New Forecast Shows Democrats Losing 6 to 7 Senate Seats

[IndianaGreen]

August 25, 2010, 12:45 pm

New Forecast Shows Democrats Losing 6 to 7 Senate Seats

By NATE SILVER

The Democratic majority is in increasing jeopardy in the Senate, according to the latest FiveThirtyEight forecasting model. The Democrats now have an approximately 20 percent chance of losing 10 or more seats in the Senate, according to the model, which would cost them control of the chamber unless Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, who is running for the Senate as an independent, both wins his race and decides to caucus with them.

In addition, there is an 11 percent chance that Democrats will lose a total of nine seats, which would leave them with 50 votes, making them vulnerable to a defection to the Republican Party by a centrist like Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut or Ben Nelson of Nebraska. On average, over the model’s 100,000 simulation runs, the Democrats are projected to lose a net of six and a half Senate seats, which would leave them with 52 or 53 senators. (Even though the G.O.P. primary in Alaska remains too close to call, that outcome is unlikely to alter the model.)

The forecasts are based on a program designed to evaluate current polling and demographic data, and to compare these present-day conditions to outcomes in United States Senate races over the past six election cycles. For instance, in recent cycles, a Senate candidate with a 7-point lead in the polls 10 weeks before the election won about 80 percent of the time, and a candidate with a 12-point lead won about 95 percent of the time. Although the model, which correctly predicted the outcome of all 35 Senate elections in 2008, is not quite this cut-and-dried, it is this recent track record that forms the backbone of its projections.

Of late, the source of the Democrats’ problems has not necessarily been in high-profile Senate races where the Republicans have nominated inexperienced but headline-grabbing candidates, like Sharron Angle in Nevada and Rand Paul in Kentucky (although the model regards both Ms. Angle and Mr. Paul as slight favorites). Instead, it has been in traditional swing states like Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The last time the Democratic nominee in Ohio, Lee Fisher, held the lead in any state poll, for example, was in June. Representative Joe Sestak, the Democratic nominee in Pennsylvania, has not led any poll there since May, and Robin Carnahan of Missouri has not held a lead since January. The Democratic nominee in New Hampshire, Representative Paul W. Hodes, has not led in any of 17 public polls in New Hampshire against his likely Republican opponent, Kelly Ayotte.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/new-forecast-shows-democrats-losing-6-to-7-senate-seats/

[golfguru]

1. It is the economy, stupid! n/t

[Enthusiast]

42. It's the media.

They frame every discussion in the GOP favor.

[denimgirly]

2. Democrats campaign as Progressives but govern as Republican-lites -- So no surprise they are losing

The country is majority progressive in their views and this is why democrats always campaign as progressives so they can get elected but once they get elected they default to always moving right which ends up destroying their seats because their base is disillusioned because they were promised change. No surprises here.

[4lbs]

3. Which ConservaDems campaigned as Progressives?

I can't recall any ConservaDem Senate candidates campaigning in their conservative districts as Progressives.

[JamesA1102]

7. Don't confuse the demagogues with facts. nt

[YOY]

35. Awww are we bwaming the constituwency again... How cute!

Awww...

[WI_DEM]

9. Then why is progressive Feingold in trouble here in WI--he is either tied or slightly behind

Ron Johnson the GOP candidate in every poll that has come out in the last couple of months.

[brentspeak]

17. Because too many rank-and-file Dems have become dispirited thanks to New Dem Obama

Too many Democrats around the nation have lost all hope for any real change from D.C's corporate agenda, so they've just stopped caring about electing even local Democrats, even the good ones like Feingold.

[JamesA1102]

25. So because other Dems are to conservative

Feingold is losing to a conservative. That makes no sense. Shouldn't the case be that Feingold would lose to someone more progressive.

[brentspeak]

26. No, Feingold is losing to a conservative due to Dem rank-and-file voter apathy/disgust

Too many Dems will simply stay home on Election Night. This is not because of Feingold; it's because of Obama and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party screwing over the party, thereby demoralizing the Democratic rank-and-file. Rank-and-file is fed-up, not fired-up, with the party as a whole. Excellent Democrats like Feingold are getting victimized thanks to the party's corporate wing.

[JamesA1102]

27. That makes no sense.

You're just spinning to blame moderates for the loss by a progressive.

[brentspeak]

28. Non-refutive reply n/t

[JamesA1102]

29. No need to refute something that wasn't proven in the first place. nt

[BzaDem]

39. +1

It's amazing how people post obvious nonsense and then wonder why it isn't taken sufficiently seriously.

[JCMach1]

4. We are going to have a split senate with the Indy's determining control...

[Sherman A1]

5. Well, Carnahan in Missouri wants to extend the Bush Tax Cuts

So, one need ask, just why her election would be a good idea?

[bigdarryl]

6. enough of this NEGATIVE BULLSHIT!!!! on the democrats loosing so many seats

it's Aug. not November he or anyone else doesn't have a clue what is going to happen in November.He gets paid for his opinion and we all know what opinions are everybody's got one

[Silent3]

10. It's good to know the way things are trending...

...to know how much work is needed to change that trend. Happy thoughts alone aren't going to save Democratic seats.

[opihimoimoi]

20. YUP...FUCK THIS NEG SHIT....SMELLS of GOPers wanting them Bus Keys Back to return to BUSHISM

[Llewlladdwr]

34. Whistling past the graveyard... NT

[WI_DEM]

8. Why is Angle considered the favorite? all recent polls show Reid ahead or tied????

[FBaggins]

13. Because the model takes quite a bit into account.

It's true that all of the recent polls show him slightly ahead among those who have made up their minds, but there isn't a single one of them that an experienced pollster would look at and assume that Reid was going to win.

The problem is that everyone in the state knows him and he still can't crack 50%. Ask an experienced pollster what it means when a long-time incumbent is leading 48-42 and they'll tell you that he's likely to lose 52-48 or 51-49. The undecideds either stay home or break overwhelmingly to the challenger.

This doesn't mean that there isn't any good news. A month or two ago it looked like he didn't have a shot. Dress up a pig and hang a "I'm not Harry" sign around it's neck and it could have taken that seat. If we're lucky, Angle will open her mouth a few more times and Reid's chances will continue to improve.

[totodeinhere]

18. The conventional wisdom is that if an established incumbent is only tied or narrowly ahead,

which is what most polls have shown about this race, then the advantage goes to the challenger. I am in Nevada and you won't believe how universally loathed Reid is around here. But having said that, I think it's too close to call and it will go down to the wire, barring any unforeseen developments. Reid is only in this race at all because Angle is certifiably batshit crazy. But I know some people who say that yes she is crazy but they hate Reid so much they will vote for her anyway.

[Phx_Dem]

11. Nate Silver is the ONLY predictor worth listening too. Forget the

cable pundits, including the always-revered Charlie Cook. They are ALWAYS. ALWAYS wrong.

And if the primary results don't finally convince people of that, they are as dumb as I think they are. The pundits been harping at us for months that the Dems will lose big because of the "anti incumbent" mood! LOL. Fucking morons. The only anti-incumbent mood is in the Republican party. And they have only the Teabaggers to thank for that.

[FBaggins]

14. A very interesting theory... but it doesn't follow

especially considering the fact that Silver and Cook pretty much agree down the line here (if anything, Silver's prediction is even more grim). So one is always wrong and the other is the only one worth listening to, eh?

The pundits been harping at us for months that the Dems will lose big because of the "anti incumbent" mood!

And Silver currently has ten democratic senate seats that are more likely to switch before he gets to a single republican seat. Have you read his prediction? -

On edit - My apologies. I just checked and I was wrong. He has twelve democratic seats that are in more danger than the first R seat on the list.

[Phx_Dem]

23. Cook has not agreed with Silver until very recenty

He's been on TV for months harping about how bad the anti-incumbent mood is for the Dems. Mr. Doom and Gloom has suddnely changed his mind -- likely because he's well aware of Silver's success record in predicting election results and he's jumping on that bandwagon.

[FBaggins]

24. Sorry. That's flat wrong. I'll give you three reasons.

1) Cook's predictions haven't changed "very recently"... they've been pretty consistent (and in line with Silver's if not more optomistic). You can check his website and pull up years worth of predictions. There is no recent change of note.

2) Once again... Silver's commentary here is worse than Cook's has been. His chart lists 12 Democratic Senate seats that are more likely to switch than the most likely Democratic pickup. Silver has Arkansas as a 100% chance of loss... while Cook has it as a "tossup" (where it has been for some time). He has PA as an 88% chance of loss... while again Cook has had it on "tossup" for months.

3) Silver includes Cook's predictions as part of his model. He's a statistics guy and knows that the numbers can't account for factors that are historically unusual (say the Florida Senate race).

He's been on TV for months harping about how bad the anti-incumbent mood is for the Dems.

And that's exactly what Silver is saying... he's just doing it with numbers. Reid currently leads in all polls, but Silver gives him a 60% chance of falling. Partially because of his sub-50 numbers, but also because his model accounts for voter enthusiasm gaps.

You seem to be missing the fact that Silver's current prediction is incredibly depressing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Silver Is A Mathematician And Statistician

Math doesn't lie.

[Steely_Dan]

12. That's All?

I think it will be larger than 6-7.

[GSLevel9]

15. 6-7 is best case scenario...

8 for sure...

that leaves CA, WA and WI

I believe all 3 will stay DEM... but if ONE of those is lost and the Pubs pick-up 9 look for Lieberman to dash.

[FBaggins]

16. Not "best case" - but starting to get there.

I think that it could go as low as four if thing start to break our way. But yes, there's at least a one in three chance that Nelson/Lieberman could end up holding the Senate in their hands.

[okieinpain]

19. well president obama should take some time off so he can be

really rested.

[GSLevel9]

22. I hear the French Riviera is lovely in the Fall... nt

[closeupready]

21. That's just what they want, a non-filibuster-proof majority.

That way, they can water down everything, claiming they 'seek bipartisanship.' :eyes:

[NorthCarolina]

30. Does anyone REALLY wonder why Dems may lose seats?

Health care reform that completely disregarded a single payer system, omitted a public option and morphed into nothing more than health insurance reform...including a mandate that Obama campaigned against? Over 75% of the voting public was ignored on this issue...I'm quite sure many have not forgotten.

Increased military action in Afghanistan, paid for on borrowed money, which a majority of the public is against. That could be a possibility.

Two years in, and the big push into repeal of DADT has resulted in a couple inflammatory "surveys" of military personnel and their family's. What's next, survey their neighbors, their pets? That could be a source of discontent for some.

Creation of a Debt Commission stacked with rabid right wing anti-entitlement goons, with the skids already greased for an up or down vote on their recommendations in a lame duck Congress. I'm sure that goes over like a lead balloon for many.

There's more, but whats the use. The DLC would recommend, just suck it up and vote for the Dems because the GOP would be far worse. Oh really? Seems as though the GOP is already running things as it is. Hard to tell the difference between DLC New Dems and the GOP other than a party ID following their name on a ballot that may or may not be counted accurately anyway.

Let's be honest. Does anybody REALLY wonder why the Dems may suffer significant losses?

Lose their seats hell....I say off with their heads.

[nightrain]

32. exactly! Had Obama and the Democratic Congress promoted less corporate-protecting policies, they

wouldn't be in this partcular pickle.

They made their bed.... now come the consequences...

[Laelth]

36. Mrs. Laelth agrees with you. Off with their heads!

I just want a party of the people, and I am starting to not care how we get there.

-Laelth

[BzaDem]

40. You are missing the point. Democrats would lose seats to Republicans, not progessive fantasy

candidates.

Republicans who would be worse than Democrats on every "issue" with Democrats you bring up.

When someone says that more Republicans being elected is a sign that people hate Democrats because they aren't progressive enough -- that is the moment where anything they say should no longer be taken seriously.

[Beetwasher]

31. Love Nate Silver, One Of The Best Out There: A Few Things To Consider

Which I'll let Nate explain:

--snip--

In one sense, the Republicans’ math remains quite daunting. There are 29 Senate contests in which the Republicans have at least a 5 percent chance of winning, according to the forecast: Republicans would need to win at least 28 of these in order to head into the 112th Congress with an outright majority. They must not only sweep essentially all of the Democratic-held seats, but also successfully defend all or almost all of their own. And in some of those, like Florida, Kentucky and perhaps North Carolina, Republicans remain quite vulnerable. Their chances would improve, of course, if they are able to put in play a state like Connecticut, which falls just below that 5 percent threshold but where the Democratic nominee, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, has sacrificed some of a once-formidable lead.

At the same time, the outcomes in individual Senate races are not uncorrelated: if Republicans tend to overachieve in some states, they will probably also overachieve in others. Certainly, if Democrats were to have another month as bad as the one they endured in August – one characterized by poor economic news and ethics scandals – the possibilities for a Senate takeover would rise further. But the reverse could also be true. It is not out of the question that the polling could shift back toward the Democrats: many voters do not begin paying attention in earnest to Congressional campaigns until after Labor Day, and the parties’ messaging strategies have yet to solidify. The Democrats retain long-shot chances – about 3 percent – of actually gaining one or more Senate seats and restoring a 60-seat majority.

It could also be that the polling somewhat overstates the degree of danger that Democrats face. Many of their poorer results, for example, come from polling companies like Rasmussen Reports that use automated scripts to conduct their surveys, rather than live operators, and which often poll in a blitzkrieg fashion, with all of their polling completed within a few hours. Although FiveThirtyEight has not found these “robo polls” to be less accurate than live-operator ones in recent elections, they are generally associated with lower response rates, and they may not be getting a representative sample of voters on the phone.

--snip--

I think the key take away is that things are very fluid right now. Yes, as of now things are looking good for Repubs to make some decent gains, but the chances of them taking over the senate are slim. On the other hand the Dems actually have a slim 3% chance of having a net gain according to Nate. But it's also still August and way to early to make an reliable predictions one way or another. Who would have thought before yesterday that there was even a chance that Miller could win in Alaska? If he wins, that may actually put Alaska in play for the Dems and I don't think anyone predicted or envisioned that even being possible.

[S_E_Fudd]

33. They have no one to blame but themselves...

They have effectively ceded control of the chamber to Republicans anyway...

Might have the effect of sweeping away the spineless...so when the Republicans succeed in driving the country into the deepest ditch in history maybe we can get enough dems with a backbone back in there to do something...

As always, Americans do things the most difficult way possible...

[dflprincess]

37. Exactly

And now they'll have a real excuse for not getting anything done. Meanwhile the DSCC can go back to it's old fundraising line "we need to take back the Senate". I wonder if anyone will fall for it again?

[DemocraticPilgrim]

38. That seems unlikely to me I can see about 3 losses at worst, 3 gains at best....

There's pronbably a slight dip due to the community center nonsense, but that story has no legs and it will be about the issues in November.

[BzaDem]

41. Umm... no. There are at least 4 races where not a single public poll since Jan 09 has had the D even

within 10 points of the R. In currently Democratically-held seats.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. The Economy Is In The Crapper And Voters Almost Always Blame The Party In Power

010 is gone. We need to worry about 012

Does anybody really think President Obama can be re-elected in 012 with unemployment hovering near double digits?