2014 Election Polls and Models (10/2/14)

Below are poll averages (from Real Clear Politics) for Gubernatorial, Senate, and contested House seats. A positive poll average favors the Republican candidate whereas a negative poll average favors the Democratic candidate. From the poll averages a ranking and probability are calculated for each race. A probability above 0.5 (50%) favors the Republican candidate whereas a probability under 0.5 favors the Democratic candidate. The higher ranking, the higher the probability the race will go to the Republican candidate. The lower the ranking, the higher the probability the race will go to the Democratic candidate. Since polling in House races are not very accurate, the formula to calculate the probability is more complex taking into account race ratings by the Cook, Election Projection, and Sabato political reports as well as generic congressional polling results and PVI (Partisan Voting Index). A positive PVI means the percentage of registered Republicans in the district outnumbers registered Democrats whereas a negative PVI means the percentage of registered Democrats in the district outnumbers registered Republicans. The overall probability for the President, Senate, Gubernatorial, and House races are computed to project the number of seats (including the presidency) that are going to be won by Republicans and Democrats respectively. Race candidates will be filled in to the below tables once they are determined by state primaries. I will update and post this information regularly (many primaries and candidates have not been decided and most polls are not pertinent because they do not contain the right candidates). Below is an overall summary of the predicted outcomes based on probability density function models.

Governor Races
State	Democrat	Republican	Poll	Rank	Probability	Gain	Incumbent
Arkansas	Ross	Hutchinson	4.4	15	0.6189146	1	Rep Gain	-1
California	Brown	Kashkari	-19	35	0.0956373	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Connecticut	Malloy	Foley	5	14	0.634539	1	Rep Gain	-1
Colorado	Hickenlooper	Beauprez	1.8	19	0.5492647	1	Rep Gain	-1
Hawaii	Ige	Aiona	1	21	0.5274176	1	Rep Gain	-1
Illinois	Quinn	Rauner	0.3	23	0.5082312	1	Rep Gain	-1
Maryland	Brown	Hogan	-14	31	0.1677943	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Massacusetts	Coakley	Baker	-1.6	25	0.4561857	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Minnesota	Dayton	Johnson	-10	28	0.2457898	-1	Dem Hold	-1
New Hampshire	Hassan	Havenstein	-13	30	0.1856239	-1	Dem Hold	-1
New York	Cuomo	Astorino	-26	36	0.0368657	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Oregon	Kitzhaber	Richardson	-10	28	0.2457898	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Rhode Island	Raimondo	Fung	-18	33	0.107851	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Vermont	Shumlin	Milne	-18	33	0.107851	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Arizona	DuVal	Ducey	4	16	0.6083878	1	Rep Hold	1
Alabama	Griffith	Bentley	27	3	0.9683484	1	Rep Hold	1
Alaska	Walker	Parnell	-2.5	27	0.4317385	-1	Dem Gain	1
Florida	Crist	Scott	0	24	0.5	-1	Dem Gain	1
Georgia	Carter	Deal	0.4	22	0.5109743	1	Rep Hold	1
Idaho	Balukoff	Otter	18	6	0.892149	1	Rep Hold	1
Iowa	Hatch	Branstad	11	11	0.7753488	1	Rep Hold	1
Kansas	Davis	Brownback	2.8	17	0.5763575	1	Rep Hold	1
Maine	Michaud	LePage	-1.7	26	0.4534594	-1	Dem Gain	1
Michigan	Schauer	Snyder	2.4	18	0.5655562	1	Rep Hold	1
Nebraska	Hassebrook	Ricketts	10	13	0.7542102	1	Rep Hold	1
Nevada	Goodman	Sandoval	23	5	0.943168	1	Rep Hold	1
New Mexico	King	Martinez	11	11	0.7753488	1	Rep Hold	1
Oklahoma	Dorman	Fallin	15	9	0.8488932	1	Rep Hold	1
Ohio	Fitzgerald	Kasich	16	8	0.864438	1	Rep Hold	1
Pennsylvania	Wolf	Corbett	-16	32	0.135562	-1	Dem Gain	1
South Carolina	Sheheen	Haley	17	7	0.8788501	1	Rep Hold	1
South Dakota	Wismer	Daugarrd	29	1	0.9769576	1	Rep Hold	1
Tennessee	McKamey	Haslam	26	4	0.9631343	1	Rep Hold	1
Texas	Davis	Abbott	14	10	0.8322057	1	Rep Hold	1
Wisconsin	Burke	Walker	1.2	20	0.5328897	1	Rep Hold	1
Wyoming	Gosar	Mead	28	2	0.9729376	1	Rep Hold	1
			0
			14.5391		0.5608502	10	1	8
Senate Races
State	Democrat	Republican	Poll	Rank	Probability	Gain	Incumbent
Alabama	Unopposed	Sessions	50	1	0.9939595	1	Rep Hold	1
Alaska	Begich	Sullivan	4.7	18	0.5932521	1	Rep Gain	-1
Arkansas	Pryor	Cotton	3.6	19	0.5716999	1	Rep Gain	-1
Delaware	Coons	Wade	-19	33	0.1701144	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Georgia	Nunn	Perdue	3.4	20	0.5677562	1	Rep Hold	1
Hawaii	Schatz	Cavasso	-34	36	0.043944	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Illinois	Durbin	Oberweis	-13	29	0.2570262	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Massachusetts	Markey	Herr	-25	35	0.1047601	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Maine	Bellows	Collins	33	3	0.9511846	1	Rep Hold	1
Michigan	Peters	Land	-4.7	25	0.4067479	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Minnesota	Franken	McFadden	-10.5	27	0.2990787	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Mississippi	Childers	Cochran	13.5	14	0.7509995	1	Rep Hold	1
Kentucky	Grimes	McConnell	5.2	30	0.60296	1	Rep Hold	1
Idaho	Mitchell	Risch	30	3	0.9339489	1	Rep Hold	1
Kansas	Orman	Roberts	-5	25	0.4009159	-1	Dem Gain	1
Nebraska	Domina	Sasse	22	7	0.8652684	1	Rep Hold	1
Colorado	Udall	Gardner	0.8	21	0.5160158	1	Rep Gain	-1
Louisiana	Landrieu	Cassidy	5	17	0.5990841	1	Rep Gain	-1
New Jersey	Booker	Bell	-12	28	0.2734721	-1	Dem Hold	-1
New Mexico	Udall	Weh	-15	32	0.2257455	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Oklahoma	Johnson	Langford	27	6	0.9123353	1	Rep Hold	1
Oklahoma	Silverstein	Inhofe	29	5	0.9272578	1	Rep Hold	1
Montana	Walsh	Daines	17	9	0.8032598	1	Rep Gain	-1
Rhode Island	Reed	Zaccaria	-23	34	0.1241486	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Tennessee	Adams	Alexander	16	11	0.7890494	1	Rep Hold	1
Texas	Alameel	Cornyn	17	9	0.8032598	1	Rep Hold	1
South Carolina	Dickerson	Scott	18	8	0.8168745	1	Rep Hold	1
South Carolina	Hutto	Graham	15	13	0.7742545	1	Rep Hold	1
Virginia	Warner	Gillespie	-14	30	0.2411101	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Oregon	Merkley	Wehby	-14	30	0.2411101	-1	Dem Hold	-1
West Virginia	Tennant	Capito	17	9	0.8032598	1	Rep Gain	-1
New Hampshire	Shaheen	Brown	-4.5	24	0.4106476	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Wyoming	Hardy	Enzi	36	2	0.9646217	1	Rep Hold	1
South Dakota	Weiland	Rounds	13.5	14	0.7509995	1	Rep Gain	-1
North Carolina	Hagan	Tillis	-3.5	23	0.4302711	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Iowa	Braley	Ernst	2.2	21	0.5439658	1	Rep Gain	-1
			0
			19.9221		0.5678522	8	7	-6
House Races
State	Democrat	Republican	Poll	PVI	Cook	Sabato	Election Projection	AVE	Rank	Probability
Arkansas 2	Hays	Hill	14	8	5	5	5	6	30	0.8191611
Arkansas 4	Witt	Westerman	16	15	10	10	15	11.6	2	0.9610948
Arizona 1	Kirkpatrick	Tobin	0	4	0	0	-5	-0.2	44	0.4878717
Arizona 2	Barber	McSally	-8	3	0	0	-5	-1.2	47	0.4276209
Arizona 9	Sinema	Rogers	0	1	-5	-10	-10	-4.8	63	0.2327751
California 3	Garamendi	Logue	0	-1	-10	-15	-15	-8.2	72	0.1062655
California 7	Bera	Ose	-4	0	0	-5	-5	-2.4	53	0.3576046
California 9	McNerney	Amador	0	-6	-10	-15	-15	-9.2	77	0.0809567
California 10	Eggman	Denham	10	1	10	10	15	8.2	16	0.8937345
California 16	Costa	Tacherra	0	-7	-10	-15	-15	-9.4	78	0.076492
California 21	Renteria	Valadao	19	-2	10	10	15	8.5	14	0.9018638
California 25		Strckland	0	3	10	15	10	7.6	22	0.8760405
California 24	Capps	Mitchum	0	-4	-15	-5	15	-1.8	51	0.3921761
California 26	Brownley	Gorell	0	-4	-5	-5	-5	-3.8	59	0.2817302
California 31	Aguilar	Chabot	0	-5	-5	-5	-5	-4	60	0.2715555
California 36	Ruiz	Nestande	0	1	0	-10	-5	-2.8	55	0.3351703
California 52	Peters	DiMaio	3.5	-2	0	0	5	0.95	39	0.5574185
Colorado 6	Romanoff	Coffman	0	-1	0	5	5	1.8	38	0.6078239
Connecticut 5	Esty	Greenberg	0	-3	-10	-10	-15	-7.6	68	0.1239595
Florida 2	Graham	Southerland	-2	6	5	5	5	4	33	0.7284445
Florida 26	Garcia	Cubelo	4	1	0	0	5	1.6	38	0.5960926
Florida 10	Demings	Webster	0	6	5	15	15	8.2	16	0.8937345
Florida 13	Sink	Jolly	0	1	15	15	15	9.2	8	0.9190433
Florida 18	Murphy	Domino	-22	3	-5	-10	-10	-6.6	67	0.1578364
Hawaii 1	Takai	Djou	4	-15	-10	-10	-15	-9.6	79	0.072217
Georgia 12	Barrow	Allen	0	14	-5	-5	-5	-0.2	44	0.4878717
Illinois 8	Duckworth	Kaifesh	0	-8	-10	-5	-15	-7.6	68	0.1239595
Illinois 10	Schneider	Dold	1	-8	0	-5	5	-1.5	49	0.4098063
Illinois 11	Foster	Senger	0	-8	-10	-10	-15	-8.6	74	0.0955304
Illinois 12	Enyart	Bost	0	0	-5	0	-5	-2	52	0.380542
Illinois 13	Callis	Davis	19	0	5	10	10	6.9	27	0.8529106
Illinois 17	Bustos	Schilling	0	-7	-5	-10	-5	-5.4	65	0.2058358
Indiana 2	Bock	Walorski	0	6	10	10	10	7.2	25	0.8631556
Iowa 1	Murphy	Blum	-2.5	-5	-10	-10	-15	-8.25	73	0.1048778
Iowa 3	Appel	Young	-5	0	0	0	-5	-1.5	49	0.4098063
Iowa 4	Mowrer	King	11	5	10	10	15	9.1	9	0.9167384
Kentucky 6	Jensen	Barr	0	9	15	-5	-15	0.8	40	0.5484012
Maine 2	Cain	Poliquin	2	-2	-5	-5	-5	-3.2	56	0.3133091
Massachusetts 6	Moulton	Tisei	-1	-4	-5	-10	-10	-5.9	66	0.1848675
Michigan 8	Schertzeing	Bishop	0	2	10	15	5	6.4	29	0.8347194
Michigan 1	Cannon	Benishek	0	5	5	5	5	4	33	0.7284445
Michigan 3	Goodrich	Amash	0	4	10	15	15	8.8	10	0.9095279
Michigan 7	Byrnes	Walberg	0	3	15	5	10	6.6	28	0.8421636
Michigan 11	McKenzie	Trott	0	4	10	15	15	8.8	10	0.9095279
Minnesota 1	Walz	Hagedorn	0	1	-10	-15	-15	-7.8	71	0.1178458
Minnesota 2	Obermueller	Kline	22	2	15	10	15	10.6	4	0.9464652
Minnesota 8	Nolan	Mills	0	-1	0	0	-5	-1.2	47	0.4276209
Minnesota 7	Peterson	Westrom	-4.5	6	-10	-5	-5	-3.25	57	0.31062
Montana 1	Lewis	Zinke	0	7	10	10	15	8.4	15	0.8992063
New Jersey 3	Belgard	McArthur	3	1	0	5	-5	0.5	42	0.5302962
New Jersey 2	Hughes	LoBiondo	0	-1	15	15	15	8.8	10	0.9095279
New York 1	Bishop	Zeldin	-10	2	-5	-5	-5	-3.6	58	0.2920851
New York 11	Recchia	Grimm	0	2	0	-5	5	0.4	43	0.5242453
New York 18	Maloney	Hayworth	-1	0	-5	-5	-10	-4.1	61	0.2665378
New York 19	Eldridge	Gibson	24	-1	10	5	15	8.2	16	0.8937345
New York 21	Woolf	Stefanik	13	0	5	5	10	5.3	32	0.7898072
New York 24	Maffei	Katko	-7	-5	-10	-5	-15	-7.7	70	0.1208754
New York 23	Robertson	Reed	0	3	15	5	5	5.6	31	0.8027156
New York 27	Hochul	Collins	0	8	0	15	15	7.6	22	0.8760405
Nebraska 2	Ashford	Terry	-1	4	5	0	5	2.7	36	0.6592722
New Hampshire 1	Shea-Porter	Guinta	0	1	0	0	-5	-0.8	46	0.4515988
New Hampshire 2	Kuster	Garcia	-10	-3	-5	-5	-5	-4.6	62	0.2421721
New Mexico 2	Lara	Pearce	0	5	10	10	15	8	19	0.8880514
Nevada 2	Spees	Amodei	0	5	15	15	15	10	6	0.9357807
Nevada 3	Bilbay	Heck	0	10	10	10	10	8	19	0.8880514
Nevada 4	Horsford	Hardy	0	-4	0	-15	-5	-4.8	63	0.2327751
North Carolina 2	Aiken	Ellmers	0	15	10	15	15	11	3	0.9527691
North Carolina 7	Barfield	Rouzer	0	12	10	15	15	10.4	5	0.9430724
Ohio 6	Garrison	Johnson	0	8	10	10	15	8.6	13	0.9044696
Ohio 14	Wager	Joyce	0	4	10	10	15	7.8	21	0.8821542
Oregon 5	Schrader	Smith	0	0	-15	-15	-15	-9	76	0.0856155
Pennsylvania 6	Trivedi	Costello	9	2	10	10	10	7.3	24	0.8664596
Pennsylvania 8	Strouse	Fitzpatrick	0	1	15	15	5	7.2	25	0.8631556
Texas 23	Gallego	Hurd	0	3	-5	-5	-5	-2.4	53	0.3576046
Utah 4	Owens	Love	11	16	10	15	15	12.3	1	0.9692549
Virginia 10	Foust	Comstock	0	2	5	5	5	3.4	35	0.6973863
Washington 1	Delbene	Larsen	0	-4	-10	-15	-15	-8.8	75	0.0904721
West Virginia 2	Mooney	Casey	12	11	5	15	10	9.4	7	0.923508
West Virginia 3	Rahall	Jenkins	-12	14	0	0	-5	0.6	41	0.53634

Governor Races: Current - Republicans 29; Democrats 21 (including 2 Independents); Model Projection - Republicans 27; Democrats 23 (including 2 Independents)

Senate Races: Current - Republicans 45; Democrats 55 (Including 2 Independents); Model Projection - Republicans 50; Democrats 50 (Including 2 Independents)

House Races: Current - Republicans 234; Democrats 204; Model Projection: Republicans 252; Democrats 186

Below is an overall summary of the predicted outcomes based solely on election polls:

Governor Races: Republicans 30; Democrats 30 (including 2 Independents)

Senate Races: Republicans 52; Democrats 48 (Including 3 Independents)

House Races: Republicans 239; Democrats 199

Defending the Homeland

The one major task the executive and legislative branches of government own is protecting the homeland at all costs. Most other agendas taken up by the federal government are for the most part unconstitutional. So it is easy to lose sight on the things that matter when politicians are worried about their legacy.

Obama has finally shown some backbone and is on board for the fight on terror, specifically ISIS.

Now all those anti-war leftists (hypocrites) are now defending Obama claiming ISIS is a real threat to the U.S. while Saddam Hussain was not. Maybe that is true and maybe it is not since it is possible the Intelligence community has gotten it wrong about ISIS like they did on Iraq’s WMD program. We are all great Monday morning quarterbacks when we know the outcome. The point here is it is better to be safe than sorry.

Obama may be fighting the good war and Bush was wrong, but Obama is getting this war on ISIS wrong on so many fronts:

First, it is impossible to win a war with no ground troops. You garner no gains in territory and more importantly, you garner no intelligence.

Secondly, if Obama did not prematurely pull out all combat troops in Iraq then ISIS would not be gaining ground there.

Thirdly, and most importantly, wars are won by protecting our sovereignty at home. This is done by protecting our borders. Any war on terror overseas is moot if our borders are not secure. If a lone wolf terrorist can walk into the United States and attack Americans then we are losing the war on terror. This was the major difference between Bush and Obama in fighting terror. Bush understood that the homeland came first and he made huge strides to better police our borders. Bush started by creating Homeland Security to better intelligence gathering and to be ready to act at a moment’s notice. Sure there were issues and glitches (Katrina), but it has gotten better. New procedures put in place have help thwart hundreds of internal terror plots. It has also prevented terrorists from routinely travelling in and out of our country.

Obama and Attorney General, Eric Holder, have been against protecting our borders since they got in office. In fact, they have encouraged the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. creating a huge humanitarian problem at our borders. Holder, has sued states whose immigration laws try to tighten security at the borders and also attempt to verify citizenship. Why would they do such a thing? It would be a big legacy win for Obama to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Besides, Latinos vote the Democratic ticket by more than a 2 to 1 margin. Therefore, it is the goal of this administration to allow as many illegal aliens to enter and then grant them amnesty. It is politics! Politics that is enabling both dangerous drugs and cartels to enter into the U.S as well as terrorists.

If we can protect our borders at home, then there is no reason to go to war overseas against terrorists. Protecting our borders can also protect us from the burden of illegal aliens and drugs entering our country. If Obama spent as much money protecting our borders as he does fighting ISIS and pushing for legacy pieces of legislation such as ObamaCare; then the border would be secure. In fact, protecting the border would do a better job in lowering healthcare costs because it would eliminate the need to care for millions of illegal aliens and it could lower the drug dependency rate.

Finally, Obama has gone to war unilaterally and has failed to get congressional approval.

If I were President, the first thing I would spend money on would be a high tech surveillance of our airports, ports, coasts, and boarders. The second thing would be to build on national intelligence agencies ability to share intelligence to make sure we can prevent home grown threats and prevent terrorists from gaining entry into our country.

Political Equality Versus Political Correctness

We live in the day and age of political correctness and this has taken the place of political equality. Most believe political correctness is political equality, but they are flat out wrong. Here are some political correctness policies that have stymied equality and pushed this country further into mediocrity:

Diversity policies that push gender, ethnicity or any other type of demographic is not equality, it is prejudicial. Over the past 50 years there have been literally thousands of diversity policies carried out by universities, companies, and our local, state, and federal governments. These policies have only created a state of mediocrity in this country. Title IX is a perfect example of how a law can destroy so many good things such as a majority of male athletic programs.

The “race card” is another form of political correctness which is nothing more than an excuse or to falsely blame others for a political issue.

Most congressional policies do not adhere to political equality. That is why laws are 3000 pages long. Those groups with the lobbying power get political favoritism. Both sides of the isle of guilty of this. For instance, congress and the President are continually picking winners and losers in the corporate world and this is not political equality. The Obama stimulus was loaded with pork to award green companies that contributed to his campaign. How is that political equality?

There are other ways political correctness is being used to create policies. For instance laws, rules, and regulations are being created by people who have not been in the business. For example, educational common core policies have been written by bureaucrats – none of which have ever been involved in the educational system. It is believed that the naïve law writer will be less prejudicial and create fairer laws for all when in fact they write very prejudicial laws that incorporate political correctness and not political equality.

Both sides of the isle are guilty of a technique called fear mongering. Fear mongering is used mostly as propaganda to brain wash citizens in to believing one side of the debate. Politicians have learned that citizens will agree with the side of the debate that uses the most fearful or cataclysmic argument. In time, these citizens will not even listen to the other side of the argument, hence there is no more political equality in the debate.

It seems most are in agreement that everyone who participates in an activity should be rewarded. They claim that it creates equality for all. I disagree completely because someone being rewarded for not studying or training for the event makes little sense. Meanwhile, what is the incentive for the person to train or study harder when they are only treated the same as a participant? Preparation for events is not necessary equal. Therefore, this type of policy only promotes mediocrity.

Political correctness is destroying our country! It is time to start implementing political equality again. Equality is when people are judged on their performance and their character and not on their gender, ethnicity, or what company they work for.

The Catalyst for Polarizing Politics, Terrorism and War

There seems to be one commonality between polarizing politics, terrorism, and war: poverty.

We have been fighting poverty in the U.S. for over 50 years and despite pouring trillions into the effort, the number of people living in poverty is higher. It is futile effort. Since a majority of people living poverty support Democrat politicians it is the goal of Democrat politicians to make sure people are perpetually living in poverty and dependent on the government. Why? Because there is a good chance once a person leaves poverty they may no longer support Democrats. This assures they will continue to garner the poverty vote. That is an important point, people living poverty tend to be dependent on others and do not act and or think for themselves. Hence, poverty stricken people are easily manipulated and brainwashed.

We see the same types of strategy when we look at terrorists. Many people recruited to be a terrorist are poverty stricken. They are easily brainwashed via propaganda into believing anything for any cause as long as those in charge make them feel important. So a person is willing to be a suicide bomber so long as they feel important and they are fooled into the adage that they making a difference in the world. In other words, terrorists are looking for a cause.

War is not much different than terrorism. Where is there is terrorism and violence there is usually war. Throughout history there have been many revolutions where the poor masses revolted against the privileged ruling class. Hitler was great at using propaganda to brainwash the masses into war. After all, at the time, Germany had a massive poverty problem. Therefore, it is not surprising World War II happened during the Great Depression. This is a time when people are desperate and would cling to any hope in any message.

The bottom line is that poverty presents several variables that makes it ideal for advancing polarizing politics, terrorism and war: Dependency, Desperation, and Brainwashing people into believing they are an important variable in a righteous cause.