| Senate Democrats | Senate Republicans |
| 100.0% probability of a majority | 0.0% probability of a majority |
| Mean of 59 seats | Mean of 41 seats |
Here is an analysis of the recent Senate polling and what these polls suggest about control of the Senate. I am using methods identical to what I’ve been doing for the presidential race except that, because of the relative paucity of polling in Senate races, I use polls taken in the last three weeks as “current” polls.
A Monte Carlo analysis of 100,000 simulated elections gives Democrats control of the Senate with, on average, 59.0 seats to the Republican’s 41.0 seats. The analysis suggests that, if the election had been held today, the Democrats would have about of 30% chance of taking a “veto-resistant” 60 seat majority.
Here is the distribution of outcomes from the 100,000 simulations. The tallest bar (i.e. the mode) in the distribution is at 59 seats. (Of course, I am assuming that the two “Independents” in the senate—Senators Sanders and Lieberman—continue to caucus with the Democrats. There is about a 25% probability of exactly 60 seats and about a 5% probability of taking 61 seats.
Detailed results for this analysis, including the polls that contributed to this analysis, are available at Hominid Views.
Methods are described in the FAQ. The most recent version of this analysis can be found on this page.
If we get these 59 and recapture the vulnerable seat Chambliss took from Cleland in Georgia, we’ve got 60 — and poetic justice.
Cynical’s dick is too small to fuck goats. He fucks hamsters.
Wow! These results presuppose the GOPers will lose half of the Senate seats they have up for reelection this year — and Democrats will lose none. The shine has worn off the GOP label.
I’ll bet if you look real closely at GOP campaign buttons they all say “Made In China.”
I’m with Stephanie Miller; I’m looking forward to Bill O’Reilly saying: “Senator Al Franken met with President Obama today…”
Darryl–
Interesting that you assume Sen. Lieberman will continue to caucus with Democrats.
Joe is a “maverick” and still stinging from the Democrats who backstabbed him in the last election.
That assumption may prove to be false if it is a matter of the Democrats having a bullet-proof majority in the House, the President and Lieberman being the deciding swing seat in the Senate.
Wouldn’t that just be the sh@tz!
Actually, it would be the best thing that could happen to the Dems….it would save you KLOWNS from yourselves, know what I mean?
Then you have an excuse for not doing the things that were overpromised.
Roger Rabbit spews:
I knew you were just joking about being a Christian Rog!
Even if we do get to 60 seats (without Lieberman of course), there’s too many corporate-compromised Dems.
The victory this November is only a first step. We’ll still need more and better, more progressive Dems.
Well, it was bound to happen. I agree with Mr Cynical. Lieberman is not gonna vote for cloture on anything that he wouldn’t have supported over the last two years, so regardless of who he actually caucuses with, he should not be counted towards a 60 vote dem caucus.
Although I would love to see Stevens lose his Senate seat, I think that one’s still a toss-up. If Stevens beats the rap with respect to his current legal problems, he might be able to turn that into a “vindication” which saves his seat. And it looks like the trial might wrap up this week, with a verdict this week or next.
Everyone knows that Stevens received lots of favors from the oil industry and pursued their interests in the Senate dilligently. But the prosecutor’s couldn’t find a smoking gun of a “quid-pro-quo”, and instead focused on what they thought was the slam-dunk case of “failure to report” the gifts he received from them.
But Stevens is a pretty sharp guy, and even the F.B.I. tape recordings show him covering his tail end pretty well. And those letters saying “you owe me a bill” might be his salvation. That only leaves the prosecutors to argue that Stevens should have noticed that he never received a bill for ALL the work done, and to pursue it further (or at least report it as a “gift” in his Senate filings).
This requires the jury to decide, beyond a reasonable doubt, that in Steven’s own mind he
(a) knew the entire scope of the work being done in detail; and
(b) knew enough about what bills he had received and which ones he hadn’t received to realize that some items weren’t being billed, and
(c) realize that he wasn’t going to get a bill for those additional items – ever; and
(d) remember them when he filled out the disclosure forms and decide NOT to include them.
While I probably wouldn’t have any problem reaching that conclusion, I’m skeptical that EVERY member of the jury would reach the same conclusion.
So Stevens might yet pull this one out. What will be interesting will be to see if his reputation (and that of the Republican Party) has suffered so badly over the past four years or so that he could still win the legal battle and yet lose the election.