Before the 2024 general election, I made several predictions.
In this article, I will evaluate my 2024 Senate predictions, and 538’s Senate polling averages, which I discussed during my election coverage.
This article is part of an ongoing series that explores the results of the 2024 general election.
Previously, I covered the results of the elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate.
My Predictions
I correctly predicted Republicans would win control of the US Senate.
But I incorrectly predicted the number of seats Republicans would win.
I predicted there would be 51 Republicans in the US Senate after the election. Instead, there are 53.
On November 3, two days before the election, I published my predictions for eight US Senate contests I believed would be decided by less than 5%.
You can click any of the tables in this series to view a larger version of them.
As you can see, I incorrectly predicted the winners of the Senate races in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
I correctly predicted the winners in six states: Nebraska, Texas, Florida, Wisconsin, Montana, and Michigan.
Therefore, I correctly predicted the winners in six of the eight contests.
I attempted to predict the margin of victory in these races to the nearest percent.
Republicans outperformed my predictions in all eight races.
On average, my predictions were 5.5% away from the actual margins in these contests.
I’d say my predictions held up pretty well.
My closest prediction was in Wisconsin, where I was only 2% away from the actual margin.
My least accurate prediction was in Florida, where I was 10% off from the actual margin.
My second least accurate prediction was in Nebraska, where I was 7% off from the actual margin.
I tried to predict which races would be decided by less than 5%.
I correctly predicted Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio would be decided by less than 5%.
I incorrectly predicted Florida, Texas, Montana, and Nebraska would be decided by less than 5%. Instead, they were decided by more than 5%.
Nevada and Arizona were decided by less than 5%, which I hadn’t predicted.
Grading 538’s Polling Averages
538 is a news organization that covers US politics and elections.
538 is best known for its polling averages and election forecasts.
At 6 a.m., on election day, Nov. 5, FiveThirtyEight stopped updating its polling averages.
The next two tables compare 538’s final polling averages for the 2024 US Senate races to the actual margins in those races.
The first table is organized by the actual margin, with the closest races listed first.
The second table, which shows the same information, is organized by 538’s final polling averages, with elections they predicted would be the closest, listed first.
In the tables above, Republican candidates outperformed 538’s polling averages in 11 of the Senate elections, and Democratic candidates outperformed 538’s polling averages in two Senate elections.
The final 538 polling average was less than one percent away from the actual margin in Montana, Maryland, and New Mexico.
538’s largest miss was in Florida, where the Rick Scott, the Republican candidate, outperformed 538’s final polling average by 7.8%.
On average, 538’s final polling averages were only 2.9% away from the actual margins in these races.
I predicted Democrats would outperform their Senate polls.
Instead, Republicans outperformed their Senate polls.
On average, Republicans outperformed 538’s final senate polling averages by 2.8%.
I found 538’s final senate polling averages through 538’s Senate Forecast, which is now only accessible through the Wayback Machine, a service provided by the Internet Archive.
538’s Senate Forecast predicted Republicans would control 52 seats after the election.
Their forecast was off by only one seat.
538’s Senate Forecast predicted Bob Casey Jr. (D) would win in Pennsylvania. Dave McCormick (R) won, instead.
The Pennsylvania Senate race was the closest Senate race in 2024, as you can see in the table below.
Early 538 Polling Averages
Polling tends to be the most accurate right before an election.
But people who follow politics generally begin to pay attention to polling much earlier than that.
How accurate were 538’s Senate polling averages a few weeks before the election?
I published a table of 538’s polling averages for Senate races in "Nebraska may determine Senate Control,” which I published on Oct. 16.
Therefore, these polling averages are from 20 days before the election.
The following table compares these early 538 Senate polling averages to the final results.
Republican candidates outperformed the early 538 polling averages in 10 races.
Only one Democratic candidate, Angela Alsobrooks in Maryland, outperformed the early 538 polling average in her race.
The early 538 Senate polling averages predicted the correct winner in 9 of the 11 contests. The early averages predicted incorrect Senate winners in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
The early 538 Senate polling average was the most accurate in Montana. The Republican candidate, Tim Sheehy, only outperformed the early polling average by 1.7%.
The early 538 Senate polling averages were the least accurate in Florida, Nevada, Nebraska, and Ohio.
Republican candidates outperformed all four of these polling averages by more than 5%.
Florida was the least accurate prediction among the early polling averages.
Rick Scott, the Republican candidate, outperformed the early polling average in Florida by 8.2%.
On average, the early 538 Senate polling averages were 4.8% away from the final margin.
On average, Republican candidates outperformed the early polling averages by 4.2%.
Even these early polling averages were fairly accurate, compared to the final results.
Now let’s compare these three sets of predictions.
My predicted margins were the least accurate, 538’s early polling averages were in the middle, and 538’s final polling averages were the most accurate.
Nevertheless, all of these predictions were fairly accurate, overall.
Lessons
So what lessons, if any, should Democrats take from the 2024 Senate elections?
There were many competitive Senate races in 2024.
That made it challenging for activists to know where to dedicate their time, money, and attention.
Personally, my coverage focused on the Senate races in Nebraska and Ohio.
Many liberal political news programs focused on the Senate races in Texas, Florida, and Montana.
Considering the final margins, Democratic activists should have spent more of their time and money on the Senate elections in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, which were each decided by less than 1%.
But the polls underestimated Republicans, which obscured the relative importance of these races, especially considering there were so many competitive Senate elections competing for our attention.
Going forward, I will be more likely to assume Senate races in swing states will be competitive, even if polling indicates otherwise.
I believe Democrats should focus more on races they need to defend, and focus less on their fantasies that they might flip a seat by defeating a particularly odious Republican in a consistently red state like Texas or Florida.
In the end, Ted Cruz (R) won reelection in Texas by 8.5%, and Rick Scott (R) won reelection in Florida by a whopping 12.8%.
The Nebraska Senate race was more competitive than the races in Florida, Texas, and Montana.
But even there, Deb Fischer (R) won by 6.7%, despite a strong showing by Independent candidate Dan Osborn.
Sometimes, it’s worth investing in stretch goals, but not when doing so comes at the expense of neglecting more competitive races Democrats might otherwise lose.
In 2026, the polls might not underestimate Republicans, like they did in 2024.
Democrats will likely perform better in 2026 than they did in 2024.
But that doesn’t mean there aren’t valuable lessons we can take from the electoral losses we suffered last year.
No comments:
Post a Comment