Stu Blog

Here’s a little handy guide for your election night reference.  It’s based on this page from the NY Times and FiveThirtyEight.  As a conservative, I am more than happy to bash the Times when they screw up–but they do a great job with the pure data of the election.

Anyway—here is what the GOP needs to do in the house (remember, they need 39 seats to regain control.)

If they win all races where they are projected to win by 5 or more, they gain 33 seats.

If they win all races where they are projected to win by 3 or more, they gain 50 seats.

If they win all races where they are projected to win by any amount, they gain 59 seats.

If they win all races where they are projected to win or be within 3 points, they gain 71 seats.

If they win all races where they are projected to win or be within 5 points, they gain 80 seats.

Obviously, they will lose some that we expect them to win.   And they will win some that we expect them to lose. But all things equal–if they win all races in which it looks like they have substantial leads, they are in really good shape.  The GOP would have to win only 6 of the 26 other seats that they are favored in, to win the house.  That’s why sites like Intrade are showing about a 90% chance Republicans will win.

Of course, there’s always the Alan Grayson thesis.  In an interview this weekend that aired on our Miami affiliate 610 WIOD, he said (paraphrasing) ‘The only reason that the polls in 2010 look worse than the polls in 2008 is that democrats have more cell phones.’  Hopefully, this will be just another embarrassing moment in the failed career of former congressman Grayson.  Feels so good to type that.

That’s right!  Republican Pat Toomey seems to be HAPPY that China is modernizing and lifting hundreds of millions of its citizens out of poverty.  How dare he.  That’s the message of the DSCC, who drives the point home with a gong and a fortune cookie.  Seriously. (Surely, if a republican were to run an ad about China with a gong and the crunch of a fortune cookie, no one would protest.)

I live in Pennsylvania, so I see this ad constantly, along with this one, which bashes Toomey for doing business with a “Hong Kong billionaire” who devilishly was trying to “help the Chinese economy.”

One of the funniest parts of both ads is that the main charge seems to be that Toomey voted to give normal trade status to China.  When? 5/24/2000..as summarized by the New York Times in an article entitled:

THE CHINA TRADE VOTE: A CLINTON TRIUMPH

Hmmmm…Clinton?  Is that some sort of Republican extremist?  Maybe Sestak can ask him next time they hang out.

Toomey, currently holds a small lead in the polls, and is listed by FiveThirtyEight/NY Times as having an 83% chance of winning.

Keith Hennessey pulls it off…here.