In my election prediction post, I called four winners correctly, one wrong, and chickened out on one. Here's what I predicted last week:
Tomorrow, the Republicans will come close to a sweep. McDonnell will win in Virginia by 13 points, and the Republicans will make gains in the Virginia legislature.
Christie will win in New Jersey by 4 points. (It won't be close enough so that the usual, or even more than usual, election fraud can affect the results.)
Mayor Bloomberg, Republican turned independent, will defeat the Democrat in New York city by 10 points.
Conservative/Republican Doug Hoffman will win in New York's 23rd by 7 points.
Democrat John Garamendi will win in California's 10th by 6 points.
I missed badly — along with all the late polls — on New York 23. I haven't analyzed the polls, and may not, but found this plausible explanation from pollster Mark Blumenthal. Briefly, Blumenthal thinks that the late polls were not late enough, that many voters were still making up their minds until the very last minute.
On the other predictions, I didn't take the late polls in Virginia seriously enough and underestimated McDonnell's victory. I overestimated Bloomberg's victory, and suspect that I missed because pollsters didn't pick up the racial pattern to the votes. (His opponent is African-American.) I underestimated Garamendi's victory, probably because I didn't think hard enough about Harmer's shortage of campaign money.
I came close enough in New Jersey so that I am not embarrassed by that prediction. But I do think that I should have done better overall.
How did you all do? (The prediction posts are here and here, if you need a review.)
(There are a few late races yet to be decided. If you called one of those right, let me know later if you want credit.)
Posted by Jim Miller at November 09, 2009 05:58 PM | Email ThisIn New York 23 I think it was a matter of folks being confused. Very unusual to have a candidate drop out a week before the election.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 9, 2009 06:47 PMIn New York 23 I think it was a matter of folks being confused. Very unusual to have a candidate drop out a week before the election.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 9, 2009 06:47 PMFor those not familiar, this principle points out that tax/spend tends to win out over limited gov't because spending tends to be doled out in concentrated form (e.g. a paycheck from the state) while taxes are spread among the many in tiny doses. Thus the proponents of spending have much more intensity.
Thus Eyman raises $670,000 mostly from himself & Dunmire, just enough to get on the ballot, while 1033 opponents raise almost $3.5 million. 1033 started with 61% approval but unsurprisingly after a $3.5 million ad campaign had dropped to 45% by election day.
Concentrated benefits/diffuse costs is the real elephant in the room that scarcely is mentioned by anyone.
Posted by: travis t on November 10, 2009 03:11 AM2010 should be fun. Just think of how high unemployment will be by then. Or possibly Iran will have lashed out as a response to President Milquetoast. There's no shortage of things that can and will go wrong in the abscence of real leadership.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 10, 2009 07:43 AMThat quip and yet liberals and Democrats in this state still whine 24/7/365 about how bad things are in our state. The state of education, traffic, roads, business, environment, shoot anything you can think of (except who is in office).
You elect the same people/party over and over expecting them to do something different and whine like babies when they do the same old thing.
Then you have realists tell you during elections exactly what is going to happen down the road and you demonize them. You praise the head in the sand current elects for doing nothing and being reactionary instead of pro-active.
It boggles the mind.
Posted by: Mr. RcGuy on November 10, 2009 08:31 AMLiberals elected in Washington state! Film at 11.
Maybe people aren't writing about it because it's just business as usual in this state. Nothing changed this election, and I don't expect anything to get better economically speaking around here either as a result.
Posted by: Palouse on November 10, 2009 09:37 AMPlease. Hoffman was at NO point a Republican candidate. Why precisely should Scozzafava been taken off the ballot?
Posted by: demo kid on November 10, 2009 09:55 AMI expect Kathy will convert before the next election.
It's not easy or financially responsible being green, but it sure does get one elected.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on November 10, 2009 12:26 PMI don't know how to link on this site, but google:
"A Note from WPC President Dann Mead Smith
on Dow Constantine's Lies about WPC"
The WPC may now be poison in politics, but I really like the WPC. Oops any endorsement from me is also poison in this town.
Those ads may have been illegal. Maybe Dow will pay a fine, but he will definitely keep the prize.
I found Dow's victory address to be very repugnant, and a probable indicator of what we can expect from this man and his henchman campaign manager, guru, Tim Cies, in the four years ahead.
Here it is:
"WOW! That didn't take long ! Nine months of campaigning, and fifteen minutes of returns !"
Posted by: Bart Cannon on November 10, 2009 01:01 PM"Where's the obnoxious, close-minded, self-righteous SoundPolitics that we've come to know and love?"
That is what liberals like you are for Bruce.
Posted by: pbj on November 11, 2009 12:23 PM