Right now they’re predicting a 58.6% chance that the democratic party controls the senate following the upcoming election. Interesting data, especially with some oddballs like Bayh stomping in the Indiana race and McGinty having a 57.2% chance in overtaking Toomey in Pennsylvania.
The most interesting thing, to my mind, is the Balance of Power graph towards the bottom. The spread runs from the Republicans picking up net 2 seats (0.3%) to Democrats picking up 15 seats (<0.1%). The spread is hugely D leaning. The ‘most likely’ outcome (14.4%) is D+5 - which would give the Democratic Party a 1 seat majority. The second most likely outcome (14.2%) is a tied Senate which then falls to the Vice President. Go Tim Kaine, I guess.
Still, I’m a guy who loves numbers. And this gives me numbers.
The race I have my eye on is right now is MO. 538 has it 2:1 R right now, but the only poll in the last two weeks was D+2 which 538 adjusted to D+4 and the D candidate can assemble a rifle blindfolded. Looking forward to more polling in that race.
This seems like the best thread to bump to ask this question:
Three polls for PA Senate in the last 2 days. One Franklin and Marshall (538 B+ R+0.4 lean) with McGinty +6. Another, Monmouth (A+ D+0.6 lean), a tie. And a third Quinnipiac (A- R 0.7 lean) with Toomey +8.
Why such widely disparate results? That’s a 14 point spread!
This is actually surprising. I would expect with the “run” away from Trump by many Republicans, the focus would have been on a strong showing in the Senate and House races.
Not sure what all that means - just glad to see they have IL trending so blue. I had thought it was closer. Kirk has really been keeping a low (and managed) profile.
There was a 13 point swing against Blunt yesterday in this market. I’m not sure why that happened but I bought $10 of “No” a month ago so I’m not complaining.
538 puts it 95.7% probability of McCain winning and projects a 12.7% margin.
So okay, pretty improbable that she’ll win. But I’d bet on her at least overperforming predictions assuming current decreasing Trump support continues. I don’t think many will split tickets.
Let me expand the question having just heard Rich Lowry interviewed on the POTUS channel expansive on the fact that many GOP candidates are outperforming Trump in polls in their states.
The interview was in reference to this article by him and the figures as he cites are:
So the question to me is not his contention about that meaning Trump would be doing better if he was less “abnormal” and that other candidates than Clinton would do better than her, but if those polling differences will hold up on election day.
Will the relative weakness of Trump in some of those states decrease turnout of those who would be voting for the GOP candidate? Will they pull a straight ticket and end up voting D even though they do slightly prefer the R senate candidate? Or do both the presidential and the senatorial sets of polls fairly accurately convey how voters will vote?
While it’s been a long time since I was an Ohio Resident I grew up there and still hear quite a bit with family mostly there. Ohio feels reasonable. If you look at the PPP poll (pdf link):
Among Democrats Hillary is only polling 86% against Trump’s 12%. She’s down 40% to 51% among Ohio independents. That’s not really surprising if you have a feel for the Democratic support in the state. There’s a chunk of not very liberal, blue collar labor Democrats. There’s also Appalachian counties that still lean Democrat despite being overwhelmingly white, poor, high school (or less) educated, and vehemently against gun control. Both groups are a good fit for the typical Trump demographic and IME tend to be susceptible to the populist message Trump has. It seems to show with the higher rate of defection from a straight line party vote
Humorously it’s Republican defectors that are helping make up the difference to keep Clinton close. Among Republicans it’s 82% Trump, 14% Clinton.
Ohio isn’t just a swing state it’s showing a bigger chunk of swing voters than the nation as a whole. It’s probably misleading to try and apply typical nationwide levels of partisan straight ticket voting to questions about the Ohio races. That doesn’t directly explain why Strickland is getting his ass kicked, though.
Strickland’s approval ratings provide a good hint for that. He’s at 31% statewide with only 58% of Democrats having a favorable opinion of him. This is a guy who lost his last statewide election, gave up about a third of the primary vote to a weak field (a Cincinnati city council member and an occupational therapist), and hasn’t held an elected office since Kasich defeated him six years ago. It probably shouldn’t be shocking that the poll shows 18% of Ohio Democrats are planning to vote for Portman (with another 11% of Democrats still undecided.)
The Senate is where the real suspense is now. A couple of the Dems’ pickup opportunities have flamed out(OH, FL), but three have come up that weren’t possible before(MO, NC, IN).
So explain to this non US observer, why no threads on congress, and why no 538 predictions on congress? Since Trump has basically said that his supporters shouldn’t vote for Republicans that have dis-avowed him, isn’t there a chance the Dems could take back Congress as well as the Senate?
Likely because there are some (many?) of the 435 congressional districts where no real polling has been or will be done. Or maybe a single poll here and there, but nothing substantive enough with enough of a baseline to establish a data-based forecast for what the likely outcome will be.
Huh, ok, seems a little odd to me since congress actually controls the budget as I understand it, that so little attention is paid to the congressional race, in both media and polls.
