2014 Election Preview

Update: http://purveyors-of-truth.blogspot.com/2014/03/2014-election-preview.html

November 2012:

While it is a long way off, I was curious as to what the 2014 Senate elections would look like. Would the Republican party be on offense or defense? The good news is that they seem to be defending safe seats, and have the opportunity to win a few.

Possible pickups were determined by those who won election in 2008 by <=53%.  Without a Presidential election at the top of the ticket, reduced turnout may favor the more motivated party.

A few incumbents may be in red or swing states, but previous elections have favored them so heavily that only a wave election or a retirement would put the seat in play. South Dakota is an outlier. Johnson won handily in 2008, but won squeakers in 2002 and 1996.  Franken officially won by only 300 votes in 2008, but now he is an incumbent in a lean blue state.

In total, I see six seats in potential play, with another four to six if it is a wave election.

Comprehending the Results

I have a hard time comprehending these results. I understand why Obama won in 2008 (financial crisis, new flashy guy, lots of promises), but what motivated an Obama voter in 2012? The great job he did on unemployment? the successful stimulus? the shrinking deficit? the fufilled promises to be bipartisan and transparent?

Mitt Romney was a solid candidate. He performed well in the debates, focused on the economy (#1 issue), made no major mistakes, and was good on the stump. However he lost by about 2%.

Victor Davis Hanson made a good analysis of the potential blame

1. Dependency Majority
2. Tactical Errors, Unforeseen Circustances
3. Too far to the right

He notes that regarding #2, Obama made his fair share of mistakes. I'd like to add to his #3 that in 2004, if you supported civil unions (but not gay marriage) you were a hero. In 2012, you would be a hater if you supported nothing less that full gay marriage. I'm not sure how moving a little left will be enough either.

That leaves #1, which I have also long feared.  The desired place for Democrats is to have 53% of the people receiving benefits and entitlements paid for by 47% of the electorate. That way the 47% are powerless to reverse course, while the 53% keep voting them in to keep the largesse flowing. Generous public union contracts and green energy subsidies, among others, ensure a flow of taxpayer money back to Dem candidates through donations. These outfits act like launderers for direct taxpayer funding of Democrat candidates.

Another good article is by Armstrong Williams. "This (election) represents a national repudiation of reality: we have tossed out the doctor because we don’t like his prognosis. The spending addict does not want an intervention; he wants more spending, no matter what."

They don’t care about things like the national debt or even a job as long as unemployment insurance is perpetually extended. It was just a few years ago that traditional marriage amendments (on the state level) passed even in liberal states. Now gay marriage amendments passed in those states. Democrat economic ideas won’t work, but telling people or explaining history isn’t enough. They will have to live through it.

People bought the spin: "Obama inherited a huge mess and it take more than four years for recovery."  That would have been fine if Obama said that all along. However, Obama promised a 5% unemployment rate if stimulus passed, which it did, but unemployment is still 7.9%. He promised to cut the deficit in half, but has doubled it. With strong controll of Congress from 2009-2011, Obama could pass whatever he wanted, so he couldn't realisitcally blame "an obstructionist Congress". He did, and people bought it. A failed result overall, but people think Obama cares. We may not live in a result-orientated country anymore.

Obamacare will never be reversed now and will add to the dependency on government. In Canada, healthcare is free but sometimes actual care gets denied. It doesn't mean the nationalized healthcare will ever away, because the number of sick people can't overturn the majority of healthy people who like their illusionary free care. Sick people who get denied treatment, don't live long enough to build any political momentum or vote in many elections anyway.

Obama will also be able to make more Supreme Court appointees. Scalia and Kennedy is 76. Ginsburg is 79 and Breyer is 74.

The media also worked overtime for Obama. If Obama was a Republican you would have seen different stories:

• Daily stories about hardships of the unemployment
• Stories about underemployed people
• Stories about the REAL unemployment rate (unemployment figures exclude people who gave up looking for work)
• Lots and lots of stories on Libya and coverup (remember all the stories on Cindy Sheehan or Valerie Plame?).

Real Clear Politics, Intrade, Short Sellers are Big Winners

Returns are still coming in, but it seems like final average polls were more right than wrong, and may have even favored Romney. Intrade and RCP were correct on the electoral college, pending Florida results which still aren't final.

Looks like Obama won by about 2.5% in the national poll, but there are still votes to be counted. Overall, Romney improved on McCain by about 4%.
The stock market (S&P 500) is current down 2.15% this morning (10:30 CST)

I thought crossover votes  would be limited to 6% (vote for Obama, but also vote for Scott Brown), but these were higher, especially if you talk about rape and abortion (26% crossover in Missouri).

Exit polls shows turnout and result were more similar to 2008 than 2004 or 2000.

2012 Election Day - Final Polls

Below are final polls and betting sites. It's time to see who is right!


Final National Polls:

Final Intrade:

Final RealClearPolitics
  National polls: The head to head RCP average is  Obama 48.8 - Romney 48.1   Electoral Collage:  Without tossups, they have 303 Obama - 235 Romney  

  Rasmussen - Electoral College Of the tossups:   Colorado: Romney +3 Virginia, NH, Florida: Romney +2 Iowa: Romney +1 Wisconsin, Ohio:  tie Nevada: Obama +2    

2012 Election - Final Predictions

President:

Popular Vote: Romney 50.7%, Obama 48.5%, other 0.8%
Electoral College:

Senate

Current Senate: 51 Democrats +2 Independents (who caucus with Dems), 47 Republicans. Among the Senate seats up for election in 2012, there are 21 Democrats, 10 Republicans and 2 Independents.

Despite the polls being close in some races, the fact there is a presidential eleciton will bring many more people to the polls. There will only be so many cross-over votes (i.e., vote Romney, but vote McCaskill for Senate). So if Romney or Obama is leading by more than 6%, I think the R or D will win.


Prediction: (hotly contested seats are underlined)

Dems gain (2): Maine (officially an independent but will likely caucus with Dems), Massachusetts,
Republicans gain (6): Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin,
Republicans hold (8): Arizona, Indiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming,
Dems hold (15): California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia


Result: 51 Republicans, 46 Dems + 1 Independent

House:
Current House: Republicans 242, Dems 193
Prediction: little movement, ranging from Republicans +6 to Dems +2

Why Intrade is Wrong About the Election

If you look at Intrade today, you see that Obama has 2/3 chance of winning. With polls very close, and Romney leading in many national polls, the question is why?

I think there are two reasons. The first reason is that it has gotten significantly harder to participate in In-trade. In 2008, all you needed to do was use a credit card. With the passing of Dodd-Frank, you would now need to either send a cashiers check to Ireland or pay for a bank transfer. Then you also need to send substantial proof of identification to Ireland. Both of these are barriers to participation. With less participation, you will have a less fluid market, reducing its accuracy.

The second reason is all of the bets are based on the same polling averages that everyone else is looking at. The overall chance of a Obama victory is keyed off the summation of the electoral college results.

The electoral college map is is largely based on the RCP no-tossup map, which includes all state polls, no matter how accurate they have been in the past. State polls don't happen as often as national polls, so there is more of a lag to get the latest sentiment into the polls. RCP averages uses state polls that are as old as 2-3 weeks.

Given the inclusion of polls with low accuracy, in the past two elections, the RCP average has overweighted the result of the Democratic candidate. The RCP average shows a tie. In 2004, the RCP average on election day showed a 1.5% Bush lead. He won by 2.4%. In 2008, the RCP average on election day showed a 7.6% Obama lead. He won by 7.2%.

By contrast, the Rasmussen no-tossup map show Romney with a victory. This is based on the following tossup states:
Colorado: 50% Romeny, 46% Obama
Virginia: 50% Romney, 47% Obama
Florida: 50% Romney, 48% Obama
Ohio: 50% Romney, 48% Obama
New Hampshire: 50% Romney, 48% Obama
Nevada: 50% Obama, 48% Romney
Iowa: 48% Romney, 48% Obama
Wisconsin: 49% Romney, 49% Obama