Instructions for making Monopoly Politics 2004 projections Type of district Projections If a district became more partisan for the incumbent, we adjust the past winning percentage up.
1.  By modifying variables in cells shaded blue, you can make projections for the 2004 US House races. This column only affects TX, since that's the only state with 2004 p-ship changes.
2.   Summaries of the number and categories of the projections appear in cells N7 to T15.
3.  After the 2004 election, you can enter the winning party and percent in columns V and W.
4.  The spreadsheet tabulates the accuracy of projections in cells V8 to AA15.
5.  For more information, visit our report online at: http://www.fairvote.org/2004 Number of seats affected by parameters     Model:  twice uncontested run 3% ahead of p-ship
6. We've posted a User's Guide, all data used and a detailed description of our projection algorithm.         Labels Wrong Loser Rep:  pship-3%
      Total Projections     Projections by Party     Accuracy of Projections (after entering results) Cohort 0 1 2 3 Right Change Dem:  pship+3%
Var Description           # Incumbent Terms Category Applies To Diff Margin     Projection Num Projection Dem Rep Total Wrong   Result       Number 35 63 38 285 Trend = lastperf-priorperf
60% % decrease for "overrachieving" incumbent 3 and up 3% Competitive     Landslide 211 Landslide 109 102 211 Party Range Landslide Comfortable Tight Lost Over -- 37 25 229 Diff = lastperf - pship >0 means 2nd perf weaker for R, 2nd perf stronger for D Adjustment to past performance This section computes the number of seats for which affected by each parameter
1% Absolute reduction for "underachieving" incumbent 2 and up 5% Tight       Comfortable 107 Comfortable 37 69 106 211 211 0 0 0 211 Under -- 26 6 56 diff>0:  underachiever for R, over for D <0 vice versa (2nd stronger for R, weaker for D) based on achievement, terms served, contested races and better 2nd elections.
33% % adjustment to better 2nd election 2 10% Comfortable     Tight 33 Tight 9 24 33 107 107 0 0 0 107 Uncont -- -- 7 -- 2000 House performances scaled to Model selection diff<0:  over for R, under for D Diff = adjusted weakest perf - pship Code Num
35% % decrease if previous race uncontested 2 >10% Landslide     Total Projections 351 Projections 155 195 350 33 33 0 0 0 33 Better 2nd -- -- 26 -- 2000 to 2002 change in p-ship 0 35 Upper label 3-over3 1-over 2-uncont   2-better2 2-over
67% % decrease for "overachieving" new incumbent 1, 2     Competitive 71 Competitive 37 34 71     71 0 0   in Col AR     Category Code Projections by 5 different models   Calculation of projection for each model                                               End of projections calculations 1 63 Lower label 3-under23 1-under   2-under23
33% % increase for "underachieving" first-termer 1 50% National Dem     Vulnerable 13 Vulnerable 13 0 13     13 0 0     Open 0 2 38 Upper label 229 37 7   26 25
11% Buffer of absolute increase/decrease of 5.5% for open seats     Open 2-party share   Total Seats 435 Total Seats 205 229 434             Used to compute accuracy of projections             Used for 2004 projections Fresh 1 3 285 Lower label 56 26       6
ENTER 2004 results   Computed from results   Computed from results Computed from results   Computed from results   2-term 2 Open   Fresh       2-term       If contested, adjust perf by pship         Long-term     Twice-uncontested
2004     Winning % Winning   Diff in TX only   Range of Vuln Non-open Open-seat Results of projected categories   Min Diff Diff   2004 Performance   Long-term 3     Projection models                 If unc, treat prior race like freshman                     District Partisanship Data
    2004 2002-2004 1st Open 2000 2002 2000 2002 2000 2002 2004 Projection (cautious)   Low Projected Democratic 2004 Outcome      Accuracy     Wrong projs who losing party Landsl. Comf. Comp.     of proj. of   Terms 0 to 100 scale Worst 2-uncont 4 Open Fresh 2-term Long-term Twice-uncont     Perf-           Unc   If 2nd strong, adj. weakest.   Contested         Code P-ship 2000 2002 Used for summaries    3s Fresh 2s   2s 2s     2000 Presidential Election       2000 Black Hispanic   2002 2004 District P-ship
Codes State CD Incumbent Elected Seat % % Party Party P-ship P-ship Pship Party Result Performance Projection Party % Result Party %     Party % lost incs change proj. proj. proj Vuln. No proj range result   Served 2000 2002 Perf   Diff Error 0 1 2 3 4 Margin Proj pship >0 <0 Proj Diff >0 <0 Proj   Trend >0 <0 Perf Diff >0 <0 Proj Proj Diff >0 <0 Proj 2 +3% adj adj of projections Code     Uncont Uncont better2 Over/under Bush Vote (%) Gore Vote (%) Other Vote (%) Total Vote Voters Voters   Party Pship P-ship Party
  Alabama 1 Jo Bonner 2002 91% 60% R R 40% 39% 39% R 61% Landslide 39.4%     Landslide Wrong Wrong Landslide Landslide Loser 10% 50% 1.0 8% 40% 40% 11% 1 44.6% 39.4% 40.5% 40.5% 36.1% 11% 44.6% 0% 39% 39% 39.4% -31% 18% 29% 28.7% 32% 40% 29% 40% 0% 41% 39% 40.5% 40.5% 0% 41% 39% 40.5% 36.1% -1% 0% R-Landslide 1 1-under23 1-under 1-cont 0 1-under23 138938 (60.4%) 86142 (37.5%) 4798 (2.1%) 229878 #REF! #REF!   R 40% 39.1% R
  Alabama 2 Terry Everett 1992 68% 69% R R 38% 39% 39% R 63% Landslide 36.8%     Landslide Wrong Wrong Landslide Landslide Loser 10% 50% 6.0 33% 31% 33% 13% 3 44.7% 36.6% 36.8% 36.8% 36.2% 11% 44.7% -8% 34% 37% 36.6% -6% 35% 37% 37.2% -2% 31% 32% 32% -7% 33% 37% 36.8% 36.8% -6% 34% 37% 36.8% 36.2% 1% 0% R-Landslide 3 3-over3 3-over 3-cont 0 3-better2 3-over 137168 (61.1%) 84435 (37.6%) 3061 (1.4%) 224664 #REF! #REF! R 40% 39.2% R
  Alabama 3 Mike Rogers 2002 87% 50% R R 44% 48% 48% Competitive 51% Competitive 49.2%     Landslide Competitive Competitive Competitive Loser Landslide 0% 50% 1.0 18% 50% 50% 1% 1 50.0% 49.2% 50.7% 50.7% 45.2% 0% 50.0% 1% 49% 49% 49.2% -31% 28% 38% 38.1% 32% 50% 39% 50% 1% 51% 49% 50.7% 50.7% 1% 51% 49% 50.7% 45.2% 5% 0% R-Competitive 1 1-under23 1-under 1-cont 0 1-under23 112320 (51.6%) 101431 (46.6%) 3769 (1.7%) 217520 #REF! #REF! R 49% 48.2% C
  Alabama 4 Robert Aderholt 1996 61% 87% R R 42% 39% 39% R 62% Landslide 38.2%     Landslide Wrong Wrong Landslide Landslide Loser 10% 50% 4.0 37% 13% 37% 12% 3 44.5% 30.5% 38.3% 38.2% 36.0% 11% 44.5% -26% 22% 31% 30.5% -2% 38% 38% 38.3% -24% 13% 21% 21% -18% 22% 33% 33.1% 38.3% -2% 38% 38% 38.2% 36.0% -3% 0% R-Landslide 3 3-over3 3-over 3-uncont 1 141285 (60.7%) 87062 (37.4%) 4240 (1.8%) 232587 #REF! #REF! R 39% 39.0% R
  Alabama 5 Bud Cramer 1990 89% 73% D D 45% 45% 45% D 57% Comfortable 56.6%     Landslide Wrong Wrong Comfortable Comfortable Loser 5% 50% 7.0 89% 73% 73% 7% 3 50.0% 54.6% 54.6% 56.6% 48.4% 0% 50.0% 28% 55% 64% 54.6% 44% 60% 75% 59.8% -16% 78% 73% 73% 28% 55% 72% 54.6% 54.6% 28% 57% 72% 56.6% 48.4% 0% 0% D-Comfortable 3 3-over3 3-over 3-cont 0 3-over 131608 (54.0%) 106685 (43.8%) 5241 (2.2%) 243534 #REF! #REF! D 46% 45.4% R
2 UU Alabama 6 Spencer Bachus 1992 88% 90% R R 31% 27% 27% R 76% Landslide 23.5%     Landslide Wrong Wrong Landslide Landslide Loser 10% 50% 6.0 8% 10% 10% 26% 4 32.0% 21.1% 20.3% 20.0% 23.5% 36% 32.0% -16% 16% 21% 21.1% -19% 14% 20% 20.3% 3% 10% 9% 10% -16% 11% 21% 21.1% 20.3% -16% 11% 20% 20.0% 1 23.5% -4% 0% R-Landslide 4 4-over3 4-over 4-uncont 1 200818 (73.6%) 67975 (24.9%) 3997 (1.5%) 272790 #REF! #REF! R 27% 26.5% R
  Alabama 7 Artur Davis 2002 75% 92% D D 75% 68% 68% D 76% Landslide 76.0%     Landslide Wrong Wrong Landslide Landslide Loser 10% 50% 1.0 68% 92% 68% 26% 1 62.4% 76.0% 67.7% 66.5% 70.9% 25% 62.4% 25% 76% 84% 76.0% 0% 68% 68% 67.7% 25% 84% 92% 84% 16% 73% 83% 73.3% 67.7% 0% 68% 67% 66.5% 70.9% -7% 0% D-Landslide 1 1-under23 1-over 1-uncont