Senate Rankings: Post-Masspocalypse Edition. Nate projects Dems retain avg of 54.7 seats..as of now.

[jefferson_dem]

Senate Rankings: Post-Masspocalypse Edition
by Nate Silver @ 7:39 AM

We are transitioning, a little earlier than I'd planned, into a more or less fully automated version of our Senate race rankings. From now until November, our rankings will be based entirely on polling and other objective variables, with one important exception that I'll explain in a moment. But first, let's get the bad news out of the way for Democrats:



Right now, the program is showing that Democrats will retain an average of 54.7 seats in the 112th Congress. The distribution, however, is slightly asymmetrical, so the median number is 54, and the modal number is 53.

And things could, potentially, get a whole lot worse than that; the program recognizes that the outcome of the different races are correlated based on changes in the national environment. Between the surprise in Massachusetts, and races like California and Indiana which are potentially coming into play, there's about a 6-7 percent chance that Republicans could actually take control of the Senate, and another 6 percent chance or so that they could wind up with a 50-50 split. On the other hand, there's still a 7-8 percent chance that the Democrats could regain their 60th seat if the national environment shifts back in their direction.

I've already incorporated a couple of improvements to the algorithm that we used in 2008. For one thing, as had been done in our Presidential model used to do, the program now builds in a 'trendline adjustment' in races where the polling is stale. Although it hasn't been exceptionally dramatic, Democrats have lost a net of 3-4 points over the past 60-90 days, and several races that once looked like toss-ups are now better thought of as leaning Republican.

<SNIP>

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/senate-rankings-post-masspocalypse.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[PVnRT]

1. That wouldn't be bad; might be a net win if some of the Conservadems get beat

[karynnj]

2. Not true

You would be replacing a Conservadem with a Republican, potentially a right wing one. Think about it, are we more likely to win Nelson of Nebraska or a clone of say Collins. look at the record - it's Nelson. I have biased this AGAINST my argument by taking the worst Democrat and one of the best Republicans.

[PVnRT]

4. Except, at this point, we don't have that 60-seat majority

All that matters now is holding the basic majority and creating a more unified caucus. People like Nelson and Landrieu ensure that we will never have a unified caucus, so is it really that bad if they lose?

[saracat]

7. We didn't do anything when we had one.It doesn't matter.The corp

controlled intrests win either way.And now it is easier.

[Imajika]

3. Yes, everything about this is bad...

This is almost a best case scenario right now.

If the economy does not pick up soon, it will only be worse.

[tridim]

5. That number assumes we still live in a democracy. nt

[saracat]

6. Who cares? The corporations will buy whomever they want.