The 1-close race rule

[Dgov]

I've been looking over the past "Wave Election"  results for the Senate, and I've noticed a trend.  It looks like the "losing" party loses all the tossup/close seats except one in each election except 1980 and 1986, The former where the Democrats held Vermont and Colorado and the latter where the Republicans held Idaho and Wisconsin.

In 1994 the Democrats lost every competitive seat except New Jersey (California and Virginia had enough 3rd-party support to make them basically flukes)

In 2006 the Republicans lost every competitive seat except Tennessee

In 2008 the Republicans lost every competitive seat except for Georgia

Any sense to this trend or am I just seeing things?

[tokar]

I've been looking over the past "Wave Election"  results for the Senate, and I've noticed a trend.  It looks like the "losing" party loses all the tossup/close seats except one in each election except 1980 and 1986, The former where the Democrats held Vermont and Colorado and the latter where the Republicans held Idaho and Wisconsin.

In 1994 the Democrats lost every competitive seat except New Jersey (California and Virginia had enough 3rd-party support to make them basically flukes)

In 2006 the Republicans lost every competitive seat except Tennessee

In 2008 the Republicans lost every competitive seat except for Georgia

Any sense to this trend or am I just seeing things?

So your conclusion is the democrats will lose all close races (KY, PA, NV, CO, MO, CA, WA, IL, WI, AK) except one?

I think given such a small data set and given the current partisan climate and the current state voting trends I am going to have to disagree.

WA and CA are indeed close races just given the polls (CA has Boxer up single digits, and WA has Rossi up single digits) and they will both go Democratic come November.  So right there it goes against your theory.

[Joe Republic]

You can find patterns like this in all kinds of things, but surely we don't need to tell you that they shouldn't be used as predictors?

[Lief 🗽]

In 1982, despite being the "losing party", Dems won most of the close races. Also what Joe said. All the close races could break to the Republicans this year. Or none of them could. Or five could. Or three. Et cetera.

[Dgov]

I've been looking over the past "Wave Election"  results for the Senate, and I've noticed a trend.  It looks like the "losing" party loses all the tossup/close seats except one in each election except 1980 and 1986, The former where the Democrats held Vermont and Colorado and the latter where the Republicans held Idaho and Wisconsin.

In 1994 the Democrats lost every competitive seat except New Jersey (California and Virginia had enough 3rd-party support to make them basically flukes)

In 2006 the Republicans lost every competitive seat except Tennessee

In 2008 the Republicans lost every competitive seat except for Georgia

Any sense to this trend or am I just seeing things?

So your conclusion is the democrats will lose all close races (KY, PA, NV, CO, MO, CA, WA, IL, WI, AK) except one?

I think given such a small data set and given the current partisan climate and the current state voting trends I am going to have to disagree.

WA and CA are indeed close races just given the polls (CA has Boxer up single digits, and WA has Rossi up single digits) and they will both go Democratic come November.  So right there it goes against your theory.

No, my theory is that close races will break for the winning party in wave elections, by the nature of wave elections.  In each of the elections mentioned above, the winning party was able to bring most of the tossups into it's column by November, and won more close elections than they lost.

[Whacker77]

We've had quite a few years recently where all of the close races broke towards one party.  In 2000, Democrats won all of the close races except for Montana.  In 2002, Republicans won all of the close races except for South Dakota.  In 2006, all of the close races went to the Democrats except Tennessee.  In 2008, Democrats won all of the races except Georgia although I'm not so sure that was "close".

Anyway, those years all saw breaks to one side or the other.  It's not unreasonable to believe the same wouldn't happen this year.  I could see Republicans winning a whole bunch of races by less than 5 points, but not capturing Washington or California.  That would fit in with the past decade.

[tokar]

We've had quite a few years recently where all of the close races broke towards one party.  In 2000, Democrats won all of the close races except for Montana.  In 2002, Republicans won all of the close races except for South Dakota.  In 2006, all of the close races went to the Democrats except Tennessee.  In 2008, Democrats won all of the races except Georgia although I'm not so sure that was "close".

Anyway, those years all saw breaks to one side or the other.  It's not unreasonable to believe the same wouldn't happen this year.  I could see Republicans winning a whole bunch of races by less than 5 points, but not capturing Washington or California.  That would fit in with the past decade.

That was my sentiments too, that Georgia really wasn't "close".  Yes results say that the margin pre-runoff was very small, but i don't think anyone had Georgia on their "toss-up" list pre-election night.

[Kevin]

I've been looking over the past "Wave Election"  results for the Senate, and I've noticed a trend.  It looks like the "losing" party loses all the tossup/close seats except one in each election except 1980 and 1986, The former where the Democrats held Vermont and Colorado and the latter where the Republicans held Idaho and Wisconsin.

In 1994 the Democrats lost every competitive seat except New Jersey (California and Virginia had enough 3rd-party support to make them basically flukes)

In 2006 the Republicans lost every competitive seat except Tennessee

In 2008 the Republicans lost every competitive seat except for Georgia

Any sense to this trend or am I just seeing things?

So your conclusion is the democrats will lose all close races (KY, PA, NV, CO, MO, CA, WA, IL, WI, AK) except one?

I think given such a small data set and given the current partisan climate and the current state voting trends I am going to have to disagree.

WA and CA are indeed close races just given the polls (CA has Boxer up single digits, and WA has Rossi up single digits) and they will both go Democratic come November.  So right there it goes against your theory.

That's awfully naive of you to assume that CA and WA will go Democratic just because of their political leanings in this type of year(Especially in the case of WA).

[The Vorlon]

I've been looking over the past "Wave Election"  results for the Senate, and I've noticed a trend.  It looks like the "losing" party loses all the tossup/close seats except one in each election except 1980 and 1986, The former where the Democrats held Vermont and Colorado and the latter where the Republicans held Idaho and Wisconsin.

In 1994 the Democrats lost every competitive seat except New Jersey (California and Virginia had enough 3rd-party support to make them basically flukes)

In 2006 the Republicans lost every competitive seat except Tennessee

In 2008 the Republicans lost every competitive seat except for Georgia

Any sense to this trend or am I just seeing things?

There is usually a bit of a shift on the last weekend/monday before an election.

Pollsters & politicians call it "the breeze" - Most times it blows in one direction, and just about every candidate for a particular party gets a mild extra nudge either for or against.

There is a pocket of voters called the "good citizens" - they make up something on the order of 5% of the population and they are pretty normal people who are, by and large, not particularly deeply engaged politically.  The just about always vote because that is what, well, "good citizens" do. -

This is why polls that run a really tight voter screen usually really slam the undecided, because based upon voting history, the "good citizens" are indeed VERY likely voters, so if you really slam them for even a mild lean, there is good and important information to be gained - they will vote.

They often do not make up their mind till the last week or so, but they do usually break fairly sharply one way or another.  When they break they usually tip most of the really close races one way or another.

An interesting tidbit from history is that in 1982 the GOP was taking a real sh*tkicking in the midterms, but just about all the really close senate races actually broke the GOP's way which was a bit of a historic anomaly.

[J. J.]

I've been looking over the past "Wave Election"  results for the Senate, and I've noticed a trend.  It looks like the "losing" party loses all the tossup/close seats except one in each election except 1980 and 1986, The former where the Democrats held Vermont and Colorado and the latter where the Republicans held Idaho and Wisconsin.

In 1994 the Democrats lost every competitive seat except New Jersey (California and Virginia had enough 3rd-party support to make them basically flukes)

In 2006 the Republicans lost every competitive seat except Tennessee

In 2008 the Republicans lost every competitive seat except for Georgia

Any sense to this trend or am I just seeing things?

You can add 1994 to your list, the state the GOP lost was VA, where Ollie North was the nominee.

one way or another.

An interesting tidbit from history is that in 1982 the GOP was taking a real sh*tkicking in the midterms, but just about all the really close senate races actually broke the GOP's way which was a bit of a historic anomaly.

I think there is another reason for 1982; it was in the midst of a (relatively weak) re-alignment.