No Cellphones, No Callbacks, No Neutrality

We've hoped for a while that people have learned, through hearing about polls, that one poll by itself doesn't constitute a game-changer. It should only be regarded as part of a larger trend--because absent a major, substantive scandal or the death of one candidate, polling as a whole rarely swings suddenly in a new direction. However, even in this context the latest New England College poll does give us something to think about: is Sen. Jeanne Shaheen really down against Scott Brown?

In its survey of 921 New Hampshire likely voters, New England College found that Sen. Shaheen was just barely behind the former Massachusetts senator by less than one percentage point, well within the margin of error. But then again, a month ago Sen. Shaheen routinely led by 6 or 7 points. "Within the margin of error" is not a phrase she wanted to hear. And it's not as though this poll is a truly isolated incident. Recent polls from UMass - Amherst, the University of New Hampshire, and SurveyUSA all show a close race. So should we accept this New England College survey as part of the story? 

Stragglers: Georgia Runoff and the Rest

One thing that's bugging me right about now is the fact that I don't have access to Stata, the statistical package in which I do a lot of the stuff that goes in here. Fortunately, I do still have my Excel spreadsheets to enter polls and election results and create graphs, and I still have Microsoft Paint to make those maps I love so much. And a lot of the primaries are over already. As far as competitive races go, only the following primaries have yet to be held:

One Poll Isn't News

Republicans are abuzz with the latest news from New Hampshire: former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown is leading incumbent Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen 49-44 in the latest poll.

Close-Up: Taking Stock of Scott Brown

The big news is out: Scott Brown is officially in the New Hampshire Senate race to challenge Democratic incumbent Sen. Jeanne Shaheen.

For the last year I was skeptical of the former Massachusetts senator running for Senate again, especially since he had specifically declared that he was too tired to run for any election in 2014; in fact, I was actually quite annoyed that polling for a man who hadn't even entered the race was crowding out polling for the real Granite Staters who were actually running. There were two reasons for this: first, I didn't like the idea of putting people in the simulator who hadn't even indicated that they were running. (I have the same feelings when it comes to everyone crowding around Hillary 2016--even though she's still thinking it over. More on that in later posts, though.) Second, I felt pretty sure that his move wasn't in preparation for a Senate run in 2014 but rather for a presidential run in 2016.

I still believe those decisions were the right ones at the time; of course, now that I've been proven wrong, we need to re-evaluate this race.

The Run-Down: March 31, 2014

To start off, we're going to give basically the crash-course summary of this election, of who wants what to happen.

Thirty-six elections to the Senate will happen on November 4, 2014: 33 "class 2 Senate seats" as well as three special elections in Hawaii, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. Currently, the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, with 53 Democratic senators as well as two independents in Vermont and Maine who are caucusing with the Democrats. Republicans, therefore, need to pick up six seats in order to capture the majority (in the event of a 50-50 split, Vice President Joe Biden would be able to cast a tie-breaking vote).

It's way easier than it sounds. The quirk of Senate elections is that if a senator is elected in a presidential election year, that senator's next election is guaranteed to be in a midterm year, and vice-versa. Midterm elections have historically been horrendous for the president's party: only twice since World War II (in 1998 and 2002) has the president's party gained seats in a midterm election. Even in a neutral or sort-of-okay year, we'd expect the Democrats to lose seats in the Senate. However, this year the Democrats' problem is much worse simply because they did so well six years ago, in 2008, when Senator Obama's popularity allowed him to win the presidential election and swept in a number of Democrats on his coat-tails. As a result of their stellar performance in 2008, not including the special election seats (which are safe for one party or the other, as described below) Democrats now must defend 21 seats, while Republicans only have 12 to defend. Even worse for the Democrats, the GOP seats this year consist of the safest ones that they were able to defend in 2008, while the Democratic seats include many marginal victories they won in competitive states like North Carolina, Louisiana, and Alaska.