Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Mitt Romney, Weak Frontrunner? Not At All

You have a vulnerable incumbent President with a gaffe-prone VP, and the challenging party has a diverse field of candidates, which is considered historically weak. The long ago perceived frontrunner comes from a state and region away from the party’s base region of strength, and he’s considered a flip-flopping opportunist out of sync ideologically with that base. The party faithful really wants a more attractive option, as the most riveting candidates that appeal to the party base took a pass, and other more experienced candidates either have no interest or felt it was not their time in the political environment. Making matters worse, the states that voted before Super Tuesday produced mixed results, with multiple winners and no “momentum” being established for any of the remaining candidates.

Nope, not talking about 2012 and the GOP field, with Mitt Romney as the early established frontrunner. I was actually describing the 1992 Democrat race and its frontrunner (in perception only) Bill Clinton - future President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. Of course the comparisons of the two candidates are not perfect: Mitt Romney has a marriage and personal life so squeaky clean that it almost comes out of a 50s-era sitcom, while Bill Clinton, at the time, was a more inspiring speaker and emoter to his party base. Mitt Romney is extremely wealthy – almost uncomfortably so to a fault – while Bill Clinton came from humble beginnings and made about $50K annually as Governor of Arkansas. But both were 2 of the smartest American students of their generation and had a firm grasp on national policy, despite both never having worked for a minute in Washington, D.C. Both were (are) married to smart, articulate, strong women who actually made public appeals on behalf of their candidate husbands.

But just as Mitt Romney and his establishment supporters are realizing that the primary season is no picnic in the park, he’s having a pure cakewalk to his nomination compared with Bill Clinton in 1992. Quick overview of that race: The Democrat field was considered quite weak, even coming off of the 1988 buffet that included Michael Dukakis (as nominee), Rep Dick Gephardt, Paul Simon (no, not the musician from the 60s-80s, but the Illinois Senator), Rev Jesse Jackson, and (future Dem VP & 2000 Presidential nominee) Sen Albert Gore, Jr. In 1992, NY Governor and riveting speaker (who wowed the party base at its 1984 Convention) Mario Cuomo passed on the race – It’s assumed the 1992 nomination was his for the taking had he ran. So the Democrats were stuck with a lackluster field of Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton – considered a moderate, as he ran the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, former MA Senator Paul Tsongas (pronounced Sonn-Guess) – considered the fiscal conservative of the race, former CA Governor Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown (known affectionately as “Moonbeam"), Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa (yaaaaaawn), and Nebraska Senator Robert Kerrey – another perceived “moderate.” Governor Douglas Wilder of VA was a candidate early, but dropped out before first contests began.

Once the 1992 race began in earnest, the primary and caucus results came & went as followed. Sen Harkin had favorite son status in Iowa, so the most anticipated contest every four years was rendered meaningless. Harkin won 77%, “Uncommitted” finished 2nd with almost 12%, and Tsongas was a very distant 3rd – with 4%. Only about 3000 votes were cast in Iowa that year. Thanks, Harkin.

Moving on to New Hampshire, the real contest began. Sen Tsongas, with the state being basically in his backyard coming from MA, won comfortably with a lackluster 33%. But the real story coming out of the First in the Nation Primary was the saving of his campaign by Bill Clinton, who finished with a respectable 24% - very good considering the Northeast was not his area of strength. Kerrey finished in 3rd with a weak 11%. Like the 2012 Iowa GOP winner, Harkin finished a distant 4th in NH (10%). Brown of CA finished a depressing 5th (Another big-state governor going down in flames early?).

Next on the docket, to finish out February of ’92, came 2 very small states before heading into “Mini Tuesday” in early March. The Maine Caucus had a very weak turnout (only about 3200 participants) and only 3 of the 5 candidates were contesting. It finished Brown, Tsongas, and Clinton, in that order. On to South Dakota, officially the first and best test in the West (Note: Every chance you get to make a clever string of rhymes, you take it.). This time Kerrey won with 40%, Harkin finished 2nd with 25%, Clinton 3rd with 19%, Tsongas 4th, and Brown a pathetic 5th place with less than 5%. So that’s 4 contests before March with 4 different winners. A jumbled mess if ever there were one. Quick recap: Iowa winner finishes 4th, N/A & 2nd in the next 3 contests; NH winner finished 2nd, then distant 4th; Maine Caucus winner finished in single digits in the other 3 contests; SD Primary winner finished 3rd in NH and basically N/A’d the other 2. Oh, and the party’s “frontrunner” going in, Clinton, had yet to win, finishing 3rd, 2nd, 3rd (out of 3 participating), and 3rd to close February. That’s 3 bronze & a silver for what would eventually be a two-term (impeached) President.

Next were 6 primaries and caucuses – plus American Samoa & Minnesota, both with no real contest - held on March 3, a week before Super Tuesday. Four were states out West, one from the South, plus the Beltway state of Maryland. The setup should have been regional advantage and a chance for real momentum for former CA Gov Brown. He won just one state (Colorado), finished 2nd in two states (both out West), and finished in anemic single digits in the other 3. Tsongas finished first in three states (two impressively out West), 2nd in two, and a close 3rd in another. (Why Tsongas isn’t the presumptive favorite at this point is a mystery). Kerrey has dropped out by now, while Harkin’s campaign is on life support (even as he wins Idaho in a basically unattended, uncontested caucus). And finally Bill Clinton wins an actual race, dominating the Georgia Primary with 57% (Tsongas in 2nd). He finished 2nd twice (CO & MD) and 3rd thrice. Not an outstanding haul for Slick Willy, but his campaign is still alive. Ten contests in, and the punditry “frontrunner” has one victory (in the South, and he being the only candidate with a link to the South).

Three contests were held the Saturday before Super Tuesday, and Nevada Caucus was held that Sunday. The big prize was the South Carolina Primary, and Clinton walked away with it, getting 63%, while Tsongas finished 2nd at 18%. More Western-field advantage was fumbled away by Brown, as he failed to win both AZ & WY caucuses (though he would win the lightly-attended NV Caucus). Clinton regained his stride with three 2nd place finishes in the western states. Now 14 states in and Bill Clinton had won only two of them – both Southern states – and finished 3rd in 6 of the 14. Now THAT, friends, is a weak frontrunner. Nobody (not named Clinton) in their wildest dreams at this point would have expected him to ever be hearing “Hail to the Chief” played on his behalf.

Moving on to Super Tuesday, March 10, Bill Clinton begins to gain steam in a three-man race at this point. Using geography to his advantage – 7 of 11 are either in the South or include neighboring states (6 of the 11 states actually border Arkansas!) – Clinton rolls to victory, winning majorities in 8 states, while Tsongas won 3 states in the Northeast, including his home state of Mass. A week later Clinton wins majorities in both the Michigan and Illinois primaries, and it’s basically all over but the cryin’. He wins every remaining state but two in the Northeast and the nomination is his. Despite a horrendous start in the primary calendar, the Clinton campaign waited patiently for its moment, didn’t panic, and walked away with the nomination before the end of March (basically all but sealing the deal the first week of April). Slow and steady won the race. Not that the liberal Democratic base didn’t have to be dragged kicking & screaming along the way. There was no “true progressive” in the 1992 race, and Clinton was a Southerner in a party whose base was centered mainly in the Northeast and Midwest, and gradually – through both Reagan success and erosion of the Democrat brand in Dixie – had been moving away from the traditional South. To add further to his “weak frontrunner” status, billionaire Texan H Ross Perot entered the race as an Independent (later under the banner of the “Reform Party”), and further cut into Clinton’s base of moderate and mild-conservative support. Within about a week of Perot fanfare, Clinton was 3rd in a three-man race, behind both George HW Bush and Perot, with about 30% in new polls. You can’t get much more weak as a nominee-in-waiting, being fresh off sweeping primary victories and when the party faithful is supposed to rally around you in solidarity.

Granted, Presidential politics is different than it was 20 years ago, but compare the above results with what Mitt Romney has accomplished so far in 2012. He basically tied in Iowa (They still haven’t found 8 precincts worth of votes) – declared as winner by 8 votes on Caucus night – without going for broke in the state until he knew he could win, blew away a six-person field in New Hampshire, finished 2nd out of four with 28% in a southern state, won with 46% in a closed Florida Primary, got a majority in NV (closed) Caucus, finished 2nd in CO Caucus, 3rd in Minn Caucus (only 49K people participated in total), lost a Missouri “beauty contest” in which he never tried, then got a near majority in AZ and finished 1st in Michigan, his 41% being misleading by inclusion of both Indy voters and Democrats allowed to vote (Dems fashioned their own version of “Operation Chaos” by voting for Santorum to damage Romney) – he got almost majority of the declared Republicans in Michigan. Now it’s on to Washington for a caucus on Saturday, and then on to Super Tuesday, March 6.

Though the 2012 nomination battle is far from over, and Mitt Romney is not out of the woods yet, he’s in historically fine shape at this point. Although his Super Tuesday map is not near as geographically friendly as Clinton’s was back in ’92, Romney is likely to win at least half of the states and a plurality of the delegates at stake. But now, barring collapse, he’ll be the presumed frontrunner and nominee-in-waiting once the calendar moves into April and beyond. None of the other 3 candidates have a logical path to the majority of the delegates, and their stock has been fading in the last few weeks. Considering where a future President was in his nomination battle at this point back in 1992, Mitt Romney cannot objectively be called a weak frontrunner. Here are his finishes in the first ten states’ results: 6 outright Gold medals, a tie in Iowa, 2 Silvers, and a Bronze – in geographically & demographically diverse states no less. He’s won 41% of the vote when delegates are at stake, almost the total number of votes of the next two competitors combined to this point. That’s electoral success by any measure and hardly weakness in a frontrunner.

Update: Mitt Romney is victorious in his 5th contest in a row by capturing the Washington Caucuses on March 3rd. He garners 38% of the total vote, while Ron Paul inches out Rick Santorum 25% to 24% & capturing 2nd place. A strong Super Tuesday by Mitt Romney - say, winning 7 of the 10 states on the ballot - and the Fat Lady begins to clear her throat on the 2012 nomination.


- AZDB

Sunday, November 7, 2010

2010 Senate Post-Game Analysis

Based on RCP averages, it seems that Democrat support across the board was underestimated and Republicans overestimated, except for a handful of safe seats on the GOP side.

Underestimated GOP:
AR-Sen: Boozman (R) 1.4
FL-Sen: Rubio (R) by 2.2
KY-Sen: Paul (R) 0.6
LA-Sen: Vitter (R) 3.9
MO-Sen: Blunt (R) 3.3
ND-Sen: Hoeven (R) 7.0
NH-Sen: Ayotte (R) 7.5

Underestimated Dems:
CA-Sen: Boxer (D) 4.3
CO-Sen: Bennet (D) 3.1
CT-Sen: Blumenthal (D) 3.1
DE-Sen: Coons (D) 2.6
IN-Sen: Ellsworth (D) 4.7
IL-Sen: Giannoulias (D) 1.4
NV-Sen: Reid (D) 8.3
NC-Sen: Marshall (D) 0.7
OH-Sen: Fisher (D) 2.2
OR-Sen: Wyden (D) 0.4
NY-Sen: Gilibrand (D) 4.8
PA-Sen: Sestak (D) 2.5
WA-Sen: Murray (D) 2.7
WV-Sen: Manchin (D) 5.6
WI-Sen: Feingold (D) 2.8

Monday, November 1, 2010

2010 Final House Ratings

We predict over 70 seats will flip from a lopsided Democrat House to a GOP House. With the lack of polling, it's hard to tell which races are truly competitive but based on factors such as funding and sparse/sporadic polling, the House is an absolute bloodbath for Democrats this cycle.

2010 Final Gov Ratings

FL-Gov: Toss-up to Lean GOP (Favors GOP)
CO-Gov: Likely Dem to Toss-up (Favors GOP)
CT-Gov: Lean Dem to Lean GOP (Favors GOP)
MD-Gov: Toss-up to Lean Dem (Favors Dems)
RI-Gov: Lean Dem to Toss-up (Favors GOP)
TX-Gov: Lean GOP to Likely GOP (Favors GOP)

There is even more uncertainty as now we have 8 races that are too close to call. Half of them are 3-way races with lots of uncertainty factoring in (MN, RI, CO, MA). The rest are simply too volatile to call though most tilt Dem (CA, HI, VT). Oregon tilts GOP.

Current Projections (October 9, 2010):

GOP: 31

No Race: 6
Safe: 12Likely: 7 Lean: 6

Dem: 11
No Race: 7
Safe: 1
Likely: 1
Lean: 2

Toss-Ups: 8

SAFE DEM


AR (Beebe)



LIKELY DEM


NY (Open)




LEAN DEM


MD (O'Malley)

NH
(Lynch)




TOSS
UP



CA
(Open)

CO
(Open)


HI
(Open)


MA (Patrick)

MN
(Open)


OR
(Open)


RI
(Open)


VT
(Open)



LEAN
GOP



CT
(Open)


FL
(Open)

GA
(Open)

IL
(Quinn)


OH (Strickland)

WI
(Open)


LIKELY GOP


IA (Culver)

ME
(Open)


MI
(Open)

NM
(Open)


PA
(Open)


SC
(Open)


TX
(Perry)


SAFE
GOP



AL
(Open)

AK
(Parnell)

AZ
(Brewer)

ID
(Otter)

KS
(Open)


NE (Heinmn)


NV
(Open)


OK
(Open)


SD
(Open)

TN
(Open)


UT
(Herbert)


WY
(Open)




2010 Final Senate Ratings - Senate Control Comes Down To West Coast

WV-Sen: Lean GOP to Lean Dem (favors Dems)
KY-Sen: Lean GOP to Likely GOP (favors GOP)
NV-Sen: Toss-up to Lean GOP (favors GOP)

The GOP solidifies Kentucky and improves its position in Nevada while WV seems to slip out of reach. Despite widely variant polling WA and CA, we have both as tossups, with Dems slightly favored in CA and GOP slightly favored in WA.

Current Projections (November 1, 2010):

GOP: 49
No Race: 23Safe: 14Likely: 8 Lean: 4

Dem: 49
No Race: 40Safe: 5Likely: 2
Lean: 2

Toss-Ups: 2

SAFE DEM


HI (Inouye)

MD (Mikulski)

NY (Schumer)

OR (Wyden)

VT
(Leahy)


LIKELY DEM


DE
(Open)


NY (Gilibrand)




LEAN DEM


CT
(Open
)


WV '
(Open)







TOSS
UP



CA
(Boxer)


WA (Murray)




LEAN GOP


CO (Bennett)


IL
(Open)


NV
(Reid)

PA
(Open)






LIKELY GOP


FL
(Open)


IN
(Open)


LA (Vitter)

KY
(Open)


MO
(Open)

NH
(Open)


OH
(Open)


WI (Feingold)

SAFE GOP


AL (Shelby)


AK
(Open)


AZ (McCain)

AR (Lincoln)


GA (Isakson)

ID
(Crapo)

IA (Grassley)

KS
(Open)

NC
(Burr)


ND
(Open)


OK (Coburn)

SC (DeMint)

SD (Thune)

UT
(Open)


Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Breaking Down the Polls - Colorado Senate

Mark Twain said there were three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies, and polls. OK, so maybe it wasn't exactly what Mark Twain said, but close enough. (I wasn't lying, but just making a point.) Most recently released polls for the Colorado Senate race between Ken Buck (R) and Michael Bennet (D - Nerd Herd) show an extremely close race, anywhere from Buck +1 to Buck +4. Even using the most current spread touted by one of the most respected pollsters in the business shows a closeness that is pure wishful thinking on the part of the Democrats. Unless people in Colorado either change their minds or undecideds move en masse to Bennet in the next 5 days, Ken Buck will win the race rather comfortably using current projections.
.
Rasmussen Reports just released a poll of this race taken Monday, October 25 among 750 "likely voters." Details of the poll's internals are included here:
.
Cutting to the chase, the top-line numbers are (with leaners) Buck leading 48-44, with 6% undecided. When you factor in a 4% margin of error for this survey, it sounds like any body's ballgame, right? Not so fast, Arsenio! As usual with most things, polls especially, the devil's in the details. Time to put my years of professional numbers-crunching to work on this one.
.
Delving into the poll's breakdown reveals two key sets of factors that affect the top-line #s to Ken Buck's disadvantage, but should make him breathe easier. First, Rasmussen reveals that his party breakdown for the poll is as follows: 36% Democrat, 30% GOP, and 34% Independent/Other. Sounds innocent enough, and not overwhelmingly imbalanced to cast doubt on the calculated top-line result. Until you consider that in 2008, a year with more Democrat enthusiasm in Colorado than ever before and mediocre turnout on the GOP side in the state, according to exit polls reported by the vaunted New York Times, the party breakdown in Colorado for that amazing Democrat year was 30% Democrat, 31% GOP, and 39% Independent/Other. Apples to apples, are we supposed to believe that in 2010, a year in which most GOP voters will walk over broken glass to vote for their party nominee (or mainly, against the Democrat) and which Democrat enthusiasm has surely come down from the Hope-and-Change high of 2008 (with the Dem Convention being held in their own state just for good measure), that there will be 6% MORE Democrats showing up to vote (about a 20% increase in voter strength from 30% to 36%)? At the same time, the GOP of CO, which had a severe case of the "blah"s in 2008, we're led to believe is actually gonna go down as a % in these midterms? Color me skeptical on those two conclusions...Wait, let me rephrase that: No way in hell either of those two things are gonna happen Nov 2.
.
Secondly, going to the "Inside the numbers" section at the end of the survey, we read as follows:
Eighty-one percent (81%) of Colorado Republicans support Buck, while 82% of the state’s Democrats line up behind Bennet. Voters not affiliated with either major party give a 23-point advantage to the Republican.
.
So, we get a negligible difference between respective party support for Buck and Bennet, but a ridiculous 23% lead among Indies for the Republican nominee. Just using the 2008 party breakdown - the high-water mark for Democrats and the abyss for the GOP - gives Buck about a 50.5-41 lead, if we assume both the 2008 exit polls and the Rasmussen survey results are accurate. Not exactly a squeaker at the moment, but also not a blowout when one factors in the MOE. It gets worse for Mr. Bennet when one considers that the 2008 breakdown (already skewed in presidential election years with more young and Latino voters than will vote in this midterm) is pure fantasy for CO Democrats in this cycle. Party ID in Colorado during 2004, the last good GOP turnout year, was measured at 38% GOP, 29% Democrat, and 39% Indy/Other. Even assuming a change in the CO electorate over 6 years, the Republican Party is clearly more energized this year, and the proof is in the primary pudding.
.
Primary results in CO captured over 400K voters casting ballots for GOP Senate candidates, while a mere 338K voters cast ballots for the democrat candidates. For the algebraically-challenged, that's 20% more ballots cast for the GOP than the Dems. But surely that must be because the GOP side had a heated primary, while the Dems had a lackluster, already-decided primary, right? Nope. The incumbent Democrat senator had to fend off a fierce challenge from the CO state Speaker of the House, and attention was brought to the race with appearances from both POTUS Obama, on behalf of Bennet, and former Prez Bill Clinton (D - Playboy Mansion), who stumped for Bennet's opponent, Andrew Romanoff. But there's no way this GOP enthusiasm hangover can continue through November, correct? After all, the primary was so long ago, right? Actually, Colorado had one of the later primaries this year, in the early part of August - not even three months ago - so base GOP voters are likely roaring and ready to go, one can assume.
.
For those that have read this far (and I really do appreciate it), let me do the math under a more realistic scenario than the 2008 turnout model. Just 10% more GOP voters to the polls than Democrats, while keeping the Dem %age at 30% and dropping Indies to a more realistic 37%, gives Ken Buck a 51-40.5 lead (assuming 81% support from each base and the same 23% lead among Indies for Buck), becoming a comfortable lead outside the MOE. Even worse for Bennet, if the same 20% more Republicans than Dems show up to vote as they did in the primaries, he trails about 52-39.5 under a very-energized-GOP scenario - with 6% still undecided! Now we're getting into real blowout range. Unless Democrats rally to Bennett, Indies flock in droves against the grain to vote Democrat at the last minute, and/or the GOP base sleeps through November 2, Ken Buck will be the next Colorado Senator, winning with room to spare. Bank on it.

.
.
- AZDB

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Applying PPP's Results To A Realistic Turnout Model

PPP released a poll today showing Carly behind Boxer by 52-43 and Whitman behind Brown 53-42. This assumes a fired up Democratic electorate that is exceeding its registration advantage (likely not, based on early voting and primary numbers) It assumes a D+13 electorate when registration is only D+12. Early voting and primary numbers both show a D+4 electorate. I create a D+5 electorate just in case.

PPP's Results:

D/R/I
Fiorina: 10/83/54
Boxer: 85/13/37

Whitman: 10/80/53
Brown: 86/14/39

Turnout: 47/34/19

So if Whitman and Fiorina are strong with Independents and you apply these same statistics to a more realistic turnout model:

D/R/I: 43/38/19

Carly 46.1
Boxer 48

That’s Boxer +1.9, similar to the advantage she has in early voting.

Meanwhile, for Whitman/Brown using the same turnout model:

Whitman 44.8
Brown 49.7

That’s Brown +4.9, similar to what we’re seeing from Survey USA.

Take partisan polls with a grain of salt.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Wave Elections: CA & WA 2010 = VA & MO 2006

The two key battleground states that will likely decide Senate control are California and Washington. Currently, the RCP average seperating Boxer and Fiorina is a mere 1.3 points and in Washington, Rossi is behind by 3.3 points. Polling in these two states is starting to mirror late-breaking states in 2006's midterms, where the Democrats were the challenging party and the Republicans were incumbents.

California has experienced consistent polling on two fronts. Incumbent Boxer (D) has been consistently under 50 percent and has posted consistent leads. We now see our first poll in a while that shows Fiorina pulling ahead 3 points on October 19. In the polls she still posts a deficit, Fiorina also has closed her margins and now the deficit is only 1 point in the RCP average.

This is very similar to the Virginia senate race in 2006 when now Senator Webb (D) defeated incumbent George Allen (R) by a tiny margin. What's interesting and similar is that aside from 2 polls in the summer, the incumbent Allen held the lead until Webb started to turn the race around last minute on October 20, 2006. Hopefully, Fiorina is able to follow the Webb trend and cruise to victory.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/va/virginia_senate_race-14.html#polls

Washington, on the other hand, has experienced see-sawing polling. One week, Rossi (R) will have the lead and the next a slew of polls show incumbent Murray (D) ahead.

This almost mirrors polling in Missouri's senate race in 2006 between Talent (R) and now Senator McCaskill (D).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/mo/missouri_senate_race-12.html#polls

This could be hopeful news for the Republicans, who are challenging incumbent Democrats.

Saturday, October 9, 2010

The Importance of Strategic Voting

When discussing politics with people, you will, no doubt, encounter ideological voters. These type of voters cross all party lines. They vote without the knowledge of how everyone else is feeling/tilting. Not a smart move. When it's a blowout race, sure, go for the 3rd party or don't vote for the lesser of two evils. But when it's a close race, your vote matters that much more.

Get informed! And yes, numbers matter.

This is a bipartisan message.

2010 Senate Ratings: Overall Senate Still A Toss-Up

CA-Sen: Lean Dem to Toss-up (favors GOP)
CT-Sen: Toss-up to Lean Dem (favors Dems)
NY-Sen: Lean Dem to Likely Dem (favors Dems)
WV-Sen: Toss-up to Lean GOP (favors GOP)

The GOP sees chances at Gilibrand's seat diminish this week, while CT moves away from GOP reach. Meanwhile, WV polling shows a strengthening position for Raese and and Fiorina gaining ground in CA.

Current Projections (October 1, 2010):

GOP: 49
No Race: 23Safe: 14Likely: 7 Lean: 5

Dem: 48
No Race: 40Safe: 5Likely: 2
Lean: 1

Toss-Ups: 3

SAFE DEM


HI (Inouye)

MD (Mikulski)

NY (Schumer)

OR (Wyden)

VT
(Leahy)


LIKELY DEM


DE
(Open)


NY (Gilibrand)




LEAN DEM


CT
(Open
)





TOSS
UP



CA
(Boxer)


NV
(Reid)

WA (Murray)




LEAN GOP


CO (Bennett)


IL
(Open)


KY
(Open)


PA
(Open)

WV '
(Open)






LIKELY GOP


FL
(Open)


IN
(Open)


LA (Vitter)

MO
(Open)

NH
(Open)


OH
(Open)


WI (Feingold)

SAFE GOP


AL (Shelby)


AK
(Open)


AZ (McCain)

AR (Lincoln)


GA (Isakson)

ID
(Crapo)

IA (Grassley)

KS
(Open)

NC
(Burr)


ND
(Open)


OK (Coburn)

SC (DeMint)

SD (Thune)

UT
(Open)


Friday, October 8, 2010

2010 Gov Ratings: Minor Movements

FL-Gov: Toss-up to Lean GOP (Favors GOP)
HI-Gov: Likely Dem to Toss-up (Favors GOP)
NH-Gov: Toss-up to Lean Dem (Favors Dems)
NM-Gov: Lean GOP to Likely GOP (Favors GOP)
NY-Gov: Lean Dem to Likely Dem (Favors Dems)

Current Projections (October 9, 2010):

GOP: 30

No Race: 6
Safe: 12Likely: 5 Lean: 7

Dem: 13
No Race: 7
Safe: 1
Likely: 2
Lean: 3

Toss-Ups: 7

SAFE DEM


AR (Beebe)



LIKELY DEM


CO
(Open)


NY (Open)




LEAN DEM


CT
(Open)


NH
(Lynch)


RI
(Open)



TOSS
UP



CA
(Open)

HI
(Open)


MD (O'Malley)

MA (Patrick)

MN
(Open)


OR
(Open)


VT
(Open)



LEAN
GOP



FL
(Open)

GA
(Open)

IL
(Quinn)


OH (Strickland)

TX
(Perry)

WI
(Open)


LIKELY GOP


IA (Culver)

ME
(Open)


MI
(Open)

NM
(Open)


PA
(Open)


SC
(Open)

SAFE
GOP



AL
(Open)

AK
(Parnell)

AZ
(Brewer)

ID
(Otter)

KS
(Open)


NE (Heinmn)


NV
(Open)


OK
(Open)


SD
(Open)

TN
(Open)


UT
(Herbert)


WY
(Open)



Friday, October 1, 2010

2010 Gov Ratings: Uncertainty Prevails

Many events in the last month move our races:

CA-Gov: Lean GOP to Toss-up (Favors Dems)
HI-Gov: Safe Dem to Likely Dem (Favors GOP)
NY-Gov: Safe Dem to Lean Dem (Favors GOP)
ME-Gov: Lean GOP to Likely GOP (Favors GOP)
MN-Gov: Lean Dem to Toss-up (Favors GOP)
NH-Gov: Likely Dem to Toss-up (Favors GOP)
PA-Gov: Lean GOP to Likely GOP (Favors GOP)
RI-Gov: Toss-up to Lean Dem (Favors Dems)
VT-Gov: Lean GOP to Toss-up (Favors Dems)

There are more toss-ups. The Dems move two Northeast seats and California in their favor, as the states regress back to their more liberal means. Primary wins put Hawaii and New York in more competitive categories in favor of the GOP while the GOP solidifies their lead in ME, NM and PA.

Current Projections (October 1, 2010):

GOP: 29

No Race: 6
Safe: 12Likely: 5 Lean: 6

Dem: 13
No Race: 7
Safe: 1
Likely: 2
Lean: 3

Toss-Ups: 8

SAFE DEM


AR (Beebe)



LIKELY DEM


CO
(Open)


HI
(Open)



LEAN DEM


CT
(Open)


NY (Open)

RI
(Open)



TOSS
UP



CA
(Open)

FL
(Open)

MD (O'Malley)

MA (Patrick)

MN
(Open)


NH
(Lynch)


OR
(Open)


VT
(Open)



LEAN
GOP



GA
(Open)

IL
(Quinn)


NM
(Open)


OH (Strickland)

TX
(Perry)

WI
(Open)


LIKELY GOP


IA (Culver)

ME
(Open)


MI
(Open)

PA
(Open)


SC
(Open)

SAFE
GOP



AL
(Open)

AK
(Parnell)

AZ
(Brewer)

ID
(Otter)

KS
(Open)


NE (Heinmn)


NV
(Open)


OK
(Open)


SD
(Open)

TN
(Open)


UT
(Herbert)


WY
(Open)