In 2010, there will be 36 elections for the US Senate. Of these, 33 are the Class III seats that would normally be up, and 2 are special elections due to resignations of Senators Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton (should she be confirmed as Secretary of State as expected). Republicans currently control 19 of these, and Democrats control 17.
Of the 17 Democratic seats, 13 will have incumbents seeking re-election who were elected in 2004 and served full terms. In another 3, it is probable that an incumbent, who was/will be appointed this year, will seek re-election. These are Colorado (where it is likely that Michael Bennett will be seeking re-election when he is appointed to replace Ken Salazar when he is confirmed as Secretary of the Interior), Illinois (where recently-appointed Roland Burris will probably seek re-election), and New York (where Hillary Clinton’s successor will likely seek re-election). The remaining Democratic seat is Delaware, where Ted Kaufman has been appointed to serve the in place of Joe Biden, but has indicated that he will not seek re-election.
On the Republican side, it is likely that in 15 of the 19 seats, a full-term incumbent will seek re-election. The other 4 are occupied by incumbents who have announced their retirement at the end of their current terms (Mel Martinez in Florida, Sam Brownback in Kansas, Kit Bond in Missouri, and George Voinovich in Ohio).
So, of the 5 seats in which incumbents will not seek re-election, 4 are occupied by Republicans and 1 by a Democrat. This would seem to put the Democratic Party in good shape to maintain or add to their majority.
Intrade is a real money open market for futures contracts. They maintain markets for a large number of contracts on the outcome of upcoming elections. Individuals can buy contracts for prices (set by supply/demand) between 0 and 100 (corresponding to $0 - $10). If the outcome is realized, the payout is $10. If not, it is $0. The contracts are set as to the Political Party that will prevail. For example, right now you can put a contract on Chuck Schumer’s Senate seat for a Democrat to be elected (presumably Schumer) for 85 ($8.50). If he wins, the contract would pay $10. If he loses, the contract would pay $0.
Because the prices are set by supply and demand, the current price can be used as an estimate of the perceived likelihood that the event will occur. An observer can therefore use the current prices as predictors of the outcomes of the elections. In two recent posts, I looked at how well the Intrade contracts were at “predicting” the outcomes on Senate elections in 2006 and 2008. The last data I obtained before the respective Elections Days allowed correct prediction of every Senate election in these two cycles.
The contracts for the 2010 Senate elections were first made available last Friday (January 9, 2009). Today, I looked at the current bid/ask/last price data to get an early look at how the individuals participating in this market think the 2010 Senate elections will come out. If there was a bid or recent sale greater than 80, I concluded that the seat was “safe”. If a seat is not “safe”, then I just categorize them at this point as leaning toward the Party with the highest value for bid/ask (or last) price.
Here is the summary: of the 19 Republican seats, 14 are safe, 3 lean Republican (FL, KY, PA), and 2 lean Democratic (MO, LA). Of the 17 Democratic seats, 15 are safe and 2 lean Democratic (CO).
The current Intrade contract prices indicate a pick up of 2 seats for the Democrats: they would pick up David Vitter’s seat in Louisiana and Kit Bond’s seat in Missouri. Vitter is presumably running for re-election while Bond has announced his retirement. The data suggest that Arlen Specter will win Pennsylvania, Jim Bunning will be re-elected in Kentucky, and the Florida seat of Mel Martinez will be retained by the GOP. The Democratic seats not indicated as safe by these data are the Colorado seat currently occupied by Ken Salazar, which will likely become Michael Bennett’s when Salazar in confirmed to President-elect Barack Obama’s Cabinet, and Harry Reid’s seat in Nevada.
At regular intervals between now and Election Day next year, I’ll provide an update on what the Intrade contracts “predict” for the Senate races.
Showing posts with label Pennsylvania. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pennsylvania. Show all posts
Friday, January 16, 2009
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Chris Matthews Not Running For Pennsylvania Senate Seat in 2010
It was widely reported yesterday that Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s Hardball, told his producers yesterday that he would not run for the US Senate in 2010. He had been rumored as seriously considering a run for the seat currently held by Arlen Specter. In fact, Nate Silver reported late last year that Matthews was hiring staff for such a run.
About three weeks ago, I took my first look at this seat, one that is considered among the most likely to be picked up by Democrats in next year’s election. In that piece, I argued that Governor Ed Rendell would make the strongest candidate, and might well be the favorite should he run. I also briefly discussed current House members Patrick Murphy, Allyson Schwartz and Joe Sestak as perhaps the other potential Democratic candidates with the greatest chance of mounting a successful campaign.
While Rendell might well win regardless of his opponent, the success of other Democrats would likely depend on whether or not Sen. Arlen Specter decides to seek a 6th term or retire. Specter will be 80 years old on Election Day next year, and has been in a battle with Hodgkin’s lymphoma since 2005. While he has not publicly indicated his intent to retire, many believe that he will. In addition to the strong challenge that would be mounted by any of a number of Democrats, Specter is likely to face yet another Primary race against highly conservative former Rep. Pat Toomey, currently serving as President of the Club for Growth. Specter barely edged Toomey 51% - 49% in the 2004 Primary. It would be a long and tough election cycle for the aging Specter, one that would be avoided should he retire gracefully at this point.
Rendell has a long history in politics. He served two terms as District Attorney of Philadelphia starting in 1977 and then sought the 1986 Democratic nomination for Governor. He lost that bid to Robert Casey, Sr. He then sought the Democratic nomination for Mayor of Philadelphia and again lost in the Primary. However, he won that post in 1991 and 1995, and was elected Governor in 2002 and 2006. He is now term-limited: it is likely that he is eyeing the next rung on the political ladder, and the 2010 US Senate race seems perfect for him.
The trio of aforementioned member of the US House – Sestak, Schwartz and Murphy – top most lists of Democratic candidates. It would seem foolish for any of them to mount a Primary challenge against Rendell, although if seriously interested, it would seem that they each should be stockpiling cash for what would be an expensive Senate campaign. In 2004, Specter raised $19 million for his Primary and General Election races. Based solely on the financial picture, it would seem that Joe Sestak is in the best position: as of 24 November 2008, he had over $3.9 cash on hand. Allyson Schwartz also had a tidy sum on which to build, reporting about $2 million on hand. Patrick Murphy had but $200,000.
One person that I did not mention in my previous post was Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham. It was reported that she publicly indicated an interest in the Senate post should Chris Matthews not seek the nomination. Abraham spent 15 years as a Judge in Pennsylvania before her election as District Attorney. She has served in that capacity since 1991. Others who are receiving at least some attention are State Auditor general Jack Wagner and State Representative Josh Shapiro.
At this point, I would have to put Rendell as the favorite should he run. If Specter runs and Rendell does not, Specter would perhaps be a slight favorite at this point, although he would be strongly challenged by Sestak, Schwartz and Murphy, perhaps in that order of likelihood. Despite a statement from his office in early December suggesting that Sestak was intent on future service in the House, it’s hard to reconcile that with the horde of campaign cash on which he now sits.
For those who want a more exhaustive list of potential candidates, see this posting on DailyKos – there are 23 potential candidates mentioned!
About three weeks ago, I took my first look at this seat, one that is considered among the most likely to be picked up by Democrats in next year’s election. In that piece, I argued that Governor Ed Rendell would make the strongest candidate, and might well be the favorite should he run. I also briefly discussed current House members Patrick Murphy, Allyson Schwartz and Joe Sestak as perhaps the other potential Democratic candidates with the greatest chance of mounting a successful campaign.
While Rendell might well win regardless of his opponent, the success of other Democrats would likely depend on whether or not Sen. Arlen Specter decides to seek a 6th term or retire. Specter will be 80 years old on Election Day next year, and has been in a battle with Hodgkin’s lymphoma since 2005. While he has not publicly indicated his intent to retire, many believe that he will. In addition to the strong challenge that would be mounted by any of a number of Democrats, Specter is likely to face yet another Primary race against highly conservative former Rep. Pat Toomey, currently serving as President of the Club for Growth. Specter barely edged Toomey 51% - 49% in the 2004 Primary. It would be a long and tough election cycle for the aging Specter, one that would be avoided should he retire gracefully at this point.
Rendell has a long history in politics. He served two terms as District Attorney of Philadelphia starting in 1977 and then sought the 1986 Democratic nomination for Governor. He lost that bid to Robert Casey, Sr. He then sought the Democratic nomination for Mayor of Philadelphia and again lost in the Primary. However, he won that post in 1991 and 1995, and was elected Governor in 2002 and 2006. He is now term-limited: it is likely that he is eyeing the next rung on the political ladder, and the 2010 US Senate race seems perfect for him.
The trio of aforementioned member of the US House – Sestak, Schwartz and Murphy – top most lists of Democratic candidates. It would seem foolish for any of them to mount a Primary challenge against Rendell, although if seriously interested, it would seem that they each should be stockpiling cash for what would be an expensive Senate campaign. In 2004, Specter raised $19 million for his Primary and General Election races. Based solely on the financial picture, it would seem that Joe Sestak is in the best position: as of 24 November 2008, he had over $3.9 cash on hand. Allyson Schwartz also had a tidy sum on which to build, reporting about $2 million on hand. Patrick Murphy had but $200,000.
One person that I did not mention in my previous post was Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham. It was reported that she publicly indicated an interest in the Senate post should Chris Matthews not seek the nomination. Abraham spent 15 years as a Judge in Pennsylvania before her election as District Attorney. She has served in that capacity since 1991. Others who are receiving at least some attention are State Auditor general Jack Wagner and State Representative Josh Shapiro.
At this point, I would have to put Rendell as the favorite should he run. If Specter runs and Rendell does not, Specter would perhaps be a slight favorite at this point, although he would be strongly challenged by Sestak, Schwartz and Murphy, perhaps in that order of likelihood. Despite a statement from his office in early December suggesting that Sestak was intent on future service in the House, it’s hard to reconcile that with the horde of campaign cash on which he now sits.
For those who want a more exhaustive list of potential candidates, see this posting on DailyKos – there are 23 potential candidates mentioned!
Saturday, January 3, 2009
How Good Are Intrade Contracts As Predictors of Senate Election Results? A look at 2006
The Intrade futures contracts on the outcomes of political events are one of the available metrics that can be used as predictors of elections. Intrade is a real money open market that has been in operation for several years. With respect to the US Senate, they offer contracts on all of the races and on several “derivatives”, such as Senate control after elections, the number of seats that a Political Party will control, and currently, the appointments that will follow recent or projected resignations. The contracts for the races are not based on the individual candidates, but rather on the Political Party that would prevail.
The use of real money futures markets began, as far as I know, with research at the University of Iowa – the Iowa Electronic Markets http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/. Beginning in 1988, their goal was to investigate the relative accuracy of predictions based on such markets as opposed to those based on polling data. Without going into details, there seems to be some evidence that futures markets provide very slightly better predictive ability. The Intrade market is completely independent of the University of Iowa market – it is a private entity.
I have monitored the Intrade contracts for US Senate races off and on since early 2006. How well did these contracts “predict” the outcomes of the US Senate races in the last two elections? This is the first of two posts in which I will examine the outcomes. Here I will examine the 2006 election cycle. Very shortly, I’ll look at last year’s results.
In 2006, the last time I obtained the numbers was on 2 November, five days before Election Day. The contract for Senate control was still firmly pointing to the Republican Party. However, in each of the individual races, the eventual winner was successfully predicted by the Intrade contracts. To refresh your memory, the 2006 election saw the Democrats pick up six Senate seats: Bob Casey, Jr. defeated incumbent Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown defeated incumbent Mike DeWine in Ohio, Sheldon Whitehouse defeated incumbent Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, Jon Tester defeated incumbent Conrad Burns in Montana, Jim Webb defeated incumbent George Allen in Virginia, and Claire McCaskill defeated incumbent Jim Talent in Missouri.
I monitored the Intrade contracts two to three times per month starting in February 2006. At that point, these data were already indicating victories in Montana and Pennsylvania. The other four races gradually went in favor of the eventual winners. That took place in mid-April for Ohio, mid-July for Rhode Island, but not until November for Missouri and Virginia.
It may seem odd that all of the individual races were “predicted” correctly by the Intrade contract data, and the Democratic Party did take control, while the contract for “Senate control” still strongly indicated the Republican Party. For those well versed with statistical inference, this is not at all surprising. The best way to verbalize this is that while each of these six events (Democratic pick-ups) were favored, some were only very slightly favored, and the consensus was that it was unlikely that all six would go in favor of the Democratic candidates.
The use of real money futures markets began, as far as I know, with research at the University of Iowa – the Iowa Electronic Markets http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/. Beginning in 1988, their goal was to investigate the relative accuracy of predictions based on such markets as opposed to those based on polling data. Without going into details, there seems to be some evidence that futures markets provide very slightly better predictive ability. The Intrade market is completely independent of the University of Iowa market – it is a private entity.
I have monitored the Intrade contracts for US Senate races off and on since early 2006. How well did these contracts “predict” the outcomes of the US Senate races in the last two elections? This is the first of two posts in which I will examine the outcomes. Here I will examine the 2006 election cycle. Very shortly, I’ll look at last year’s results.
In 2006, the last time I obtained the numbers was on 2 November, five days before Election Day. The contract for Senate control was still firmly pointing to the Republican Party. However, in each of the individual races, the eventual winner was successfully predicted by the Intrade contracts. To refresh your memory, the 2006 election saw the Democrats pick up six Senate seats: Bob Casey, Jr. defeated incumbent Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown defeated incumbent Mike DeWine in Ohio, Sheldon Whitehouse defeated incumbent Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, Jon Tester defeated incumbent Conrad Burns in Montana, Jim Webb defeated incumbent George Allen in Virginia, and Claire McCaskill defeated incumbent Jim Talent in Missouri.
I monitored the Intrade contracts two to three times per month starting in February 2006. At that point, these data were already indicating victories in Montana and Pennsylvania. The other four races gradually went in favor of the eventual winners. That took place in mid-April for Ohio, mid-July for Rhode Island, but not until November for Missouri and Virginia.
It may seem odd that all of the individual races were “predicted” correctly by the Intrade contract data, and the Democratic Party did take control, while the contract for “Senate control” still strongly indicated the Republican Party. For those well versed with statistical inference, this is not at all surprising. The best way to verbalize this is that while each of these six events (Democratic pick-ups) were favored, some were only very slightly favored, and the consensus was that it was unlikely that all six would go in favor of the Democratic candidates.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Some Pertinent Posts on Another Blog
I began examination of the upcoming 2010 Senate elections on another blog, entitled Political and Economic Numbers http://www.politicalandeconomicnumbers.blogspot.com/. I have already looked at a number of the 2010 races – please see those posts as I start putting additional content here. I’ve looked at North Carolina, Ohio, New Hampshire, Missouri, Iowa, North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana and Pennsylvania in some detail, and a few others briefly.
I’ll start by copying a post from that blog on the relationship between fundraising success and Election Day success in the Senate elections this year.
I’ll start by copying a post from that blog on the relationship between fundraising success and Election Day success in the Senate elections this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
