Originally Posted by Odin

Sanders and Clinton are tied on the delegate count and the corporate-owned idiots on the "news" are declaring the Sanders campaign dead. Could their bias be any more transparent? Jesus Christ...

I have found some good predictors of politicians doing worse than previously expected. The most obvious is unexpected losses. The inverse also applies to those doing better than previously expected. Also -- bigger losses than expected where one expects to lose, anyway... and narrower wins than expected where one is expected to win big. So in a national race for President, a Democrat who looks to lose Indiana by 15% or more is likely to lose nationwide. The last Democratic nominee to lose Indiana by a margin like that and still win was John F. Kennedy in 1960. But a Democratic nominee who stands to lose Indiana by 7% will likely win by a large margin nationwide. On the other side, in a good year for a Democratic nominee for President wins New York State by 20% or more. In a bad year he is going to win the state but by 15% or less.

One can tell much from margins.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

If I was in my Dr. Demento phase - where I was when I was like 21 - I'd be hoping that Comrade Sanders does defeat Hillary - just so I could have the pleasure of watching him finish third in the general election, behind Michael Bloomberg as well as the GOP nominee, or even fourth if the latter is not Donald Trump and Trump, too, runs as an independent.

It's possible Sanders could lose as the nominee, given the fact that there is no much backwardness in America. Such is to be expected. That is why I am hesitant to predict his victory outright despite the astrological indicators that say he will win it all. Indicators cannot always "trump" established patterns of opinion and power.

But I doubt Bloomberg will run when he sees he will only poll about 10%, as current polls show. What would be the point to run just to spoil one side or the other? His "extremist" still might win anyway, as his own numbers tank as the election nears. That's how it usually works.

The problem is that Sanders may be the one who can defeat Trump. Current polls show he does better than Hillary against the leading Republican candidates. Sanders has real power and authenticity as a speaker and a leader, which can match Trump's celebrity charisma and entertaining bluster. Hillary might be able to match him too, but it's more doubtful. And the astrological indicators are not as promising for a Hillary victory over Trump.

With the suspension of the campaign of Jeb Bush, I can now offer my assessment of some binary matchups from immediately after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries. First Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)




Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich




Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio



Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I have found some good predictors of politicians doing worse than previously expected. The most obvious is unexpected losses. The inverse also applies to those doing better than previously expected. Also -- bigger losses than expected where one expects to lose, anyway... and narrower wins than expected where one is expected to win big. So in a national race for President, a Democrat who looks to lose Indiana by 15% or more is likely to lose nationwide. The last Democratic nominee to lose Indiana by a margin like that and still win was John F. Kennedy in 1960. But a Democratic nominee who stands to lose Indiana by 7% will likely win by a large margin nationwide. On the other side, in a good year for a Democratic nominee for President wins New York State by 20% or more. In a bad year he is going to win the state but by 15% or less.

One can tell much from margins.

And no Democrat has won the White House who has lost New Hampshire by 20 points. 1968 was a prime example. LBJ gave up on re-election after a Jeb Bush like showing in NH. Hubert Humphrey (who ultimately won the party's nomination by appealing to HIS generation's "neo-cons" did even more poorly in NH--and finally lost to Richard Nixon. And this was in a nomination system that was far more closed than todays is.
So a vote for Hillary Clinton may well be a vote for Donald Trump.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

With the suspension of the campaign of Jeb Bush, I can now offer my assessment of some binary matchups from immediately after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries. First Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)




Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich




Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio



Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

If Hillary can't hold Florida and Pennsylvania and Ohio, she can't be elected. The only wild card here would be a third party candidate. What everyone forgets about the 90s was that Bill Clinton could not have been elected in 1992 if H Ross Perot had not been running. Hillary could have won a low energy "it's my turn" election against Jeb Bush and she could probably beat Ted Cruz (though even Cruz might create a Bush vGore scenario). But Trump plays to Hillary's weaknesses. Unlike Bernie, Trump is no gentleman and can match the Clinton attack machine blow for blow.
It may finally be Trump sewing up the Republican nomination fairly early that gives Bernie Sanders the chance to close the deal for the American people against Hillary. That rumpled professor straight out of Central Casting may be the only man who can shame Trump out of the White House.

Good; but I doubt Perot cost Bush the White House. He took from both sides. He was a moderate, and he campaigned harder against Bush. He said "trickle-down didn't trickle," and that after 8 years of voodoo economics we were in "deep voodoo."

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yes, it could be a mass conspiracy by all those media types that have expressed so much love for Hillary over the years.

Or, it could simply be people who get paid by looking like they know something, and in this case know something about how delegates are gained by the candidates in each state - hint: it varies, a lot. And if you know how it varies, and match that with polling, you might be able to make some projections that might show limited potential for certain candidates once certain events take place.

If you want to look like you actually know something, I suggest reading some of this -

http://cookpolitical.com/story/9258

And maybe looking up this name -

"Jeffery Berman"

- he was Obama's '08 delegate strategist. Guess who hired him for 2016.

Maybe one thing that will be clear by this Summer is whether or not you are going to be as embarrassing to Progressives as Clinton's PUMAs became in 2008.

I don't give a shit what the Establishment idiots believe.

Binary match-ups involving Bernie Sanders. The near-tie between Cruz and Bush that I recently saw has become moot due to the departure of Jeb Bush from the Presidential race.


Bernie Sanders vs. Ted Cruz




Bernie Sanders vs. John Kasich




Bernie Sanders vs. Marco Rubio



Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

And no Democrat has won the White House who has lost New Hampshire by 20 points. 1968 was a prime example. LBJ gave up on re-election after a Jeb Bush like showing in NH. Hubert Humphrey (who ultimately won the party's nomination by appealing to HIS generation's "neo-cons" did even more poorly in NH--and finally lost to Richard Nixon. And this was in a nomination system that was far more closed than todays is.
So a vote for Hillary Clinton may well be a vote for Donald Trump.

Humphrey did not run in NH in 1968; that was LBJ as you said. But HHH was nominated by what we would today call "superdelegates" only. That may have cost him the election, along with the riots.

Sanders had the regional advantage in NH. We'll see how soon he wins another primary. The northern states on super tuesday look good, but the schedule is arranged so that he will be playing catch-up all the way to the end.

Humphrey's neo-cons were saddled with the Vietnam War they created. Nothing like that is happening today.

US Senate

Toomey, Portman Hurt By Supreme Court Stance


Date: 2-22-16


New Public Policy Polling surveys of Pennsylvania and Ohio find that both Pat Toomey and Rob Portman are suffering from very weak approval numbers as they seek reelection to the Senate. Furthermore voters in their states, by wide margins, want the vacancy on the Supreme Court to be filled this year. Their opposition to even considering a replacement for Antonin Scalia has the strong potential to put them in even worse standing with voters than they are already.

Key findings from the survey include:

-Only 29% of voters approve of the job Toomey is doing to 40% who disapprove, and just 30% approve of the job Portman is doing to 39% who disapprove. They’re both very much in the danger zone for reelection based on those low approval numbers. One thing complicating their path to reelection is how bad the overall brand of Senate Republicans is. Mitch McConnell has a 13/56 approval rating in Pennsylvania, and a 14/57 one in Ohio. His extreme unpopularity is going to be a weight on his party’s incumbents running across the country.

-Strong majorities of voters- 58/35 in Ohio and 57/40 in Pennsylvania- think that the vacant seat on the Supreme Court should be filled this year. What’s particularly noteworthy about those numbers- and concerning for Portman and Toomey- is how emphatic the support for approving a replacement is among independent voters. In Ohio they think a new Justice should be named this year 70/24 and in Pennsylvania it’s 60/37. Those independent voters are going to make the difference in these tight Senate races, and they have no tolerance for obstructionism on the vacancy.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...Polls22216.pdf


My take (and rationale):



Approval polls only.

Until I see evidence that Republicans will not play obstructionist games with a vacant US Senate seat, I am compelled to drop my ratings of the chances of re-election of Senators Portman and Toomey. I change nothing until I see a poll.

There is one good piece of news for Republicans: former Senator Mike Begich will not be running against Senator Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. Such causes me to put Alaska into the "sure R" category. There will be more polls,




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.

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
Alaska (from Likely R)
Idaho
Iowa
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah

Likely R:
Kansas


Edge R:
Arizona
Arkansas
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana

Tossups
Georgia
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina


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

Edge D:
Colorado
Florida*
New Hampshire*
Ohio* (from tossup)
Pennsylvania* (from tossup)


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.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

And no Democrat has won the White House who has lost New Hampshire by 20 points. 1968 was a prime example. LBJ gave up on re-election after a Jeb Bush like showing in NH. Hubert Humphrey (who ultimately won the party's nomination by appealing to HIS generation's "neo-cons" did even more poorly in NH--and finally lost to Richard Nixon. And this was in a nomination system that was far more closed than todays is.
So a vote for Hillary Clinton may well be a vote for Donald Trump.

Actually, LBJ won in New Hampshire. It's just that the race was embarrassingly close.

Despite the growing opposition to Johnson's policies in Vietnam, no prominent Democratic candidate was prepared to run against a sitting President of his own party. Even Senator Robert F. Kennedy of New York, an outspoken critic of Johnson's policies with a large base of support, refused to run against Johnson in the primaries. Only Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota proved willing to openly challenge Johnson. Running as an anti-war candidate in the New Hampshire primary, McCarthy hoped to pressure the Democrats into publicly opposing the Vietnam War. Normally, an incumbent president faces little formidable opposition within his own party. However, McCarthy, although he was trailing badly in the national polls, decided to pour most of his resources into New Hampshire, the first state to hold a primary election. He was boosted by thousands of young college students, who shaved their beards and cut their hair to be "Clean for Gene." These students rang doorbells and worked hard in New Hampshire for McCarthy. On March 12, McCarthy won 42% of the primary vote to Johnson's 49%, an extremely strong showing for such a challenger, and one which gave McCarthy's campaign legitimacy and momentum. Senator Kennedy announced his candidacy four days later, on March 16.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

US Senate

Toomey, Portman Hurt By Supreme Court Stance


Date: 2-22-16


New Public Policy Polling surveys of Pennsylvania and Ohio find that both Pat Toomey and Rob Portman are suffering from very weak approval numbers as they seek reelection to the Senate. Furthermore voters in their states, by wide margins, want the vacancy on the Supreme Court to be filled this year. Their opposition to even considering a replacement for Antonin Scalia has the strong potential to put them in even worse standing with voters than they are already.

Key findings from the survey include:

-Only 29% of voters approve of the job Toomey is doing to 40% who disapprove, and just 30% approve of the job Portman is doing to 39% who disapprove. They’re both very much in the danger zone for reelection based on those low approval numbers. One thing complicating their path to reelection is how bad the overall brand of Senate Republicans is. Mitch McConnell has a 13/56 approval rating in Pennsylvania, and a 14/57 one in Ohio. His extreme unpopularity is going to be a weight on his party’s incumbents running across the country.

-Strong majorities of voters- 58/35 in Ohio and 57/40 in Pennsylvania- think that the vacant seat on the Supreme Court should be filled this year. What’s particularly noteworthy about those numbers- and concerning for Portman and Toomey- is how emphatic the support for approving a replacement is among independent voters. In Ohio they think a new Justice should be named this year 70/24 and in Pennsylvania it’s 60/37. Those independent voters are going to make the difference in these tight Senate races, and they have no tolerance for obstructionism on the vacancy.

Right now a group called "Judicial Crisis" is running ads telling people to call Toomey's office to thank him for his stance, saying "Let the people decide."

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Actually, LBJ won in New Hampshire. It's just that the race was embarrassingly close.

That's true. But what is often forgotten is that soon afterward McCarthy won Wisconsin over LBJ by a 2-1 margin. Days later, he announced he was no longer a candidate.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Humphrey did not run in NH in 1968; that was LBJ as you said. But HHH was nominated by what we would today call "superdelegates" only. That may have cost him the election, along with the riots.

Sanders had the regional advantage in NH. We'll see how soon he wins another primary. The northern states on super tuesday look good, but the schedule is arranged so that he will be playing catch-up all the way to the end.

Humphrey's neo-cons were saddled with the Vietnam War they created. Nothing like that is happening today.

On the other hand, the US in 1968 had an economy that was so healthy that the economy was taken for granted (as one would expect in 2T). The Vietnam War and Civil Rights (and riots) were the ONLY issues that election. And the Vietnam War directly affected mainly young people--who their elders denigrated as cowards and traitors for not serving in it without complaint. After all, those Civic elders had served in WWII without complaint.
So it is not surprising that most Americans did NOT want Hubert Humphrey in the White House in 1968 (Humphrey probably would have gone down as a reformer if he had beaten out JFK in 1960). Or that a Democratic Party would support Humphrey because older Americans refused to give Idealist young people the satisfaction of admitting that they were right. A fact that would not be lost on Boomers as they aged in the future.
In this election, the role of the Vietnam War is played by an economy that only works for a few. And the CIvics (or Artists) are the young people who cannot catch a break from this. economy. Young people who may not agree with their elders but certainly are not hated by their elders.
And the economy is trending down not up even if a recession has not been declared yet. So there is little relief for the incumbent party there.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

If Hillary can't hold Florida and Pennsylvania and Ohio, she can't be elected. The only wild card here would be a third party candidate. What everyone forgets about the 90s was that Bill Clinton could not have been elected in 1992 if H Ross Perot had not been running. Hillary could have won a low energy "it's my turn" election against Jeb Bush and she could probably beat Ted Cruz (though even Cruz might create a Bush vGore scenario). But Trump plays to Hillary's weaknesses. Unlike Bernie, Trump is no gentleman and can match the Clinton attack machine blow for blow.
It may finally be Trump sewing up the Republican nomination fairly early that gives Bernie Sanders the chance to close the deal for the American people against Hillary. That rumpled professor straight out of Central Casting may be the only man who can shame Trump out of the White House.

The last polls of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are from December, when the Benghazi hearings were about to begin. Hillary Clinton generally recovered from those, which is not shown in those states. But that said, we have nothing on binary matches with Bernie Sanders in those three states.

PPP just released some polls of Ohio and Pennsylvania; those show two Republican Senators up for re-election with abysmal approval ratings (around 30%).

Republicans need Ohio to win under any circumstances, and really need Pennsylvania should they lose Virginia.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

In this election, the role of the Vietnam War is played by an economy that only works for a few. And the Civics (or Artists) are the young people who cannot catch a break from this. economy. Young people who may not agree with their elders but certainly are not hated by their elders.
And the economy is trending down not up even if a recession has not been declared yet. So there is little relief for the incumbent party there.

Obviously you have been watching little if any Fox News or Newsmax. If you were watching, you would know that today's post-elder Adaptives and elder Idealists can't stand the Millennials, at whom they hurl the vilest insults at every opportunity.

So far my "knock out" predictions have been spot on.

With the big win in SC, we can safely put aside Mike's "Trumps a Loser!" scenario. NH could have been an earlier call for this, but SC nails it. Trump's in for the long haul. As expected, it knocked out Bush just like NH knocked out Christie. Carson should have left as well, but, well, his candidacy is weird; he'll likely leave at some point but it will be barely noticed and not really a knockout as much as a whimper in the corner somewhere. No knockout for Kasich as expected.

The Dems in NV proved to be the nothin-burger as expected since only a clear Sanders win would have been a likely knockout for Clinton. The rumor of Sanders taking a significant Latino vote proved much less than what it was, but it is something to watch as early as Colorado on Super Tuesday.

Coming up, Donald's win in NV will be near meaningless other than slowly adding to his delegate count which will be the story as the season progresses (ala 08 Obama keeping 100 delegates ahead of Clinton no matter what). The media is trying to make something of the Mormon vote going to Cruz or Rubio, but its really just another nothin burger. If Cruz, but particularly Rubio, makes it close in NV, its not a knock out for Trump but it does make latter events less certain.

Clinton taking SC big is not a knockout for Sanders but it can be considered a big stagger that he will likely not recover from. He makes it within 10 percentage points, however, then his eventual knockout becomes less certain.

The big potential knockouts on Super Tuesday for the GOP is Cruz losing TX and Rubio losing VA. Cruz will be clearly knocked out with a TX lost. Rubio will likely carry on with a VA loss but as a zombie. What would be most interesting is they both loss these two states and become zombies joined at the hip, trying to eat each others' dead brains and hearts. Trump would only be knocked out if he doesn't win any state, but would be looking good if he wins just half, sliding scale between these.

Kasich will hang in until March 8 Michigan, which if he comes in close 2nd, he will survive; a 3rd or worse showing and he's gone. An earlier Super Tuesday poor 3rd or 4th in VA would be the handwriting on the wall to watch for.

For Dems, the only possible knockout for Sanders on Super Tuesday would be a lost in Mass. If the MA lost is big (doubtful), he's gone; if its close or actually wins, he is a strong survivor. Clinton becomes questionable only if she doesn't take 1/2 the states.

Super Tuesday has too big of an impact on the GOP side to move past it other than for Kasich. So I'll hold off on that.

On the Dem side, if Bernie takes or is close in Mass., even if Clinton takes more than half the states on Super Tuesday, Michigan looms very large for both. If one wins by more than 10%, it is over for the other. If closer, then it is on to BIG March 15.

The combination of uncertainty from Super Tuesday and Michigan for Dems makes it too much to capture scenarios for March 15 other than saying regardless of outcomes, the knockout for one of the two Dems is very unlikely to go beyond that date - essentially the nomination will most likely be over for the Dems two weeks from now if not sooner. That's going to be necessary to deal with all the PUMAs out there, particularly if Clinton wins it.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Obviously you have been watching little if any Fox News or Newsmax. If you were watching, you would know that today's post-elder Adaptives and elder Idealists can't stand the Millennials, at whom they hurl the vilest insults at every opportunity.

Yes, but only those in the Fox News and Newsmax camp.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Mainstream journalists make their living off cliché because such is what their audiences want. Like their audiences, mainstream journalists are shocked when reality no longer fits cliché.

And then, there's math -

-- as Nate Silver pointed out in '08

Originally Posted by Odin

I don't give a shit what the Establishment idiots believe.

My, my, if it comes to it, you are going to be a tough PUMA to crack.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

US Senate

Toomey, Portman Hurt By Supreme Court Stance


Date: 2-22-16


New Public Policy Polling surveys of Pennsylvania and Ohio find that both Pat Toomey and Rob Portman are suffering from very weak approval numbers as they seek reelection to the Senate. Furthermore voters in their states, by wide margins, want the vacancy on the Supreme Court to be filled this year. Their opposition to even considering a replacement for Antonin Scalia has the strong potential to put them in even worse standing with voters than they are already.

Key findings from the survey include:

-Only 29% of voters approve of the job Toomey is doing to 40% who disapprove, and just 30% approve of the job Portman is doing to 39% who disapprove. They’re both very much in the danger zone for reelection based on those low approval numbers. One thing complicating their path to reelection is how bad the overall brand of Senate Republicans is. Mitch McConnell has a 13/56 approval rating in Pennsylvania, and a 14/57 one in Ohio. His extreme unpopularity is going to be a weight on his party’s incumbents running across the country.

-Strong majorities of voters- 58/35 in Ohio and 57/40 in Pennsylvania- think that the vacant seat on the Supreme Court should be filled this year. What’s particularly noteworthy about those numbers- and concerning for Portman and Toomey- is how emphatic the support for approving a replacement is among independent voters. In Ohio they think a new Justice should be named this year 70/24 and in Pennsylvania it’s 60/37. Those independent voters are going to make the difference in these tight Senate races, and they have no tolerance for obstructionism on the vacancy.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...Polls22216.pdf


My take (and rationale):



Approval polls only.

Until I see evidence that Republicans will not play obstructionist games with a vacant US Senate seat, I am compelled to drop my ratings of the chances of re-election of Senators Portman and Toomey. I change nothing until I see a poll.

There is one good piece of news for Republicans: former Senator Mike Begich will not be running against Senator Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. Such causes me to put Alaska into the "sure R" category. There will be more polls,




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.

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
Alaska (from Likely R)
Idaho
Iowa
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah

Likely R:
Kansas


Edge R:
Arizona
Arkansas
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana

Tossups
Georgia
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina


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

Edge D:
Colorado
Florida*
New Hampshire*
Ohio* (from tossup)
Pennsylvania* (from tossup)


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.

That NV tossup is going to be where the underlying demographic change is going to show up.

Well, that's my hope.

I have no data on Nevada. Senator Harry Reid is retiring, leaving an open seat. That is as much a wild card as I can imagine.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I have no data on Nevada. Senator Harry Reid is retiring, leaving an open seat. That is as much a wild card as I can imagine.

Here's a good summary of a report on the changing demographics in NV -

https://www.americanprogressaction.o...-demographics/

and an excerpt -

n Nevada, voters of color comprise a larger portion of the electorate each year
From 2012 to 2016, voters of color will jump from 36 percent of the state’s electorate to 39.4 percent.
Asian American eligible voters will reach 11 percent of the Nevada electorate in 2016.
If the Latino vote share sees the same growth as is projected for the share of Latino eligible voters, more than one in five voters in the state in 2016, or 21.2 percent, will be Latino for the first time ever, up from 19 percent in 2012.
Based on demographic projections, Nevada may become more and more difficult—though not impossible—for a Republican presidential candidate to win
In 2004, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry had a 21-percentage-point advantage over Republican candidate George W. Bush among Latino voters, leading 60 percent to 39 percent. In 2012, Democratic candidate Barack Obama won 71 percent of Latino votes while Republican Mitt Romney received 24 percent, a 47-point margin.
If Democrats are able to hold onto these high levels of support from voters of color and turnout rates remain the same in 2016, the Democratic margin of victory in Nevada could increase nearly 3 percentage points, yielding a Democratic victory of 54.6 percent to Republicans’ 44.2 percent in the presidential election.
If Democrats are unable to retain their high levels of support from voters of color and if Republicans are able to regain their higher support levels from voters of color from 2004 as well as their high support levels from white voters from 2012, Republicans would see the 2016 presidential race in Nevada tighten up in their favor. Even in this scenario, however, the state may remain hard to win for Republicans, with 51.8 percent of the vote going to Democrats and 48.1 percent to Republicans.

Of course, that's from the viewpoint of the Presidential race. Obviously a Senator from NV, regardless of party, would have to take these demographics in hand. Joe Heck, the GOP Senate candidate, has distance himself from Trump in particular. However, he's against comprehensive immigration legislation because it is too complicated - i.e. let's build the wall and bring in the Predator drones first, then will talk about what to do with them illegals already here. wink-wink.

I don't think the majority of Hispanics buy that in a normal election; with Trump in this election cycle, even less so.

Longer term, NV is the precursor for states like TX, GA, the Carolinas and others. It's only a matter of time. But it is also why the GOP base is going nuts and doing as much rearguard action as possible. Its why they won't let Obama replace Scalia. Obama could nominate someone with a Hispanic surname to make that even more abundantly clear for those with any doubt as they enter the election booth this November.

Originally Posted by playwrite

So far my "knock out" predictions have been spot on.

With the big win in SC, we can safely put aside Mike's "Trumps a Loser!" scenario. NH could have been an earlier call for this, but SC nails it. Trump's in for the long haul. As expected, it knocked out Bush just like NH knocked out Christie. Carson should have left as well, but, well, his candidacy is weird; he'll likely leave at some point but it will be barely noticed and not really a knockout as much as a whimper in the corner somewhere. No knockout for Kasich as expected.

The Dems in NV proved to be the nothin-burger as expected since only a clear Sanders win would have been a likely knockout for Clinton. The rumor of Sanders taking a significant Latino vote proved much less than what it was, but it is something to watch as early as Colorado on Super Tuesday.

Coming up, Donald's win in NV will be near meaningless other than slowly adding to his delegate count which will be the story as the season progresses (ala 08 Obama keeping 100 delegates ahead of Clinton no matter what). The media is trying to make something of the Mormon vote going to Cruz or Rubio, but its really just another nothin burger. If Cruz, but particularly Rubio, makes it close in NV, its not a knock out for Trump but it does make latter events less certain.

Clinton taking SC big is not a knockout for Sanders but it can be considered a big stagger that he will likely not recover from. He makes it within 10 percentage points, however, then his eventual knockout becomes less certain.

The big potential knockouts on Super Tuesday for the GOP is Cruz losing TX and Rubio losing VA. Cruz will be clearly knocked out with a TX lost. Rubio will likely carry on with a VA loss but as a zombie. What would be most interesting is they both loss these two states and become zombies joined at the hip, trying to eat each others' dead brains and hearts. Trump would only be knocked out if he doesn't win any state, but would be looking good if he wins just half, sliding scale between these.

Kasich will hang in until March 8 Michigan, which if he comes in close 2nd, he will survive; a 3rd or worse showing and he's gone. An earlier Super Tuesday poor 3rd or 4th in VA would be the handwriting on the wall to watch for.

For Dems, the only possible knockout for Sanders on Super Tuesday would be a lost in Mass. If the MA lost is big (doubtful), he's gone; if its close or actually wins, he is a strong survivor. Clinton becomes questionable only if she doesn't take 1/2 the states.

Super Tuesday has too big of an impact on the GOP side to move past it other than for Kasich. So I'll hold off on that.

On the Dem side, if Bernie takes or is close in Mass., even if Clinton takes more than half the states on Super Tuesday, Michigan looms very large for both. If one wins by more than 10%, it is over for the other. If closer, then it is on to BIG March 15.

The combination of uncertainty from Super Tuesday and Michigan for Dems makes it too much to capture scenarios for March 15 other than saying regardless of outcomes, the knockout for one of the two Dems is very unlikely to go beyond that date - essentially the nomination will most likely be over for the Dems two weeks from now if not sooner. That's going to be necessary to deal with all the PUMAs out there, particularly if Clinton wins it.

It's all about the ABT (Anyone Besides Trump) vote now.

If ABT on the GOP side actually got their act together (but too much herding cats factor thus far for that) then if not knocked out, Trump would be made to fight for every delegate he can get from Super Tuesday onward.

Failing that, he wins the nomination then ABT goes national.

Result of that is, whoever wins the Dem nomination is our next President.

BTW - I am not a Democrat and am ABT. And I'm not "Establishment" either. But Trump is not the answer for Anti-Establishment concerns. Those who naively follow him due to their disdain for The Establishment would be sorely disappointed if he ever became an actual political leader. For me it's a no brainer - ABT! Sanders is no worry for me. I would rather have a Democratic Socialist than a monster like Trump. Heck I'd rather have a half dead character like O'Malley or any one of the now defunct Dem candidates than Trump. Trump would be the greatest disaster ever to befall the Presidency. And yes I even include people like the 1st President Johnson (the 19th Century one) in this statement.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Here's a good summary of a report on the changing demographics in NV -

https://www.americanprogressaction.o...-demographics/

and an excerpt -

In Nevada, voters of color comprise a larger portion of the electorate each year
From 2012 to 2016, voters of color will jump from 36 percent of the state’s electorate to 39.4 percent.
Asian American eligible voters will reach 11 percent of the Nevada electorate in 2016.
If the Latino vote share sees the same growth as is projected for the share of Latino eligible voters, more than one in five voters in the state in 2016, or 21.2 percent, will be Latino for the first time ever, up from 19 percent in 2012.

Based on demographic projections, Nevada may become more and more difficult—though not impossible—for a Republican presidential candidate to win
In 2004, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry had a 21-percentage-point advantage over Republican candidate George W. Bush among Latino voters, leading 60 percent to 39 percent. In 2012, Democratic candidate Barack Obama won 71 percent of Latino votes while Republican Mitt Romney received 24 percent, a 47-point margin.
If Democrats are able to hold onto these high levels of support from voters of color and turnout rates remain the same in 2016, the Democratic margin of victory in Nevada could increase nearly 3 percentage points, yielding a Democratic victory of 54.6 percent to Republicans’ 44.2 percent in the presidential election.

If Democrats are unable to retain their high levels of support from voters of color and if Republicans are able to regain their higher support levels from voters of color from 2004 as well as their high support levels from white voters from 2012, Republicans would see the 2016 presidential race in Nevada tighten up in their favor. Even in this scenario, however, the state may remain hard to win for Republicans, with 51.8 percent of the vote going to Democrats and 48.1 percent to Republicans.

Of course, that's from the viewpoint of the Presidential race. Obviously a Senator from NV, regardless of party, would have to take these demographics in hand. Joe Heck, the GOP Senate candidate, has distance himself from Trump in particular. However, he's against comprehensive immigration legislation because it is too complicated - i.e. let's build the wall and bring in the Predator drones first, then will talk about what to do with them illegals already here. wink-wink.

I don't think the majority of Hispanics buy that in a normal election; with Trump in this election cycle, even less so.

Longer term, NV is the precursor for states like TX, GA, the Carolinas and others. It's only a matter of time. But it is also why the GOP base is going nuts and doing as much rearguard action as possible. Its why they won't let Obama replace Scalia. Obama could nominate someone with a Hispanic surname to make that even more abundantly clear for those with any doubt as they enter the election booth this November.

There's nothing wrong with your reasoning. It only lacks quantitative justification. I have built much rigidity into my model.

Still an open seat. This all makes sense, but it is not enough to force a change in my system. Demographics shape elections, but I my projections for the Senate err, if anything, on the side of caution. I am confident enough that Senators Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) are goners because they barely got elected in a wave election and are up for election in states that usually either vote decisively D in normal elections (IL, where Republicans can win in the wake of a scandal or distress when the Democrats are in charge), or Wisconsin (where this time the Republican Party is losing its credibility as shown in approvals not only for Senator Johnson but also the Governor). They badly fit their states and have excellent opponents.

When I see a poll with the likely Democratic nominee having a decisive lead over his likely Republican opponents I will take Nevada out of the toss-up category, in which case you also have an explanation. Nevada gets polled very little. How little? In 2008 Barack Obama won the state by double digits and hardly anyone saw that possibility.

My method depends entirely upon polling evidence or (when such is unavailable) the apparent certainty of a politician winning his state because of the historical reality of the state or absence of a credible opponent. For example, I thought that the Democrats had a slight chance of winning a Senate seat in Alaska if everything went right for them -- including the former Senator defeated in 2014 running for the seat of Lisa Murkowski. Because former Senator Begich is not running for the seat, I see little way for the Democrats to win the seat even if some nutcase defeats Senator Murkowski in a primary. The incumbent Senator in South Dakota was unopposed until a some Democrat who had never run for a seat 'higher' than a school board seat was running against him. A school board is not a springboard to the Senate. California is about as sure as anything could be because the likely race will be between two Democrats -- heads, a Democrat wins, and tails the Republicans lose. In general any elected politician with an approval rating of 45% or higher is going to win, although he will have to campaign to seal the win if his approval is between 45% and 49%. Around 43% or 44% an incumbent has about a 50-50 chance and might barely get re-elected after a spirited and effective campaign against the usual challenger in a State in which his Party has a chance. Under 43% more and more things must go right, like the politician's state being generally easy for his Party. Under 40%? Everything must go right -- hospitable state for the Party, weak opposition, excellent economic conditions, and favorable demographics.

Nevada has an open seat, and it has about a 50-50 chance of electing Democrats and Republicans in most elections. There is no clear candidate on either side, so that says 50-50 to me... until I see statistical evidence to the contrary.

Can my assessment change? Sure. So far I see octogenarian Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) as an overwhelming favorite in Iowa, a fairly liberal state. But if he is connected to obstructionism that denies a chance for President Obama to nominate and get a vote for a vacant Supreme Court seat, that assessment can go obsolete very fast. If the "50" approval drops to a "37", then his chance of being re-elected could go from overwhelming to practically nil. But I show the latest reality and not some long-term trend.