Redstate

I wish the code had worked for putting here so more people would see it.  As far as methodology, I'd say the open seats should probably just have the P% doubled instead of including how the incumbent did.  This would make MN less vulnerable while making MD and TN more vulnerable for a party change (which coincides with CW on those seats).  Otherwise, it is an interesting baseline, especially for contesting incumbent-held seats.

Overall, it seems to back up CW that RI and PA are the most vulnerable.  MT seems more secure than many Kossites would like it to be, but Sen. Burns won a squeaker last time.  We'll see if the race gets nationalized since 59% of voters voted for the President.

On the other side, NE, ND, FL, MN, and MI are all within striking distance while WA, NJ, and MD (because it's open) are outside chances where the right challenger must emerge (WA: Rossi, MD: Steele).

Overall, the lay of the land is in our favor.  But the momentum seems to be with the Dems.  That being said, the same "momentum" was with the Dems in 2004.  Sometimes I think they may just be louder.  We'll see how it turns out.

Extra info:

here is a list of the Senators up for re-election with their vote total in 2000 and how much they ran ahead/behind their party's Presidential contender in their state.

And here is a more in-depth look at each race from April 30th.

If the model is accurate you might have a good job in Washington waiting for you somewhere.

Although I think, to be more accurate, there ought to be some kind of adjustor to the S% based on whether the candidate ran for an open seat (their S% could reasonably be expected to be lower), or whether they unseated an incumbent (in which case we'd expect S% to be higher this time around). Not sure what the exact formula should be, but that's very interesting.

Of course, it really does tend to ignore the most important factor of all in any statewide election - the strength of the opposition candidate. TN ought to be a bulletproof state for the GOP, but the Democrats have a star in Harold Ford, Jr., who will make it a very tough race indeed. Likewise with Washington if Rossi runs.

But for those of us who are absolute political geeks, this is a great teaser.

They've yanked down the link for "posting rules" - it now says something about the account being locked - did any of you capture the image?

It still works for me.  Hmmm.

I get the error now.  I see Nick has already RedHotted it.  Thanks for pointing it out MN.

Well, there's no mathematical way to factor in the strength of the challenger.  This isn't intended to be a predictive model, just a baseline.  Obviously, the Dems have lined up strong candidates in TN and PA, while the GOP has thus far failed to do so in WA or MI.

Fair enough point.  I do expect MD and TN to be real races.

an accurate indicator in a post 9/11 world.  No political poll will accurately represent the sentiment of the electorate until the demographics used to conduct the poll are changed to reflect the decidedly conservative shift in the electorate.

One must look past party affiliation since it is still politically incorrect to publicly identify one's self as a conservative.

The GOP will make substantial gains in the House and Senate for the foreseeable future.  If the left is able to 'get their message out' and 'have their voices heard' with any greater 'success' than they did during the 2002 and 2004 election cycles, the headlines are already written in stone.

GOP - In a Landslide!

such a thing as momentum?  The Dems. haven't exactly won anything recently.

. . . and there's a lot of time until next November.  But since the Iraqi Elections, the GOP has (1) failed to generate any momentum on Social Security, the president's top domestic legislative priority, (2) failed to maintain party discipline on judges, the president's #2 domestic priority, (3) played social issues like the Terri Schiavo case and stem cell debates to at best a draw and possibly worse (as far as scoring points with center-right voters outside the core of the base) without much in the way of tangible results to show for spending some political capital, (4) failed to keep enough forward progress on foreign affairs to brush aside the usual griping about prisoner treatment, and (5) had to play defense on DeLay's ethics.

None of these is terriby damaging long-term except for Social Security, but if not much gets done the next two years, the party in power is likely to get blamed.