March Senate Predictions

I’m going to forecast some Senate races in 2008. These are obviously extremely preliminary, but early polling data can give us a rough estimate over what to expect in the fall. And I decided to be gutsy and not lump them into “Democratic favored” or “leans” categories…

I’ll keep up with Senate race predictions on my new “Senate Races” section.

Democrats Keep: (11 seats)

Pryor (D-AK), Biden (D-DE), Durbin (D-IL), Kerry (D-MA), Levin (D-MI), Reed (D-RI), Rockefeller (D-WV), Harkin (D-IA), Baucus (D-MT), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Johnson (D-SD)

Republicans Keep: (14 seats)

Stevens (R-AK), Sessions (R-AL), Chambliss (R-GA), McConnell (R-KY), Wicker (R-MS), Dole (R-NC), Inhofe (R-OK), Graham (R-SC), Alexander (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Roberts (R-KA), Cochran (R-MS), Enzi (R-WY), Barrasso (R-WY)

Democratic Takeover: Close races but are currently trending Democratic takeover (4 seats)

Norm Coleman (R-MN) to Al Franken, John Sununu (R-NH) to Jeanne Shaheen, Pete Dominici (R-NM) to Tom Udell, Open Seat to Mark Warner (D-VA)

Republican Takeover (1 seat)

Mary Landreau (D-LA) to John Kennedy

Too Close: Close races with no clear front-runner (3 seats)

Bob Schaffer vs. Tom Udall- Colorado, Gordon Smith (R-OR) vs. No Clear Challanger, Susan Collins (R-ME) vs. Tom Allen

I put in the “too close” category because there are truly a few races that will be very close in November, or at least they’re trending that way right now. Republicans Smith, Collins, Sununu and Coleman are vulnerable while Democrats have their eyes on open seats in Virginia & Colorado. If everything goes as planned for the Democrats, they could walk away with a net gain of 5 seats in November, giving them a 56-44 majority in the Senate. It currently looks like, unfortunately, Mary Landreau (D-LA) will lose her seat. In the after math of Hurricane Katrina, thousands of New Orleans residents fled Louisiana, depressing the city’s Democratic electorate. Landreau squeaked by in 2002 (before Katrina). Now it looks like without the base that elected her, she will be unable to win in November. That’s the only bad news for Democrats–and the only reason she is vulnerable is because of the political implications of a natural disaster. Republicans are certainly going to be on the defensive this year.

Once again, this is where I stand as of right now. I’ll post more in depth info about some of these races and new predictions as the year progresses. Public opinion changes, events happen, controversies erupt: you never know what can swing an election.

Obama fights for victory in Iowa

Obama’s campaign has been on the upturn since his announcement last February, but can he win Iowa?

Rival John Edwards never stopped campaigning in the state after his loss in 2004. Edwards had established himself in Iowa, and immediately began campaigning in every rural town in the state.

Upon Clinton’s announcement, early polls indicated she was the national front-runner. Over the summer the media painted her as the “inevitable” nominee but months later she lost significant support in early states. Voters soon tuned in and ultimately the value of her name recognition was put up against the arguments of “change vs. experience” and “electability” (and she’s lost a lot of support.)

For Obama, it’s been an uphill fight against an established campaign at the grassroots level and a nationally recognized former first lady. Ask an Obama staffer and they’ll tell you that they’re “building a plane in mid flight”- a reference to building a campaign while running at the same time.

I am not in a position to predict who will win Thursday night’s caucuses. It’s just too close. But I can give you the numbers that I’m looking at that show both discouraging and encouraging news for Obama.

Pollster.com reveals that Obama’s support within the state is declining; he peaked a week ago against his Democratic rivals and has lost a few percentage points. RCP and Pollster reveal the field’s average at Clinton 29.3%, Obama 25.9% and Edwards 25.2%.

CNN reported an American Research Group (ARG) poll released Dec. 25, 2007 that revealed Obama slipping significantly among male voters.

According to the poll, Obama has lost some ground among male voters in Iowa: Last week, he led the field with 27 percent support, followed by 21 for Clinton and 19 for Edwards. This week, the leaders are Clinton and Edwards, with 28 and 27 percent support among Democratic men. Obama has 16 percent support, and Joe Biden has 11 percent.

However, the same ARG poll has been widely criticized for straying away from the vast majority of polls in Iowa. ARG reported that 34% of Iowa caucus-goers support Clinton, compared with only 20% for Edwards and 19% for Obama; most polls show a statistical tie, and ARG was way off.

Still, if their finding for the male demographic is correct, perhaps that, coupled with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto could explain a small boost in Hillaryland. Clinton has revived her “experience” rhetoric in the wake of the Pakistan crisis, and since has painted the junior senator as inexperienced, a “roll of the dice” as Bill said.

But there are encouraging signs coming out of the Obama camp.

Strategically, the campaign is spending more in Iowa advertising than any other candidate, outspending Senator Clinton by $2 million. Edwards, who has been criticized for allowing an independent PAC to spend $750,000 in advertising for him, is no where near the spending level of his rivals. Reports the International Herald Tribune:

The Democrats are spending by far the most on television advertising here, and smashing records in the process. Senator Barack Obama has spent the most, at $8.3 million, Clinton has spent $6.5 million and Edwards has spent $2.7 million, according to an analysis by CMAG, a firm that tracks political advertising spending.

Obama is spending more than Clinton in the last throws of the Iowa campaign. Interesting note: Edwards is spending only $2 million–perhaps reflective of his reliance on grassroots infrastructure instead of a sudden media blitz.

Money doesn’t buy votes, but visibility certainly gives you the edge.

In one of her biggest expenditures of the campaign here, advisers said Thursday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is spending more than $20,000 to broadcast a two-minute taped message during every 6 p.m. newscast in Iowa on Wednesday, the eve of the caucuses, which will be seen by an estimated 515,510 adults in the state.

Not to be outdone, the Obama campaign purchased the next two minutes of advertising space. Initially, they wanted to lay the trump card on Clinton, attempting to buy a 5 minute segment directly following Clinton’s ad that would be synced live. Complications in coordination and federal election laws however made that impossible.

One measure of a candidate’s potential success is their turn out to events. The Obama Campaign posted the following graph to demonstrate overwhelming support:

It would be difficult to suggest that Obama does not have rock star status. His popularity among young people has scared the Clinton Campaign into discouraging young voters from turning out on caucus day. Young people, 14% of whom turned out in 2004, are a major demographic for Obama for America (often underrepresented in the polls). They’re just gravy to his support across the state.

And many polls reflect this graph put out by Obama for America, a demonstration of Sen. Obama’s electability:

Tight and unpredictable

What an amazing race. Honestly, this can’t be closer. Almost every poll in Iowa has the top three candidates in a statistical dead heat. So lets look at some numbers.

Strategic Vision, Dec. 27, 2007
Obama 30%
Clinton 29%
Edwards 28%

Quad City Times, Dec. 27, 2007
Obama 29%
Edwards 29%
Clinton 28%

LA Times/Bloomberg, Dec. 26, 2007
Clinton 31%
Edwards 25%
Obama 22%

God knows why the LA Times poll is off-trend. Recently an American Research Group poll came under fire from political analysts who questioned its credibility and methodology. The poll, released on Dec. 23, showed Clinton at 31%, Edwards at 20%, and Obama at 19%. Statistically, these numbers did not match similar polls conducted in the same period. Moreover, its results reflected a dramatic shift from its previously published poll a week earlier that showed a statistical tie.

At this point, any poll that tells you one candidate is ahead of another by a statistically significant margin is probably flawed. I say this of course provided that there is no major political catastrophe to any one campaign over the next 5 days. Polls are wonderful indicators of general trends, but I wouldn’t trust them individually; taken at face value, one single poll doesn’t reflect the big picture–it gives you the small window of a hopefully “random” selection of people, sometimes considered to be “likely caucus-goers.” What is accurate is all polls together, and with that in mind, Real Clear Politics has averaged Clinton’s lead to about 2% in Iowa… ie, nothing.

What will matter this Thursday night will be how each campaign can Get Out the Vote (GOTV). It’s crunch time for each candidate, and everyone is making their final appeal to the some 45% of Iowa voters who have yet to pick a presidential hopeful.

Conditions are favorable in Iowa for caucas night. Reports the Weather Channel, Des Moines will have a high of 28 degrees and a low of 22, mostly sunny on caucus day with a 10% chance of rain. Great news for the Obama and Clinton folks, terrible news for the Edwards folks.

Obama relies on a large block of youth voters, where Clinton relies on middle-aged women, both demographics likely to suffer if there were a snow storm on caucus night. Edwards supporters are traditional caucus goers–the people who would have went no matter what the conditions were outside, so if conditions are favorable on caucus night, there is nothing to depress Edwards’ rivals support-base.

But the weather is just as reliable as poll numbers, and anything can happen.