| Wednesday, October 31 |
• Polls: Here’s Johnny!
- AZ-Sen: HighGround Public Affairs (R): Martha McSally (R): 47, Kyrsten Sinema (D): 45
- AZ-Sen: Marist for NBC: Sinema (D): 47, McSally (R): 44, Angela Green (G): 6 (Sept.: 45-43 Sinema)
- FL-Sen: Suffolk for USA Today: Bill Nelson (D-inc): 45, Rick Scott (R): 43
- FL-Sen: University of North Florida: Nelson (D-inc): 47, Scott (R): 46 (Sept.: 45-45 tie)
- IN-Sen: Cygnal (R): Mike Braun (R): 49, Joe Donnelly (D-inc): 46
- MI-Sen: Glengariff Group for the Detroit News & WDIV-TV: Debbie Stabenow (D-inc): 53, John James (R): 36 (early Oct.: 53-35 Stabenow)
- MO-Sen: Cygnal (R): Josh Hawley (R): 49, Claire McCaskill (D-inc): 46
- OH-Sen: Baldwin Wallace University: Sherrod Brown (D-inc): 51, Jim Renacci (R): 32 (early Oct.: 50-33 Brown)
- TX-Sen: Dixie Strategies (R) for CBS 11: Ted Cruz (R-inc): 52, Beto O’Rourke (D): 42 (Sept.: 46-42 Cruz)
HighGround did something a bit unusual with their poll: They say they weighted the sample to give Republicans a 10-point advantage over Democrats “based on the current trend in ballot returns” because as of Monday, “GOP advantage in Early Ballot returns is 10.6 percent.”
Weighting by party based on early votes is a risky move, even in states like Arizona where the early vote will make up a significant portion of the total vote, because the early vote can be very volatile. Indeed, Garrett Archer, an analyst at the secretary of state’s office, tweeted Tuesday that Democrats have been closing the gap in returned ballots over the last three days, and added, “Pending a complete reversal of fortunes the party split will almost certainly move to the single digits in the next couple of days.”
And not only is are the early voting numbers a moving target, they may or may not resemble the final electorate, including all those who vote on Election Day itself. HighGround’s choice to peg its weighting to a partial accounting of just the early vote is therefore liable to produce misleading data.
While McCaskill is only down a few points in this poll, she’s unfortunately trailed in every poll we’ve seen since the start of October, when Fox had it tied 43-43. Many of those polls, including Cygnal’s survey, were done by GOP firms, but she looks to be in a tough place in a state where Democrats don’t have much room for error….
Oct. 31….
| DATES | POLLSTER | SAMPLE | RESULT | NET RESULT | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
One possible result for the U.S. Senate seems to be NO NET CHANGE as the GOP takes North Dakota (Heidi Heitkamp) & Missouri (Claire McCaskill) while the Democrats take Arizona (Jeff Flake, retiring) and Nevada (Dean Heller).
Ok…..
That would be a win/LOSS I’d think?
I’m not sure I understand you, James, or perhaps I was unclear.
From the polls above and other recent polls, it appears that each party would lose two seats and each party would gain two seats, leaving the party division at 51 R to 49 D & allies. No net change in the relative strength of each caucus.
R 51 now – Nev & Ariz + Mo. & ND = 51
D 49 now + Nev & Ariz – Mo. & ND = 49
[Technically speaking, the Democratic conference in the Senate consists of 44 Democrats, 2 members from the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (Amy Klobuchar & Tina Smith), 1 member elected by the Democratic-Nonpartisan League in North Dakota (Heidi Heitkamp), and two independents (Bernie Sanders of Vermont & Angus King of Maine). This is not counting cross-endorsements by the Working Families Party in New York.]
I’m just saying on the whole?
After ALL the noise and back and forth?
A TIE in the Senate kept by the Republicans with Pence would seem to me to be a loss of one seat……Negative…
But?
A holding on a hair thin majority…
Hardly a win to crow about
But I wasn’t guessing there would be a 50-50 tie (which would indeed be net
GOP loss of one).
It seemed to me at that particular snapshot more like a pure swap, leaving the split at 51-49 (no Vice Presidents normally needed, thank you very much).
I didn’t write no net margin, or no net majority, or no net edge, but no net gain (for either side) compared to the current Senate.
Oh, Ok…..
Gotcha!…