2012 GOP Presidential Nomination: By The Numbers

Now that the GOP Presidential field has begun to settle (with the notable exceptions of Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, and possibly even Chris Christie looming in the mist), it is possible to get an early read on who has a leg up towards becoming the Republican opponent to Barack Obama in 2012.

First of all, the conventional media storyline of Mitt Romney being the frontrunner is certainly true. His position in the polls has remained consistently well ahead of the pack. Still, his lead is not nearly as strong as it would seem. The latest polling averages from RealClearPolitics.com show Romney with a lead of 11.6 over Sarah Palin, who hasn't yet declared her candidacy. Among declared candidates, the closest is Herman Cain, who trails Romney by 15 percentage points.

To put this lead in perspective, at this time four years ago, Rudy Giuliani had a lead of 7.4 percentage points over the next closest opponent, Fred Thompson. He led eventual nominee John McCain by 9.7 percentage points. Mike Huckabee, who would eventually finish second in the primaries, was only just beginning to register with 2.8% support, trailing Giuliani by 23.4 percentage points.

To be sure, there is no way of knowing whether a complete campaign failure the likes of what Giuliani went through is on the horizon for Team Romney. He is more vetted than Giuliani was. Giuliani had never run for office above the level of Mayor. Mitt Romney ran a campaign for President last time around. Still, Romney has the ghosts of his Massachusetts health care debacle and his position flipping on the issue of abortion lurking in his closet.

Is Romney the favorite to win the 2012 GOP nomination? Yes. Would I put down money on it? No. There is still a LOT left to play out.

So who is positioning himself (or herself) to be the most likely alternative to Mitt Romney in the end? I will size up the competition using two different measures. First, I will use an average of support in the 3 most recent polls published. This is the most conventional measure to get at the relative standing of the candidates. At this point in the campaign, though, I would like to control a little for the fact that the frontrunners (as in the case with Giuliani) are in that position at least in part because of a head start in name recognition. Theoretically, if everybody knows your name, even if a considerable portion of them don't like you, you will gain more support than a candidate everybody loves, they just haven't heard much about yet. Further, as the campaign goes on and this advantage is somewhat neutralized (especially in early primary states which are targeted by all of the campaigns in order to increase name recognition substantially), this head start becomes less and less determinative in the early primaries and caucuses.

Using the first method, simple support in the 3 most recent polls, the standings look like this:

1. Mitt Romney - 27%
2. Sarah Palin - 13%
3. Rick Perry - 11%
4. Michelle Bachmann - 10%
5. Herman Cain - 9%
6. Ron Paul - 6%
7. Newt Gingrich - 6%http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
8. Tim Pawlenty - 5%
9. Rick Santorum - 4%
10. Jon Huntsman - 2%
11. Gary Johnson - 1%



Using an alternative method, the standings look a little different. In order to control for limited name recognition, I have created a score which takes the overall support in the 3 most recent polls and divides it by name recognition, as measured by Gallup. In effect, it compares candidates based on what their support would be if they had 100% name recognition. Additionally, it assumes that those that don't know about the candidate are just as likely to support the candidate as those that already do. While this assumption has its faults, I believe the measure still provides interesting insight into the campaign. Using this method, the candidates are positioned thusly:

1. Mitt Romney - 32%
2. Herman Cain - 20%
3. Michelle Bachmann - 14%
4. Sarah Palin - 13%
5. Tim Pawlenty - 9%
6. Ron Paul - 8 %
7. Rick Santorum - 7%
8. Newt Gingrich - 7%
9. Jon Huntsman - 4%
10. Gary Johnson - 3%
** Rick Perry has not yet been included in Gallup polls, therefore there is no similar measure for name recognition. Thus, he has been left out of these rankings.
** Percentages do not add up to 100% because support is inflated for all candidates in order to estimate what it would be if each had 100% name recognition.



Obviously, the true positioning probably lies somewhere between these two measures. Name recognition will not remain low for all of these candidates. It also won't reach 100% for anybody. Therefore, I am going to average the two rankings for all of the candidates to get a medium measure of reasonable expectations. The following table summarizes this.

Support Score Average
Mitt Romney 1 1 1
Rick Perry 3 n/a 3
Sarah Palin 2 4 3
Herman Cain 5 2 3.5
Michelle Bachmann 4 3 3.5
Ron Paul 6 6 6
Tim Pawlenty 8 5 6.5
Newt Gingrich 7 8 7.5
Rick Santorum 9 7 8
Jon Huntsman 10 9 9.5
Gary Johnson 11 10 10.5

So what can we gather from all this? Well, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry have an opportunity to completely scramble the race. In there absence, though, Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann are in strong position to battle it out for the anti-Romney spot. In the end, Iowa and South Carolina could serve to decide between these two should Rick Perry or Sarah Palin either decide not to run or enter the race to less than stellar reviews. In the mean time, Romney must hope that he can hold on to the top spot, unlike Giuliani four years ago.

A Response to the President's State of the Union Address

Mr. President,

I, along with many Americans tonight, sat down to listen to your remarks regarding the state of our union. You spoke about the American dream and opportunity, an opportunity which you pointed out has been crippled in recent years. It has been crippled by a struggling economy that is bleeding jobs.

Mr. President, it is clear that the first priority of our government must be to cure what has been ailing our economy. What is not so clear, however, is your prescription.

You call for investment in our future, which seems to mean an increase in spending on education, infrastructure, technology, and health care. You intend to get the money to pay for it from oil companies and the richest 2% of Americans.

While your plan certainly appears to have its political selling points, its effectiveness is unquestionably lacking. We have indeed been spending and spending and spending for more than your two years in office. The stimulus failed, Mr. President. If it had worked, you would not be making this speech tonight. You would not have had a Republican sitting behind you tonight. More importantly, 9% of Americans would not still be out of a job tonight.

Why has your plan failed? It has failed for the same reason that the Soviet Union failed. It has failed because the free market knows better what to do with its money than the federal bureaucracy does. See, what you fail to mention every time you speak of “investing” money in our economy, is that the investment comes, primarily, not from an outside source, but from the economy itself.

What do you suppose the evil oil company executive does with his millions of dollars in bonus money? He invests it! He invests it in his 401(k). He buys a yacht, or a sports car, or a vacation home. Maybe, he gives it to charity or supports his favorite non-profit organization. Regardless, his money is invested back into the economy. What you are doing, by “investing” money, is taking that dollar away from that CEO and, worst of all, it costs money to get it from him.

So, obviously, what you are doing is not an investment, it is manipulation. You feel that you and your government know better what to do with his money than he does. You feel that the United States needs a governing body, a central planning agency to coordinate its economy, and to mandate investments in whatever technologies it deems profitable and utilizing whatever value system it holds important.

That idea may sound good in your head, but it has never worked in practice and most certainly does not line up with the principles of self-government on which this nation was founded. Liberty is the most precious gift that our fathers gave to us. It is a cause for which men and women have fought and died.

What you ask us to do today is to give up that liberty one day at a time for the sake of our economic well-being. What is more, you ask us to do this when history is ripe with examples of countries that have fallen into the “ash-heap of history” for following your proposed way of thinking.

Even further, we are already paying for decades of poor judgment by lawmakers such as you in Washington, D.C., who have piled up more than $14 trillion of debt. That is why we are in the very mess we are in today! You are so quick to point the finger at Wall Street, but the bills that were signed on Pennsylvania Avenue have done more damage to our economy than any Enron executive ever did.

Jobs are moving overseas and businesses are closing in our country not because of a lack of spending, but because of a blood lust for spending on Capitol Hill. Every dollar spent by Congress is a dollar not spent by a business to maximize its profit and therefore ensure its competitiveness and its employees’ job security.

It appears that you have seen the light on this aspect of our nation’s struggles as you promised tonight to end earmark spending and lower corporate income taxes. I am afraid, though, that this is one promise that you will have to show me in action. To this point, you have provided no evidence that your conviction truly lies in reigning in spending.

Under your watch, Mr. President, spending has sky-rocketed on Capitol Hill. You have already in just two years in office allowed the national debt to increase by $3.5 trillion. In your speech tonight, you made no effort to propose any significant cuts in spending, only to take as much as you could from oil companies and the nation’s wealthiest individuals in hopes that they can financially support the monster in Washington, D.C.

Mr. President, they can not support it any longer. And, I have to say, it is simply degrading the way you championed the idea of a spending freeze as a cure to our ills. After two years of out-of-control spending, when our nation has swelled its spending to a new height far beyond any that the world has ever seen, you stood there with a straight face, acting like you were the responsible one in the room, and asked Congress not to spend any more than they already are for the next five years. I suppose in Washington, D.C., not spending more is your idea of a spending cut.

Mr. President, our nation needs more than a spending freeze and an earmarks ban. We need to get serious about the real problems in our budget: Social Security and Welfare. We need to get serious about doing more than just reducing the deficit; we need to work towards eliminating the national debt.

Mr. President, our economy is bleeding and our government is failing. The time for band-aids is over.

Mr. President, the state of our union is decline, but not terminally so. This is a time for principled leadership. It is the time for men to stand up and say enough is enough.

We can sail this sinking ship to calmer seas, but we must first repair the breach in the hull. We can not continue to allow more and more spending to weigh down our country and, ultimately, swallow us whole. We can no longer afford to ignore the leak.

Mr. President, I believe that you and I share the same goal: to see the United States prosper again and ensure that this and future generations of Americans are provided the greatest opportunity on earth to achieve their American dream, not to inherit an overwhelming debt. We must make real sacrifices, not superficial ones in order to achieve that goal. I hope that you are willing to take that action. If not, I know that our nation will find the right leader to take it down that path when the time comes.

I know that because ours is a special nation, a nation conceived as a city on a hill, a guiding light of freedom. As such, we are the special province of God and, just as He has blessed us throughout our past, He will continue to bless us so long as we honor Him.

God bless America!

A few thoughts...

Tomorrow morning, I am heading out of town for a week-long vacation of sorts.  Before I left, though, I wanted to jot down some thoughts.  Some of these thoughts have been rattling around in my head for a while and some are reactions to the news of the day.  Anyway, I just feel like verbalizing some of these ideas that have been echoing inside my mind.  Think of this post as a sort of Reader's Digest for political news of the past few days along with some running commentary.

In what was really slightly surprising news to me, a federal court ruled a portion of the health care law unconstitutional.  Specifically, the mandated purchase of insurance "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power," according to U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson.  Of course, this is not the end of the story.  The Supreme Court will ultimately decide on this issue, but it is comforting to know that there is still some respect for the Constitution in federal circles.  Clearly, Nancy Pelosi has no such respect.  When asked where the Constitution authorized Congress to force citizens to purchase anything, she refused to answer and acted like the questioner was crazy.

My concern is that the flaws with the health care law go far beyond the individual mandate, which looks to be the only point of serious constitutional contention.  I am afraid there is really no good outcome to the legal course of action.  Ultimately, the law will be implemented with or without the individual mandate.  While removing the individual mandate would be a positive outcome, it does not make up for the vastly negative impact of this health care law.

The only way to really fix this law is to completely repeal it through Congress and pass a new law which is better suited to fix the problems with our health care system.  Such a law is described in my previous post on the subject. Unfortunately, even if the new Congress had the votes to repeal the health care law, there is no way that Pres. Obama would allow his crown jewel to be destroyed.  He would veto and Republicans simply do not have the votes to override the veto.  The sad fact is we are stuck with this law until Republicans take the White House.

Can the Republicans take the White House in 2012? I think it is a very real possibility, with disapproval ratings above 50% and a hostile Congress that will not allow him any easy victories.  Still, Republicans cannot let their guard down.  The wave of momentum which gave Republicans the House in November could just as easily turn against them or, at the very least, crash down into a valley of disillusionment.

Republicans benefited from a reaction against Democratic liberalism the likes of which had never been seen in this country.  They also benefited from a citizenry that was tired of failed economic policies that were driving our nation into serious debt and failing to jump start our economy in the process.  Republicans now hold at least a share of the power in Washington, D.C. which means that they cannot sit idly by and let the Democrats hang themselves any longer.

Instead, Republicans must use the House as a launching point for conservative ideas.  They have to present a clear alternative for the country to compare with the policies of Pres. Obama.  If they do not, they risk alienating the people that gave them such an historic victory a month ago.  They also risk being labeled once again as part of the problem.  Do not forget that in 2008, one of the Republican's biggest problems was that conservatives had lost faith in the party, not seeing a significant difference between them and Democrats.  If that remains true now, Republicans will lose every bit of the momentum they gained this year and 2012 will see a Democratic revival.

What does the ideal Republican political strategy look like, then? Well, it most certainly does not include making Hal Rogers, the "Prince of Pork," the House Appropriations Committee Chairman.  Republicans absolutely cannot back down on their campaign promises of fiscal conservatism.

Republicans must not compromise that conservatism, either.  Perhaps the most misinterpreted news of the last few days is the announced compromise between House Republicans and President Obama regarding the Bush tax cuts.  While there are some good things in this compromise, and an extension of the Bush tax cuts at all levels of income is absolutely necessary for our economy, this compromise is a very bad thing.

First of all, we simply can't afford it.  Basically, this compromise worked out something like this...

Pres. Obama - "We need to spend more to help our economy out and we need to tax more to pay for it."

Nancy Pelosi - "Yeah!"

John Boehner - "No, we need to tax less to help our economy out and need to spend less so there is less to pay for."

Pres. Obama - "Ok, you know what, we are going to quit all this political bickering and compromise.  I tell you what, let's leave out the part where we pay for it and that way we can both get what we want.  Let's tax less and spend more."

Nancy Pelosi  - "Wait, what?"

Harry Reid - "Are you sure about that, sir?"

John Boehner - "I don't know if I can do that, Mr. President."

Pres. Obama - "I tell you what... Since I am feeling particularly generous today, I will even throw you a bone on the estate tax. Your constituents will really like that."

John Boehner - "Mr. President, you have yourself a deal."

[Boehner walks out of the room]

Nancy Pelosi  - "Mr. President, I don't think I can support that deal.  We need to tax the rich, that's what we have been saying for years."

Pres. Obama - "Well you don't have to support it.  In fact, I'd rather you didn't.  People think I'm too liberal so I need to look like I am willing to compromise for a little while.  If you and your liberal friends will kick and scream long enough people will actually start to think I am on the conservative side on this."

Nancy Pelosi - "You are so smart, Mr. President.  I wish I was more like you."

Harry Reid - "Me, too!"

Pres. Obama - "I love you guys!"

Ok, you get the point.  This compromise is a political stunt.  Pres. Obama is busy remaking his public image.  Republicans are too busy championing the Bush tax cuts to see the dire consequences of what is happening.  If this compromise becomes a reality, it won't necessarily be a terrible thing, but it is indicative of a larger problem.  Moody's has warned numerous times now that the US will soon see its credit rating cut if it doesn't change its ways.

For too long, Republicans have championed tax cuts and Democrats have championed spending increases.  Nobody has championed spending cuts.  At least, not really.  What we get is a series of compromises where we cut taxes and raise spending.  That leads to debt, enormous piles of debt.

A credit rating cut will be disastrous for the American economy.  It will only exacerbate the debt problems we have as U.S. treasuries will no longer be the world's safest investments.  Foreign money which was coming here will stop and go elsewhere.

If Republicans were serious about championing the fiscal conservatism of the Tea Party movement, they cannot allow for this kind of compromise to continue.  Neither can they remain the obstructionist party they were when they had no avenue for generating their own proposals.  They have to actively promote alternatives, alternatives that are actually different.

The new Republican House, as soon as it arrives, should begin passing bills that have no hope of passing the Senate or the President's desk.  Passing the bills into law is not the goal.  The goal is to force President Obama and the Democrats in the Senate to consistently say no to conservative policy alternatives.

Republicans should consider not just extensions of Bush tax cuts, but much more extensive tax cuts that will truly spur economic growth.  They should consider the Fair Tax or at least significant cuts to the income tax on the order of double what the Bush tax cuts were.  Most importantly, these tax cuts must benefit all economic classes equally.  Republicans cannot allow Democrats to corner them as the party of the rich again.

Republicans must also propose cuts to spending, though.  Without that, they have no hope of solidifying the support of fiscal conservatives.  Without it, they risk disillusionment and a return of the belief that Republicans are just political opportunists who are not willing to take the necessary measures to fix the real problem, and that is a federal government too big to support.

Republicans must not just aim to repeal the health care law.  They must propose an alternative that looks significantly different.

This is the key.  Republicans cannot simply say no any longer.  They must propose new ideas, new solutions which can serve as the platform for a Presidential bid in 2012.  Without remaining proactive, Republicans will lose their momentum and any chance they have to overtake President Obama in the next elections.

After all, President Obama is "itching for a fight."  Republicans should give him one.  In particular, I am looking forward to the first budget battle between the new House and Pres. Obama.  That, I believe, will tell the tale on the new Republicans.  Are they really serious about being fiscally conservative? We will find out then .

2010 Midterm Elections Recap

Well, they are still counting votes in Washington and a few Congressional races across the country, but we do now have a pretty good idea of what the final scores are.

Senate
Democrats - 53 (-6)
Republicans - 47 (+6)
** - Washington could still turn, but current totals suggest a Democratic victory there and there is little reason to believe that will change.

House of Representatives
Democrats - 193 (-64)
Republicans - 242 (+64)
** - Like in Washington, there are several House races still tabulating votes across the country, so this number could fluctuate one or two seats in either direction but this is more or less the final tally.

First of all, I would like to say that my projections were nearly spot on in the House. Senate projections were not as good. It appears that polling systematically overvalued Republican candidates in a few key Senate races. Nate Silver presents some interesting ideas for why this was the case on the FiveThirtyEight blog over at the New York Times.

Still, this was a monumental election for Republicans. A pick up of 6 seats in the Senate, though somewhat less than what some forecasters foresaw, represents a doubling of typical mid-term pickups for the out-party. Additionally, the 2010 electoral map was very unfavorable to monumental shifts, considering roughly half of the seats (18 out of 37) up for grabs were already in Republican hands. Compare that to 2012 elections where 21 of the 33 seats up for election are Democrats, and 2 more are Independents who currently caucus with the Democrats. Imagine if that had been the case this year! We would have seen a shift unlike any in the modern era.

Victory in the House cannot be overstated, though. As predicted, Republicans picked up more seats than any party in any single election since 1948 when Democrats picked up 75. For a moment, let's look at where those pick ups came from. The first map shades states based on the absolute number of seats gained for Republicans or Democrats (Delaware and Hawaii both actually saw a net pick-up for Democrats). The second map shades states based on percentage of the delegation from each state that switched parties.





As you can see, pick-ups came from across many regions of the country. The biggest gaps are in the Midwest which is most likely because those delegations were already Republican. New England is also blank, with the important exception of New Hampshire where the Congressional delegation completely switched over to Republican hands. This represents the first Republican foothold in New England in several years. New Hampshire and Connecticut had been Republican until 2006 when Democrats took over the Congressional delegations of both states. 2008 saw the complete extermination of the New England House Republican. Many believed this was the end of the Republican Party in New England. New Hampshire Republicans have proven them wrong.

Overlooked in a lot of this is the unbelievable victories by Republicans in state governments across the country on Tuesday. According to NCSL, Republicans have now reached their greatest strength in State Legislatures across the country since 1928!

The following map shows party control of state legislatures prior to the election:


Here is the party control of state legislatures after the election:


Republicans also did well in Governor's races.

Here is party control of the governor's office prior to the election:


Here is party control of the governor's office after the election:


Why does this matter? Aside from a significant amount of policy that effects everybody's daily lives taking place at the state level, including the implementation of the new health care law, these elections were especially important this year for one reason: REDISTRICTING!

As you most likely are aware, the government has been busy carrying out the census this year. That means that, before 2012, we are going to have a new electoral map. That map is shaped by state governments. There is considerable research that has shown that redistricting can lead to significant seat swings, some even suggests that Southern redistricting was one of the key components to the 1994 Republican Revolution.

Republicans now have more control over those state governments than they have since 1928! That is sure to impact future elections in a huge way.

And, finally, I would like to discuss one of the most popular talking points of pundits on election night, that the Tea Party had a bad night. They point to the failures of Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell, and Sharron Angle in taking down their Democratic opponents after taking down the Republican establishment candidates. They do not consider, however, the success of Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey. Even more, they treat these races as if they are in a vacuum. The historic nature of this election, with historic victories that you have to go deep into the record books to find comparable results, cannot simply be attributed to the economy. This election was, at least in party, a direct result of Tea Party enthusiasm for this new Republican Party. These candidates provided hope for a giant group of people that had become disillusioned with the Republican party and Washington politics.

Whether or not a few particular candidates won, the Tea Party was not even close to a failure, it was the primary catalyst behind Republican gains on Tuesday! Anger over government mandates, soaring national debts, and an unwillingness to jump start the economy with much needed tax cuts were channeled into Republican support by the Tea Party movement.

Now, we move on. Elections are over. Governing commences. My blog will shift focus to party strategies moving forward. I will, from time to time, cast an eye towards 2012, but will for the most part stay in the here and now for a while.

Final Projections... Tea Party Revolution

Election eve for the 2010 Midterm elections is finally here.  I have tweaked my calculations a bit to reflect the nearness of elections.  First of all, I have reduced the margin necessary to classify races.  Now, if a candidate's polling average is 3 to 7 points ahead of the opponent(s), they are classified as a lean.  A margin of 8 or more points, is classified as a solid lead.  This tweak is meant to account for the reduced possibility for change between now and the election.  Additionally, while most races have utilized an average of 3 or sometimes even 2 of the most recent polls, the relative abundance of polling data as we draw nearer to election day has allowed for the inclusion of 4 polls in all Senate races.  This should provide a more accurate measure of how races stand.  With these tweaks in mind, here are my final projections for the 2010 Midterm elections, assuming leans go as projected and dead heat races (those with a margin of 2 or less in the Senate or categorized as Toss-Ups by RealClearPolitics) split 50-50:

Senate
Democrats - 50.5
Republicans - 49.5

House
Republicans - 245.5
Democrats - 189.5

The tidal wave of momentum in the House over recent weeks and months has crested at the perfect moment and it appears House Republicans are poised to have an electoral victory of historic proportions.  These projections show Republicans picking up 67.5 seats.  The Republican Revolution of 1994 only awarded Republicans a pick up of 53 seats.  You have to go all the way back to 1948 when Democrats picked up 74 seats to find a larger seat swing than is currently projected for Republicans.  Keep in mind, this is a very modest projection, splitting the toss-up races 50-50.  In fact, there are 43 toss up races which indicate a a potential range of seat pick-ups from 46 to 89 seats for Republicans! Another important milestone that Republicans have passed is that every single toss-up race can go to the Democrats and Republicans will still gain control of the House.  At this point, the question is not whether or not Republicans take control, but just how strong that control is.

In the Senate, the Republican momentum seems to have hit a plateau right at a 50-50 split.  As it stands, Democrats are poised to win 50 and Republicans 49 with the Senate race in Washington being the one race too close to call.  If Washington does go the Republican's way, a split Senate could make Joe Lieberman one of the most powerful people in Washington, D.C.  He will be courted very strongly by Republicans to caucus with Republicans, which would give Republicans a 51-49 advantage.  Still, as Democrats have demonstrated over the past year, a simple majority in the Senate is nearly meaningless.  At the very least, nothing will be able to pass through the Senate.

Well, the time for projections is over.  I will be back tomorrow night to compare the results that are in to these final projections and see just how accurate they are.  Stay tuned, folks.  It's going to be a wild night!

October Update.. Senate in play?

We are one month away and Republicans are surging forward.  In fact, for the first time, I am really beginning to think a Republican control of the Senate is entirely feasible.  Based on current polls, with toss-ups (any race where the polling is within 5 points either way) going 50-50, party control of the House and Senate should look like this:

Senate
51-49 Democrats

House
226-209 Republicans

Since a month ago, a few of the races have really started to take shape.  Both Republicans and Democrats have increased their number of solid leads by 2.  The real shake-up, though is in the leaning category.  Only one race remains in the "Lean Democrat" category.  6 are in the "Lean Republican" category.  If they all go the direction they lean, that puts it at 48 Democrats and 46 Republicans with the following races deciding party control (with the latest average polling numbers):

California
(D) Barbara Boxer - 48%
(R) Carly Fiorina - 44%

Colorado
(R) Ken Buck - 48%
(D) Michael Bennet - 44%

Illinois
(R) Mark Kirk - 41%
(D) Alexi Giannoulias - 41%

Nevada
(D) Harry Reid - 45%
(R) Sharron Angle - 44%

Washington
(D) Patty Murray - 50%
(R) Dino Rossi - 47%

West Virginia
(R) John Raese - 47%
(D) Joe Manchin - 43%

Obviously, any of these races could go either way.  They are close enough that any slight last-minute change in momentum could make the difference.  Most are within the margin of error for the polls, anyway.  But, considering these are averages, let's just pretend that they are more accurate than a single poll.  Let's narrow down our window of interest from 5% being too close to call to 2%.  That would put California and Washington in the Democrats' column and Colorado and West Virginia in the Republicans' column, making it now 50-48 with Illinois and Nevada needing to both go Republican to split the Senate.  If you consider both of them 50-50, then that would be about a 25% likelihood.

Ok, now why has this month been a good one for Republicans? Well, that is most likely a very difficult question to answer.  It is also difficult to say whether that momentum will continue for the next month.  If it does, though and the same change that took place over the last few months continues over the next month, Republicans will be right on the verge of taking the Senate.

A few things to keep in mind...  The advantage on election day tends to go with the candidate who is surging.  They generally outperform their polling numbers.  Momentum is very important in elections.  Additionally, Republicans have been outperforming Democrats dramatically in polls that use a likely voter rubric as opposed to a voting age rubric.  This is because Republicans are much more excited about these elections than Democrats and are more likely to show up to vote.  Has this been overestimated or underestimated in these polls? That is hard to know, but I tend to think that general excitement and enthusiasm is hard to measure and will generally be underrepresented in polls.  Rasmussen has caught a lot of flack for over-representing Republicans because of their reliance on likely voters.  Indeed, if Rasmussen was the only polling agency used, Republicans would have much better projections than I present here.  Still, I think that they may be more accurate than many are wanting to admit.

All in all, Republicans should be excited about the elections coming up in a month.  Democrats should be shaking in their boots.  The House is going Republican.  It is going to go hard Republican.  The Senate, on the other hand, is going to be tight.

Updated predictions...

Finally, I have taken the time to plug all of the latest polls and primary results into my spreadsheet and have come up with some new November predictions!

Republicans are looking healthier than ever for the midterms.  My prediction now shows Republicans leading in 45 Senate races with 6 races too close to call.  Obviously, that leaves Democrats with leads in 49 races. 

The 6 toss up states are:

California (Boxer-D up by 2)
Colorado (Buck-R up by 1)
Illinois (Kirk-R up by 2)
Nevada (Reid-D up by 2)
Washington (Rossi-R up by 1)
Wisconsin (Feingold-D up by 1)

Obviously, any of these races could go either way.  If they were to split 3-3, we would have a very interesting situation on our hands with Democrats taking a 52-48 edge in the Senate.  Remember, though, that Joe Lieberman is technically an Independent and he is counted in that 52.  Additionally, there are several blue-dog Democrats that the Republicans could pull their way in close votes.  If you thought it was tough for Democrats to get things passed with a 59 seat majority, just wait until it's 52!

And, then you have the House.  This is where Republicans are looking really, really good.  We are very realistically looking at an historic election in November in the House.  Based on RealClearPolitics categorization of the House elections, Republicans lead in 205 races.  Democrats lead in 193.  That leaves 37 toss-ups.  If those 37 toss-ups go 50-50 in November, which is frankly generous to Democrats due to the momentum Republicans are building up across the country, we are looking at a new majority of 223-212 for the Republicans. That would be a pick-up of 45 seats! For perspective, the Republican Revolution in 1994 saw Republicans pick up 54 seats.  With those 37 toss-ups, though, Republican could potentially gain anywhere from 27-64 seats.

At this point, I feel pretty comfortable in saying that Republicans will gain control of the House.  Many things could happen between now and November, but it is hard to imagine a scenario in which Democrats turn things around before then.

I am not the only one who thinks so, either.  Nate Silver, who has taken his FiveThirtyEight blog over to the New York Times, recently estimated that Republicans have a 2-in-3 chance of taking the House.

Stay tuned as I continue to evaluate the polls as November draws closer.  I will also be working on some other thoughts to post over the next few weeks regarding Republican strategy and maybe even an early round-up of the 2012 Presidential field.