At 538, Nate Silver’s model predicts probabilities for the Dems losing various numbers of seats. While he has a central prediction (Repubs 48.3 seats in the Senate, 233.1 in the House) you can’t rule out the Dems squeeking by in the House (odds: 17%) or a Republican tsunami whereby they gain 77+ seats. That’s the way probability works.
I have no predictions. I just want to fast-forward to midnight tonight so I can know how much I’ll have to be drinking to make me forget the disaster that just happened.
I think the over-under for Dem seats in the House is basically 200. I’ll take the under (meaning GOP gains will be higher).
I think the Dems will end with 51 Senators. Boxer and Murray holding on to keep the majority.
MO: I’ll end up voting with the majority 50/50 on Federal races (one Carnahan wins, one loses) and 50/50 on state ballot issues (the idiotic earnings tax rule passing, as well as the puppy mill one). I think Dooley will win County Executive. The rest is pretty much pro-forma in my district.
And jayjay, it’s gonna take a lot of drinking. The upside is that there is so much data available these days that everyone paying attention knew this was coming for months, so it was sort of “priced in” so to speak.
Senate
Dems 52
Reps 49
Angle will beat Reid, and then she will issue a statement that makes it appear that she thinks that since she beat him she’s now house leader. She will then retract the statement, and blame the media.
House
Dems 200
Reps 235
Republicans will claim an overwhelming mandate from the voters, but are unsure on what the mandate is, other than investigate Obama, continue to block and obstruct legislation, and make noises about repealing healthcare reform. Gridlock for 2 years, which the Republicans will blame on Obama in preparation for 2012.
The Senate will end up 55 Ds, 45 Rs – the GOP will pick up seats in Nevada, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Indiana. They fall short in California, West Virginia, Washington state and Colorado. The Dems get a surprise win when Scott McAdams rises above the fray in Alaska, but he only wins after a protracted counting of write-ins for Murkowski.
The House is a Democratic bloodbath. The GOP wins 62 seats (the ones that are being projected for them plus a couple that get caught in the wave, though MINUS the seats in Hawaii and Louisiana that the Dems will capture). House composition: 242 Rs, 193 Ds.
Everything I’ve seen indicates that IL Sen is the purest toss-up of the cycle. Both candidates have very, very tepid support. Personally, I think the Dems’ superior GOTV operation puts Giannoulias over the top.
ETA: Though I now see that Nate Silver has Kirk as a pretty solid favorite. Hmm…
Based on the turnout I saw at my conservative district polling place, I am predicting the Pubs take the House by a Tsunami and eke out a bare majority in the Senate. I voted in an off hour, the place was JAMMED, had to stand in line longer than I ever had before. Of course, this could be an outlier since there was trouble with the machines. But I doubt that. Machine trouble or no, the bodies were THERE, brother. Be prepared to duck and cover, my friends.
Not in a place as conservative as my area. The ONLY reason I vote on national elections is to have the satisfaction of knowing I did not vote the clowns in. My vote never counts for anything except in local races and referenda. I live in fricking GEORGIA.
Are there any competitive seats in GA (or the south in general)? I am on record as betting on the downside for Dems (with a 50-50 split in the Senate very likely, along with 70ish house seats), but I’m not sure that turnout in the South is much of an indicator - it seems obvious that areas with large Tea Party-ish support will have high turnout. It’s the squishy middle that concerns me, and depressed Dem turnout.
And DrDeth, if that happens the cries of fraud tomorrow are going to be deafening (even though it is well within the range of possible outcomes). :o
I think marijuana legalization will lose, 52-48%. I honestly don’t think we’ll see legal dope in my lifetime; too many entrenched interests have too much invested in prohibition.
(Didn’t everybody expect the anti-gay-marriage referendum to fail?)
He also emphasizes that the error bars are huge, so “about that” has a heck of a lot of leeway.
Thinking locally, Denny Rehberg (R-MT) is going to easily make it to re-election, but I’m going to predict that the margin is going to be significantly smaller than predicted. This is not because of any suspicion of systematic errors in the polls, or underestimates of Democratic turnout, or anything like that: Rather, I think that he’ll do worse than expected simply because his challenger is also named Dennis, and I think a fair number of voters are going to get the two mixed up.
