Leans Republican

No, I'm not talking about Joe Lieberman with this title. Rather, CQ politics would like to inform you that the following races lean Republican:
  • IN-02. Last three independent polls:
    • Donnelly (D) 49%-39% Chocola (R) (Zogby, October 2nd)
    • Donnelly (D) 50%-42% Chocola (R) (Research 2000, September 17)
    • Donnelly (D) 52%-40% Chocola (R) (RT Strategies, September 10)
  • OH-18. Only independent poll, from Zogby on October 2nd, shows Space (D) ahead of Padgett (R) 45%-36%. Space also has a commanding lead in cash on hand. But remember, this race clearly leans Republican.
  • PA-07. Only independent poll on the race shows Sestak 45% (D)--44% Weldon (R). Sestak also leads in cash on hand. Again, remember that this race clearly leans Republican.
  • PA-10. Only two independent polls on the race:
    • Carney (D) 47%--38% Sherwood (R) (Lycoming, September 28th)
    • Carney (D) 50%--43% Sherwood (R) (RT Strategies, August 29th)
  • VA-02. Only two independent polls on the race:
    • Kellam (D) 46%--42% Drake (R) (Zogby, October 2)
    • Kellam (D) 51%--43% Drake (R) (RT Strategies, August 29)
Remember, these races are not favorable to Democrats. They are also not toss-ups. These races, instead, lean towards Republicans. The Republican in these races are noticeably more likely to win than the Democrat. I thought you should know that.

CQ politics would also like to inform you that the following races have no clear favorite:
  • AZ-08. The five post primary polls on the race:
    • Giffords (D) 45%--37% Graf (R) (Zogby, October 2)
    • Giffords (D) 52%--34% Graf (R) (Arizona Opinion--R, September 23)
    • Giffords (D) 54%--29% Graf (R) (Emily's List--D, September 21)
    • Giffords (D) 48%--36% Graf (R) (Arizona Daily Star, September 19)
    • Giffords (D) 54%--35% Graf (R) (GQR--D, September 18th)
  • OH-06. The only independent polls on the race:
    • Wilson (D) 54%--41% Bladsel (R) (Survey USA, September 28th)
    • Wilson (D) 56%--40% Blasdel (R) (RT Strategies, August 29th)
Remember--even though the NRCC has pulled out of AZ-08 and the Democrat has four times the cash of her opponent, this race has no clear favorite. It might as well be a coin flip. This sucker is tied. Same goes for OH-06, where Democrat Charlie Wilson has more cash than his Republican opponent Bladsel. That race is, like totally within the margin of error according to polling.

Oh, and I almost forgot. NM-01 is also clealy leaning toward a candidate: Heather Wilson. This is because the last three independent polls from NM-01 have shown her losing 50-40, and tied at 44-44 (twice). Clearly, she has a much better chance to win that race than does her Democratic opponent Patricia Madrid.

This has been a public service announcement form Strategic Vision CQ politics. There is no clear favorite in AZ-08 and OH-06. Also, IN-02, NM-01, OH-15, PA-07, PA-10, and VA-02 clearly lean Republican (because, you know, there is a clear favorite in those races, and it is the person losing in the polls). That is all. End communication. Seriously--end communication. Don't try to post a comment on their site. It won't work.

(All polls taken from Electoral-Vote.com)

Tags: election forecasts, House 2006 (all tags)

Comments

53 Comments

Re: Leans Republican

What about KS-04?  Is that polling info right?

by jerzay 2006-10-05 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

Something weird is happening in Kansas!

Dems are winning everywhere even in places where they shouldn't be. An internal poll shows a slight Democratic lead in KS-02 as well.

by JackBourassa 2006-10-05 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Kansas

The religious fundies have taken over the State Board of Education and are screwing up the teaching of science by mandating their curriculum.  Some well known traditional Republicans have left for the Democratic Party.  OTOH, the old aschool republicans are fighting back and did win some of this years Republican primaries.  

Other right wing groups are more extremist libertarian. The battle also extends to such posts as insurance commissioner where a right wing candidate who favored no regulation was defeated in the R primary.

by David Kowalski 2006-10-05 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

The Space-Padgett race (Ney's old seat) is OH-18, not the 15th.

Pryce vs. Kilroy is the 15th.

by dpinzow 2006-10-05 06:27PM | 0 recs
Minor correction...

Zack Space leads Joy Padgett in OH-18, not OH-15.  Deb Pryce and Mary Jo Kilroy are slugging it out in OH-15, which happens to be my district.  I haven't seen any polling on this race in months.

by KTinOhio 2006-10-05 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Minor correction...
Yes, I fixed it. What would comments be at MyDD without my typos? It is as thought he onyl time anyone posts anything is when I typed something wrong.
by Chris Bowers 2006-10-05 06:28PM | 0 recs
That may be

because you're so obviously right on this one.  Why bother saying anything?  Your analysis is spot-on.

by Nonpartisan 2006-10-05 06:51PM | 0 recs
OH -18 is NCF

Look closely at the chart, OH-18 is rated NCF. Otherwise, great points. I've noticed more movement in the CQ ratings the last few days, so hopefully many of these races will be rerated soon.

by msn1 2006-10-05 07:07PM | 0 recs
CQ recent changes

They've changed the ratings on 9 races the last 4 days, 8 of 9 in the Dems favor.

Ratings change archives can be found at:

http://www.cqpolitics.com/ratings_change /

by msn1 2006-10-05 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Minor correction...

Do you guys have spellcheck or do you, like me, just never bother to use it?

This post is too funny.  I guess it's better than bullshit polls.  Just bullshit about what the polls mean.

by BooMan 2006-10-05 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Minor correction...

Check http://www.ohioelects.com

They just reported a poll where EMILY's List found it at Pryce 43%, Kilroy 42%.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-05 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Minor correction...

I can't find it.  How long ago was it taken?

by KTinOhio 2006-10-05 07:55PM | 0 recs
by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-05 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

CQ will wait till the last moment, and then move about 30 races into the "no clear favorite" column-- that's how they maintain their "99% accuracy". They favor incumbents above all else in predictions.

by Jerome Armstrong 2006-10-05 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

Which is actually not a bad bet, considering the incumbancy rate in Congress.

by Ryan Anderson 2006-10-05 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

In most cycles, yes.  Not this one!

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-05 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

Yeah, if you've noticed, they've been changing races more frequently now.

In addition, I don't think it's a republican bias as Bowers seems to insinuate (maybe he isn't insinuating that, but the strategic vision comment seems like he was). It's an incumbent bias. For instance, I don't think Brad Miller should be rated as "safe Democrat".  Probably Democrat Favored or possibly even leans Democrat, but he is rated Safe Democrat because he's an incumbent (I don't know what his COH advantage is at this point over Crazy Robinson).

Also, I doubt a republican outfit would post stuff from Taegan's site daily.

Also, I agree that it's easier for a camel to move through the eye of a needle, than it is for someone to get a comment posted on CQpolitics. Nowadays, it's even more difficult than getting one posted on the hotline's blog.

by adamterando 2006-10-06 06:18AM | 0 recs
In the VA-02 race

It was just revealed that Kellam once assualted a woman in NC or some crap. I'd be shocked if he pulled this one out of the hat.

by zt155 2006-10-05 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: In the VA-02 race

Huh??  You have a link for that?

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-05 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: In the VA-02 race

Here's the link:

www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-40353sy 0sep29,0,4528686.story?coll=dp-news-loca l-final

It's a non-story. The article was from two weeks ago. Apparently Kissel was driving his girlfriend home TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS AGO (when he was 21) and was cut off by some woman. His girlfriend crashed into the dashboard. Kissel confronted the woman at the convienent store she was at and yelled at her. He hit her car. He was arrested and plead guilty to a lesser charge.

This is probably one of these Republican smear jobs. Doesn't seem to have worked.

by JackBourassa 2006-10-05 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: In the VA-02 race

Thanks for the link -- it's Phil Kellam (VA-2), though, not Larry Kissell (NC-8).  

by osterizer 2006-10-05 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: In the VA-02 race

I got the two mixed up...sorry. My bad.

by JackBourassa 2006-10-05 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: In the VA-02 race

The story I linked is of Phil Kellam (VA-02) though.

by JackBourassa 2006-10-05 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

What is the track record of the different polls? I remember from the 04 cycle that Zogby was never close to the actuals.

by ab initio 2006-10-05 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

Just remember that Zogby sucks.

He had Allen ahead by 11% YESTERDAY...Gallup has him up by 3% today.

by JackBourassa 2006-10-05 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

How often do they update their predictions?

by elrod 2006-10-05 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

In their ratings explanations, they always make a big deal out of the power of incumbency and, even more, the power of cash on hand, which incumbents almost inevitably lead in.  They's how they justify many of the ratings above.  But probably an even more important factor is that the weight they place on the presidential vote from 2004.  That's why they weirdly consider IA-02 (Jim Leach, a truly moderate R) in play while they don't consider, say, ID-01 in play.  I doubt that's a very wise way to weight your rankings, considering how much has changed since 2004, but we'll see if they are right come Nov 7.

by lorax 2006-10-05 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican
If that is their system, then they should follow their own rules. That is why I pointed out AZ-08 and OH-06. They are clearly not following those rules when in comes to those to two open seat races, both of qhich show clear polling and cash leads for Democrats.
by Chris Bowers 2006-10-05 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

Additionally, it should be noted that MO-Sen was not a toss-up until the end of September according to CQ.

Because, you know Talent has always had a HUGE lead in the polls.  Everytime.

by auboy2006 2006-10-05 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

My real question is what is going on with Zogby?

by bruh21 2006-10-05 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

True,there has been some movement in Democratic favor in race predictions at CQ Politics, but on the whole, I've found their forecasts to be very conservative (from the get-go). Even when they do a write-up stating the Democratic candidate has a decent chance they spin around and award a Leans Republican forecast as if what they just explained meant nada. Or, their wording gives a standard MSM pro-Gop slant IMO.
Don't give up on trying to post, it takes them a while to get it up there. In fact, todayI posted a somewhat scatching one regarding Virginia CD-10 and it was not edited, of course I changed the word "ass" to "buttocks" but I still managed to get the word "Proctologist" in there. Check out their forecast on Feder v. Wolf, they did actually upgrade her, begrudgingly so, it seemed to me.

And re: that crap about Kellam VA-02, its well over a week old, though it certainly got buried by Foleygate, so don't get too concerned about trash circulated by bearingdrift, Thelma's Rove wannabe. LOL.

by Predictor 2006-10-05 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

I used to follow CQ ratings.  Then I realized they are little more than delayed reporting of the polls in the races in question.  They seem to have gotten even worse since 2000.  I follow Cook now instead.  http://www.cookpolitical.com

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-05 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

I prefer Cook too.  CQ doesn't change their ratings as often as Cook.  I'm a little surprised, however, that Cook has moved VA-Sen to toss up.

by beeswax49 2006-10-05 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

I also defer to Cook, though the repugs try to diss him as pro-Dem, I think he's even handed and fairly intuitive, versus CQP (very quadrati). I've believed from Webb's entry that VA would be the sleeper surprise pick-up of the year. Thanks to Geo "Macaca" Allen just being himself and, the finesse of Jim Webb, I still am thinking that.

by Predictor 2006-10-05 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

Cook pro-Democratic???  LOL!  I don't think anyone who's seen either Cook or Rothenberg in person would make such a charge.  You might as well call FOX the liberal media.

Well, not that C & R are shoddy or biased like Fox, but you get the point.  :)

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-06 01:11AM | 0 recs
Chris

This Pubbie has to agree with you that CQ is way behind the curve or partisan. AZ-8 is a GOP writeoff. Two of the three Indiana House seats are close to a GOP writeoff. I salute you for your House analysis, and find your poll listing a valuable source of information. It is certainly within the ball park. If the election where held today, the Dems would probably get 220-222 seats. I think that will erode a bit (inter alia, I don't think the Foley thing has legs), but the Dems are odds on to win the House in November. But the RINO Northeast contingent is hanging tough, and that cohort keeps the GOP in the game. (Reynolds is not a RINO, and seems to want some new line of work.) Cheers.  

by Torie 2006-10-05 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

At my last count Democrats had leads in THIRTY-ONE Republican districts (with KS-04 having been upgraded tonight).

That would give Democrats a 235 seat majority.

by JackBourassa 2006-10-05 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican
Cook has an Oct.4 Update up for House races. 3 Gop seats lean Dem, 18 Gop seats as Toss-up. Let's see if I can get this link to post:
http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/repor t_pdfs/2006_house_comp_oct4.pdf
by Predictor 2006-10-05 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

I watch all the debates on CSPAN and they always quote CQ in terms of the national outlook and specific race. Very often I'm saying "Huh?" when they categorize something.

But I never visit their site. Thanks for pointing out it's a trend.

by jagakid 2006-10-05 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican
That's Kansas-02 Boyda v. Ryun.
At this point, my prediction for first wave (tier) contains 30 seats, including VT-AL.
by Predictor 2006-10-05 08:45PM | 0 recs
RT Strategies

I'm not persuaded that RT Strategies' polls are worth putting a lot of stock in.  Despite R's and T's separate experience, this company is new and unproven, and a lot of their polls seem like outliers.  

Using them to show that CQ is off the mark seems a little pot-kettle.  (Which is not to say I support CQ, just that I think a better argument could be made than this one.)

by osterizer 2006-10-05 08:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

Last week, I bumped into Graf (AZ) on a commuter train going north from DC, I was heading home and he to BWI.  He was in town for some GOP shindig, I did not follow the race but he ws on his phone talking in a low voice about "...and we met with Speaker Hastert, etc."  Noticed his tag on his bags.

I tried to say something nice about Tucson, where he said he was from - no indication he was a candidate - and I just remembered thinking "this guy is just like Tom DeLay - is he a lobbyist?"  Looks like him, similar voice, the works.  He seemed grumpy, perhaps Chris Bowers had left him a voicemail telling him he was going to get his ass kicked [snark].

by Bruce Godfrey 2006-10-05 09:47PM | 0 recs
I'm reminded of a Simpsons quote

"What's going on in there?"

"Aurora borealis."  

"Aurora borealis?!?  At this time of year, at this time of day, in this part of the country, localized entirely within your kitchen???"

"Yes."

"May I see it?"

"No."  

I feel that way about the Wilson race especially:

"No clear favorite."  

"No clear favorite?!?  In a Democratic year, in a Democratic district, with strong Democratic statewide candidates, and with the Democratic candidate having considerable leads in both the polls and in cash on hand???"

"Yes."  

"Will you explain your reasoning?"

"No."  

by bosdcla14 2006-10-05 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm reminded of a Simpsons quote

Sounds almost like a Monty Python sketch.

Actually, Bush won OH-6 with about 57% of the vote.  But everything else you said is correct.  Most tellingly, the NRCC pulled out of this race soon after Wilson's overwhelming primary win.  The Washington Post just reported on that recently.  OH-6 is safe Dem.  Calling it a tossup is ludicrous.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-06 01:17AM | 0 recs
Ohio 6 was Bush 51/Kerry 49

In  2000 it was Bush 49, Kerry 47

It was drawn to be a Democratic district (albeit a kind of conservative, rural Democratic district). It elected Ted STrickland with strong margins (and the fact that Strickland is at the top of the ticket for Governor is one more reason Charlie Wilson is safe in this seat)

You must have been thinking of Ohio 18, where Bush won 57-43 (55-41 in 2000)... that was Bob Ney's district where Zach Space is leading... a tougher district, not as strong of a candidate as Wilson, but still looks promising there. (It is a working class ancestrally Democratic district that has trended Republican over few decades -- maybe this is a sign those kinds of districts are coming back)

by terje 2006-10-06 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio 6 was Bush 51/Kerry 49

Ah, but 2000 was before the district was redrawn.  It looked very different then, swinging wide across about 3/4 of the southern part of Ohio.  Now the 6th runs up and down the east side of the state.  So the 2004 result is more telling.  The 18th looks pretty different now too; it used to look like a fairly contiguous, relatively round or square thing.  Now it's a totally bizarre beast with its Ohio River counties shifted to the 6th.

I do agree that Wilson benefits from Strickland being at the top of the ticket and winning handily.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-06 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio 6 was Bush 51/Kerry 49

Also, don't forget how volatile OH-6 was for a while.  It elected Strickland in 92, Frank Cremeans (R) in 94, and Strickland in 96 again.  I'm pretty sure the House race was close in the 6th in all 3 of those cycles.  Not until 98 (against LG Hollister) did Strickland start winning with more comfortable margins.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-06 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

Snark doesn't bet better than this. Nice work Chris.

And btw, Mark Foley's making a comeback next week, and is expected to succeed.

by kovie 2006-10-05 11:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

In 2004, NC-11 polled independently within the margin of error. (1 point ahead, even, and 1 point behind).

The Dem lost by 10 points.

People lie in these polls or the polls suck. So, right now Democrat Shuler is polling 11 points ahead. As far as I know, that makes it a dead heat. I hope not. But two years ago even polling meant a ten-point margin so . . .

I don't know squat about the races you mention, tho.

by Drama Queen 2006-10-05 11:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

You might want to chekc CQ poitics later on. they do have a tendency at times to change their ratings.

by spirowasright 2006-10-06 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

Chris,

As the Editor and Web Producer for CQPolitics.com, we'd like to offer a rebuttal to some of the criticisms you offered in your post, "Leans Republican," published on Thursday.

We use many different types of information when evaluating our ratings on a given race. Polling, while important, is just one of them. We also consider financial resources of the candidates, party committees and outside groups; the previous voting history of the district or state in question; racial, ethnic and social demographics; the level of priority and targeting placed on the race by state and national party organizations and outside interest groups that are seeking to influence the outcome; changes in the district's economy or presidential support since the last cycle; and other relevant factors that we discover in our reporting.

Polls are important to provide guidance and benchmarks in determining trends in races. But the individual polls conducted by different independent organizations on a single race can vary greatly in their results, raising serious questions about which one is the most accurate.

Even considering polls from well-known reputable organizations, we have seen instances just within recent days of one poll showing a candidate a couple of points behind, with another poll showing that same candidate ahead by double-digit percentages. If we were to use polls as our guide for our ratings, we could easily have changed the ratings on some of the races a dozen times or more - sometimes on consecutive days. We don't think this would provide the kind of perspective or analysis upon which CQ readers have come to rely over the many years that we have provided this kind of election analysis.

Moreover, we read "own" polls conducted for candidates and their campaigns for our information, but will never base a story or a ratings change on that information alone. We have had way too many instances in which one candidate's own poll show him 10 points ahead, and the other side's poll shows the same candidate 10 points behind. There are only two possible conclusions in situations such as that: either one of those polls is way off, or they both are.

The most important element in evaluating a rating is the work done by our reporters trying to assess the situation on the ground in each district. With 435 House districts and 33 Senate races split mostly among a remarkably small staff of editors and reporters, this can often take some time. Thus, you will not see our rating change immediately after what you might consider a watershed development (unless it's something cataclysmic like we saw in Mark Foley's Florida 16 this week).

While some might see this as a hindrance, we consider it a strength, since it allows us to not get caught up in the moment, but instead maintain a focus on the big picture. We are well aware from our experience that whatever the "game-changing" event that occurs today, another can occur tomorrow that shifts the race back in the other direction. And that will continue to be true right up through Nov. 7.

We have made it clear in every way possible that this is an extraordinarily difficult political environment for the Republican Party and its candidates, and that the party's control of both the House and increasingly the Senate is at risk. In fact, if you'd care to read how we define "Leans Republican," we clearly state that is a category of highly competitive races in which an upset is a very plausible outcome. Several contests this year have already been moved from Leans Republican to No Clear Favorite, with a couple even going into categories more favorable to Democrats. If the trends evident today continue through the end of the campaign, we would expect an additional number also to be moved in the Democrats' direction.

When we set our ratings, though, we also have to take into consideration several factors that could mitigate against huge Republican losses across the board. These include the GOP's enormous overall advantage in campaign funding; a well-oiled Republican voter turnout machine that by all accounts remains superior to the Democrats' organization; and the by-now legendary redistricting mastery that just takes more than 160 Republican districts off the boards, and makes dozens of other races extreme uphill climbs for the Democrats, regardless of the overall political atmosphere and the quality of the Democratic challengers.

If you think that the Republicans are just going to run up the surrender flag and yield to a Democratic takeover of the House and Senate - including even in districts and states that currently show Democratic challengers in the lead - we believe you are mistaken. We're even more certain that the Democrats' campaign chieftains, Howard Dean, Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel, harbor no such illusions: They know they are going to have to fight for every seat, and that if they do win Senate and House majorities, they will have totally earned it.

That is not to say that it would be impossible for our scorecard to suddenly reflect a large shift toward the Democrats. This wouldn't be a "cover our ass" maneuver. Rather, it reflects the reality of elections: While people who read MyDD, CQPolitics.com and other sites are already engaged in the election, many Americans aren't. Thus, it only becomes clear in the closing weeks what's really going to happen in a given race.

Finally, we cannot think of any better way to prove a lack of Republican bias, or any bias, than CQ's analysis of the 1998 House elections. Everyone else was then predicting gains - some thought huge gains -- by the GOP because of President Clinton's Monica Lewinsky scandal. However, because of our district-by-district, state-by-state approach, we felt confident when sticking our necks out to predict Democratic gains. We think you know how that turned out.

If you have any other questions about our site, feel free to reply to this e-mail, or leave a comment on the site. We can assure you, unless a post is a rant irrelevant to the story at hand or compares someone to Hitler, it has virtually a 100 percent chance of being posted.

That said, David Miller, the only person who is assigned on a regular basis to clear comments, doesn't work a 24-hour day, so it might take some time before a comment appears on our site.

We would be happy to continue this conversation if you have any more questions or thoughts about how we can improve our Web site.

In fact, we sure would like to have had that conversation with you before you posted such a sharp criticism of our analysis. This is the blogosphere, so we'd assume you should have been able to find us.

Sincerely,

Bob Benenson
Editor
CQPolitics.com

David Miller
Web Producer, CQPolitics.com

by cqpolitics 2006-10-06 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Leans Republican

maybe the 'leans Republican' label is just meant to be a guide to the races that are deemed fixable by voting machine (or other) fraud ?  Though I'd be surprised the Republicans would try stretching that by more than a few %, but if they can start fudging polls too, they can stretch even further.....in this case not even fudging a poll, just describe it as leaning, forget the %'s and no one will be surprised when they win.  Where was it that exit polls were discounted ?  late 2004, a Ukrainian election (that forced a redo), or in Ohio ?

by rkfloyd 2006-10-09 09:57AM | 0 recs
by estebban 2006-12-27 12:14AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads