My prediction of the 2014 US Elections: DEMs hold Senate with 2 seat margin, GOP loses house seats and Governorships

(This blog has nothing to do with tech). So yeah, regular readers know one of my passions is the US elections. And we're now ten days from the 'Midterm' elections that occur at the half-point of any 4 year US President's term. At this election there is thus no President to vote for, but Senators, Governors, and various elected officials from Congress to Mayor etc. The election is on Tuesday 4 November. I'm of course monitoring the campaigning and just want to post my thoughts here less than two weeks from the election on what I think will happen (and why).

So a bit of the basics. This year 2014 was (and still is) technically going to be a 'bad' year for Democrats. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans, but Republicans vote more reliably than Democrats. The Democrats tend to show up well for Presidential elections but not for the Midterms. So there is usually a significant drop-off in the Democratic turnout (or actually of both, but far more so for DEMs). At the last Mid-terms (2010, two years after Obama was first elected in 2008) the Republicans (aka GOP, the Grand Old Party) had a big 'wave' of enthusiastic 'Tea Party' supporters (extreme right wing) and they got such a good election result that they took over the House of Representatives which they still today hold in majority. But the DEMs hold the Presidency until at least 2016 and they hold the Senate right now with a nice 55 to 45 margin (there are 100 Senators, 2 for each of the 50 states).

And why is this relevant? The US law-making is structured so, that any law has to pass both houses, so the House can write the law, then send it to the Senate who also agree with it. Only if both 'houses' agree, the law is then sent to the President for his signature. Equally the Senate can write the law but then has to send it to the House of Representatives for approval before it can be sent to the President for his signature and only after that it becomes law. The House is now controlled by Republicans. They hate Obama, and they want to pass laws that would limit what Obama can do, or undo things he's done so far, like repealing Obamacare the new healthcare system. But as long as the DEMs control the Senate, if the DEMs just don't approve that law the House of Representatives has written, it will never even get to Obama's desk. So that has been pretty much most of the past 4 years, the GOP passing all sorts of silly laws that have zero chance of acceptance by Democrats, but now the Republicans can go back home to their voters and say 'we passed this law but the Democrats are blocking it.'

That would change if the GOP gets hold of hte Senate, then they could send laws to Obama and then try to bully him to sign the laws even if he doesn't like them. Or if two thirds of the Senators and House Members agree, it is then a law that doesn't need the President's signature. 

So if you've 'enjoyed' gridlock in US government like the threats of government shut-down and not paying its bills etc, if the Republicans get to the Senate too, that kind of power-games could greatly increase. Or its also possible that the President and the Republicans reach a compromise like Bill Clinton did back when he found himself in this situation late in his Presidency, and they actually did get good laws passed when both were willing to compromise.

So, anyway, currently the Democrats hold the Presidency and one of the two chambers, ie the Senate. And the Republicans hold the other chamber ie 'Congress' (aka The House). Now ten days from today the election is mostly about who will control the Senate for the next two years. And here still more details. The Senate term is 6 years, so one third of the Senate is voted for any election that runs every 2 years. So sometimes a Senator is in the Presidential election year, but then the next time that Senator's re-election will be in the 'Midterm' year and so forth. Meanwhile Congress only has a 2 year term so they have to be re-elected every election every two years.

In many states, members of Congress have been able to manipulate their election 'districts' so, that in a given State that has say 40% Democratic support and 60% Republican support and 5 Congressmen, the 'normal' distribution would be 2 Congressmen for DEMs and 3 for GOP. But they've re-drawn the voting districts so, that the DEM supporters are all bunched together. So now one Democratic Congressman or -woman will win that one district by for example 80% but then there aren't enough DEM supporters left and the GOP safely wins the remaining 4 seats. And these seats are now all heavily Republican so they also become ever more 'pure' not having to think about compromise - the Tea Party thrives in such situations.

Senators however, have to get votes from half of the state (2 Senators per state). So while there still can be this kind of 'gerrymandering' shenanigans, the Senators tend to be much more 'mainstream' and not as extreme as the members of Congess can be. And as the USA is rather evenly split, slightly more Democrats than Republicans but in mid-terms Republicans vote more reliably, the rough balance of this election should be close to even. No real panic for DEMs.

Except that this was a rare election for the Senate that happens by coincidence to greatly favor the GOP. There were a couple of very well-liked DEM Senators who suddenly announced they are quitting after many terms. So seats that used to be 'safe' are now 'open'. And worse, this year's Senator class includes the Obama wave of 2008 (six years ago). So many first-time Senators elected with Obama are now up for re-election. And those were often Democrats who were competing in states that usually vote reliably Republican. So recently the polling has been very consistently suggesting that the Democrats will lose many Senator seats. And the averages of those polls, as reported at Real Clear Politics, have had a consistent prediction that the Republicans will win enough seats to take over the Senate.

And I do not disagree with those polls. I am reasonably satisfied that the consensus is accurate and based just on polling and public opinion, if the election was held today, the Republicans would take perhaps 7 seats and have a 51-49 majority in the Senate.

The movement in the last days is also problematic for the Democrats ie looking good for Republicans, if you subscribe to the theory that in tight races, the last days will tend to break for the 'normal' condition of that State. If it is Connecticut, that is a reliably Democratic state so the last voters will tend to vote more Democratic than Republican. If the state is Kansas, that is a reliably Republican state and by the same logic the last decisions will tend to favor the normal voting condition in that state. And again, there are many Democratic seats now contested, which are in normally-Republican states (like Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina). These freshman-Senators had the luck to come in with Obama's big election wave but are now quite vulnerable.

SITUATION NOW

So ten days to the election, there are a few tight races that will decide is it going to go one way or the other. It think by now its almost certain that DEMs will keep the Senate seats they have in New Hampshire (Shaheen) and North Carolina (Hagan). These are very tight contests and the Democrats are up by just a point or two but also their leads have been rather consistent. With the advantage I'll discuss in just a moment, these will turn from very tight to close races that DEMs will win.

But the Republicans will take back several Senate seats that have been considered close. I think they'll take back South Dakota (open seat), Louisiana (Landrieu), Arkansas (Pryor) and Alaska (Begich). There are three Republican seats in play, which were all surprises (were not supposed to be competitive, ie were supposed to be safe for the GOP) ie Kansas, Kentucky and Georgia. In Kansas the Democratic candidate dropped out, so that the contest would be between the Republican incumbent and an 'Independent' candidate that the DEMs hope will then mostly vote with them, not voting with the GOP in the Senate. This Kansas vote I think will end up going to the Republicans so Roberts will keep his seat. The thing I talk about next here, will not apply to the Independent challenger.

I PREDICT GOP PICKS UP ONLY 4 SEATS IN THE SENATE

So what of the last, and essentially the tightest races? I think Democrats will hold the Colorado seat (Udall) and the Iowa seat (open was held by Democrat) which will be won by Democrat Braley. And I think Democrats will then stun the GOP by stealing two seats that were supposed to be safe GOP, the Georgia (open, was held by Republicans) and biggest insult to them, Kentucky (McConnell). Why Kentucky is insult? Mitch McConnell is the Senate Leader of the Republican party. So after these changes, the Democrats would have 52 seats and the Republicans 48 and the Senate control would stay safely with the DEMs.

WHY WOULD THE POLLS BE SO WRONG?

Ok the polls are very tight in these races, one or two, maybe three points is the margin currently, so I'm not predicting huge upsets, but yes, for this many Democratic 'wins' when they are so vulnerable, yes, this needs some explanation.

I base this on the 'ground game' ie the GOTV - Get Out The Vote - part of the campaign. This has always been a strong suite for the Democrats. Usually Republicans have more money, and will do heavy TV ads and robocalls etc, but the Democrats have more volunteers and on election day especially, have more 'troops' to help get-out-the-vote. 

But surely that is factored into the polling data? Yes, it is. By 'normal' models yes. The pollsters have their own mathematical models by which they adjust the raw polling data, to then reflect how well do the various parties get their voters to the polls on election day (and as I said, DEMs are usually worse at this on Midterm elections than the GOP).

RETURN OF THE NARWHAL

So what then? Ah, its that Narwhal project from Obama 2012 campaign. Obama doesn't need Narwhal anymore but of course Obama wants to ensure his last 2 years are not living hell on Capitol Hill, so he much prefers that the Senate stays Democratic. So he's long ago given the Narwhal system to the Democratic party for use in these Midterms and no doubt, for Hillary's 2016 campaign and the future forever after.

What is/was Narwhal? I wrote two deep analysis of it after the 2012 election. Read the details here. But briefly, Narwhal was the largest-ever database and analytics system designed for use in elections. Massively expensive, it was one of the largest computerized database systems on the planet so rivaling say the IRS tax systems of the USA, or the spying tech used by the US spy agencies, far larger than say banking or credit card loyalty system data etc. 

Narwhal collected data on all viable voters in the USA. If they were registered or not. If they had a preference by party. If they had voted before. If they had expressed any indication of support for either party or candidate. And then Obama's team contacted personally each candidate that might be willing to support Obama (only removing those who were clearly fully Romney supporters). And Narwhal collected two attributes for every registered voter: The score of how much they liked or disliked Obama - on a scale of 1 to 100. And the score of how likely were they to vote on Election day, also on a score from 1 to 100.

Can you imagine how incredibly powerful this database then became? Narwhal also had the contact info, mobile phone numbers, snailmail addresses, Facebook accounts, Twitter handles etc etc etc. And they entered into Narwhal the info of who had voted. So with early voting, and then election day voting, they kept updating Narwhal on real-time data on who has already voted and who is yet to vote.

So for example on election day, Narwhal directed the volunteers to hit the most beneficial voter contacts. If someone had voted, no sense wasting the call or visit. If the voter was a Romney supporter, no sense in wasting the contact. If the voter had not voted, but Narwhal had a high probability that this voter will vote still today (such as will vote on the way home from work) and is already a high Obama supporter, then that person doesn't need a reminder contact today. Again no wasted effort.

Then Narwhal had left those who were leaning towards Obama or unsure, and were not quite certain if they'd bother to vote on Election day. Those people were reminded and contacted and if necessary, the Obama team arranged carpooling transport to help them get to the polling place, etc.

If you are reading this from a modern digital/social/mobile marketing background, you might think this is quite 'reasonable' and perhaps 'normal'. It is totally not. You know what Romney's team did? What every other campaign in history has done? What Obama's own campaign still was doing in 2008? They did it the old-fashioned way. They monitored how the voting was happening, and then they directed phone calls (in the case of Team Romney, these were not humans calling, it was robocalls ie recordings) to those counties and districts, where the population was more Republican than Democratic.

No accuracy or intelligence. Some calls went to numbers of people who had already voted. Some would go to the wrong people (ie calling a Democrat accidentially, from the Romney campaign, urging them to go vote) and most people don't listen to the robocalls when they notice its a recording anyway.

Yet Romney's Project Orca was able to direct more Republican voters to the polls. They were able to see success. The Romney campaign DID achieve more votes against Obama than what the McCain campaign had done four years before. The Romney campaign did believe, based on what they observed and measured, that they were winning the election.

But Obama's team knew. The Narwhal system is also the world's most accurate election forecast measurement system far far more accurate than the largest consumer polling done by Gallup or Nielsen or any consumer polling organizations. Narwhal accurately predicted the outcome of every state election and got even the percentage split always within one percentage point. No other forecaster was that accurate. So Obama's team knew as the last months of the campaign were running, exactly what was the score, and they knew on election day exactly how it was going. They were not freaking out at all. They were calmly confident, they were going to win almost as many states as Obama won against McCain four years before, in that landslide election. And Obama did this when the economy was so bad, no incumbent before had ever managed to win under such bad economic conditions. And Obama the law professor non-businessman was going to win easily over Romney the megamillionaire businessman when the Economy was the biggest worry on the minds of voters in 2012.

Thats Narwhal. Thats why DEMs will now eke out wins of a pecentage or two in elections they were supposed to lose by a point or two.  And yes, the Republicans have not yet built their Narwhal clone. 

I did my analysis on this blog last year about the impact of the Narwhal project to the final election outcome in terms of votes added. I wrote this "Team Obama powered by its Narwhal machine, made twice as many contacts, hit three times as many of its own registered voters (or voters leaning Democratic), achieved four times as many contacts with its own voters, and the real number where it matters, ended up activating five times more voters than Team Romney, powered by its Orca machine." (emphasis in the original). Here is the full analysis including all numbers. So the direct impact of Narwhal vs Orca was a net gain of 8.1 million votes to Obama. Obama's actual margin of victory was only 5 million votes. If Romney had kept Orca but Obama didn't have Narwhal, we'd now know the US President as Mitt Romney whose razor-tight election victory would have been 51% to 49%. Instead Obama won by 52% to 47%. The technical edge of using this advanced super-targeted voting-day activation machine is worth about 3% of the vote on election day. Based on that, I am calling it that DEMs will keep Colorado and Iowa (as well as New Hampshire and North Carolina where they now have a slight lead) and Democrats will stun the Republicans by stealing two seats both in reliably-Republican states, Kentucky and Georgia.

Obviously this is just my hobby-guess. We'll know in ten days. But I will be watching the voting come in and lets see how I did in my first-ever public forecast of a Midterm election (I've done a few of US Presidential elections of course in the past). After November 4, if the Senate new balance is 52 to 48 in favor of the DEMs, my forecast would have been correct.

Also based on the same reasoning, I predict many gains in Governorships and some gains in the Congress but not enough for DEMs to re-take the Congress. Republicans will still hold majority in that chamber.

(there were several techincal errors in the original posting which were kindly pointed out by reader Baron95. I have corrected those)

Comments

[hector]

how about bloodbath preliminary numbers... is windows phone (Lumia microsoft) back in track???? I live in Mexico on the border to Arizona knew the etternal senator or congressman McCain and former candidate... what i mean,,, well what´s the mean of this??? don´t care for those polls... but it´s your blog and you can post whatever you want....

[KPOM]

Stick to phones. Even Nate Silver gives the GOP a 64% chance of winning the Senate. It's not the end of the world. Harry Reid is an idiot and would have been gone 4 years ago if the Nevada electorate had half a brain. The best result is if the GOP ends up with 52 seats but Grimes somehow beats McConnell in Kentucky. She's a stooge for Reid, but it's time for new blood in the GOP.

[KPOM]

Machines can't make people vote, Tomi. In 2012 Obama had more accurate polling. That's if. I'm one of the people who get multiple emails each day from Narwhal. That's from a single donation of $10 6 years ago. I don't care how many emails I get from Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi. I'm not voting for any Democrat this time around.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi gang

Thanks for comments. Am rushed at airport. hector, I'll do a Bloodbath update next (when back home). Baron95 gosh, thanks, I must really have been jetlagged and utterly zonked. Thats bad haha. Thanks. I'll go correct those when I reconnect. And Baron and KPOM, I'll also return with some responses/comments on the topic itself..

Keep the discussion going

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Thomas]

In other news, Microsoft now values the formerly high-flying Nokia brand at zero.

[Sve]

I've always fared better financially under Democratic majorities. So has civility and human rights. I'll be voting straight Democratic this election.

[KPOM]

@SVE, Democrats started WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. Carter was an economic and foreign policy disaster, and Clinton left office during a recession. The economy and wars tend to be cyclical. I fared quite nicely under Reagan and the first Bush. And things were best with Clinton after he lost control of Congress. A fully divided government tends to work better. Obama's problem is that he doesn't know how to triangulate. Don't tell me it's the GOP's fault. Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey were even bigger ideologues than John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. Harry Reid is responsible for much of the gridlock in the Senate. Democrats would have been wise to elect Chuck Schumer or Dianne Feinstein as their leader. They are better at working across the aisle.

Tomi is smoking something if he think the GOP is going to lose House seats. Even the DCCC is in retrench mode, trying mostly to defend vulnerable Democrats. And while there is a decent chance the Democrats will retain the Senate, Obama did them no favors last week going on to Al Sharpton's radio program and blowing the cover of what's left of the moderate Democrats.

RCP expects the Democrats to pick up a net 2 governorships. Wisconsin and Illinois may go down to the wire. Quinn has been a disaster in Illinois, but the real problem has been one-party rule of the general assembly. Rauner has 50/50 odds of winning. Wisconsin pits a Mitt Romneyesque Democrat (and a job outsourcer on top of it!) against Scott Walker. That will go down to the wire, too. If Walker can survive he'll probably run for president in 2016. He won't get the nomination, but his presence would be beneficial for the process as he has some good ideas. Act 10 (the law that limited collective bargaining by public workers) is so popular even Mary Burke won't say she'd push to overturn it.

[Gonzo]

When apple beats everyone and all predictions collapse and Samsung enters sunset it's better to talk politics.

What was the number of pre order in china?

There is a new record on the blog, 3 minutes after Apple reported its monster results Tomi didn't write a doom scenario mega post … like wit for example apple watch.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi hector, Baron95 and KPOM

hector - sorry yes this is my blog and I post occasionally other things that just are on my mind, like my ongoing fascination with US elections. I try to identify clearly the blog article to be not related to regular techie topics, so you won't waste your time you're not interested.

Baron95 (I made the corrections and credited you, thanks). Hey, thanks for the nice words and yeah, I enjoy thinking about these things too. Now about your other comments.. yes, divided government is the normal and most times the two parties can live with that. It was the GOP with Obama who made that deliberate decision to block everything, however, that made this the most gridlocked period ever. I understand their reasoning - Obama came in promising to be a post-partisan president to end the gridlock. If Obama succeeded in that, he'd be the biggest hero since Lincoln and be chisseled to Mount Rushmore as the 5th face there. And he'd then also likely help usher in a long period of Democratic rule on all levels. So the Republicans had to torpedo all of it, even when it meant voting numerous times against ideas that were Republican ideas like haha Romneycare = Obamacare. But this is an incredibly short-sighted move that will come to bite them in the ass truly massively (in Hillary's election 2016 and her coat-tails). The Republicans will look truly silly when each has to try the Pretzel moves that Mitch McConnell did when he tried to separate Kynect from Obamacare in that TV debate haha. The DEMs will study that and by 2016 they will all force the Republicans to take bad or worse positions on ACA/Obamacare.

As to 'rejection' of Obama, yeah, thats what Midterms often are, but obviously always the President's party will also try to shift the argument to local matters in those midterms as Republicans did in 2006 and Democrats doing now in 2014. Normal.. :-) You make a good point that the GOP is trying to 'bank' Senate seats now because 2016 is going to be the opposite, a bad year for Republican Senators because so many defended seats will be in 'Blue' states. But that being said, if they fail to take the majority now, it will be seen as a major strategic blunder by Republican leadership.

PS as an outsider with no dog in this fight, I'd love to see that 50/50 situation with Biden breaking the tied votes, simply because I haven't seen that haha.. (Similarly to would love one of these years to see either party have a 'brokered convention' haha - which would no doubt in the modern era be an utter disaster for that party, but it would be entertaining for us observers haha)

KPOM - haha well, I've been making bold predictions before and been pretty good on them. I do trust my gut on this, and I know Nate Silver (and most others) predict a GOP Senate. We'll see in a week. I posted this explicitly because I think I see something that others are not picking (adequately) up on. The DEMs are spending their money now on GOTV while GOP is spending on TV ads. Why is that. I think its Narwhal and for Georgia and Kentucky, both red states, it will be a rude awakening indeed... (but as I said, we'll know in a week if I am totally the clueless fool).

on the 'machines don't make me vote' yes, totally agree. Narwhal cannot make you change your mind. You liked the DEMs in 2008 enough to donate. Nice. Now you've soured on them, that is normal human behavior and the Democrats have clearly disappointed you and thats fine. Narwhal cannot change your mind. BUT there are OTHERS who still like the DEMs now, who are only lukewarm and not sure about voting. If the person is predispoed in favor of that party, only THEN can the system find you and target you and bring you to the polls (better than anything before). That is the purpose of targeted marketing. It won't change me from an Audi guy to a BMW guy but it might discover the opportunity when I might actually come and buy the car that I like haha...

Ok, gotta run again. Will return with more and hey.. I have a follow-up blog am working on, looking a bit further into the future of US politics haha

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[KPOM]

@Tomi, Obama made a blunder when he let Pelosi and Reid enact Obamacare. He enjoyed supermajorities of the kind that not even FDR did. He initially had some bipartisan support for Obamacare (Olympia Snowe cast a crucial vote in August 2009 to advance it in committee, Susan Collins was a possible supporter, and some Congressmen might have crossed the aisle). But then when Franken was declared the winner, and Specter changed parties, giving Democrats 60 votes, he changed course and decided to go it alone. Remember, Obama got most of his agenda passed when he didn't need any GOP votes.

The meme that the GOP is solely responsible for the gridlock is incorrect. Harry Reid has been one of the most obstructionist senate leaders in history. He has blocked amendments time and time again so that the centrist Democrats who give him his majority don't need to make difficult votes (e.g. Keystone pipeline) which could otherwise pass the Senate with the GOP and 6 or 7 Democrats. And his move to change the filibuster rules to pack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals broke two longstanding unwritten rule that even Bush didn't dare(though he toyed with the idea).

As for the GOTV, the reason that the Democrats are focusing on that is that they have to. Turnout is always an issue for Democrats in mid-term elections. And early/absentee numbers aren't turning out the way they usually do. For example, in Iowa, about as many early votes are being cast by registered Republicans as Democrats, while usually it's skewed significantly toward Democrats. I think it's more a sign of desperation on their part. There will be some surprises on Election Night, particularly with so many races within pollsters' margins of error, but the Democrats need more breaks than the GOP.

The one thing keeping Democrats in close this election is, somewhat ironically, Citizens United. Democrats enjoy a money advantage this election (which they did NOT have in 2010), probably because the IRS targeting of conservative interest groups had its desired effect. Donors to conservative groups seem to be a bit more reluctant this time around, while Democrats are still able to attract big money donations from the likes of Bloomberg and Tom Steyer.

2016 is a different story. The Democrats will likely retake the Senate no matter what, in no small part because the GOP will be defending 24 seats vs 10 for the Democrats, and in "blue" states like Wisconsin. Fundamentals will be in favor of the Democrats. The GOP would need a more credible centrist such as Jeb Bush or Chris Christie to stand a chance, which the establishment seems to realize (hence the fact that they actively managed the primaries to prevent the likes of Todd Akins and Christine O'Donnell getting nominated this year). I don't think Hillary is as inevitable as she thinks, or as the Democratic establishment wants. She may face another challenge from the left. And she certainly doesn't have the coattails that Obama had in 2008. Bill Clinton can raise money like no one else, but Hillary is just not a particularly good politician. If she were half as good as Bill, she'd have easily won in 2008. She'll GET the youth and minority votes, but won't ATTRACT as many as Obama did in 2008 or even 2012. In the end, she may not need to, but she'll leave some windows open for the GOP.

The challenge for the GOP will be getting out the vote. The last GOP president who figured that out was Bush in 2004, who was unpopular but actually increased his vote totals and percentages noticeably through GOTV efforts.

[KPOM]

Also, it's incorrect to say that Congress has passed a bunch of silly bills that have no chance of getting a signature. The House has passed a bunch of bills, but none have even gotten to the floor of the Senate because Harry Reid won't let them. That's telling. It means that there's a likelihood that many of them would actually pass if they were brought to a floor vote because centrist Democrats couldn't vote against them while claiming to support the measure in concept. E.g. approval of the Keystone pipeline, which Mary Landrieu claims to support, but doesn't need to "prove" by actually casting a vote. If Obama vetoed bill after bill that passed with even modest bipartisan support, he'd lose the meme that "the GOP is causing gridlock." And if Democratic leadership enforced the party line, the centrists would be in even bigger trouble with the electorate than they are now.

If the GOP takes over the Senate, expect them to pass a lot of bills specifically to get Obama to veto them. If they are smart, they'll work in some "sensible" bills that would be difficult to veto. E.g. we won't see a comprehensive immigration bill, but if we get a "sensible" bill to increase the number of H1-B visas with no other strings attached, it would be politically difficult for Obama to veto it. "Not doing enough" is still better than "doing nothing." There are other "sensible" modest bills they could pass on tax reform, such as eliminating inversions in exchange for reducing the corporate tax rate to 28%, which is Obama's stated target (the GOP wants to reduce it to 25%). The "all or nothing" crowd in the GOP lost a lot of credibility within the party last year after the shutdown, and the establishment has been working to get a coherent message going. Again, if they pass a few bills that don't contain everything that Obama wants, but also don't contain everything the GOP wants, it would be difficult for Obama to go on a veto-fest.

[KPOM]

Remember 12 Democrats in the Senate supported the "Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires" (and everyone else who pays income taxes). The Iraq war had overwhelming bipartisan support. That didn't stop the Democrats from making both issues political winners in 2006 and 2008. The GOP rammed through Medicare Part D on a party-line vote, but that didn't stop Democrats from attempting to credit for "fixing" it in 2010 (actually making it even more expensive).

[Millard Fillmore]

hi Baron, you said
"Most conservatives, myself included, want to see a huge rebuke of the President in this election."

i have my own little list of rebukes for Obama, like helping the crooked banksters get away, even giving them bonuses. or continuing the security theater of the Patriot Act, along with the domestic spying.

but that can't be what you have in mind. what is in your list? Obamacare (almost certainly)? raising the minimum wage?

--

no, i don't think wages paid accurately reflects the value-add of the labor performed, why do you ask?

[KPOM]

Interesting how a "progressive" chooses to take the name of a fellow progressive Democrat who signed the Fugitive Slave Act into law.

[Millard Fillmore]

hi KPOM, the name comes from a light hearted editorial in the Washington Post in the late 1970s about The Millard Fillmore Society. to join, when you phone up someone and are asked "who is calling please?", you must reply "Millard Fillmore". our namesake is one of the more inconsequential presidents.

everyone in the society has the same rank of Beloved Member, except for one dude who has the rank of Beloved Founder.

that's it.

--

Millard "no you really do not need to know my real name" Fillmore

[Winter]

@Millard Fillmore
"no, i don't think wages paid accurately reflects the value-add of the labor performed, why do you ask?"

How could they? 3% of the people rake in 30% of all income in the USA. Someone has to work for all that money.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi all in the thread

I've now posted my comprehensive preview of 2016. Yes, am using term comprehensive deliberately. 29,000 words (nearly as long as the Elop Sun Tzu strategy analysis).

I know several of you are conservatives so that blog will sting (quite a lot) but please remember, I am an analyst and have no dog in this fight, I call it as I see it, from an outsider's perspective. Hillary is the first Presidential candidate in history to hold literally all the cards. Which is why she'll win with the biggest margin since Reagan in 1984. So yeah, I know it will sting a bit but if you're a 'reasonable' conservative, ie not a tea-party nutcase (sorry) then there is a sliver of a silver lining.

The GOP has caught Teapartygnitis. Thats a mutated version of a political disease from the 1970s called Mondale's Disease. There was only one cure for Mondale's Disease. That was Reagan. After Reagan cured the disease, the Democratic party could start to heal. Now the GOP needs a cure to Teapartygnitis. That cure is a severe dose of Hillary. It will cure your party although the recovery period will be long..

Anyway, am curious to hear your views of that monster-long article. And I'll return here with comments once I have a bit more time (now gotta go get some shut-eye before my keynote here in Ecuador tomorrow)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[KPOM]

@Tomi, Senators are elected statewide, so there is no gerrymandering involved.

Anyway, back to the election at hand, here's my prediction for Tuesday: We won't know who controls the Senate, as both Louisiana and Georgia will go to runoffs. Specifically, the RCP map at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/2014_elections_senate_map.html starts with 44 safe or likely Democratic seats (including the 2 Independents who currently caucus with the Democrats), and 45 safe or likely GOP seats.
- Warner (D) in VA is "Leans Democratic." He wins.
- Cotton (R) in AR is "Leans Republican." I think he wins.
- McConnell (R) in KY is "Leans Republican." I think he wins, but the margin will be razor thin.

On to the "Toss Ups" I see the following:
- Shaheen (D) and Hagan (D) win by fairly comfortable margins (5% or so).
- Orman (I) wins in KS.
- Braley (D) pulls off the upset in IA. Ernst just can't seem to shake him in the polls, and I'm a bit skeptical about the early votes mostly being registered Republicans. They may just be people who would have showed up anyway.
- Gardner (R) defeats Udall in CO. I put more stock into the early voter registration totals here.
- Sullivan (R) defeats Begich in AK. AK is notoriously difficult to poll, however. Begich could pull off a surprise if the GOTV effort is as good as he claims it is.

Assuming that holds up, we have 49 GOP, 48 Democrats, Orman, with LA and GA in runoffs on December 6 and January 6 (!), respectively. McConnell might offer Orman some choice committee chairmanships at this point, but I think Orman will caucus with the Democrats, looking ahead to 2016 when the Democrats likely retake the Senate outright. I think Cassidy (R) takes the runoff in LA, turning GA into a referendum on the Senate. I'd say Nunn would have the advantage if control of the Senate is not an issue (one way or the other), but if it is 50/49 GOP after December 6th, then all bets are off. Plenty of money will be pouring in from both sides.

As for governorships, I think Quinn, unfortunately, wins in Illinois, and Walker narrowly fends off Burke. It's not the end of the world if Walker loses, since his much-needed reforms will live on, but it would be better if Walker wins. Illinois needs someone like Walker, if only for 4 years, to throw a wrench into the Machine. Overall, Democrats pick up 1 or 2 governorships.

In the House, the GOP picks up a few seats. They fall short of 246 (their high water mark back in the Eisenhower era), and there are a few surprises on both sides, as there always are, but the overall outcome isn't in much doubt. Thank the 2010 wave for that. It threw a majority of governorships and state legislatures to the GOP, who then got to redraw the maps. It works both ways. Democrats in Illinois redrew the maps to defeat all 4 new GOP Representatives who won in 2010.

[DesDizzy]

It seems that you have little understanding of business. Business 101 (a) says, a sustainable business needs profits. See Android. Business 101 (b) says that in every business market there are different addressable segments, Apple competes in the premium segment ($400-$800) and has, by most estimates 75/80% share of this segment and makes money. It does not compete in the "Luxury" ($800+ See Vertu) or the low/Medium end segment (Less than $350). Consequently it makes 70/80% of the profits in mobile and the other 20 or so large players have to share the rest between them.

You will see from the exits from the smartphone market in recent times, that this 20% profit share is not a long term sustainable players within the Android market and that most will not survive. You will also see that the corollary of the Apple stranglehold on the premium market is their stranglehold on the most lucrative smartphone users and therefore smartphone spending power and therefore smartphone App eco-system.

[KPOM]

@DesDizzy, did you mean to post in one of the other threads? Or are Apple and Android aligned with the parties?