Owise Weekly Update: GOP Loses Ground in House, Gains in Senate

This week Owise's estimates show the Democrats gaining ground in the House but losing a little ground in the Senate.

The House gains almost entirely occurred over the weekend with the Foley scandal breaking. The estimated House GOP seat count fell by 0.6 seats, indicating that Owise believes the scandal has about a 60% chance of costing a seat. The House probability of Democratic control shot up from 32% the prior week to 38.9% which is an unusually large change for Owise in a single week.

But Owise does not see the scandal spilling over into the Senate. This week Owise projects 51.4 GOP Senate seats vs. 51.1 the prior week, a small GOP gain, with the probability of Democrats taking control of the Senate virtually unchanged. (Note that on the control change event, Owise does not count independents as democrats, so the seat count is a more accurate way to gauge things in the Senate).

Note that Tradesports.com showed a much more dramatic effect from the Foley scandal, with the GOP House control contract falling about 10% over the weekend, and also the Senate contract dropped noticeably, meaning Tradesports does believe the scandal will spill over into Senate races in some way.

Huh. That's the opposite of what I've heard lately.

The Iowa Electronic Market has also taken a hit.

The Republican hold is down.

Yet, the Republican lose is not way up.

Placing money on Democrats is still an iffy proposition.

So, how accurate is Owise? This is the first time I've seen it posted here. I guess I've overlooked it in the past.

We have 232 right now, (not including the Ney, Foley and Delay retirements) so a 12.4 loss would put us at 219.6

New Yorker, IEM blew the 2004 elections. And they have a 13% spread.

Owise has only been around for a little over a year and there were very few national elections last year (a few gov races). But on other political questions it has been very accurate. When every pundit was saying Rove would be indicted Owise never believed it, giving it only a 3% probability, for example. In predicting the likely fallout from Katrina, even when pundits were targeting Chertoff as the scapegoat, Owise said Chertoff was safe but Brown was in serious danger (Chertoff probability to resign only 15%, Brown 55%). Only days later did media start to focus on Brown, with his resignation the following week.

In predicting number of hurricanes last year, Owise was more accurate than expert predictions, even before the season started, and is looking like it will also be more accurate this year but hard to say for a couple more months. It was more accurate at predicting Katrina insurance losses before the storm even made landfall than the top insurance estimating companies (which is remarkable when you think about it). (The predictions owise made before landfall were within 20% of the final figures issued by insurance institutes after months of on-the-ground study. The first 2 or 3 estimates by insurance companies after landfall were seriously low, even after the levy breach.)

When most pundits were saying Bush's second supreme court nominee would be a woman, with even reports that Laura Bush made a comment to that effect, Owise thought it was a less than even-money proposition, 48%.

To be sure, there were some cases were Owise blew it, but in those cases the pundits also tended to miss big time.

IMHO, when owise disagrees with the pundits you're better off betting with Owise.

When most pundits were saying Bush's second supreme court nominee would be a woman, with even reports that Laura Bush made a comment to that effect, Owise thought it was a less than even-money proposition, 48%.

That may not be a statement in Owise's favor. Unless the Foley scandal is deeper, and we have male Republican judges named "Harriet."

Owise has only been around for a little over a year and there were very few national elections last year (a few gov races). But on other political questions it has been very accurate. When every pundit was saying Rove would be indicted Owise never believed it, giving it only a 3% probability, for example. In predicting the likely fallout from Katrina, even when pundits were targeting Chertoff as the scapegoat, Owise said Chertoff was safe but Brown was in serious danger (Chertoff probability to resign only 15%, Brown 55%). Only days later did media start to focus on Brown, with his resignation the following week.

In predicting number of hurricanes last year, Owise was more accurate than expert predictions, even before the season started, and is looking like it will also be more accurate this year but hard to say for a couple more months. It was more accurate at predicting Katrina insurance losses before the storm even made landfall than the top insurance estimating companies (which is remarkable when you think about it). (The predictions owise made before landfall were within 20% of the final figures issued by insurance institutes after months of on-the-ground study. The first 2 or 3 estimates by insurance companies after landfall were seriously low, even after the levy breach.)

When most pundits were saying Bush's second supreme court nominee would be a woman, with even reports that Laura Bush made a comment to that effect, Owise thought it was a less than even-money proposition, 48%.

To be sure, there were some cases were Owise blew it, but in those cases the pundits also tended to miss big time.

IMHO, when owise disagrees with the pundits you're better off betting with Owise.