As something of a pessimist when it comes to predictions, I'm always glad to be wrong. Last week, I predicted a narrow win for Obama. But the President won the Electoral College handily, 332-206, verses my prediction of 290-248. And I was two seats too negative about the Senate, which I predicted to be split 53-47. I was about right with the popular vote, which Obama won 50.3% to 48.1% to 2.6% (mainly for Gary Johnson), verses my prediction of 50% to 49% to 1%.
Unfortunately, I was several seats too positive about the House, as the Democrats only picked up seven seats in the House of Representatives. I predicted a 230-208 split, but the final result looks like it will be 235 to 200 (barring any flips during a recount, which is unlikely). The Republicans appear to have done a very good job of protecting their candidates during the 2011-2012 redistricting process. This will make actually governing the country even harder than I expected, because the remaining Republicans will have even less reason to fear the displeasure of their constituents. Another reason Republicans won't worry about reelection in 2014 is that there is a historical pattern of the president's party losing House seats in mid-term elections. I haven't looked at the details yet, but I am fairly sure that none of the Republican freshman are moderates, so the caucus will be even more radical. All this points to gridlock no matter how many generous offers of compromise Obama makes.
I'll be happy to be wrong about my prediction of gridlock, though it will take a bit longer than a week to see the outcome.
Showing posts with label House. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Odds of Sods: November 2012 Edition
In the three preceding post I have made my predictions for the outcomes of the contests for the Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Below is how I see the cycle as a whole. The second best outcome, which preserves the status quo, is also the most likely. The very best outcome - full Democratic control - is the third most likely. Unfortunately, the sixth best (or third worst) outcome is the second most likely. The chances of the other outcomes are very low at this point, as it would mean that people predicted two or more of the three contests wrong. Modern polling is reasonably good, and there are enough of them for the Presidency and Senate that the degree of confidence for individual contests is fairly high. The House is a little more dicey, as there aren't as many polls for individual races. In fact, most professional poll crunchers avoid the House altogether, and others look just at the overall picture. The redistricting process creates some additional uncertainty in the meaning of the generic congressional ballot, but I still think it indicates moderate gains for the Democrats, if not as many as I'd like. But, overall, I think Democrats should be moderately pleased at the end of next Tuesday night.
| Outcome | Legislative Outlook | Implication for County | Odds of Happening | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democrats | Republicans | (1 = best/highest, 8 = lowest/worst) | ||
| President, Senate, House | - | Slow advance | 1 | 3 |
| President, Senate | House | Neutral | 2 | 1 |
| President, House | Senate | Neutral | 3 | 6 |
| President | Senate, House | Slow retreat | 4 | 4 |
| Senate, House | President | Fast retreat | 5 | 7 |
| Senate | President, House | Fast retreat | 6 | 2 |
| House | President, Senate | Fast retreat | 7 | 8 |
| - | President, Senate, House | The Apocalypse | 8 | 5 |
435 Creepy Critters: November 2012 Edition
As is the case every two years, every member of the House of Representatives is up for re-election in 2012. Below is what I think (as of now, November 1st) the outcome on November 6 will be. I have been somewhat optimistic in my analysis, but even if it is accurate, the Democrats will fall short, leaving the Republicans with a slim 230-205 majority and an even more radical caucus. That situation will not be good for legislation I think should be passed, as the Republicans will double down on obstructionism, hoping to duplicate the 2010 election in 2014.
I'm not going to break out individual races for the House because I just don't have the patience to document the 80 or so races that are somewhat competitive, or better. At a higher level, the states to watch are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New York. Those 10 states have the most competitive races. States definitely not to watch are Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wyoming. There no competitive races in those 18 states. The remaining 22 have either only 1 competitive race, or races that are only somewhat competitive.
Because 2012 is a redistricting year, I have included a column for the change in the number of seats each state holds. I have also broken the "swing" into two separate columns because, with redistricting, one party's gains in a state don't always equal the other party's losses.
* - I have added the five currently vacant seats to the party of the previous officeholder.
I'm not going to break out individual races for the House because I just don't have the patience to document the 80 or so races that are somewhat competitive, or better. At a higher level, the states to watch are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New York. Those 10 states have the most competitive races. States definitely not to watch are Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wyoming. There no competitive races in those 18 states. The remaining 22 have either only 1 competitive race, or races that are only somewhat competitive.
Because 2012 is a redistricting year, I have included a column for the change in the number of seats each state holds. I have also broken the "swing" into two separate columns because, with redistricting, one party's gains in a state don't always equal the other party's losses.
| 2011-12 Democratic Seats * | 2011-12 Republican Seats * | Change in Seats | Comp. Races | 2013-14 Democratic Seats | 2013-14 Republican Seats | Net Democratic Change | Net Republican Change | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 1 | 6 | 1 | 6 | ||||
| Alaska | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Arizona | 3 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 2 | -1 |
| Arkansas | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 | -1 | 1 | ||
| California | 34 | 19 | 11 | 37 | 16 | 3 | 3 | |
| Colorado | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | -1 | |
| Connecticut | 5 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | |||
| Delaware | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| Florida | 6 | 19 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 17 | 4 | -2 |
| Georgia | 5 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 10 | -1 | 2 |
| Hawaii | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||||
| Idaho | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||||
| Illinois | 8 | 11 | -1 | 6 | 13 | 5 | 5 | -6 |
| Indiana | 3 | 6 | 2 | 7 | -1 | 1 | ||
| Iowa | 3 | 2 | -1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | -1 | |
| Kansas | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | ||||
| Kentucky | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 4 | |||
| Louisiana | 1 | 6 | -1 | 1 | 5 | -1 | ||
| Maine | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |||
| Maryland | 6 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 1 | -1 | |
| Massachusetts | 10 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | -2 | 1 |
| Michigan | 6 | 9 | -1 | 3 | 6 | 8 | -1 | |
| Minnesota | 4 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 1 | -1 | |
| Mississippi | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | ||||
| Missouri | 3 | 6 | -1 | 2 | 6 | -1 | ||
| Montana | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
| Nebraska | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||||
| Nevada | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | -1 |
| New Hampshire | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | -2 | |
| New Jersey | 7 | 6 | -1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | -1 | |
| New Mexico | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||
| New York | 21 | 8 | -2 | 8 | 22 | 5 | 1 | -3 |
| North Carolina | 7 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 10 | -4 | 4 | |
| North Dakota | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Ohio | 5 | 13 | -2 | 5 | 11 | -2 | ||
| Oklahoma | 1 | 4 | 0 | 5 | -1 | 1 | ||
| Oregon | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | ||||
| Pennsylvania | 7 | 12 | -1 | 4 | 6 | 12 | -1 | |
| Rhode Island | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |||
| South Carolina | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | ||
| South Dakota | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Tennessee | 2 | 7 | 2 | 7 | ||||
| Texas | 9 | 23 | 4 | 2 | 12 | 24 | 3 | 1 |
| Utah | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | -1 | 2 |
| Vermont | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| Virginia | 3 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 8 | |||
| Washington | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 1 | |
| West Virginia | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
| Wisconsin | 3 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 5 | |||
| Wyoming | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Totals | 193 | 242 | 0 | 205 | 230 | 12 | -12 |
* - I have added the five currently vacant seats to the party of the previous officeholder.
Friday, September 28, 2012
435 Creepy Critters: October 2012 Edition
As is the case every two years, every Representative in the House is up for re-election in 2012. Below is what I think (as of now, September 28) the outcome in November will be. I have been somewhat optimistic in my analysis, but even if it is accurate, the Democrats will fall short, leaving the Republicans with a slim majority and an even more radical caucus. That situation will not be good for legislation I think should be passed, as the Republicans will double down on obstructionism, hoping to duplicate the 2010 election in 2014. However, momentum seems to be with the Democrats right now, so the final count could be better than what I expect.
I'm not going to break out individual races for the House because I just don't have the patience to document the 80 or so races that are somewhat competitive, or better. At a higher level, the states to watch are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New York. Those 10 states have the most competitive races. States definitely not to watch are Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wyoming. There no competitive races in those 18 states. The remaining 22 have either only 1 competitive race, or races that are only somewhat competitive.
Because 2012 is a redistricting year, I have included a column for the change in the number of seats each state holds. I have also broken the "swing" into two separate columns because, with redistricting, one party's gains in a state doesn't always equal the other party's losses.
I'm not going to break out individual races for the House because I just don't have the patience to document the 80 or so races that are somewhat competitive, or better. At a higher level, the states to watch are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New York. Those 10 states have the most competitive races. States definitely not to watch are Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wyoming. There no competitive races in those 18 states. The remaining 22 have either only 1 competitive race, or races that are only somewhat competitive.
Because 2012 is a redistricting year, I have included a column for the change in the number of seats each state holds. I have also broken the "swing" into two separate columns because, with redistricting, one party's gains in a state doesn't always equal the other party's losses.
| 2011-12 Democratic Seats |
2011-12 Republican Seats |
Change in Seats |
Comp. Races |
2013-14 Democratic Seats |
2013-14 Republican Seats |
Net Democratic Change |
Net Republican Change | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 1 | 6 | 1 | 6 | ||||
| Alaska | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Arizona | 3 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 2 | -1 |
| Arkansas | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 | -1 | 1 | ||
| California | 34 | 19 | 11 | 39 | 14 | 5 | -5 | |
| Colorado | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | -1 | |
| Connecticut | 5 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | |||
| Delaware | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| Florida | 6 | 19 | 2 | 6 | 11 | 16 | 5 | -3 |
| Georgia | 5 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 10 | -1 | 2 |
| Hawaii | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||||
| Idaho | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||||
| Illinois | 8 | 11 | -1 | 6 | 13 | 5 | 5 | -6 |
| Indiana | 3 | 6 | 2 | 7 | -1 | 1 | ||
| Iowa | 3 | 2 | -1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | -1 | |
| Kansas | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | ||||
| Kentucky | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 4 | |||
| Louisiana | 1 | 6 | -1 | 1 | 5 | -1 | ||
| Maine | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |||
| Maryland | 6 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 1 | -1 | |
| Massachusetts | 10 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | -1 | |
| Michigan | 6 | 9 | -1 | 3 | 6 | 8 | -1 | |
| Minnesota | 4 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 1 | -1 | |
| Mississippi | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | ||||
| Missouri | 3 | 6 | -1 | 2 | 6 | -1 | ||
| Montana | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
| Nebraska | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||||
| Nevada | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | -1 |
| New Hampshire | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | -2 | |
| New Jersey | 7 | 6 | -1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | -1 | |
| New Mexico | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||
| New York | 21 | 8 | -2 | 8 | 23 | 4 | 2 | -4 |
| North Carolina | 7 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 10 | -4 | 4 | |
| North Dakota | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Ohio | 5 | 13 | -2 | 6 | 10 | 1 | -3 | |
| Oklahoma | 1 | 4 | 0 | 5 | -1 | 1 | ||
| Oregon | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | ||||
| Pennsylvania | 7 | 12 | -1 | 4 | 6 | 12 | -1 | |
| Rhode Island | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |||
| South Carolina | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | ||
| South Dakota | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Tennessee | 2 | 7 | 2 | 7 | ||||
| Texas | 9 | 23 | 4 | 2 | 12 | 24 | 3 | 1 |
| Utah | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |
| Vermont | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| Virginia | 3 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 8 | |||
| Washington | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 1 | |
| West Virginia | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
| Wisconsin | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | -1 | |
| Wyoming | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Totals | 193 | 242 | 0 | 213 | 222 | 20 | -20 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)