One More Reason… the Republicans will regain the majority in the Senate.

Republican Senatorial Committee ^ | 7 August 2002 | Republican Senatorial Committee

[PhiKapMom]

“One More Reason… the Republicans will regain the majority in the Senate."

Wednesday, August 7:
...Because Erskine Bowles (aka Poster Boy for Corporate Irresponsibility) can't seem to keep the oh-so-unflattering details of that pesky $4.2 mil job at Forstmann Little off his resume and out of the papers. (That's $4.2 mil a year...)

You may recall, the State of Connecticut lost over ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS of its pension funds -- dollars that were unwisely (to be charitably delicate) invested by Forstmann Little during Poster Boy's tenure. The real losers? Connecticut retirees who had worked hard and played by the rules...

(Reckon some of them might move south JUST to thank Erskine in their own special way?)

The State of Connecticut has filed suit. But for some reason (a mystery!) Poster Boy is not named in the suit -- although all of the highly questionable investment decisions were made during his tenure.

Now, inquisitive minds want to know why...

Were political deals involved?

Bowles' spokesman ain't sayin'.
Source: www.newmassmedia.com

Tuesday, August 6:
Because according an American Viewpoint poll, Cornyn leads Kirk 46% to 35% among all voters and 50 to 35% among high propensity voters.
Source: Cornyn leads Kirk 46% to 35% among all voters and 50% to 35% among high propensity voters

[Utopia]

This former Clinton aide is running in North Carolina against Elizabeth Dole. He has left Connecticut under a cloud

Thanks for jogging my memory!

[DixieCapricorn]

I was in high school with Liddy. She's 66. She definitely won't be as conservative as Jesse Helms, but post #31 says it best. She will support the Republicans.

[BlackRazor]

"Am I the only one who has done the math? As an actuary, let me tell you that there is between a 91% and 93% chance that Republicans WILL regain the Senate in 2002 elections, assuming no one switches parties and Cheney remains VP."

Actually, I have done the math, and your assessment seems wildly optmistic. How did you arrive at such a figure?

I have set up a simple computer program to simulate the election results, based on assumed probabilities for what I deemed the 7 truly competitive races (SD, MN, NJ, MO, NH, CO, AR). I assumed all other races were won by the incumbent party. I gave the GOP a 50/50 chance to achieve a pickup in each individual race in SD, MN, NJ and MO. I gave the Democrats a 50/50 chance to pickup AR, and a 40/60 chance at picking up each CO and NH.

I then ran the program 10,000 times. The results:

GOP gains 4 seats: 0.82%

GOP gains 3 seats: 5.58%

GOP gains 2 seats: 16.11%

GOP gains 1 seat: 27.33%

Stalemate (neither party gains): 28.08%

Dems gain 1 seat: 16.04%

Dems gain 2 seats: 5.16%

Dems gain 3 seats: 0.88%

This puts the odds of the GOP regaining the Senate at approximately 50%. The odds of the Democrats increasing their majority is only about 22%.

If anyone wildly disagrees with my assumptions, let me know. It's an easy program to run, and I can post results under different scenarios.

[PhiKapMom]

Guys --

Maybe we have found the way to raise money for the next fundraiser!

PKM

[BOBTHENAILER]

Maybe we have found the way to raise money for the next fundraiser!

Great idea and with a little effort a definite possibility. Although I know they would never be honorable and actually pay up, I would love to carry this bet to DU.

That would be a delicious irony, funding FR from the DU scum.

[crystalk]

Well, of course, in any calculation, garbage in, garbage out...one's assumptions about the races will determine the outcome; what you have assumed is very, very pessimistic and may well be based largely upon Democrat propaganda.

Your first assumption is that there are seven competitive seats, and that they are the ones you mention. You ignore any chance that any other seat (27 more up) will change hands.

You then assume that the four Democratic seats are just coin-tosses with no trend. You also assume that Arkansas is such a coin-toss, but seem then to put Republicans ahead 60-40 in Colo. and NH.

Colorado is a big difference between me and you: I would call this a near-certain keeper for R: in fact the chance of losing OREGON is greater than that of losing Colo. On the possibility of Republican losses, then, I would give us a 40% chance of losing Ark, 40% col NH; but only 30% ch of los OR and 20% ch of los CO. Of the four, we expect then to hold (.6+.6+.7+.8)= 2.7, a loss of 1.3.

Even more importantly, the four Democratic poss-losses you cite are really PROB-losses, goners. I would say only a 10% chance Dem can hold SDak; 20% MO; 30% MN; and 40% NJ. From the four, then, we expect to pick up (.9+.8+.7+.6)=3.0.

That sums up your seven and adds one possible other State where R could lose, Oregon. Eight states so far in play; net gain 1.7.

I would add Iowa as a tossup, 50-50; and then say that Georgia and Montana are only 60-40 ahead for D; and Louisiana and Illinois only some 70-30. From those five expected gain is (.5+.4+.4+.3+.3)=1.9.

Thus I have a total of 13 states in play, not your seven.

I would then say that there is a 50% chance some other imponderable place will switch D to R; 25% that two such will; one-eighth chance that three will, etc. This means an expected R gain from this term alone of (.5+.25+.125+.0625...)=1.

Overall, then, gain is (1.7+1.9+1.0)=4.6.

The entire calculation of the chance that R fails to gain 0.5 or more (remember roundoff) yields only some 3% as compared to 8% the last time I had done it-- Missouri and Texas had not looked so good for R as they now do.

Thus the chance we DO gain one or more is some 97%.

Now, someone out there may say that just as you are too pessimistic, I am too optimistic. While I feel I am right-on, if the truth lay halfway between us on each of the individual states we would still get to around an 89-90% of the gain of one or more.

[BlackRazor]

"Even more importantly, the four Democratic poss-losses you cite are really PROB-losses, goners. I would say only a 10% chance Dem can hold SDak; 20% MO; 30% MN; and 40% NJ. From the four, then, we expect to pick up (.9+.8+.7+.6)=3.0.

This is really the crux of our differences. You are correct that I believe these assumptions to be extremely optimistic, just as you found my 50/50 assessments to be extremely pessimistic. I have tried to base my assumptions on objective information as much as possible. Independent polling in all four of these states are well within the margin of error -- Thune typically has a 2-4 point lead in SD; Carnahan has a bigger lead than that in the majority of MO polls; MN appears to be dead even, as does NJ. A recent AR poll shows the GOP incumbent down by 8 points. These are the reasons I consider these races to be toss-ups, and why I cannot in good conscience consider the GOP to be a 90% favorite in SD, or an 80% favorite in Missouri. True, polls can be wrong. But not to the extent of 50/50 vs. 90/10. For comparison, the Political Oddsmaker puts only 3 Senate races at 90% or greater odds: Cochran in MS (95/5), Warner in VA (90/10) and Rockefeller in WV (91/9). Even John Kerry in anti-Republican MA (88/12) doesn't rate that high!

[Let's Roll]

I agree they will regain the senate with a simple majority. The concern is that the dims will just flip 1-2 RINOs as needed a la jumpin' jim jeffords, so we need a 4-5 seat majority to nullify that.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Dole will be 72 in 2008-- when she'd be eligible to run again. I don't think she'll run again. So, the NC-GOP has 6 years to figure out how to have a Republican other than Helms be elected statewide.

My money is on Myrick or Burr as winners in 2004 and/or 2008. Thoughts?

[Satadru]

That is because she is betting only 20.

[Satadru]

You are a noble man.

[Satadru]

How about covariance between races. Are you assuming that each race is independent? For example, there should be big correlation between SD and MN.

[crystalk]

No, no use getting too technical, since we do not really care whether the prob of (R 50 or more) is 87% or 89%; we are trying to get a handle on whether it is 20%, or 80%!

Personally, I think S Dakota is in the bag for R, remember I do not care about the MARGIN, only the chance of winning at all, by however thin a margin.

Obviously MN is much closer and less certain, but I think Coleman is well ahead of Wellstone in chance of winning. (Say 70-30)

[who knows what evil?]

Have we considered massive voter fraud, college students voting multiple times, etc..?

[crystalk]

We will just have to wait and see. I have seen no poll in the last 6 weeks that shows Carnahan ahead, they all indicate Talent ahead, usually by a spread of 12 in the 2pv, which generally would indicate some 62% chance of a R victory, but I had it at 80...

All polls I have seen by R and neutral sources say Hutchinson is ahead in Ark.

I do not think I have seen any poll at all showing Wellstone ahead since say June 1, maybe April 1.

As to Torricelli, of course, that race is just now coming into play and being admitted as very close or even leaning R. That is why I have my "all others gee-whiz" item; it seems there is always some state that had been thought secure, where just in the last few days it collapses for the D and the R gets it.

Another question is whether you see any Republican hope at all in my "little 5:"-- IA, GA, MT, LA, and IL. I just see very large imponderables not yet assessed, the campaigns are not fought yet, new faces not yet known, old fogies not yet dissed. Indictments not handed down, whatever.

BTW even using your numbers, I still get an expected R gain around 1.23 +/-, where only 0.5 or better would switch the Senate.

[bimbo]

The real losers? Connecticut retirees ... Are you saying these retirees are going to vote Republican? I hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it.

The State of Connecticut has filed suit. But for some reason (a mystery!) Poster Boy is not named in the suit ... Does this mean Bowles is not intimately involved? Or does Connecticut not really want to collect on the suit by leaving a principal out of it?

[Political Junkie Too]

I have seen no poll in the last 6 weeks that shows Carnahan ahead, they all indicate Talent ahead, usually by a spread of 12 in the 2pv, which generally would indicate some 62% chance of a R victory, but I had it at 80..

On November 6, look for all the stories about how the pollsters got all the races wrong. Read the speculation regarding how the Democrats squeaked out 1% victories across the board when the polls had them 10% behind.

I bet that they're writing these stories now, for publication at a later date.

-PJ

[bimbo]

Conservatives will get blamed, and Bush will use it as an excuse to move further to the left.

That conservative-blaming happens much too often, even here on FreeRepublic.

[bimbo]

I believe there are enough angry republicans that will turn out for GOP to give us the senate.

Angry Republicans? The angry Republicans I talk to are angry at Bush for moving to the Left! They are angry enough to stay home in November.

[mysonsfuture]

I believe that most conservatives are more angry at Little Lying Tom Dashle than Bush and will vote for a republican senate.