FiveThirtyEight: Deal & Scott More Likely To Win, Bishop Less.

Polling hotshot FiveThirtyEight says 8th District hopeful Austin Scott now has a 64% chance of winning (up from 55% a month ago) while 2nd District incumbent Sanford Bishop has now an 61.8% chance (down from 82%).

Things for 12th District John Barrow has worsened only slightly with FiveThirtyEight now giving him a 99.3% chance of victory (down from 100% last month). In the other Congressional races; slight changes in the 7th where GOP nominee Rob Woodall is given a 99.7% chance (down from 100% last month), the 10th where incumbent Paul Broun slipped to a 99.9% chance (down from 100% last month), and the 13th where incumbent David Scott now has a 99.8% chance (down from 100% last month).

Johnny Isakson has increased his chances (99.9%)

In the Governor’s race, Nathan Deal is now given a 86.1% chance of victory, up from 74.9% on September 23rd.

See previous post for last month’s data.


  1. John Konop says:

    From what I read he is the best in the business!

    …..So, how well does all that number crunching work? In the presidential race, Five Thirty Eight’s final pre-election day projection was that Barack Obama would win 52.3% of the popular vote, while John McCain would take 46.2%. The final tally: Obama 52.6%, McCain 46.1%. The only state that 538 called incorrectly was Indiana, where they projected McCain to win a highly competitive race; Obama, in the end, won Indiana by nine-tenths of a percent (49.9 to 49.0%).

    Where does Nate Silver get his insights into political polling? Is he a Gallup veteran? Has he been toiling behind the scenes at Congressional Quarterly? Hardly. Prior to launching, Silver was a writer and analyst at Baseball, which does similar statistical analysis to project likely statistics for baseball players. In other words, he’s just a stats geek…..

    • John Konop says:

      I know, like and respect Charlie and Tyler and consider them both good friends. I am very sure they will NOT be calling the suicide hot line over this election. They both have strong opinions but from my conversations about this election I do not think they are bleeding blue for Barnes.

      We have debated many issues over a few beers many times. And I like the fact that both of them are very intelligent and agree or not they have very well thought-out positions.

      My biggest disappointment is many on both sides think being in a party is like rooting for a football team. You over look the faults and hope you win. We should have more independent thinking thought leaders on both sides agree or not like Charlie and Tyler!

        • I’d caution against putting too much weight in an individual district ranking based on what Silver and others do.

          Consider Marshall, Bobby Bright and Gene Taylor’s districts. Silver ranks each one as 67% Republican chance approximately. He adds up those rankings and you get 2 seats (2/3 * 3). He’s goes all across the map and adds up the percentage odds like this to get a cumulative number of what the elections should produce – but I don’t think he really intends for his odds to be used to make bold predictions about individual districts.

          You’ll notice that he predicts Scott 50, Marshall 47. Well what about the other 3 (limitations of a national model here). You will also notice that Bishop who has opposite odds is favored…50-48 in his prediction.

          I believe both of those districts will be pretty close, and all the Silver model does is assign some assumptions based on the limited knowledge he has of the district and public polls that have been released. And in the case of the 8th, three polls are suspect and the 4th is a DCCC poll.

          So no matter what side you are on, I’d recommend to keep working hard, and to expect some of these 60+ districts to go the other way, and conversely some of the 40% districts to go your way.

        • Culpepper says:

          Poli, here is what I was referring to in those recent posts about Scott hiding behind his son:

          WMAZ-TV: GOP candidate’s 11-year-old son intervenes to block release of dad’s divorce papers
          5:28 pm October 25, 2010, by Jim Galloway

          On the day before a court hearing on whether the 2001 divorce papers of Republican congressional candidate Austin Scott should be sealed, WMAZ-TV in Macon is reporting this sudden twist:

          The attorney for a local Democrat seeking to unseal 8th congressional district candidate Austin Scott’s divorce records says a request was filed Monday on behalf of the Republican candidate’s 11-year-old son to delay the hearing and appear as a defendant in the case.

          A Tift County judge is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday to unseal the documents.
          Macon attorney Carmel Sanders filed the motion to make the records public on behalf of her client Amy Morton.

          Morton, a Democratic activist, says she isn’t looking for any specific information in the files but says the public has a right to know what’s in them.

          Sanders says her office received a motion from 11-year-old Wells Scott today, asking to take part in the records hearing.

          “Either the former Mrs. Scott or Mr. Scott have hired a lawyer on behalf of their son to intervene in this action,” Sanders says.

          “It’s been Mr. Scott’s contention that the reason he didn’t want the files opened — the reason they wanted them sealed was to protect the son,” she says.

          No comment was forthcoming from Scott, or from the campaign of Democratic incumbent Jim Marshall of Macon.

          Go ahead and blast away at me, but can you say you really believe that dragging an 11 year old into this muck is the right thing to do?

          I think this is about the lowest thing I have ever heard in politics.

          • Perhaps you are willfully ignorant of the fact that Wells Scott has an interest in this case. Perhaps it just doesn’t fit with your view of how things “should” be, but having an attorney represent an 11-year old child’s interests is not only appropriate, it is the right thing to do.

            Wells Scott does not deserve to have his classmates discuss his parents’ divorce settlement, just to satisfy your prurient interests. Take up a wholesome hobby instead.

            Not all things in a divorce proceeding are the smut you and your hero Jim Marshall secretly pray for at night. There are also more mundane but very private things such as financial settlements and custody matters.

            You can’t argue that Jim Marshall should be elected, because there is no sustainable argument for that. “Smear and Distract”, culpepper, that’s all you can do. There is simply no reason to re-elect Marshall.

            • Culpepper says:

              Easy Sean Penn.

              Sorry, Ken, you must not have been one of those who flew into a rage when this thing started because of the fact that there was a child involved and he needed to be protected from all this. Now that daddy brings him into it – to appear as a defendant – it’s just fine?

              You Scott true believers put the Obama crowd to shame.

              • I seem to remember that your people – and perhaps you weren’t one of them – said that prying into someone’s personal life was unfortunate, but it’s legal so everyone else should just shut up.

                Well, Austin’s son has a legal right to representation.

                AND, there is still no one willing to explain why Marshall deserves to be re-elected to a fifth term of dismal, meaningless, uninspired mediocrity.

                  • Doug Grammer says:


                    There are some things in a candidates life that is none of the voting public’s interest. Explain to us why we have a need to know details of a divorce. Will it change a candidates vote on an issue if elected? I don’t think so.

              • polisavvy says:

                Culpepper, perhaps you don’t remember, but I have always indicated that the child had an interest in all of this. How do you know exactly how the son became involved in all of this? Do you really think his dad is hiding behind him? Get a life, seriously.

                I think there is a thin line between what we as the public need to know and we as the public have a right to know. These people in public office don’t owe us everything. They should be allowed to retain a shred of privacy. Get real. If one gets a DUI, we should know. If one abuses power, we should know. If one is accused of bribery, we should know. I could go on and on with this one; however, what we don’t have a right to know is what goes on within the household of a public official unless that public official breaks the law. My question to you is what proof do you have that a law has been broken? Is there something factual or just more lies and innuendo?

                As for the hearing being rescheduled, well all you Marshall fans can thank Judge Cross who apparently isn’t very proficient in math. The motion was brought to her on September 30th. The defendants are entitled to 30 days before the hearing. The hearing was set for 26 days after the motion was filed. This is not rocket science. I mean for her to be four days short is totally ridiculous. But, I’m sure that you guys are going to find a way to spin it where Austin Scott had something to do with the Judge’s math.

                • Lady Thinker says:

                  Culpepper doesn’t get the fact that the child’s attorney isn’t what moved this case to December, it was the judge’s inability to do basic math.

                  • polisavvy says:

                    Some people will never accept the truth even if it hits them squarely in the face! Culpepper has an ax to grind and will stop at nothing (including ignoring the Georgia Rules of Law) to slam Austin Scott. There’s a story here.

      • Jeff says:

        In all honesty, I am SOOOOOO ready for this frakkin election to be over so I can turn my laser eye on the Georgia General Assembly.

        Remember, no matter what happens on Nov 2, the General Assembly WILL continue to be in GOP hands for at least 2 more years. The only thing in question is who they will be sending their bills to for signature.

  2. peach4handel says:

    I think obama has a nice deal set up with bishop,that may be the reason he is not campaigning as hard,When he falls in 7 days he will get appointed as the Agriculture Commissioner by obama

Comments are closed.