PolitiJunkie's 2014 Gubernatorial Predictions (Party, Not Candidate)

[NewYorkExpress]

I made a similar table in Excel here similar to yours.



Let me know if you have any concerns about these. There's a few here I'm debating. Like whether Wisconsin is is Lean R or Likely R or whether Rhode Island is Likely D or Safe D. Mostly though the reason why there are so many "Likely D's" and not as many "Safe D's" is because of Open Seats (MD, MA, RI) and unpopular incumbents (HI), the rest (MN, NH) are normal.

Georgia should be Lean R. Iowa should be Safe R, Nevada should be Safe R,  New Mexico should be Safe R, Connecticut should be a tossup, and Pennsylvania should be Likely D. 

[ElectionsGuy]

I made a similar table in Excel here similar to yours.



Let me know if you have any concerns about these. There's a few here I'm debating. Like whether Wisconsin is is Lean R or Likely R or whether Rhode Island is Likely D or Safe D. Mostly though the reason why there are so many "Likely D's" and not as many "Safe D's" is because of Open Seats (MD, MA, RI) and unpopular incumbents (HI), the rest (MN, NH) are normal.

Georgia should be Lean R. Iowa should be Safe R, Nevada should be Safe R,  New Mexico should be Safe R, Connecticut should be a tossup, and Pennsylvania should be Likely D. 

I'm declining a Safe R in those states you mentioned as they are Lean D states normally, and while good governors, aren't completely secure for their re-election, not even Branstad. Connecticut I'm also holding as Lean D for now because of the states heavy blue tilt, but that could change. As for Georgia, despite the recent scandal and polling, I don't think that will go into the re-election. Most reports have the race as Safe R actually. And finally Pennsylvania, Corbett has really messed up, but only Lean D for now because he is the incumbent in a somewhat competitive state, I don't think we can officially call off his name.

[Morning in Atlas]

I'd also slot Hassan over to Safe D. When Republicans are having this tough of a time even fielding an opponent, it's usually a good indicator of a candidate. There are a few Senators, but they're either in swing districts or just ascended to new jobs. Maybe Ted Gatsas will run, but other than him I really don't see any other good candidates there.

[ElectionsGuy]

I'd also slot Hassan over to Safe D. When Republicans are having this tough of a time even fielding an opponent, it's usually a good indicator of a candidate. There are a few Senators, but they're either in swing districts or just ascended to new jobs. Maybe Ted Gatsas will run, but other than him I really don't see any other good candidates there.

There surely aren't any good candidates there, but until the field actually develops, I don't feel comfortable calling it Safe for Hassan when were talking about a relatively moderate state politically.

[Morning in Atlas]

I'd also slot Hassan over to Safe D. When Republicans are having this tough of a time even fielding an opponent, it's usually a good indicator of a candidate. There are a few Senators, but they're either in swing districts or just ascended to new jobs. Maybe Ted Gatsas will run, but other than him I really don't see any other good candidates there.

There surely aren't any good candidates there, but until the field actually develops, I don't feel comfortable calling it Safe for Hassan when were talking about a relatively moderate state politically.

We aren't even talking about good candidates. We're talking about any candidates. It's almost a year out and nobody's even declared, and that should be creating a hell of a lot of worry for you guys taking this seat.

[ElectionsGuy]

I'd also slot Hassan over to Safe D. When Republicans are having this tough of a time even fielding an opponent, it's usually a good indicator of a candidate. There are a few Senators, but they're either in swing districts or just ascended to new jobs. Maybe Ted Gatsas will run, but other than him I really don't see any other good candidates there.

There surely aren't any good candidates there, but until the field actually develops, I don't feel comfortable calling it Safe for Hassan when were talking about a relatively moderate state politically.

We aren't even talking about good candidates. We're talking about any candidates. It's almost a year out and nobody's even declared, and that should be creating a hell of a lot of worry for you guys taking this seat.

I am not even concerned about this governor's race at all, and I'm pretty sure Hassan's going to win, just not definite that she'll win. Just like I'm pretty sure Brian Sandoval will win, I'm just not completely sure he'll win. I have to wait until the primary season develops or someone joins the race until I can change the rating.

[PolitiJunkie]

I made a similar table in Excel here similar to yours.



Let me know if you have any concerns about these. There's a few here I'm debating. Like whether Wisconsin is is Lean R or Likely R or whether Rhode Island is Likely D or Safe D. Mostly though the reason why there are so many "Likely D's" and not as many "Safe D's" is because of Open Seats (MD, MA, RI) and unpopular incumbents (HI), the rest (MN, NH) are normal.

This is good and very similar to mine. The only differences are that I have Minnesota, Ohio, Arkansas, and Georgia each one slot left, and Connecticut and Illinois each one slot right. I could probably move Minnesota; I never really gave it any thought. The rest I'd really put up a fight about though, mainly Illinois and Connecticut. Both Democrats are very unpopular, trailing in polling, and facing strong challengers. There's just no tilt here.

Also, I have Maryland in Likely D, but I'm starting to wonder why. Like Hawaii makes sense cause Abercrombie sucks, Massachusetts because of the whole Scott Brown situation (I'm not talking about him being in the race, but rather his effect on MA politics) and the fact that Coakley is horrible, and Rhode Island just because Chafee's massive unpopularity could maybe bring down the Dem and that they haven't had a Democratic Governor in forever and the Republican slate is good. But like, why isn't Maryland Safe D? Between Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur, we have a fantastic field, and like do people really think Michael Steele will matter or have any impact on this race? Maryland is quickly becoming one of the most safely Democratic state on all levels federal, state, local, etc.

EDIT: WOW, I just found out Steele has declined to enter, something I was unaware of. This just makes me even more confused as to why some think this race will be competitive.

[PolitiJunkie]

10/13/2013 Changes (Round 2):

Minnesota: Safe D ---> Likely D
Maryland: Likely D ---> Safe D

[ElectionsGuy]

I made a similar table in Excel here similar to yours.



Let me know if you have any concerns about these. There's a few here I'm debating. Like whether Wisconsin is is Lean R or Likely R or whether Rhode Island is Likely D or Safe D. Mostly though the reason why there are so many "Likely D's" and not as many "Safe D's" is because of Open Seats (MD, MA, RI) and unpopular incumbents (HI), the rest (MN, NH) are normal.

This is good and very similar to mine. The only differences are that I have Minnesota, Ohio, Arkansas, and Georgia each one slot left, and Connecticut and Illinois each one slot right. I could probably move Minnesota; I never really gave it any thought. The rest I'd really put up a fight about though, mainly Illinois and Connecticut. Both Democrats are very unpopular, trailing in polling, and facing strong challengers. There's just no tilt here.

Also, I have Maryland in Likely D, but I'm starting to wonder why. Like Hawaii makes sense cause Abercrombie sucks, Massachusetts because of the whole Scott Brown situation (I'm not talking about him being in the race, but rather his effect on MA politics) and the fact that Coakley is horrible, and Rhode Island just because Chafee's massive unpopularity could maybe bring down the Dem and that they haven't had a Democratic Governor in forever and the Republican slate is good. But like, why isn't Maryland Safe D? Between Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur, we have a fantastic field, and like do people really think Michael Steele will matter or have any impact on this race? Maryland is quickly becoming one of the most safely Democratic state on all levels federal, state, local, etc.

EDIT: WOW, I just found out Steele has declined to enter, something I was unaware of. This just makes me even more confused as to why some think this race will be competitive.

I'm also questioning Maryland's "Likely D" rank. Its one of the most democratic states (only because of DC suburbs and Baltimore), but apparently from what I've heard, is that the republican bench is "strong". I'll keep for now, but in the future I will most likely move it to Safe D. As far as the other ones in Likely D...

Hawaii: This is purely because of Abercrombie's unpopularity. Otherwise this should be easy Safe D
Massachusetts: Defined Candidates but Coakley is horrible, otherwise Safe D
Rhode Island: Chafee's unpopularity + Open Seat. Once the candidates are defined, this should be safe D.

I should also mention that the New England states have history of electing republican governors, but I don't think that's relevant now.

Connecticut and Illinois are only Lean D because of the heavily ideological tilt of those states, I don't think they will elect republicans, but the races are too early to tell.

Thanks for the suggestions.

[PolitiJunkie]

I made a similar table in Excel here similar to yours.



Let me know if you have any concerns about these. There's a few here I'm debating. Like whether Wisconsin is is Lean R or Likely R or whether Rhode Island is Likely D or Safe D. Mostly though the reason why there are so many "Likely D's" and not as many "Safe D's" is because of Open Seats (MD, MA, RI) and unpopular incumbents (HI), the rest (MN, NH) are normal.

This is good and very similar to mine. The only differences are that I have Minnesota, Ohio, Arkansas, and Georgia each one slot left, and Connecticut and Illinois each one slot right. I could probably move Minnesota; I never really gave it any thought. The rest I'd really put up a fight about though, mainly Illinois and Connecticut. Both Democrats are very unpopular, trailing in polling, and facing strong challengers. There's just no tilt here.

Also, I have Maryland in Likely D, but I'm starting to wonder why. Like Hawaii makes sense cause Abercrombie sucks, Massachusetts because of the whole Scott Brown situation (I'm not talking about him being in the race, but rather his effect on MA politics) and the fact that Coakley is horrible, and Rhode Island just because Chafee's massive unpopularity could maybe bring down the Dem and that they haven't had a Democratic Governor in forever and the Republican slate is good. But like, why isn't Maryland Safe D? Between Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur, we have a fantastic field, and like do people really think Michael Steele will matter or have any impact on this race? Maryland is quickly becoming one of the most safely Democratic state on all levels federal, state, local, etc.

EDIT: WOW, I just found out Steele has declined to enter, something I was unaware of. This just makes me even more confused as to why some think this race will be competitive.

I'm also questioning Maryland's "Likely D" rank. Its one of the most democratic states (only because of DC suburbs and Baltimore), but apparently from what I've heard, is that the republican bench is "strong". I'll keep for now, but in the future I will most likely move it to Safe D. As far as the other ones in Likely D...

Hawaii: This is purely because of Abercrombie's unpopularity. Otherwise this should be easy Safe D
Massachusetts: Defined Candidates but Coakley is horrible, otherwise Safe D
Rhode Island: Chafee's unpopularity + Open Seat. Once the candidates are defined, this should be safe D.

I should also mention that the New England states have history of electing republican governors, but I don't think that's relevant now.

Connecticut and Illinois are only Lean D because of the heavily ideological tilt of those states, I don't think they will elect republicans, but the races are too early to tell.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Actually, no, Maryland is much more of a CT/VT/MA state that is Democratic mostly everywhere, minus a small portion, rather than a state like Pennsylvania, Oregon, or Illinois that is Republican in most areas but Democratic overall because of one or two heavy Democratic areas. Maryland is Democratic almost everywhere, with the exception of that bit near West Virginia. This can be proven by the fact that 6/7 of Maryland's Representatives are Democrats, which is similar to Connecticut's 5/5 and Massachusetts' 9/9- differing vastly from Illinois' 12/18 Democratic or Pennsylvania's 5/18 Democratic. It's not just the Baltimore and DC suburbs.

[ElectionsGuy]

I made a similar table in Excel here similar to yours.



Let me know if you have any concerns about these. There's a few here I'm debating. Like whether Wisconsin is is Lean R or Likely R or whether Rhode Island is Likely D or Safe D. Mostly though the reason why there are so many "Likely D's" and not as many "Safe D's" is because of Open Seats (MD, MA, RI) and unpopular incumbents (HI), the rest (MN, NH) are normal.

This is good and very similar to mine. The only differences are that I have Minnesota, Ohio, Arkansas, and Georgia each one slot left, and Connecticut and Illinois each one slot right. I could probably move Minnesota; I never really gave it any thought. The rest I'd really put up a fight about though, mainly Illinois and Connecticut. Both Democrats are very unpopular, trailing in polling, and facing strong challengers. There's just no tilt here.

Also, I have Maryland in Likely D, but I'm starting to wonder why. Like Hawaii makes sense cause Abercrombie sucks, Massachusetts because of the whole Scott Brown situation (I'm not talking about him being in the race, but rather his effect on MA politics) and the fact that Coakley is horrible, and Rhode Island just because Chafee's massive unpopularity could maybe bring down the Dem and that they haven't had a Democratic Governor in forever and the Republican slate is good. But like, why isn't Maryland Safe D? Between Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur, we have a fantastic field, and like do people really think Michael Steele will matter or have any impact on this race? Maryland is quickly becoming one of the most safely Democratic state on all levels federal, state, local, etc.

EDIT: WOW, I just found out Steele has declined to enter, something I was unaware of. This just makes me even more confused as to why some think this race will be competitive.

I'm also questioning Maryland's "Likely D" rank. Its one of the most democratic states (only because of DC suburbs and Baltimore), but apparently from what I've heard, is that the republican bench is "strong". I'll keep for now, but in the future I will most likely move it to Safe D. As far as the other ones in Likely D...

Hawaii: This is purely because of Abercrombie's unpopularity. Otherwise this should be easy Safe D
Massachusetts: Defined Candidates but Coakley is horrible, otherwise Safe D
Rhode Island: Chafee's unpopularity + Open Seat. Once the candidates are defined, this should be safe D.

I should also mention that the New England states have history of electing republican governors, but I don't think that's relevant now.

Connecticut and Illinois are only Lean D because of the heavily ideological tilt of those states, I don't think they will elect republicans, but the races are too early to tell.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Actually, no, Maryland is much more of a CT/VT/MA state that is Democratic mostly everywhere, minus a small portion, rather than a state like Pennsylvania, Oregon, or Illinois that is Republican in most areas but Democratic overall because of one or two heavy Democratic areas. Maryland is Democratic almost everywhere, with the exception of that bit near West Virginia. This can be proven by the fact that 6/7 of Maryland's Representatives are Democrats, which is similar to Connecticut's 5/5 and Massachusetts' 9/9- differing vastly from Illinois' 12/18 Democratic or Pennsylvania's 5/18 Democratic. It's not just the Baltimore and DC suburbs.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results/maryland

Don't think so. The republican areas of the state make up very little population, but that's not the point. 17/24 counties are republican, one of the 7 democratic counties barely voted democratic. The Eastern Shore, The Western "West Virginia" areas, and the western shore of Chesapeake Bay all vote republican. The DC suburbs, Baltimore, many of its suburbs, and areas inbetween (Howard County) are the only areas that vote democratic.

The reason Maryland has 7/8 democratic representatives was 1. It was Gerrymandered. 2. Most of the population lies within the small democratic areas anyway. Look at the map itself, that doesn't look like all around democrat like New England. The reason why it isn't all around democratic is because whites in Maryland vote republican (Hard to believe eh?), where as in New England whites vote democrat. 

[PolitiJunkie]

I made a similar table in Excel here similar to yours.



Let me know if you have any concerns about these. There's a few here I'm debating. Like whether Wisconsin is is Lean R or Likely R or whether Rhode Island is Likely D or Safe D. Mostly though the reason why there are so many "Likely D's" and not as many "Safe D's" is because of Open Seats (MD, MA, RI) and unpopular incumbents (HI), the rest (MN, NH) are normal.

This is good and very similar to mine. The only differences are that I have Minnesota, Ohio, Arkansas, and Georgia each one slot left, and Connecticut and Illinois each one slot right. I could probably move Minnesota; I never really gave it any thought. The rest I'd really put up a fight about though, mainly Illinois and Connecticut. Both Democrats are very unpopular, trailing in polling, and facing strong challengers. There's just no tilt here.

Also, I have Maryland in Likely D, but I'm starting to wonder why. Like Hawaii makes sense cause Abercrombie sucks, Massachusetts because of the whole Scott Brown situation (I'm not talking about him being in the race, but rather his effect on MA politics) and the fact that Coakley is horrible, and Rhode Island just because Chafee's massive unpopularity could maybe bring down the Dem and that they haven't had a Democratic Governor in forever and the Republican slate is good. But like, why isn't Maryland Safe D? Between Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur, we have a fantastic field, and like do people really think Michael Steele will matter or have any impact on this race? Maryland is quickly becoming one of the most safely Democratic state on all levels federal, state, local, etc.

EDIT: WOW, I just found out Steele has declined to enter, something I was unaware of. This just makes me even more confused as to why some think this race will be competitive.

I'm also questioning Maryland's "Likely D" rank. Its one of the most democratic states (only because of DC suburbs and Baltimore), but apparently from what I've heard, is that the republican bench is "strong". I'll keep for now, but in the future I will most likely move it to Safe D. As far as the other ones in Likely D...

Hawaii: This is purely because of Abercrombie's unpopularity. Otherwise this should be easy Safe D
Massachusetts: Defined Candidates but Coakley is horrible, otherwise Safe D
Rhode Island: Chafee's unpopularity + Open Seat. Once the candidates are defined, this should be safe D.

I should also mention that the New England states have history of electing republican governors, but I don't think that's relevant now.

Connecticut and Illinois are only Lean D because of the heavily ideological tilt of those states, I don't think they will elect republicans, but the races are too early to tell.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Actually, no, Maryland is much more of a CT/VT/MA state that is Democratic mostly everywhere, minus a small portion, rather than a state like Pennsylvania, Oregon, or Illinois that is Republican in most areas but Democratic overall because of one or two heavy Democratic areas. Maryland is Democratic almost everywhere, with the exception of that bit near West Virginia. This can be proven by the fact that 6/7 of Maryland's Representatives are Democrats, which is similar to Connecticut's 5/5 and Massachusetts' 9/9- differing vastly from Illinois' 12/18 Democratic or Pennsylvania's 5/18 Democratic. It's not just the Baltimore and DC suburbs.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results/maryland

Don't think so. The republican areas of the state make up very little population, but that's not the point. 17/24 counties are republican, one of the 7 democratic counties barely voted democratic. The Eastern Shore, The Western "West Virginia" areas, and the western shore of Chesapeake Bay all vote republican. The DC suburbs, Baltimore, many of its suburbs, and areas inbetween (Howard County) are the only areas that vote democratic.

The reason Maryland has 7/8 democratic representatives was 1. It was Gerrymandered. 2. Most of the population lies within the small democratic areas anyway. Look at the map itself, that doesn't look like all around democrat like New England. The reason why it isn't all around democratic is because whites in Maryland vote republican (Hard to believe eh?), where as in New England whites vote democrat. 

Interesting. I looked at the map and you're right. It's not just the West Virginia bit, but also the enter east side bordering Delaware. Strange. It's still not quite at the Pennsylvania level, but I guess you can't group it with a place like Connecticut either.

[ElectionsGuy]

I made a similar table in Excel here similar to yours.



Let me know if you have any concerns about these. There's a few here I'm debating. Like whether Wisconsin is is Lean R or Likely R or whether Rhode Island is Likely D or Safe D. Mostly though the reason why there are so many "Likely D's" and not as many "Safe D's" is because of Open Seats (MD, MA, RI) and unpopular incumbents (HI), the rest (MN, NH) are normal.

This is good and very similar to mine. The only differences are that I have Minnesota, Ohio, Arkansas, and Georgia each one slot left, and Connecticut and Illinois each one slot right. I could probably move Minnesota; I never really gave it any thought. The rest I'd really put up a fight about though, mainly Illinois and Connecticut. Both Democrats are very unpopular, trailing in polling, and facing strong challengers. There's just no tilt here.

Also, I have Maryland in Likely D, but I'm starting to wonder why. Like Hawaii makes sense cause Abercrombie sucks, Massachusetts because of the whole Scott Brown situation (I'm not talking about him being in the race, but rather his effect on MA politics) and the fact that Coakley is horrible, and Rhode Island just because Chafee's massive unpopularity could maybe bring down the Dem and that they haven't had a Democratic Governor in forever and the Republican slate is good. But like, why isn't Maryland Safe D? Between Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur, we have a fantastic field, and like do people really think Michael Steele will matter or have any impact on this race? Maryland is quickly becoming one of the most safely Democratic state on all levels federal, state, local, etc.

EDIT: WOW, I just found out Steele has declined to enter, something I was unaware of. This just makes me even more confused as to why some think this race will be competitive.

I'm also questioning Maryland's "Likely D" rank. Its one of the most democratic states (only because of DC suburbs and Baltimore), but apparently from what I've heard, is that the republican bench is "strong". I'll keep for now, but in the future I will most likely move it to Safe D. As far as the other ones in Likely D...

Hawaii: This is purely because of Abercrombie's unpopularity. Otherwise this should be easy Safe D
Massachusetts: Defined Candidates but Coakley is horrible, otherwise Safe D
Rhode Island: Chafee's unpopularity + Open Seat. Once the candidates are defined, this should be safe D.

I should also mention that the New England states have history of electing republican governors, but I don't think that's relevant now.

Connecticut and Illinois are only Lean D because of the heavily ideological tilt of those states, I don't think they will elect republicans, but the races are too early to tell.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Actually, no, Maryland is much more of a CT/VT/MA state that is Democratic mostly everywhere, minus a small portion, rather than a state like Pennsylvania, Oregon, or Illinois that is Republican in most areas but Democratic overall because of one or two heavy Democratic areas. Maryland is Democratic almost everywhere, with the exception of that bit near West Virginia. This can be proven by the fact that 6/7 of Maryland's Representatives are Democrats, which is similar to Connecticut's 5/5 and Massachusetts' 9/9- differing vastly from Illinois' 12/18 Democratic or Pennsylvania's 5/18 Democratic. It's not just the Baltimore and DC suburbs.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results/maryland

Don't think so. The republican areas of the state make up very little population, but that's not the point. 17/24 counties are republican, one of the 7 democratic counties barely voted democratic. The Eastern Shore, The Western "West Virginia" areas, and the western shore of Chesapeake Bay all vote republican. The DC suburbs, Baltimore, many of its suburbs, and areas inbetween (Howard County) are the only areas that vote democratic.

The reason Maryland has 7/8 democratic representatives was 1. It was Gerrymandered. 2. Most of the population lies within the small democratic areas anyway. Look at the map itself, that doesn't look like all around democrat like New England. The reason why it isn't all around democratic is because whites in Maryland vote republican (Hard to believe eh?), where as in New England whites vote democrat. 

Interesting. I looked at the map and you're right. It's not just the West Virginia bit, but also the enter east side bordering Delaware. Strange. It's still not quite at the Pennsylvania level, but I guess you can't group it with a place like Connecticut either.

Yes, Maryland is much more culturally Southern (or even Midwestern) than Northeastern when it comes to Urban/Rural.

[Maxwell]

I would move Maine to Lean D and Florida to Lean D. Probably keep Michigan to Toss-Up. Illinois should be moved to Lean D, Republicans have two very strong candidates in Kirk Dillard or Dan Rutherford, should either take the nomination from the pathetic Bill Brady.

[ElectionsGuy]

I would move Maine to Lean D and Florida to Lean D. Probably keep Michigan to Toss-Up. Illinois should be moved to Lean D, Republicans have two very strong candidates in Kirk Dillard or Dan Rutherford, should either take the nomination from the pathetic Bill Brady.

Maine I was actually debating whether or not to put it as Toss-Up or Lean D, so I'll accept both. Florida will depend on the democratic candidate for sure, until we know who's running (specifically Crist) I don't feel comfortable with a democratic advantage right now. Illinois is on Lean D.

[Miles]

I made a similar table in Excel here similar to yours.



Let me know if you have any concerns about these. There's a few here I'm debating. Like whether Wisconsin is is Lean R or Likely R or whether Rhode Island is Likely D or Safe D. Mostly though the reason why there are so many "Likely D's" and not as many "Safe D's" is because of Open Seats (MD, MA, RI) and unpopular incumbents (HI), the rest (MN, NH) are normal.

I'd just move IL to Toss. NH would be Safe D for me at the moment too, as no Republicans have actually gotten in. If there was a Tilt R category, I'd put AR there.