MAGAZINE SHOCK: REPUBLICANS WILL HOLD CONGRESS

Drudge Report ^ | October 21, 2006 | JIM MCTAGUE

[West Coast Conservative]

JUBILANT DEMOCRATS SHOULD RECONSIDER their order for confetti and noisemakers, BARRON's claims in their next edition. The Democrats, as widely reported, are expecting GOP-weary voters to flock to the polls in two weeks and hand them control of the House for the first time in 12 years -- and perhaps the Senate, as well. Even some Republicans privately confess that they are anticipating the election-day equivalent of Little Big Horn. Pardon our hubris, but we just don't see it.

Our analysis -- based on a race-by-race examination of campaign-finance data -- suggests that the GOP will hang on to both chambers, at least nominally. We expect the Republican majority in the House to fall by eight seats, to 224 of the chamber's 435. At the very worst, our analysis suggests, the party's loss could be as large as 14 seats, leaving a one-seat majority. But that is still a far cry from the 20-seat loss some are predicting. In the Senate, with 100 seats, we see the GOP winding up with 52, down three.

Developing...

[StAnDeliver]

"Is our method reliable? It certainly has been in the past. Using it in the 2002 and 2004 congressional races, we bucked conventional wisdom and correctly predicted GOP gains both years. Look at House races back to 1972 and you'll find the candidate with the most money has won about 93% of the time. And that's closer to 98% in more recent years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."

"I hate to tell you this, but this is major wishful thinking. They're basing their analysis solely on the amount of money GOP and Dem candidates have raised. Campaign contributions don't decide elections."

Hey, Kool-Aid -- prove it. Barron's did.

[StAnDeliver]

I think all of you silly boo-birds have not even a simpleton's grasp of history. I put this together last month to jerk the slack out of a troll, but it will do nicely again right here:

Generic Congressional Polls in the summer of the 2004 election cycle:

Battleground 6/20-23: 41 (GOP) - 49 (DUm) - 11 (unsure) +8 DUm

AP/Ipsos 6/17-19: 40 (GOP) - 47 (DUm) - 10 (neither) - 3 (not sure) +7 DUm

CNN/USA/Gallup 7/30 - 8/1: 44 (GOP) - 49 (DUm) - 7 (undecided) +5 DUm

NBC/WSJ 9/17-19: 42 (GOP) - 46 (DUm) - 12 (undecided) +4 DUm

CBS/NYT 7/11-15: 37 (GOP) - 46 (DUm) - 8 (depends) - 9 (don't know) +9 DUm

Time 6/2-4: 37 (GOP) - 49 (DUm) - 4 (other) - 11 (not sure) +12 DUm

Newsweek 7/29-30: 41 (GOP) - 51 (DUm) - 8 (undecided) +10 DUm

LAT 6/5-6/8: 35 (GOP) - 54 (DUm) - 1 (Ind) - 3 (neither) - 7 (unsure) +19! DUm

Democracy Corps 8/2-5: 41 (GOP) - 51 (DUm) - 2 (other) - 6 (not sure) +10 DUm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 General Election Results: House +3 GOP / Senate +4 GOP

[Nasher]

I hope all the Moonbats don't hear about this. The longer they grasp their delusions of a DemocRat sweep, the greater the meltdown will be the following Wednesday.

[StAnDeliver]

"I do expect the Republicans to hold on to the House. But according to RealClearPolitics.com, which is definitely NOT a mainstream media spin-machine..."

Yea, they may be worse. RCP was THE first on Election Day -- beating Drudge -- to 'promote' Zogby's 311EV special-sauced in-the-bagger for Kerry.

[FreeKeys]

according to RealClearPolitics.com, which is definitely NOT a mainstream media spin-machine, the Democrats are likely to take the Senate.

IIRC, RCP does NOT do its own polling; it primarily averages out all the MSM's faulty polls, like the ones in your post #322.

[MaxMax]

Thank you for posting this. You've added clarity to exactly
what the Dems are/have-been up to. Heh, Newsweek.

/Salute

[sizzlemeister]

Are you normally this stupid, noob?

Silly me, I forgot to put quotes around accuracy. Thanks for the reminder.

I was going to ask if you are you normally a big as*h*le, but upon searching your posts I can see that, yes, you are. Bullying "noobs" because, what, you want to be the smartest guy in the room? Do you have some self-esteem issues you need to work on, perhaps away from the computer, with some clothes on? I think so. What a sophomoric and, ironically, liberal-like mentality you exhibit on a fundamentally Conservative message board; deriding new members as "noobs" like a teenager wrestling with the effects of puberty on their ego. It saddens me to see this kind of behavior isn't shouted down around here.

[StJacques]

According to what RealClearPolitics has up on their analysis of recent Senate race polls we Republicans will almost certainly lose seats we now hold in Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. That's a minus four and leaves the Democrats only needing two more to take control of the Senate. There are only two currently Democratic seats that are even in play, those being New Jersey and Maryland, and they have Maryland as "Leans Democrat" while none of their recent polls on New Jersey have Republican Kean either tied or leading, which may mean that both Democratic seats are out of reach.

All of the above leaves the three "Toss Up" Republican seats in Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia as the three races upon which control of the Senate will be decided. Only in Virginia do recent polls seem to agree that the Republican will win. That means we must take either Missouri or Tennessee to keep 50 seats, or both to have 51. RealClearPolitics has the Democratic candidates leading the "average" of recent polls in both of those states, which does not look good for us, though the Republican has taken at least two of the five most recent in Missouri (with one tie) and two of the six most recent in Tennessee (with one tie).

So this is the bottom line: With all of the above in mind we absolutely must win either Missouri or Tennessee to keep control of the Senate. I personally rate Tennessee as the better shot, but I'm very nervous about the prospects for winning either.

[princess leah]

Best political movie line:
Don't you fall into the trap, Democrats are full of crap!

[StJacques]

I missed your #325 while I was responding to StAnDeliver. This is a ping to my #328 above.

I do regard Rasmussen and SurveyUSA as at least "reputable" and I don't know what to say about Gallup after their meltdown at the wire in 2004. I'm guessing neither you or I trust Zogby and I'm going to withhold comment on the smaller polls.

[firewalk]

Thanks for the ping

[curiosity]

Hey, Kool-Aid -- prove it. Barron's did.

LOL. They didn't prove anying. All they did was lie with statistics. Let me illustrate how.

Using it in the 2002 and 2004 congressional races, we bucked conventional wisdom and correctly predicted GOP gains both years.

Their sample size is 2! Getting lucky twice is not very hard. There's a 25% probability of calling two races right even if you're guessing at random. Any inference based on two datapoints is worthless.

Look at House races back to 1972 and you'll find the candidate with the most money has won about 93% of the time. And that's closer to 98% in more recent years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."

LOL. You're really gullible if you fall for that one. The vast majority of house seats are "safe," that is, in gerrymandered districts wherein the incumbant has virtually no chance of losing. Even in this highly contested election, out of 435 seats there's only some 30 where that are in play. That means 93% of the seats are safe. In most midterm elections, that number is higher, and with the exception of this year, it's been trending up. Challengers to safe seats don't get much money (who wants to waste money on a lost cause?),whereas people still give money to safe incumbants in order to buy influence. Thus it should come as no surprise that the vast majority Congressional winners, who are in safe seats, have more money.

This, of course, tells you nothing of how good a predictor money is in close races. And of course, the yahoos who wrote this article don't tell you how well their method works in close races because then wouldn't it look very good.

Also note how these yahoos fail to provide any data on how well their method predicts races relative to election futures markets, which some pretty solid research shows to be by far the best predictors. My advice is to look at the markets.

[MindBender26]

"The Law" make little or no reference to "party."

In most states, they are what they say they are.

Even phony Indies are effectively Dems because they caucus with them.

[BLS]

I hope this is what happens and not just wishful thinking.

[BLS]

"I was going to ask if you are you normally a big as*h*le, but upon searching your posts I can see that, yes, you are."


LOL, ouch! And Welcome to FR

[1L]

Don't forget that a big part of the RAT media's intent here is not only to try and sway the election, but to also allege that it was rigged when the RATS don't win.

All these simple minded idiots are going to say, "hey, we heard all these polls saying the RATs were going to trounced, so Bush must have stolen another election."

[MCFujiTanker]

It's a vote that outlaws gay marriage. If it loses the law remains the same. I'm 13 hours ahead in Japan, so I get on line at strange times. Semper Fidelis.

[twigs]

The idea is to use the media to brainwash conservatives into thinking that it is a waste of time to go out and vote.

I think that is definitely happening. I also think that is more diabolical than that. It sets up a rationale for recounts after the election is over. If you can't get enough votes during the actual election, then steal them in a judicial process. I read on DU during the last election that a way groups operate (like Jimmy Carter's) which verify honest elections in other countries is by contrasting the results with pre-election polling. A large contrast triggers a red flag. This was one of the cries during the 2004 presidential election. It could be in play here as well.

[blinachka]

This is nice...but it only means that every eligible vote MUST go out and VOTE on Election Day to ensure that the GOP retains it's majority. Prove Barron's correct by VOTING!!!