| 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 |
Friday, January 9, 2009
The 2010 Senate Elections – A look At Their Campaign Financing in 2004
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)
