Article

2006-11-06 Home Front: Politix

Why the GOP will strengthen its grip on Congress

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-11-06 08:31|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 What sort of mutant article is this? It is talking about comparisons about what happens if Bush is reelected, vs if Kerry is elected. This article is pre-2004 national general election.

What is it doing with a November 2006 dateline, citing October developments.

Posted by Lone Ranger 2006-11-06 09:01|| 2006-11-06 09:01|| Front Page Top

#2 Arh, my bad! I followed a link from a recent entry in a french blog, and didn't notice the year, only the month (either he made a mistake himself, or this is supposed to be some kind of background material).

Damn, and I forwarded it to a couple of US correspondents too.
Ok, I screwed up, you can laugh at me.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-11-06 09:13|| 2006-11-06 09:13|| Front Page Top

#3 Ok, I've been to the blog, and this is indeed a background material, the 2006 october article is this one :

Survivor!
The GOP Victory
By JIM MCTAGUE

JUBILANT DEMOCRATS SHOULD RECONSIDER their order for confetti and noisemakers. 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

We studied every single race -- all 435 House seats and 33 in the Senate -- and based our predictions about the outcome in almost every race on which candidate had the largest campaign war chest, a sign of superior grass-roots support. We ignore the polls. Thus, our conclusions about individual races often differ from the conventional wisdom. Pollsters, for instance, have upstate New York Republican Rep. Tom Reynolds trailing Democratic challenger Jack Davis, who owns a manufacturing plant. But Reynolds raised $3.3 million in campaign contributions versus $1.6 million for Davis, so we score him the winner.

Likewise, we disagree with pollsters of both parties who see Indiana Republican Rep. Chris Chocola getting whomped by Democratic challenger Joe Donnelly, a lawyer and business owner from South Bend. Chocola has raised $2.7 million, versus $1.1 million for Donnelly. Ditto in North Carolina, where we see Republican Rep. Charles Taylor beating Democrat Heath Shuler, a former NFL quarterback, because of better financing. Analysts from both parties predict a Shuler upset.

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. Polls can be far less reliable. Remember, they all but declared John Kerry president on Election Day 2004.

Our method isn't quite as accurate in Senate races: The cash advantage has spelled victory about 89% of the time since 1996. The reason appears to be that with more money spent on Senate races, you need a multi-million-dollar advantage to really dominate in advertising, and that's hard to come by.

But even 89% accuracy is high compared with other gauges. Tracking each candidate's funding is "exceptionally valuable because it tells you who has support," says William Morgan, executive director of the renowned Mid-West Political Science Association in Bloomington, Ind. The cognoscenti, he says, give the most money to the candidate they believe has a good chance of winning.

WE FOUND NO SHORTAGE of people to challenge us. They argue that money doesn't make a difference when the electorate is as worked up emotionally, as it is this year. John Aldrich, a professor of political science at Duke University who writes extensively about elections, says that a candidate really doesn't need the most money to win; he merely requires enough cash to get his message across. Aldrich believes Democrats will win this year with less money because they won't have to spend so much to persuade voters to switch horses.

"The support for the president, the Congress and incumbents is relatively low by historical standards," he says. In fact, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll says voter disgust with Congress is the lowest in the survey's 17-year history.

It's true that our formula isn't foolproof. In 1958, 1974 and 1994, the wave of anti-incumbent sentiment was so strong that money didn't trump voter outrage. We appreciate that voters in 2006 are hopping mad at the GOP because of the war and because of scandal. We just don't agree that the outrage has reached the level of those earlier times. The reason is that the economy in 2006 is healthier. And the economy is the only other factor that figures in our analysis.

In 1958, in sharp contrast to now, the country was in a deep recession. Though the Democrats controlled the House, voters blamed their pain on Republican President Dwight David Eisenhower, and it cost the GOP 48 seats. In 1974, a Watergate year, inflation and an Arab oil embargo pinched household budgets and helped fuel voter anger at Republicans. In 1994, though the economy was improving, unemployment was above 6% and personal income began to fall in the quarter prior to the election, souring the mood of the electorate. People blamed their pain on high taxes, which they associated with Democrats, and ushered in Newt Gingrich & Co.

Though the current economy is slowing, unemployment remains relatively low, at 4.6%, and disposable-income growth is positive. While GDP figures will be revised downward in coming weeks and unemployment figures could edge up, it may not matter. Those numbers are "interesting stuff for economists, but voters will continue to focus on pocketbook issues like the price of gas and the value of their 401(k)s," says GOP insider Rick Hohlt. Pump prices have been falling and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has been on a tear, reaching 12,000 last week.

Hohlt and analyst John Morgan say Republicans will have unusually tough election-day challenges from Democrats in more than 50 races -- a high number. They recall no more than 20 highly competitive races in 2004. All but 10 of this year's contested seats are held by incumbents, and Hohlt and Morgan aren't predicting an outcome.

No gain, but no landslide either.
So, basically, I followed and posted the wrong link, I'm a retard.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-11-06 09:18|| 2006-11-06 09:18|| Front Page Top

#4 This proves this guy has a point, I guess...

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-11-06 09:24|| 2006-11-06 09:24|| Front Page Top

#5 I'm a retard.

You're gonna end up stuck in Iraq.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2006-11-06 11:08|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2006-11-06 11:08|| Front Page Top

#6 I'm a retard.

I prefer "intellectually challenged".

Posted by Dreadnought 2006-11-06 11:56|| 2006-11-06 11:56|| Front Page Top

#7 You're not a retard. I thought the most telling line is that races in 2002 and 2004 predicted GOP loses. You see, the polls are for strippers.

Posted by wxjames 2006-11-06 12:22|| 2006-11-06 12:22|| Front Page Top

#8 "I'm a retard".

No, I'm a retard.

"I'm a retard".

No, I'm a retard.

"I'm a retard".

No, I'm a retard.

"I'm a retard".

No, I'm a retard.
~~~

anonymous5089
*WE ARE ALL LAUGHING AT YOU*

Posted by all my dissociative identities">all my dissociative identities 2006-11-06 13:43|| 2006-11-06 13:43|| Front Page Top

#9 A5089,
No problem. Cheer up. Go have a glass or two of Merlot and some cheese; you're still one of RB's two favorite Frenchmen. Since RB's two favorite Frenchwomen are Melissa Theriau and Sabine Herold, you're in good company!

Posted by mac 2006-11-06 16:21|| 2006-11-06 16:21|| Front Page Top

#10 Don't forget Leroidavid, our newest Frenchman, who popped his head in yesterday for the first time in a while. See, a5089? The number of your compatriots has increased by 100%! (Or 50% if you prefer to count the total number from your country)

Posted by trailing wife 2006-11-06 19:35|| 2006-11-06 19:35|| Front Page Top

23:55 twobyfour
23:39 Zenster
23:30 elbud
23:27 Flomoter Ulolush5791
23:07 bunyip
23:05 Atomic Conspiracy
23:04 Barbara Skolaut
22:59 Barbara Skolaut
22:56 Barbara Skolaut
22:47 Seafarious
22:47 Atomic Conspiracy
22:41 Zenster
22:38 Zenster
22:34 Zenster
22:28 Zenster
22:28 Richard Aubrey
22:28 Remoteman
22:25 Zenster
22:21 anon
22:21 Alaska Paul
22:15 Zenster
22:06 Alaska Paul
22:03 Silentbrick
22:00 trailing wife