Don't get cocky Republicans: The election still ain't over 'til it's over part deux
The following alert is not meant as a smug "I told you so! Nah! Nah! Nah!" Really! I merely am reiterating my concerns expressed last week when I asked
will all this self confidence from polling data make some Republicans lax and over confident in these final months, discourage some from not voting because victory is theirs while frightening Democrats to really, really increase their get out the vote efforts and also indulge in some of their uhm, voting chicanery?
Well, unfortunately, some of my fears seem justified.
Nate Silver, numbers cruncher and statistical analyst par excellence, asks and then answers on his blog fivethirtyeight: what happened to the Republican's early 64% lead of a few weeks ago?
Now Republican chances are about 55 percent instead. We’ve never quite settled on the semantics of when to call an election a “tossup.” A sports bettor or poker player would grimace and probably take a 55-45 edge. But this Senate race is pretty darned close.
As you can see, there hasn’t been an across-the-board shift. Republicans’ odds have improved in several important races since the launch of our model. Democrats’ odds have improved in several others. But the two states with the largest shifts have been Colorado and North Carolina — in both cases, the movement has been in Democrats’ direction. That accounts for most of the difference in the forecast.
Most of the Democrats’ gains, however, have come from the purple states. What’s perplexing is that this has happened right as Democrats’ position on the generic congressional ballot — probably the best indicator of the national mood — has deteriorated.
Might Democrats be benefiting from strong voter outreach in these states — perhaps the residue of President Obama’s “ground game” in 2012? (snip)
Money could be a more important factor. Consider the states with the largest polling movement: In North Carolina, Hagan had $8.7 million in cash on hand as of June 30 as compared with just $1.5 million for her Republican opponent, Thom Tillis. In Colorado, Udall had $5.7 million as compared with $3.4 million for Republican Cory Gardner.
These totals do not account for outside spending. But in stark contrast to 2010, liberal and Democratic “super PACs” have spent slightly more money so far than conservative and Republican ones, according to the the Center for Responsive Politics. (One caveat for Democrats is that when money is spent on advertising, it can sometimes have short-lived effects.)
Whatever the reason, the GOP’s path to a Senate majority is less robust than before.
OK, let me repeat that. "Whatever the reason, the GOP’s path to a Senate majority is less robust than before."
And, according to Silver, perhaps part of the reason for the fading robustness may be because the Democrats, who are always pleading poverty while castigating the Republicans as heartless rich stomping on the poor and middle class, have more, more money; enough to turn the predicted 2014 mid term Republican wave into maybe, at best, a Republican ripple.
I hope I--and Silver--are wrong. You have been warned! Now go do something about it.