Moments ago, congresswomen Kirsten Gillibrand was sworn in to replace Hillary Clinton as New York’s junior US Senator. Clinton was confirmed as Secretary of State last week, creating the vacancy. New York Governor David Paterson announced his selection of Gillibrand late last week.
Last Thursday, Michael Bennett was sworn in as Colorado’s junior US Senator. He assumed the seat previously occupied by Ken Salazar, who was confirmed as Secretary of the Interior. Colorado Governor Bill Ritter selected Bennett for the post.
This leaves just one slot vacant. The Senate seat representing Minnesota that was formerly held by Norm Coleman remains unoccupied. The state has announced that the result of the statutory recount indicated that Al Franken had won the seat by 225 votes. However, Franken has not assumed the seat due to court challenges levied by the Coleman campaign.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Senate Elections in 2010: A Look at the Current Makeup of the State Legislatures
There are many "intangibles" that determine the outcomes of elections.However, a good starting point is to look at pertinent numbers: thenone can try to insert the various other factors and try to determinewhat might happen. Last week, I looked at the Presidential vote in thelast three elections in those states that are having contests for theUS Senate in 2010. Those seats that are occupied by one Party while thestate is voting for (or trending toward) the other Party are goodplaces to look for potentially vulnerable seats.
Today, I'm going to look at the current make up of the StateLegislatures in the 35 states in which there will be US Senate racesnext year. In the table below, I have presented the percentage of eachParty in the State Senates and State Houses of Representatives, andthen the average of these two percentages. As before, the first twocolumns are the state and the Party that currently holds the US Senateseat. There are two rows for New York because there will be two racesnext year because of the special election for the seat recently vacatedby Hillary Clinton and filled by Kirsten Gillibrand.
Based on this criterion alone, there are six Republican seats and twoDemocratic seats that might be vulnerable.
In Iowa and Alabama, the current membership of the State Legislaturesaverage 60% Democratic, while the US Senate seats up in 2010 are heldby Republicans. In Iowa, Chuck Grassley's seat is up, and at thispoint, it appears that he will run for re-election. In Alabama, thesame holds for Richard Shelby.
The next two Republicans holding seats with Democratic majorities inthe State Legislature are Richard Burr in North Carolina and Judd Greggin New Hampshire. The two states have an average of 58% and 57%Democratic members in their State Capitals, respectively.
In all four of those mentioned above, the Democratic Party holds amajority in both houses of the State Legislatures. There are two otherUS Senators holding seats in states that have, on average, Democraticmajorities, although the Party holds an outright majority in only oneof the houses. These are David Vitter in Louisiana and Jim Bunning inKentucky.
There are only two Democratic members of the US Senate whose seats areup next year and who are holding office in states where theRepublican Party currently has the advantage in the State Legislatures.Byron Dorgan in North Dakota is a Democrat although his Party holdsonly an average of 42% of the legislative seats, and his Party is inthe minority in both houses. The other is Indiana's Evan Bayh: theDemocratic Party holds only an average of 43% of the seats in thestate's legislature, although they do hold a majority in the StateHouse of Representatives.
So, now we have examined recent voting in recent Presidential and StateLegislature elections, looking for potentially vulnerable seats. Theconsistent indicators seem to suggest that the seats in Iowa, NorthCarolina, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Indiana warrant considerationas potential pickups by one Political Party or the other.
Today, I'm going to look at the current make up of the StateLegislatures in the 35 states in which there will be US Senate racesnext year. In the table below, I have presented the percentage of eachParty in the State Senates and State Houses of Representatives, andthen the average of these two percentages. As before, the first twocolumns are the state and the Party that currently holds the US Senateseat. There are two rows for New York because there will be two racesnext year because of the special election for the seat recently vacatedby Hillary Clinton and filled by Kirsten Gillibrand.
| State | State Senate | State House | Avg | |
| AK | R | 50% | 45% | 48% |
| AL | R | 60% | 59% | 60% |
| AR | D | 77% | 71% | 74% |
| AZ | R | 40% | 42% | 41% |
| CA | D | 65% | 64% | 64% |
| CO | D | 60% | 58% | 59% |
| CT | D | 67% | 76% | 71% |
| DE | D | 76% | 61% | 69% |
| FL | R | 35% | 37% | 36% |
| GA | R | 39% | 41% | 40% |
| HI | D | 92% | 88% | 90% |
| IA | R | 64% | 56% | 60% |
| ID | R | 20% | 26% | 23% |
| IL | D | 63% | 59% | 61% |
| IN | D | 34% | 52% | 43% |
| KS | R | 22% | 38% | 30% |
| KY | R | 40% | 65% | 52% |
| LA | R | 56% | 50% | 53% |
| MD | D | 70% | 74% | 72% |
| MO | R | 32% | 45% | 39% |
| NC | R | 60% | 57% | 58% |
| ND | D | 45% | 38% | 42% |
| NH | R | 58% | 56% | 57% |
| NV | D | 57% | 67% | 62% |
| NY | D | 52% | 73% | 62% |
| NY | D | 52% | 73% | 62% |
| OH | R | 36% | 54% | 45% |
| OK | R | 46% | 40% | 43% |
| OR | D | 60% | 60% | 60% |
| PA | R | 40% | 51% | 46% |
| SC | R | 41% | 43% | 42% |
| SD | R | 40% | 34% | 37% |
| UT | D | 28% | 29% | 28% |
| VT | D | 77% | 63% | 70% |
| WA | D | 63% | 65% | 64% |
| WI | D | 54% | 53% | 54% |
Based on this criterion alone, there are six Republican seats and twoDemocratic seats that might be vulnerable.
In Iowa and Alabama, the current membership of the State Legislaturesaverage 60% Democratic, while the US Senate seats up in 2010 are heldby Republicans. In Iowa, Chuck Grassley's seat is up, and at thispoint, it appears that he will run for re-election. In Alabama, thesame holds for Richard Shelby.
The next two Republicans holding seats with Democratic majorities inthe State Legislature are Richard Burr in North Carolina and Judd Greggin New Hampshire. The two states have an average of 58% and 57%Democratic members in their State Capitals, respectively.
In all four of those mentioned above, the Democratic Party holds amajority in both houses of the State Legislatures. There are two otherUS Senators holding seats in states that have, on average, Democraticmajorities, although the Party holds an outright majority in only oneof the houses. These are David Vitter in Louisiana and Jim Bunning inKentucky.
There are only two Democratic members of the US Senate whose seats areup next year and who are holding office in states where theRepublican Party currently has the advantage in the State Legislatures.Byron Dorgan in North Dakota is a Democrat although his Party holdsonly an average of 42% of the legislative seats, and his Party is inthe minority in both houses. The other is Indiana's Evan Bayh: theDemocratic Party holds only an average of 43% of the seats in thestate's legislature, although they do hold a majority in the StateHouse of Representatives.
So, now we have examined recent voting in recent Presidential and StateLegislature elections, looking for potentially vulnerable seats. Theconsistent indicators seem to suggest that the seats in Iowa, NorthCarolina, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Indiana warrant considerationas potential pickups by one Political Party or the other.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Sources Say Gillibrand To Be New York's Senator
Sources close to New York Governor David Patterson say that Kirsten Gillibrand will be his choice to succeed Hillary Clinton in the US Senate. Clinton was confrimed as Secretary of State by a 94-2 vote in the Senate on Wednesday and resigned her Senate seat.
Gillibrand previously served as Special Counsel to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development during the Clinton Administration. She was elected to the US House of Representatives in 2006 and 2008.
Gillibrand previously served as Special Counsel to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development during the Clinton Administration. She was elected to the US House of Representatives in 2006 and 2008.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Caroline Kennedy Withdraws Her Bid For the Senate
Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn her bid to be appointed to replace Hillary Clinton in the US Senate. She informed New York Governor David Patterson of her decision yesterday. The frontrunner now appears to be Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Senate Elections in 2010 – Some Statewide Voting Numbers
Over the past few weeks, I’ve begun to look at the potential candidates in some of the states that are likely to have close Senate races in 2010. Before I continue that process and ultimately come up with my first predictions, I want to take a look at the results of statewide elections in the states that will hold Senate elections next year.
Today, I’ll start with the Democratic Presidential vote percentages for the last three elections. I computed the simple average across these years, then a weighted average (with 3,2,1 weighting going backward) and finally a projection for 2010 based on linear regression of the three years. These are denoted “Avg”, “Wt Avg” and “Trend”, respectively in the table below.
(Note that there are two rows for New York due to the "normal" election for Chuck Schumer's seat and the special election for the one to be vacated by Hillary Clinton. The second column is the Party of the current officeholder: for purposes of this Table, I put a "D" for Bernie Sanders even though he is technically an Independent.)
What can this tells us? Ignoring all of the other factors, this can show us where incumbents of one Party are sitting in seats within states, which are voting for the other Party. In what follows, the states will be following parenthetically by three numbers, referring to the “Avg”, “Wt Avg” and “Trend” numbers from the Table.
Which Democratic seats might be vulnerable? The most notable is Arkansas (43%, 42%, 38%), in which Blanche Lincoln is up for re-election. The second is North Dakota (38%, 40%, 47%) where Byron Dorgan will seek his fourth term. The only other possibility is Indiana (43%, 45%, 50%) – Evan Bayh’s seat.
Now, which seats currently held by Republicans are in states that have been voting Democratic? The three that stand out are New Hampshire (50%, 52%, 56%) where Judd Gregg will be running for re-election, Pennsylvania (52%, 53%, 55%) in which Arlen Specter has said he will seek another term, and Iowa (51%, 52%, 54%) and the seat long held by Chuck Grassley. All three of these seats have all three indicators over 50% meaning preference for Democrats in Presidential races. There are a few other states where at least one indicator is at 50% or all three indicators are very near that mark. For two states, all three indicators are over 48%. These are Ohio (49%, 50%, 52%) and Florida (49%, 49%, 51%), two seats that will be open due to the announced retirements of George Voinovich and Mel Martinez. Then there is North Carolina (46%, 47%, 51%) where Richard Burr will seek a second term and Missouri (47%, 48%, 49%), which will be an open seat due to the retirement of Kit Bond.
Clearly, this is but one set of numbers of interest, and a set that completely ignores incumbency and the past popularity of that incumbent. However, they are numbers to be considered. In the next few days, I’ll look at other statewide vote counts for the two Parties and see what this information is revealed.
Today, I’ll start with the Democratic Presidential vote percentages for the last three elections. I computed the simple average across these years, then a weighted average (with 3,2,1 weighting going backward) and finally a projection for 2010 based on linear regression of the three years. These are denoted “Avg”, “Wt Avg” and “Trend”, respectively in the table below.
| State | 2000 | 2004 | 2008 | Avg | WtAvg | Trend | |
| AK | R | 28% | 36% | 38% | 34% | 36% | 42% |
| AL | R | 42% | 37% | 39% | 39% | 39% | 37% |
| AR | D | 46% | 45% | 39% | 43% | 42% | 38% |
| AZ | R | 45% | 44% | 45% | 45% | 45% | 45% |
| CA | D | 53% | 54% | 61% | 56% | 57% | 62% |
| CO | D | 42% | 47% | 54% | 48% | 50% | 57% |
| CT | D | 56% | 54% | 61% | 57% | 58% | 61% |
| DE | D | 55% | 53% | 62% | 57% | 58% | 62% |
| FL | R | 49% | 47% | 51% | 49% | 49% | 51% |
| GA | R | 43% | 41% | 47% | 44% | 44% | 47% |
| HI | D | 56% | 54% | 72% | 61% | 63% | 73% |
| IA | R | 49% | 49% | 54% | 51% | 52% | 54% |
| ID | R | 28% | 30% | 36% | 31% | 33% | 37% |
| IL | D | 55% | 55% | 62% | 57% | 59% | 63% |
| IN | D | 41% | 39% | 50% | 43% | 45% | 50% |
| KS | R | 37% | 37% | 41% | 38% | 39% | 41% |
| KY | R | 41% | 40% | 41% | 41% | 41% | 41% |
| LA | R | 45% | 42% | 40% | 42% | 42% | 39% |
| MD | D | 56% | 56% | 62% | 58% | 59% | 63% |
| MO | R | 47% | 46% | 49% | 47% | 48% | 49% |
| NC | R | 43% | 44% | 50% | 46% | 47% | 51% |
| ND | D | 33% | 36% | 45% | 38% | 40% | 47% |
| NH | R | 47% | 50% | 54% | 50% | 52% | 56% |
| NV | D | 46% | 48% | 55% | 50% | 51% | 56% |
| NY | D | 60% | 59% | 62% | 60% | 61% | 62% |
| NY | D | 60% | 59% | 62% | 60% | 61% | 62% |
| OH | R | 46% | 49% | 51% | 49% | 50% | 52% |
| OK | R | 38% | 34% | 34% | 35% | 35% | 32% |
| OR | D | 47% | 52% | 57% | 52% | 54% | 60% |
| PA | R | 51% | 51% | 55% | 52% | 53% | 55% |
| SC | R | 41% | 41% | 45% | 42% | 43% | 45% |
| SD | R | 38% | 39% | 45% | 41% | 42% | 46% |
| UT | D | 26% | 26% | 34% | 29% | 30% | 35% |
| VT | D | 51% | 59% | 68% | 59% | 62% | 72% |
| WA | D | 50% | 53% | 58% | 54% | 55% | 60% |
| WI | D | 48% | 50% | 56% | 51% | 53% | 57% |
(Note that there are two rows for New York due to the "normal" election for Chuck Schumer's seat and the special election for the one to be vacated by Hillary Clinton. The second column is the Party of the current officeholder: for purposes of this Table, I put a "D" for Bernie Sanders even though he is technically an Independent.)
What can this tells us? Ignoring all of the other factors, this can show us where incumbents of one Party are sitting in seats within states, which are voting for the other Party. In what follows, the states will be following parenthetically by three numbers, referring to the “Avg”, “Wt Avg” and “Trend” numbers from the Table.
Which Democratic seats might be vulnerable? The most notable is Arkansas (43%, 42%, 38%), in which Blanche Lincoln is up for re-election. The second is North Dakota (38%, 40%, 47%) where Byron Dorgan will seek his fourth term. The only other possibility is Indiana (43%, 45%, 50%) – Evan Bayh’s seat.
Now, which seats currently held by Republicans are in states that have been voting Democratic? The three that stand out are New Hampshire (50%, 52%, 56%) where Judd Gregg will be running for re-election, Pennsylvania (52%, 53%, 55%) in which Arlen Specter has said he will seek another term, and Iowa (51%, 52%, 54%) and the seat long held by Chuck Grassley. All three of these seats have all three indicators over 50% meaning preference for Democrats in Presidential races. There are a few other states where at least one indicator is at 50% or all three indicators are very near that mark. For two states, all three indicators are over 48%. These are Ohio (49%, 50%, 52%) and Florida (49%, 49%, 51%), two seats that will be open due to the announced retirements of George Voinovich and Mel Martinez. Then there is North Carolina (46%, 47%, 51%) where Richard Burr will seek a second term and Missouri (47%, 48%, 49%), which will be an open seat due to the retirement of Kit Bond.
Clearly, this is but one set of numbers of interest, and a set that completely ignores incumbency and the past popularity of that incumbent. However, they are numbers to be considered. In the next few days, I’ll look at other statewide vote counts for the two Parties and see what this information is revealed.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Overview of 2010 Senate Elections, and First Look at the Intrade Contracts
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.
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.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Candidates For 2010 Ohio Senate Race
When Ohio Sen. George Voinovich announced earlier this week that he would not run for re-election in 2010, the list of potential candidates for the post became a focus of attention and speculation. Former Rep. Rob Portman wasted no time in jumping into the race: he announced his candidacy yesterday.
I first looked at this field several weeks ago (see post here) focusing on the Democratic candidates. I suggested that Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, Lt. Governor Lee Fisher, and Rep. Tim Ryan looked like the most likely people to win their Party’s nomination.
Portman won the first time he ran for office, winning the first of six terms in 1994. He received at least 70% of the vote in each election, but never sought a statewide office. He does, however, have $1.5 million remaining in his congressional campaign war chest, money that can be transferred over for a Senate race. Who else might seek the Republican nomination? State Auditor Mary Taylor has indicated an interest in running. She was the only Republican to win statewide in 2006, garnering 51% of the vote. Portman’s experience in the Bush administration would likely more than compensate for the fact that he has not run in a statewide race.
Other Republicans who have been mentioned include former Senator Mike DeWine and former Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. DeWine was defeated by Sen. Sherrod Brown in 2006. A former Secretary of State, Blackwell was defeated by Ted Strickland in the 2006 Gubernatorial campaign. He was also somewhat tarnished for his involvement in what many thought was the manipulation of voting machines in the 2004 Presidential election in what became the deciding state contest in that campaign. His current focus is on the Chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, but that could change should he not win that post.
Portman’s experience and his rapid entry into the field probably make him difficult to beat for the Republican nomination.
On the Democratic side, Fisher, Brunner and Ryan still look like strong candidates. Let’s look at some numbers. Both Fisher and Brunner have run statewide. Fisher received 60% of the vote in 2006, although he was tied to Gov. Ted Strickland, so it’s difficult to tease out his vote-garnering ability. Fisher has the most political experience: he served in the State House and State Senate before his election as Attorney General in 1990. He won by a fraction of a percent in that race. He was defeated in his re-election bid for a second term in 1994, losing by about 3%. He also lost in his next outing, a bid for Governor in 1998. In that contest, he was outpolled by a half-dozen points.
Brunner received 55% in winning her first term as Secretary of State. She served two terms as a County Judge before seeking the statewide position. Rep. Ryan has won each of his four Congressional races convincingly. He served one term in the State Senate before seeking the US House seat. He raised a respectable $1.3 million in his last run and currently has about $300K that he could transfer over for a Senate run.
Public Policy Polling ran two polls in mid-2008, both with Voinovich still in the picture. In July, Brunner came out on top of Voinovich 42% - 38%. In August, Fisher outpolled Voinovich 40% - 38%
Others who have been mentioned include Reps. Betty Sutton, Zack Space, and Marcy Kaptur. Space raised nearly $2.3 million for his last run and Kaptur has nearly $1 million on hand.
Now that Portman has announced, I’d be very surprised if one or more Democrats didn’t follow suit quite rapidly. The state has been trending Democratic of late – this is a seat that would have to be near the top on DSCC’s list for next year.
I first looked at this field several weeks ago (see post here) focusing on the Democratic candidates. I suggested that Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, Lt. Governor Lee Fisher, and Rep. Tim Ryan looked like the most likely people to win their Party’s nomination.
Portman won the first time he ran for office, winning the first of six terms in 1994. He received at least 70% of the vote in each election, but never sought a statewide office. He does, however, have $1.5 million remaining in his congressional campaign war chest, money that can be transferred over for a Senate race. Who else might seek the Republican nomination? State Auditor Mary Taylor has indicated an interest in running. She was the only Republican to win statewide in 2006, garnering 51% of the vote. Portman’s experience in the Bush administration would likely more than compensate for the fact that he has not run in a statewide race.
Other Republicans who have been mentioned include former Senator Mike DeWine and former Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. DeWine was defeated by Sen. Sherrod Brown in 2006. A former Secretary of State, Blackwell was defeated by Ted Strickland in the 2006 Gubernatorial campaign. He was also somewhat tarnished for his involvement in what many thought was the manipulation of voting machines in the 2004 Presidential election in what became the deciding state contest in that campaign. His current focus is on the Chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, but that could change should he not win that post.
Portman’s experience and his rapid entry into the field probably make him difficult to beat for the Republican nomination.
On the Democratic side, Fisher, Brunner and Ryan still look like strong candidates. Let’s look at some numbers. Both Fisher and Brunner have run statewide. Fisher received 60% of the vote in 2006, although he was tied to Gov. Ted Strickland, so it’s difficult to tease out his vote-garnering ability. Fisher has the most political experience: he served in the State House and State Senate before his election as Attorney General in 1990. He won by a fraction of a percent in that race. He was defeated in his re-election bid for a second term in 1994, losing by about 3%. He also lost in his next outing, a bid for Governor in 1998. In that contest, he was outpolled by a half-dozen points.
Brunner received 55% in winning her first term as Secretary of State. She served two terms as a County Judge before seeking the statewide position. Rep. Ryan has won each of his four Congressional races convincingly. He served one term in the State Senate before seeking the US House seat. He raised a respectable $1.3 million in his last run and currently has about $300K that he could transfer over for a Senate run.
Public Policy Polling ran two polls in mid-2008, both with Voinovich still in the picture. In July, Brunner came out on top of Voinovich 42% - 38%. In August, Fisher outpolled Voinovich 40% - 38%
Others who have been mentioned include Reps. Betty Sutton, Zack Space, and Marcy Kaptur. Space raised nearly $2.3 million for his last run and Kaptur has nearly $1 million on hand.
Now that Portman has announced, I’d be very surprised if one or more Democrats didn’t follow suit quite rapidly. The state has been trending Democratic of late – this is a seat that would have to be near the top on DSCC’s list for next year.
Roland Burris Sworn In As Illinois’ Junoir Senator
A few minutes ago, Roland Burris was sworn in as the Junior Senator from Illinois. This ends more than a week of controversy following his appointment by now-impeached Illinois Governor Rod Blagojovich. Democratic leaders in the Senate had initially indicated that they would not seat an appointment by the embattled Governor. However, it was gradually realized that, though controversial, the appointment was legal.
Decision on Franken Petition No Sooner Than February
The Minnesota Supreme Court will not rule on Al Franken’s petition for an expedited election certificate until at least February 5. Franken sought the certificate so that he could assume the seat before a ruling on Sen. Norm Coleman’s lawsuit challenging Franken’s apparent 225 vote victory. Coleman’s suit disputes aspects of the recount, which reversed the initial result indicating Coleman’s re-election.
Read the full story here.
Read the full story here.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Portman to Run For Voinovich’s Ohio Senate Seat in 2010
Former Congressman Rob Portman announced this morning that he would seek the Republican nomination for the Ohio US Senate seat currently occupied by Sen. George Voinovich. On Monday, Voinovich announced he would retire rather than seek another term. Portman became the first to announce his candidacy for the post. His campaign website can be found here.
After serving for six terms in the US House of Representatives from Ohio’s second district, Portman served as US Trade Representative and Director and the Office of Management and Budget during the administration of President George W. Bush.
After serving for six terms in the US House of Representatives from Ohio’s second district, Portman served as US Trade Representative and Director and the Office of Management and Budget during the administration of President George W. Bush.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Rep. Kendrick Meek to Seek Florida Senate Seat
Rep. Kendrick Meek became the first Democrat to declare candidacy for the Florida Senate seat now held by Sen. Mel Martinez, who has announced that he will retire rather than seek re-election in 2010. Other Democrats who may seek the nomination include Florida Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, and US Representatives Ron Klein, Allen Boyd, Robert Wexler and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum leads the list of potential GOP nominees. Rep. Connie Mack may also join the field.
This seat has been thrown wide open by the announcement last week that former Governor Jeb Bush would not run for the position. He had been viewed as essentially unbeatable were he to run.
Among the likely candidates, only Sink and McCollum have run statewide races. Sink received 54% of the vote in 2006 while being elected as the state’s CFO. McCollum won 53% that year in becoming AG.
This seat has been thrown wide open by the announcement last week that former Governor Jeb Bush would not run for the position. He had been viewed as essentially unbeatable were he to run.
Among the likely candidates, only Sink and McCollum have run statewide races. Sink received 54% of the vote in 2006 while being elected as the state’s CFO. McCollum won 53% that year in becoming AG.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Roland Burris to be Seated in Senate
It was announced today by the Democratic leadership that Roland Burris would be seated in the US Senate. He was appointed by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojovich to replace President-Elect Barack Obama amid a cloud of corruption wherein the Governor has been accused of trying to sell the seat. The Democratic leadership had initially indicated that they would refuse to seat any nominee put forth by Blagojovich. When he presented his credentials last week, Burris was refused his seat. The stated reason was that his paperwork did not contain the signature of the Illinois Seceretary of State Jesse White. In a joint statement, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois indicated that Burris, barring objections from the Minority, would be sworn in later this week.
Ohio Senate George Voinovich to Retire
Ohio Senator George Voinovich has announced that he will not seek a third term. The 72-year old Senator and former two-term Governor is the fourth Republican incumbent to announce that they will retire rather than run for re-election in 2010. Florida’s Mel Martinez, Kansas’ Sam Brownback and Missouri’s Kit Bond have previously made such announcements.
In an earlier post, I reviewed potential candidates for the Democratic Party. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, Lt. Governor Lee Fisher and Rep. Tim Ryan top the list of potential nominees. Former Rep. Rob Portman, who served as Director of the Office of Management and Budget for a year during the current administration, is viewed as a frontrunner to run on the Republican side.
In an earlier post, I reviewed potential candidates for the Democratic Party. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, Lt. Governor Lee Fisher and Rep. Tim Ryan top the list of potential nominees. Former Rep. Rob Portman, who served as Director of the Office of Management and Budget for a year during the current administration, is viewed as a frontrunner to run on the Republican side.
Friday, January 9, 2009
The 2010 Senate Elections – A look At Their Campaign Financing in 2004 - Note
There are 34 Senate seats that would normally be up for election next year. I have begun to look at these races individually in terms of the likely candidates. However, I wanted to step back for a moment and look at these races in terms of the campaign fundraising and spending the last time these posts came up back in 2004. Most will be running for re-election.
So, here is the data (in the post below). In this first table, I've presented the basics: current information about whether they are running for re-election, amount spent in 2004 in total dollars and per capita, and the latest data for cash on hand. This latter can be important in discerning future intent. We'll look at these numbers more closely, and some other pertinent data shortly.
So, here is the data (in the post below). In this first table, I've presented the basics: current information about whether they are running for re-election, amount spent in 2004 in total dollars and per capita, and the latest data for cash on hand. This latter can be important in discerning future intent. We'll look at these numbers more closely, and some other pertinent data shortly.
The 2010 Senate Elections – A look At Their Campaign Financing in 2004
| State | Serving in2009 | Seeking Re- election | 2004 Spent (millions) | 2004 Spent per capita | Latest On Hand (millions) |
| AK | Murkowski | yes | $5.5 | $8.29 | $0.33 |
| AL | Shelby | yes | $2.6 | $0.57 | $13.30 |
| AR | Lincoln | yes | $6.3 | $2.26 | $0.68 |
| AZ | McCain | yes | $4.6 | $0.79 | $0.01 |
| CA | Boxer | yes | $16.0 | $0.45 | $3.63 |
| CO | Salazar | appt? | $9.9 | $2.14 | $1.83 |
| CT | Dodd | yes | $5.7 | $1.64 | $0.57 |
| FL | Martinez | retiring | $12.4 | $0.72 | $1.25 |
| GA | Isakson | yes | $8.0 | $0.89 | $2.30 |
| HI | Inouye | yes | $2.2 | $1.79 | $1.23 |
| IA | Grassley | yes | $7.3 | $2.46 | $2.66 |
| ID | Crapo | yes | $1.3 | $0.94 | $1.80 |
| IN | Bayh | yes | $2.9 | $0.46 | $10.71 |
| KS | Brownback | retiring | $2.8 | $1.01 | $0.03 |
| KY | Bunning | yes | $6.5 | $1.57 | $0.18 |
| LA | Vitter | yes | $7.6 | $1.74 | $1.94 |
| MD | Mikulski | yes | $6.6 | $1.21 | $0.77 |
| MO | Bond | retiring | $8.3 | $1.45 | $1.30 |
| NC | Burr | yes | $12.9 | $1.50 | $0.98 |
| ND | Dorgan | yes | $3.1 | $4.84 | $1.46 |
| NH | Gregg | yes | $2.5 | $1.96 | $0.88 |
| NV | Reid | yes | $7.6 | $3.27 | $2.75 |
| NY | Schumer | yes | $17.8 | $0.93 | $10.39 |
| OH | Voinovich | yes | $10.0 | $0.87 | $2.58 |
| OK | Coburn | yes | $5.0 | $1.42 | $0.07 |
| OR | Wyden | yes | $3.5 | $0.96 | $1.23 |
| PA | Specter | yes | $21.9 | $1.77 | $5.40 |
| SC | DeMint | yes | $9.0 | $2.13 | $1.53 |
| SD | Thune | yes | $14.7 | $18.83 | $3.73 |
| UT | Bennett | yes | $2.1 | $0.86 | $0.26 |
| VT | Leahy | yes | $1.9 | $3.13 | $0.05 |
| WA | Murray | yes | $12.5 | $2.01 | $2.06 |
| WI | Feingold | yes | $11.2 | $2.04 | $2.43 |
Thursday, January 8, 2009
How Good Are Intrade Contracts As Predictors of Senate Election Results? A Look at 2008
A few days ago, I looked at how well Intrade contracts performed as predictors of the outcomes of races for the US Senate in 2006. You may recall that just before the elections, the Intrade contracts pointed to the victors in every Senate race. The same was true in 2008: the contract prices that I retrieved on 30 October pointed to the eventual victor in every race (assuming, as expected, that Al Franken is ultimately the winner).
But again, I wanted to examine how far in advance successful predictions could be made based upon these futures contracts. In early 2007, Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard announced his retirement. In May 2007 when I obtained my first information from Intrade, the contract was already indicated a Democratic victory. Ultimately, Mark Udall won this seat. At the end of August of 2007, Virginia Sen. John Warner told his constituents of his retirement. Within two weeks, former Governor Mark Warner announced his candidacy for the post. Intrade contract information obtained later that month indicated Mark Warner as the clear favorite, and he won election the following year. The third retirement announcement came from New Mexico’s Pete Domenici in early October in 2007. Congressman Tom Udall announced his candidacy almost immediately for the Democratic nomination and the state’s two Republican congresspersons did likewise for the nomination of their Party. By May of 2008, Udall’s ultimate victory was indicated by the pricing of Intrade contracts. At that same time, the Intrade numbers were suggesting the victory of former Governor Jeanne Shaheen over Sen. John Sununu in New Hampshire.
So, by May 2008, fully 6 months before Election Day, the ultimate winners were being “predicted” by the Intrade contracts. The other four Democratic pick-ups were not so indicated until much closer to the elections. By early October, Mark Begich’s win over Ted Stevens in Alaska, Jeff Merkley’s defeat of Gordon Smith, and Kay Hagan’s victory over Elizabeth Dole were indicated by the Intrade contracts. It wasn’t until a few days before the election that Al Franken’s (apparent) victory over Norm Coleman was indicated by the Intrade numbers.
Once again, all Senate races were could be correctly predicted by interpretation of these Intrade futures contracts, and most could be determined almost a month ahead of time. Unfortunately, I don’t have the appropriate information in order to compare the relative accuracy and timeliness of predictions based on the various polling that occurred in these two cycles. Hopefully, I’ll be able to obtain such data for the coming cycle. If anyone would like to help collect such information, I would welcome their assistance
But again, I wanted to examine how far in advance successful predictions could be made based upon these futures contracts. In early 2007, Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard announced his retirement. In May 2007 when I obtained my first information from Intrade, the contract was already indicated a Democratic victory. Ultimately, Mark Udall won this seat. At the end of August of 2007, Virginia Sen. John Warner told his constituents of his retirement. Within two weeks, former Governor Mark Warner announced his candidacy for the post. Intrade contract information obtained later that month indicated Mark Warner as the clear favorite, and he won election the following year. The third retirement announcement came from New Mexico’s Pete Domenici in early October in 2007. Congressman Tom Udall announced his candidacy almost immediately for the Democratic nomination and the state’s two Republican congresspersons did likewise for the nomination of their Party. By May of 2008, Udall’s ultimate victory was indicated by the pricing of Intrade contracts. At that same time, the Intrade numbers were suggesting the victory of former Governor Jeanne Shaheen over Sen. John Sununu in New Hampshire.
So, by May 2008, fully 6 months before Election Day, the ultimate winners were being “predicted” by the Intrade contracts. The other four Democratic pick-ups were not so indicated until much closer to the elections. By early October, Mark Begich’s win over Ted Stevens in Alaska, Jeff Merkley’s defeat of Gordon Smith, and Kay Hagan’s victory over Elizabeth Dole were indicated by the Intrade contracts. It wasn’t until a few days before the election that Al Franken’s (apparent) victory over Norm Coleman was indicated by the Intrade numbers.
Once again, all Senate races were could be correctly predicted by interpretation of these Intrade futures contracts, and most could be determined almost a month ahead of time. Unfortunately, I don’t have the appropriate information in order to compare the relative accuracy and timeliness of predictions based on the various polling that occurred in these two cycles. Hopefully, I’ll be able to obtain such data for the coming cycle. If anyone would like to help collect such information, I would welcome their assistance
Missouri Senator Kit Bond To Retire
Four-term Senator Kit Bond of Missouri announced today that he will not seek re-election to the United States Senate in 2010. Three weeks ago I took my first look at this race and concluded that Bond was vulnerable should he seek another term. Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, her brother Congressman Russ Carnahan, and long-time Congressman and former US House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt seemed to be those with the greatest likelihood of mounting serious challenges. Robin Carnahan has indicated an interest in the post. At this point, I would have believe that the Democratic party is favored in the race, and that Robin Carnahan is the most likely Democratic candidate.
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!
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
The Senate in the 111th Congress
The 111th Congress began in the Senate yesterday with the swearing-in of newly elected and re-elected members. However, there are still two seats vacant, although Democratic Party leaders hope that both will be filled soon.
Roland Burris, who was appointed by beleaguered Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, presented his documents to the Secretary of the Senate and was told that they were not in order – he lacked the signature of the Secretary of State of Illinois. Burris then went across the street to announce that he would be pursuing the matter in court if necessary. While the Democratic leadership has steadfastly said that they would not accept an appointment by Blagojevich, who was arrested for allegedly trying to sell the Senate vacated by President-elect Barack Obama. However, it is not clear that they have legal footing to thwart Burris’ efforts to assume the seat. Blagojevich is still Governor, and is required by law to appoint a successor to Obama. The tide seems to be turning in Burris’ favor – yesterday, California Senator Dianne Feinstein stated that Burris should be seated. Expect more activity on this matter today. The current Intrade contract on whether Burris will be seated is 92.0, indicating that those participating in this futures market feel that the ex-Illinois Attorney General would soon take his seat in the US Senate.
On Monday, the Minnesota State Election Board unanimously stated that the final vote count for Norm Coleman’s Senate seat showed Al Franken with a 225-vote margin. However, Franken did not go to Washington yesterday to try to get seated, opting to wait for expected legal action by Coleman. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada made a statement from the Senate floor in which he urged Coleman to concede, that Franken was the new Senator from Minnesota, but that the issue would not be pressed at that time.
Perhaps the other most significant news about Senate elections came by way of a statement by Florida ex-Governor Jeb Bush that he would not seek the Senate seat from which Mel Martinez has announced his retirement. This certainly changed the outlook for the seat. While Barack Obama picked up Florida’s electoral votes this year and suggested that Martinez’ retirement might offer a chance to pick up yet another Senate seat for the Democratic Party, it was widely believed that Bush would have a lock on the seat in the 2010 election should he run. His decision not to run would seem to put this seat firmly back into the winnable category for the Democrats.
Roland Burris, who was appointed by beleaguered Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, presented his documents to the Secretary of the Senate and was told that they were not in order – he lacked the signature of the Secretary of State of Illinois. Burris then went across the street to announce that he would be pursuing the matter in court if necessary. While the Democratic leadership has steadfastly said that they would not accept an appointment by Blagojevich, who was arrested for allegedly trying to sell the Senate vacated by President-elect Barack Obama. However, it is not clear that they have legal footing to thwart Burris’ efforts to assume the seat. Blagojevich is still Governor, and is required by law to appoint a successor to Obama. The tide seems to be turning in Burris’ favor – yesterday, California Senator Dianne Feinstein stated that Burris should be seated. Expect more activity on this matter today. The current Intrade contract on whether Burris will be seated is 92.0, indicating that those participating in this futures market feel that the ex-Illinois Attorney General would soon take his seat in the US Senate.
On Monday, the Minnesota State Election Board unanimously stated that the final vote count for Norm Coleman’s Senate seat showed Al Franken with a 225-vote margin. However, Franken did not go to Washington yesterday to try to get seated, opting to wait for expected legal action by Coleman. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada made a statement from the Senate floor in which he urged Coleman to concede, that Franken was the new Senator from Minnesota, but that the issue would not be pressed at that time.
Perhaps the other most significant news about Senate elections came by way of a statement by Florida ex-Governor Jeb Bush that he would not seek the Senate seat from which Mel Martinez has announced his retirement. This certainly changed the outlook for the seat. While Barack Obama picked up Florida’s electoral votes this year and suggested that Martinez’ retirement might offer a chance to pick up yet another Senate seat for the Democratic Party, it was widely believed that Bush would have a lock on the seat in the 2010 election should he run. His decision not to run would seem to put this seat firmly back into the winnable category for the Democrats.
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.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Intrade Contracts for New York and Minnesota Seats
I’ve added a couple of things to the left sidebar. They both involve Intrade contracts. Intrade (www.intrade.com) is a real money futures market that has contracts on future political elections and events. The range of prices on the contracts is between 0 and 100. They correspond roughly to the perceived likelihood of the event in the eyes of those who are buying the contracts on this open market. The closer to 100 the contract is, the greater is the perceived likelihood that the even will occur. These contracts have proven to be quite accurate predictors. I’ll have more to say on such political futures markets a bit later. At this point, I’ve added the contracts on the appointment to fill the New York Senate seat occupied by Hillary Clinton. This is obviously contingent on her resigning to become Secretary of State. The other set of contracts I have up at this point involve the Norm Coleman’s Senate seat. The outcome is uncertain. The recount is underway and it is likely to be followed by challenges in court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
