I work with surveys a lot. Please give me an opportunity to make House Projections based on the final polls of each pollster.

I'll let this thread go for a while... hopefully commenters keep the bs and spin to a minimum, please.

OK. No comments or bias here from me. Just reporting strictly based on polls. First polls are reported and then House Projections:

CBS/NY Times: 47-40 R...240R-195D
Gallup-CNN: 51-46 R...230R-205D
Pew Research:46-44 D...219R-216D
ABC: 5-49D..221R-214D

So, this is the range based on converting the poll results to numbers. Needless to say there would be a lot of people with eggs on their faces late tuesday and early wednesday.

Laters polls on NH Senate (October 31-November 2):

Public Opinion Research: Shaheen 47.3-Sununu 45.5

USA Today/CNN: Sununu 46-Shaheen 45

Concord Monitor Shaheen 47-Sununu 46.

Latest polls on TX Senate

Dallas Morning News: Kirk 41, Cornyn 50
Houston Chronicle: Kirk 39, Cornyn 45
NBCi5 (Dallas Station) Cornyn 43, Kirk 40.
NBC poll taken 10/31-11-2 Cornyn 43.5, Kirk 43.5.
Zogby Cornyn 49, Kirk 48
The national and Texas press will be eating crow when my former mayor Ron Kirk wins the Senate in Texas. Kudos to Cook for at least being nervous about leaning Cornyn.

The Gallup model for predicting turnout is highly flawed, because it depends so much on "voter intensity". In 2000, it produced wild swings of 8-10 % in a single week. Statistical analyses at the time posted on the internet showed 90% of the fluctuations were just noise generated by the model.

Check these two sites out about the Gallup accuracy in 2000:

http://www.pollingreport.com/election.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/05/tracking.poll

Based on this the 2000 projection should have been 400 electoral votes for Bush and 135 for Gore.

I just have to say that if Ron Kirk wins the Senate race in Texas he will be a big political star. If Bush wins re-election in 2004 an Edwards/Kirk ticket in 2008 would be unstoppable. First though he needs to win Texas

Mydd,
are the current predictions your final predictions? do you really think Allard is gonna win?

G.C. Raj,

I think the Public Opinion Research poll and the Concord Monitor poll might be the same poll. In the Concord Monitor article it says the poll was conducted by Research 2000. Are Research 2000 and Public Opinion Research the same?

Oh Jesse,
In Minnesota, Ventura Names New Senator
Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura (I) named Dean Barkley (I) as the new interim senator to fill the remaining term of the late Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN). The Minneapolis Star Tribune notes Ventura made the announcement as Walter Mondale (D) and Norm Coleman (R) began their only debate

Concord Monitor is Research 2000. yes. Public Opinion Strategies is a different indy firm. Yes, the numbers are almost identical.

Changing my Senate prediction to 52-47-1 Dem (can we change it?) because I now think Allard is gonna lose.

Anyone see the Mondale-Colemen debate? I think ole Fritz slapped him good but thats just my opinion :)

YOu have about 3 hours to make changes on you predictions, put them in the predictions thread and they will be noted.

I am going with Strickland, will make changes later today on the forecasts.

RWG:

My apologies if I had been harsh. You are a pretty analytical person and dont let your biases affect your judgements. Do you have any late tracking polls on Allard? Or do you live in Colorado?

Well, for testing fluctuations, it's probably not bad (Gallup). I do believe the Mondale replacement has fired up the GOP base some. The real problem though is their projected turnouts for the midterms-- 7% advantage Republicans.

They are positing that the '02 dynamics in terms of partisan make-up, will mirror the '94 turnout model; Gallup is positing that there is not anti-Bush vote; and last, but not least, they are positing that there is not economic downturn that punishes the incumbent party-- that it disappeared within the last two weeks!

MyDD:

Their predictions in the last two elections '98 and '00 have been way off.

MyDD:

...and if anything the polling numbers in individual races are moving the other way:

In CT 2, Simmons is at 46% and Courtney at 41% with 13% undecided. Simmons may still pull this off although under 50% is bad for the incumbent:

http://www.ctnow.com

In NH some polls indicate that both the second and first districts are closing althogh GOP is still likely to win both. Check out politicsnh.com.

In NM in an indy poll Heather Wilson is under 50% against Romero.

Both NM and CT races could depend on the margin of victory in governor's races.

So, if anything the individual races are moving in the opposite direction to what gallup said. Same garbage back in the 2000 Presidential race. Individual state polls were moving in the Dem direction in the final days but the USA Today consistently showed a five to six point Bush lead.

I am quite pleased that the pundits and polls are contradictory or (honestly) stating they have no idea what will happen. The latest ABC poll shows movement in the Democrats' direction, and the new Pew Research poll has Democrats up in the generic balloting. So, some polls will happen to be right (by accident?) and some will be wrong. Pollsters with the GOP favored are saying there is more intensity to vote on their side. Pollsters which use people's past voting record favor Democrats. A voter intensity on the side of the GOP, but not on the side of the Democrats, flies in the face of history. In my view (perhaps jaded by living in California), such predictions seem preposterous on the face of it, but perhaps the results of November 5th will humble us all.

"Humble us all."

Unlikely..expect the same garbage in 2004. Too many good old boys and too arrogant to change.

I don't normal like saying negative things about too many people, but I think Ventura's stunt of announcing the successor at the same time as the debate showed the real lack of class that jerk has. Stunts like this are the reason the people of Minnesota were going to boot him after 1 term.

His behaviour also makes me question his sincerity over his anger with the memorial. I think he was planning to appoint Dean Barkley all along and just needed an exuse to get out of his promise to apppoint a Democrat, a promise that he had little choice but to make initially.

He screwed the people of MN out of seniority and Mondale should blast him for it

Well, the way that MPR used the faulty M-D numbers to exclude Moore, when all the others had him polling higher, was over the top duopoly. I don't blame Ventura a bit, and I like the new Senator (he may be better than Mondale).

Another thing to remember about polls is they have RANDOM fluctuations. Often so-called movement is just margin of error stuff. A 4% margin of error means in a two candidate race, a given poll could be 8% off. In generic polls, which are more frequent, the standard 95% confidence interval also means that 1 out of 20 polls will be be OUTSIDE that margin of error. Not only that some pollsters use only 65% confidence intervals (one standard deviation). That means 1/3 polls are outside the error margin.

In off year polls they would have to get 2000 voters to get 750 likely voters (37% turnout). That necessarily means margin of error is larger or confidence level is smaller.

The CNN voter intensity predictor for voter likelihood is weak compared to other models which use things like, "do you know where your precinct is," etc.

But even the second model underemphasizes GOTV efforts which include rounding people up at nursing homes and bussing them to the polls, etc.

I live in Colorado, and 2 months ago I would have said that Strickland had only a slim chance of beating Allard. These same 2 candidates met in 1996 and Allard won by about 5%. Today it looks like the odds are tilted towards a Strickand win.

The lastest polls I have seen:
Ciruli 42-41 Strickland
RMN 43-39 Stickland
CNN(I think) 46-45 Strickland

This is the 1st Ciruli poll that has had Strickland in the lead.

The approx breakdown of Colo voters is: 36% Rep, 30% Dem, 34% Indep. Polls have shown Independents going for Strickland by about 3-2. Another factor is Libertarian Rick Stanley who is pulling 3-4%, presumably most from Allard.

"So, if anything the individual races are moving in the opposite direction to what gallup said. Same garbage back in the 2000 Presidential race. Individual state polls were moving in the Dem direction in the final days but the USA Today consistently showed a five to six point Bush lead."
Posted by G.C. Raj at November 4, 2002 09:37 AM

Right, and just think how this generic congressional polling flies in the face of the polling being done in the gubernatorial races!

The suggestion that partisans are voting 95-5, and the Independents are split; while the Dems will make gainst of about ~10 Gov seats, at the same time the GOP will gain seats in the House, and tie or takeover the Senate. Somebody is wrong!

Either the GOP is going to not lose anything in the Gov seats, or the Dems are going to make gains in Congress.

Gallup is saying the absurd: That 7% more Republicans are going to vote; and they are going to push up GOP congressional numbers, at the same time that they throw out Republican Governors and elect Democrats.

There is no way that Republicans will outnumber Democrats by 7% NO WAY. IF the GOP is lucky they will be tied in turnout, if 2001 and the 2002 primaries are the trend (and I think they are) the the Dems are going to make gains across the board.

I'd say that polling for CD's has reached an all-time low. There's been not a single poll out on some of these contests that are competitive. So it's guesswork, based on the CD demo's, and the news out on the races.

Every major newspaper has endorsed Bowles, goodbye Liddy, go back to Kansas. Im picking Kirk and Bowles as upset winners.

I also think Republican men will go into the voting boths and vote for Bowles. I think they dont want to say the dont support her. But she is a big fake and is only doing this because the white house said so.

Are we watching the end of polls?

Assume for a minute that MyDD is right, and that the polls are no longer reflecting voter turnout accurately. The fact that hey missed the '98 and '00 Dem turnout surge seems to bear that out (we will know tomorrow if that applies to this year as well).

There are two reasons that could be happening (aside from tin foil stuff): the likely voter models, based on the last two or three elections, are flawed becasue they haven't caught up to the fact that the Dems are fairly energized. As the '00, '98, and '01 elections are factored into the likely voter models, this will correct itself.

Or, and this is what intrigues me, the very process of a telephone poll is now fatally flawed. There have been articles recently about how the response rate for phone polls has plumeted. We could be looking at a situation where only the most rabid partisians are bothering to respond to phone polls, thus preventing the pollsters from getting a real view of how the electorate in general is trending. If thats the case, then polls will become less and less accurate as time goes on.

Or is there something in polling mothedology that elimates that concern?

Just looked at the Pew poll. Numbers for weekend before election are identical for likely voters with results weekend before '98 election---44 Repub and 46 Dem. What happened in "98? Didn't the dems gain? (In '94 the likelies were 48 Repub and 43 Dem.)

Also, the Dem nos. are remarkably consistent at 46-47 with the Repubs from 40-47, but mostly around 44.

The polls were not wrong in 2001. The Republicans had horrible candidates and trailed in VA and NJ all along. There was no surprise when they lost. The GOP candidate in VA actually did a little better than I thought he was going to. Also, the polls in 2000 did pick up the Dem trend. Most polls over the last weekend before the election did show momentum toward Gore. I remember reading them and being very nervous in the final 3 days.

AC:

Not really. The trends were either flat and most showed Bush with at least a three point lead a day before the elections:

www.pollingreport/election.htm

The CNN, Fox and Tarrance Group were the major culprits.

Which Poll?

CNN/USA Today? Tarrance? zogby? ABC? Pew? IPSOS Reid?

Each say something different and yes, this was the same situation in 2000. CNN/USA Today had Bush up by five the day before the elections, ABC had him up by three, Tarrance had him up by six, MSNBC had Gore up by two, Pew was too close to call, CBS called it right, but they released the poll four hours before the polls opened in New Hampshire. The final result was Gore by one half a percentage point in popular vote. So, some polls have to be wrong as CNN was back in 2000 and I think back in 1998. When polls diverge all polls cannot be right. Trending does not matter. CNN showed Bush ahead by 13..its final number was Bush by five. MSNBC had Bush ahead by four in late october and the final number was Gore ahead by two. The final results would determine which poll was on the mark. If the Dems win only 200 seats, my hats off to CNN and pox on Pew. If Dems win more than 205 seats, CNN was way off the mark.

And Mike Bloomberg did better in NYC than the polls predicted, as well. Most polls had Green ahead right up to the last minute.

Also, 2001 wasn't the unmitigated disaster you make it out to be -- Republicans made strong gains in the Virginia legislature despite losing the Governorship, and Republicans didn't yield the New Jersey State Senate despite most experts saying they would (up until the last couple of days). Republicans took a big hit in redistricting and had a bad candidate at the top of the ticket.

All Democratic gains were candidate based, and had nothing to do with a 'wave' preferring one party over the other.

I think trends do matter. If a poll had Bush up 10 a week before and then up by 5 the day before, then that is showing a Dem trend to me. Most polls did that in 2000.

Accuracy matters more.

Mr. Moderate - However, VA redistricting nwas done to guarantee the result you cited; even in a Dem wave, they're not going to win in outer Fairfax, Loudoun, Stafford, Fauquier, Prince William, etc. The New Jersey State Senate only stayed GOP because of a few good candidates, like Diane Allen. It's hard to believe that Republicans were not being dragged down by the Schundler campaign. In NYC, Mark Green lost because he ran a horrible campaign ("Kill it Kill it"). Republicans were lucky in these cases. I think the evidenc eof a Democratic wave lies in their successes in the Mayorships, from LA in the summer to Houston, Minneapolis, Seattle, Dallas, St. Paul, Indianapolis, etc. Most of these are heavily Democratic areas that would never go Republican anyway, but Republicans, including Bush, couldn't get Orlando Sanchez over the top in trying to unseat Lee Brown. That is telling.

"If a poll had Bush up 10 a week before and then up by 5 the day before, then that is showing a Dem trend to me. Most polls did that in 2000."

I don't think the trend was 'real' though, but rather a last minute adjustment by some outfits to make their results conform to what was obviously going on.

Remember that at least a year before the 2000 election, the talking heads were saying that this would be the closest election in history (or at least since Nixon/Kennedy)...even though their own polls were showing butch up by 16-20 points.

Hmmmm.

As far a what polls are most accurate I point to Zogby. He showed Gore winning, and he correctly predicted the winners in the major Senate races. (He called correctly the wins by Carnahan, Cantwell, Stabenow, etc). So I look at his final numbers as likely being most accurate. And his last numbers had it 51 Democrat, 49 Republican-a virtual tie.

http://www.pryor2002.com/11402affi.htm

According to this, the "scandal" attacking Pryor is false. How despicable by the Republicans.

Not very surprising from Tim Hutchinson and his fellow alumni racist thugs from Bob Jones University. Two years ago, Professor James Hand of Bob Jones University accused John McCain of sleeping with a black woman and having a baby. He was talking about McCain's adopted daughter from Bangladesh. Typical.

At one point about a week or so
before the Nov. 2000 election
CNN poll had Bush up by 15?!
Gore won popular vote!

CNN ultimate worthless poll
better off checking tea leaves.

No news from IPSOS-Reid yet?

AC, what I think is interesting is that the polls except Zogby, although they said Gore was catching up, did so late enough and quietly enough that the Gore pop-vote win never entered the Conventional Wisdom.

The Prepublicans are getting awfuly cocky. If they think they are going to take all the branches of the government and break even in the Gov races they are in for a big suprise come tommorrow night.

Well, with the jury still out on SurveyUSA's accuracy, they have released another round of polling. Some of which is really quite interesting.

St. Sen. Brad Henry (D) has pushed farther ahead in the OK gov race...beating former US Rep. Steve Largent (R) and former GOP US Atty Gary Richardson (I) 42-38-17 in the matchup. Wow, who'd have thought this was even possible a few weeks ago???

http://www.surveyusa.com/2002_Elections/OK021031govtrack.pdf

Otherwise, Carnahan (D) up 49%-47% over Tallent (R) in MO. Graham (R) up 49%-48% over Sanders (D); Hodges (D) up 52%-46% over Sanford (R) in SC. Allard (R) up 50%-46% over Strickland (D) in CO. Bush (R) up 51%-46% over McBride (D) in FL. Davis (D) up 45%-39% over Simon (R) in CA...Camejo (G) gets 8%. Sebelius (D) up 51%-44% over Shallenburger (R) in KS. Ehrlich (R) up 51%-46% over Townsend (D) in MD. And, Granholm up 52%-46% over Posthumus (R) in MI.

What a wild election.....

http://www.surveyusa.com/2002_Elections/CA021104govtrack.pdf
http://www.surveyusa.com/2002_Elections/CO021103senatetrack.pdf
http://www.surveyusa.com/2002_Elections/FL021104govtrack.pdf
http://www.surveyusa.com/2002_Elections/KS021103govtrack.pdf
http://www.surveyusa.com/2002_Elections/MD021103govtrack.pdf
http://www.surveyusa.com/2002_Elections/MI021104govtrack.pdf
http://www.surveyusa.com/2002_Elections/MO021103senatetrack.pdf
http://www.surveyusa.com/2002_Elections/SC021104govtrack.pdf

I am literally salivating waiting for the results.

Federalist:

Pretty bizarre. Only poll showing Carnahan ahead. Generally favors incumbents. It must be a joke! Davis up by only six...an even bigger joke. Only poll showing Allard at or 50%. Even CNN has Allard at 47%.

IPSOS-Reid results are in. Likely Voters 46R-44D. 10% undecided as of this afternoon. So, go figure it out yourselves.

"Davis up by only six...an even bigger joke."

I don't see why that's a joke. Especially when the Green candidate is taking 8%.

By the way, this one is for MyDD:

On the predictions 'competition', you mistranscribed my updated Senate result... it's supposed to be 50D/49R (instead of 50R/49D as you have it).

Same joke as the Zogby Poll for the GOP two years ago when Nader took 8 points in the pre-election poll and Gore and Bush were tied at 44-44. Davis by 10. Same baloney.

IPSOS-Reid and CNN clearly demonstrate that when the sample is over 1,000 the generic congressional polls are within the margin of error. Otherwise it is outside the margin of error. CNN had 700 likely voters, with a clear GOP tilt, as did CBS/NY Times with 580 voters also GOP tilt. Pew had over 1,000 likely voters and IPSOS Reid had over 1,000 likely voters with a predicted photo finish. The only exception to this rule is the ABC poll where only 500 likely voters were surveyed with the result close to call. I do not know how they pulled that off.

I think you are greatly underestimate how much Californians REALLY hate Davis. Davis wins -- with under 45% of the vote.

Yes, 44-34.

22% of the vote for third parties? That'd be amazing to see and a hilarious embarassment to both Simon and Davis.

MYDD has an error on his final senate predictions. He's predicting a net gain of 2 for the Dems, ending with a 53-46-1 margin. That's in fact a net gain of 3.

It could happen.

Actually more than 25% for third parties could happen in Minnesota.

MyDD:

Pretty poor analysis by Neal. If the Dems loose only one of the three southern governorships, they would gain at least six governorships and not four as he claims. Dems are ahead in ME, PA, IL, MI, KS, AZ and NM currently held by the GOP. If the Dems loose only one southern governorship, all other toss up races where there are GOP governors including RI, WI, MA has to go GOP based on his analysis for the Dems to gain only four governorships.

MyDD says:

Well, the way that MPR used the faulty M-D numbers to exclude Moore, when all the others had him polling higher, was over the top duopoly. I don't blame Ventura a bit, and I like the new Senator (he may be better than Mondale).

I say:

WTF does MPR have to do with Barkley? Not much, my friend. And you don't blame Ventura a bit? Why not? Ventura's a fool (and a blowhard), in general, and specifically in this case, who appointed Barkley because he (Jesse) was so offended at Wellstone's funeral service. God forbid the Wellstone's should be allowed to conduct the funeral as they see fit, eh? Or maybe you'd like the governor of Minnesota standing judgement on the propriety of *your* funeral, eh? Shit, and I used to respect your judgement, too.

You like Dean Barkley? Dean Barkley reminds me of Jim Hightower's comment about how the only thing in the middle of the road being dead armadillo's. Barkely even looks a bit like an armadillo. So here's *my* sure-fire election 2002 prediction: Dean Barkley's not foing to cover himself with glory, for however long he serves. Take it to the bank.

The middle-of-the-road that Barkley (and Tim Penny, our Independence Party candidate for governor) represent is a what we used to call Republicanism, before the GOP was completely hijacked by fruitcakes. When he was in Congress, Penny's big issue was "fiscal conservatism" i.e. balancing the budget, which suited Ronald Reagan and GW Bush just fine. (It took Clinton to actually *balance* the budget, and Dubya only a few months to unbalance it again).

Barkley I don't remember much about (he's been a minor figure here in MN for awhile) except that he's cut from the same mold as Penny and Ventura; i.e. not very smart, but pretending to be so--he even wrote a book, once (I read it--it sucked). Maybe today they'd call themselves compassionate conservatives; I call them as little as possible and not at all for dinner.

You can have Ventura, Penny, AND Barkley, and welcome, as soon as I find a box big enough to ship them to you in, and get permission to mail noxious waste.

--Adam from Minnesota

Adam--

So, do you think Pawlenty is more moderate? Everyone here in Washington thinks that Coleman and Pawlenty are going to win. What is the situation on the ground over there?

Mydd:

You say that in 2000 the House virtually stayed status quo, and the Senate moved in the opposite direction. Is it possible that the GOP gains House seats thanks to Alabama, CT and Indiana where they may be doing well, while the Senate moves slightly in the opposite direction and the Dems sweep the govrnorships?

G.C. Raj:

Nah, Pawlenty's a jerk. Is he worse than Coleman? Well, Coleman's the undead, if you ask me--a man who sold out any and all convictions to run for office. City Pages (www.citypages.org) had an article a week or two ago about what he did to and in St. Paul. Basically the standard Republican trick of bankrupting the city, borrowing to benefit developers, and leaving future taxpayers to pick up the pieces. A shell game. When the music stops...But you asked about Pawlenty. Maybe not *the* undead; at least, he wasn't once a liberal, but certainly he's a minor demon in some lower circle of hell. From the Minnesota House. Another Republican, out to loot and pillage.

What's happening here? I don't know. I'd pick Mondale to beat Coleman, but goddamnit I see a *lot* of Coleman signs, and never did see a lot of Wellstone ones. Living in Minneapolis like I do, you'd expect to see 2:1 Wellstone signs. And I don't. So what I see is an energized right-wing; they'll be out in force. Gore was blood in the water. Heaven help us all.

Stuart Rothenberg has regained my respect!

As for the timing, Stuart Rothenberg had the most scathing comment: "What is there left to say about Ventura? He's a jerk. Only an egomaniac would do what he did when he did it."

I think the CA key (and I live in CA) is that Simon won't score a point more than the core right-wing GOP Base. That's about 40%. I'd be shocked if he gets as much as 42%. The only question is how many disgusted voters choose Camejo (or a fourth party). I'd say that tops out at 10%, so I give 49-50% to Gray Davis. Simon's only hope is that in the absence of a Presidential and Senate races, and also in the absence of any meaninful House races, only the Democratic base stays home. I don't see any reason to buy that.

I'm not voting for him with any enthusiasm, but since I'm still mad with all those Nader-voting Bush-anointing dilletantes I can't afford to make a protest vote in case the race is somehow much tighter than I think.

Adam:

What do you mean Gore was blood in the water? Al Gore?

G.C. Raj:

Sorry, I hit *send* too soon.

Yeah, if I had to pick, I'd pick Pawlenty to win, except that it's possible he and Penny will split the reactionary vote, and Moe will slip in. Whoopee. Not exactly a mandate, and Roger Moe has all the negatives of Skip Humphrey, and more: a old DFL hack with the personality of, sorry, Roger, a fish.

What makes Wellstone a particular tragedy is that liberalism in Minnesota is dying, as all its old practioners do. How long can Mondale keep us afloat? Not long, and the media has lied to the young so much and so long they see no reason to get involved or vote. It's only force of long-standing habit that'll get me out. Remember Cabaret: The young Nazi? Singing "Tomorrow Belongs To Me?" Or maybe Yeats: "...the best lack all conviction. The worst are filled with a passionate intensity..."

Don't make book on what I say. I'm a gloomy old fart.

G.C. Raj:

Yeah; sorry. *Al* Gore. Didn't realize the double meaning till it was too late.

--Adam

I'm nearly ready to make my predictions on the Senate and the House.

In the Gubernatorial situation, things are improving for the Republicans:

1. Simon is charging within 6 points. It is now in his grasp, if the GOP comes out and votes.

2. Jim Ryan is now running even with Blago. If Democrats lose Illinois, then they can blame the idiots at the DNC who dumped money in Flordia, where Jeb will win in a landslide.

3. Posthumus, in the last EPIC poll, has come within 8 points.

There will not be many blowouts in the Gubernatorial races tomorrow night, except maybe, well, you know.

I would like to know when the final Zogby polls would be out.

However, the SurveyUSA poll also has Posthumus making a fast recovery, now within 6 points.

It makes me doubt my thoughts about California. However, Simon HAS been closing.

In case I am not still banned-

Senate- Democrats 52, Republicans 48 (assuming Jeffords as a D).

House- 225 R 206 D, and 1 Independent

Governor 27 D, 23 R, 0 Is

I am here in the Midwest..Michigan to be precise. Ryan by over 10 points; Grnaholm by over 10; Davis would win by about the same margin. Not even the most pro-GOP analysts believe any of this garbage...not Cook, Sabato or anyone else. Of course, it would not be as bad as PA where Rendell will win by over 15.

In CA, as Sabato says, look for GOP sweep of epic proportions below the governor's level.

Memphis Vol is perhaps right on the mark.

Yeah, Bush Rep. Survey USA says Largent is toast. If you believe Survey USA you would believe in Tooth Fairy and that trees would tap dance.

In NJ Lautenberg is pulling away fast. He's over 50% in some polls and leading by 11% in new Quinnipiac poll. Frankly, I'm worried. All the polls for the house shows movement toward most of the GOP candidates. The Senate is looking bleeker also. Rick Khan screwed the DFL with that memorial/rally. I do think the media made a mountain out of mole hill. Florida is slipping away and Georgia might be in trouble. The only real movement toward the democrats is in Hawaii and Alaska. I'm praying that Landrue hangs on to 50%. Am I being too pessimistic? Any comforting words?

The latest ABC Polls concluded today has the race tied 48-48 in the congressional generic ballot. NH race is dead even, as is SD, MN and CO. I think Cleland would pull it off in GA, Bowles will win in NC and Kirk would win in TX. Arkansas would flip to the Dems and MO would flip to the GOP.

Davis hangs on--the Simon surge is too little, too late.

Anyone thought about polling bias in Texas?--whites not admitting they won't vote for a black man. It's amazing how this race is even this close.

I think it's a sad state of affairs when I say this (and truly mean it):

Doug Forrester has a lower chance of winning now than Buster Soaries. I'm still making phone calls, trying to get some kind of gauge as to how many points poor Doug is going to lose by.

Come on Mr. Moderate!

I expect better from you.

Forrester is where Governors Kean and Whitman were when they won their races. Forrester is no difference. There is an equal number of voters who strongly support either candidate, and Lautenberg's lead is mostly based on, "leaners." When you take the leaners out, it is a six point race.

Moreover, Lautenberg is not going to win by 31 points with female voters. Schundler didn't do that bad, and Forrester is a lot more moderate than him.

Have faith my friend. I have faith in you.

New Jersey Republicans are united behind a moderate candidate, the type that brings them victory.

The only time a moderate New Jersey Republican didn't win was in the Senate races of 1996 and 2000, and they had huge margins to overcome in the Presidential races.

If the 15% of Independent voters swing to Doug, then he wins. I think it is very possible.

Lastly Mr. Moderate,

The Eagleton poll showing Forrester down by 12 points was a sample of which only 25% were Republicans.

In 2001, 36 or 37% of voters were Republicans, in New Jersey.

Honestly. Push Forrester's numbers up by a least 10.

Yeah. Yours is as much a wishful thinking as Dems thinking they have a shot at OK based on the Survey USA Poll. Like I said, tooth fairy will visit me tonight before Forrester or Harkin or Henry (in OK) pull it off.

New Jersey polling always seems to underestimate Republican performance, I remember Corzine being up by over 15 right before the election, and Whitman down by over 10 to Florio. If this is a GOP night, Forrester could make it very close.

Zogby is releasing his final numbers before 12 AM EST, I have not seen any of them, but from his comments on cable shows tonight, Thune has pulled slightly ahead (the 2-3 Bush bounce) and Sununu is now winning outside the margin of error. Good news for Dems is that Zogby thinks Strickland will win in a blowout.

Lastly Mr. Moderate,

One last encouragement:

Even in the Eagleton poll, 62% of Republicans said they were paying very close attention. Only 51% of Democrats said the same thing.

It is enough to close the gap between the two parties in New Jersey.

Lastly, here is an excerpt from the 1997 New Jersey exit poll:

Total McG Wt S
DEM 38 77 20 3
REP 34 12 80 5
IND/OTH 28 46 43 8

As you can see, Forrester is outperforming Whitman among Republican voters. Whitman's 20% of Democratic voters is probably compensated by higher GOP interest in this election. Lastly, McGreevey won the Independent vote by 3. Lautenberg only has a 5 point lead right now. If the 15% undecided move to Doug, he would win the Independent vote by 10 points, which also would offset the Democratic vote.

Doug Forrester is a New Jersey Republican who can win. I feel very good about this one. Very good.

A note to MN: road signs don't vote. You'd never know CA elects close to 2/3 Dems by what you see from your car. Simon is going down by about 10%. A whole lot of libs and Dems will hold their support for Davis until about 8:00 a.m. when they recall what public education used to be like here.

Bushrep

Why on earth has their not been any natural tightening in your state. Is Rendell that good? I would have at least expected the Republicans to come home and close the race to single digits.

Damn, I need to find a non-partisan poll showing a tight Davis/Simon race ;) Is there one? All I can find is an expectation control bomb from Simon.

BushRep, what are you smoking?
Lautenberg is going to win by 15 points just like Rendell. Jersey is a heavy Dem state. Please get over it.

AC,

There are a lot of explanations. After the election, you and I will discuss them and everything else.

As far now, my basic thought is that:
1. Rendell has heavy support in SE PA.
2. This is a solid 30-35%. Rendell only needs another 15% to win. Very easy.
3. Pennsylvania has an 8-year tradition, and this state sticks to traditions like flies and honey.
4. Rendell has outspent Fisher 3-1 in the general, not counting the primary.
5. I think it will be in the high single digits.

As soon as King Zogby releases his last polling tonight---PLEASE post it Somebody!!!!!!

Lastly, only recently has Fisher talked about his record.

I have always thought that the only way Rendell would win is if Rendell were the issue. Rendell's defense of his Philadelphia record is masterful; he has had three years to work on it while Mike Fisher and Bob Casey, Jr. had work to do.

Fisher, instead of talking about his many accomplishments in the State Legislature, has instead talked about Rendell's Philadelphia record. It was a very bad mistake. If Fisher named every accomplishment of his in the State Legislature, then he would be a lot closer. Fisher has wrote PA's crime laws, led the tobacco suits, created the Rainy Day fund, wrote PA's recycling laws, etc. Why he hasn't mentioned these accomplishments is beyond me.

Lastly, Fisher waited too long to demand Rendell release his tax records. Rendell has refused the past year or so, and now we know why:

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/4439278.htm

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/s_100190.html

Both these papers gave Rendell raving endorsements. It makes me sick.

Correction: Pittsburghlive endorsed Fisher, but the fact remains that the media should have been a lot more inquisitive about Fast Eddie.

He deserves the name more than ever.

"New Jersey polling always seems to underestimate Republican performance, I remember Corzine being up by over 15 right before the election, and Whitman down by over 10 to Florio."

Actually, I remember the final polls in the race showing Franks within striking distance (about three points).

It is not unlikely for the race to tighten, nor would it be unlikely for Forrester to take the undecideds by a 2:1 margins. The only problem is that there likely aren't enough undecideds left to swing the election to Forrester.

As much as I'd love to see it, I won't see it.

You'll see it happen.

Vote, and get everyone you know to vote to elect Doug Forrester New Jersey's next Senator.

Final (11/2-11/4)Zogby numbers:

MN: Mondale 51% Wellstone 45%
MO: Carnahan 45% Talent 53%
NJ: Lautenberg 55% Forrester: 42%
NC: Bowles 43% Dole 53%
SD: Johnson 47% Thune 52%
TX: Kirk 46% Cornyn 50%
GA: Cleland 50% Chambliss 48%
CO: Strickland 50% Allard 46%
AR: Pryor 56% Hutchinson 43%
AR Gov: Huckabee 54% Fisher 44%

so it's a wash, eh?

Though there is a GOP trend here, the Dems would barely hang on. If Thune wins they should dump Daschle, the worst
majority leader of all time. He really
has almost given this election away to the GOP.

I think BushRep is going crazy, anyone who thinks Forester is going to win has major problems. Your canidates have lost already, give up.

As much as I like this site, and the confidence of the owner, the last posted column was just plain nuts.

I hope and pray I'm wrong.

"If Thune wins, they should dump Daschle, the worst majority leader of all time". mikeel

I feel you have forgotten the obvious candidate for this title. The majority leader whose charming personality and schrewd tactics led to loses of seats for his party in 3 sucessive elections-Trent Lott! He has been VERY influential in poisoning all relationships between the parties.

above unsigned comment was from me.

Any insiders out there with connections to VNS or other exit pollsters? Anyone willing to post early exit polls Tuesday?

I am a bit nervous about the Senate. I see Zogby basically has it at a wash-2 seat Republican gain and 2 seat Democratic gain. That makes the races he didn't poll that much more important. NH will be key and according to Survey USA so will SC. At least those two seats are Republican held. If Democrats hold onto the Senate, Daschle better thank God because it seems like it will be by the slightest of margin. Democrats should have done so much better than what is projected here.

In the governor's races, don't just think Survey USA is totally off. They are mostly in line with what other polls are saying. It is entirely possible for Henry to be in the lead and actually win in OK. I guess some forget that Oklahoma has tons of Democrats and maybe they are ready to elect one of themselves. This is the second Survey USA poll to find Henry ahead so there might be something to it. As far as South Carolina, if black turnout is as great as I think, I do see Hodges winning around that margin. Blacks have tow major statewide candidates to vote for this year in SC-two men for Attorney General and Secretary of State. Why would we not think black voters would turnout in largert numbers to support these men.

IEM futures trending higher for Democtars retaining the Senate. Any early exit polling?

The Republicans kicked the goofy butts of the Democrats.

The creator of this Web site made a whole bunch of crazy azz predictions and for the most part they were totally whack and wrong.

The creator of this Web site claimed that Mondale would win in MN. What a load of crap!

Coleman send that old, wrinkled fool back to retirement.

MyDD, my butt.