Kansas and incumbency advantages in our model

I said last time that we have no clue what's going on in Kansas, and it just got harder to tell, since yesterday the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that Democrat Chad Taylor could have his name removed from the ballot. With Taylor presumably out of the picture (to be replaced by "random Democrat", if Secretary of State Kris Kobach's next order stands), the only polls that make sense now are the ones that ask about a matchup between independent Greg Orman and Republican Sen. Pat Roberts.

 

Unfortunately, that doesn't make matters any simpler. To begin with, very few polls asked about what would happen if it were just Orman vs. Roberts; in fact, the YouGov / New York Times / CBS poll didn't even include Orman in their question, as it was conducted when Taylor was still in the race. 

The Mississippi Update

So far polling has shown both incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran and state senator Chris McDaniel both polling well below the 50% required to avoid a runoff (which is entirely possible, considering that a third candidate, Thomas Carey, is in the race (but isn't being talked about at all by the media and has only pulled in single-digits in the polls). 

A few things to note:

• Sen. Cochran just barely edges out McDaniel in my average, 44-43. Statistically, it's a dead heat.
• However, since an apparent eleventh-hour polling surge for McDaniel, the Tea Party-backed state senator has polled much more consistently than Sen. Cochran. McDaniel's poll numbers have been above 40% since April, while Sen. Cochran's have not broken 45% since then. This is a contrast from the six months prior, in which McDaniel never broke 40% and Sen. Cochran had polled above 50% multiple times.
• Incumbency is important--there are quite a few undecided voters that will probably largely break for Sen. Cochran based on name recognition, which, if anything, is the thing that will help him avoid a runoff. However, I believe the importance of incumbency drops sharply as election day approaches--by that time incumbency should have translated into leads in the polls. If anything, Sen. Cochran's poll numbers have only gone down.

Because of all this, I think this primary election will be too close to call. If I were to be specific about it, I'd say that Sen. Cochran will come in first but with less than 50% of the vote--meaning a runoff election between Sen. Cochran and McDaniel on June 24.

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.

Incumbency: Better the Evil You Know

One of the most secure jobs in the United States is as a Justice on the Supreme Court. But being an incumbent senator comes pretty damn close. Look at this graph:

Sen. Cochran's line actually goes off the chart twice because no Democrat ran in 1990 or in 2002.