Over in The Tragic Death of the Republican Party thread, I proposed having some fun with a "Predict The Senate" contest.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=12224

According to Nate Silver and various other sooths, the current conventional wisdom is that Harry Reid and the Democrats are cruising for a bruising in the upcoming mid term election. Pundits, especially conservative pundits, are slapping each other on the back with excited predictions that the GOP will pick up a net gain of [at least] six seats in the Senate - which will be enough to give control of the Senate back to the Grand Old Party. (Nate Silver currently puts the odds of a GOP takeover at 3:2. Others have the ratio as high as 4:1 in favor of the GOP.) So the question is whether the swamis, the sooths, the pundits, the "political operatives" and the Karl Roves of the world have it right? Or, is there a very astute prognosticator among us who knows something the "experts" don't?

To make this fun, (and since I'm creating the contest so I get to make up the rules), I hereby present Alan's Predict The Senate Contest - 2014 Edition. (If this goes well, we can do it again in 2016 - especially if the prediction is for another tight "could go either way" election in the Senate.) To win this contest, you will have to make accurate predictions based on three criteria. You will be awarded points - or deducted points - based on the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of your predictions. After the final Senate race has been decided, the contestant with the highest aggregate point count - based on their combined scores from all three criteria - will be declared the winner. (If there is a tie with two or more contestants having the highest score, I will declare co-winners and anoint each with a virtual trophy befitting their lofty status.) The three criteria (and their respective point allocations) are as follows.

(1.) Early Prediction Bonus

It's easy to wait until the final weekend before the election, carefully survey all the last minute polling, and then make your prediction. What is not so easy is making your predictions (and having to stick with them) weeks or months prior to the election. Counting today, we are 82 days out from election day. To encourage participants to go ahead and stick their necks out early, the first criteria is as follows. (We'll call this criteria the "Early Prediction Bonus" rule.) You get one point for each day between the date of your submission and the date of the election - which is November 4th. (Your "date of submission" is the date you post your predictions as a reply to this post.) As an example, if you were to post your predictions today, (Friday August 15, 2014), you automatically receive 82 points. (If you wait until Sunday October 26th to post your predictions, you get only 10 "Early Prediction" bonus points.)

Although "posting early" will get you a substantial number of points, doing so is not without risk. In politics, 75-80 days is an eternity - plenty of time for a candidate who was supposed to win (like for instance a Todd Akin or a Richard Murdock) to slip up and fall victim to a fatal case of foot-in-mouth disease. You'll get a nice early bundle of points for being brave, but if a candidate you pick slips up, you'll suffer the consequences. (See second criteria "stinger" for being wrong on a prediction ...)


(2.) Predict Individual Senate Races

In this cycle there are 36 Senate races to be decided. Of that total, pollsters currently believe 10-15 of the races are competitive or within the margin of error. I'm going to skew the criteria for all 36 individual races by penalizing incorrect predictions more heavily than the reward for correct predictions. Correct predictions for each individual race will receive 5 points for a maximum of 180 possible points. If you flub a prediction due to a muddy crystal ball, (or maybe you were smoking too much weed), you get socked with a minus 15 point "penalty" for your incorrect prediction. This means that one incorrect prediction on an individual race will offset three correct predictions. On the other hand, if you manage to call a "surprise result" or an Eric Cantor style defeat of a heavily favored candidate that nobody (but you) saw coming, that would be a 20 point swing in your favor ...

If you pick the wrong candidate due to your brainwashed partisan ideology - like me because I'm going to stick my neck out and pick Alison Lundergan Grimes to upset Mitch McConnell in Kentucky - then the partisan millstone around your neck will cost you. Make too many "wrong" picks like that, and you'll get socked with enough minus 15 point penalties to wipe out that hefty early submission bonus.

Special Note: Since there's a strong possibility Mary Landrieu could be facing a runoff election to be held in December, (and the results of that runoff could decide the overall winner of this contest), we'll "assume" that the runoff election, (irrespective of the December result), was actually decided on November 4th. (If Landrieu wins the December runoff election, then all who predicted she would win are correct and receive 5 points for their correct prediction. If her Republican challenger wins the December runoff, then all those who predicted a Landrieu victory get socked with a minus 15 point penalty.)

There is also the possibility of runoffs in at least two other states, (i.e. Georgia and North Carolina), where a libertarian candidate is on the ballot in each race, so it's possible, (depending on the outcome of those runoffs), that the final composition of the Senate - and the "winner" of this contest - won't be determined until sometime in December or January.

OK, enough preamble. Here are the 36 Senate races to be decided on November 4th. The races are listed in alphabetical order by state, followed by the incumbent candidate and his/her party affiliation versus the challenger and his/her party affiliation. (Third party candidates will not be listed since it is highly unlikely a third party candidate will win any of these races - although a few of these third party candidates could force a runoff.)

1. AK Mark Begich (D) versus Dan Sullivan (R)
2. AL Jeff Sessions (R) Senator Sessions is running unopposed
3. AR Mark Pryor (D) versus Tom Cotton (R)
4. CO Mark Udall (D) versus Cory Gardner (R)
5. DE Chris Coons (D) versus Kevin Wade (R)
6. GA (open seat) Michelle Nunn (D) versus David Perdue (R)
7. HI Brian Schatz (D) versus [a Republican?]
8. IA (open seat) Bruce Braley (D) versus Joni Ernst (R)
9. ID Jim Risch (R) versus Nels Mitchell (D)
10. IL Dick Durbin (D) versus Jim Oberweis (R)
11. KS Pat Roberts (R) versus Chad Taylor (D)
12. KY Mitch McConnell (R) versus Alison Lundergan Grimes (D)
13. LA Mary Landrieu (D) versus Bill Cassidy (R)
14. MA Ed Markey (D) versus an "unknown" Republican?
15. ME Susan Collins (R) versus Shenna Bellows (D)
16. MI (open seat) Gary Peters (D) versus Terri Lynn Land (R)
17. MN Al Franken (D) versus Mike McFadden (R)
18. MS Thad Cochran (R) versus Travis Childers (D)
19. MT (some Democrat) versus Steve Daines (R)
20. NC Kay Hagan (D) versus Thom Tillis (R)
21. NE (open seat) Ben Sasse (R) versus Dave Domina (D)
22. NJ Cory Booker (D) versus Jeff Bell (R)
23. NH Jeanne Shaheen (D) versus Scott Brown (R)
24. NM Tom Udall (D) versus Allen Weh (R)
25. OK James Inhofe (R) versus Matt Silverstein (D)
26. OK (open seat) James Lankford (R) versus "not sure who ..."
27. OR Jeff Merkley (D) versus Dr. Monica Wehby (R)
28. RI Jack Reed (D) versus (not sure if Senator Reed has an opponent ... he's heavily favored.)
29. SC Lindsey Graham (R) versus Brad Hutto (D)
30. SC Tim Scott (R) versus Joyce Dickerson (D)
31. SD Mike Rounds (R) versus Rick Weiland (D)
32. TN Lamar Alexander (R) versus Gordon Ball (D)
33. TX John Cornyn (R) versus David Alameel (D)
34. VA Mark Warner (D) versus Ed Gillespie (R)
35. WV (open seat) Natalie Tennant (D) versus Shelly Moore Capito (R)
36. WY Mike Enzi (R) versus (not sure - may be unopposed)

And now for the final criteria of this contest ...

(3.) Correctly Predict Which Party Controls The Senate

This final criteria is the biggie - the one everybody is following - the one that matters. The United States Senate currently consists of 53 Democrats (and two independents who caucus with the Democrats) along with 45 Republicans, so this gives Democrats a current 55-to-45 margin. For Republicans to gain a minimum 51 seat majority and take over the Senate, they must harvest a net gain of six (6) seats. Barring unexpected last minute developments such as another candidate being revealed as a plagiarizer, a candidate caught on camera kissing and fondling a woman who is not his wife, or a fatal attack of foot-in-mouth disease during a debate, (i.e. the usual things that tend to pop up toward the end of a campaign), the final composition of the Senate is going to be a close call. Since this is what everybody is focused on, I'm going to give a special 25 point "bonus award" to each clairvoyant who correctly predicts the party that winds up controlling the Senate. (There will be no negative penalty for getting this one wrong - you get the 25 points only if you correctly predict which party winds up in control of the Senate.) Remember, if the Senate ends up in a 50-50 tie with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, control will remain with Harry Reid and the Democrats as the Vice President would break any tie votes.

The overall winner of this "Predict The Senate" contest will be the political clairvoyant who ends up with the most combined points based on these three criteria. The winner will receive an all expense paid trip to the nearest sewage treatment plant to see your tax dollars at work. File your entry by replying to this post with the number of each race along with the candidate you believe will win. (Anybody who incorrectly predicts the Alabama senate race gets zero points!)

Also include your prediction for which party will control the Senate.

I'm going to spend a bit of time (maybe a week) "researching" my predictions and consulting with my psychic. She charges $200.00 a trick, (whoops, I meant "consultation fee"), for her services; but I'm not going to think too long as racking up those early submission points may be my best chance of winning.

OK, I might as well be the first to enter my own contest. I've done enough research and reading the tea leaves to discern what is going to happen on election day. I'm posting my predictions now (without comment or explanation) in order to give everybody plenty of time to discern my genius and clairvoyance. (Ha! Ha!)

As of today, there are 80 days until the election so I start off with an 80 point "early prediction" bonus. (Whoopee, I'm "winning" my own contest.) Totaling up all the plusses and minuses of my predictions yields a net gain of five (5) Senate seats for the GOP - meaning that Democrats retain control of the Senate by the skin of their teeth. (I'm predicting Democrats retain Senate control even if some of my individual predictions are wrong - which will probably be the case.)

Without further ado, here are my predictions for each of the 36 Senate contests.

1. AK Mark Begich (D) defeats Dan Sullivan (R) in a squeaker.
2. AL Jeff Sessions (R) Senator Sessions manages to eke out a victory.
3. AR Tom Cotton (R) defeats Mark Pryor (D). Dems lose this seat.
4. CO Mark Udall (D) defeats Cory Gardner (R) Dems keep seat.
5. DE Chris Coons (D). Senator Coons easily keeps his seat.
6. GA Michelle Nunn (D) defeats David Perdue (R). (Upset GOP loss.)
7. HI Brian Schatz (D) defeats Cas Cavasso (R)
8. IA Joni Ernst (R) defeats Bruce Braley (D) Dems lose this seat.
9. ID Jim Risch (R) defeats Nels Mitchell (D)
10. IL Dick Durbin (D) defeats Jim Oberweis (R)
11. KY Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) defeats Mitch McConnell ("Surprise" GOP upset.)
12. KS Pat Roberts (R) defeats Chad Taylor (D)
13. LA Bill Cassidy (R) defeats Mary Landrieu (D) in a runoff.
14. MA Ed Markey (D) easily wins reelection - not even close.
15. ME Susan Collins (R) easily defeats Shenna Bellows (D).
16. MI Gary Peters (D) defeats Terri Lynn Land (R). Dems keep this seat.
17. MN Al Franken (D) defeats Mike McFadden (R). Dems retain seat.
18. MS Thad Cochran (R) defeats Travis Childers (D). GOP keeps seat.
19. MT Steve Daines (R) defeats Amanda Curtis (D) GOP gains another seat.
20. NC Thom Tillis (R) defeats Kay Hagan (D) in a runoff. GOP gains a seat.
21. NE Ben Sasse (R) defeats <Democrat>. Republicans keep this seat.
22. NJ Cory Booker (D) defeats Jeff Bell (R). Dems keep their NJ seat.
23. NH Jeanne Shaheen (D) easily defeats Scott Brown (R)
24. NM Tom Udall (D) defeats Allen Weh (R)
25. OK James Inhofe (R) steamrolls Matt Silverstein (D)
26. OK James Lankford (R) defeats Dem candidate. GOP retains both OK seats.
27. OR Jeff Merkley (D) defeats Dr. Monica Wehby (R)
28. RI Jack Reed (D) retains his seat.
29. SC Lindsey Graham (R) retains his seat.
30. SC Tim Scott (R) defeats Joyce Dickerson (D)
31. SD Mike Rounds (R) defeats Rick Weiland (D). GOP picks up a seat.
32. TN Lamar Alexander (R) defeats Gordon Ball (D)
33. TX John Cornyn (R) defeats Democrat David Alameel
34. VA Mark Warner (D) defeats challenger Ed Gillespie (R)
35. WV Shelly Moore Capito (R) defeats Natalie Tennant (D) GOP pickup.
36. WY Mike Enzi (R) coasts to victory. No change.

Doubt I'll play, but I'll help you by getting you to clarify something.

You said, wrong pick = -15, right pick = +5. How about no pick? If a race is too close to call can someone just not make a pick in that race and take 0 pts instead of risking a -15.

I'm pretty sure someone who just picked all favorites on day one would be very hard to beat.

Melkerson:

The answer to your question is "No". To play in this contest, you have to poop or get off the pot - no "sitting out" a race just because it's close. In a poker tournament, you can't void a hand or tell the dealer to redeal the cards just because your opponent has put you all in. Same idea applies here ... Plus, this wouldn't be much of a contest if I allowed folks to pick and choose which races they'll venture a guess on. I'm trying to make this "tough" on purpose.

That's all fine. I just thought you should be explicit about it.

Regarding the bolded, I think that allowing passes would actually make it a tougher contest as it increases the complexity of decision that one must make. But I have no interest in arguing the point. Your contest, your rules.

Quite the contrary ... Someone (like me) who posts their picks early is taking a big chance. Just two wrong picks and I'm down 40 points - minus 15 points for the penalty in addition to the 5 points I would have gotten if I had been correct; so two wrong picks wipes out eight correct picks. If I have four wrong picks, I've wiped out my entire "early prediction" bonus. (Of course, I'm counting on several of you noticing that I've picked both Mitch McConnell [in Kentucky] and David Perdue [in Georgia] to lose - and promptly labeling me a "lunatic liberal" who's sure to lose his own contest!)

For Republicans to win six seats and take over the Senate, they're (more or less) going to have to run the board in all the close races - and not lose one of the races they're supposed to win. We've already had a handful of "surprises" and unexpected results, (i.e. Eric Cantor being defeated and a candidate being forced to drop out), and there are sure to be more shockers along the way; but this is how people get rich in the stock market - they take a position when everybody else is afraid to move.

The conventional wisdom right now is that Republicans are going to take over the Senate. I'm basically betting that the "conventional wisdom" will be wrong three months from now - when it will actually count.

I didn't say it would be impossible to beat. I just said it would be tough. 4 races is a lot.

This is easy to test though. Just list who the favorites were on the day you posted (and your source) and on election day we can see how that hypothetical entry would have done.

I could be wrong. But we will see.

Melkerson:

There's another factor at play ... it's a "strategy decision" involving whether it's smarter to post early (and take the early bonus points) or wait until closer to the election. I've chosen the former option so I'm committed - I can't go back and change any of my predictions. If a candidate I've picked to win steps in a doo doo pile or commits a fatal verbal gaffe, that's too bad for me - I can't go back and "revise" my prediction. If a candidate I've chosen keels over and dies (heaven forbid) between now and election day, tough luck - I'm stuck with my prediction. Here's a perfect example of how things could go wrong for me. The conventional wisdom says Republican Thad Cochran is going to easily win in Mississippi. However, his defeated primary opponent, Tea Partier Chris McDaniel, has filed a lawsuit asking a judge to immediately issue an injunction which would void Cochran's primary victory - and hand the nomination over to McDaniel. The chances of McDaniel getting the relief he's seeking are minimal, (according to "conventional wisdom"), but who really knows? If a judge grants McDaniel the relief he is seeking, that throws the Mississippi GOP into a tizzy. In that kind of scenario, there could be just enough chaos to allow the Democratic candidate, Travis Childers, to slip in and win. That would be 20 points (of my 80 point "early" bonus) that just flew out the window.

The thing is that there are going to be "surprises" and unexpected developments between now and election day. (This is the case in every election, the "conventional wisdom" is often turned on its head.) I'm counting on two unexpected results - in Kentucky and Georgia - for my overall prediction [that Democrats will hold the Senate] to pan out. If I'm wrong about Georgia and/or Kentucky, then I'll have to be "wrong" about one or two of my other predictions in the close races. Most of the polls (and conventional wisdom) at this time are indicating that Kay Hagan in North Carolina, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, David Pryor in Arkansas, David Braley in Iowa, as well as the Democratic candidates in Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia are all in big trouble. I've (correctly?) picked all of these Dems to lose, so I'm siding with the conventional wisdom in those races. However, I'm secretly hoping that I'm wrong on at least one or two of those predictions. (If either Mitch McConnell or David Perdue lose - and one of the Dems I've picked to lose wins - then my overall prediction holds.)

Four or five of the Democratic candidates in close races will probably lose. When it comes to retaining control of the Senate, losing four or five seats is not fatal. Losing six is. That's where I'm sticking my neck out ... I just don't believe Democrats are going to lose six seats in the Senate. But, as you've pointed out, time will tell. Depending on what transpires in the next 80 days, it could very well be that waiting until the final weekend to make your predictions is the "smart" move.

You realize that if you don't allow people to sit out races, the 5/-15 scoring system is mathematically the same as 20/0 or 0/-20 or 1000020/1000000, right?

AK D
AL R
AR D
CO D
DE D
GA R
HI D
IA D
ID R
IL D
KS R
KY R
LA D
MA D
ME R
MI D
MN D
MS R
MT R
NC D
NE R
NH D
NJ D
NM D
OK R
OK R
OR D
RI D
SC R
SC R
SD R
TN R
TX R
VA D
WV R
WY R

Dems hold the Senate.

ptp:

I'll give you credit for having more courage (or prescience) than I. I should have made the same picks as you in Georgia and Kentucky, but if I did that, combining those two races with my other picks means the Democrats lose the Senate. (For a "librul" like me that would be tantamount to drinking castor oil.) So I'm betting more with my heart than my head.

By my count it looks like you're predicting a net gain of five seats in the Senate for the GOP. Due to the fact that Kay Hagan in North Carolina, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, and the Senate race in Georgia all have a third party candidate in the field, I think it's highly likely there will be runoff elections in those states. In a runoff scenario both Hagan and Landrieu could lose, so that's why I'm picking the Republican candidate to win in those two states. (I'll gladly take the 20 point "penalty" if I'm wrong.) Paradoxically, that's why I'm picking Michelle Nunn to pull a surprise upset of David Purdue in Georgia. There's a slight chance that the Libertarian candidate may siphon off just enough votes from Perdue to allow Nunn to get 50 percent plus one vote. (This may also be Kay Hagan's best chance in North Carolina - to win the general with 50 percent plus one vote rather than having to face Tillis in a runoff - but I just don't see that happening.)

For my overall prediction to be correct, (i.e. Democrats retaining control of the Senate), I'm going to need a miracle. It's funny though ... This time two years ago a lot of (mostly conservative) folks were confidently predicting Mitt Romney would be elected President. Some of those same folks are now confidently predicting the GOP will take over the Senate. I'll believe it when/if it happens.

Here's the good news: You and I are tied for the lead in this contest with 80 points apiece. :-))

AK D
AL R
AR D
CO D
DE D
GA D
HI D
IA R
ID R
IL D
KS R
KY R
LA D
MA D
ME R
MI D
MN D
MS R
MT R
NC D
NE R
NH D
NJ D
NM D
OK R
OK R
OR D
RI D
SC R
SC R
SD R
TN R
TX R
VA D
WV R
WY R

Dems hold the Senate.

There is such a massive, massive advantage to predicting early in this contest and I'm too lazy to look anything up right now so I just copy and pasted ptps list but switched two of them where he differed with ACL. Pretty sure I'm going to win.

According to Nate Silver and the Washington Post, Republicans are the favorite (on the overall prediction of a Senate takeover) on or about the date of my post.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=12197

The source for Nate (I'm too lazy to look up the rest) was this from 8/4: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...nate-forecast/

Even then it was extremely close. On the day you posted, I'm not sure if it would have been the same. The new 538 doesn't seem to update election projections as frequently as the original.

uke:

The thing that amuses/bemuses me about this contest is that if there truly is "... such a massive, massive advantage to predicting early" and Nate Silver (and the other pollsters) are correct with their prognostications of anywhere from a 60-40 to an 80-20 advantage for the GOP; then I fail to comprehend why conservative-leaning folks - like steelhouse and Seattle Lou - are holding back. Not only would they get the early prediction bonus points, but they would also get the extra 25 points for an overall correct prediction of a GOP takeover.

As for the early prediction bonus conferring a "massive" advantage, you can rack up a maximum of 180 points in the unlikely event that you bat a thousand by predicting all 36 Senate races correctly. So an early prediction bonus of 80 points is not even half the points, (i.e. 44.444 percent), you could bag by sticking your neck out and going early. If the early prediction bonus amounted to greater than 50 percent of the maximum you could earn for predicting all 36 Senate races correctly, I might be inclined to agree with you. Also, the extra 25 points awarded only to those who get the overall prediction correct is designed to partially offset one incorrect prediction.

In poker, you're supposed to get all the money in when you have the best of it. If Nate Silver and all the other prognosticators are correct, it would seem that steelhouse, Seattle Lou and all the other conservative diehards on here would have jumped all over this. If they truly believed Nate and the others they would be posting their predictions, taking the early bonus points, and laughing and chortling about how badly "old Lawhon" is going to lose his own contest. The fact that nobody, so far, has taken the GOP side of this bet leads me to believe that maybe the right-leaners don't believe their own polls. (Yes, I'm trying to draw steelhouse and Seattle Lou out ...)

AK D
AL R
AR D
CO D
DE D
GA R
HI D
IA D
ID R
IL D
KS R
KY R
LA R
MA D
ME R
MI D
MN D
MS R
MT R
NC D
NE R
NH D
NJ D
NM D
OK R
OK R
OR D
RI D
SC R
SC R
SD R
TN R
TX R
VA D
WV R
WY R

Dems hold the Senate.

Caveat: The following only pertains to Nate Silver's predictions. I have no idea what other prognosticators are saying.

I think you need to read (or re-read) that link from Nate that I posted. First of all it was from quite a bit before you started the thread, so using that as a yardstick for who the favorites are at the time of your post may not be accurate.

Secondly, even Nate doesn't believe Nate, he details numerous limitations and his "forecasts [in the linked article] are not the result of a formal model or statistical algorithm". The results of his formal modeling are what were so accurate in the past and what got him recognition.

And finally, after all of that, his prediction is 50.9 R to 49.1 D which is less than one race and almost certainly within the margin of error for whatever method he used.

I know that he said over a week before you started this that the republicans are slight favorites and it seems like you really want to stress that. But read the full content of his prediction. Quoting just that one part of what he said is misleading, to say the least.

Melkerson:

OK, I've went back and (carefully) read Nate's August 4th FiveThirtyEight article that you linked.

Several things jump out at me. First, Nate mentions that turnout in midterm elections tends to favor Republicans, (i.e. that the "Republican base" is more motivated to turn out.) He has a point there. Also, I have a feeling 2014 turnout will be skewed against Democrats (when compared to 2012 turnout) for a different reason. In 2012, Democrats - and especially certain segments of the Democratic base such as African-Americans and young people - were really motivated to turn out and vote. This is just me, but I suspect a great deal of that fervor followed the airing of Mitt Romney's "47 percent" remarks. (If Mitt had not made those comments or those comments had not been recorded and disseminated, I'm almost certain he would have defeated Obama, but that's just my highly biased and subjective opinion.) The bottom line is that I suspect Democratic turnout was greatly inflated, (over what it otherwise would have been), due to the polarizing nature of that campaign and especially Mitt Romney's 47 percent remarks.

In this election, I have a feeling Republican candidates (especially in the Senate races), are acutely aware of what foot-in-mouth disease can do to their prospects. Candidates (in both parties) are going to be exceedingly cautious with respect to what they say in front of a microphone. If all the Republican candidates in the close Senate races can avoid getting drug into racial politics or uttering their own version of Mitt's 47 percent remarks, Democrats may not be as motivated (and "fired up") to get out and vote. If there's low voter turnout, that can only work in the GOP's favor.

Nate also mentions the "quality" of recent polling - especially partisan polling done for polling firms such as Rasmussen and PPP. I agree with Nate that these polls should be taken with a grain of salt. (I tend to look at Rasmussen and PPP as canceling each other out.) After the 2012 debacle, Rasmussen issued a press release saying something to the effect that they were going to go back and look at their polling methodology in an effort to determine how and why they had been so wrong. (Rasmussen and Gallup - as well as Karl Rove - were all confidently predicting a Romney victory.) I doubt if they have "fixed" their flaws as they keep showing Republican candidates doing much better than other nonpartisan polls such as the NBC/Marist poll. (Of course, the same kind of objections can be noted about Democratic polls such as those conducted by PPP.) So Nate's point about waiting for "higher quality" polling after labor day is well taken. People should also be wary of the polls they see on the Real Clear Politics web site as it is a not-so-secret fact that the RCP site is backed by Steve Forbes. His right-leaning bias occasionally shows, despite his best efforts to make the site appear totally unbiased and objective. (If you look carefully at summaries of polls on the RCP site, especially in close races, you'll notice more polls conducted by right-leaning partisan polling firms - like Rasmussen - than you will polls conducted by Democratic leaning firms like PPP.) RCP lists an "average" of all the polls. This is misleading - and probably not accurate - since a majority of the polls are what Nate describes as "low quality" due to partisan bias.

Nate had one other comment with which I agree. He noted that "waves" (and wave elections) tend not to break until late in the campaign and evidence that a wave is developing often does not begin showing up [in polling] until October. If that's the case this time around, I can see why some folks are hesitating to commit - they're waiting until the last minute to see if a wave develops. If a wave does develop, it's probably curtains for my predictions ...

Still, with all these caveats and cautions noted by Nate, I'm having a hard time squaring how he says Republicans are 60-40 (3:2) to take over the Senate while at the same time he comes up with a "probabilistic chart" which shows Republicans at 50.9 to Democrats 49.1 - which is a virtual dead heat. Then again, advanced math was never my strong suit - which probably explains how I managed to make a lot of people rich at the poker table. I suppose I should spend some time reading Nate's "The Signal and the Noise" book.

The individual races aren't independent and uncorrelated events.

Will The 2014 Election Be A Wave Or A Ripple?

Here's an interesting read ...

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...on-wave-ripple

AK R
AL R
AR R
CO D
DE D
GA R
HI D
IA R
ID R
IL D
KS R
KY R
LA R
MA D
ME R
MI R
MN D
MS R
MT R
NC R
NE R
NH D
NJ D
NM D
OK R
OK R
OR D
RI D
SC R
SC R
SD R
TN R
TX R
VA D
WV R
WY R

GOP majority 54-46

Now that's that what I like - a Republican with balls!!

Congratulations Apex. By being first (and early) with your prediction of a GOP takeover, you pretty much guarantee that you'll win this contest - if the (hoped for) "wave" develops and not too many of your predictions turn out wrong. With a 78 point bonus for going early, you can afford to be wrong on one or two of your individual races - and still be right on your overall prediction.

By my count you're going with a net pickup of nine seats. (You must be a true believer as this is even more gains than the most optimistic Republican-leaning pollsters are predicting.) That seems quite ambitious, (I'm hoping for a maximum of five pickups for the GOP), but who really knows? If a Republican wave does develop, you're a genius - in addition to being clairvoyant.

Special Request

I recall reading somewhere on here someone mentioning that Nate Silver used to post on 2+2 before he became famous. If that is so, maybe a close personal friend (or anybody who knows Nate) might drop him a PM and mention this thread. Wouldn't it be interesting if Nate were to mention this contest in his next FiveThirtyEight blog posting? I would have my 15 seconds of fame - plus a ton of conservative-leaning bloggers and zealots coming out of the woodwork to tell me I'm "...a moron, a dummy, an idiot, a clueless idiot - and an imbecile to boot!" (Take your pick.) Then, on election day when I'm proven right, I can stick my tongue out at all of them and taunt them by saying: "Ha! Ha! Ha!"

I love politics. It's almost as fun as poker.

The Skunk In The Room Which Could Ruin My Prediction ...

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Column...Win-Senate-GOP

Until we see election day exit polls in the close Senate races, it's hard to judge what effect the (unpopularity?) of the Affordable Care Act will have on Democratic incumbents like Kay Hagan and Mary Landrieu. There's no doubt though that "Obamacare" is helping Republican candidates - especially in the red state contests. Or is it?

Republicans seem to take it as gospel that the ACA is grossly unpopular and the rising discontent (among voters) will lead them to victory in November. But is that a valid assumption? I wonder if the only people who are going to vote for Republicans strictly due to their negative feelings about Obamacare are the same people who were going to vote for Republicans anyway: Republicans!

Could it possibly be that a large swath of Democratic and independent voters - who had no health insurance coverage at all - will give Obama (and Democrats) some credit for at least trying to do something about the problem - while at the same time giving Republicans no credit for their stance of continually trying to kill the ACA and doing nothing to try and help "fix" the law? Republicans talk "repeal and replace," but there's very little discussion of just what they propose in the "replace" department.

I'm not sure if alleged voter discontent with the ACA is the red hot "galvanize the voters" issue that Republicans claim. (If it were, it should be showing up - in a big way - in the polls.) Republicans may be overplaying their hand when it comes to ACA unpopularity. We'll see though ... If Republicans have this figured right - and they push the hell out of the issue - my prediction [of Democrats holding on to the Senate] could go right down the drain.