PREDICTIONS THREAD (SENATE/HOUSE RACES)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Close call on AL, IL, WA and maybe CO and NV

My guts say William Barnes will make a stunning comeback !

[GMantis]

Close call on AL, IL, WA and maybe CO and NV

My guts say William Barnes will make a stunning comeback !

Which will be overshadowed by the defeat of the man who caused the recession!

[Guderian]

+62
+8

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

(might have already posted in this thread...)

+70
+10

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And now the South...

Virginia - I feel very unsure about both VA-9 and VA-11 so both are in the realm that only the Lord does Know. I half suspect that VA-11 may be more vulnerable than VA-9, but that's not based on much more than an experimental theory. VA-5 is close to being gone, but as Perriello defeated Goode I can't quite bring myself to predict accordingly, so it's only at marginal R.

North Carolina - there are three races in NC that I shall place in the care of the Good Lord: NC-2, NC-7 and NC-8. I almost wouldn't be surprised if NC-8 was the only one held despite everything; at least that incumbent would have know to prepare for trouble. But the districts in NC are too gerrymandered to get a good feel of. It's a credit to his strength as a candidate that Shuler isn't a gonner, but I don't think putting him at over tight D is a good idea. And just in case things go pear shaped, NC-4 and NC-13 are listed as possible upsets. So, yeah. North Carolina might turn out alright, or it might rival Ohio for bloodbath status.

South Carolina - Spratt is, alas, almost certainly done for. My hope remains that he can cling on by about three votes, but holding onto that district in this year... I would place it at marginal R, I think. I wil add that I admire Spratt's bloody minded tenacity and hope he pulls off a miracle.

Georgia - that Bishop is in deep trouble is mind boggling, but I gather he's scandal-tarred or something (I don't follow ordinary U.S political news all that closely). Placing as a Lord Knows. I came close to calling Marshall a dead man walking when making a preliminary assessment of House races shortly after the 2008 elections. So, yeah. He's a gonner. One more thing. Does anyone remember how Barrow nearly lost in 2006? He seems safe enough, but given that, anything other than Possible Upset would be an error.

Florida - FL-2 is gone as are FL-8 and FL-24. FL-22 is laughably polarised so is Lord Knows rather than tight R. On the other side, FL-25 is marginal R and FL-12 is but a possible upset. With better political conditions the Democrats would be looking at a two seat pick up, I think. As it is...

Alabama - technically I have to list AL-5 as a Democratic district; but it is the most gone of all gonners. Bright had no business being elected and has no business being re-elected; he might fluke a hold, but I think tight R is about right.

Mississippi - I never thought I would see Gene Taylor in trouble. Never. Though I think only Him Upstairs knows the answer to that one. MS-1 is marginal R.

Tennessee - TN-6 and TN-8 are both gone. I suspect that TN-6 will not even be slightly close. Meanwhile, Davis is in deep sh!t in TN-4, but might hang on; Lord Knows I think. In circumstances such as these even TN-5 must be considered as a possible upset.

Arkansas - AR-2 is gone, of course. AR-1 I'm not really sure of; might be a very easy gain, but be oddly close. I think marginal R would be about right. To be on the safe side, AR-4 is a possible upset.

Louisiana - LA-3 is a weird, weird area. But gone, I think. Cao ought to be gone as well, but he isn't, not quite, maybe. Marginal D.

[angus]

(might have already posted in this thread...)

+70
+10

probably not necessary, since your predictions are well known to all who post here.

still using the patented jmfcst fool-proof formula to get those numbers?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

(might have already posted in this thread...)

+70
+10

probably not necessary, since your predictions are well known to all who post here.[/url]

i was afraid the nazi mods would delete my prediction thread.

---

still using the patented jmfcst fool-proof formula to get those numbers?

nah, otherwise my count would be up to ~85...the formula then was adjusted to account for the lack of polling, but now that my bloodhound weighs more than 76 pounds, coupled with the fact I trimmed the toenails on my right foot but not my left foot, along with the fact my wife decided to wear black to bed this past Tuesday and Friday...I adjusted the formula, but I still end up with a GOP pick-up of 69 (~70)

[Lief 🗽]

Here are some House predictions, coming out to R+53 I think. As I was doing these I thought I was being overly optimistic, but 53 is already pretty depressing.

[Boris]

I'll go with R+60 for the House. Just a guess, don't really know. R+8 in the senate is probably what's going to happen, though.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

I could do individual district by district but I'm far too lazy, but the last time I checked them all I came to a R+53 in the House and a R+7 in the Senate.

Now, let's see how far away I actually was.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

AR-02*
CO-04
FL-08
FL-24
KS-03*
IL-11
IN-08*
LA-03*
NM-02
NY-29*
OH-01
OH-15
PA-03
TN-06*
TN-08*
AZ-01
FL-02
GA-08
MD-01
MI-01*
MS-01
ND-AL
NH-01
NV-03
OH-16
OH-18
OR-05
PA-08
SC-05
TX-17
VA-02
VA-05
WA-03*
WI-07*
WI-08
AL-02
AR-01*
AZ-05
CA-11
CO-03
IL-14
IL-17
IN-09
NJ-03
NY-19
NY-20
PA-07*
PA-11
FL-22
GA-02
TN-04
TX-23
MI-07
NY-24
PA-10
PA-12
DE-AL
LA-02
IL-10

And the Senate:
Alabama:  Shelby (R) 66, Barnes (D) 34 (GOP HOLD)
Alaska:  Murkowski (I) 36, Miller (R) 34, McAdams (D) 28, Other 2 (INDEPENDENT PICKUP)
Arizona:  McCain (R) 57, Glassman (D) 38, Other 5 (GOP HOLD)
Arkansas:  Boozman (R) 56, Lincoln (D) 41, Other 3 (GOP PICKUP)
California:  Boxer (D) 50, Fiorina (R) 46, Other 4 (DEM HOLD)
Colorado:  Buck (R) 51, Bennet (D) 47, Other 2 (GOP PICKUP)
Connecticut:  Blumenthal (D) 54, McMahon (R) 44, Other 2 (DEM HOLD)
Delaware (Kaufman):  Coons (D) 56, O’Donnell (R) 40, Other 4 (DEM HOLD)
Florida:  Rubio (R) 43, Crist (I) 33, Meek (D) 22, Other 2 (GOP HOLD)
Georgia:  Isakson (R) 62, Thurmond (D) 35, Other 3 (GOP HOLD)
Hawaii:  Inouye (D) 68, Cavasso (R) 27, Other 5 (DEM HOLD)
Idaho:  Crapo (R) 67, Sullivan (D) 29, Other 4 (GOP HOLD)
Illinois:  Kirk (R) 48, Giannoulias (D) 47, Other 5 (GOP PICKUP)
Indiana:  Coats (R) 56, Ellsworth (D) 41, Other 3 (GOP PICKUP)
Iowa:  Grassley (R) 61, Conlin (D) 37, Other 2 (GOP HOLD)
Kansas:  Moran (R) 68, Huelskamp (D) 28, Other 4 (GOP HOLD)
Kentucky:  Paul (R) 56, Conway (D) 44 (GOP HOLD)
Louisiana:  Vitter (R) 54, Melancon (D) 41, Other 5 (GOP HOLD)
Maryland:  Mikulski (D) 63, Wargotz (R) 35, Other 2 (DEM HOLD)
Missouri:  Blunt (R) 53, Carnahan (D) 44, Other 3 (GOP HOLD)
Nevada:  Reid (D) 48, Angle (R) 47, Other 5 (DEM HOLD)
New Hampshire:  Ayotte (R) 55, Hodes (D) 41, Other 4 (GOP HOLD)
New York (Gillibrand):  Gillibrand (D) 57, Dioguardi 38, Other 5 (DEM HOLD)
New York (Schumer):  Schumer (D) 66, Townsend (R) 31, Other 3 (DEM HOLD)
North Carolina:  Burr (R) 54, Marshall (D) 42, Other 4 (GOP HOLD)
North Dakota:  Hoeven (R) 74, Potter (D) 23, Other 3 (GOP PICKUP)
Ohio:  Portman (R) 55, Fisher (D) 43, Other 2 (GOP HOLD)
Oklahoma:  Coburn (R) 72, Rogers (D) 25, Other 3 (GOP HOLD)
Oregon:  Wyden (D) 55, Huffman (R) 40, Other 5 (DEM HOLD)
Pennsylvania:  Toomey (R) 53, Sestak (D) 47 (GOP PICKUP)
South Carolina:  DeMint (R) 62, Greene (D) 29, Other 9 (GOP HOLD)
South Dakota:  Thune (R) 100 (GOP HOLD)
Utah:  Lee (R) 60, Granato (D) 34, Other 6 (GOP HOLD)
Vermont:  Leahy (D) 71, Britton 23, Other 6 (DEM HOLD)
Washington:  Murray (D) 50, Rossi (R) 50 (DEM HOLD)
West Virginia* (Goodwin):  Manchin 51, Raese 47, Other 2 (DEM HOLD)
Wisconsin:  Johnson (R) 51, Feingold (D) 48, Other 1 (GOP PICKUP

[Filuwaúrdjan]

More! There's more!

Texas - the music finally stops for Chet Edwards; TX-17 is a gone. Elsewhere in Texas, only the Lord ever knows about TX-23 (also, I can never remember if that's the Texas district I have close relatives in, or whether it's another one in that general area) and I think I'm going to go out on a slight limb and say that TX-27 is but tight D. TX-25 is a possible upset. Other than that, all looks to be very safe.

Oklahoma - reality intrudes and says OK-2 is a possible upset, just because of where it is.

Kansas - KS-3 has been gone for a long time now.

SD - tight R

ND - marginal R

Colorado - CO-3 is marginal R and CO-4 is gone. I will say that CO-7 is tight D.

New Mexico - let's be honest. Does anyone but the Lord ever know about NM-1? I can't see NM-2 being held this year (so, gone), and NM-3 is a possible upset.

Arizona - AZ-1 is gone, AZ-5 is marginal R, AZ-8 is... I think given everything tight R, actually. AZ-7 has suddenly loomed as vulnerable; I think marginal D is about right. However much a clown that moron in AZ-3 is, this year he should win, but possible upset to be on the safe side.

Utah - UT-2 is a possible upset for the same reason as OK-2.

Nevada - NV-3 is gone, I think.

Idaho - ID-1 is obviously known only to the Lord (though hopefully not in an Old Testament sense).

Washington - I strongly suspect that WA-3 is gone so that's what I shall predict. WA-2 is tight D and WA-9 marginal D. On the other side, WA-8 is a possible upset.

Oregon - OR-5 is tight R, OR-1 and OR-4 possible upsets.

California - CA-11 is tight R, only the Lord can be sure of CA-20 and CA-18 is marginal D. CA-47 is marginal D, I guess, but that's not an area I know much about. On the other side, CA-3 is a possible upset. There might be other districts (D ones, obviously) that should be in that category as well, but Californian districts tend to merge together in my mind.

Hawaiʻi - I can never remember the numbers, but the Honolulu district vies with WV-1 for ultimate Lord Knows status, obviously.

[Lief 🗽]

TX-25 is a possible upset.

Seriously? I'd be completely shocked (also heartbroken) if Doggett lost.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

TX-25 is a possible upset.

Seriously? I'd be completely shocked (also heartbroken) if Doggett lost.

Possible upset = should be safe enough, and maybe will be, but... hmm...

I'm using it as a category because it's hard to tell quite how strong the swing will be; almost certainly most incumbents given that rating will survive.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Oklahoma - reality intrudes and says OK-2 is a possible upset, just because of where it is.

I don't think OK-2 will flip.  It's possible it could get caught up in "The Wave", but believe it or not, there are Democrats in Oklahoma.  Most of the more hard-core Democrats live in the OK-2 district which covers primarily the eastern third of the state except for the Tulsa metro which is OK-1.  Naturally, I haven't seen any polls on OK-2, but I think Dan Boren is safer than most expect.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A note of caution, such as it is. My predictions are based on the election turning out roughly the way that the polls and the noises off (and on!) heavily suggest. If those things are wrong, my predictions will be as well.

I suspect that's true of everyone else. There. I've given all of us cover

Oklahoma - reality intrudes and says OK-2 is a possible upset, just because of where it is.

I don't think OK-2 will flip.  It's possible it could get caught up in "The Wave", but believe it or not, there are Democrats in Oklahoma.  Most of the more hard-core Democrats live in the OK-2 district which covers primarily the eastern third of the state except for the Tulsa metro which is OK-1.  Naturally, I haven't seen any polls on OK-2, but I think Dan Boren is safer than most expect.

I would agree that it is very unlikely to flip. But I don't think being 100% sure about such a district is a good idea, if the polls (and what we've heard from leading figures in both parties) are at all accurate. He might end up winning by miles. But I wouldn't do a Tex Avery jaw if he lost.

[Joe Biden 2020]

A note of caution, such as it is. My predictions are based on the election turning out roughly the way that the polls and the noises off (and on!) heavily suggest. If those things are wrong, my predictions will be as well.

I suspect that's true of everyone else. There. I've given all of us cover

Oklahoma - reality intrudes and says OK-2 is a possible upset, just because of where it is.

I don't think OK-2 will flip.  It's possible it could get caught up in "The Wave", but believe it or not, there are Democrats in Oklahoma.  Most of the more hard-core Democrats live in the OK-2 district which covers primarily the eastern third of the state except for the Tulsa metro which is OK-1.  Naturally, I haven't seen any polls on OK-2, but I think Dan Boren is safer than most expect.

I would agree that it is very unlikely to flip. But I don't think being 100% sure about such a district is a good idea, if the polls (and what we've heard from leading figures in both parties) are at all accurate. He might end up winning by miles. But I wouldn't do a Tex Avery jaw if he lost.

In this cycle, there's no race that is 100% guaranteed out of the 509 House, Senate, and Governor races.

[Joe Republic]

This thread is now locked until the results are in.

[Sam Spade]

Enjoy laughing, Al...

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I did better than I expected, cool.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

New Hampshire - has Hodes led in a single poll yet? Republican hold; wouldn't be surprised if it's not even slightly close.

Ayotte actually cracked 60%, so, yeah.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

zzz

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Blumenthal by 13. Comfortable it was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

zzz

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sestak actually came a bit closer than I thought he would even though the county map looked as awful as I'd guessed; a relatively good turnout/showing/etc in Philly will do that. PADems have now learned a hard lesson I think; you can't always win like that. Specter would have been blasted to pieces, IMO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

16pt blowout

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite correct.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Greene took 28%. The funny thing is that Rawls probably wouldn't have done all that much better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Losing by 19pts, apparently.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, he managed to avoid coming third, but lost by nearly 20pts. More or less as I predicted months ago... (continued p. 283-495)

There was never any chance of this ending in anything other than his humiliation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, Democrats picked the wrong candidate. Look at the county map. Not that he would have won either. Still, Paul may well be vulnerable in six years time; so far at least the bottom hasn't fallen out of the KY Democratic Party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Manchin by ten. As this map sort-of hinted...



Republican increases (this is to do with early voting statistics; the difference between registration overall and the registration of those voting early) needed to have been high in the coalfields, because only that would have confirmed the sort of turnout pattern Raese needed. Raleigh county as well; Beckley is now one of the most Republican cities in the state and the inability of Raese to drum up a big increase in early voters there... yeah. The stuff in the Ohio valley was predictive... of results in Ohio. lol. The one pattern that looked good for Raese helped him no bit, but did help McKinley scrape over the line.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ohio - splat.

splat, splat, splat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ellsworth lost by eighteen points. Of course he would have lost his House seat had he stood again (what with the way things were blowing in Indiana) but at least that would have been respectable. Hey, he might still have had a career. But who would touch that moron with a bargepole now?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...and Kirk narrowly won. Giannoulias got trashed so badly outside Chicago that nowt there could have saved him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And so it was. Sadly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...and only lost a single county.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep. Blunt by fourteen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Boozman by 21pts. The county map is at least mildly amusing, but that photo of Lincoln was one of the funniest of the night, probably.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

zzz...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He just about made it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously Bennett won. I suspect that that nasty business with the rape case did for Buck; the margin was close enough. All-male forums are probably prone to underestimate how that sort of thing plays. But I'll never pretend to understand Colorado.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maverick. Maverick. Maverick. Maverick.
Maverick. Maverick. Maverick.
Maverick. Maverick.
Maverick.
...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

zzz

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, the second option it was then. I'll count this as a wrong prediction, but one that I'm pleased to have erred over...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh Crapo; even skibunnydom fell beneath the waves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My paper presumptions were correct. The bucket of cold sick capper on the huge swing was MN-8 instead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And so it was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Boxer won pretty comfortably. Interesting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

Yet it's worth noting - again - that a Senate candidate who seemed... out there... was rejected. This despite everything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

obvs.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The worst thing about the tainting of the word "maverick" is that all the sports teams of my alma matter are called the "Mavericks" and just about anything university-related has "Mav" in front of it, student IDs are MavCards, the system for storing info on the network is MavDisk, etc. A real shame.

[Sam Spade]

With Colorado - there was a huge gender gap in the exit polling (over 30 pts) - just something you're alluding to.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Maine: ME-1 tight, ME-2 marginal. I would have had both a category up this time last week.

Closer to being the other way round, but both were comfortable holds.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm satisfied with that prediction.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nothing really to complain about there; RI-1 was a tad closer than I'd guessed though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

CT-5 = fail. Yeah, I shouldn't have trusted (even slightly) those dodgy polls and should have been as sceptical wrt CT as MA and RI. Oh well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, I was right about NY-1 (even if Bishop does what the other Bishop did). It just had that sort of feel to it for some reason. NY-13 is wrong though not massively so; I did toy with placing it as merely a possible upset and am pleased that I didn't. NY-4 about right, yeah. I was right to call gains in NY-19 and NY-20, though it turned out NY-20 was in a worse position that I'd guessed. I forgot to list NY-22, so the relatively close race there counts as a technical error. Arcuri's apparent strength was as deceptive as last time (happily I went no further than admitting confusion). NY-25 seems to have fallen (capping a horrible set of results upstate), NY-29 did what we knew it would and NY-23 remained bizarre. But I'd guessed that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep, got that right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

PA-7 and PA-8 both correct. PA-13 and PA-17 were both closer than 'normal' though neither were close, both PA-10 and PA-11 were lost (interesting that PA-11 was closer), I got the western districts right and the stuff the other way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And WV-1 was a strange dramatic tie that ended in a narrow Republican gain. Just for once redistricting in WV may be interesting. Rahall won by a comfortable margin (not even the closest race of his career).