Coming up on June 1st, I'll update the state of the play of the midterm elections from the last update (January 1st) for those who asked, with the last updates' figures in parenthesis:

House elections: likely range for outcome is D+2 - R+7. (previously D+5 - R+9)
Senate elections: likely range for outcome is R+1 - R+7. (previously R+3 - R+10)
Governor elections: likely range for outcome is D+5 - R+1. (previously D+0 - R+3)

The factors that have led to a Democratic boost include owning the Generic Congressional Ballot since February despite aggregates being clogged with either GOP shills or bad polls, a rebound in President Obama's job approval rating from at or around 40% to at or around 45%, and continued dominance in campaign and party committee fundraising. The GOP does have some things to be happy about though: the RNC is debt-free, the Kochs have already spent about $45 million to boost their party (of a $125 million goal the group laid out), Karl Rove's groups have also been attacking Democrats as well as helping pick GOP primary winners, and Republican primaries have generally been working out well for the party.

Such a hack saying the Republican primaries are working out well for the party. I bet Obama paid you to say that..

How can this possibly be called a boost for the democratic party?

Because one need only compare their current standing to where they stood in December/January to see that their odds have improved considerably. At the end of last year they were in line for decent-sized losses whereas now there would likely be small gains one way or the other across the board.

They were facing a complete wipeout, no it looks like it will be a moderate republican victory. If, as seems likely, the Senate stays democratic the political dynamic wont be significantly changed through 2016.

The range of Republican gains has narrowed which may be indicative of more certainty in the House and Senate cases. I wonder why the gubernatorial races have opened up

Well, no, they weren't facing a wipeout whatsoever. People at the beginning of the year were just getting caught up in outdated conventional wisdom and the always-false "Democrats are doomed!" meme that is perpetuated by lazy media personalities. People were buying into the fantasy that Democratic Senate seats in VA/NH/MN/OR and to a lesser extent MI/CO were going to be competitive. Unsurprisingly the first four aren't even close and the latter two are still uphill climbs for the GOP. Now that people understand that better the analyses are coming back to reality a little bit. The Democrats can also be cautiously optimistic that their star recruits in KY/GA are leading, and a third star recruit in MS might be able to compete if Thad Cochran goes down on Tuesday to his wingnut primary challenger.

People are also having to face the facts regarding gerrymandering in the House, too. It doesn't matter how favorable of a year the GOP could have (and this ism't, fundamentals are near break-even) they can't win a lot of seats. There just aren't that many left as a result of their gerrymandering. In creating their now-artificial majority they reduced their playing field: they can really only compete in the seats they lost in 2012 and where they barely lost. Even if they won them all it wouldn't amount to a big gain, and not only will they not win them all but they'll lose most of them.



The ranges narrowed for different reasons. In the House, Democrats opted not to contest seats in Florida because it looks like the GOP's unconstitutional gerrymander is about to get thrown out in time for new (fair) district lines in 2016. That will all but give Democrats 2-5 seats next cycle without much of a fight, hence the pause in 2014. They are also getting help in some GOP seats: a conservative 3rd party challenger in NE-02 that will attack Rep. Terry from the right makes that swingy seat even more competitive, and the GOP won't be able to get scandal-tarred Rep. Grimm off the ballot in NY-11.

The range narrowed in the Senate because of the dynamic mentioned earlier where outdated conventional wisdom got smashed, but also because red-state Democrats are overperforming. People were too quick to write off Pryor in AR but he is now leading. People thought Begich wouldn't be able to hold a lead in AK due to its red tint but he's still leading and he'll have ballot measures in November that'll help him. The Democratic challengers in KY/GA are leading. Kay Hagan has faced about $15 million in outside money attack ads and is still in a virtual tie. A four-way (now three-way) contest in SD kept the GOP from being able to put that state away, and the margin is tightening in WV.

Things have become more optimistic for Democrats in the Governors races because new targets have popped up. People thought Paul Davis could never compete long-term in KS but it's neck-and-neck. Jason Carter is within the M.O.E. against Nathan Deal in GA, as is Vince Sheheen with Nikki Haley in SC and Mary Burke with Scott Walker in WI. MI and OH will be close either way. When you factor all that in with where the Democrats already lead (PA/FL/ME) you get a Democratic edge. The party only has 3 seats that are concerning: AR where they will likely lose, and IL and CT where incumbents are not popular but where the tilt of the state is also in the party's favor.

If the Democrats keep the Senate it will be a huge failure for the GOP. And they are trying to win this time, not running candidates like Sharon Angle and the "I'm not a Witch" girl.

Well, in the GOP nominating convention last night here in MN, the candidate most closely aligned to the Tea Party (which wasn't really all that close in the first place) went down. They should be finishing the nominating today between a well-funded investment banker that is refusing to abide by the endorsement (whom I oppose) and a pretty dark-horse candidate (last ballot had the dark-horse up 56% to 44% with 60% required for nomination) whom I haven't formed an opinion.

It's still really-blue Minnesota, but I imagine Al Franken's path to reelection just got a tiny bit rougher.

The New York Times' "UpShot" just readjusted their Senate forecasting formula and their newest projection is a 58% likelihood that the Democrats retain control of the Senate. I typically tell people to not put any stock in these formulas (like the new 538, and the Monkey Cage, and Washington Post's "Data Lab") until it gets much closer to Election Day but they can be interesting to read either way.



It would be a failure pretty hard to even comprehend. They are supposed to be able to easily pick up the required net gain of 6 seats. The fact that they're struggling at all is a failure, and it's an even bigger failure that not only are they not currently leading in enough races to post the required gain but they aren't even leading in the only 2 seats of theirs being seriously contested. If they only make a net gain of 3 or 4 seats this year then it will be judged as a colossal failure. There are still plenty of Sharon Angles running. The bankrollers, the Karl Rove's and Chamber of Commerces', decided to drop several million dollars all around the country to anoint slightly-less-wingnut candidates in their respective primaries to keep Angle-type candidates from winning. The party has bought competitiveness in races where their voters have tried (and did successfully in 2010 and 2012) to piss it away.

The primaries have gone much better for the GOP this year, but their two biggest obstacles are coming up soon: MS and SC. Mississippi could actually be competitive. The primary is expected to be close between Cochran and McDaniel. If McDaniel beats Cochran outright, or even just forces him to a June 24th runoff, then the GOP could have another one of their seats become competitive when it shouldn't be. The Democrats landed a top-tier candidate in former Rep. Travis Childers. He won't campaign against Cochran but he'll let loose on McDaniel should he become the nominee.

This post was edited by Pollster on Jun 1 2014 06:11am