Why are punters ignoring 2006’s biggest elections?
October 30th, 2006
>
-
This is your chance to bet on whether Bush gets a bloody nose?
In terms of global importance by far the biggest elections anywhere in the world take place across America next Tuesday. If the polls have got this right then the Republican grip on Congress is set to come to an end and there could be a spill over in British politics.
For after winning back the White House in 2004 on what was the biggest day ever for political betting George Bush looks as though he might get a bloody nose - and that could have ramifications for the rest of his time there.
The polls for the House of Representatives do not look good. Those taken last week have recorded leads of 11-19% for the Democrats, and although the arithmetic is not as simple as that, the “blues” as the Democrats are known appear set to beat the “reds”.
-
But so far the election has barely caused a ripple of activity in the UK. On the Betfair exchange just £5,420 has been traded on Senate market and £8,632 on the House of Representatives elections. This is absolute peanuts.
Is it any wonder the Betfair is reluctant to open up new political betting opportunities when those they do have attract such little interest?
For the House the Democrats are 0.37/1 which is about the same return as you’ll get on Gordon Brown for the Labour leadership. The only difference is that winning bets will get paid next week.
For the Senate the Republicans are favourite at 0.56/1.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Any reason why you use the 2000 election map, rather than the 2004?
re 1. Thanks for that - I was misled. I’ve changed the image.
The Onion said it best when they satirised Nancy Pelosi “I promise you that somehow, some way, we will find a way to lose”.
If, against all the odds, the Democrats do in fact fail to retake the House, then perhaps they will finally shift their tune and move to the center. But don’t bet on it.
The markets are not reliable. You should have seen Tradesports numbers on Bush during election day 2004 or the days leading up to it. That election was not particularly close, the final vote count was 52-47, with FL being clear by 5 points.
I certainly hope the Democrats fail to retake the House but grudgingly suppose they will. The tailwind Rs are picking up is possibly too little too late.
Commentator - if you try and put aside your own politics for a second, you can’t possibly believe that Bush’s untrammeled power and general lack of congressional scrutiny for the past six years has been a good thing for America or the world?
No. Bush has been a tremendous let down. But you are equating “Bush” and “the Republicans” which I don’t. I will be glad to see Bush gone, but wish McCain and the Republicans every success.
I am repulsed by Blair’s slavish toadying to Bush. But Bush is not the only republican in America. I am very impressed by McCain and think he will be the next President.
Commentator, the fundamental problems for the Republicans have been the corruption of their Representatives, the incompetence of their administration, and their reckless public spending. But the Democrats may still find a way to lose.
I am not equating the two, but the Republican-controlled Congress has failed in its duty to sufficiently call the White House to account, which is what it is there for.
7, I know that, and you must include the haziness in Iraq, and the broken promises on Iran and N. Korea. Iraq is the elephant in the room. No pun intended.
I may have to revise my post. Just went to National Review Online where they are running House/Senate “boxscores”. It does not look good. Senate, Dems up 4 or 5 depending. House, Dems up 28. Maybe that will teach future Republican Presidents not to wallow in pork the way Bush has done nor to go to war without a clear objective, nor to fudge intelligence to sell your case for war.
What does betfair consider to be “Democrat” - if / when elected will they count Sanders in Vermont and Lieberman in Connecticut as Democrat senators? If no then the odds on the Republicans having the most seats look good value. If yes then the odds wouldn’t really attract me. (What happens if it’s 50-50?)
50-50, the VP, as President of the Senate, casts the deciding vote. 50-50 is R control.
If I’d known it was this easy I would have tried to win you over ages ago.
I think the Republicans will probably just scrape home in the Senate (winning 24 out of 33 seats is a very tall order for the Democrats) - but I can’t see them holding the House.
WRT “wallowing in pork” I read the other day that Reagan vetoed a transport bill which contained 150 “earmarks” as being unconservative, while Bush was happy to accept a bill which contained 3,000.
13. Ugly. He deserves what he gets.
There’s one very simple reason (and I have explained this before). At a UK general election between 30 and 60 seats change hands. In the US elections, you’ll be lucky to reach 20. Therefore, there is not the same interest in the US elections as the UK elections.
My personal opinion is Dem maj of 5 in the House and a tied Senate (Lieberman having the casting vote)
In a tied Senate, the Vice President has the casting vote. If you mean 50 D, 49 R and 1 I, that is different.
Lieberman has said he will caucus with the Democrats, so a tied Senate means Cheney has the casting vote. From this distance I think it’ll be a Democratic majority of 10 in the House and a Republican majority of 1 in the Senate.
I haven’t checked the House figures but as of now that looks right for the Senate. When is the election? Tomorrow?
It is interesting how little interest there is in these markets.
I tend to be more on Sean Fear’s side rather that Commentators in thinking that the Republicans have made a mess of things and may get what they deserve.
And if you want to know why so few seats are so uncompetitive, have a look at this map of Texas to see what gerrymandering looks like.
*so few seats are competitive*
18. Next Tuesday.
20. LOL at number 19
It will now depend on who wins Tennessee, Montana, Virginia and Missouri in the Senate as these are very close in the polls. It could be a 1997 UK defeat where the Republicans get routed or like a 1992 one where they just scrape home. It does not look too good for the in the House Republicans in the House.
24 Never got a phone call when you try to type - It should have said -
It will now depend on who wins Tennessee, Montana, Virginia and Missouri in the Senate as these are very close in the polls. It could be a 1997 UK defeat where the Republicans get routed or like a 1992 one where they just scrape home. It does not look too good for the Republicans in the House.
20 - Spam filter won’t let me post link but google Illinois 4th Congressional District to see real Gerrymandering
Actually, this shows some real corkers.
http://www.fraudfactor.com/images/ff_ne_illinois_cong_dist_4_7.gif
Actually, this shows some real corkers. (I always forget the last bloody quotation marks in the link).
Did I do it again?
Marcia, a Democratic landslide would still only yield a Democratic majority of around 20. Hardly 1997 proportions!
The interesting race is Jim Talent in Missouri.
29 - tried to post that link but must have done something wrong!
29 - tried to post that link but must have done something wrong!
The best polling opinion source for US politics is Rasmussen- got it to 0.1% on the last election.
I do not think the senate is within the reach- just too much loyalty for incumbency, but the house is pretty much a certainty for the Democrats now.
Why noone is betting is beyond me, especially on such a tight race in the senate?? Over 1 million quid changed hands on the betfair market Italian night (Guido losing heavily- shame!!!)- so why not here god alone knows.
31- I can see you point but in 1994 the size of the Republican tide was not predicted and the Dems lost about 50 house seats and if memory serves me right 9 Senate seats. A majority of 20 would not be bad where are virtually no other parties other the big 2. Having looked at the polls around America to find seats in Idaho in play then things may not be going for the Republican as they hoped.
The House is more or less gone, with the Dems only needing 15 seats. The Republicans basically gifted them 6-7 seats where the incumbent behaved appallingly (Foley, Delay, Ney, Cunningham, Sherwood etc), and there are another 10 where only a massive Democratic screwup will prevent a switch. On top of that, there’s another 15 or so which are tossups, with the Republicans finding themselves in trouble even in conservative Kentucky/Indiana districts.
The Senate has several very interesting races. As above, Sanders and Lieberman will join the Democrats. That leaves them needing to capture 6 seats, of which you can class them:
1) Pennsylvania and Ohio are certainties (adios to the awful Santorum)
2) Rhode Island not far off a certainty, which is a shame for Chafee.
3) Montana is very close, but the Dem lead has been a very stable 4% for 2-3 months now. Tradesports has a 75 price for Dems, which I agree with.
4) Missouri, Tennessee, Virgina. All three have wafer thin Republican leads in the polls. Missouri is closest at something like 1%, the other two seem to be 2-3% gap. Virginia seems to be moving towards the Dems recently though, while it seems the Dems peaked too early in TN.
Basically, it looks like 4 are certain, then the Dems need to win 2 of 3 from MO/TN/VA. On top of that, they need to defend New Jersey, in which they only have a narrow lead due to local party corruption and massive Republican spending, and Maryland (been trending Republican too recently, but the Dems have 49/50% for a while now and they’re not going to lose with that).
With current polls, the Democrats look like they need one more big news story to break nationally, else it’s unlikely they can win 2 of 3 races where the polls say they’re 1-3% behind, on top of defending NJ.
3. Many “commentators” have postulated that McCain’s best hope of the nomination is if the Congressional Republicans are pummelled next week. Otherwise the Christian right who by and large still loathe him, will delude themselves into selecting a kamikaze candidate. Only if they are convinced in the starkest way thatthere is no alternative will they select him so that theory goes. True or not? Discuss!
Just out of interest Idaho has an independent boundry commision to prevent Gerry mandering, but in most states it is not only legal but normal
36 Sorry I must be tired - should have typed A majority of 20 would not be too bad as there are really only 2 parties and a couple of independents. Plus members on each side that seem to be interchangleable depending on what political vote is blowing through Congress.
Can we have an edit button?
Re 37 Andrew thanks for the analysis.
For anyone interested you can bet on the mid terms via Intrade an amerian betting firm. Realclearpolitics.com do a direct click via entry into any of their Senate race poll figures. It is open to UK punters. Two poor polls for the GOP in Connecticut; both Nancy Johnson and Chris Shays down by 4 points. These are both marginal seats but some Republicans hope that GOP voters will turn out to vote for Joe Lieberman who might not have bothered for a Republican candidate with no chance. Strange times! Bush stumping in a couple of Democratic districts; no one gives the Republicans a chance of making any House gains. If Rove has this right he really will be a hero.
Biggest elections of the year - pah!
I posted some days ago the excitement that is the Isle of Man General Election on November 23rd!!
There is a very good website at http://www.iomelections.com/index.html
The IoM Govt elections website is at http://www.gov.im/cso/election/?menuid=7678
It seems that for the first time party politics is entering Manx elections. The BNP tried and failed to field any candidates for the 24 seats across 15 constituencies, despite a couple of public meetings. Also a new party has been launched in recent weeks, and seems to be the only on fileding a slate of candidates this time..
Called Liberal Vannin, it has a very dodgy logo - looks like a LibDem bird-thingy superimposed over a viking boat. Does anyone know if they have any links to the Lib Dems - and if not, doe the LDs know their logo is being used in Man?
http://www.liberalvannin.im/
Any Manx posters on the site? I can see no betting opportunities, but an interesting political diversion for we anoraks, nevertheless.
If anyone can get money on R holding both houses I’d say it might be worth a whirl.
As I have said here before, my experience is that polls have historically tended to overestimate the Democrats’ chances. My own reading is that the R are very likely to hold the Senate - I’d give the D Pennsylvania and Ohio, and probably Rhode Island, but Montana is a Republican state where the poll gap is now down to ‘barely Democrat’, I think Talent is just favourite in Missouri, and I’d be very surprised indeed if the D gain Virginia or Tennessee. What is more, Kean may take New Jersey from Menendez.
In the House, the Democrats do look set to make 10-12 gains, but further are toss ups. Overall, it is likely to be very close.
All in my view only, of course!
You can get a combo on the Republicans to maintain the House and the Senate at tradesports - as I type the bid price is 23.5. Any conventional combination from a traditional bookies is likely to be poor value though.
Incidentally, these markets are a very good guide to sudden changes. If you click on a particular price, you get graphs of it over 6 months, a week, and a day. For example, in Montana’s case:
http://www.tradesports.com/aav2/trading/contractInfo.jsp?conDetailID=317599&z=1162239411882
As Robert says above, clearly it’s a natural Republican state, but like so many Burns was badly damaged by Abramoff. The current polling gap has existed more or less all year - I think roughly since someone in the Justice Department leaked that he was under investigation.
The tradesports prices reflect this - even 6 months back the R price was only 50ish, when without Abramoff you’d expect 90+ and no race at all. However, since June it’s plummeted as Burns has been completely unable to make any impact on that polls deficit, reaching a trough of 15sh last month, then rebounding a bit as a bit more rationality came into the market. However, polls are still very, very static, and I’d say the current price is realistic. Certainly if you think it isn’t, then 25 should be very tempting indeed.
re 44 The poll bias does seem to me key, because a number of Senate races are close. How well established is it in the USA?
My understanding is that the polls (excluding exit polls) did pretty well in 2004, if they were sifted and scrutinised carefully. True I and several others misread them and thought Kerry was just going to get it. But, IIRC, that reading depended wholly on Ohio and he never had more than a tie in the average of he polls - some of it was wishful thinking that movement in his direction would pull him through. Remember there was a swing to Dem in Ohio…just not enough of one.
That said, I don’t disagree much with Robert’s views on the Senate. Unless someone can point to Democratic upsets when Rep win was forecast, I reckon the GOP will get the crucial three states.
But I don’t know how you get the House gains so low, Robert?
43. God help the Manxmen if the yellow peril has indeed finally crossed to their shores.
This is somewhat chicken and egg. If there’s no money on Betfair then the value is likely to be poor thus dissauding punters to bet.
In addition:
-Many punters follow money, a market without big money in the pot is not seen as so attractive an event, whether a punter wants to bet or lay a tenner or a thousand.
-People don’t understand the event in question
-There are very much divided opinions on how these elections will go, other than the Republicans will lose some seats. Apart from those who are very into their US politics and voting, most punters probably can’t get a handle on what is going to occur themselves thus making it hard to form an opinion which is the pre-requisite to forming a bet.
I suspect that its actually still early days. This time next week, many times more is probably going to be in the pot as punters feel there is more decisive direction in how the wind is blowing as voting day gets closer.
Now, whats the frequency for Manx radio….
37. Not Virginia Andrew - the tide has slowly been turning back in George Allen’s favour over the past week or so. The polling numbers don’t look good in Tennessee for Harold Ford either - partly because you can switch a couple of % from him to Bob Corker’s column because of ’socially acceptable’ poll answers (i.e. white people who say they’ll vote for him, but don’t.)
Nonetheless, neither of these seats is out of reach for the Democrats if they can get out the black vote in particular; however, I think this is not going to happen. Recent polling showed that almost 1/3 black voters think their vote is not going to be counted accurately anyway, a much high figure than their white counterparts and a big jump from 2000. This will make it much harder to GOTV in black areas which would be crucial to a Webb or Ford victory (blacks make up 20% and 17% of their electorates respectively).
The polls are predicting a number of close calls for the Republican in safe or safe-ish House seats. I’d be surprised if the Dems won any of them. But it’s these figures, as much as anything, that have convinced me the Dems are very likely to get a sig. swing and with it, the House.
Overall, I expect to be disappointed due to 1) GOP available $$$ for attack ads, including lies 2) Poll bias 3) GOP GOTV. But, as someone noted, you’ve still gotta have the votes to get out and, for the House, it don’t look to me like they’ve still got ‘em in big enough numbers, thank the Lord!
Chrisco Interesting article by John Fund available on RCP about postal voting which has spread dramatically. Voting early means counting late so if it’s close in the House we might not know the outcome for several days; there’s also the possibility of litigation in very close districts…..
Isn’t it wonderful watching people express biased opinions on things where they don’t matter a jot because they can’t influence and they can’t. It’s a strange aspect of human behaviour….
I think one of the best ways to get a feel for these eelctions is to get a look at some radio & TV from straight, comparatively unbiased news sources. There are plenty of it available online and a review of them over a number of days can help establish a sense of weight of what is going on behind the polls.
It was a similar exercise during the last presidential election that led me to conclude that that Kerry wouldnt make it. Imagine my shock as I watched the BBC coverage as they were all going on in the first hours after polling that Kerry was looking a firm favourite.
52. The same could be said about you and British politics Yokel.
46, Martin:
I agree the most likely outcome is R Senate and D House, but if one can get decent odds the chances of the R holding both seem to me more likely than most think - which is what this site is about, one could say.
On now I get such a low number of House changes, if you look through the individual races on http://www.electoral-vote.com:2006/evp2006/Info/hothouse.html
(which I believe is a Democrat-inclined site) I count 10 D pick-ups predicted with any degree of firmness; the rest listed on the front page as gains are described in the detailed treatment as toss-ups.
Of course, almost all of these would have to go R for the GOP to hold control, so I agree it’s a long shot; but I have years and years of seeing the D do worse (and incumbents better) than poll figures suggest!
I believe the US state polls still suffer from the old problem we had as pollsters of overestimating Labour; a mixture of ‘moral’ responses and D / Lab being easier to find.
As a British citizen Chrisco I’m allowed to pontificate on my own country now…..one of the rights of citizenship…
I’m getting well into these Tynwald elections on the Isle Of Man. Manx Radio has a very nice sub site….I say they should have a motorbike race with the best performers getting seats.
51. I haven’t read the article, but I’d imagine that it’s down to lack of faith in the voting machines. There was a real balls up in Maryland on primary day when the election people forgot to put the key cards in with the bags of stuff that went out to the poll workers in Montgomery County (which contains a large part of the northern Washington suburbs, which meant they couldn’t start up the computers. Gov. Ehrlich has urged voters to use postal ballots as a result.
Voting early doesn’t necessarily mean counting late as in a lot of states with early voting you can use the machines.
56. Your comment was on the basis of inability to influence things…
Re. the IOM - or perhaps a three-legged race?
Re 55 I guess the key is quantifying ‘long-shot’. I see Rep have drifted to 4.0 on Betfair to retain House, but that’s not enough to tempt me. As I said, I don’t recall the state polls being that fair out in 2004. The Votemaster at the Electoral Vote site had simply method of averaging recent polls which, IIRC, predicted only one state incorrectly. I’ve emailed to ask if he’s ever called Rep only for DEm to win…but unsurprisingly (given email volumes) have had no reply.
At this moment I’d plump for a Republican Senate and Dem House. But, I think the high tide of Dem support may have come and from several websites get the feeling of a Republican comeback. Will it be enough? Or too little too late?
55. Are you suggesting the words of Sideshow Bob ring true? I posted them in a thread the other day even though it was totally irrelevant but perhaps this appropriate thread for these immortal lines.
‘Because you need me, Springfield. Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king.’
But seriously, from what you and others have said on the closeness of the races in many states, in some cases its only going to take 1-2% of voters to swing some seats one way or another. Thus the issue of giving an acceptable response to a pollster whilst actually voting the opposite way could be a very, very interesting factor indeed in making decision calls.
Any more stats on how this factor has come into play in the past?
Thanks
PS until now, I’ve not even looked at the national polls Mike mentions. But the figures are pretty stark when set against the deadheat in the polls in 2004. You’d have to assume a much bigger Dem bias this time for them not even to win the seats needed for a maj of 1 in the House.
Chrisco, we have all influence in our own country…however small it may seem, its whether we choose to use it to full effect or not.
Three legged racing eh….certainly less noisy and would negate the need to close large stretches of roads….
43. Robin, Middle looked like a 3 way marginal last time.
The third seat in Onchan and Rushen were close too.
Is there a list of candidates somewhere to see who is contesting the election again?
61. In 1990 in Virginia exit polls gave Douglas Wilder a 10% advantage. He actually won the election by 0.5% to become the first African-American to be elected governor.
(of any state, I mean, not just Virginia.)
Andrea
Check out http://www.manxradio.com/election
Full lists.
67. Thanks Yokel.
Phil Crellin is running again in Rushen…he ha lost a byelection there by a close margin too…will he make this time?!!
I’d be pleased by a Democrat sweep, but don’t feel too hopeful - I suspect they have little chance of winning the Senate, and should be only modestly odds-on in the House - the momentum in the last two weeks has been modestly the other way, and Real clea rpolitics’ overview suggests it’s pretty close. The Betfair odds for the Reps in the House look quite generous.
I only bet where I have inside knowledge (i.e. people who have seen canvass data). I don’t haev this knowledge about US elections which is why I am not betting. However, fingers crossed for the Dems, although the fact they have no real policies other than the fact that they are not republicans is a bit like Cameron’s Tories not being Labour !
@49: Virginia polls are the closest they’ve ever been:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/charts/?poll_id=14
http://www.electoral-vote.com:2006/evp2006/Sen_graphs/virginia.html
If you wait till tomorrow’s RCP update, the average will actually put Allen fractionally behind. Various electronic markets reflect this also, as more and more people pick up the trend. Rasmussen displays it best:
Rasmussen 10/29 - 10/29 500 LV 46 51 2 Webb +5.0
Rasmussen 10/24 - 10/24 500 LV 50 48 2 Allen +2.0
Rasmussen 10/12 - 10/12 500 LV 49 46 4 Allen +3.0
Rasmussen 09/28 - 10/01 750 LV 49 43 5 Allen +6.0
Rasmussen 09/12 - 09/12 500 LV 50 43 7 Allen +7.0
Webb is clearly hoovering up the undecideds, although Allen’s support is almost completely static (going to assume the 46 in the latest is an outlier).
Have to say this looked as unlikely as Tennessee initially, but Allen has not run a good campaign. Even aside from the youtube moment (for those that don’t know, he got caught on camera calling an Indian Webb staffer a monkey), there’s the increasingly desperate sex-novel comments - this focuses things on Webb’s military background, which isn’t a good idea.
I actually think this is the most likely Dem gain of the three key states now, even more than Missouri, and certainly more than Tennessee. Still, it’s probably marginally in Allen’s favour overall.
I like the way that non sitting candidates are listed as challengers. Sounds like they are going to slug it out..literally.
The sense I get from the Post, radio and talking to people is that Allen has steadied things over the past week and that the New Jersey gay marriage ruling is going to give Allen a boost and get out the VV (values voters) as a civil union ban is on the ballot in Virginia. If another poll before the end of the week shows Webb ahead I’ll stand corrected, but the Rasmussen poll is, at the moment, contrary to the sense I am getting, which is that Allen has turned the tanker.
(or rather stopped tanking!)
How will the NJ ruling affect the NJ senate race. Menendez was only narrowly ahead after trailing most of the summer. I guess he needs it like a shot in the head.
I can’t see it making all that much of a difference. The ruling left it to the Legislature to decide whether gays get civil unions or marriage, and I think a majority is in favour of both (obviously by a much larger margin wrt civil unions). NJ is not just very blue, but also very liberal.
73: yeah, I agree we need more polls, as that latest Rasmussen looks a bit suspect. Having said that, along with Mason-Dixon they were the most accurate in 2004 state polling.
Oh, found this…..
“Allen’s Campaign Is Nation’s Worst, Insiders Say”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200610/POL20061030d.html
He’ll have to go some to rival Harris and Menendez in those stakes though
76-I’m not necessarily sure. It may be a blue state but the appeal of civil unions are exagerrated, not everyone is in the so called “media elite” :-). NJ rather than being very liberal is your classic working class state-Reagan Democrat state. In any case, the detail of the ruling is not going to be publicised, rather the screaming headlines about gay marriage will.
To be fair to Catherine Harris, Allen has probably run a worse campaign; she was just the worst candidate to begin with!
78. From wikipedia, so not sure how balanced it is, but:
” * The latest poll was conducted in June, 2006, which showed the majority of New Jerseyans feel same-sex marriage should be legal in the state. 49% favored same-sex marriage, while 44% were opposed. Nearly 2/3 of respondents, 66%, said they would agree with a law legalizing civil unions, while 29% were opposed.
* A Zogby International Poll, conducted in February, 2006, finds 56% of the State support a change in the marriage law that would allows same-sex couples the right to marry. 39% would oppose the change. By a 67%-28% margin, New Jersey voters say they oppose the idea of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and want the legislature to accept the decision of the Supreme Court. By a 77%-20% margin, New Jersey voters also say the legislature has better priorities than to try to amend the constitution to bar gay marriage.
* A Zogby International poll, conducted in April, 2005, found 54.5% of New Jerseyans favored same-sex marriage. 40.1% disagreed, with 5.4% not yet having an opinion. When asked if those who were legally married outside of the State, 57.5% felt the marriages should be recognized, 37.2% thought the State shouldn’t recognize them, and 5.3% weren’t sure.”
78. And the whole point of the ruling is that the headline is: ‘Court says up to legislature to decide on gay marriage’. Not exactly a rallying cry…
81 - Chrisco: Do you think it is really going to be that easy for Senator Lieberman to caucus with the Democrats, presuming he is re-elected, as he will owe his victory in large measure to Connecticut Republicans supporting him over their own candidate? One would have thought he would have to keep his distance from both parties and be truly independent.
Nah - he’s stated he will caucus with the Democrats, but it’s a mutually beneficial agreement: he agrees to caucus with the Democrats and the Democrats agree to respect his seniority of his tenure, meaning he gets the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. But beyond deciding who is the majority party, senators will vote on each issue as they will, so you might see him tack a little more to the right, but I don’t think by very much as he has always been a conservative Democrat anyway.
80-I stand corrected. Those majorities in the polls look way too large for me but in the absence of any others I’ll stand by them.
Found this on the web tonight, this interactive map of the House seats in play with details of the seat once you click on them.
http://www.constituentdynamics.com/mw/2006/index2.php
Labour Whips are apparently recalling all MPs to Westminster for tommorrow vote.
Salmond predicted a win for the givernment with a small majority
The influence of New York City spreads into New Jersey - always has. “Live and let live.” It is also quite Catholic, which makes a difference as this in today’s Washington Post shows.
Bugger. this poll
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/29/AR2006102900863.html
89 - Technical difficulties, old boy?
Thanks for your response at 83 - I hadn’t considered his tenure in all of this. If the Republicans retain control of the Senate then he would presumably be the ranking member of the same committee?
He’ll remain the ranking ‘Democrat’ - but the chairmanship would remain with Susan Collins.
85-Map gives the Democrats 241, (I allocated the ties one each for simplicity), are any commentators really expecting so many Dem wins? Is the website partisan?
Impressive thread. It’s taken 5 hours 49 minutes to mention David Cameron in a snide attack at post 70.
Impressive.
Chrisco: Liebermann isn’t a conservative Democrat on social issues - as I understand it, he’s a “Henry Jackson Democrat”, keen on (relatively) left-wing policies at home but ready to support military action abroad.
Yes, I guess in some senses you are correct, but his religiosity makes him conservative on many of the touchstone cultural issues.
Benedict. It didn’t seem particularly snide. I think the poster was pointing out that neither the Democrats nor the Tories have any particular policy platform. A simple comparison, surely?
93, a snide attack on Blair on post 6 though!
I realise they’re fair game, whereas the the great Dave can’t be critisised…
That is the most annoying thing about some Tory posters(and their party)-they think anyone saying a word against them is guilty of treason-when I meet such types,the one-word-reply ‘to**er’ usually suffices
Real Clear Politics now show 5 Democrat Senate gains, with Webb now an average of 0.3% ahead in Virginia following Rasmussen poll (see posts above) showing Webb 5% ahead.
Also a good Rasmussen poll just out for the Democrats in New Jersey showing Menendez 5% ahead giving an average Menendez lead now of 3.8%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/
So after a few days when the Republicans looked like they may be recovering a bit, these 2 polls are both very good news for the Democrats.
What happened to the October Surprise that Rove was said to have promised would save the Republicans? Did it ever appear?
RE 96, IHDC, With respect.. David Cameron is not standing in an election at this time so he need not be specific on policy.
Re 97, IanG, you are of course absolutly right, slag of St. Tony as much as you want, just lay of our Dave
Re 98 Patrick, forgive me, I made the comment n some kind of jest. We are after all talking about elections in the USA, and I may be wrong but last time I checked our Dave was not standing. Frequently threads here move from discussing the head issue and attacks on party leaders start. I was impressed that it had take so long to drift from topic.
Re 100, It is in the same position as Alistair Campbels plan to revive Labour. No one in the media is interested and that is key.
92. They’re a new US pollster this election. All of their projections are based on their own polls.
Allen’s position is even worse than I thought, with a Zogby and CNN both putting him -4. Unfortunately, I sold off my tradesports position when the Dems hit 45 last night (bought at 35), as soon as the Rasmussen came out - it kept on increasing to 55
I got put off the Betfair market because they wouldn’t offer Senate seats Tennessee, Virginia or Arizona, even when I asked them. I reckoned that those were more interesting than the certain gains and so decided to give Betfair a miss on American politics. It’s a shame because I’d have like to bet on the mid-terms.
General consensus seems to be that Dems will gain 14-28 House seats and probably fall just short in the Senate (50-50). I suspect their surge has been underestimated and that they’ll win more in both houses.
104. Very interesting Andrew - three polls in two days all showing the same thing: looks like we could be in for a major upset in Virginia, and very much against the sense I was getting.
Tuesday could be an interesting night - and thank god none of the key races are on the West Coast!