Posted on 08/25/2006 12:40:57 PM PDT by Bob J
In an Election 2006 conference sponsored by Paul Weyrich and the Free Congess Foundation this afternoon, panelist Robert Novak stated that based on his and others significant research he believed the GOP would lose between 27-30 seats in the House this fall.
Other panelists inlcuded John Fund, Kate O'Bierne and John Gizzy. A replay of the one hour conference can be heard at www.Rightalk.com , which webcast the event. click on "The Right Hour" logo.
Numbers mean nothing without names and states.
We might lose one in Texas or we might break even.
California: no change.
New Jersey: no change.
Ohio: may lose one (Pryce)or might pick up one (OH-6)
Geogia and IL: break even or pick up one.
Minnesota: no change.
PA and CT: Could lose up to two each, more likely to break even.
NY: lose one or break even.
AZ: Probably break even, could lose one.
MN: probably break even, outside change of losing one.
IN: 2 at risk, but I haven't heard any new polling - probably lose no more than one.
KY: could lose one.
VT: pick up one or status quo.
Honestly, I think they were predicting a wash in 2002 or slight Democrat gains and the Democrats ended up losing several seats, largely due to redistricting. In 2004 they also predicted the status quo and that's what happened outside of Texas, with a few incumbents (Burns, Hill, Crane) knocked off for personal reasons or because the partisan pull of their district went too far in a Presidential year.
The Democrats often led in the generic poll earlier in the year, but not by as much as they have in some polls this year, although the last few polls have shown closer results. Polls before election day in 2002 showed Republicans leading in the generic poll in some cases.
So, 27-30 is definitely the outer edge of predictions right now, but they haven't predicted apocalypse for Republicans in the past like they are this year.
Which assclowns are you refering to? The one's that spout "Bush's fault, Bush bad, Bush evil, yadda yadda yadda, New Direction for America!!!" or the one's who actually have stances on the issues?
Could it be that some Republicans like J.D. are in trouble because Hispanics are mobilizing against them for their strong anti-illegal stances?
'Novak is full of "Novak."
I thought that was what TX said.
People rarely change their political party id. The Junk Media works these massive swings in the poll data by playing with the sample in order to generate the "horse race" mentality that sells newspapers and drives TV show ratings. Based on the 2004 election they should be sampling 51%R/49%D but of course they will not do that because that would NOT generate the drama queen headlines they need to hype their product. The simply fact is "Journalism" is now days simply another form of marketing a product. A different kind of advertising. It has little to nothing to do with "News" or "Fact"
Well if they didn't pass hillary care what did they pass that was on the liberal agenda in those 2 years? The answer is nothing. The only major legislation under the Clinton administration was welfare reform... but that was a Rebublican bill the Republican's made clinton sign.
The Democrats have done worse than Republican at passing their agenda when they are in control. Of course it has been 15 years since they were in control.
"The Junk Media works these massive swings in the poll data by playing with the sample in order to generate the "horse race" mentality that sells newspapers and drives TV show ratings."
Funny, I thought they did it to energize the dem base.
The Prince of Darkness has spoken, the case is closed!
"Won't lose any in Alaska."
How comforting.
That being said, there are a number of things that I'm certainly not proud or happy about with what Congress (both houses) and the President have proffered (Senate's abortion of an immigration bill, the House's uncontrolled spending, and President Bush's surrender to illegal immigration). However, all these things aside, I as a 'common' man will be goddamned if I EVER vote for a DEMOCRAT unless he is in the true mold of Zell Miller.
Does anyone know what Kate O'Beirne and the others said about Novak's predictions? Sometimes, I think he is a Trojan horse for the Dems.
vaudine
Anyone remember novak's column from a few years ago. Novak is ALWAYS predicting republican doom and gloom:
Does a GOP Implosion Await? (FLASHBACK: August 2004 - Novak Quoted)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1673264/posts
Novak: Why GOP fears 2002 races (FLASHBACK to place near his 2006 piece)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1673258/posts
Both seats in NH are at risk, CD2 (Bass) much more so than CD1 (Bradley).
I remember him saying that on Meet the Press two months before the Republican takeover of Congress. He was one of the few people at the time who predicted that the Republicans would actually take over the House. Most politcal pundits at the time predicted that the Republicans would have a "working majority", meaning that they would have to pick up votes from boll weevil Democrats to get a majority on bills.
So Novak's prediction still scares me.
O'Beirne demurred...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.