Tag Archives: Projections/Predictions/Forecast

Where can Democrats win House seats?

Nate_Cohn over at the NY Times gives eight types of Republican House districts to watch….

Democrats have debated extensively over whether their path to power goes through the white-working-class Rust Belt states or the diverse, well-educated Sun Belt. In 2018, this debate is moot. The Democrats don’t have the luxury of choosing where to compete in House races. They’ll have to target all of these areas.

The problem for Democrats is simple: There just aren’t many great opportunities for them to pick up seats in Democratic-leaning areas. Instead, they’ll have to compete in a lot of districts where they’re competitive but not favored.

There are probably 70 or so districts where Democrats have a better than 10 percent chance to win if the national political environment is especially favorable to them. To retake the House, Democrats will try to put as many of these seats into play as possible, and hope to end up with the 24 they need.

To illustrate, we’ve divvied up Republican House districts into eight groups to keep an eye on. The groups aren’t strictly based on competitiveness: Within groups, some members are far more vulnerable than others. There are a few districts that don’t fit neatly into any of the groups, and there are a few that fit into several. But the kinds of opportunities and challenges facing Democrats or Republicans in each group are pretty similar…..


Charlie Cook’s people say Democrats STILL are in a good place for 2018 House Midterms…

Their view?

Democrats lose House races in GOP districts where there is a LOT of media attention that motivates the REPUBLICAN base….

In quiet races in GOP territory ?

Democrats do better….


On the whole?

Democrats ARE actually over performing in House races in GOP districts….

They just need the Media to leave them alone while they work harder with better candidates…

If Democrats were to outperform their “generic” share by eight points across the board in November 2018, they would pick up 80 seats. Of course, that won’t happen because Republican incumbents will be tougher to dislodge than special election nominees. But these results fit a pattern that should still worry GOP incumbents everywhere, regardless of Trump’s national approval rating and the outcome of the healthcare debate in Congress.

Put another way, Democratic candidates in these elections have won an average of 68 percent of the votes Hillary Clinton won in their districts, while Republican candidates have won an average of 54 percent of Trump’s votes. That’s an enthusiasm gap that big enough to gravely imperil the Republican majority next November—even if it didn’t show up in “the special election to end all special elections.”……


2018 Midterms could bring Good Luck and Bad News to Democrats…FiveThirtyEight…

over at Nate Silver’s blog point to a possible that would have Democrats win a majority in the House and lose even more ground in the Senate….

The 2018 midterms are a story of two chambers. Democrats are in the best position they’ve been in since 2010 to win a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. The Senate map, on the other hand, is so tilted toward the GOP that most political analysts have all but dismissed Democrats’ chances of winning the chamber before 2020. It has even been suggested that Republicans could gain enough Senate seats(eight) in 2018 to amass a filibuster-proof majority (60 seats).

This is normally the part of the article where I push back on the conventional wisdom and argue something like, actually, the 2018 Senate map isn’t that bad for Democrats. But no, it’s pretty bad: Democrats are a long shot to take back the Senate.

What I will argue, however, is that it’ll also be difficult for the GOP to pick up a bunch of seats. Republicans would need to oust incumbent Democrats, and it’s extremely difficult to beat an incumbent senator in a midterm when his or her party doesn’t control the White House.

It may seem a little nuts to suggest that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer can keep losses to a minimum in 2018….


Obamacare isn’t gonna crash…But it DOES needs adjustments…

The nations’ s healthcare program the Affordable Healthcare program, also labeled Obamacare is doing what it was supposed to do…Increase healthcare insurance for those who could didn’t have access to coverage…

And while the political scrimmaging is going on ?

The fact is the program DOES Need fixing…

That fixing should NOT be a full repeal of the program knocking up to 24 million people out coverage entirely to make premiums lower for those who can pay them without effort…

Are the insurance marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act really on the verge of collapse, as President Trump and GOP leaders have repeatedly claimed?

Three months ago, this story would have started like this: It depends on where you look and who you ask.

Today, it goes something like this: They are in a fragile state pretty much everywhere.

With Trump threatening to withhold payments to insurers and expressing reluctance to uphold the mandate requiring most people to either buy insurance or pay a penalty, otherwise stable state markets are now in a precarious position. Others are experiencing issues they likely would have anyway, but with a layer of new instability on top. But just because many markets were stable doesn’t mean they were serving everyone well. The messy reality of these two intertwined issues — what keeps the markets stable and who they cover — often leaves politicians on both sides of the aisle telling half-truths about the health of Obamacare’s most public provision. A look at the ways marketplaces are succeeding and failing reveals opportunities for improvement and hints at why the political climate could make those improvements all but impossible.

For the last couple of decades, the term “death spiral” has been used to describe a marketplace spinning out of control. In the face of rising premiums, healthy people bail from a marketplace, causing premiums to rise further, until the prices are unaffordable for everyone and the whole plan falls apart. The Obamacare marketplaces are not in a death spiral, according to various health policy experts, despite numerous Republicans’claims to the contrary. In fact, the term, at least under its pre-Obamacare definition, is largely obsolete. That’s because the ACA fundamentally changed how the markets are organized. Now that the government is subsidizing health insurance, people with incomes just above the federal poverty line are largely protected from rising premiums — 83 percent of the people currently using the markets receive subsidies to help pay for their plans — and, healthy or sick, they are unlikely to flee the markets amid rising premiums.

However, growing costs in the marketplaces frequently determine whether someone with a slightly higher income1 will buy into the market. That’s because under the current system, those people receive low or no subsidies to offset the cost of insurance — they aren’t immune to the price increases…..


Will Democrats ride a “Wave’ Election to a House Majority next year?

Charlie Cook keeps thinking that….

House Re­pub­lic­ans were caught on the horns of a di­lemma. If they didn’t pass a bill that ef­fect­ively re­pealed and re­placed Obama­care, they would either look in­ef­fec­tu­al or in de­fi­ance of their con­ser­vat­ive base. But to pass a bill with no Demo­crat­ic sup­port in a nar­rowly di­vided House, they would need sup­port of the vast ma­jor­ity of the con­ser­vat­ive Free­dom Caucus, which would mean a bill that would nev­er sur­vive in the Sen­ate, where mem­bers have sub­stan­tially more di­verse con­stitu­en­cies.

Bey­ond those factors, they faced a po­ten­tial back­lash from Amer­ic­ans who either would be ad­versely af­fected by the bill or fear that they would. So the Re­pub­lic­ans were forced to pick their pois­on: Either look in­com­pet­ent or thumb their nose at their base. They chose to side with their base. Many mod­er­ate and swing-dis­trict Re­pub­lic­ans hope that the Sen­ate will sub­stan­tially tone down the le­gis­la­tion and that the Free­dom Caucus will feel pres­sured to go along with a much more meas­ured bill after a joint Sen­ate-House con­fer­ence com­mit­tee re­con­ciles the two ver­sions….


….the kind of wave that in past dec­ades might have res­ul­ted in 40- to 65-seat losses might end up as a 20- to 30-seat loss. The ma­gic num­ber in 2018 is 24. That would give the Demo­crats con­trol of the House….


Sanders blames Democrats for 2014 loses…

Bernie Sanders is selling the idea that if you vote for HIM?

He’ll get more Democrats to come to the polls next year…

(Ah….Wouldn’t electing the Nation’s first Woman President do the Same? or BETTER…)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) blamed Democrats for GOP gains in the 2014 midterm election, and vowed to reverse that trend if on the 2016 presidential ticket.

The Democratic challenger said Sunday that traditional Democratic voters, like the working class, had been “demoralized” during the midterm election, helping Republicans win a number of close races and take control of the Senate.

Sanders, who is challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, said if he becomes the party’s pick, he can help the party regain the Senate and gain seats in the House.

“The Republicans did not win last November. The Democrats lost because a lot of their supporters are demoralized,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think we can strike an excitement in those groups of people.”

Sanders has morphed from a liberal protest candidate to a viable challenger to Clinton, who has seen her poll numbers sag while Sanders has surged. Now facing questions about how he would actually operate if elected president, Sanders argued that his left-leaning positions would not render him ineffective….


Nate Silver and the Bookies STILL have Hillary winning….

So do most of us….

But THAT sure does make a LOT of us uneasy , siince THAT was the story last time and she DID NOT even get the nomination….

With so many candidates and so long to go until next November, we’re going to make plenty of bad predictions over the course of the 2016 campaign. But one of our very first predictions about 2016, one we made almost three years ago, has already proven true.

“If [Hillary] Clinton runs for president in 2016, one thing is almost certain,” I wrote back in December 2012, at a time when polls showed about 65 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Clinton, “she won’t be as popular as she is right now.” I added: “In an era of intense partisanship, there is a relatively low ceiling (and perhaps also a relatively high floor) on the favorability ratings that any politician can have in the most active stages of a presidential campaign.”

Clinton’s favorability rating has, in fact, fallen quite a lot, to an average of about 42 percent favorable and 48 percent unfavorable in recent polls.

Numbers like those, when combined with the “emailgate” scandal and Sen. Bernie Sanders’s position in the polls (he’s now running very close to Clinton in New Hampshire, although not in Iowa or nationally), have a lot of commentators saying Clinton’s campaign has had an unexpectedly rough start. “Hillary is probable, but no longer inevitable,” wrote David Horsey of the Los Angeles Times, assessing her chances to win the nomination.

Horsey is right to deal in probabilities rather than certainties. Personally, I give Clinton about an 85 percent chance of becoming the Democratic nominee. (The general election is a whole different story.) That’s a pinch higher than betting markets, which put her chances at 75 to 80 percent.

But those betting markets, unlike some pundits, haven’t changed their assessment of Clinton much. In the markets, her probability of winning the nomination is still close to its all-time high and has barely budged in the past few months, rarely falling much below 75 percent…


Democrats want to remind 2014 voters about who REALLY cares about them…

So says Charlie Cook……

It’s a theme that worked for them in 2012 with Mitt Romney vs the President…..

Republicans are obviously trying to cast the midterm election as a referendum on the Affordable Care Act, hardly a surprise given the broadly negative views that a plurality of Americans hold toward it and its disastrous launch. But besides the obvious strategic risk of putting all their eggs in one basket, there is another problem with the GOP’s approach to 2014. While the public is hardly enthusiastic about Obamacare, the same polls that show unfavorable attitudes toward the law also show an electorate that isn’t looking to repeal it but rather fix it. This theme is absent from Republicans’ talking points. They risk being seen as capable of only throwing rocks rather than improving things, thus contributing to a negative image that led to many of their problems in the 2012 elections.

Democrats want to change the subject to income inequality, hoping to buy time for the Affordable Care Act to work out its problems and for a constituency to grow among those who like and use it. All in all, this isn’t a bad strategy; they definitely should want to shift the focus from the president’s signature legislative accomplishment, now a sore subject. The public, however, is increasingly aware of not just the growing gap between the rich and the poor, but also the one between the well-to-do and those who were once in the middle class but have slipped below it even as they try to cling to what they have. In James Carville’s and Stan Greenberg’s 2012 book, It’s the Middle Class, Stupid, the renowned Democratic strategists made a compelling economic case for how wide the gap has grown and how fearful many working and middle-class Americans are of losing any shot at the American Dream. And they also argue that directing attention to the issue is a winning political strategy.

One doesn’t have to be a liberal or a populist or, for that matter, a social-justice advocate to fear the social, political, and economic consequences of such a wide swath of voters who fear what the future holds for them. It’s often noted that this is the first time in our nation’s history that most Americans do not expect their children and grandchildren to have the same opportunities they did…


It could be a good Midterm for the GOP…Larry Sabato….

Sabato has joined Politico…..

Below he tells us something we already know….

Democrats have virtually No Chance to gain control of the US House of Reps…..

Democrats will hold the Senate by the whiskers and COULD lose it by a sliver…..

The House: In 35 of the 38 midterms conducted since the start of the Civil War, the president’s party has lost ground in the U.S. House, and never has a president’s party netted anywhere close to the 17 seats the Democrats would need to win the House this year. History alone argues that the Democrats’ attempt to take back the House is effectively without precedent.

Other metrics also suggest that the Democrats are a long shot. Averages of the House generic ballot—the poll question that measures whether voters support a Republican or a Democrat in their House district—show essentially a tie (RealClearPolitics) or Republicans up slightly (HuffPost Pollster). A model by Emory University’s Alan Abramowitz projects that Democrats will need an enormous generic-ballot polling lead—possibly as much as 13 percent—to win House control in 2014. With the current polling, Abramowitz’s model estimates a gain of roughly five to 10 seats for the Republicans.

Despite House retirements that have disproportionately gone the Democrats’ way and made some fairly safe GOP seats very competitive, a smallish Republican gain seems the likeliest outcome in the House, and in few if any conceivable scenarios could the Democrats score a 17-seat net gain.

The Senate: Democrats are quick to admit, at least privately, that 2014’s lineup is a terrible Senate map for them. These Senate seats were last on the ballot in 2008, when the winds were at the Democrats’ backs and Republicans were demoralized by President George W. Bush’s unpopularity and the economic crisis. Conditions are quite different now. President Obama’s average percentage of the two-party 2012 vote in these states was just 46.6 percent, worst among the three Senate classes. Democratic senators currently represent seven states that Mitt Romney won: Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. Meanwhile, the only Republican who represents an Obama state on the 2014 list is the virtually unbeatable Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.

In 2014 the Senate map unmistakably favors Republicans—although they have recent experience in throwing away their inherent advantages.


Michigan, Massachusetts and Maine Senate Races Preview…Election*Projection

…from The Blogging Caesar at Election Projection…..

Friday, December 20, 2013

It happens every cycle. A safe bet for one party or the other becomes immediately competitive upon the announcement that the incumbent is going to retire. The Iowa Senate election is a good example. Senator Tom Harkin’s decision to forego another term …
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Former Senator John Kerry, who lost the 2004 presidential election to George W. Bush, held this seat in the Senate from January, 1985 until he resigned on February 1, 2013 to become U.S. Secretary of State in the Obama administration. Governor Deval Patrick chose William “Mo” Cowan to assume …
Monday, December 16, 2013
Before Olympia Snowe’s retirement in 2013, Maine was one of four states featuring two female senators. (California, Washington and, since 2010, New Hampshire are the remaining three.) And it was the only state with …

Charlie Cook joins the GOP will hold the House chorus….

He thinks the Grand Old Party could actually gain a few…..

If the Murray-Ryan budget deal amounts to a small lurch forward, the last few months’ politics have sure felt like a roller-coaster ride. And, we aren’t just talking about GOP Reps. Trey Radel (FL-19) orSteve Stockman (TX-36).

For the first sixteen days of October, the government shutdown generated conditions that felt a lot like 2006, with independent voters ready to vent their anger at Republicans. Soon thereafter, the roll-out of the Affordable Care Act generated an atmosphere that felt similar to 2010, when President Obama and Democrats got routed. As Charlie Cook pointed out, gyrations of this magnitude in short time spans are exceedingly rare.

At the moment, the political environment appears to have come back down to earth. And, with the 2014 election back to looking more like a referendum on President Obama than House Republicans, we have updated our outlook to a GOP gain of zero to ten House seats…..


Louisiana, Kentucky, Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Idaho and Hawaii Senate Races Preview…Election*Projection

…from The Blogging Caesar at Election Projection…..

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Two quick oddities from down on the bayou. Did you know that Louisiana doesn’t have counties? Nope, the state’s residents claim parishes instead. And did you know that Louisiana doesn’t hold traditional partisan primaries like most everyone else? Instead …
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky’s senior senator, will have two competitive races in 2014. The first will be his quest to win the GOP nomination. As the ranking Republican, McConnell is …
Monday, December 9, 2013
Few states are more reliably Republican than the Sunflower State. Boasting two GOP senators, 4 GOP congressmen, a GOP governor and large GOP majorities in the state legislature, Kansas gave …
Friday, December 6, 2013
Democrat Tom Harkin earned his first trip to the Senate in 1984. In four re-election campaigns since, his closest contest was in 1996 when he slipped by Republican Jim Ross Lightfoot by just over 5 points. Six years ago, …
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the three-term Democrat up for re-election in 2014, outdid President-to-be Barack Obama in his own adoptive neighborhood in 2008. Obama got the nod from 63% of Illinois voters; Durbin earned a 69% share. …
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
In many states, a scandalous exit by a sitting senator would have the opposition party salivating at the chance for an easy takeover. Idaho is not one of those states. Even though former Republican Senator Larry Craig’s embarrassing …
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
The late Daniel Inouye, former Democratic senator from Hawaii, served without interruption for 49 years, 349 days in the U.S. Senate. December 17, 2012, just a month before his 50th anniversary in the Senate, Inouye passed away, leaving …