Can the Republicans recover as the contest gets dirtier?
November 2nd, 2006-
Are we seeing the impact of the US on-line betting clampdown?
With just five days of campaigning left the latest projections on the Electoral Vote site based on up to date polling show a 50:50 split in the Senate but with the Democrats having control of the House of Representatives by 239-195.
On the Betfair betting exchange market the Democrats are now on 0.29/1 to take the House with the Republicans at 3/1. The Senate betting has the Republicans at 0.33/1 with the Democrats on 2.05/1.
-
The polls have been showing no respite for the Republicans. The latest from CBS News/New York Times has the Democrats leading by 52-34.
Losing the House would a bitter blow to George Bush and put severe constraints on his administration in his final two years. But this is not completely over yet. The following is from today’s main editorial in the Guardian.
“. But the Republicans are traditionally strong finishers. Their response was well summed up by an anonymous senior party official quoted in the New York Times yesterday: “Whatever they feel they’ve got to do to move their numbers, they have got to do.” The message could hardly be clearer. From now until the polls close next Tuesday evening, the Republicans will do whatever it takes..In some cases, that means playing very dirty indeed. Particularly in the two dozen districts that will determine control of the House of Representatives and in the handful of states which will tip the Senate one way or the other. Delving into their superior campaign war chests, Republican candidates have launched a blizzard of attack ads which aim to smear their opponents and to frighten the voters..”
If the House price moves further to the Democrats then maybe a speculative bet on the Republicans would offer good value.
-
There is still very little betting going on the UK markets - a product possibly of the heavy clamp-down by the US authorities on Americans trying to place bets abroad on the internet.
With the bosses of UK gambling companies being arrested in the US bookmakers here are taking no chances. I have had personal experience of this. A couple of months ago my Betfair account was frozen until I could prove that I was not an American and not in the US.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
You shouldn’t bet against the resilience of Bush. He knows how to get his vote out and a Republican hold in the Senate is a definate possibility.
The Democrats will not reduce the Republicans to below 200 seats in the House… but they will take the House.
The most fascinating contest is in Virginia where George Allen could actually lose this solidly Republican state to the Democrats.
Republicans just pissed away another seat in NY-20 (another wife beater), and that was something like 35-40 on the Dem target list. Democrat planners must be laughing themselves silly at their luck - by my count, that’s eight seats they’ve been completely gifted. On top of that, there’s another 10 where they’re miles ahead, and at least another 20 tossups. The house is gone, totally.
However, a Republican hold in the Senate is more than possible despite awful national polling, simply because the Democrats need almost a clean sweep of competitive seats to reach 51. Missouri is about a 50-50, although with Dem momentum apparently, Virginia is maybe 65-35 against Allen (he can’t miss banana skins atm), there’s still a chance the Republicans can nick Montana or New Jersey, and most interestingly there’s that major Republican momentum in Maryland as Steele hoovers up critical endorsements and attracts a lot of good press. Overall, you can see why the tradesports market still rates the Dem chance in the Senate at about 30%.
In other words, Mike, the weight of money (ie special interests and the distortions that wealth brings) can still move things for the Republicans, just as it did for the Tories last year? Long live Democracy! And obviously a Republican victory now and a Chameron victory at the next British General Election, no?
PS. How do dirty tricks currently come over in the UK? I am not in touch with such practices myself…..
The trend on the (very thin) market for the Senate looks to be clearly going in the Republicans’ favour, and I’d guess that’s probably right. Incumbancy counts for a huge deal in the States and that always makes big swings unlikely - even more so in the Senate with so few seats up for grabs. I’m surprised that a 50:50 split is still being talked about with Liebermann likely to win as an Independent - surely another block to the ‘official’ Democrats (and another indication of incumbancy inertia)?
Still, whatever happens, the biggest impact as far as the UK is concerned is that Bush is now a side-show in the US. Even if the GOP hold the Senate, it will be with their candidates no-showing the president and hiding him in the background. He’ll be stuck with a Democrat House and a Senate that even then would be little better. There’s no point co-operating with an unpopular president in his last two years in the White House.
That would imply that he will concentrate even more on foreign matters - mainly Iraq - and that will reduce the scope for Blair to make a positive impact there. Blair’s fate is tied up with the Republicans and the worse they do, the worse it is for him. (Crazy world!).
Liebermann is reported to be joining the Democrat caucus if he wins. So not a blockage to that party as such, just to (parts of) the Liberal agenda.
6. Ah, right. Thanks for the clarification.
I will repeat my prediction from earlier days: Republicans hold the Senate and lose the House only by a handful, by less than 20 seats which will not give the Dems a working majority.
Whilst that is my prediction, additionally, I believe there is a chance - about 30% - that the Rs either hold the House or keep losses nominal, to say 8 or so. That in effect would be an NOC situation.
8 Admire your optimism but I think the Administration lost its reputation for competence over Katrina in the minds of many of it’s supporters and the payola & sex scandals in Congress have deapened the malaise (John Major re-visited?). If they do hang on, it’s because the Democrats went too much on Iraq and not on the domestic failures that Congress turned a blind eye to.
Let’s hope so, eh Commentator? Clearly the world needs a stronger and more powerful Republican party to continue its overwhelmingly successful War on Terror. Thank God Al Gore wasn’t elected President or we would never have had the chance of invading Iraq and dismantaling its WMD. One can only imagine how dangerous the world would have been had the Democrats allowed Saddam to invite Al-Qaeda into his country. History will judge Bush and his sensible, upstanding party as probably the most economically and culturally successful political party of all time, having propelled America to its rightful position as a beacon of light shining tolerance and freedom across the globe.
Moreover, they’ve stopped all the poofs getting married and increasing the role of Christian conservatism in government, which I’m sure we all agree can only be a good thing.
If Al Gore had been elected President I doubt they would have gone into Afghanistan.
You perhaps do not follow US politics. The Democrats in Congress (including Kerry, who sat on the Intelligence Cttee) voted to authorise the President to go to war in Iraq. I believe there was a lone dissenter in the House of Representatives, IIRC Cynthia McKinley, who no longer has her seat having been ousted in a primary for being a nutter.
Bush does not equal the Republicans. Bad as they are, they are not as bad as the Democrats.
John mcCain is my kind of Republican.
Another key factor will be how reliable the voting machines will be next Tuesday. There have been examples of some very dodgy dealings with these things mainly benefiting Republican candidates. Lets hope they never get to this side of the pond. There is nothing wrong with good old fashioned pencil and paper!!!!
What is Karl Rove up to? There have been lots of hints on a number of US sites that Rove might have a plan up his sleeve. If there is a sudden recovery then that is very suspicious. What scares me is that these guys believe they have God on their side so to them almost any action is legitimate if it keeps the God-less out of power.
I know I sound like a loony conspiracy theorist but I am worried.
I have the same worries.
“If Al Gore had been elected President I doubt they would have gone into Afghanistan.”
Yeah, sure. He would have just shrugged off 9/11 and called on Osama to come and give him a cuddle.
I agree with Commentator’s assessment of the likely outcome, though I wish it were otherwise. But I agree with bally eric that Gore would have responded to 9/11 similarly - there was pretty universal American reaction to that, and once the Afghan connection became evident the response was inevitable.
Mike, you do sound like a conspiracy theorist. You know as well as I do that Rove is not a religious conservative.
My confidence is based on Rove’s. He’s never been wrong yet. Also, on factors you will have picked up from reading the same sites I do; a) that state polls are not very reliable, too small sample sizes, etc; b) the Rs have more money; c) the Rs have a better GOTV operation; d) a tight race will bring out a reluctant gop base; e) Rove thinks the polls are getting less accurate yearly based on mobiles and do not call lists; f) the (US) youth do not vote, whatever anybody says, ask Howard Dean; g) that Kerry gaffe will energise the base a little, although I don’t think it will be much of a factor; h) that the R vote is resilient (take the R who is closing very well in the district vacated by the predator Foley); most importantly, h) that Rove says his early vote numbers are exceeding R expectations and are at 2004 levels.
I think we might see a held Senate and Dem House of only 8 or so seats. Which would be a good result for the Rs. It is an interesting race to watch from this side of the pond and better than hanging around waiting for new real British polls, so thanks for the thread.
McCaskill 48-47 in Rasmussen now. Tennessee still Republicans 2% ahead. Not sure the end game will play out for the Reds. See what the news brings over the weekend. Iraq appears to be playing big in the urban areas, but will Kerry’s gaffe be crucial over the weekend.
No it won’t; w/e polling invariably favours Dems and US poll watchers discount weekend polls. Thereafter, there will not be time for a poll before Tuesday. This is pretty much it.
19 - there goes the voice of authority - cancel any further election polls. The Right are always right? - but not this time.
Must read US sites:
Kos - grandaddy leftist blog. Powerful in primaries. Responsible for the mess Dems find themselves in in CT:
http://www.dailykos.com/
Corner - NRO. Most read rightwing blog
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
Polipundit and Red State. Lots on these two about why Rs are confident, nothing to do with voting machines or tricks but solidly based on the factors I list above:
http://www.redstate.com/
http://www.polipundit.com/
Real Clear Politics. The site owners are rightists, but the polls are what counts here. They list them all and they list them first. Also have good links from national press on home page:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
There are others, but these are my daily stops. Kos has all the polling from a left wing point of view and are relentlessly on-message, they hardly covered the Kerry story at all.
13. Mike I fear that post will be a huge encouragement to some of the more excitable posters on the site….
We have to see how Kerry’s gaffe plays out, seems he has been asked to stop campaigning. You could just see the look of horror on the students’faces behind him a she uttered the infamous phrase…Expect angry Democrat closer losers lambasting him on Wednesday, especially if they fail to take the Senate by 1/2 seats.
Kerry has apologised, and dropped all campaign appearances. It was a good, solid apology though. I liked the comment on the right wing Corner blog: “A handsome piece of work. My congratulations to Bob Shrum”.
I think I like this election so much because it’s like having the West Wing back. Only for real.
I know I sound like a loony conspiracy theorist Yes, Mike, very uncharacteristically you do.
Remember in 2004 most of the voting shenanigans were from Democrats who seemed to take the advice to be sure to vote and to vote often: Ohio, Washington State, Florida……
What the Republicans need now is another intervention from the Guardian to be sure to hold both houses.
25 posts all on topic - a welcome record ?
I still can’t believe Kerry’s gaff. What a wally. He seems to only open his mouth to change feet.
The campaign on the whole is nasty as well.
Personally I have no idea who will win.
Re Senate. I wonder who tightened the Rep prices on Betfair yesterday. They were too generous for ages but suddenly corrected to something like reasonable.
Re 26, Jamie, the other day it took 5 hours and 70 posts for someone to mention Cameron, so the records not quite been reached
17: “Mike, you do sound like a conspiracy theorist. You know as well as I do that Rove is not a religious conservative.”
Bizarrely enough considering how close he is to George Bush, Karl Rove is supposedly agnostic. He just marshalls the religious right for their votes, he doesn’t believe the stuff. I’ve no idea if he joins in with the Whitehouse prayer meetings
[13 et seq] Americans are far more tolerant (if that’s the word) of what we’d see as “dirty tricks” in elections - the Presidential elections of 1876 and 1960 (as well as 2000) are widely considered to have been “stolen” - and that’s before we get to more local races. Perhaps the EC’s Election Commission thingy should look into it…
It might not be to the GOP’s loger-term detriment to lose these mid-terms, their commentators, including the shock jocks & dirty bloggers, would have a handy whipping-boy for the next two years…
Re State polls. There were some amazing sets of polls published yesterday. Four in Missouri all had Dem in range 47-49 and Rep in range 46-49. Four in NJ were even more closely aligned - Dem 49-51,, Rep 43 or 44. Ditto in VA - three polls agreeing on 2-4 point Dem lead. Random error would often lead to more variation than that, even if method and standards were identical.
So the better polls are going to be proved right or wrong collectively. Indeed could even be both! They could be right in the sense of being as close as one might reasonably expect on vote shares (as in 2004) but wrong in the sense of picking the wrong winner in very close races.
re 17h - what are ‘early vote numbers’ and how does Rove know they’re voting Rep?
One real shame for the GOP is that John Kerry is no longer a viable candidate for President, and I would doubt he will now run. He is a vote-winner for them.
On the plus side, the Kerry collapse must further encourage Hillary - another dream opponent for Republicans.
33. Postal voting where it is allowed before the start of physical polling, and tellers.
re 35 Tellers who actually see the ballots or know who’s voting or what?
I’m not inclined to put much weight on the National Polls BUT
every poll in Oct has scored Dem at >48 and Rep at
Not sure - either election officials release vote counts to the parties or their voters are telling parties how they vote, follow up calls to those who have postal forms etc
RE 37 not sure where rest of that post went…Continues
testing, testing…two posts have failed
RE 40, Martin it is the angled brackets looking like HTML that is causing the problem.
Check this out…I found it through Real Clear (Right-wing) Politics
http://nationaljournal.com/cook.htm
re 41 Ta. I forgot that less than and more than are not allowed. Anyway the point is that the Dems are in the range well ahead to miles ahead on every national poll in Oct. Surely tells us something about the likely swing since 2004.
Anyone know why Betfair won’t allow you to lay the Republicans in Conneticut - even when you offer the ‘full price’ so to speak?
Kept trying to do it last night but every time I made an offer at the ‘matched’ price it instantly doubled.
I’ve previously said I expect to be disappointed ’cause there are several reasons to expect the GOP to out-perform the polls. But even Rove cannot push back a tide. And that is the striking thing about the polling evidence: it’s remarkably consistent in indicating a a big swing to Dem, with no sign of narrowing with less than a week to go.
The Votemaster’s latest comments (always highly readable) include this:
‘What should be making NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds wet his pants (besides the fact that he is losing his own race) is the fact that two different pollsters are both predicting a disaster for the GOP.’
Martin. let us see on the 8th. I stand by my prediction.
8. Commentator, it is misleading to talk of ‘NOC’ or ‘workable majorities’ in the U.S. Congress. Majorities mainly matter in deciding the chairmanships of committees, beyond that there is far more fluidity on an issue by issue basis when it comes to voting.
A one seat majority gives the Democrats the House and the chairmanships, and that is essentially all that counts in the current environment, particularly as the Democrats don’t have a clear legislative agenda to try and push through.
testing testing can’t get posts through
“particularly as the Democrats don’t have a clear legislative agenda to try and push through”
You can say that again.
11. 126 Democrats in the House voted against the war in Iraq, along with 21 Democratic Senators.
You are thinking of the resolution ‘authorizing the use of force against terrorists’ in which Barbara Lee (D-CA) was the only vote against in the House, and Republican Senators Jesse Helms and Larry Craig voted against in the Senate.
25. Hold on a moment Blue2win - you are trying to pin the voting shenanigans in Ohio in 2004 on the Democrats? Are you kidding me? Kenneth Blackwell did everything in his power to try and disenfranchise poor and minority voters - that is one of the reasons why he is trailing by about 25% in his bid to become Ohio governor. Not only that, but he is still Ohio Secretary of State, responsible for running the election in which he is trying to become governor. Conflict of interest anyone? It is pleasing the see that the American voting public have a sense of fair play and that he and Catherine Harris are being punished for the egregious abuse of their offices.
Key point on general polls:
http://nationaljournal.com/cook.htm
“When you narrow it down to the most likely voters — based on who said they voted in 2004 and their interest in this election — the Democratic margin balloons to 26 points, 61 percent to 35 percent.”
Not even Rove can do anything about that.
25. cont’d. And Clark County, the voters of which Guardian readers wrote to, voted pretty much in line with the rest of Ohio.
re 21 Thanks for link to Daily Kos…Good and good for a laugh. If I believed it all I’d be opening the champagne at lunchtime!
38. No, it’s from the number of registered Republicans who vote early - they work on a presumption about how many of them will actually vote for the party; and it’s not always absentee ballots - in many states, such as Florida, early voting is done in a voting machine, just as normal.
re 55 So the presumption could be ‘out-dated!’.
What always surprises me about US politics is the absurdly large majorities that incumbents can win (70%+), if they are popular, even in States which usually vote against their party. Why is this so?
The repugnats are pumping money into races which woulkdnt normally be a contest. They have more money but have abandoned some races already. They seem to be trying everything that worked in the past without realising that the circumstances have changed. For all their great campaign skills Bush only won narrowly in 2004…
Because they have $$$ are seen to be good at pork-barrelling…
And when it comes to money, although Republicans have more money in general, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has a lot more money this year than the National Republican Senatorial Committee. They have spent about $25 million more, and the Republicans have had to spread theirs more thinly in defensive campaigns.
55. I’d imagine it’s based on private polling.
50. Sorry - I meant Helms and Craig did not vote, rather than they voted against it.
44: Dan, you want to “lay the Republicans in Conneticut”?? Horses for courses I suppose…
I’m convinced the Republicans are finished in the House race - all you have to look at is the trends in some of the key races - Real Clear Politics has some excellent polling summary charts.
The Dems need to pick up just a handful of House seats that are leaning towards them to win a majority and in most contests the Dems are pulling away. I’m not sure that Rove can pull something out this late that can turn this around.
The Senate is still open - Real Clear Politics are still predicting 6 Dem pick ups, but there is no margin for error.
The key factor is Bush (and Congress’s) job approval ratings - 38% think Bush is doing a good job, while 27% think Congress is doing a good job. These figures mean incumbency is not the advantage it usually is.
63 - No but someone is prepared to back them with £9! But every time I try to have it - the goalposts move…
38% doesn’t sound terrible, or ought it to be much higher for a US President?
65. Put your money up and see if someone takes it.
I’m not sure how much the notion of defensive inefficiencies in spending really hold. After all, if the race is broadened the DNSC has similar allocation problems, as previous no-hope contests become live. Tricky if nice problem to have: do you go for the top 25, or broaden and try win the top 50?
At present, the latter seems to be the idea, and it’s clearly working with house races as they’re ahead in several of those down at around 40 to 50 on the target list. However, it might cost them the Senate, as less focused national spending means less coat-tail effect. With Republicans self-destructing in the House races, leaving the Dems only needing to win 8ish extra seats after all the gifts, they might regret this next week.
66. Only Nixon has had lower mid-term approval ratings.
Utterly o/t - apoologies but I need an answer to a management-bollocks question; what does the “R” stand for in “SMART” objectives ? (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, R????, Timebound). Thanks in antic.
(And of course, he didn’t even make it to the elections!)
70 R = Realistic
72 - fitaloon - Fantastic, thanks !
70,72 Realistic is covered by Achievable so I think the missing word is “Relevant”.
74 etc Timothy, having gone back to the painful document I’m trying to fill in, I agree. Thanks, people….
re 65 Dan, someone is prepared to lay ‘em @ 15. Not surpisingly! I’d lay up at 150 or more if it I had the available £££ and it was likely to be taken.
don’t you just love the lib dems?
http://www.ryeandbattletoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=477&ArticleID=1856324
do you think she remembers a certain jeremy thorpe? or even charles kennedy and his boozing? unbelievable.
78. The usual Lib Dem hypocritical mudslinging.
77. She started with wanting to know who he is afaterall (aka she wants to know his sex life… he didn’t mention in his election address that he liked interior decorators!), then she underlined her respect for me, just to accuse him being an hyprocrite in next line (voting something and doing the opposite). She finished with accusing him just to wanting to do voyages.
I suppose she would have welcomed Mark Oaten writing “poo” on his leaflets….
11 Commentator
“Bush does not equal the Republicans. Bad as they are, they are not as bad as the Democrats”.
Are these the same bad Democrats who under Clinton drove forward the peace processes in NI and Israel, who was willing to sign up to Kyoto, who helped in the Balkans when Europe was idling watching??
I think the Rebuplicans offer a salutary lesson on the incompetence of rightwing ideology when faced with running a country.
The Senate Democrats unamimously opposed Kyoto.
80 - expect it’ll be “a straight choice” at the next election….
80 Lol!
Mind you, if one were to exclude adulterers, pederasts, drug addicts, alchoholics, and white collar criminals from public life, the ranks of most Western legislatures would be thinned indeed.
83. before all the Libdems will jump on you, the correct wording was: this election is A STRAIGHT CHOICE
70,72,74 Didn’t look at your others but SMART is as follows.
“SMART” - Specific, Measurable, Aggressive, Realistic, and Time-bound.
Unfortunately I was filling in my Goals this AM and they are written using that theme as we use a large amount of Management Bollocks, this basically means your goals can mean anything you want them to.
80.”then she underlined her respect for me”
for him, not me!
(that’s what happens when you do 2 things at the same time)
86:
It’s not aggressive! It’s achievable, as was stated earlier.
And it is clearly bo**ocks.
As my first boss told me (at Marks and Spencer) -”I believe in management by objectives - your objective is to please me!”
86 - can’t believe it’s “aggressive”. Certainly can’t be at our place, any road….
76 - Martin indeed! But the problem is when you offer the amount people say they want - it automatically doubles as if the programme is simply teasing!
“57. What always surprises me about US politics is the absurdly large majorities that incumbents can win (70%+), if they are popular, even in States which usually vote against their party. Why is this so?”
In the House, gerrymandering plays a factor, as well as the fundraising advantage incumbants have (special interests love a proven winner). As far as the ordinary voter is concerned, from my personal experience, a lot of American voters worry that if they kick their own representative out, their district won’t get as much pork-barrel money. Truly sad, I know, but that’s how it is.
92. Apparently that’s the case in the Senate, too. I read some story online interviewing a bunch of West Virginians about why they were going to vote back Sen. Byrd (D) as the longest-serving Senator in US history with >70%, and they all said it was because Byrd brought home pork.
re. 8 and subsequent replies.
The interesting thing is we most of us find Commmentator’s views to be well-argued but radical. But it his view that is more consistent with the current market price (implied prob. of Reps. holding house of higher than 20%).
I disagree with Commentator and my money is squarely on the Dems to take the house. We know why the Republicans are good campaigners, but most of that information should be already in the polls (apart from the 72 hr effect which I think is generally overstated).
As an aside for less experienced punters, I would advise that, contrary to ‘common sense’ it is often odds-on bets that offer the best ‘value’. With commercial bookies, average expected value tends to peak around 4/6 - 5/6.
94 - well said, but have a look at the trends in polling on some of the senate races (they’re at realclearpolitics and other sites).
Yes some of the margins are tight - but the direction of travel is in the Dems favour in most of the races. Yes this can be turned round, but it is getting very late to do so.
I’d expect some (but not all) GOP GOTV operations to be superior to Dem campaigns (partly down to incumbancy), but differential turnout can only take you so far.
It is now almost impossible for the House to be anything other than Dem - the Seante too close to call, but there’s still some value if you pick the right individual races to punt on. Just a shame there aren’t more of them…
What do you think about Pennsylvania?
Back side of the Betfair mkt on the House now into 1.15. I’ll stop accumulating now (not much appetite there for lays), as this seems a broadly sensible price with the best part of a week to go.
96 - Pennsylvania should be a Dem shoo-in. The Republican candidate is Rick Santorum.
Has it occurred to anyone that despite all the shock moral outrage over John Kerry’s gaffe, he was actually correct. A simple web search on “low iq us army recruits” brings up loads of articles showing that the US is recruiting in much larger numbers than before from those who it would have in the past rejected because of their low academic ability. So Kerry was actually right !
99. Of course he was. But no-one is at all interested in whether he was right or not!
96 & 98: you could run a monkey against Santorum and he’d get a landslide. Apparently he’s the most disliked Senator in the US
00: whether Kerry was right or not is irrelevant, you simply don’t say it. Amusing to see Bushco engaged in such base political correctness.
94, fwiw, I now must concede Dems definitely take the House - I always thought it was likely and my prediction was a less than 20 seat D maj, I see no reason to change that. I thought also that there was a 30% chance of retention of the House. I do now change that. I cannot see Rs retaining the House. Best case scenario is a really small, unworkable, Dem majority.
The Senate will stay R. The markets are trading, roughly, Rs to hold the House, 25%; Rs to hold the Senate, 69%.
Reasons for Senate optimism:
http://www.redstate.com/stories/archived/senate_update_a_view_from_the_leftosphere