Tuesday, September 30, 2014

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

Saturday, September 27, 2014

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.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

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 na├»ve 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.