Good stuff - glad to hear it!
I went back and looked at the graph again and it looks like it was 20 September when things started to change, actually. What happened on or around that date, or what began on around that date, that might make people re-think their vote for GOP candidates?
Might be the news of COVID-19 starting to surge in previously lightly-affected areas. But I can’t quite be arsed myself to compare daily cases state by state with political polling, plus try to guess at the lag factor in reporting. But the new case news definitely has been grimmer in the last month and that can’t be helping Trump.
I’ll also note RBG died on September 18th and a Supreme Court nomination backlash might have energized voters. Though frankly I’d think that would mostly galvanize partisans, not fence-sitters/waverers. But maybe I’m wrong and some of those folks became agitated as well.
I think it was the Des Moines Register poll (released 9/19) that showed Greenfield (D) +3 over Ernst (R) in Iowa. Iowa hadn’t been polled for about two months before that an wasn’t really on the radar as a D pick up opportunity. That poll was followed by three other polls within a week all showing Greenfield ahead. Iowa opened up new paths for D senate control that weren’t strongly considered before.
Senate control
Iowa senate
It’s probably not the complete explanation, but both charts have a steady ~20% climb starting around 9/20.
Really depressing news from Iowa. The Republican incumbent Ernst is leading the Democratic challenger 46% to 42% in the latest poll.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/senate/ia/iowa_senate_ernst_vs_greenfield-7072.html
So there is a significant chance the Republicans will retain control of the Senate. If so they will block virtually all Biden proposals.
My third (and hopefully final) email to Martha McSally:
Well, Ms. McSally, I hope you are happy with your legacy, a 6 - 3 conservative supreme court. It seems it will be the only legacy you get. In 2016 you called then-candidate Donald Trump “disgusting.” In 2018 you embraced his so called principles to try and start your senate career – and lost. After being appointed to fill the remainder of McCain’s term, with no help from Trump or his minions, you might have seen the writing on the wall and charted a conservative yet separate position. Instead, you embraced Trump with all of the fervor of a drowning victim.
In January when you had the chance to rid this country of the worst president in living memory you and the rest of the Republican party – save one – blinked. You couldn’t even be bothered to look at the evidence brought before you. Instead you swept it off of the table, too afraid to look in the box for fear of what you might find. This set us up to have a President in charge when the worst medical crisis in a century hit the country, a President who cared nothing about the American people, only his own reelection prospects. There are currently 230,000 dead Americans. Best estimates are about half can be laid at Trump’s feet. Having praised his so-called response, how does it feel to have those 115,000 people laid at your feet as well?
Despite your loyalty, despite for voting for his supreme court nominee mere weeks – instead of ten months – before the American people could decide who they would prefer make that determination, you got the payback he is so famous for: none at all. I watched as he reluctantly called you to share the platform with him like you were his dog. Was that a proud moment in your career?
Actually, it does not matter. The Republican party has lost its way so far, for the first time in my life I have voted straight Democrat all the way down my ballot, submitted, accepted, and counted already. I could not bring myself to vote for even the two Republicans running unopposed for constable and justice of the peace, leaving them blank instead. If the polls are correct the Trump administration will be a nightmare from which we will awaken come January 20 next year. And you, like a remora that has attached itself to a dead shark and cannot let go, will be dragged into the abyss with it.
Eh, that seemed to take the 538 “chance of control” number from 78% down to 76%. It made the Iowa race 50/50 basically. Selzer is normally on the money, but I wouldn’t say 46/42 is insurmountable.
The more likely pickups (4 needed, since Jones will lose) are: CO, AZ, ME, NC. IA and the GA races are sort of icing and working majority seats (although the GA special shows better odds for the Dems than ME right now). It is a bit depressing Bullock couldn’t ever get momentum in MT, but he does have a 1/3 shot based on the 538 projections.
Cunningham wins with 52%. Tillis gets 46 the rest are 3rd party.
Simply because Iowa is a solid R?
I wouldn’t say “simply” because of Joni Ernst winning re-election. Susan Collins can still win in Maine and the two Republican candidates can both win in Georgia. Dems can’t get to 50 by flipping three because they’re going to give one back in Alabama. A net two is the floor right now. The ceiling is probably six and that would require a serious blue tsunami.
And 538 has posted polls yesterday and today that show Greenfield up +1, +3 and +3. Substantively, nothing has significantly changed in the odds of Democrats taking over the Senate in the last several weeks – remarkably so. Based on polling averages they are favored, but Republicans have always had a “significant chance” to retain the Senate.
But remember where we were 8-10 months ago. Few considered Iowa and Georgia to be legitimately in play, and the idea that Texas, Montana and South Carolina would be remotely close was laughable. The biggest accomplishment of the cycle is that Democrats have created a wide enough field of competitive races to make a takeover a realistic outcome. We’ll find out tomorrow (or more likely in the days and weeks thereafter) whether it pays off.
Morning Consult has a poll out today on the Georgia regular Senate race with Ossoff leading 46.5-45.5. Given that Ossoff needs to clear 50% to avoid a runoff (where he would likely be at a disadvantage) my question is where is that other 8% going? Is there really a third-party candidate in the race who could draw that level of support?
Wait, Montana and South Carolina are competitive?
Depends on your definition. A 4-6 point margin in double digit Trump 2016 states certainly suggests that Republicans are less safe in many more places this cycle. Alaska is another state which could fall into this classification. Incumbent senators up for re-election with an incumbent president of the same party also running shouldn’t be sweating things this much.
This is not entirely true. This is a dataviz of what PredictIt thought were interesting senate races at the end of April and the end of October…
I wonder how much of the Senate polls are based on the confirmation of ABC? Now people cannot even pretend the Senate is trying to play by the rules. Not like I was inclined to vote for Gardner (R - CO) but when he said that we should hold off on the SCOTUS nomination until after the election then fully supported her nomination coming to the floor … well I couldn’t bubble in Hickenlooper.
The sad part is if McConnell said that the new political practice was that the Senate and not the President controlled the confirmation process hence Garland was not voted on and ABC was we could at least agree or disagree and argue about it but at least it wouldn’t force the Pubs to show their hypocricy.
Maybe I’m missing your point, but citing a betting market doesn’t strike me as Data?
ACB, dear.
I know this is for Senate races but here will be the new Representative from Western Colorado. Even as a Pub I have to say dear God no.