Predicting the 2014 Senate race: New Hampshire
Those of you who follow this blog know that I don’t ordinarily make too many predictions about who will win an election. I didn’t do it in 2012 either, although unlike many other pundits I felt very pessimistic about Romney’s chances (maybe that’s why I didn’t make a prediction; it was too depressing).
So I’m not going to predict who will take the Senate in 2014. It’s just too close, anyway, or at least it seems that way. In general I believe the polls are fairly predictive, but they are moving around an awful lot lately. However, the general picture remains tight.
One of the states that was once thought to be an important tossup but where the Democrat now seems comfortably ahead is New England’s New Hampshire. Scott Brown is the Republican and Jeanne Shaheen the Democrat. Both have good name recognition, but Brown (despite having older New Hamphsire roots than Shaheen) is seen as a newcomer and a Massachusetts guy. And of course, he’s a man in a state that seems lately to have strongly favored the election of women.
Shaheen is a puzzlement to me as a politician. She was worse than a mediocrity as NH Governor, and has been an undistinguished and loyal Democratic party operative in her tenure as senator. And yet she is comfortably ahead in the polls in a state widely perceived as still being purple, but which I suspect has become almost (although not quite) as blue as its other New England cousins. New Hampshire was a semi-conservative and somewhat libertarian New England anomaly for quite some time after its brethen had turned liberal/left, a single throwback to an older rock-ribbed New England sensibility that now is confined to the northern and more rural (and less populated by people from “away”) areas of all the New England states.
So the following statement isn’t a prediction; it’s a wish: I hope the polls are wrong, and/or that the race will tighten up before election day. I think that’s at least possible, because the polls have been very very wrong in New Hampshire before, although in general I think polls—especially over time, and if averaged—are quite accurate.
Sasse in NE.
Ernst in IA.
If you didn’t predict Romney’s probable loss I must have misunderstood because I thought you did. And I agreed.
The reason for being pessimistic is that we have learned never to underestimate the Democrat party’s ability to gin up a perceived threat to the rice bowl of their client class dependency, and get out the vote.
Both the patron and the client are highly motivated in this situation: both in general (with important exceptions in certain kinds of “industries”) live off of the taxes collected from the material wealth producers.
It’s worth getting off your couch once every two or three years in order to ensure that the people funneling tax money to you for doing nothing at all but voting for them, remain in their positions. Hell, my sister’s activist mother in law literally broke her leg getting out the Obama vote in traveling vans.
Reminds me of taking clients out to dinner in Windsor, Canada years ago. After leaving the restaurant and heading toward the parking lot, a van pulls up and a young woman with a chauffeur cap on tells us to get inside. It’s only a block to the car, but we do.
Two blocks later we ask where she is going and she hands us tickets for drinks and says there is no cover for us. “Where?” “The newest and best club in town … just up the street” we are told.
At least we got naked dancing girls and free drinks.
Republicans and Demos split the Senate.
Hope I am wrong.
Gee, neo I can t see Shaheen as *comfortably ahead*
here, she really has the anvil of Obama around her neck. I have seen other polls that call it a tie !
Organizing for America controls the tabulation — if not the vote. Hence my term digital despotism.
And as Stalin said: “Who counts the votes?”
Field operations are but a psychological and propaganda shield against the realization that OfA has hacked it’s way to victory — again.
&&&
Digital tabulation means that hackers can control the results.
Google, Apple, MSFT, etc. are all in bed with NSA.
The NSA is in bed with OfA and Barry Soetoro.
All that is needed is a few back doors into the MSFT code and OfA hackers — provided by Google — a far, far, far, Left NEW VISIONS arrogancy — is able to toggle victory out of defeat from here to eternity.
This corruption works best when the general public believes that the ‘system’ is honest — at least somewhat.
This is where media operations, poll manipulations, come into play. The public has to be sold on the idea that blow-outs are close races. That way Barry’s crew can win in a ‘squeaker’ — with the occasional throw away squeaker (North Carolina) to fool all pundits.
Democrat ‘turn out’ by hacker is now controlled from OfA.
ALL OF THIS is pure Chicago. How do you think the machine runs in that burg?
Wherever did Barry get his ‘democratic solution’?
Doh!
The vote in a machine era is too important to be left to the proles.
Here is a nice thought, the key senate races are not as tight as they seem. All the gop needs to do is take the dem senate seats in red states where Mitt won by very comfortable margins. Picking up Iowa is a real possibility. As the race comes down to the wire in NH much can happen in 30 days to further tarnish the messiah’s halo and pin the tail on the donkey. Brown has been emphasizing the border crash and executive amnesty and linking Shaheen to these unpopular topics. Keep your fingers crossed.
MollyNH:
Only one poll found it a tie. That’s considered an outlier, because there was only one.
DNW:
Well, I don’t think I actually predicted his loss. But I refused to predict his win, and I kept being quite negative about those who did. I conveyed pessimism rather than an outright prediction.
Privately, though, I predicted his loss. A lot of people spent a lot of time reassuring me (privately), but I never was reassured. I felt sick to my stomach for the week before the election and about two weeks after.
Neo – According to the 2014 Almanac of American Politics, New Hampshire Republicans have a registration edge, 273,675 (30.2%) – 250,358 (27.6%). Because Republicans are a little more likely to vote, that’s enough — everything else being equal — to make Republican candidates the favorites most years.
Because of that, and because of Scott Brown’s superior campaigning skills, I make him the favorite in that race, though not by a lot.
It’s worth remembering that he wasn’t even the official Republican candidate until recently, and that the one poll that showed a tie was done by the best polling organization.
RCP rates the race as a toss-up.
(Caveat: Those registration numbers are, probably, from 2013. I would guess that Republicans have gained since then, but I haven’t checked.)
Republicans who “moderate”…lose.
Brown does not have the courage of his convictions.
If he wins it will be by accident.
When Rs learn this lesson taught so many times over and over they will win. It is not a failure of intellect or strategy. It is a failure of nerve.
Mike:
I’m sick of hearing assertions like that with absolutely no evidence.
Some moderates win, especially in some states. Some moderates lose.
Some conservatives win, especially in some states. Some conservatives lose.
It depends on the moderate, the conservative, the opposition, the time, the place. There is no hard and fast rule for it.
Brown won in Massachusetts. He may or may not win in New Hampshire. He beat his more conservative opponents in the Republican primary fair and square. New Hampshire is a state where the conservatives tend to be fiscally conservative and rather liberal socially. That’s the sort of candidate that has appeal there.
Brown has the courage of his convictions. They’re just not your convictions.
A young woman called in to Rush Limbaugh today with a very astute reading of the “millennial cohort’s” stubborn loyalty to the Left. She wanted to put it out there that “victimology” really explains it all:
“I can sum up the problem in one word, and it explains literally everything from the Occupy Wall Street movement to why somebody’s approval ratings can be as low as our president’s are and people will still continue to vote toward the liberal side of things. It’s a worldview that has been deeply and systematically ingrained into my generation since the day of Saturday morning cartoons, and it’s called “victimology.”
“There are people who are born inherently ‘victims’ of society and people who are born inherently ‘oppressors.’ Our job is to throw a wrench in that system, and even out the playing field by the way that we vote, by the way that we live, by the way that we spend our money. My generation will consistently try to buy back their own redemption by doing things that are to their own detriment.
“They will vote for liberals even when they feel the terrible place that that puts them in. They will consistently do this, even when it comes to little stuff. They will bypass a $1 Hershey bar to buy a $5 ‘fair-trade’ chocolate bar wrapped in recycled paper that’s “organic” because it’s our redemption to do that. It’s our job —
RUSH: Wait a minute. Wait, wait, wait. Your “redemption” from what? I mean, I think I know, but I want to hear you say it. Redemption from what? What do you what do you need redemption from?
CALLER: From being “oppressors. ” I’m white and I’m born in America, and regardless of my experience or my feelings or my beliefs, that makes me somebody who would oppress other people in it or anyone else.”
[Transcript here: http://preview.tinyurl.com/kqf5xl3 ]
I think she’s nailed it.
Rush asked what would work to combat this. I do have an idea: point out that the Left is (a) lying about us, and (b) NOT sincere about the things they claim they are, such as helping women and the environment.
Exhibit A: their championing of the Moslems. Case closed.
Neo – Brown won on a purely anti-Obamacare vote. He had no chance until a few weeks before the election. Courage? Once he got in he started acting like the Rhino he is and was promptly bounced by voters who could get a real Democrat and not a fake Republican. He took the whole country’s money and acted like a staunch conservative; and turned in the blink of an eye once he got in. Courage.
Since then his whole reputation has been as the non-conservative Republican. And now he is probably going down to a well-earned loss.
There is no such thing as a “moderate” conservative. There are people who stand by the Constitution and decency – and the people who don’t. The one group are normally in the R Party. They are not “moderate”. The proper thing to call them is good and decent American legislators. But not all Rs are in the group. Many of them, like Brown, are fake.
The who term “moderate” is itself a scam and an intellectual fiction promoted by people who don’t even know where the term comes from or what it means. Its misuse is in-itself a sign of the dumbing-down of America.
Muslims who don’t kill you are not supposed to be “moderate”. Gee thanks! People who stand for the Constitution are “extreme right wingers”! by contrast. The slaughter of the intellect evidenced by those truly insane assertions is the full creation of the postmodern liberal fascists and slavers who have already done an amazing job of locking up our minds and throwing away the keys. Next comes, like rain after thunder, the locking up of the bodies.
A Guarantee: The Jailors will all be “moderates”.
Mike:
Yes, Brown’s win in Massachusetts was an anti-Obamacare vote, as well as an anti-Coakley vote. But his losing his bid for re-election in Massachusetts is pretty meaningless in terms of what it says about conservatism. Are you seriously saying a real conservative would win in Massachusetts? For senator? If so, I have a bridge to sell you…
NH is a state where the designation “moderate conservative” actually has meaning and appeal. The electorate is somewhat fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That’s the definition I’m using for moderate conservative in this contest, and it is very very real.
How would Anyone know whether a cservarive could win in Mass for Senator? It’s never been tried! That’s the point.
The last conservative who ran in mass was Ronald Reagan. He won it twice.
Facts are stubborn things as they say.
Brown s of an ilk. He, like all Rinos, is a man of no conviction. He is,as the record shows, loser. He got the one win by lying, and now he can’t seem to lie well enough to get back in. We’ll see.
The historical record shows eal cservatives of convictin can win. Bush won twice. All the other “modded rate” losers lost. That remains rue mo matter how you slice it.
The whole term “moderate” is an offense. People who laid it usually haven’t the slightest idea what they even mean. They haven’t thought even a little and are no more than parrots rained to squawk something if they think they’ll get a cracker. Except they are worse than parrots since parrots are…parrots and they are supposed to be people.
One man lies all he time; another only tells the Ruth. The man who lies half the time is a “moderate” I guess. Someone is a serial adulterer. Another is faithful to his spouse. A “moderate” only commits adultery some of the time. And for good reason!!!
sheesh.
Mike:
Brown was a life long Democrat who changed parties strictly for the purpose of running for the Senate.
He said so straight up during his campaign.
He also said that — other than 0-care — he’d be voting liberal pretty much down the line.
He then did exactly what he said he’d do.
Then voters picked a real Democrat during the next regular election. His track record didn’t mean squat.
And, he didn’t deliver on 0-care, which is what the Massachusetts voters wanted most. His vote was too little, too late. Pelosi and Reid worked around him.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham set the right tone with his tweet: “I appreciate AG Holder’s service to our country even though we had strong disagreements at times. I wish him well in future endeavors.”
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2014/09/25/eric-holder-public-servant-lightning-rod/16247015/
An idiot Senator praising Mr. CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS! Conservative or moderate? Who cares as long as they don’t praise criminals.
Rarely do I disagree with you, Neo, but I will have to dissent from your conclusions here and lend a tenuous affirmation of your hope. Looking at the polls compiled in Wikipedia, Shaheen is ahead, but not “comfortably ahead”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_New_Hampshire,_2014#Polling_2
Of course, the terms are relative here. But for an incumbent, a rule of thumb for defining “comfortably ahead” is consistently leading by 10 points or more. In the last two months, Shaheen has lead by 10 points in only one of more than a dozen polls. Brown has lead in two, one was exactly tied and the rest have Shaheen ahead, and outside the margin of error…but well within that 10 point spread.
I agree with Sean Trende’s commentary that so many Senate races remain so fluid even as we are only five weeks away, that anywhere from a GOP gain of 2-3 to a gain of 11 is within the realm of possibility. This not any comfort for the GOP, who should be entirely embarrassed by absurd spectacle overflowing in Kansas. But it also means Shaheen is far from safe or even comfortable.
In this day and age there are far too many pollsters with far too many varying (and sometimes questionable) methodologies. The result: rapid and stark contradictions which can no way be explained primarily by changes in the race polled itself. Udall was up in Colorado and Braley in Iowa…until suddenly Gardner and Ernst pulled into leads outside of the margin of error…within a week or so. North Carolina? God knows! Peters is beating Land in Michigan…until he’s not. And so on.
Ultimately, all of the seriously contested (or maybe seriously contested? :-)) Senate races come down to several core realities:
1. Obama’s approval rating in that state
2. Number of registered and likely voters of each party.
3. Visibility, and approval of the incumbent Senator (if any).
4. Fundraising successes for each candidate.
5. Campaign tactics and strategy.
6. GOTV efforts.
It is on these factors that the Senate will be won or lost; not over basking in or mourning over the latest numbers from some random poll.
blert:
Do you have documentation on the claim that Brown was a democrat. nothing about that in his wikipedia entry.
One other thing that is making a Brown win unlikely is the press’ adamant refusal to cover Obama’s putrid polling numbers. You may discount FNC as an outlier. Think back to 2006. Bush was about as unpopular as Obama is currently and seemingly every newscast, every editorial, heck even sports articles, all mentioned how bad Bush’s poll numbers were and what impact that would have on the elections that year. It did have an impact.
Fast forward to this year. You pretty much don’t hear about Obama being as unpopular as genitals warts these days. If the press were honestly reporting it (sorry, I had to stop and laugh for a second), it would seriously depress the Dem base and would likely flip some of the races currently leaning Dem. In fact, I’ll opine that a GOP tsunami would ensue. However, we are where we are, with a press that would make Pravda editors blush. I don’t have an answer to that problem, but it’s ceased to be a problem and has now become problematic.
Fiscal conservative but social liberal is the crux of the problem. It is moral schizophrenia. It is good to balance your checkbook but it doesn’t matter what you spend your money on. It is the devout and the agnostics in the same church. It is inherently the slippery slope of moral relativism.
Don Carlos:
Social liberal in the sense of basically libertarian. Not in the sense of spending money on more social welfare programs.
blert:
You need a cite for the claim that Brown was a Democrat. I believe it is incorrect. His entire political career, as far as I know, was as a Republican. He was in the Massachusetts legislature since 1998, always as a Republican. His Wiki entry adds:
So his earliest political experiences were also on the Republican side.
Mike:
It’s never been tried for a reason.
I would guess you know very very little about the population of Massachusetts and the political viewpoints of almost the entire population: liberal. Very liberal.
By the way, Republicans have won statewide in Massachusetts, but they have always been what you might call moderate Republicans. I suppose that some conservative or other has tried to run, but has never been able to make it out of the Republican primaries. I can’t name one offhand, though.
Mike:
And about that anti-Coakley vote I mentioned in a previous comment to you—the anti-Coakley vote that helped Brown get his Senate seat–
Coakley’s awfulness as a candidate is reflected in the fact that she’s not that much ahead of her rival for the governorship of Massachusetts right now. No one is paying much attention to that (it’s for governor, not the Senate) but it proves to me what a lousy candidate she was and still is. Puzzling that the Democrats keep nominating her. Don’t they have a bench?
Coakley’s Republican opponent Charlie Baker, who’s neck and neck with Coakley in the polls, is a fiscal conservative social liberal. That’s the formula for any possible Republican victory in Massachusetts—not everywhere, just Massachusetts and other states with its profile (Maine is one that comes to mind, for example). Interestingly, his father was a conservative Republican and his mother a liberal Democrat, “and the family was often drawn into political arguments at the dinner table.”
Libertarianism is its own form of moral relativity. It sounds good, but it ain’t.
Ackler – Also for your list of factors: the rest of the ticket. So in Iowa, Ernst’s Senate race is helped by the considerable support for Branstad’s race for governor. In North Carolina, there are no other major races, so Tillis is struggling to pick up ground against Hagan. GOTV is a lot easier in a presidential year, or when there are a lot of high-level seats open.
neo…
My memory is getting pretty poor.
But, IIRC, Brown posed for Cosmo:
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/news/a3118/scott-brown-from-cosmo-to-congress/
Which some would maintain is not exactly a conservative thing to do.
%%%%
The zany notion that he had come over from the Democrat party was published during his early campaign — and I took that to mean that the factoid was put out by his own campaign.
At the time it made perfect campaign sense to move towards the Democrats — and to establish that he would NOT upset Massachusetts voters by ‘going Helms’ on them.
I didn’t take it any further, and being on the West Coast, I have no expertize in New England politics whatsoever. So I yield on this point.
blert:
He was pretty young when he did that. But no, it’s not a conservative thing to do—but as I said, not a social conservative.
I think the centerfold stuff actually enhanced his appeal and contributed to his election in Massachusetts. It made it very hard to paint him as a stuffy fuddy-duddy Republican, didn’t it?
I’ve met Brown. He’s good-looking in person, too. And for what it’s worth, he sounded extremely sincere about detesting Obama and Harry Reid, and wanting to get rid of the latter’s majority.
Beverly, the main point of religion was to deal with guilt in a society. Otherwise, case example there.