Well, all the hoopla ends after today and then we move on to the next bit and, no doubt, to plenty more things to blog about.
I will go ahead and make my predictions here.
In regards to the House I never was able to do my own district-by-district analysis, so I have no basis for making an intelligent seat count. However, I think it is clear that the House will go to the Democrats and I predict, based on what I have read and given certain structural circumstances that the margin for the Democrats will be between 5 and 10 seats.
I was going to do a Senatorial version of the Toast-o-MeterTM, yet the dreaded real life has kept me from it.
Still, here’s a mini-loaf of predictions:
Toast
- Rick Santorum (PA): the easiest in the stack to predict. He’s not just toast, he’s burnt toast.
- Mike DeWine (OH): Given the double-whammy of national anti-GOP sentiments and state-level anti-GOP sentiments due to corruptions issues, among other problems, how can DeWine be anything but toast?
- George Allen (VA): I am going to go out on a semi-limb, as the polls in VA are still close. However, Allen’s foot-in-mouth disease will do him in.
- Jim Talent (MO): Yes Talent has won close ones in the past, but not today.
Wonder Bread (a.k.a., the short list)
- Corker (TN): The only non-squeaker in the bunch. Corker will end up with a small, yet comfortable win.
- Conrad Burns (MT): Despite the problematic nature of his last name for the extended metaphor being employed here, my instincts tell me (that’s all I’ve got on this one) that the very Red Montana returns Burns to Washington. I also predict that the day will come when they probably regret it.
- Lincoln Chafee (RI): I thought for sure that he was toast a few days ago, but he seems to be mounting a comeback. I think that at the end of the day, family name and being a known quantity who has been a good Senator for RI will actually win out. Plus, 1% of the voters will vote for Chafee because they will think that a vote for “Whitehouse” is a vote for Bush (–just kidding, or am I?). Chafee will be slightly singed Wonder Bread, but Wonder Bread nonetheless.
In regards to the Maryland race: Cardin will pull it out in a nail-biter. And the GOP can forget NJ–nobody likes their corrupt politicians like NJ, and Menendez will benefit from that, ah, enlightened attitude. After all, everyone deserves a second (or third, or whatever) chance.
That all means:
Democrats: +4
Republicans: -4
For a predicted outcome for the 110th Senate:
Democrats: 49 (including 2 Independents who will caucus with the Dems)
Republicans: 51
“Nobody likes their corrupt politicians like New Jersey”?!? Are you assuming that Katrina chased enough of the corrupt out of Louisiana?
Comment by Honza Prchal — Tuesday, November 7, 2024 @ 9:09 am
My Election Prediction
House — 31 seat Democratic Pick up. Solid Democratic majority.
Senate — 5 seat Democratic Pick up. Senate ends up tid 50-50, and Dick Cheney gets a lot of air time. (Which is not a bad thing for Dems. in 08.)
Governors - 5 Democratic Pick ups.
Trackback by Solo Dialogue — Tuesday, November 7, 2024 @ 9:30 am
Copy editing again: “Cardin will pull in out in a nail-biter”
Should that be “it out in”?
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, November 7, 2024 @ 9:33 am
You are correct–fixed.
Thanks.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, November 7, 2024 @ 9:35 am
More Political Predictions
This will be updated with a few new ones as the day develops.
Political scientist Steven aka “Poliblogger” Taylor gives us THESE.
Trackback by The Moderate Voice — Tuesday, November 7, 2024 @ 10:50 am
Cheap shots at New Jersey. How clever and original.
By the way, do you have a basis for calling Menendez “corrupt”? Can you cite anything he has done that is corrupt? Can you support the claim that New Jersey voters “like” corrupt politicians?
I look forward to your response.
Comment by DBK — Tuesday, November 7, 2024 @ 11:19 am
Well, two names come to mind: McGreevey and Torricelli.
Then there’s this from October in the Economist:
And you have to admit, there is something of a cloud of Menendez.
There’s this from the Philadelphia Inquirer and this. Earth-shattering? No. Enough to make political hay out of? Absolutely.
And, my humor challenged friend, I would ask you to note the overall tone of the post.
Feel free to respond at your leisure.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, November 7, 2024 @ 11:51 am
Calling It
So here’s my predictions for the elections. Why not? There’s nothing else to do but wait.
Trackback by The Kudzu Files — Tuesday, November 7, 2024 @ 12:14 pm
I hope you’re wrong about Burns. I hate to think what his re-election would say about the good people of Montana.
Comment by Harry — Tuesday, November 7, 2024 @ 12:15 pm
I think you are far too conservative (in both senses of the term). Check out the Political Arithmetik analysis of “net national forces.” He shows quite a late uptick for Democrats. He admits there is no way to know whether it is all “signal” or how much is “noise.” But the late polls suggest a surge.
For the House, on the other hand, the same method shows some Republican recovery in the last several days, albeit with a slowing of any possible momentum here at the very end.
Comment by MSS — Tuesday, November 7, 2024 @ 12:45 pm
So,are you disputing the likely House numbers, or are you disputing the RI, MT and/or TN predictions?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, November 7, 2024 @ 12:51 pm
I don’t think I’m humor-challenged. That remark is a personal insult to go with the original cheap shot at New Jersey. Very classy. You’re a real classy guy.
With respect to your arguments, they are very flimsy.
Indicting lots of politicians for corruption indicates to me a low tolerance for corruption, not a fondness for them.
McGreevey resigned one jump ahead of being caught up for his corruption. I have no evidence to cite, but the sense I had was that he resigned rather than accept the indictment that he deserved. Again, does that indicate a fondness for corruption? If people don’t know someone is corrupt, how can you claim voting for them is a sign of affection for corrupt politicians? Once exposed, corrupt New Jersey politicians don’t stick around long. Torricelli actually supports what I am saying in that he had to step down during his re-election campaign because of allegations of corruption. Again, once exposed, they leave. How long did Bob Taft remain governor of Ohio after his corruption was revealed?
Regarding Menendez, your support rests on two stories that you probably dragged up via “the google” when you saw my comments. You might have done further research to see that both of those stories are flimsy support for arguing that Menendez is corrupt.
The first Inquirer article contains no evidence of any wrong-doing by Menendez. It says that somebody claimed to be operating on Menendez’s behalf. While there was a relationship between Menendez and Scarcini, there is nothing beyond that one name-dropping episode to support the claim that Menendez had anything to do with Scarcini’s attempt to pressure Sandoval into hiring someone. Does that merit calling Menendez corrupt?
Regarding your second citation, you might look a bit deeper into the facts. Menendez was one of the owners of a property that was rented to a non-profit organization. Menendez supported the non-profit’s application grant, according to the article. Here are a few things the article doesn’t mention. The owners (including Menendez) rented the property at less than market value. Menendez approached Ellen Weintraub, the attorney for the House Ethics Commitee (Menendez was in the House at the time) and asked her if there would be any conflict if he were to rent the property to the non-profit organization and Weintraub told him that there was no conflict (the article does mention the clearance from the HEC, but without the detail as to who he approached…it also leaves out the fact that the HEC clearance was cited in a newspaper story around the same time that the events transpired). The article that you cited does, towards the end, give Menendez’s side of things and there has been nothing since that August 27 article to contradict Menendez’s version of things. That story remains a campaign canard. It does not prove in any way that Menendez is corrupt; it hints at corruption and, if one didn’t bother to learn the facts, might make one think he is corrupt. You don’t have a real basis for calling Menendez corrupt unless you ignore half the arguments. I don’t regard that as intellectually honest.
Anyway, thanks for trying. Sorry for my failure to appreciate what a funny guy you are. I’m sure you’re a real hoot.
Comment by DBK — Tuesday, November 7, 2024 @ 12:51 pm
DBK,
Thanks for the post. As I noted in the my original response to you, I acknowledged that there isn’t a mountain of evidence against Menendez, but that there was plenty to make political hay out of, which is what Kean has done.
Overall, however, you come across as unnecessarily defensive.
If you find my dig at NJ to be that big of a deal, I apologize.
The point of my reference to corruption indictments and to the Menendez stories (as well as Toricelli and McGreevy) was to point out that I was hardly pulling the notion out of the air.
I would note that I am hardly the first person to ever suggest in jest that there are corrupt politicians in NJ.
I do not claim to be a stand-up comedian, but my point about the humor issue is that the entire tone of the post is one of levity and semi-tongue-in-cheek. As such, I think you are taking the particular line too seriously.
I just don’t get the point of the offense or the defensive reaction.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, November 7, 2024 @ 12:59 pm
Let me recap: you made an insulting remark about the voters in New Jersey and accused one of the candidates for Senate of corruption. When I asked you to support the statements, you called me “humor-challenged”. Whether your remarks were supposed to be funny or not, you said that New Jersey voters like corrupt politicians and that Menendez is corrupt. You shouldn’t say things like that unless you can back it up. Now you call me “defensive” because I asked you to back it up and because I consider insults insulting.
I can see that you don’t get the point. It doesn’t seem terribly complex to me.
Comment by DBK — Tuesday, November 7, 2024 @ 1:12 pm
To be honest from my perspective I can see that you don’t get the point. It doesn’t seem terribly complex to me. would apply to you as well.
We are talking past one another.
Again: I apologize to you for insulting your (?) state. My goal was not to upset anyone. I can see why someone might take offense. I still consider it to be a joke, but c’est la vie.
At its most fundamental level, I do stand by the point I was trying to make in my original response to your original comment–that there is a basis for making the joke, even if one doesn’t like it.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, November 7, 2024 @ 1:17 pm
I started a longer answer, but screw it. Maybe if your comedy had actually been funny and not just glib, crappy insult “humor” it wouldn’t have been offensive. But don’t tell me I don’t get your point. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand your point. Maybe I’m just tired of having every nitwit get all Don Rickles on where I live, as though saying something insulting about New Jersey is really clever. It isn’t clever; it’s tired and annoying and the mark of a very small mind.
I got to your posting via a link from a site that I respect. Well, everyone makes mistakes.
Comment by DBK — Tuesday, November 7, 2024 @ 1:37 pm
DBK,
Look, I have tried to apologize twice now and it was hardly the most clever or hilarious statement ever made. Nonetheless, is it all possible that you are taking a tad too seriously?
Indeed, having been to your site I note quite a bit of political humor, much of which might offend someone, and not all of which is necessarily bold and original. Given that I don’t get the defensiveness.
Again: I am sorry I made a pedestrian dig at NJ.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, November 7, 2024 @ 3:11 pm
Ok, Steven. You missed on Burns and Chafee. He was TOTALLY singed toast!
Your House figures turned out to be pretty low, too!
You need to explain yourself, young man!
Comment by Ratoe — Wednesday, November 8, 2024 @ 3:01 pm
My guesses were quite off, I will confess–and I haven’t had time to get back to my admission of prognostication failure.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, November 8, 2024 @ 3:25 pm