WA Senate - Murray +3 - Elway Research.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:58:20 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2022 Senate & House Election Polls
  WA Senate - Murray +3 - Elway Research.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: WA Senate - Murray +3 - Elway Research.  (Read 1860 times)
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 11, 2022, 09:53:12 AM »

Seems valid, the GOP candidate may indeed end up with 39%.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 11, 2022, 02:21:37 PM »

Probably ends up a 55%-45% race in the end.
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,254
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 12, 2022, 02:54:48 AM »

Murray isn’t losing (IL has more upset potential for seat #55 or #56 in a gigantic red wave, honestly), but polls like these should be a wake-up call for those who think races like AZ-SEN, NV-SEN, and PA-SEN are Tilt/Lean D because reasons, feelings, incumbency, and "candidate quality." Democrats are in a deep, deep hole and control of the House (which they can always win back in two years) should be the last of their worries right now. We still have nearly a year to go, but right now they’re on track to get absolutely wiped out in this Senate class and countless governorships/row offices in a way that will catalpult them back to 2015 (if not worse), and Republicans are one presidential win away from solidifying the Senate for a generation (not that I trust them to pull it off).

I mean to be fair, I don't think anyone except bloomers, think those three races are anything better than Democrats as a tossup right now. Anyways, a wipeout was pretty likely from the minute Biden won, no matter how much people were going to deny it, electoral fatigue is a very real thing. Also if Republicans do win 2024, they should be prepared for a similar wipeout come 2026 (a map where honestly they have gotten pretty lucky). Anyways we heard takes about Democrats "solidifying the Senate for a generation" after 2008 and it didn't pan out, the only way for a party to actually "solidify the Senate" is to spend multiple midterms in opposition so they can win 3 or 4 wave elections. Electoral fatigue is a very real thing and it will set in sooner or later. But I do agree with the broader point that we seem to be heading towards Democrats establishing an advantage in the House and Republicans establishing one in the Senate, long-term. On the second point about 2024, that map is awful for Democrats, but every single tossup falling one way is just pretty unlikely, incumbency may not matter as much as it does, but it still matters somewhat. I just have a hard time seeing all of the races on a knife's edge go one way, that just tends not to happen. Lastly, I don't think we can discount the possibility of split-ticket voting, which while overrated still absolutely exists.
Logged
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,937
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 12, 2022, 11:01:34 AM »

Probably ends up a 55%-45% race in the end.

Agreed. Murray did win by "only" 4% in 2010. Given increased polarization since then, I don't think her race this year will be as close, but she could be held to a high single-digit or low double-digit margin of victory. 
Logged
TodayJunior
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,531
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 13, 2022, 02:17:05 PM »

The Pacific region (sans Alaska) is called the Left Coast for a reason. There is no environment in which any of the three West Coast states (plus Hawaii) would flip red. This is about as solid as you get for Team Blue.
Logged
Senator Incitatus
AMB1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,471
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 13, 2022, 10:15:49 PM »

If the Democratic Party loses this race, they might actually cease to exist within a decade.
Logged
beesley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,140
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 16, 2022, 05:06:28 PM »

If the Democratic Party loses this race, they might actually cease to exist within a decade.

What makes you say that? There is always going to be a broad left party - even if  they perform terribly. They might be out of power for a long time, but they will still exist - unless you believe another party will come and occupy that space?
Logged
LAKISYLVANIA
Lakigigar
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,165
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -4.78

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 20, 2022, 04:46:07 AM »

General Eric is popular again... Too bad, he is a myth just like God.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,786
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: January 26, 2022, 12:04:21 PM »

If Rs loses LA they're not gonna be a party anymore because Kennedy isn't getting 90 percent of the vote it's a Runoff if he gets less than 50 with multiple candidates in the race
Logged
Senator Incitatus
AMB1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,471
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 02, 2022, 10:44:47 AM »

That is possible by blanket Primary Laws, do you think that there is a real chance Murray could lose to a GOPer like Tiffany Smiley. And do you actually think that the GOP Wave will be bigger than both 2010/2014 combined?

No, there isn't a realistic chance. If Murray does lose, forget 2010 or 1994. That would be a wave on par with 1894.

That's probably overstating things; 1894 was a crushing defeat that essentially reduced the Democrats to a regional status and gave Republicans seats they hadn't dreamed of winning in years. 1894 would be like Murray, Durbin, and Wyden all losing, maybe even Van Hollen or Schumer, reducing the Democrats to stable footing in just California and New England.

The truth is that there's a lot of ground between 1994 and 1894 because Republicans have been the minority party for nearly a century. They haven't had many solid-but-not-dominant majorities, which is what we're looking at.
Logged
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,937
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 02, 2022, 10:26:24 PM »

That is possible by blanket Primary Laws, do you think that there is a real chance Murray could lose to a GOPer like Tiffany Smiley. And do you actually think that the GOP Wave will be bigger than both 2010/2014 combined?

No, there isn't a realistic chance. If Murray does lose, forget 2010 or 1994. That would be a wave on par with 1894.

That's probably overstating things; 1894 was a crushing defeat that essentially reduced the Democrats to a regional status and gave Republicans seats they hadn't dreamed of winning in years. 1894 would be like Murray, Durbin, and Wyden all losing, maybe even Van Hollen or Schumer, reducing the Democrats to stable footing in just California and New England.

The truth is that there's a lot of ground between 1994 and 1894 because Republicans have been the minority party for nearly a century. They haven't had many solid-but-not-dominant majorities, which is what we're looking at.

I'd be curious to know what the House and Senate results would look like if the Democrats suffered 1894-scale losses, particularly the House.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 02, 2022, 10:39:23 PM »

That is possible by blanket Primary Laws, do you think that there is a real chance Murray could lose to a GOPer like Tiffany Smiley. And do you actually think that the GOP Wave will be bigger than both 2010/2014 combined?

No, there isn't a realistic chance. If Murray does lose, forget 2010 or 1994. That would be a wave on par with 1894.

That's probably overstating things; 1894 was a crushing defeat that essentially reduced the Democrats to a regional status and gave Republicans seats they hadn't dreamed of winning in years. 1894 would be like Murray, Durbin, and Wyden all losing, maybe even Van Hollen or Schumer, reducing the Democrats to stable footing in just California and New England.

The truth is that there's a lot of ground between 1994 and 1894 because Republicans have been the minority party for nearly a century. They haven't had many solid-but-not-dominant majorities, which is what we're looking at.

I'd be curious to know what the House and Senate results would look like if the Democrats suffered 1894-scale losses, particularly the House.

Democrats would basically hold no seats that aren’t fully contained inside large cities.
Logged
Senator Incitatus
AMB1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,471
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 02, 2022, 10:54:05 PM »
« Edited: February 03, 2022, 11:16:24 AM by RoboWop »

That is possible by blanket Primary Laws, do you think that there is a real chance Murray could lose to a GOPer like Tiffany Smiley. And do you actually think that the GOP Wave will be bigger than both 2010/2014 combined?

No, there isn't a realistic chance. If Murray does lose, forget 2010 or 1994. That would be a wave on par with 1894.

That's probably overstating things; 1894 was a crushing defeat that essentially reduced the Democrats to a regional status and gave Republicans seats they hadn't dreamed of winning in years. 1894 would be like Murray, Durbin, and Wyden all losing, maybe even Van Hollen or Schumer, reducing the Democrats to stable footing in just California and New England.

The truth is that there's a lot of ground between 1994 and 1894 because Republicans have been the minority party for nearly a century. They haven't had many solid-but-not-dominant majorities, which is what we're looking at.

I'd be curious to know what the House and Senate results would look like if the Democrats suffered 1894-scale losses, particularly the House.

It's very difficult to compare exactly because the Solid South skews results quite a bit. Republicans won literally every seat they could in 1894 save about ten. And you really don't get those kinds of landslides, particularly for Republicans, outside of presidential elections. It was a unique historical moment.

But, with that huge grain of salt, I'll crunch some numbers for what it's worth. Discounting the Populist result, Republicans got 56.1% of the two-party vote in 1894. That's R+12.2. There was one Trafalgar poll with a wider margin (R+14), but it's just one extreme outlier. I think there have been only two double-digit polls.

Using Cook PVI and the old map, that would project:
  • A 318-117 Republican majority in the House. (With the new map, this might actually be larger; Democrats have created a lot of D+10 seats at the expense of some of their safer seats.) A quick glance at the charts shows that the Democrats would largely be confined to the city centers, not even their suburbs. Republicans would be winning seats throughout New England and moderate/minor cities like Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Buffalo, Providence, Camden.
  • A 60-40 Republican majority in the Senate, after gaining every available seat except California, Hawaii, Vermont, and Maryland. This does not include the possibility of Joe Manchin and/or Angus King leaving the Democratic caucus.
  • Likewise, Republicans would gain every Democratic governorship except California and Hawaii. However, Democrats would actually gain the governorships of Maryland and Massachusetts. By pure PVI, they'd also gain Vermont, but that seems extremely unlikely.
edit: Based on a faulty understanding of PVI; see below.

A landslide like this isn't outside the realm of historical imagination, but it's definitely outside my current imagination unless we get a whole string of R+10 generic ballot polls, maybe as the result of a real scandal rather than just the traditional scandal of competence we see when one of the sclerotic party machines enters power every four years or so.

And then we'd start to see a snowball effect within the Democratic Party as things collapse. After 1894, many people speculated that the Democratic Party was over, and it arguably was, at least as it had existed prior. There is a solid historical argument to be made that the Populists wore the Democratic label as a skin suit in the 1896 elections; the hard-line Bourbons were permanently dead. After an election like this, you might see the Democratic Party turned into an urban minority-rights advocacy group.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,929
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 02, 2022, 10:56:24 PM »

If Republicans believe Washington is going to flip then let them waste their energy there. At this point they think their winning 300+ seats in the House and 60 Senate seats so there really is no point in arguing with them when they are in fantasy mode.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 03, 2022, 01:11:18 AM »

If Republicans believe Washington is going to flip then let them waste their energy there. At this point they think their winning 300+ seats in the House and 60 Senate seats so there really is no point in arguing with them when they are in fantasy mode.

What an amusing display of ineffective, self-revealing rhetoric. First he creates an absurd straw man (Republicans believe WA WILL flip, GOP believes it will control 60 Senate seats in 2023, etc.), then he follows up with "there really is no point in arguing with them when they are in fantasy mode." Harnessing your own fantasy reservoir to mock the other side's fantasy bubble.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 03, 2022, 08:31:48 AM »

That is possible by blanket Primary Laws, do you think that there is a real chance Murray could lose to a GOPer like Tiffany Smiley. And do you actually think that the GOP Wave will be bigger than both 2010/2014 combined?

No, there isn't a realistic chance. If Murray does lose, forget 2010 or 1994. That would be a wave on par with 1894.

That's probably overstating things; 1894 was a crushing defeat that essentially reduced the Democrats to a regional status and gave Republicans seats they hadn't dreamed of winning in years. 1894 would be like Murray, Durbin, and Wyden all losing, maybe even Van Hollen or Schumer, reducing the Democrats to stable footing in just California and New England.

The truth is that there's a lot of ground between 1994 and 1894 because Republicans have been the minority party for nearly a century. They haven't had many solid-but-not-dominant majorities, which is what we're looking at.

I'd be curious to know what the House and Senate results would look like if the Democrats suffered 1894-scale losses, particularly the House.

It's very difficult to compare exactly because the Solid South skews results quite a bit. Republicans won literally every seat they could in 1894 save about ten. And you really don't get those kinds of landslides, particularly for Republicans, outside of presidential elections. It was a unique historical moment.

But, with that huge grain of salt, I'll crunch some numbers for what it's worth. Discounting the Populist result, Republicans got 56.1% of the two-party vote in 1894. That's R+12.2. There was one Trafalgar poll with a wider margin (R+14), but it's just one extreme outlier. I think there have been only two double-digit polls.

Using Cook PVI and the old map, that would project:
  • A 318-117 Republican majority in the House. (With the new map, this might actually be larger; Democrats have created a lot of D+10 seats at the expense of some of their safer seats.) A quick glance at the charts shows that the Democrats would largely be confined to the city centers, not even their suburbs. Republicans would be winning seats throughout New England and moderate/minor cities like Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Buffalo, Providence, Camden.
  • A 60-40 Republican majority in the Senate, after gaining every available seat except California, Hawaii, Vermont, and Maryland. This does not include the possibility of Joe Manchin and/or Angus King leaving the Democratic caucus.
  • Likewise, Republicans would gain every Democratic governorship except California and Hawaii. However, Democrats would actually gain the governorships of Maryland and Massachusetts. By pure PVI, they'd also gain Vermont, but that seems extremely unlikely.

A landslide like this isn't outside the realm of historical imagination, but it's definitely outside my current imagination unless we get a whole string of R+10 generic ballot polls, maybe as the result of a real scandal rather than just the traditional scandal of competence we see when one of the sclerotic party machines enters power every four years or so.

And then we'd start to see a snowball effect within the Democratic Party as things collapse. After 1894, many people speculated that the Democratic Party was over, and it arguably was, at least as it had existed prior. There is a solid historical argument to be made that the Populists wore the Democratic label as a skin suit in the 1896 elections; the hard-line Bourbons were permanently dead. After an election like this, you might see the Democratic Party turned into an urban minority-rights advocacy group.

R+12 would mean every district where Biden got less than 58% (of the two party vote)  in would flip.  Using the new maps and estimates based on what I think are likely for the unfinished maps, it would be something like a 273-162 Republican majority.  Not sure how you are getting 318-117.  A seat like VA-10 (Biden + 18) would be very close in this scenario but wouldn’t flip.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,786
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 03, 2022, 08:58:57 AM »

We're not losing WA SEN, I don't know why users are thinking this
Logged
Senator Incitatus
AMB1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,471
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: February 03, 2022, 09:25:37 AM »
« Edited: February 03, 2022, 09:29:50 AM by RoboWop »

R+12 would mean every district where Biden got less than 58% (of the two party vote)  in would flip.  Using the new maps and estimates based on what I think are likely for the unfinished maps, it would be something like a 273-162 Republican majority.  Not sure how you are getting 318-117.  A seat like VA-10 (Biden + 18) would be very close in this scenario but wouldn’t flip.

A couple things that could account for the discrepancy:
  • Like I said, I'm using the old map here (for convenience); the 318 number is pre-adjustment. Maybe I'm completely off on the effect of the new maps, too. The general sense I've gotten is that they create more Likely D seats (which would still flip in this scenario) at the expense of Titanium Safe seats.
  • I'm using Cook PVI, not just the Biden margin. It's more thorough, though I admit that straight-ticket voting is increasingly common so that using Biden margin isn't as ridiculous as using "Gore margin" would have been.
  • I did the counting by hand, going down a list of seats by PVI. Could just have miscounted by ten or twenty.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: February 03, 2022, 10:10:47 AM »

R+12 would mean every district where Biden got less than 58% (of the two party vote)  in would flip.  Using the new maps and estimates based on what I think are likely for the unfinished maps, it would be something like a 273-162 Republican majority.  Not sure how you are getting 318-117.  A seat like VA-10 (Biden + 18) would be very close in this scenario but wouldn’t flip.

A couple things that could account for the discrepancy:
  • Like I said, I'm using the old map here (for convenience); the 318 number is pre-adjustment. Maybe I'm completely off on the effect of the new maps, too. The general sense I've gotten is that they create more Likely D seats (which would still flip in this scenario) at the expense of Titanium Safe seats.
  • I'm using Cook PVI, not just the Biden margin. It's more thorough, though I admit that straight-ticket voting is increasingly common so that using Biden margin isn't as ridiculous as using "Gore margin" would have been.
  • I did the counting by hand, going down a list of seats by PVI. Could just have miscounted by ten or twenty.

Cook PVI is not the margin of victory.  It’s the percentage point amount that a district leans to one party vs the national popular vote.  A district where Biden got 56% of the vote in 2020 is a D+5 district.  In an environment where Republicans won by 12 (say 55-43), a district Biden won 57%-41% (D+6) would be tied in a uniform swing situation. 
Logged
Senator Incitatus
AMB1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,471
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: February 03, 2022, 10:53:24 AM »
« Edited: February 03, 2022, 11:15:10 AM by RoboWop »

R+12 would mean every district where Biden got less than 58% (of the two party vote)  in would flip.  Using the new maps and estimates based on what I think are likely for the unfinished maps, it would be something like a 273-162 Republican majority.  Not sure how you are getting 318-117.  A seat like VA-10 (Biden + 18) would be very close in this scenario but wouldn’t flip.

A couple things that could account for the discrepancy:
  • Like I said, I'm using the old map here (for convenience); the 318 number is pre-adjustment. Maybe I'm completely off on the effect of the new maps, too. The general sense I've gotten is that they create more Likely D seats (which would still flip in this scenario) at the expense of Titanium Safe seats.
  • I'm using Cook PVI, not just the Biden margin. It's more thorough, though I admit that straight-ticket voting is increasingly common so that using Biden margin isn't as ridiculous as using "Gore margin" would have been.
  • I did the counting by hand, going down a list of seats by PVI. Could just have miscounted by ten or twenty.

Cook PVI is not the margin of victory.  It’s the percentage point amount that a district leans to one party vs the national popular vote.  A district where Biden got 56% of the vote in 2020 is a D+5 district.  In an environment where Republicans won by 12 (say 55-43), a district Biden won 57%-41% (D+6) would be tied in a uniform swing situation.  

Thanks for clearing this up; I was going off a few pre-2020 that explicitly say the opposite, but I see they're contradicted directly by the Cook site. Did they previously base it on margin or something?

edit: I have been specifically using David Byler's characterization, which had been authoritatively cited on Wikipedia (I've since removed it): For example, if a Democratic presidential candidate won the popular vote nationally by five points, he or she might win a D+2 state (which leans two points toward Democrats) by seven points. And if a Republican won the popular vote by three points, he or she might win a D+2 state by one point.

Serves me right for trusting a journalist.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,929
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: February 03, 2022, 10:54:43 AM »

If Republicans believe Washington is going to flip then let them waste their energy there. At this point they think their winning 300+ seats in the House and 60 Senate seats so there really is no point in arguing with them when they are in fantasy mode.

What an amusing display of ineffective, self-revealing rhetoric. First he creates an absurd straw man (Republicans believe WA WILL flip, GOP believes it will control 60 Senate seats in 2023, etc.), then he follows up with "there really is no point in arguing with them when they are in fantasy mode." Harnessing your own fantasy reservoir to mock the other side's fantasy bubble.

Obviously I was exaggerating, but at the same time there are some people in this thread making some fairly extreme predictions. There is no indication that 2022 will be worse than 2010 and because of the lack of competitive seats that's not even really possible.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 13 queries.