Reader Comments
The weak to strong is easy. Thats Ensign vs Carter in Nevada. Not sure why it was "weak" in the first place.
If I had to guess on the change party, I would pick Kennedy vs Klobucher in Minnessota.
RE: CA CD-50:
I posted excepts on the thread below, from an analysis of the Bilbray/Busby race. The column ran in yesterday's Washington Times.
Michigan should change to weak Republican for Governor.
Weak Republican gain in Michigan governor
Weak to Strong Pennsylvania governor
Minnesota will go Republican for Senate.
I would say weak to strong for Pennsylvania; change parties will be Michigan gov (dem hold to rep gain)
It continues to amaze me how many people think Kennedy has an advantage over Klobuchar in Minnesota....apparently because outsiders think Kennedy's profile as a Congressman makes him an instant frontrunner over a local officeholder. Certainly there has not been a shred of tangible evidence indicating a Kennedy advantage.
I still have a hard time believing the sleazy pyramid scheme guru of Amway can overcome Granholm in Michigan once the mountains of dirt start burying him. It's nonetheless scary how a snake-oil peddler like DeVos can pull off a marginal lead simply with glossy and unanswered ad buys. Just goes to show there's a significant percentage of the population who can be fooled repeatedly.
I say weak to strong is the NV senate as well, and I'll pull a wildcard and say the flip is AZ-08 going to the Dems, seeing as the senate race seems to be tightening and Dems will handily will Gov
Weak GOP to Strong GOP: Nevada Senate
Party Change: AZ-8 (I've had this as a weak Dem gain for a while; Graf has fared poorly against both Dem challengers and I haven't heard any other significant Repubs running for this swing district)
i would guess PA. senate would go to
stong democratic gain and possibly one of the pa. house seats may flip democratic.
MN. has no favorite, and most of the other senate and gov races are about the same.also i would say calif. is a tossup or maybe a slight democratic gain again.
I'll agree with the Nevada weak to strong. I'm not as up to date on the house races, but i might guess Iowa governor going back to Dem Hold from Rep gain. I also have an inclination that Brown will beat DeWine in Ohio and the Governator is on the outs in California but the races are too close to warrant a switch in prediction.
this may not have occured to scott but Murkowski is running for re-election in alaska and knowles may jump in, i would think if murkowski is the gop candidate he will lose.
Alaska should change to weak democratic gain.i think it`s still to early in michigan, granholm isn`t advertising yet, i think she`ll get re-elected by a small margin .
I'm in on the weak to strong in PA Senate and I'll say the flip is in the Iowa Gov race to weak Dem gain.
i think ca-50 should be a weak gop hold at best.also i think calif. should go back to a weak democratic gain.the polls are dead even
Greetings from the Sunshine State!
I think my beloved Dem Party is down for the count here. We've lost every state wide office; both houses of the state legislature.
My party really BITES!
An objective appraisal from a fla dem activist.
I think PA is the weak to strong change, and Iowa is the flip
As a resident of Iowa, flipping the IA-Gov race to Dems would be premature. There's no guarantee that Chet Culver will even be the Democratic nominee and from everything I've seen he isn't as good of a politician as Nussle. Given that Nussle's home turf is the most Democratic part of Iowa, the Democratic candidate (be it Culver, Blouin, or Fallon) will have to pull off an inside straight to win this race.
New Jersey Swnate Weak GOP.
Probably not what Scott is thinking, but switch could be McKaskill in MO, given Talent's drop in SUSA net approval poll this month.
Also, VADM Sestak has closed to 4 points -- is Curt Weldon "moderately vulnerable" yet? His district did go for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.
http://www.delcotimes.com/site/i...9&PAG=461&
rfi=9
Well, we have to assume that the race rating changes are happening due to the results of recent polls. As a result, things like MN Senate probably aren't the pick - even though it could change before November.
Weak-to-Strong candidates:
Nebraska Senate, Nevada Senate, Pennsylvania Governor
Party Switch cadidates:
Illinois governor, Iowa governor, New Jersey Senate
I'd guess the weak-to-strong is either Nevada Senate or Pennsylvania Senate.
The party change will be Iowa governor.
I live in AZ 8 and I am not aware of any polls that show any results for either the primaries or for general matchups (outside of internal polling by the candidates). I wouldn't be so quick to write of the anti-illegal imigration candidate in a district that voted 57% to support prop 200. There is a reason that Kolbe chose not to run this year.
A mainstream poll for this race would definately be illuminating.
could be MO Senate from weak GOP hold to weak DEM gain
David, i doubt it,that race is pretty much a tossup with most polls
showing talent up by a couple.that
would be nice, that`s a must win for the dems.
"Minnesota will go Republican for Senate."
I think that Kennedy is just too far to the right to win in Minnesota. I just don't see two Republican Senators from Minnesota.
Minnesota changes to Weak Dem Gain.
Iowa changes to Weak Dem Hold.
Jimi
Huh? you talking about the Senate?
"Huh? you talking about the Senate?"
Governor
Guess I'll go with my next-most-likely-to-switch seat. Iowa will flip to the Dems.
Jimi,
Be honest. You didn't think there would be one Minnesota republican senator.
"Be honest. You didn't think there would be one Minnesota republican senator."
The one there now is a fairly moderate to liberal Republican who had only switched to the GOP a couple years before the election. Kennedy is much further to the right.
Great duck! but... Answer his question?
this will not be the year for states to switch from democratic to republican .i just get the feeling the gop is going to lose every close race!
Jimi?
Still waiting.
I was betting on Coleman in MN after the Wellstone Memorial. Heck, I was on barely predicting a Wellstone win before the plane crash. But comparing Coleman's victory in the political climate of 2002 to the election of a second, more conservative Republican Senator is the less GOP-hospitable year of 2006 is folly.
Mark
Let me explain your FABULOUS & DOCUMENTED(!) predictive ability, with reference to CA CD-50, OK?
1) If Bilbray wins, you'll post "I called this one 2 weeks ago, when I said RIGHT HERE that Bilbray would likely win!"
2) If Busby wins, you'll post: "I was the first to get this one right! Two weeks ago, I posted RIGHT HERE that 'No-one will be surprised when Busby wins," AND! AND! AND! "I EVEN cited the poll showing Busby 7 points ahead, according to the respected Lake Partners polling firm!!"
Y|opu win, I lose, right|? No matter WHAT ACTUALLY happens!
You're an absolute friggin' predictive GENIUS, Mark! No wonder you dismiss inferiors... that lame Barone! ... that poltroon Jay Cost!
mnw, I'm calling the race for Bilbray....period. If Busby wins, I'll be happy....but wrong.
mnw, and I did a little Internet searching today and came across some of Cost's previous spot-on predictions. It was the fall of 2004, and he was profiling Minnesota and Cost was citing a non-existent poll suggesting Kerry was getting gobsmacked in rural Minnesota. Specifically, he referred to 10 rural Minnesota counties (Big Stone, Lac qui Parle, Swift, Lincoln, Fillmore, Winona, Pine, Aitkin, Itasca, and Cook) that went for Gore, but which he "seriously doubted would go for Kerry". He was right....on two of them. Aitkin and Lincoln Counties indeed went for Bush. Meanwhile, rural Minnesota counties such as Kittson, Norman, Mahnomen, Chippewa, Beltrami, Koochiching, Nicollet, and Blue Earth Counties which went for Bush in 2000 went for Kerry in 2004. Oops!
What does this small case study prove? Not alot, other than the fact that Jay Cost clearly knows nothing about Minnesota if he really believed that Itasca, Lac qui Parle, and Swift Counties were gonna be voting for George Bush in 2004. But that little nugget itself speaks volumes of his overreliance on blind faith to the benefit of his own team. I would never presume to "very much doubt" the chances of specific counties to vote the way they have for decades in states hundreds or thousands of miles away from my familiarity zone.
The same amount of blind faith seems to color his work across the board, including his failure to recognize the relevance of the white-hot immigration issue in the CA-50 special election....and his assumption that historical precedent assures that because the Dems have virtually no chance of taking the Senate this year, they'll also have no chance of taking the House because they two always swing together when they swing (except apparently in 1980 when the Senate swung GOP and the House stayed Dem....even though that slipped completely beneath his radar). He does make some astute observations and he's better than most of the armchair pundits at the Washington Post and other clueless MSM venues, but for every solid point he makes, he allows blind faith in his own team to hijack his own credibility on his next set of less professional predictions.
PA strong Dem hold...Nevada strong GOP hold...California Governor weak Dem gain...Iowa's still going strong for Nussle in my opinion...I'd love to see Ohio go blue, but there's only been one poll...remember there'll be more than just the two so I'm thinking some more interesting changes will occur.
My pick is Nevada Senate weak to Strong Hold and Iowa Governor to go to Weak Dem Hold
I've been saying Iowa will likely go with Culver since day 1. Nussle have been fairly popular as a congressman, but as a governor, that's a different story. Plus, using your formula, and whatwith no poll within the past....3 months(?) showing Nussle with any lead whatsoever. And unlike Mark, I really don't think it's premature, considering Culver's almost always had a lead in dozens of polls, even if small, and Nussle has had maybe one or two where it's been a 1-2 point lead. Hopefully you've come to your senses on this one.
Iowa Govenor switch from GOp to DEM. Culver is leading in every single poll
Weak to Strong, PA Govenor. Rendell has pulled out to large leads in several polls, and now has a 62% approval rating.
Maryland Governor goes from weak to strong and Iowa changes from GOP to dems.
Iowa is definitely one them. I've seen several polls showing Culver leading.
Nevada to strong GOP, and maybe Pennsylvania to strong DEM.
OK mnw, I will admit I had originally predicted the popular Wellstone to hold Minnesota, but his death changed things. Even after that I had predicted Mondale to hold it for him, since he did lead in most of the polls up until the election.
MN will not put Kennedy in the Senate. All the DFL has to do is point out 2 things in the race:
1) His sleazy campaign in 2004 against Patty Wetterling.
2) His campaign ad from 2004 of him walking hand in hand with Bush.
the anti-Bush sentimant alone has him beat, but the fact that he is a sleazy politician won't help either. And in 2008, Coleman's going down as well. His "I'm 100 times a better Senator than Paul Wellstone ever was" comment is his undoing. We Minnesotan's have always wanted independant thinkers. People who stand for what they believe in. Paul Wellstone and Jesse Ventura are two excellent examples. They may have had views that differed from the mainstream, but they had conviction and didn't change because of the political climate. Kennedy and Coleman are your typical politicians. They have no chance.
commonSense, as an almost lifelong Minnesotan, I'm skeptical to the chances of defeating Norm Coleman in 2008. It depends on the candidate the DFL chooses to challenge him. If they go with Al Franken, I'm not liking our chances. Even without Franken, Coleman's the kind of Republican who still plays in second-ring suburbs (Minnetonka, Bloomington, Eagan), the kinds of places where Democrats now have to win if they plan to win statewide.
I admit I don't know much about Minnesota politics, but I'm definitely not counting on Franken beating Coleman either. If Betty McCollum runs, then we may have an interesting race on our hands here.
I'd be surprised if Franken is serious about a bid. I think McCollum will probably get the 2008 nod from the MN DFL.
Mark, you're right that Coleman has played well to the South and East suburbs, but even with that, he barely squeaked out a win in 2002. He won't have Faux news claiming a memorial as a campaign party to save him in 2008. Plus, he's very closely tied to Bush. If Bush can't turn around his administration, Coleman will go down.
BTW - If Scott placed MN in a GOP gain category, that will show, at least to me, that he is unable to keep his bias seperate from the data. Already, his data seems to be significantly skewed in the GOP favor. Although I don't see the Dems taking over both houses of Congress, I do see significant gains for them in both the Senate and the house. I'm thinking the Senate will go 50 - 52 Reps, and the House somewhere in the 213 - 215 range. But, if Bush continues the way he's been going, come Nov, I can see both the house and senate going blue.
One thing I will say about this election cycle, and possibly the next, is that I see far better gains for the Dems in the State houses, which should set them up nicely for the 2010 redistricting.
House 213 - 215 Dem that is.
Common sense
At first Scott made his various projections and thenits formula based. Now because their isn't enough data yet ( and we have only had a handful of Primaries) only a handful of states are based off the forumla. While I disagree with some of his projections, Scott is generally fair about his changes and only makes changes when the available data supports a change. Their is no data to show that a change should be made to MN so I doubt Scott will make the change there. I think the change will be Iowa Gov to Dem & PA Gov to strong Dem hold/
Common Sense-Don't forget that 2002 was also a very big year for the GOP. Since 9/11 had happened only a year earlier, Bush and the GOP were able to effectively exploit the climate of fear and yet Coleman still only won by the skin of his teeth.
"I'm thinking the Senate will go 50 - 52 Reps, and the House somewhere in the 213 - 215 range. "
I think an outcome like that would really be the best for the nation. An almost perfectly evenly divided legislative branch, yet still giving the President's party majority status.
Coleman won by about 50,000 votes.....just a little less than what Al Gore won by two years earlier. It was close, but not THAT close.
Scott
The weekend is almost over!! When are the changes coming?
For the record, I bet that my homestate of PA will be one of the 2 changes. I think that Casey and Rendell have strengthened their position in the past month.
I think that the party switch will be the Senate seat in OH.
The suspense is killing us Scott. Let us know.
The weekend's over. Can we see the changes, please? I'm sure we're all very excited to see them...
It was a long weekend - sorry about the delay!! 
Commenting by HaloScan
