Posted on 10/21/2006 7:08:14 AM PDT by veronica
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.barrons.com ...
Opps, looks like the Democrats woke up 2 weeks too early.
Interesting take on elections. Money means everything and ideas and personalities are irrelevant. I will be interested to se how close these guys are come Nov 8.
IMHO, they are no better than the Dims who want to cuddle with the terrorist. If you haven't noticed, things are kinda critical (scary) right now.
Like I said...IMHO only.
Oh..and if you don't vote you lose your right to complain!
As Rush noted yesterday, he really only had 2 callers of the cut-and-run sort, and they were very unconvincing IMO.
AMEN!!!
I don't think that is what they are implying. The money raised correlates to the passion of the base, and that's hard to poll. But that passion translates to votes on election day, which is the only poll that really matters, as they say.
And so the logic is vote the other side in and they will do even less?? That's just NUTS.
And if nothing else, think of what the current Supreme Court would be like if Kerry had won...
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
We used FEC data on fund-raising as of reports filed on 31 July. In many states, the primaries had not been conducted, and the general elections were a light-year away. Still, our predictions were 99.5% accurate. We were wrong, as I recall, in only three races.
Since I know my own District, I challenge this article's prediction that Charles Taylor (R) will hang on in the NC 11th District against Heath Shuler (D). But in general, this analysis is accurate on the facts about fund-raising now, and its historical analysis of what that means for electoral success.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "An Open Letter to President Bollinger"
Please see my most recent statement on running for Congress, here.
Guess your take is correct. I went there and read the entire article. It's a good way of looking at elections given the past predictive ability of their model. I also see they predict my congressman, Charles Taylor, will win based on his fundraising despite the last poll I saw that had him 11 points down.
Thursday was the first day for early voting here in NC. I was at the polls at 9:30 AM to vote and I wasn't even close to being one of the first people there.
I think someone needs to bookmark all the articles like this. Come November 8, after the only poll that matters, there will be a lot of people either eating crow or patting themselves on the back.
Never fear...I'd rather have a bunch of RINO's in office who can't fog a mirror than any Dimocrat. I'll vote as always, but I'm really starting to think that Boortz has the right idea:
If you pay between $1-$10,000 in Federal income taxes, you get one vote, $10,001-$20,000, two votes...up to $50,000 and 5 votes. After that, you don't get anymore votes. That way, those who are productive contributors to society get to influence what that society does and the non-controbutors have to shut up and simply accept what the largess of the others deem worthwhile.
Like I've often told my students: I'd be a horrible President, but a great Dictator!
Perhaps I'm restating the obvious, but, just get out there and vote!!!
I would be content if only those who paid taxes were allowed to vote!
My sister was a liberal until she got a job...
The overwhelming majority of cut-and-run Republicans voted for Kerry enthusiastically in 2004, joined the Republican ranks for a few hours or minutes, then decided against voting their new partisan line but vocally attempt to persuade more long-standing Republicans to join them.
Come Election Day, I seriously doubt if the ranks of "cut-and-run" Republicans who actually voted (mostly) along the partisan line in 2002 and 2004 but decline to vote Republican in 2006 number more than 100,000 nationwide (about 200 per Congressional district). I exclude from this figure the deceased, incarcerated, and disenfranchised, including those military voters who reside in states that effectively exclude them from electoral participation. More Kerry voters will elect Republicans to Congress--but the media cannot find them because the can afford to poll only their own newsrooms.
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.