gemimail,
The Republicans need to gain a net of 40 seats to regain control of the House of Representatives. Since every analyst seems to predicting they will lose both the Delaware at large seat and the Louisiana 2 seat, they will need to capture 42 seats currently held by the Democrats. That brings up the question of where these 42 seats will come from. We have our own idea of 74 seats which we believe are either odds on bets or are quite possible for the Republicans to capture. We will list them along with what other analysts think are the chances in the table. Notice that in the top 40 ending with CO-4, the margin of the incumbent Democrat does not go over 10% unless Obama lost the district. Also notice that in addition to the top 40, other analysts think that PA-7 and PA-12 are primarily toss-ups because there is no incumbent Democrat. That makes 42 seats for the Republicans and control by 1 seat after losing two seats. See if you think there are more than 42 seats in the table that the Republicans can capture.
SEAT
| MARGIN
| OBAMA
| MARSTON
| CQ POL | COOK
| ROTHENBERG
|
AL-2
| 0.62%
| -27.37%
| 99.2%
| Toss-up
| D toss-up
| R toss-up
|
LA-3
| 0.50%
| -23.96%
| 98.7%
| Leans R
| Likely R
| Leans R
|
ID-1
| 1.21%
| -25.94%
| 95.7%
| Toss-up
| D toss-up
| R toss-up
|
MD-1
| 0.79%
| -18.45%
| 95.4%
| Toss-up
| D toss-up
| R toss-up
|
VA-5
| 0.23%
| -2.31%
| 93.0%
| Toss-up
| D toss-up
| R toss-up
|
NY-20
| 0.45%
| 3.00%
| 90.0%
| Likely D
| Likely D
| D favored
|
OH-15
| 0.76%
| 7.12%
| 87.0%
| Toss-up
| D toss-up
| R toss-up
|
NY-29
| 1.23%
| -2.22%
| 84.4%
| Leans D
| Leans D
| Leans D
|
PA-3
| 2.47%
| Tie
| 81.4%
| Leans D
| Likely D
| Safe D
|
MI-7
| 2.31%
| 5.23%
| 80.3%
| Toss-up
| D toss-up
| Toss-up
|
TX-17
| 7.48%
| -35.17%
| 77.8%
| Likely D
| Leans D
| D favored
|
NY-23
| 3.11%
| 5.22%
| 77.0%
| Leans D
| Leans D
| Leans D
|
AR-2
| #4.70%
| -9.91%
| 76.5%
| Leans R
| Leans R
| Toss-up
|
NJ-3
| 3.31%
| 5.38%
| 76.2%
| Leans D
| Leans D
| D favored
|
NY-24
| 3.94%
| 2.36%
| 74.9%
| Leans D
| Leans D
| Leans D
|
IN-9
| 4.52%
| -1.76%
| 73.8%
| Leans D
| D toss-up
| Leans D
|
FL-8
| 4.03%
| 5.70%
| 73.5%
| Toss-up
| D toss-up
| R toss-up
|
PA-11
| 3.25%
| 14.83%
| 73.3%
| Leans D
| Leans D
| D favored
|
KS-3
| #4.78%
| 2.58%
| 72.1%
| Likely R
| Leans R
| R toss-up
|
VA-2
| 4.94%
| 1.96%
| 71.8%
| Leans D
| D toss-up
| D toss-up
|
TN-6
| #9.30%
| -25.78%
| 71.1%
| Likely R
| Likely R
| Leans R
|
AR-1
| #8.45
| -20.28%
| 70.9%
| Toss-up
| Leans R
| Toss-up
|
OH-1
| 4.94%
| 10.25%
| 69.1%
| Toss-up
| D toss-up
| R toss-up
|
CT-4
| 3.97%
| 20.06%
| 68.9%
| Likely D
| Likely D
| Safe D
|
MS-1
| 10.59%
| -23.54%
| 68.5%
| Toss-up
| D toss-up
| R toss-up
|
NH-1
| 5.89%
| 6.21%
| 67.7%
| Leans D
| D toss-up
| Toss-up
|
NV-3
| 5.14%
| 12.76%
| 67.6%
| Leans D
| D toss-up
| Leans D
|
AZ-5
| 9.58%
| -4.53%
| 63.9%
| Leans D
| Leans D
| D favored
|
PA-4
| 11.72%
| -10.45%
| 62.6%
| Likely D
| Likely D
| D favored
|
NH-2
| 7.10%
| 13.09%
| 62.5%
| Toss-up
| D toss-up
| Toss-up
|
MA-5
| #6.21%
| 19.51%
| 62.5%
| Safe D
| Safe D
| Safe D
|
WI-8
| 8.10%
| 8.10%
| 62.0%
| Leans D
| Leans D
| D favored
|
OH-16
| 10.73%
| -2.61%
| 61.3%
| Likely D
| Leans D
| D favored
|
FL-22
| 9.34%
| 4.04%
| 61.2%
| Safe D
| Likely D
| Safe D
|
AZ-8
| 11.90%
| -5.94%
| 60.9%
| Likely D
| Leans D
| D favored
|
PA-10
| 12.66%
| -8.43%
| 60.7%
| Leans D
| Leans D
| D favored
|
WA-3
| #9.32%
| 6.72%
| 60.4%
| Toss-up
| D toss-up
| Toss-up
|
GA-8
| 14.49%
| -13.36%
| 60.1%
| Likely D
| Likely D
| D favored
|
NM-2
| 11.92%
| -1.33%
| 59.3%
| Toss-up
| D toss-up
| R toss-up
|
CO-4
| 12.39%
| -0.88%
| 58.5%
| Toss-up
| D toss-up
| Toss-up
|
NC-8
| 10.76%
| 5.88%
| 58.4%
| Leans D
| Leans D
| D favored
|
MI-9
| 9.45%
| 12.96%
| 58.1%
| Likely D
| Likely D
| Safe D
|
| CA-11 | 10.55% | 9.33% | 57.6% | Leans D | Leans D | D favored |
| AZ-1 | 16.45% | -10.17% | 57.4% | Likely D | Likely D | Safe D |
| TX-23 | 13.84% | 2.69% | 55.6% | Likely D | Likely D | Safe D |
| TN-4 | 20.96% | -29.81% | 54.3% | Likely D | Likely D | Safe D |
| MA-10 | #10.58% | 11.27% | 54.3% | Likely D | Likely D | Safe D |
| ME-1 | 9.80% | 22.82% | 54.2% | Safe D | Safe D | Safe D |
| FL-24 | 16.09% | -1.95% | 54.2%
| Leans D | Leans D | D toss-up |
| PA-12 | 15.70% | -0.31% | 54.2% | Toss-up | D toss-up | D favored |
| VA-11 | 11.72% | 14.96% | 54.1% | Likely D | Likely D | Safe D |
| PA-7 | #12.76% | 12.64% | 53.6% | Toss-up | D toss-up | Toss-up |
| NY-25 | 12.94% | 13.12% | 53.2% | Likely D | Likely D | Safe D |
| MA-6 | #12.18% | 16.94% | 52.9% | Safe D | Safe D | Safe D |
| NM-1 | 11.31% | 20.43% | 52.8% | Likely D | Likely D | Safe D |
| IA-3 | 14.25% | 9.37% | 52.8% | Leans D | Leans D | D favored |
| VA-9 | #20.37% | -19.10% | 52.2% | Safe D | Leans D | D favored |
| PA-8 | 15.14% | 8.93% | 51.8% | Likely D | Leans D | D favored |
| NY-1 | 15.77% | 3.82% | 51.3% | Likely D | Leans D | Leans D |
| IL-17 | #14.25% | 14.24% | 51.1% | Safe D | Safe D | Safe D |
| NY-19 | 17.35% | 2.28% | 50.9% | Leans D | Leans D | Leans D |
| IL-14 | 15.50% | 11.06% | 50.7% | Leans D | Leans D | Safe D |
| CA-10 | 10.28% | 31.66% | 50.5% | Safe D | Safe D | Safe D |
| AR-4 | #21.21% | -18.81% | 50.2% | Safe D | Likely D | Safe D |
| OR-5 | 16.00% | 10.62% | 50.1% | Likely D | Likely D | Safe D |
| OH-18 | 19.75% | -7.86% | 49.8% | Leans D | Leans D | D favored |
| ND-AL | #19.16% | -8.63% | 48.4% | Leans D | Leans D | D favored |
| MA-3 | #15.42% | 19.35% | 48.0% | Safe D | Safe D | Safe D |
| HI-1 | #10.26% | 42.29% | 47.0% | Leans D | Leans D | Leans D |
| KY-3 | 18.73% | 12.30% | 45.2% | Safe D | Likely D | Safe D |
| TX-27 | 19.57% | 7.34% | 45.2% | Safe D | Safe D | Safe D |
| OH-10 | 17.90% | 20.26% | 44.0% | Safe D | Safe D | Safe D |
| IA-2 | 18.42% | 21.61% | 42.7% | Safe D | Safe D | Safe D |
| CT-5 | 20.17% | 13.94% | 41.6% | Likely D | Likely D | D favored |
You can see that the analysts seldom agree on any given seat. This is because the other three analysts use subjective criteria which produces a "seat of the pants" rating than using purely objective criteria like we do. We use a mathematical formula based strictly on the incumbent's winning margin and the margin that Obama-Biden got in the 2008 presidential election. We feel that any other approach invites introducing too many judgment calls that are hard to statistically evaluate. In our opinion, these judgment calls lead to what what can only be called many surprising ratings by the other analysts.
You will see three D's in several districts when the winning margin is less than 5% and in two cases where Obama did not even carry the district (NY-29 and PA-3). Rep. Murphy in NY-20 won by less than one-half of 1% in a terrible Republican year and yet all three think he will win easily in what looks to be a banner Republican year. You will also notice that the other analysts ignore all of Massachusetts but MA-10 even though Scott Brown carried six districts by over 56%. They also ignore Maine 1 even though Rep. Pingree won by less than a 10% margin. They say that CT-5 is in play when Rep. Murphy got over a 20% margin and Obama had almost a 14% margin, yet in TX-27 they say that Rep. Ortiz is home free with a margin of less than 20% but where Obama got a margin of less than 8%. Go figure. Perhaps now that Rep. Ortiz has hints of a scandal, the other analysts will change their ratings.
A final note about our own ratings which are expressed in the percentage probability of the district being captured by the Republicans. When there is a # in front of the Democrat margin, it means we did not use the 2008 margin. This could be due to the fact that the seat is open so we used a margin from an earlier election under similar circumstances. It could also mean that the Democrat was unopposed by the Republicans and we were forced to use an earlier election in which the Democrat did have Republican opposition. Finally there are a couple of cases where polls or later election results (VA, NJ, MA) indicate that the election will be closer than the 2008 margin would predict so we have used a margin from a year with closer results.
Just because we list a district as having a better than even chance (50% or better) of going Republican does not mean we believe it will necessarily go Republican. An odds on bet is never a sure thing even when the percentage is above 90%. For example a Public Policy Polling result shows Rep. Perriello in VA-5 is tied with his best Republican opponent even though he has a 93.0% chance of losing. Our present mathematical formula does not allow for local conditions that vary from district to district. As we get closer to the election, we will introduce more variables into the formula to account for such conditions. One thing we may introduce quite soon is an allowance for the Democrat voting no on the Pelosi health care bill which based on some polls seems to be insulating some Democrats from being in trouble compared to others who voted yes.
Continue...
Summary only...
gemimail,
As most followers of politics know, in midterm elections, the party not controlling the Presidency tends to pick up a bunch of seats. While there are exceptions to this rule like 1998 and 2002 were, the average pick-up is 28 seats over the last 17 midterm elections. Sometimes the shifts are even more dramatic. The Republicans lost 48 seats in both 1958 and 1974 and the Democrats lost 54 seats in both 1946 and 1994. Most people would admit that it would appear that 2010 is going to look a lot more like 1994 when the Democrats lost 54 seats than it will 1978 when they only lost 15 seats. At the very least, 2010 will be another 1950 when they lost the average of 28 seats.
There seems to be quite a disconnect between what is happening in politics and what the analysts are predicting will be the results of the November elections. This is particularly true in the 435 races for the House of Representatives. There are four reports for these results: CQ Politics, the Cook Report, the Rothenberg Report and our own, the Marston Report. Thus one would expect all four of them to show at least 28 Democrat seats going Republican and perhaps one showing as high as 54 seats in view of what happened in Massachusetts with the election of Scott Brown. None of the first three show other than minimal gains for the Republicans.
CQ Politics predicts a net gain of 3 seats with 18 toss-ups. Charlie Cook predicts a net gain of 6 seats and 23 toss-ups. Stu Rothenberg predicts a net gain of 10 seats and 10 toss-ups. Only our own report shows a net gain of 63 seats for the Republicans. There are 9 polls taken in House races in recent months showing the Republican candidate ahead or tied with the incumbent Democrat. One would expect those races with the Republican ahead to be favoring the Republicans and the tied one to be a toss-up but that is not the case as the following table shows:
| RACE | POLL | CQ | COOK | ROTHENBERG | MARSTON |
| Indiana 9 | R +8 | Leans D | D toss-up | Leans D | Leans R |
| Maryland 1 | R +13 | Toss-up | D toss-up | R toss-up | Likely R |
| Massachusetts 10 | R +3 | Likely D | Likely D | Safe D | R toss-up |
| Michigan 7 | R +10 | Toss-up | D toss-up | Toss-up | Likely R |
| Nevada 3 | Tied | Leans D | D toss-up | Leans D | Leans R |
| New Hampshire 1 | R +10 | Leans D | D toss-up | Toss-up | Leans R |
| New Hampshire 2 | R +7 | Toss-up | D toss-up | Toss-up | Leans R |
| North Dakota AL | R +6 | Leans D | Leans D | D favored | D toss-up |
| Ohio 1 | R +17 | Toss-up | D toss-up | R toss-up | Leans R |
As you can see, CQ Politics is the least realistic listing 5 races as favoring Democrats when the polls have a Republican from tied to 10 points ahead. The Cook Report shows 2 races as favoring Democrats when the polls have a Republican up by from 3 to 6 points and even the 8 toss-ups as slightly favoring the Democrats. The Rothenberg Report shows 4 races for the Democrats when the polls range from tied to a Republican up by 8 points but at least it shows that 2 of the races lean slightly to a Republican candidate when the polls have him up from 13 to 17 points. On the other hand, Rothenberg lists MA-10 as not even in play and hence is a safe Democrat district when a poll has a Republican candidate up by 3 points even before the Amy Bishop scandal.
We make no pretense about our not being Republican analysts and that opens us up to being biased in favor of the Republican Party. In light of all of the above, we feel that our own report is the most realistic given the known facts, but we will let the public come to its own conclusion on that score.
Continue...
Summary only...
gemimail,
You may have noticed that politicians of both parties are quite prone to get stuck on stupid. That is they keep doing something that is obviously counterproductive given the costs to them of continuing to do that same thing over and over. There is usually a difference between both parties as to how they get stuck on stupid, however. Although the ideological disease strikes both parties to some extent, the Democrats are far more prone to succumb to the siren call of their far left agenda. As we have commented earlier, Ideologues Make Poor Politicians. Ideologues are so consumed with their agenda that they lose sight of the fact that if they cannot sell their agenda to a majority of the voters, they will soon will not be able to do anything about their agenda because they will be out of office.
This problem occurs because the ideologue is convinced that his or her agenda is morally correct and/or is good for the country and its people. This conviction borders on a religious fervor among ideologues. In the case of the Republican Party, this is found among the right to life contingent. Because they are convinced that the soul takes possession of the fetus at conception and not at birth, they are adamantly opposed to Roe vs. Wade and will do whatever it takes to get it repealed. The fact that this is not going to happen because a majority of the voters do not want it repealed is lost on them.
They continue to oppose Republican candidates who are not "right" on this issue even when it results in the election of a politician who is actually pro-abortion as opposed to pro-choice. Refusing to turn out and vote for McCain because he was not sufficiently pro-life even when Obama was clearly a pro-abortion candidate is a case in point. This is definitely being stuck on stupid because they can sell banning partial birth abortions, prohibiting denial of care to a fetus born alive, and prohibiting federal funding of abortions to a majority of the voters. An ideologue just is not willing to settle for half a loaf of bread. Instead they prefer to go down with their capsizing ideological ship.
What is interesting is that the left wing of the Democrat Party clearly sees that the pro-life folks have the position they do due to their religious beliefs. What they do not so that they are attached to their own beliefs with that same fervor even though by and large those beliefs have nothing to do with religion. To them their beliefs are not beliefs at all but are facts that anyone with a grain of intelligence should be able to understand. After all they are intelligent and all the intelligent people they know accept these facts so anyone who does not is automatically stuck on stupid in their mind. Global warming caused by man is an excellent point in fact for this. To them the science is settled and information that the scientific data used to come to this conclusion was rigged does not deter them from continuing to insist that they are right.
To them, the fact that everyone does not have health insurance or even if they do the cost is outrageous is a crying shame. Since the health insurance companies are charging too much they are part of the problem and not part of the solution so then we must turn to the federal government for a solution. The fact that the federal government has screwed up everything it has touched since day one is lost on them. The fact that they cannot point to one thing the federal government has successfully accomplished outside of the military and the space program, both of which they oppose, is beside the point to them. Needless to say, the resultant loss of freedom to make one's own choices is not worthy of consideration to them.
One can push an agenda but only when there is some hope of getting it accepted. The Democrat leadership is determined to keep pushing their health care agenda seemingly oblivious to the cost to them. President Obama proclaimed recently that he is not an ideologue. He is either lying or has no clue what an ideologue is and how one behaves. He fits the definition of an ideologue to a "T". To anyone not committed to this far left agenda, this is a no sale with the American people. To continue to push an agenda that is not selling is to be stuck on stupid.
The lessons of the elections in Virginia and New Jersey might be written off as a phenomenon of local politics. What then are we to make of losing a senate seat held for 60 years by Democrats to a Republican in the most Democrat state in the union? If this message is lost on the Democrat leadership they are indeed stuck on stupid. Yes, they can continue to try and jam their version of health care through using the reconciliation process but at what cost? A prominent Democrat political analyst, Charlie Cook, says, "it's very hard to come up with a scenario where Democrats don't lose the House."
Their only hope is to sucker the Republican leadership into going along with most of their proposals which is entirely possible since Republicans are far too prone to "go along and get along". Democrats play hardball in politics whereas Republicans tend to play with some sort of political Marquis of Queensbury rules and one hand hand tied behind their back. They just have no instinct for the jugular unlike the Democrats. This is a prime example of where the Republican leadership is stuck on stupid. However, that pales in comparison to the current Democrat leadership where continuing to push this agenda if they cannot sucker the Republicans is a sure way to stay stuck on stupid and lose the Senate as well.
Continue...
Summary only...
