Ratings Update: September 19, 2014

We're less than seven weeks out from the elections, and it's around now that some uncertainty begins dropping out of the forecast--mainly because 1) there's more polling out, giving us a more accurate picture of where candidates stand, and 2) there's less time for the underdogs to make up the difference before the election. So a lot of our ratings changes this time will be adjusting for that.

The Spoiler Effect: Polls vs. Reality

More often than not, third-party candidates have little effect on the ultimate result of an election. The eventual performance of most third-party candidates is lower than the margin of error of most polls (2%-4%), and so a poll that includes every single candidate running in the election (yes, even the Rent Is Too Damn High Party) provides no useful information about the likely results of the election. But when a third party candidate begins polling well (above the margin of error), pollsters would do well to include that candidate in their survey questions, so as to more closely reflect the range of choices voters have. A poll that gives a choice between Al Gore, George W. Bush, and Ralph Nader, for example, could give a different result from a poll that gives a choice between just Gore and Bush.

So in an election like the Senate race in North Carolina, where Libertarian Sean Haugh has been supported by about 10% of respondents on average in the polls that include his name, it'd probably be a good idea to continue putting his name in polls, since even considering sampling error Haugh's performance is probably fairly strong. Certainly it's strong enough to possibly tip the scales in favor of either candidate in a close race like North Carolina.

The Spoiler Effect

In Virginia's 2013 gubernatorial election, Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis captured over 146,000 votes--almost three times the 56,000-vote margin that separated Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli from the victor, former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe. His presence on the ballot may well have cost Republicans the governor's mansion. Last week, Cuccinelli consultant Chris LaCivitas had this to say about Libertarian candidates:

"Libertarians and quote-un-quote libertarian-minded Republicans exist for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to keep Republicans from winning general elections." -- Chris LaCivita

Nationalizing the Races

One way to look at the 2014 midterms--any midterm, really--is to consider them to be a referendum on President Obama. That is, voters will vote mostly based on their perception of President Obama rather than on their perceptions of the candidates running in their district or state. In such a world, where local races are completely nationalized, Democrats are doomed. As of December 2013 (which is a long time ago according to campaign time, but recent enough to make some judgments), in only one state--his native Hawaii--is his approval rating above 60%; moreover, of the 12 most disapproving states, two, Alaska and Arkansas, are home to two of the most vulnerable Democratic senators in the country. 

Of course, we don't live in that world. Regardless of whatever pundits might say about how the president's favorability impacts the races in the states, the fact is that the elections this year don't have President Obama vs. a generic Republican on the ballot. They're about two candidates that have their own records and their own personal appeal on which to run.

Brief notes on the North Carolina GOP Senate primary

SurveyUSA just released the first poll of the Republican primary field North Carolina's Senate election since they held their debate yesterday. And it looks pretty rosy for House Speaker Thom Tillis. Prior to the debate, Speaker Tillis had consistently led in the polls, but only by only by 6 or 7 percentage points, and not nearly enough to break 40%, which is the required plurality a candidate must win in order avoid a runoff election. Now he's at 39%, well within the margin of error of the necessary 40% and leading his closest opponent, Tea Party activist Greg Brannon, by 19 points. 

We can't say just yet that Speaker Tillis can comfortably assume an easy road to the nomination without a potentially grueling runoff campaign against Brannon or the other major contender, Baptist pastor Mark Harris of Charlotte. After all, this is just one poll, albeit one that comes after the second debate in which the candidates failed to distinguish themselves from each other. Specifically, the three other candidates who aren't Thom Tillis failed to distinguish themselves from the Speaker, who was the only candidate at the debate who held elected office. If none of the other candidates can present himself (or herself, in the case of nurse practitioner Heather Grant) as a viable yet distinct alternative to Speaker Tillis, current polling suggests that Republican voters will defer to the Speaker's superior political experience and name recognition.

But if we had to guess? We'd say an outright Tillis victory in the primary on May 6. If you happen to be a North Carolina Republican, go vote. Civic duty and all that.

New Polls Out, Have Political Junkies Questioning Meaning of Existence

I said something a while ago about one poll not being news. What about, I dunno, four?

Campaign junkies are (or at least, I am) either excited, disgusted, or perplexed by the latest set of polls out from Upshot, a new 2014-midterxtravaganza section from The New York Times, and the Kaiser Family Foundation. You've got David Lauter at the Los Angeles Times giving a positive "always look on the bright side of life" spin, especially on Sen. Mark Pryor's chances in Arkansas. Then on the other side you've got the always-prescient Karl Rove at Fox News raising some admittedly reasonable objections to the poll methodology. And then you've got non-partisans wondering why these polls bucked trends so hard.

That's me, the last one. (I'm also a bit excited, but only because these are the first polls to come out of some of these states in weeks.) 

So, first things first: what do the polls say?

Close-Up: Turning Out Tar Heelers

North Carolina in 2008 was simply something that was not supposed to happen. Four years earlier, in 2004, the state voted for President George W. Bush over Sen. John Kerry by almost 13 points--despite Sen. Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards, hailing from the town of Robbins, in Moore County. In 2007, incumbent Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole was expected to win re-election comfortably over her Democratic challenger, state senator Kay Hagan, and the state was not expected to go to Sen. Obama--if it did, it was said, it would just be icing on the cake. 

As it turns out, it was: Sen. Obama didn't really need North Carolina's 15 electoral when he had 350 more. On the other hand, Hagan's surprise victory, below, was no mere icing; her vote proved invaluable in obtaining the 60-seat supermajority required for the Senate to pass the Affordable Care Act in 2009.

2008 North Carolina Senate election by county and margin.

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.