Midterm elections prediction thread

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[JoseGonzlez]

ill call up dan dorfmann and make my guess.

seriously though if you could provide a link to a good projection site it might be useful for people to bet off this baseline as opposed to randomly guessing.


i follow fairly closely but dont really feel qualified to guess. i would vote dems beat the consensus but id like to see what the consensus is.

[5thStreetHog]

Interesting poll,but only if Dem`s and Rep`s here answer with their MINDS not their HEARTS.I wont have any problem there lol,so ill give it a wing /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

My answers, FWIW, are yes (>=25 seats), no, yes and no.

It's the House, not the Senate, where I think the national mood is going to come into play. Basically, if you look at the races as they were forecasted a couple of months ago, almost all of the "toss up" House races are polling for the Democrats, and most of the "leans Republican" House races are polling as toss-ups. And the Republicans have to be worried about races exactly like Jim Leach's IA-2 district, which wasn't even expected to be competitive but which is polling as a dead heat. The Democrats may even pick off a House race or two that hasn't been polled.

I expect something along the lines of a 35-seat swing to the Democrats; it might even be closer to 40 or 45 seats. I don't expect the "silent majority" of white evangelical protestants to turn out for the GOP in the same way it did in 2004. In fact, if you look at polls of those voters, their support for the Republicans has dropped 20% since the last election cycle (from something like 75% to 55%).

In spite of this, I think the math works against the Democrats in the Senate. The candidates in Senate races are much more identifiable, and the races are much more likely to come down to local politics. From a Democratic point of view, I worry about having to bat 1.000 in red state after red state, and I suspect they'll stumble somewhere along the way. I do expect Jim Webb to pick off Virginia, but Tennessee is a probably a lost cause, and I think the Democrats will ultimately lose heartbreakers in Arizona (by 2-3%) and Missouri (in a race so close that it may trigger recounts and the like).

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
ill call up dan dorfmann and make my guess.

seriously though if you could provide a link to a good projection site it might be useful for people to bet off this baseline as opposed to randomly guessing.

[/ QUOTE ]

www.realclearpolitics.com (http://www.realclearpolitics.com)

www.electoral-vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com)

www.tradesports.com (http://www.tradesports.com)

[Wynton]

Here's a summary of some numbers on the Arizona race:

http://pollster.com/polls/?state=AZ&race=senate_race

[disjunction]

Yes, no, I don't know (but whatever the consensus is, I think Leach will do better), and no.

Has there ever been an election where Republicans do worse than people thought? I think it was Berge who noted that when it rains it usually poors, but isn't an alternate hypothesis that Republicans just always beat the polls?

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
And the Republicans have to be worried about races exactly like Jim Leach's IA-2 district, which wasn't even expected to be competitive

[/ QUOTE ]

I fell asleep on this one after reading the initial analysis of this race. This is great that this one is in play!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/house/ia/iowa_2-150.html

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, no, I don't know (but whatever the consensus is, I think Leach will do better), and no.

Has there ever been an election where Republicans do worse than people thought? I think it was Berge who noted that when it rains it usually poors, but isn't an alternate hypothesis that Republicans just always beat the polls?

[/ QUOTE ]

We should distinguish between exit polls and pre-election polls. One reason that Democrats felt very disappointed in 2004 is that throughout the course of election day, there were a lot of exit polls leaked that showed Kerry with leads in virtually every close race. Those polls proved to be inaccurate. But the consensus of the pre-election polls showed Bush with a 1.5% lead heading into election day, and his actual margin was 2.4%. Similarly, the results in 2000 were extremely close to the pre-election polls (remember that Gore actually won the popular vote that year).

What was a bit unusual about 2004 was that the Republicans won in a high-turnout election, something that was generally taken to favor the Democrats. This is what triggered a lot of the reverence for Rove's get-out-the-vote operations. However, many of these votes came from white evangelical protestants, and as I indicated above, support for the GOP amongst this group has declined tremendously.

I do expect that the GOTV operations will slightly favor the GOP in high-profile races like Missouri and Tennessee, which is why the Democrats face an uphill battle in taking the Senate. On the other hand, I expect the opposite dynamic to hold in the hundreds of House races across the country, which may not have been subject to heavy advertising and exposure.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]

I do expect that the GOTV operations will slightly favor the GOP in high-profile races like Missouri and Tennessee, which is why the Democrats face an uphill battle in taking the Senate. On the other hand, I expect the opposite dynamic to hold in the hundreds of House races across the country, which may not have been subject to heavy advertising and exposure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could see this. Everything is so murky to me, including the extent of the murkiness. Iowa Electronic Markets and Tradesports only have the House at 70/30? But the media experts make it sound like near 100% Democratic takeover. I don't quite understand where the difference is coming from.

On the other hand, I have no clue how someone can conduct an accurate poll nowadays when everybody uses their cell phone, and if you don't it clearly says something about the way you vote. I guess you can model and stuff, but I'm not sure if that would be called a poll, so I don't quite know what they're doing and how they come up with these numbers.

Finally, I see a lot of people on 2+2 that have changed their party, but I only know a couple in real life. Maybe that's significant, I dunno.

[KDawg]

one thing that should be noted that any poll that has a +/- margin of error over 2.5 is generally invalid and shouldn't be paid attention to. When you see a margin of error of almost 4, then they haven't polled enough people.

Polls are generally meaningless as its hard to actually gauge what is really going on because of who actually answers the phone or takes the time to fill out a poll.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I do expect that the GOTV operations will slightly favor the GOP in high-profile races like Missouri and Tennessee, which is why the Democrats face an uphill battle in taking the Senate. On the other hand, I expect the opposite dynamic to hold in the hundreds of House races across the country, which may not have been subject to heavy advertising and exposure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could see this. Everything is so murky to me, including the extent of the murkiness. Iowa Electronic Markets and Tradesports only have the House at 70/30? But the media experts make it sound like near 100% Democratic takeover. I don't quite understand where the difference is coming from.

On the other hand, I have no clue how someone can conduct an accurate poll nowadays when everybody uses their cell phone, and if you don't it clearly says something about the way you vote. I guess you can model and stuff, but I'm not sure if that would be called a poll, so I don't quite know what they're doing and how they come up with these numbers.

Finally, I see a lot of people on 2+2 that have changed their party, but I only know a couple in real life. Maybe that's significant, I dunno.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the markets are a little bit skittish precisely because of the skpeticism about polls, in connection with the Republicans' reputation for getting out the vote, and possibly some concerns about the voting process itself (e.g. suppressed votes or miscounts).

The way that I look at it, there's probably a 3-5% swing possible to either party based on exactly how the turnout plays, which is something that it's going to be impossible to predict before election day. However, the Democrats have built up enough of a lead in the House that they could probably withstand a 3% turnout shift to the GOP. And if the turnout shift goes the other way, with the Democrats picking up 3% on top of their poll numbers, we could see something like 45 or even 50 seats shifting parties.

Anyway, I think Republicans' chances of holding on to the House are probably about half of the 26% that Tradesports currently predicts. Maybe as low as 5-10% if there's no news that breaks before election day. On the other hand, I think the Senate number (68% for the GOP) is probably about right.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

Just to confirm what I wrote above, I looked at the data on House races on electoral-vote.com, taking the average of all polls taken within the past ten days. If no poll was taken during this time frame, I used the most recent poll, or the 2004 election results if no polling has been done in the district.

If the polls are exactly right as listed, then the Democrats would wind up with 239 seats, for a net shift of +36 from the previous alignment. However, even if you give the Republicans a 3-point bump in all races, the Democrats would enjoy a 17-seat majority. It's only when you give Repulicans a 5-point bump in all races that they retain control of the House, and then only by one seat. Conversely, a 5-point shift to the Democrats would give them a 53-seat pickup and a huge majority.

In other words, even in the very worst case for Democrats, they're still even money to pick up the house. In any case but the worse case, they'll win going away.

+5 points for GOP
DEMS 217, GOP 218 (+14)

+4 points for GOP
DEMS 221, GOP 214 (+18)

+3 points for GOP
DEMS 226, GOP 209 (+23)

+2 points for GOP
DEMS 235, GOP 200 (+32)

+1 points for GOP
DEMS 236, GOP 199 (+33)

No turnout shift:
DEMS 239, GOP 196 (+36)

+1 point to DEMS
DEMS 240, GOP 195 (+37)

+2 points to DEMS
DEMS 245, GOP 190 (+42)

+3 points to DEMS
DEMS 247, GOP 188 (+44)

+4 points to DEMS
DEMS 251, GOP 184 (+48)

+5 points to DEMS
DEMS 256, GOP 179 (+53)

[Jeff Oneye]

I agree with the point regarding the validity of polling. Yes, they overrepresent certain types of people and underrepresent others. As previously noted, certain people tend to be home at the time pollsters call. Furthermore, certain types of people will hang up the phone on the pollster. And then we have the proliferation of cell phones. Also, some voters who say they will vote will stay home if they are inconvenienced by bad weather. For these reasons and a litany of others, there is reason to be cautious when interpreting poll results.

I remember back in 2000 when most of the pollsters (Zogby being a notable exception, who called it dead on) had Bush winning by about three or four percentage points. Then in the last election cycle it appeared the Republicans wouldn't fare as well as they did. So the pollsters usually don't get it quite right. They do a good job at identifying runaway winners but are practically useless in close races.

There does seem to be a 'built in advantage' favoring Republicans. Thus, it probably makes sense to add a percentage point or two to the Republican candidate. Republicans tend to be more motivated to vote then Democrats. Their partisan identification is stronger and they rarely defect.

I would speculate this advantage might not be as pronounced in the upcoming election. The Republicans have alienated their base with unyielding support for an unpopular war and an unwillingness to curtail growth in government. Blaming Democrats doesn't work as well when the Republicans control the House, Senate and the Presidency.

The recent blunder by John Kerry might have some negative impact, reinforcing the perception of Democrats as elitist and anti-military. However, it might also redirect attention to the war in Iraq. And previous Republican scandals (notably Foley) will help mitigate its impact.

My basic impression is that there is a general sense of dissatisfaction with the Iraq War, even amongst my Republican friends and colleagues. They gave Bush and Congress a pass during the last election cycle. However, the rhetoric hasn't matched the reality. This might have the effect of putting Democrats on more of a level playing field by eroding Republican partisan zeal. However, I don't think that means mass defections or droves of cynical republicans staying home. The incumbents will still have their inherent advantage as well. My prediction is that the Republicans will lose about ten seats in the House and a couple in the Senate.

Jeffrey

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
There does seem to be a 'built in advantage' favoring Republicans

[/ QUOTE ]

I would guess that at least part of this advatage has to do with the fact that Republicans have more money. If this is true, then it may not be as big a factor this year as it has been in the past. The Republican financial advantage is smaller than it typically is, and moreover, some political analysts have stated that Republican ads (which frequently focus on terrorism) are not as effective in today's political climate.

[ncboiler]

[ QUOTE ]
ill call up dan dorfmann and make my guess.

seriously though if you could provide a link to a good projection site it might be useful for people to bet off this baseline as opposed to randomly guessing.


i follow fairly closely but dont really feel qualified to guess. i would vote dems beat the consensus but id like to see what the consensus is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barrons had an article last week in which they projected the overall outcome of the races in both the House and Senate. Their projections are based on the size of each candidates "War Chest" suggesting that the size of the war chest demonstrates the size of the grass roots support each candidate possesses. This method predicts the winner of each race at a success rate of 93% but most recently candidates with the biggest war chest win at a rate of 98%. The final prediction;

The House stays in the GOP's hands by a margin of 8 seats with a worst case scenario being a GOP margin of 1 seat.

In the Senate the process predicts the GOP will have 52 seats.

We will see how accurate it this year.

[reddog12]

With 90% of the country now using electronic voting, the Dems have no chance to win the House. The machines have already been programmed to flip enough key races to the Republicans to hold the House. Why do you think Rove says he's not worried? There also are no more independent exit polls to point out discrepancies, and no way to verify vote totals. In essence, we no longer have a democracy.

If anyone has a chance, watch "Hacking Democracy" on tonite and I think all week on HBO at 9pm. It might open your eyes to what has happened with our electoral process.

[KDawg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There does seem to be a 'built in advantage' favoring Republicans

[/ QUOTE ]

I would guess that at least part of this advatage has to do with the fact that Republicans have more money.

[/ QUOTE ]


actually, it has more to do with them being better able to rally their voters then the dems

[WichitaDM]

I am mostly shocked by the fact that ford is going to lose in tennesee. He seems to be a very moderate level headed democrat. Maybe he is just in the wrong state where race and other factors(ie incredibly hateful and borderline racist commercials) play too big of a role but he seems like a no brainer.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
I am mostly shocked by the fact that ford is going to lose in tennesee. He seems to be a very moderate level headed democrat. Maybe he is just in the wrong state where race and other factors(ie incredibly hateful and borderline racist commercials) play too big of a role but he seems like a no brainer.

[/ QUOTE ]

He might not lose. The Republicans got two (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?hp&ex=1162530000&en=1511d6b3da302 d4f&ei=5094&partner=homepage) pieces (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/02/haggard.allegations/index.html) of terrible news today, and some polls are still showing the race as a toss-up. But Tennessee is a red state, and Corker has managed to portray Ford as a little bit amateurish and immature, although Ford did much of the damage himself by trying to crash one of Corker's press conferences.

[WichitaDM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am mostly shocked by the fact that ford is going to lose in tennesee. He seems to be a very moderate level headed democrat. Maybe he is just in the wrong state where race and other factors(ie incredibly hateful and borderline racist commercials) play too big of a role but he seems like a no brainer.

[/ QUOTE ]

He might not lose. The Republicans got two (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?hp&ex=1162530000&en=1511d6b3da302 d4f&ei=5094&partner=homepage) pieces (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/02/haggard.allegations/index.html) of terrible news today, and some polls are still showing the race as a toss-up. But Tennessee is a red state, and Corker has managed to portray Ford as a little bit amateurish and immature, although Ford did much of the damage himself by trying to crash one of Corker's press conferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow didnt see these tidbits...It seems that the right wing in this country likes to campaign on one set of issues and live their lives, both private and politcal in a completely opposite manor. Its sad really that the religious right cant see past the abortion debate and see that there is really nothing for them in the republican party besides rhetoric.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]

In other words, even in the very worst case for Democrats, they're still even money to pick up the house. In any case but the worse case, they'll win going away.

+5 points for GOP
DEMS 217, GOP 218 (+14)
...
+5 points to DEMS
DEMS 256, GOP 179 (+53)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this is interesting. Nice work. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[uDevil]

If we want to know what's going to happen can't we just ask Dynasty?

[Berge20]

I'm saying Dems will have 220 seats in the House...

I'm saying Republicans will have 52 seats in the Senate...

Both Kyl and Leach survive. Kyle 54-46%, Leach 52-48%

God I love this stuff.

[MiltonFriedman]

You will see one of the following press releases on November 8

PPA claims Victory for Poker Players at polls as control of House shifts, urges players to join/send in membership dues.

PPA claims Victory for Poker Players at polls despite failure to shift control of House, urges players to join/send in membership dues.

[jhans24]

[ QUOTE ]
I am mostly shocked by the fact that ford is going to lose in tennesee. He seems to be a very moderate level headed democrat. Maybe he is just in the wrong state where race and other factors(ie incredibly hateful and borderline racist commercials) play too big of a role but he seems like a no brainer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Borderline racist? What commercials are you referring to? If it's the commercial where the white woman says he saw Ford Jr at the Playboy mansion and says call me, you are wrong. Hearing this commercial called racist, which I have on other forums, is absurd. If you have ever lived in Memphis, you quickly learn every issue is a race issue if you ask the right/wrong, people. The political members of the Ford family are these people. Don't be afriad to think for yourself. Just because someone says it's racist, take the time to look at it yourself and evaluate it. If some religous right idiot said something was immoral would you just believe them?

Josh

[Broken Glass Can]

As far as poker goes, the election results will make no impact. It doesn't matter which party controls either house. In Washington, this is a minor issue and will likely not be changed in any significant way.

We are a tiny group (positive EV poker players) in every race that is in any way close as well.

We should put our efforts on more worthwhile projects than trying to use elections to achieve any sort of change.

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There does seem to be a 'built in advantage' favoring Republicans

[/ QUOTE ]

I would guess that at least part of this advatage has to do with the fact that Republicans have more money.

[/ QUOTE ]


actually, it has more to do with them being better able to rally their voters then the dems

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but with a smaller financial advantage the Republican Party might A) not be able to bankroll these efforts as well as they would like, and/or B) face similar efforts from Democrats who now have the money to launch similar programs.

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as poker goes, the election results will make no impact. It doesn't matter which party controls either house. In Washington, this is a minor issue and will likely not be changed in any significant way.

We are a tiny group (positive EV poker players) in every race that is in any way close as well.

We should put our efforts on more worthwhile projects than trying to use elections to achieve any sort of change.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are completely wrong on this. The reasons why have been posted many times before. Below is a copy of a post I made last week detailing why a Democratically controlled Congress would greatly benefit poker.

The principle reason why a Democratically controlled congress would benefit online poker players is because the Democrats are highly unlikely to put further anti-online gambling legislation up for a vote. Conversely, a Republican led congress would be highly likely to do things like push for an expansion of the Wire Act to cover all forms of internet gambling, or try to close any loopholes that may exist in the current language of the UIGEA.

Secondary reasons include the fact that in a Democratically controlled House of Reps. Barney Frank, one of online poker’s greatest congressional allies, would oversee the committee that implements the UIGEA into action.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
We should put our efforts on more worthwhile projects than trying to use elections to achieve any sort of change.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think trying to defeat Kyl was very worthwhile. He was been online gambling enemy #1 and was on the ropes. Also the impact of not having a three headed Republican monster in our government is very very important.

History has proven that too much power for any group is a very bad thing. I am sure it would (and has) happened with Democrats if they controlled everything for a significant period of time.

Honestly both parties have a lot of improvement to make and having to have them fight for our votes will only improve things.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We should put our efforts on more worthwhile projects than trying to use elections to achieve any sort of change.


[/ QUOTE ]



Honestly both parties have a lot of improvement to make and having to have them fight for our votes will only improve things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once the midterm is over, the Presidential primary begins. With no incumbant running, all the candidates should be quite approachable at town meetings in Iowa and New Hampshire. If you live anywhere near to these to states, you should go there and pester the candidates with questions about their position on this issue.

Influencing candidates' thinking about how many people care about this issue would have more impact than our few votes at this late stage in the current election.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
With no incumbant running, all the candidates should be quite approachable at town meetings in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am getting very excited now thinking about Bill Frist having to campaign up in New Hampshire if he wants to pursue a Presidential run. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Note: Although I would much rather him wilt into the night never to be heard from politically again

[spatne]

Too many great house races to pick and choose. I think there's a real Democratic "wave" in the House races, instigated by Iraq and aided by specific instances of Republican corruption and scandal. 25-30 seats switch to Blue, here. 0 go the other way. The bulk of the gains will come in PA, NY, OH. But there are races in ID, KY, CO, AZ, CA, and WY that could tip Blue with just a slight breeze. If that happens Dems could be looking at a bigger total.

In the Senate:

The wave will be contained somewhat in the Senate, as the map is unfriendly to Democrats in 2006. Pickps in PA, OH, and RI are most likely. I think that Tester hangs on in MT, though Burns has closed the gap more than I (or anyone else) ever thought he could. Letting this one get away would be a major disappointment for Democrats, I think.

I simply cannot predict MO and VA so I'll just split them becuase I'm a gutless predictor. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ford ran a great race in TN, but I don't think Tennessee is ready to send a swingin' African-American bachelor to the Senate even if he is rather conservative. Corker will win by 4 or 5. I also predict Kyl to win in AZ, but for Pedersen there is a very unlikely scenario in which Pederson gets a push from down-ticket Democrats in some districts *and* a pull from Napolitano who is on the ballot (Gov race) and very, very popular.

NJ and MD have the Republicans hoping. I think that Menedez has weathered the Kean storm and will win by 4 or 5. In MD, Cardin is bland and uninspiring. Steele compared stem cell research to the holocaust. This race is closer than it ought to be, but I think that the prevailing anti-Bush sentiment, plus MD's reliably Democratic track record will drag Cardin over the line.

CT will either be closer than it looks or a huge blowout or a huge upset. I think that people who think they can predict this race with any kind of precision are foolish. There are waaaay too many variables, including D vs. R turnout, Lamont D vs. Lieber D turnout, and how many Republicans will stick with Lieberman after Schlesinger's masterful performance in the debates. I'll predict a solid Lieberman win of ~6, but nothing will surprise me on Tuesday night. (Except a Schlesinger win. That ain't happening.)

As for comparisons to recent years, I will make one prediction, and this is a mortal lock so write it down. As in 2004, 2002, and 2000, when the polls are closed and the votes are being counted, I will be drunk and yelling at Chris Matthews.

[spatne]

Nate,

I wonder about MO. There's a stem cell initiative in the ballot in MO, and it looks like it might bring out the Democrats and moderates for McCaskill. Talent is one of the more vehement anti-research Republicans out there, and McCaskill has been making it an issue.

I agree that Ford is trending downward in TN, but I think it has little to do with GOTV.

[spatne]

[ QUOTE ]
Borderline racist? What commercials are you referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a radio ad which compared Corker and Ford. Every single time the talked about Ford there were jungle drums in the background. Every time they talked about Corker there was very heroic, swelling music. Yes, the heroic, swelling music is standard, but dude...jungle drums?

As for the "call me" ad, is it overtly racist? No. Is it race baiting? Absolutely. This is *still* a sensitive issue for a lot of people in the rural south, and that ad sends a message that Ford is a-comin' for your white sisters and daughters. However subtle or slight that message might be, it's there. Unfortunately, in much of this country, it's effective as well.

[SumZero]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We should put our efforts on more worthwhile projects than trying to use elections to achieve any sort of change.


[/ QUOTE ]



Honestly both parties have a lot of improvement to make and having to have them fight for our votes will only improve things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once the midterm is over, the Presidential primary begins. With no incumbant running, all the candidates should be quite approachable at town meetings in Iowa and New Hampshire. If you live anywhere near to these to states, you should go there and pester the candidates with questions about their position on this issue.

Influencing candidates' thinking about how many people care about this issue would have more impact than our few votes at this late stage in the current election.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cut fortunately voting is relatively low cost and the two items are in no way mutually exclusive. So everyone should vote and throw out the people who lead to the UIGEA passing and then also do what you describe.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Nate,

I wonder about MO. There's a stem cell initiative in the ballot in MO, and it looks like it might bring out the Democrats and moderates for McCaskill. Talent is one of the more vehement anti-research Republicans out there, and McCaskill has been making it an issue.

I agree that Ford is trending downward in TN, but I think it has little to do with GOTV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in Missouri right now for a wedding. My buddy claims to have convinced his dad to vote for McCaskill last night, but we were all pretty drunk so who knows. ;-)

The problem again for the Democrats is that they have what amounts to a 55-45 lead in Virgina, Missouri, and Montana, and they need to win all three of those races to win the election. Of course, these probabilities are not independent of one another because of the wave dynamics of elections. But I still imagine scenarios in which the Democrats have a very good night overall, and manage to lose one of these three. If Tennessee or Arizona were more solidly in play, different story.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Borderline racist? What commercials are you referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a radio ad which compared Corker and Ford. Every single time the talked about Ford there were jungle drums in the background. Every time they talked about Corker there was very heroic, swelling music. Yes, the heroic, swelling music is standard, but dude...jungle drums?

[/ QUOTE ]lol You liberals are all the same!!! Same thing happens to me,every single time i play jungle drums to taunt a black man,or call him a spear chucker,i get accused of being racist.Its really ridiculous /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[malo]

Live in MO, and did my part today voting absentee. At this point, I'm hoping for the best.

On a side note, President Bush visited southern MO this week---an area that is a strong hold for both the GOP and Bush. He flew in around 7 pm. Normally these arrivals are heralded with crowds and festivities at the airport. Not this time-----very low key, with a small invited group on hand to greet the Prez.

It reminded me of a drunk teenager trying to sneak in the back door as quietly as possible so as not to wake the parents.

It was just very unusual for the GOP bastion I live in.

[sweetjazz]

Not sure what to expect, but my guess would be the Dems end up with 226 seats in the House and 50 in the Senate.

[coachkf]

[ QUOTE ]
I am mostly shocked by the fact that ford is going to lose in tennesee. He seems to be a very moderate level headed democrat. Maybe he is just in the wrong state where race and other factors(ie incredibly hateful and borderline racist commercials) play too big of a role but he seems like a no brainer.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is so annoying. The "playboy bunny" ad was not racist. It showed a white "bunny" telling "Harold" to call her, and he is black. So friggin what? From all accounts of the actual Super Bowl party that Ford attended in Florida, ALL of the bunnies were white.

While the ad creators may have been trying to bring out some old racist "protect our women from that sumbitch!" feelings... I just don't buy it.

Most of the "incredibly hateful" racists that would crush their beer cans when they see the ad, either live too far out in the sticks to get tv reception, or were making a beer run during commercials before Nascar came back on. I can make that statement because I'm from rural Tennessee. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Seriously. I think all the folks screaming "racist ad!" must be racists themselves, because most of us regular ol' ignorant white folks didn't even notice.

For the record, even though Ford's email replies to me this past summer were to say "online gambling is illegal," I still hope he wins to give the GOP a much needed spanking.

I know it probably wasn't the posters intention, but the continued stereotyping of people in the south as all living in trailer parks with KKK memberships is just getting old.

[WichitaDM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am mostly shocked by the fact that ford is going to lose in tennesee. He seems to be a very moderate level headed democrat. Maybe he is just in the wrong state where race and other factors(ie incredibly hateful and borderline racist commercials) play too big of a role but he seems like a no brainer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Borderline racist? What commercials are you referring to? If it's the commercial where the white woman says he saw Ford Jr at the Playboy mansion and says call me, you are wrong. Hearing this commercial called racist, which I have on other forums, is absurd. If you have ever lived in Memphis, you quickly learn every issue is a race issue if you ask the right/wrong, people. The political members of the Ford family are these people. Don't be afriad to think for yourself. Just because someone says it's racist, take the time to look at it yourself and evaluate it. If some religous right idiot said something was immoral would you just believe them?

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

If you dont think they were racist i think it is you who have not heard/listened to the ads. The Playboy commercial is just one example of this in this race. I am not basing this off of hearing it in the media on a forum, i am basing it off of watching some of these types of commercials and seeing a hint of racism in them. Notice i did not say overtly racist, i said borderline racist. They use it very carefully, and if you think it is completely absent i think you are very misguided...

[solucky]

In the US the reps forever, for the most europes noone understood that a boy like G W B got on the last elections a second chance to make anything wrong.

And yes the US will block ISP and kill poker and any other fun for the average american /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[WichitaDM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am mostly shocked by the fact that ford is going to lose in tennesee. He seems to be a very moderate level headed democrat. Maybe he is just in the wrong state where race and other factors(ie incredibly hateful and borderline racist commercials) play too big of a role but he seems like a no brainer.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is so annoying. The "playboy bunny" ad was not racist. It showed a white "bunny" telling "Harold" to call her, and he is black. So friggin what? From all accounts of the actual Super Bowl party that Ford attended in Florida, ALL of the bunnies were white.

While the ad creators may have been trying to bring out some old racist "protect our women from that sumbitch!" feelings... I just don't buy it.

Most of the "incredibly hateful" racists that would crush their beer cans when they see the ad, either live too far out in the sticks to get tv reception, or were making a beer run during commercials before Nascar came back on. I can make that statement because I'm from rural Tennessee. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Seriously. I think all the folks screaming "racist ad!" must be racists themselves, because most of us regular ol' ignorant white folks didn't even notice.

For the record, even though Ford's email replies to me this past summer were to say "online gambling is illegal," I still hope he wins to give the GOP a much needed spanking.

I know it probably wasn't the posters intention, but the continued stereotyping of people in the south as all living in trailer parks with KKK memberships is just getting old.

[/ QUOTE ]

Accusing people who see race as an issue in this race of being racists is laughable. I think Ford is one of the most inspiring young politicians that we have in this country. Most of that has to do with the fact that he doesnt back down from believing what he wants and being who he is rather than adhering to the party line. The guy has the Ten Commandments on his buisness card, and is very very conservative on many hot button issues that put him against many of his democrat brethren(Frankly i dont even agree with him on some of these issues, im not religious and far more liberal than him, i just think its noble for a politician to believe what he believes even if it costs him politically...See Al Gore). Would it matter to me if he was white, black, space alien, gay etc? No. I think that the problem with todays political landscape is that politicians mainly adhere to the party line rather than thinking for themselves.


My original post was discussing that i couldnt believe Ford couldnt win this race. Seemingly he has more moderate views, has more experience on the federal level, etc. It is somewhat shocking to me that he is going to lose to an old white guy unless you consider where the election is being held. If this elecion was held in California or New York I think the results would be far different. So you have to ask yourself why isnt this guy electable in Tennesee. Is it because he is a democrat? No probably not since Al Gore was a senator from Tennessee (actually 13 of the last 16 senators from Tenn have been democrats) and this is a very trendy election to be a democrat. IMO in a state wide election it is still hard for an AA to get elected. I would guess when all is said and done Ford will win the more urban areas and lose the rural vote in Tennessee by a landslide. Running for the House in Tenn he was electable because of the area voting as opposed to this election where it is statewide. If you want to call me a racist thats fine but i think that completely ignoring how much of a factor race is in the south in general still compared to the rest of the country is more ignorant than thinking that it is being called upon to win this election.

Fact the south has never elected an African American Senator since reconstruction. Granted there have not been many total but none have come from the south, Ford would be the first.

[Poofler]

I also live in MO, and have been following the race pretty closely. McCaskill and Talent have been exchanging insignificant leads for months, although McCaskill has had the momentum. So, while the margin of error is a real factor here, the recent trend gives some optimism.

The stem cell debate is a little bit like gay marriage part deux, where a slight majority of MO voters support it. I think what is more important is that this initiative will bring out voters who would not vote otherwise, just as gay marriage in 2004 made white Christian's a force to be reckoned with. This time, most of the research I've seen suggests the pro side is more fervent than the con side. Talent actually tried to remain opinionless, until his base made him take a stand against it.

Also MO has been hit real hard by manufacturing closures (Ford cut 2K jobs for instance), and I've seen less and less support our troops ribbons. They were everywhere in 2004, and the mood has quickly changed. Talent has been repeatdly linked to rubber-stamping Bush. Don't underestimate the magnitude of pissed off blue collars and anti-war soccer moms, versus a fairly apathetic Republican base in the state. I'm a Democrat, and I'm trying not to be biased. But the atmosphere reminds me a lot of when I live in California and Arnold was elected. A flat incumbent party and an energized anti-incumbant party attamepting to knock off an unethusiastic candidate without much of a stomping issue.

[EvanJC]

of course the adds have racial undertones. how thick and obvious do the implications have to be in order to be considered overtly racist?