the move up.
29. OH-13: I saw that Sutton's CD is only D+5, which surprised me (thought it was more).  Ganley seems willing to spend a fortune and for that, I'm willing to move him up (also realizing it was only D+5).  His primary showing was also pretty strong, and that's another reason.
30. OR-05: Schrader got outraised by Bruun last quarter, though he still has a 7-1 CoH advantage.  That's kind-of a warning sign to me, especially for a freshman incumbent, so I've moving it up a notch.
31. PA-10: Merino, for all his touting, had a bad fundraising quarter.  I doubt this CD gets moved lower than this, unless the wave threat fades, because this seat is particularly vulnerable to waves IMO.
32. PA-17: Argall's fundraising was also weak, but I think I put this one too low to start off with.
33. CT-04:  In contrast with PA-17, I think I put this one too high, and am now moving it back to a more appropriate position.  Still deserves to be watched, with freshman incumbent and all.
34. GA-02: Really deserves to be on the Watch List, IMO.  No one else is paying attention to it.
35. RI-01: The Republican has raised some money and the Dem is as crooked as a three-dollar bill.  It's still Rhode Island, but it should be watched.
36. DE-AL: Republicans have a couple of self-funders in the race now.  Henceforth...
37. FL-25: Just feel that this should be ranked higher because of candidates.  We'll see if that holds.
38. MN-06:  Unlikely this year.
39. OH-02: Ditto.

[Sam Spade]

What is jelling out there I wonder on the macro level that is causing the wave within the past few weeks to become considerably bigger as time goes on? Is it basically one or two major factors (HCR and the economy), or just excessive bleeding due to a thousand cuts? And I thought passage of HCR was supposed to help the Dems at the margins (that was the CV). What happened - at least so far?

I don't follow.

[Sam Spade]

I still don't trust Hawaii polling, but with the DCCC pulling out and all - should be Lean R.

[Sam Spade]

updated putting TX-17 in toss-up, FL-02 in Lean D, PA-12 in Likely D and NE-02 in Lean R.

Nothing else for this second.

[Sam Spade]

A few changes made to Governor/Senate/House.  I'll probably add one more seat to the House Watch List to keep the number even, but I need to look at my off the chart list again.

[Sam Spade]

Made some changes and here are some real observations on the Senate races, instead of the games that I usually play:

AR-Sen:  I'd be very surprised if Halter loses.  Blanche Lincoln is the dead incumbent of this cycle (i.e. the Santorum) and rather than nominate a dead person, Dems would like to nominate someone with a chance.  That being said, Halter can also perform worse than Lincoln (incumbents have this amusing way of pulling closer towards the end of a campaign), in addition to better than her, and quite frankly I think his chances are not that good in general regardless.

CA-Sen:  Carly is going to be the nominee.  I hate her b/c she's incompetent.  Boxer's approvals are weak, though she runs better in the horse race numbers, which seems to be traditional for California.  Key is to see where the race is about 4-6 weeks after the primary.

CT-Sen:  Guess the Blumenthal stuff didn't mean a thing to CT voters.  The state is always a little strange in its voting patterns, so I'll chalk it up to that. 

FL-Sen:  Crist is getting a bit more institutional Dem support, which means his chances increase.  Of course, he's also hiring Bloomberg people, which probably cancels that out.  His position changes are getting pretty amusing to the unbiased observer.

IA-Sen:  I really don't know about my placement of this one.  I do remember how women tend to perform in Iowa.

IN-Sen:  It's the race of the unknowns, which is highly amusing.  Honestly though, if Ras and SUSA are right and Indiana swings back to the pre-2006 Indiana, it's gonna be tough for Ellsworth, even though Coats really sucks as a candidate.

KY-Sen:  The polling says Lean R, but I'd be surprised if Paul wins it by more than 10.  Quite frankly, I'd be not surprised with less than 5 or even really close, but in recent years KY Senate races have been fool's gold for Dems, regardless of who the Republicans put up.

MO-Sen:  What have I been saying about MO for the last year.  Of course, the environment hints that it should go a particular way, but you have to wait until the time actually occurs.

NV-Sen:  The hemming and hawing over this race still ignores the fact that Harry Reid looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, which probably means he is one.  Regardless of which Republican is nominated, and I'd be surprised if it's not Angle (Lowden is a real incompetent bad candidate), ducks tend to get shot down most of the time, though they often get close to the nest before they do.

NY-Sen:  NY GOP is really incompetent aren't they.  I'm about *this* close to putting it in safe.  Which is rather sad.

OH-Sen:  I'm still trying to figure out why Dems are excited considering their candidate is tied and the GOP candidate is barely known with a ton of money to spend and a good geographic base for the state (historically).

PA-Sen:  Quite frankly, I thought Sestak looked bad on the whole recent you-know-what, and appeared NRFPT.  Of course, Specter was another duck-in-waiting, so the Dems decided they would take their chances with the non-duck (smart).  I still think that, in this environment, this one will be close until the end.

WI-Sen:  Although I don't believe Rasmussen's recent take, folks should be aware that Feingold (I like the guy actually) has never been the model of a strong incumbent, and I'm quite impressed with Johnson's campaign so far.  Another poll showing Feingold under 50% and Johnson within ten would push this one to Lean D in my mind.

[Sam Spade]

Crist's leftward lurch has surprised me.

Why?  I thought it rather obvious that was going to happen.

[Sam Spade]

Crist's leftward lurch has surprised me.

Why?  I thought it rather obvious that was going to happen.

I guess I expected his support to collapse, rather than reaching for oxygen among Democrats who have never heard of Meek.

Either way -- why flip flop on DADT?  I don't see the reason.

The only way Crist can win is by becoming the defacto Dem candidate.  Of course, the danger is that that game will cause Rubio's "base" support to increase and I really don't know how many Dems in FL will vote Dem just because...  I suspect it's more than the number of GOP who vote GOP because based on underanalysis on my part probably.

Another danger for Dems with the Crist games is that the Dem turnout may crater, "sinking" the ship and other up-ballot candidates as well as creating big issues for the various vulnerable Congressfolk.