Handicapping the Senate Races
Let me add this to what Peter Robinson has to say in his post just below this one. As you can see on this webpage, the folks at Real Clear Politics think that, when the dust clears on 2 November, there are 48 seats that the Democrats will control – either because they control them now and the seats are not up for grabs this year or because they have a candidate comfortably ahead – and that there are 46 seats that the Republicans will control. Six seats, in their estimation, are tossups: California, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Washington, and West Virginia. If the election were held today, they indicate on this webpage that they think that the Republicans would take Colorado, Nevada, Illinois, and West Virginia, which would give us a 50-50 Senate. If, however, the Republicans were also to take either California or Washington or both, they would have a majority in the Senate. You can find the latest polls for Washington on this webpage. They show Dino Rossi ahead by 6% or 3%. On this webpage, you can find the most recent polls for California. They show Barbara Boxer beating Carly Fiorina by 4%. More important, perhaps, the polls for Washington and California show that Rossi and Fiorina are gaining strength relative to their rivals.
It is worth consulting Rasmussen, who has posted his estimates on this webpage. In his judgment – which is backed up by considerable expertise – if the elections were held today the Republicans and Democrats would both emerge with 48 seats. Four races he finds too close to call: California, Illinois, Nevada, and Washington.
It has been my view that this year there is an ingredient in the mix that the pollsters do not know how to measure. Call it the Tea Party; speak in terms of voter enthusiasm. Everything depends on voter turnout, and the evidence – the primaries in Alaska and Delaware in particular – suggests that even Rasmussen is underestimating the importance of the enthusiasm gap. I would not be surprised if the Republicans were to take all of the seats that Rasmussen thinks too close to call. I would not be surprised if they were to take those seats handily.
If, however, the vote in any of these states is close, we should expect a concerted effort on the part of the Democrats to steal the election. That is what they did the first time Dino Rossi ran for Governor in Washington, and that is what has happened in Illinois with considerable frequency over the last ninety years. California and Nevada I know too little about to state a firm opinion.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Handicapping the Senate Races
Conservatives have stood by, like gentlemen, as election after election have been stolen: Nixon vs. Kennedy; Claire McCaskill vs. Jim Talent; Al Franken vs. Norm Coleman; Dino Rossi vs. Chris Gregoire....
When - not if - Democrats steal elections this time, expect some very un-gentlemanly behavior on the Right.
Re: Handicapping the Senate Races
Kenneth: Conservatives have stood by, like gentlemen, as election after election have been stolen: Nixon vs. Kennedy; Claire McCaskill vs. Jim Talent; Al Franken vs. Norm Coleman; Dino Rossi vs. Chris Gregoire....
When - not if - Democrats steal elections this time, expect some very un-gentlemanly behavior on the Right. · Oct 10 at 2:14pm
That is a consummation devoutly to be wished.
Jun '10
Re: Handicapping the Senate Races
It's not clear to me how you get a 50-50 Senate when two seats are held by independents. Would the split not properly be 49-49-2, or 50-48-2?
Re: Handicapping the Senate Races
Independents ordinarily caucus with one party or another.
Jul '10
Re: Handicapping the Senate Races
The Right doesn't do as much as they should concerning stolen elections. They're too scared of being called "racists," "bigots," "homophobes,".......
Jul '10
Re: Handicapping the Senate Races
Unfortunately, there just hasn't been an established legal mechanism for over-turning a stolen election. The courts are loathe to intervene in the electoral process.
Hopefully, Bush v. Gore provides robust precedent, but I wouldn't count on it.
May '10
Re: Handicapping the Senate Races
Where did I read a great story recently about a grassroots movement (in Texas, I believe) against election fraud? A regular woman and "about fifty of her friends" fanned out and, using publicly available records, uncovered all kinds of fraud: dozens of voters registered to the same address, for instance.
Let's have lots more of that sort of thing.
The tea party: it's about the people taking charge again.
May '10
Re: Handicapping the Senate Races
I saw a stat the other day that I think indicates that the House gains could be scary good:
In 2008 Obama won in 242 congressional districts while winning the popular vote by +7.3%, while in 2004 Bush won in 255 districts with only a +2.4% popular vote. The reason, of course, is that Democratic voters are highly concentrated, while Republican voters are more evenly dispersed.
This distributional advantage won't help much in Senate races, but for the House, we might very well enjoy scores of small-margin victories while the Dems waste many of their votes in high-margin victories. Paul's 70-100 prediction is looking less and less outlandish.
May '10
Re: Handicapping the Senate Races
I too think the GOP will gain control of both chambers. The interesting race for me is California, in that I think that both Carly & Meg win or both lose. If they lose, the big lottery will be to pick the date when the state implodes. Should make an interesting scenario for the 2012 election cycle - as I suspect it will happen before 11/12.
On the bright side, if the GOP loses, the Dalta Smelt will have a bright future for generations.