Senate Outlook a week out

Am following three different trackers of the polls for the outlook. Pollster on HuffPo, 538 on NYT's, and RCP, and they are pretty similar.

RCP has Dems at 51 and the GOP at 49. They have the WV race leaning D.

Likewise, at 538, 51 - 49 Dems, with the WV race being at 50% but predicting D.

Pollster though, has WV going to the Republican, so 50 - 50 is there prediction.

It's tough to bet against these poll compilers. RCP was the first outfit that started compiling the results, and the individual pollsters made a bit of an outrage attempt in 2004. But then, and in 2006, it proved so successful that its become adopted as the best predicting calculation for the statewide races.

I'd like to look it up and make sure, but offhand, I can't recall a single Senate instance where this sort of compilation of results (2004 to 2008) has been proved faulty on the three mentioned above. There's always a first though, and you know it when it happens. I recall that, in 2006, both MT and VA were not compiled to be as close as they wound up being (off by just a bit though 1-2%).

Anyway, if we go with the above, either Joe Manchin and +1 (sometimes) for Democrats; or we wind up with a Senate where Joe Lieberman holds the keys to power. That's gonna make the 2012 CT Senate race quite contentious right out of the gate.

Tags: (all tags)



51 or 52

I say 51, as CO-Sen is tied, but the one internal that's bad for Bennet is the 45-11 GOP split on the undecideds.  Actually Joe Manchin could also be a key to who runs the Senate.  I'm coming to the conclusion that Obama is unreelectable in 2012 unless employment dramatically improves.  That's going to be a big drag on the Dems, since they have several tough seats to defend (MT, VA, MO, perhaps OH and MI).

I actually think Obama and the Democrats would have been better off without the stimulus and 11% unemployment.  Obama has governed like a centrist, but he's would as "too liberal" anyway.

by esconded 2010-10-25 12:41PM | 0 recs
RE: 51 or 52

VA too, in '12. It's quite the landscape.

CO, NV, IL, they are all three quite close and along with WV are the 4 seats classified as toss-ups on Pollster.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-25 01:35PM | 0 recs
RE: 51 or 52

Absolutely anyone would be unelectable if they presided over an economy that maintained 9% unemployment for four years.  The Fed baseline scenario is that unemployment is around 8% in 2012.  I'd put Obama's over-under at around 7% unemployment.  I think the days of 5% unemployment and 0% inflation are done.

I actually think Obama and the Democrats would have been better off without the stimulus and 11% unemployment.

Maybe, but the country would be worse off.  I think that's a decent summary of Obama's first two years in office.

by the mollusk 2010-10-25 01:52PM | 0 recs
RE: 51 or 52

I don't think phony BLS statistics will fly. The Administration tries to claim unemployment is under 10% by writing the long-term unemployed out of the work force. It won't wash. People know their father,mother,sister,brother,cousin is out of work. You can't convince people that a shit sandwich is sirloin. Obama, being such an admirer of Lincoln, should know this.

by antiHyde 2010-10-25 07:19PM | 0 recs
RE: 51 or 52

So we should just change the way the statistics have been reported for decades because "everyone knows it is different"?  Telling people unemployment is 9.1% really mean anything at all.  It just provides context.  So you aren't telling them their shit sandwich is a sirloin (an expression I've always hated), you're telling them their shit sandwich is 3 % shittier than it was in 2006.


by the mollusk 2010-10-26 12:42PM | 0 recs
Or 50

It's starting to look to me like a 50-50 split. If that happens, anybody care to take odds on the GOP flipping Ben Nelson?


by S1 2010-10-25 12:56PM | 0 recs
RE: Or 50

Nelson is smart enough to know that would be a death cert in a GOP primary. Lieberman is better odds.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-25 01:34PM | 1 recs
The two flips I see

One JoeMentum.   Lieberman is angry.  He is angry about not getting the nomination in '04, which he cluelessly thought was his due as the VP candidate in '00, and he is angry about being primaried.   He is clearly grinding an ax at this point in his career, and may not be thinking about another term anyway.

The second is Snowe.   I lack info here, is Miane a closed primarty?   If Maine is a closed primary it is not unlikely they could face some Joe Miller type teabagger.

But someone like Nelson can't be that dumb.   He switches and he gets primaried by a Republican next time around .... easily.

by RichardFlatts 2010-10-28 10:29AM | 0 recs
Wait a minute!

I thought Lieberman already had the keys to power. You certainly could have fooled me by the way he ran the show during Health Care Reform.

by jlars 2010-10-25 03:42PM | 1 recs
Throw this into the mix

As reported today in the Wall St Journal

"The mortgage-interest deduction and other sacrosanct tax breaks are on the deficit commission's table as it works toward its deadline of providing a set of recommendations on balancing the budget by 2015.

The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that hugely popular tax breaks are part of the commission's consideration since they add up to about $1 trillion in potential government revenue. 

Besides the mortgage-interest deductions, the newspaper reports that the child tax credits and pre-tax spending by employers for health insurance could also be killed. 

Commission officials are expected to look at preserving these breaks but at lower levels, people familiar with the matter told the Journal. 

The 18-member panel has until Dec. 1 to come up with a list of items that would then be sent to Congress for a vote. But since lobbyists and special interests often are working to prevent hikes on their favored tax breaks, none of the targeted tax increases may be realized. 

With the commission already facing a backlash against any changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the commission's recommendations could result in an empty exercise."

I've got to wonder, is Obama this dumb? Does he actually think any of this would fly with the general public. Doing away with or reducing these tax breaks would have an immediate and detrimental affects on middle and lower income families. Exactly how will that benefit them and the overall economy. I dont seem these changes getting through congress, but if he were to propose these, it would be another example of Obama's arrogance and overall ignorance.




by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-10-25 04:17PM | 0 recs
RE: Throw this into the mix

Got to do something to cover for more tax cuts for billionaires. And maybe people will swallow it. Republicans are blasting over the TV how they plan to save the economy by reducing spending! Herbert Hoover economics is back in vogue and dimwits are beleiving it. Stupid Teabaggers actually beleive that the stimulus caused the recession and that the few poor people buying houses (not the house flippers with NINJA loans) caused the mortgage crisis.

by antiHyde 2010-10-25 07:26PM | 0 recs
RE: Throw this into the mix

Have you read Woodword's 'Obama's War'?  Its not dumbness; its his inability to get attract advisors that are any different than the status quo. Its tragic, really. He's stuck, he knows he's stuck, he ask why he's stuck... and no one answers... so he goes with what they tell him. 

At one point, Obama says "so does anyone here think we should get out of Afghanistan" and no one answers yes.  His reply: "OK then, that is off the table." I mean, WTF, he can't even figure out that if he has no one there that is telling him about that option, he doesn't even have the capacity to realize that he's living inside the box and needs to get a different opinion?

Quite maddening at first, but by the end, he's become a tragic figure of his own inability-- not of imagination, but of recruitment beyond the CW ladder of establishment group-think. He's DOA right there.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-25 09:52PM | 0 recs
"The King's Bad Advisers"

In every single political system people ALWAYS want to believe that "the King just has bad advisers."

REALITY: It's always the king. Period. It's not just that he chose those advisers. It's that they are telling him what he wants to hear.

You cannot seriously believe that if Obama's cabinet thought he REALLY WANTED to hear about withdrawal options from Afghanistan they wouldn't be proposing them?

That's how power works Jerome. Nobody gets to that level of power without a profound knowledge of what to say and what NOT to say. Anybody who is UNABLE to learn this valuable lesson simply doesn't last.

The number of advisers who will consistently tell the President what he DOESN'T want to hear are vanishingly small to begin with, and even occasional lapses will generally result in a loss of access and influence -- hence power. Opponents will FREEZE OUT the one offering unwelcome advice.

This does NOT mean no-one can bring the President bad news. But, they have to be VERY CAREFUL in bringing the President ADVICE he doesn't want to hear.

Perfect example: Obama is profoundly convinced that his liberal critics are WRONG and that he "wouldn't change a thing" that he's done these last 2 years. He thinks he's unfairly the victim of circumstances. Now, do you think an adviser who comes in and tries to tell Obama that his problems stem from the fact that the "stimulus was too small" and he should "propose a much larger stimulus package" even though Congress won't pass it would get very far? You'd be going against what he believes.

Nobody who wants to play the power game ignores those kind of lessons.

by Cugel 2010-10-26 11:22AM | 0 recs

I would say, this, if as a manager you cant get those around you to offer intelligent and usefull advice, and you take no action or cant make a decision, thats on you. So if Obama cant find advisors of any use and he cant make a decision on his own, what does that say? It says he has neither the experience, the maturity or intelligence to handle his role. He is a classic case of someone being elevated to their own level of incompetence. I believe more and more americans who voted for him, now regret that vote. I really believe if the Democratic party had another candidate to challenge him in 2012, than it might have something to offer the voters.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-10-25 10:40PM | 0 recs
RE: Well

Let's see, plunk anyone in the country down in the middle of two failed wars, a huge economic mess, nearly zero percent inflation, and a closely divided congress and see what level of incompetence they display to someone who never liked them in the first place.  Do you really think Hillary would be doing better at this point?

by the mollusk 2010-10-26 12:44PM | 0 recs
RE: Well

Ha ha.  You think anybody who voted for Obama now regrets it, and would instead have  voted for McCain/Palin?  Don't be a fool.


Or perhaps you're speaking of the primary.  I don't think Clinton would now be doing any better, as Obama's team is largely drawn from the same group of Clinton sycophants.



by lojasmo 2010-10-26 01:23PM | 0 recs
WV will go Dem

West Virginia will most likely go Democat.  Internal polling with Manchin shows him up by 5-6 points.  The newest PPP poll has Manchin at a 6 point lead.  Raese doesn't appeal to anybody but the Tea Party/GOP Base and the voters that absolutely despise the Democratic Party right now.

The key for Manchin is actually getting people out to vote who are potential Manchin supporters.  The early voting numbers are said to favor Republicans here in WV so GOTV is the key for Manchin in the coming week.  His distancing from cap and trade and Obama, and lack of support for the HCR bill are pushing his numbers up.

by Chuckie Corra 2010-10-26 07:10AM | 0 recs
Pennsylvania is still hard to pin down

Right now Sestak has some momentum, but the latest Muhlenberg Poll shows him 8 points behind. The only thing going for Sestak is that he can truly portray himself as an outsider. His latest ad talks about himself and his service under Bill Clinton, no mention of the incumbent president.

by tarheel74 2010-10-26 09:03AM | 0 recs
GOP Want Less Govt Because GOVT Interferes in Thier Schemes

Let us get clear, when the GOP state that they want less government, what they really mean is that they want NO government and more Corporate Rule, because government will get in the way of their schemes! They pretend they want to lower taxes for the American people all the while knowing that the loopholes they put in place for the wealthy means that Corporations and wealthy Americans pay very little taxes or No taxes at all, which means Average Americans have to carry and Shoulder all the tax burden.
The GOP/Tea Party want to reduce Social Security benefits and/or tie Social Security to the stock market.  They want to reduce the benefits going to our Verterans; they want no regulation of Wall Street, banks, insurance and credit card companies;  They want no spending on America's roads, streets, sewer system, infra-structure, rail roads, and public education/schools (to further "dumb-down" Americans)! They say No to any Investment in America (water, air, clean technology) and her people.  They know that Investing in America means TO CREATE JOBS!   On the otherhand, they don't mind Spending the millions of dollars on Wall Street stocks and bonds, phony ponzi schemes and real-estate deals, all the while America continues to further decay into a third-world country. The Simple & Awful truth, is that Republicans do not want and they Fear a government for the people and by the people.  Their desire is for America to go back to the times when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer!  That's what they are fighting for, not for average Americans, but for their greedy way of life and for power.
What the Republicans Really Don't Want You To Get Educated On!

by angellight 2010-10-26 10:27AM | 0 recs
Colorado candidate for US Senate ‎

" Ken Buck: I 'Disagree Strongly' With The Separation Of Church And State"

Should we elect anyone who is against the Constitution he will be sworn to uphold? 


by altara 2010-10-27 08:09AM | 1 recs


Advertise Blogads