Monday, November 03, 2008

1st & 3rd CD ODDS

As in past elections, Leavenworth Street is here to post the odds for winners of the major races in tomorrow's election.

Below are the odds for the 3rd and 1st Congressional Districts.

At one hour intervals we will then post the odds for Nebraska's U.S. Senate race, the Presidential race in the 2nd District, and finally the 2nd Congressional District race.

As usual, these odds are not to be used for gambling purposes, unless you are in the States of Nevada, New Jersey or Carter Lake.


3rd Congressional District Odds

Adrian Smith: OFF THE
Jay Stoddard: BOARD

Smith over / under: 68%

We don't see any chance of Adrian Smith losing this race, so we have taken the odds off the board.

Smith's challenger, Jay Stoddard, has been a successful businessman. That being said, the 78 year old Stoddard hasn't raised any significant money, has had pretty much no advertising, and is wont to say things like, "I love this state and I believe I love it more than Adrian Smith."

Uh, OK Mr. Stoddard.

So why won't Adrian Smith get 100% of the vote? Because the turnout is going to be through the roof in this election and like it or not, the national wave of the Democrat party is going to splash Nebraska. Adrian shoes might get a little damp from that wave. 

Can Adrian hit the over on that 68%? We'll see tomorrow night.

Here is an ad Smith put out.

Here's the irony for you Democrats: If Scott KLeeb had run again 
against Adrian Smith there is a decent chance he would be making it competitive right now. 

Could he have won? Gee, we guess we'll never know will we? The 33 year old Kleeb thought it best to take on the juggernaut of Mike Johanns. Oh well...


1st Congressional District Odds

Jeff Fortenberry: OFF THE
Max Yashirin: BOARD

Fortenberry over / under: 60%

As in the 3rd District race, we don't see any way Jeff Fortenberry loses his race tomorrow, therefore we have completely pulled it off the board.

Max Yashirin, a very young veteran but otherwise with less experience than Jim Esch or Scott Kleeb (and that's saying something), somehow got thrown into this election. 

Again, we're amazed that Lincoln area Democrats couldn't come up with a decent candidate against Fort. Sure he demolished a very credible candidate in Maxine Moul in 2006. But come on. Max?

Anyway, we are going to place Fort's numbers at 60%. There are plenty of Dems in the 1st who will vote Obama/Yashirin, so Max will get some votes. And he could even push Fort down to the 50's. But after tomorrow, the Dems best chance of getting rid of Fortenberry will have vanished.


U.S. Senate odds coming at 10:30 AM CST.

Bookmark and Share


macdaddy said...

SS, I have to take issue with your characterization of Yashirin as having less experience than Kleeb or Esch. Reading through his bio, I would say that he does more before 9am than Esch does all day (I know, I know, that was an Army tag line, not Marine Corps). And a lot of his experience occurred while people were trying to kill him. Unlike Esch who was trying to kill other people.

Street Sweeper said...

I don't know whether Yashirin did or did not have combat experience (most of the bios I've seen of his indicate that he was a mechanic).

Our focus was his post-service experience.

Right Wing Professor said...

Yashirin gets points for his time in Iraq. He loses them for the single biggest whopper I heard in a campaign ad; that Fortenberry opposes equal pay for women.

Anonymous said...

RWP, check out HR 2831, and Fortenberry's "NO" vote on a law that would helped bring equal pay for women, and then get back to me.

Right Wing Professor said...

The vote was to extend the statute of limitations for equal pay lawsuits, not on equal pay. Equal pay has been the law of the land since 1964.

Nebraska has a statute of limitations for most felonies of three years. If I support that, am I pro-theft, pro-rape, pro-assault, etc? Statutes of limitations are an essential part of the criminal and civil code. The primary group who want civil statutes of limitations extended are trial lawyers.

Right Wing Professor said...

By the way, here's the US Chamber of Commerce letter on HR 2831. It was a trial lawyers' wet dream.

Anonymous said...

Just admit it, RWP, you could care less about equal pay also. Current law says lawsuits can only be filed (180 days I think) after the OCCURANCE of unequal pay. As it stands right now, if a woman finds out a couple years after it has happened, she's out of luck. The bill would change the law start the time limit for filing lawsuits from the time of DISCOVERY. So a man only has to hide the information past statue of limitations and they are then free and clear.

Right Wing Professor said...

The bill would change the law start the time limit for filing lawsuits from the time of DISCOVERY.

Exactly. That's a truly terrible idea. As the Chamber of Commerce notes, it allows lawyers to go fishing for unequal pay lawsuits 20, 30 and even 40 years ago. HR 2831 even permits 'disparate impact' suits; you don't have to intentionally discriminate against women; all you need is to institute a policy that causes women to be paid less on average. Any lamebrained legal theory of how, for example, a particular way of allocating overtime impacted women negatively would do.

Anonymous said...

How are you supposed to find out if the employee next to you is getting the same pay or not?

Gerard Harbison said...

How are you supposed to find out if the employee next to you is getting the same pay or not?

Well, gosh, that's a problem, isn't it? You'd have to convince either the person next to you, or your boss, that's it's actually your business what the person next to you is paid.