Political junk for political junkies

November 1, 2006 10:49 AM

Next week in red and blue. Majority Watch uses a new, automated polling technology to track the 60 most competitive House races, displaying them in an interactive map of all the House districts. They are currently predicting 240 Democratic seats, and a solid Democratic trend. Political junkies should also consider Congressional Quarterly's excellent flash-based predictions (211 D, 207 R, 17 too close) and Electoral Vote, which compiles hundreds of House and Senate polls. The Senate is considered a toss-up by both of these sites.
posted by blahblahblah (43 comments total)

Good stuff. I have been following e-v.com as I did in 2004, but these other ones look pretty well done.

I'm pleased to see that Lamont has cut into phoney Joe's lead a little bit. Looks like his 12-15 point lead has dwindled to pretty close to the margin of error.
posted by psmealey at 11:01 AM on November 1, 2006

A tie in the Senate is as good as a loss for the country.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:06 AM on November 1, 2006

The Lamont/Lieberman polls do not take into account the fact that Lieberman is placed at the bottom of the ballot with the rest of the independents and third-party bottom feeders. Many Republicans and independents who are strongly for GOP gov. Jodi Rell's re-election will pull the Republican line, thus choosing Alan Schlesinger (who, as few outside of CT have noticed, is absolutely owning the three-way debates). Expect 5-10% of Joe's poll numbers, if not more, to jump to Schlesinger on election day.

I'm confident that Dems will make it to 51 in the Senate, sweeping both TN and MO. I would also not be shocked to see an upset in Arizona, making it 52.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 11:10 AM on November 1, 2006

i am voting for lamont. lieberman is like kermit the frog with less character.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 11:12 AM on November 1, 2006

(and a republican hand up his ass)
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 11:12 AM on November 1, 2006

I live in hotly-contested New Jersey, where I'm torn on how to vote; I haven't decided yet whether I prefer the Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers Party, or Weedman. But that's me.
posted by graymouser at 11:27 AM on November 1, 2006

These polls are heartening, but does anyone know how historically accurate such polls have been in previous Congressional elections? What happened in Ohio in '04, and Florida in '00 do not leave me with much confidence, except that those were Presidential elections and not Congressional. What about electronic vote-rigging? Saucy Intruder, I truly hope that you're confidence is justified.
posted by Azaadistani at 11:30 AM on November 1, 2006

Blazecock: It depends on which republicans manage to squeak out a win in the Senate -- If it's Kean, Steele, and Chafee, then you add in some other decent republicans like Warner, McCain and Hagel, and you have an environment in which at least some investigations in the senate will go forward, particularly on foreign policy, which is really the only thing that matters to me now. The people we really need to lose are crooks and thugs like Corker, Allen, Santorum and Burns.
posted by empath at 11:39 AM on November 1, 2006

Lieberman is the poop in the pudding in this election. We're going to win but we're going to end up stuck with that asshole. Who knows what will happen in the end with Schlesinger, the ballot, and the GOTV Lamont has, but I'm not expecting much.

And let's face it, Lamont isn't that great. he's not that inspiring and he kind of whiffed after the primary.
Lieberman is the poop in the pudding in this election. We're going to win but we're going to end up stuck with that asshole. Who knows what will happen in the end with Schlesinger, the ballot, and the GOTV Lamont has, but I'm not expecting much.

And let's face it, Lamont isn't that great. he's not that inspiring and he kind of whiffed after the primary.

Still hope he wins of course, god I'm sick of that sanctamonious asshole.

--

Here's the odd thing though, did you know Lincoln Chaffe (the republican incumbent in RI) voted against the Iraq war? I just saw one ad where he mentioned it. If I were him all my ads would just be me repeating the fact that I voted against the war over and over again.

Actually with Chaffe countering Lieberman in the senate, the dems could have stopped this war from happening but they didn't, so they do bare some of the responsibility. They didn't even need a filibuster, they had 51 seats at the time after Jeffords switched parties.
posted by delmoi at 11:42 AM on November 1, 2006

Also, keep in mind, that without a clear line of succession in 2008, a weak speaker and majority leader in the house and a majority leader in the Senate with presidential ambitions, the infighting among congressional republicans (and particularly Senate Republicans who are eying the white house) is going to be FIERCE next year. If the Dems manage to stay united, they'll be able to control the agenda in the Senate, even without a majority.
posted by empath at 11:43 AM on November 1, 2006 [1 favorite]

The people we really need to lose are crooks and thugs like Corker, Allen, Santorum and Burns.

Santorum and Burns are history. Gone gone gone. Allen and Corker are the ones who have a shot...
posted by delmoi at 11:43 AM on November 1, 2006

I would also not be shocked to see an upset in Arizona

I would be EXTREMELY shocked.
posted by kjh at 11:46 AM on November 1, 2006

Also, there will be no exit polling in this election. Because, you know, those things suck.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 11:47 AM on November 1, 2006

Electoral Vote had a good discussion on why Democrats should n't bee too paranoid on voter fraud:

The three key Senate races that are expected to be very close are in Tennessee, Virginia, and Missouri. In all three, the official in charge of elections is the secretary of state (called the secretary of the commonwealth in Virginia). Of course, the governor also has a lot of influence, especially in a close and contested election. So who are the players in these states?

In Tennessee, the governor is Democrat Phil Bredesen and the secretary of state is Democrat Riley Darnell. Bredesen has an especially keen interest in this election since he is up for re-election, against state senator Jim Bryson (R). The most recent poll shows Bredesen leading Bryson by more than 40 percentage points. Darnell was re-elected in 2005 (by the state legislature) and is not on the ballot.

In Virginia, the governor is Democrat Tim Kaine, who was elected last year. The secretary of the commonwealth is an appointed office in Virginia. Kaine appointed Katherine Hanley to the job, a long-time local Democratic politician.

In Missouri, we have a Republican governor, Matt Blunt, son of House majority leader, Roy Blunt (R-MO). However the secretary of state, Robin Carnahan is definitely a Democrat. Furthermore, her brother, Russ Carnahan is the incumbent Democratic congressman in MO-03 and her grandfather, Albert Carnahan. was a 6-term Democratic congressman. Dad, the late Mel Carnahan, was a Democratic governor of Missouri and the first dead man ever elected to the U.S. Senate from Missouri, after a fatal plane crash during his Senate campaign in Oct. 2000. After his death, the new governor, Roger Wilson (D), appointed Mel Carnahan's widow Jean Carnahan (D), Robin's mom, to the Senate, where she served until defeated by current incumbent Jim Talent (R-MO) in 2002. I doubt that Robin Carnahan will go out of her way to give Talent that little extra edge over Democrat Claire McCaskill.

posted by blahblahblah at 11:49 AM on November 1, 2006

Also, there will be no exit polling in this election. Because, you know, those things suck.

The link says "House races" twice. Does that mean that there will be exit polls for Senate races?
posted by peeedro at 11:59 AM on November 1, 2006

StrasbourgStamford? Who knew?

These polls are heartening, but does anyone know how historically accurate such polls have been in previous Congressional elections?

It varies by pollster and methodology, is the bottom line. Certain polling groups are known more for one type of poll than another and that sort of thing. Pollster.com is an aggregator and analyzer of these things if you go beyond the charts.

Some polls use registered voters, others use likely voters. The later involves modeling and applying your model to the numbers you actually collect. It's a lot harder than it looks, and for various reasons, most polls muffed 2004. (The "evangelical vote" was just an excuse.)

The biggest mistake made in most reporting on polls is overlooking the margin of error (usually 3-5%). If it's larger than the lead, then officially, the lead doesn't exist.

My view of the Senate for weeks has been that we'll get two out of three in MO, TN, and VA, and that Menendez would pull out of his slump as people really looking keenly at Kean (pron. Kane, it's a half-pun). Santorum and Burns are history. Kyl is not going to be sandbagged (no poll has shown Pederson ahead). Given the limited 1/3 turnover in the Senate, I think that's still pretty good. My greatest worry is that we'll have 50/50 and Lieberman will exercise his Banzhaf power and switch caucuses, thus putting Mitch McConnell in charge of the body.

empath: I don't share your confidence that Kean, Jr. is as decent as Kean, Sr.

Saucy: I don't think being lower on the ballot is as meaningful when you're talking about an 18-year incumbent (who has held statewide office since 1982). I do think that the Schlesinger vote will be surprisingly high, but I don't think it's nearly going to be double the polled numbers.
posted by dhartung at 12:01 PM on November 1, 2006

Crap. This shows either a Democrat or Republican taking it in every race. Clearly my plan isn't working!
posted by sourwookie at 12:03 PM on November 1, 2006

I dare not hope.
posted by Danf at 12:05 PM on November 1, 2006

Anyone think the Kerry thing is going to have an effect?
posted by DougieZero1982 at 12:06 PM on November 1, 2006

Anyone think the Kerry thing is going to have an effect?

Pff, no. It's a ridiculous side show drummed up by desperate republicans.
posted by delmoi at 12:20 PM on November 1, 2006

There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 12:21 PM on November 1, 2006 [1 favorite]

dhartung, i don't think I expressed any confidence. I think he'll be a typical 'moderate' republican.


DougieZero: If the election were this week, maybe, but by the time the weekend is over, no.
posted by empath at 12:22 PM on November 1, 2006

Many Republicans and independents who are strongly for GOP gov. Jodi Rell's re-election will pull the Republican line, thus choosing Alan Schlesinger (who, as few outside of CT have noticed, is absolutely owning the three-way debates).

I doubt it. Rell is popular even with people who'll vote straight Democratic down the line.

Also, being last on the ballot isn't so bad. Because he named the party "Connecticut For Lieberman", it's really easy to find his name.
posted by smackfu at 12:37 PM on November 1, 2006

Anyone think the Kerry thing is going to have an effect?

I think the effect could be very real espeacially in the Senate races. The polls are so tight, in the 4 or so races in contention, that if this motivates even a small number of Republicans to go to the polls it could be very bad for the Democrats. Luckily in both Virginia and Tennessee the Republicans are doing their best to scare off the Republican voters.
posted by aburd at 12:42 PM on November 1, 2006

Empath, McCain is no decent Republican. I don't think he's even a decent human being.

He's sucking at the teat of Falwell and Robertson quite thirstily these days.
posted by ursus_comiter at 12:46 PM on November 1, 2006

I use the term 'decent' very loosely when referring to Republicans. If any of the people I named were Democrats, I'd use another term entirely.
posted by empath at 12:48 PM on November 1, 2006

Anyone think the Kerry thing is going to have an effect?

If 'moderate' Democrats weren't such candy asses, they'd use this flap to make bring things back around to Iraq for these last few days before the election. Instead, they've doing the spineless mealy mouth democrat thing again.

I don't think it's going to have much of an impact though. The Republicans dumb enough to get fired up about this are already as energized as they're going to get. The demoralized ones can smell the bullshit.
posted by ursus_comiter at 12:54 PM on November 1, 2006

Empath, McCain is no decent Republican. I don't think he's even a decent human being.

He's sucking at the teat of Falwell and Robertson quite thirstily these days.

He wants a chance at the presidency in 2008. He can't win the nomination without appealing to the Republican base. I was more disappointed by his Kerry pile-on--surely he knows better--but you gotta do what you gotta do. "Pandering" aside he's still a more attractive candidate than anyone the Dems have so far.
posted by kjh at 1:03 PM on November 1, 2006

McCain's the motherfucker who amended the torture bill to give Bush cover on it. Fuck him. More attractive candidate? Schya!
posted by ursus_comiter at 1:11 PM on November 1, 2006

What is interesting in 2006 are the candidacies of Jim Webb and Bob Casey. Casey is the rare pro-life democrat, and Webb is everything you'd expect a southern republican to be, except he's a democrat also.

What is exciting is that the party seems to be setting aside it's special interest-based litmus tests in favor of broadening the tent a little. This new blood will be good in the long run (and the short run).
posted by Pastabagel at 1:12 PM on November 1, 2006

And in any run, as long as the Democrats win.
posted by pracowity at 1:23 PM on November 1, 2006

I was more disappointed by his Kerry pile-on--surely he knows better--but you gotta do what you gotta do. "Pandering"

He got himself booked on every Fox News show yesterday.

I just saw on Fox News that Cavuto booked various military families to blast Kerry for their sons getting killed in Iraq.

Is this like flies on shit?... seriously.
posted by DougieZero1982 at 1:27 PM on November 1, 2006

Pastabagel -

Rare pro-life Democrat? What about Harry Reid? Guy's pro-life and the Senate Minority Leader.
posted by graymouser at 1:29 PM on November 1, 2006

I just saw on Fox News that Cavuto booked various military families to blast Kerry for their sons getting killed in Iraq.

Fox news? Were you expecting fairness or ballance or something?
posted by delmoi at 1:41 PM on November 1, 2006

"rare", in that there are not a lot of them.
posted by Pastabagel at 1:50 PM on November 1, 2006

peeedrow: Does that mean that there will be exit polls for Senate races?

Yes. According to ABC's "The Note" the networks will be performing exit polls for the 2006 midterm US Senate races. However, the exit poll results will only be available to a handful of carefully sequestered staffers until 5 pm ET and even then the results for each Senate race won't be released on-air until after the polls close in the corresponding state.
posted by RichardP at 1:53 PM on November 1, 2006

Yeah, sorry, McCain lost me when he allowed that abortion of a pro-torture bill to go forward.

THE MAN WHO WAS HIMSELF TORTURED IN VIETNAM (and used it oh so often to drum up sympathy) WROTE A BILL AUTHORIZING TORTURE.

I simply do not have words for my disgust and loathing of him for that.
posted by InnocentBystander at 2:45 PM on November 1, 2006

In terms of pro-life Democrats, check out this list of the Blue Dog Democrats. The sole Democrat congressman from my state is on there. But, considering the makeup of Utah voters, the fact Jim Matheson is to the right of Lieberman shouldn't surprise anyone.

Just a random thought on Iraq: in purely political and cynical terms, the Senate Democrats voting for the war was one of the best things they ever did. Sure they could have voted no and possibly stopped the war. But, without the debacle of the real war before us, the imaginary war would have been a certain victory and the Democrats would have been successfully painted as defeatists and wimps rather than prophets.

By enabling the war, the Democrats gave the Republicans and the administration enough rope to hang themselves and gave their party a rallying cry that should last for a decade or better.
posted by pandaharma at 4:18 PM on November 1, 2006

pandaharma writes "By enabling the war, the Democrats gave the Republicans and the administration enough rope to hang themselves and gave their party a rallying cry that should last for a decade or better."

At the cost of only 600,000 lives! Yeah, our side!
posted by mr_roboto at 4:56 PM on November 1, 2006

I don't know pandaharma, I just saw a TV ad here in Washington where the incumbent Democrat Cantwell was blasted by the republican challenger McGavick for voting FOR THE WAR!

Given that the war was going to happen whether the terrorist-loving democrats voted for it or not, the Democrats would be in a much stronger position today if they ALL had gone on record against the war at the start. Hell, Kerry would probably be president right now.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 5:22 PM on November 1, 2006

Seems likely that Saddam's sentencing next Tuesday is likely to have a bigger impact than the Kerry imbroglio.
posted by Coventry at 7:21 PM on November 1, 2006

I tell ya if I was at the "press briefings" with ol' snow job I would have hollered about Bush's lack of military expertise and lack of any sort of right to criticize anyone on the issue of military anything. Put that man in charge of a war and we end up in quick sand. As to if it'll affect anything. Hard to say, a week is pretty short time to start smear campaigns, and too long to have a tempest in a teacup hold water... stranger things have happened tho.
posted by edgeways at 7:54 PM on November 1, 2006

You would've been Helen Thomas?
posted by smackfu at 8:01 PM on November 1, 2006