Originally Posted by pbrower2a

One more state to offer an approval rating for the incumbent Senator up for re-election. Johnny Isaacson is up 38-30 in approval, which indicates that he (1) isn't well known in his own state, and (2) that he isn't trying to get well known and may be relying upon a campaign largely based upon advertising by outside interests (like the Koch syndicate). That's Georgia, a state on the margin of competitiveness.



Approval polls only.




Gray -- no incumbent at risk.
White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange -- Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red -- Democrat running for re-election with current polls available.

Tan -- incumbent Senator credibly running for another office and not for re-election. Approval and party (D, R) shown With David Vitter retiring after being defeated in a bid for the the Governorship of Louisiana, his seat goes open and no state is shown in this color.


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

What I see so far with incumbents:

App Rep Dem

<40 7 0
40-44 2 0
45-49 0 2
50-54 4 0
55-59 0 0
>60 0 2
retire 3 3
indict 0 1
oth off 1 0
no poll 6 2


Now -- my projection for the 2016 Senate election:

Sure R:

Alabama
Idaho
Iowa
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah

Likely R:
Alaska
Kansas


Edge R:
Arizona
Arkansas
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana

Tossups
Georgia (from Edge R)
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania


All but one of the current tossups are current R seats.

Edge D:
Colorado
Florida*
New Hampshire*


Likely D:
Oregon
Washington


Solid D:
California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Illinois*
Maryland
Vermont
Wisconsin*


*flip (so far all R to D)

New Jersey looks like a fairly sure hold should current, but indicted, Senator Bob Menendez be compelled to resign.

Interesting that you flipped the customary colours for the two parties.
So you figure on at least a hung Senate unless Trump wins with some coattails.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Rubio and Carson are both extremely right-wing. Definitely to the right of Trump, and only marginally not as right-wing as Cruz. So little different that you need a microscope to tell the difference. Of course, who needs a microscope, when you can be lulled by the surgeon's apparently calm manner or charmed by Rubio's good lucks and smooth delivery. Poison is poison, whether delivered by a real estate tycoon, a charming actor, a surgeon or two, Joseph McCarthy reincarnate, or some young sophomoric senator who probably would do well in the school play.

And unlike Trump, Rubio is extremely warlike. Almost as warlike as Lindsay Graham, who might become Rubio's defence secretary. It's hard to find a candidate still running who likes war more than Hillary but Rubio fills the bill.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

And unlike Trump, Rubio is extremely warlike. Almost as warlike as Lindsay Graham, who might become Rubio's defence secretary. It's hard to find a candidate still running who likes war more than Hillary but Rubio fills the bill.

Yes indeed, Rubio likes war much more than Hillary IMO. Rubio runs over at the mouth with wartalk. He is a dire threat and I shudder at the prospect of him doing well tonight. He is an attractive and deceptive right-winger on all issues, who knows how to smooth-talk his lies and mistaken memes.

Turnout is high. I expect that's because voters know how crucial Iowa is this time.

Sanders needs to win in order to make a national campaign. Hillary could be in trouble if she doesn't win. So does Cruz need a win to be viable. If Trump doesn't win, his winning aura will be damaged. If Rubio does well, he's a serious challenger to the "outsider extremists" who won't do as well in the general election as he. All the candidates need to do well to be viable in the future.

Republican 6.8% reporting

CANDIDATE VOTES % DEL

Cruz
2,222 30% --

Trump
2,107 29% --

Rubio
1,310 18% --

Carson
723 10% --

Paul
317 4% --

Source: AP


Democratic 21.1% reporting

CANDIDATE SDEs %
Clinton
107 53% --

Sanders
94 47% --

O'Malley
1 0%

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes indeed, Rubio likes war much more than Hillary IMO. Rubio runs over at the mouth with wartalk. He is a dire threat and I shudder at the prospect of him doing well tonight. He is an attractive and deceptive right-winger on all issues, who knows how to smooth-talk his lies and mistaken memes.

Turnout is high. I expect that's because voters know how crucial Iowa is this time.

Sanders needs to win in order to make a national campaign. Hillary could be in trouble if she doesn't win. So does Cruz need a win to be viable. If Trump doesn't win, his winning aura will be damaged. If Rubio does well, he's a serious challenger to the "outsider extremists" who won't do as well in the general election as he. All the candidates need to do well to be viable in the future.

Republican 6.8% reporting

CANDIDATE VOTES % DEL

Cruz
2,222 30% --

Trump
2,107 29% --

Rubio
1,310 18% --

Carson
723 10% --

Paul
317 4% --

Source: AP


Democratic 21.1% reporting

CANDIDATE SDEs %
Clinton
107 53% --

Sanders
94 47% --

O'Malley
1 0%

I'll stick my neck out and call it:

GOP:

1st - Cruz
2nd - Trump
3rd - Rubio

DEMs

1st (by a freakin' hair!) - Clinton
2nd - Sanders

I doubt either Trump or Sanders will throw in the towel yet.

I think my call looks correct.

It's long been stated that the key to Iowa is the precinct level ground game. Both Clinton and Cruz are masters of the game. And now we are seeing the results.

In the case of Trump it will be interesting how he reacts to being taught a lesson by a lawyah!

Most interesting is when you look at the combined Cruz - Rubio number. That is the real number, only one of them can be the nominee and most who support either would not move to Trump if / when their candidate drops out. If Rubio drops nearly all his support moves to Cruz, and vice versa. I don't think there will be a floor fight at the GOP convention. This type of pattern is also likely in NH and SC with perhaps different candidates winning each. But either Rubio or Cruz will have to drop at some point. Then Trump is done.

The Rubio effect ... as % precincts reporting passed 80%, it became clear that Rubio took votes away from Trump.

Repeat after me. Trump lost Iowa.

Meanwhile the real action is on the Dem side. We may not be able to conclude that result until morning.

In any case, O'Malley needs to buy a clue. Buh-bye!

Th other remarkable thing is just how well Rubio did. He came close to also beating Trump!

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Most interesting is when you look at the combined Cruz - Rubio number. That is the real number, only one of them can be the nominee and most who support either would not move to Trump if / when their candidate drops out. If Rubio drops nearly all his support moves to Cruz, and vice versa. I don't think there will be a floor fight at the GOP convention. This type of pattern is also likely in NH and SC with perhaps different candidates winning each. But either Rubio or Cruz will have to drop at some point. Then Trump is done.

Why would you believe Rubio/Cruz voters are interchangeable as opposed to being so with Trump? There's no polling that supports that. Instead, it appears Rubio pulled from Trump in Iowa; why would such voters go to Cruz if Rubio is not there?

Iowa was only a game ender if Trump won. He's got a YUGE lead in NH. The talk will be Iowa will boast Cruz/Rubio in NH, but one of them would actually have to win to be a game ender for Trump. So, the reality is the game is still on going into South Carolina with the likelihood that Rubio will still be in the "also ran" to the Trump/Cruz numbers and at some point his donors are going to ask what that is getting him and them... then we'll see where his voters go. Rubio placing third is an entertaining news story to help sell newspapers.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Why would you believe Rubio/Cruz voters are interchangeable as opposed to being so with Trump? There's no polling that supports that. Instead, it appears Rubio pulled from Trump in Iowa; why would such voters go to Cruz if Rubio is not there?

Iowa was only a game ender if Trump won. He's got a YUGE lead in NH. The talk will be Iowa will boast Cruz/Rubio in NH, but one of them would actually have to win to be a game ender for Trump. So, the reality is the game is still on going into South Carolina with the likelihood that Rubio will still be in the "also ran" to the Trump/Cruz numbers and at some point his donors are going to ask what that is getting him and them... then we'll see where his voters go. Rubio placing third is an entertaining news story to help sell newspapers.

Rubio pulled the least-weird / most-rational Trump voters. Trump's core constituency is the weirdo / Right-Wing-Whacko voters. That constituency is about as big as it's going to get. Trump can't grow his support much more even when others drop.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Most interesting is when you look at the combined Cruz - Rubio number. That is the real number, only one of them can be the nominee and most who support either would not move to Trump if / when their candidate drops out. If Rubio drops nearly all his support moves to Cruz, and vice versa. I don't think there will be a floor fight at the GOP convention. This type of pattern is also likely in NH and SC with perhaps different candidates winning each. But either Rubio or Cruz will have to drop at some point. Then Trump is done.

I think Iowa is a weak state for Trump, and Cruz benefited from a strong ground game in a small state with a lot of evangelical conservatives.

Cruz could get a boost in other midwestern and southern states. Rubio will get a national boost. Trump still has an advantage in New Hampshire, because the conservatives and evangelicals are weaker and the other moderates are stronger. They are battling for second; Cruz and Carson will not do well there and Rubio faces much stiffer competition for 2nd. So Bush, Christie or Kasich could get a boost there nationally. Trump will get some MO from New Hampshire, and was leading nationally. Given his appeal, he will still be tough to stop. It looks like Cruz or Rubio could stop him if the other drops out, but I don't see ambitious guys dropping out just to stop Trump. Trump made a mistake it appears by not debating and instead taking personally the insults from Fox. That was not presidential.

99.9% reporting
Democratic

CANDIDATE SDEs % DEL
Clinton
700 50% --
Sanders
695 50% --
O'Malley
8 1% --
Uncommitted
1 0% --


99.9% reporting
Republican

CANDIDATE VOTES % DEL
Cruz
51,649 28% --
Trump
45,416 24% --
Rubio
43,132 23% --
Carson
17,393 9% --
Paul
8,478 5% --
Bush
5,235 3% --
Fiorina
3,483 2% --
Kasich
3,473 2% --
Huckabee
3,344 2% --
Christie
3,278 2% --
Santorum
1,783 1% --
Gilmore
12 0% --
Other
119 0% --


Huckabee drops out; O'Malley suspends campaign.

Election 2016 Iowa Caucuses
Republicans Votes Percent Del. (100%)
Cruz 51,666 27.6 8
Trump 45,427 24.3 7
Rubio 43,165 23.1 7
Carson 17,395 9.3 3
Paul 8,481 4.5 1
Bush 5,238 2.8 1
Fiorina 3,485 1.9 0
Kasich 3,474 1.9 0
Huckabee 3,345 1.8 0
Christie 3,284 1.8 0
Santorum 1,783 1.0 0
Other 119 0.1 0
Gilmore 12 0.0 0

Democrats
Votes Percent Del. (100%)
Clinton 701 49.9 23
Sanders 697 49.6 21
O'Malley 8 0.6 0
Uncommitted0 0.0 0
Other 0 0.0 0

Jeb Bush and John Kasich did not do well.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Rubio pulled the least-weird / most-rational Trump voters. Trump's core constituency is the weirdo / Right-Wing-Whacko voters. That constituency is about as big as it's going to get. Trump can't grow his support much more even when others drop.

Trump's core constituency is poorer white voters. And now in NH which is a primary, not precinct caucuses and where voters can choose either party at the polling place (and which has a huge number of independents), we may see Sanders start to pull some of the more rational of these voters. How many, time will tell. The story of this election may well be that Trump broke the spell that conservative ideology held over poorer white voters, putting them back in play and up for grabs for the first time since 1992. After all, why should poorer white voters support a candidate like Rubio, who promises them more wars to fight and continued domination by the 1%?

With 0.2% points difference, it's a virtual tie on the Democratic side.

Not a good opening event for Hillary.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

With 0.2% points difference, it's a virtual tie on the Democratic side.

Not a good opening event for Hillary.

And remember that this is weighted delegates. Democrats weigh precinct's votes in terms of delegates (at least in Iowa) according to the percentage of Democratic vote in the 2012 election. Precincts the Dems carried get more delegate votes than precincts the Republicans carried. And the Democratic Party is not releasing the raw vote totals. So Bernie might well have gotten more raw votes overall. But if he got those raw votes by crowding college students into precincts in college cities, it dosen't help him in the rest of the state. Places like Des Moines or Council Bluffs or Cedar Rapids or Dubuque. That's why Bernie tried to get as many of his students as possible to go home and caucus. Which many cannot do because they are just starting classes.
The thing to take away from this is that Bernie and Hillary will likely split the Iowa delegation to the Democratic Convention right down the middle. Which means that if Bernie wins New Hampshire substantially, Bernie pulls ahead of Hillary. Then onto Nevada caucuses and South Carolina. While Hillary has to wrestle with the very real issue of classified information on her emails.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

And remember that this is weighted delegates. Democrats weigh precinct's votes in terms of delegates (at least in Iowa) according to the percentage of Democratic vote in the 2012 election. Precincts the Dems carried get more delegate votes than precincts the Republicans carried. And the Democratic Party is not releasing the raw vote totals. So Bernie might well have gotten more raw votes overall. But if he got those raw votes by crowding college students into precincts in college cities, it dosen't help him in the rest of the state. Places like Des Moines or Council Bluffs or Cedar Rapids or Dubuque. That's why Bernie tried to get as many of his students as possible to go home and caucus. Which many cannot do because they are just starting classes.

I don't know if anyone knows the facts about raw votes, since apparently they consist of people standing in a group in a room. I know that Bernie won strongly in some eastern counties, and lost narrowly in a strong majority of other counties. I doubt such details will matter to voters in upcoming primaries.

The thing to take away from this is that Bernie and Hillary will likely split the Iowa delegation to the Democratic Convention right down the middle. Which means that if Bernie wins New Hampshire substantially, Bernie pulls ahead of Hillary. Then onto Nevada caucuses and South Carolina. While Hillary has to wrestle with the very real issue of classified information on her emails.

What Bernie needs to do though, and he doesn't have a lot of time to do it, is convince non-white voters that he and his policies are better for them than Hillary's. That is what will make the difference, especially since many states have majority-minorities among Democrats. He can make the case, but he hasn't done it yet. 11 points or so down in national polls, it would have been better if he had won a state where he had strong advantages. But a tie keeps his momentum alive.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/iowa

I know that Cruz and Rubio are probably the most dangerous and destructive of all the Republican candidates now running. They are the candidates who came out of the GOP Iowa caucuses with the most momentum.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know if anyone knows the facts about raw votes, since apparently they consist of people standing in a group in a room. I know that Bernie won strongly in some eastern counties, and lost narrowly in a strong majority of other counties. I doubt such details will matter to voters in upcoming primaries.

1.Caucus participants are typically the most fervent of voters, and most likely the ones most to the Left for Democrats and to the Right for Republicans. Thus the poor performances of Jeb Bush and John Kasich.

2. I am going to guess that the urban-rural divide is strong in Iowa. Western Iowa except perhaps for Council Bluffs and Sioux City is very conservative; eastern Iowa isn't. But eastern Iowa has, if no giant cities, plenty of medium-sized ones generally to the east of the I-35 corridor.

3. Iowa is close to the national average in voting R/D. For a state as rural as it is it is rather Democratic in orientation. But know well: this state elected Joni Ernst. The Right is very far to the Right in Iowa.

What Bernie needs to do though, and he doesn't have a lot of time to do it, is convince non-white voters that he and his policies are better for them than Hillary's. That is what will make the difference, especially since many states have majority-minorities among Democrats. He can make the case, but he hasn't done it yet. 11 points or so down in national polls, it would have been better if he had won a state where he had strong advantages. But a tie keeps his momentum alive.


http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/iowa

The Republicans have nothing to attract minorities in the event that Bernie Sanders wins the nomination -- or if Hillary wins it. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are Hispanic -- but they are the wrong sorts of Hispanics to attract the non-Cuban, left-leaning, communitarian Hispanics of Mexican or Puerto Rican origin who have little use for the devotees of capitalism at its harshest and most unforgiving. Ted Cruz is not a Catholic, and that may make him seem alien to the heavily-Catholic parts of the Hispanic population.

Remember: Republicans must get a much bigger share of the Hispanic vote in 2016 than in 2012 to win the Presidential election.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Rubio pulled the least-weird / most-rational Trump voters. Trump's core constituency is the weirdo / Right-Wing-Whacko voters. That constituency is about as big as it's going to get. Trump can't grow his support much more even when others drop.

And exactly who are the Cruz supporters if not weirdo/wacko? I would argue that even Rubio, or Bush or Kasich voters are weirdo/wacko but let's put them aside now as Wacko Establishment.

From my sources, Rubio grabbed from Trump those religiosity voters that can't stand Cruz and got cold feet with Trump. All that religiosity confusion of Iowa goes away in NH. It does come back, to a lesser but still important extent, in SC; on Super Tuesday, however, it becomes insignificant - I think that means that Rubio will not repeat getting Trump voters.

Mike's theory of Trump collapsing once he's shown he's a "loser!" is what's now in play here. It has to be either Trump actually loses in NH or wins but it is so close (ala Clinton/Sanders Iowa) that it becomes a "momentum meme." Only 7 days for such a big turnaround so I sort of doubt it.

As these primaries go from the early ones each providing a sense of "game enders" to being "barely mentioned on the evening news," what's critical is can the Trump/Cruz juggernaut keep Rubio frozen out of any actual win. If that theme emerges strongly, then Rubio will not make it to the mid-March FL primary, if it is weak then his continuing candidacy will hinge on the outcome of his home state primary.

If anyone cares -- Mike Huckabee has withdrawn from the Presidential race.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know if anyone knows the facts about raw votes, since apparently they consist of people standing in a group in a room. I know that Bernie won strongly in some eastern counties, and lost narrowly in a strong majority of other counties. I doubt such details will matter to voters in upcoming primaries.



What Bernie needs to do though, and he doesn't have a lot of time to do it, is convince non-white voters that he and his policies are better for them than Hillary's. That is what will make the difference, especially since many states have majority-minorities among Democrats. He can make the case, but he hasn't done it yet. 11 points or so down in national polls, it would have been better if he had won a state where he had strong advantages. But a tie keeps his momentum alive.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/iowa

Bernie's main problem is that many racial justice organizations and prominent POCs (especially pastors of black churches) have been made organs of the Dem Establishment.

Well Trump lost. Now comes the test of my hypothesis.

I will point out that Trump lost 10 or more points relative to his rivals. If you apply this to his NH pols only 10 points separates him from his closest rival and this is before ant post-Iowa momentum effects. I think NH will be a close-run thing, and if Trumps loses there he will collapse like Guiliani.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Well Trump lost. Now comes the test of my hypothesis.

I will point out that Trump lost 10 or more points relative to his rivals. If you apply this to his NH pols only 10 points separates him from his closest rival and this is before ant post-Iowa momentum effects. I think NH will be a close-run thing, and if Trumps loses there he will collapse like Guiliani.

Ah, it's a lot more that 10 points, Mike - more like 24 points.

Here's some good trend lines, but you have to scroll down past the Iowa number to get to NH -

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...cruz.html?_r=0

What you would find interesting is the last 7 day switch in 2008 NH with Romney starting out ahead but eventually losing to McCain. That sort of looks like your scenario for Trump, but we need to note both the dramatic change in 2008 before the 7-day window (Cruz only beat Trump by 3 percentage points) and the fall of Trump by the needed percentage points would need to be triple what McCain accomplished. Possible, but I don't believe probable.

On the other hand, your hypothesis doesn't need an actual lost by "Loser! Trump;" he just needs to be taken down considerably and then the momentum meme goes into SC and NV.

The real question is whether Cruz or Rubio will emerge to take second place. If the Trump/Cruz tag team can keep Rubio from gaining even a second finish, particularly on Super Tuesday, he won't last long enough to get tested in his home state of Fl in mid-March. It's also helpful that other GOP Wacky Establishment types (i.e., Christie, Kasich, Bush) have been doing better in NH and may also block Rubio; I don't think there's enough time or candidate personalities to be talked out of NH even with Rubio's showing in Iowa - he may have actually encouraged them that a 3rd place finish is actually a "win!"

My fingers crossed that a total repugnant GOPer will still emerge as the nominee.

Originally Posted by Odin

Bernie's main problem is that many racial justice organizations and prominent POCs (especially pastors of black churches) have been made organs of the Dem Establishment.

Them thar minorities have grown pretty cynical about folks promising them magic ponies - that might be the actual problem Bernie will have with them thar POCs.