Skip to comments.Political Scientists Say Democratic Control [of House] a "Near Certainty"
Posted on 10/25/2006 11:59:44 AM PDT by Torie
In a new research paper, three political scientists attempt to use the results of generic congressional polls to predict the outcome of the midterm elections.
"Via computer simulation based on statistical analysis of historical data, we show how generic vote polls can be used to forecast the election outcome. We convert the results of generic vote polls into a projection of the actual national vote for Congress and ultimately into the partisan division of seats in the House of Representatives. Our model allows both a point forecast-our expectation of the seat division between Republicans and Democrats-and an estimate of the probability of partisan control. Based on current generic ballot polls, we forecast an expected Democratic gain of 32 seats with Democratic control (a gain of 18 seats or more) a near certainty."
Against the prospective new tsunami of great expectations comes the voice of Wall Street money, saying, "Hey, wait a minute." Writes Jim McTague in Barron's, the Dow Jones financial weekly: "Jubilant Democrats should reconsider their order for confetti and noisemakers ... 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 [seats]. At the very worst, our analysis suggests, the party's loss could be as large as 14 seats, leaving a one-vote majority ... In the Senate, with 100 seats, we see the GOP winding up with 52, down three. We ... based our predictions ... on which candidate had the largest campaign war chest, a sign of superior grassroots support. We ignore the polls."
The Barron's analysis is, as you might expect a Wall Street analysis to be, based on cold, hard cash: No sentiment, please, we're all capitalists here. Cash in the stretch not only buys the television commercials -- the meaner the better -- everyone says he hates, but reflects the confidence of the checkbook.
Barron's employed the money test in both 2000 and 2004, and, bucking conventional media wisdom (always a good thing to do), correctly predicted the Republican gains in both years. In the 34 years since 1972, an eternity in politics, the candidate with the most money has won more than 90 percent of the time -- 98 percent, in fact, in the most recent elections. The best of the pollsters can only dream of such results.
They said the same about Kerry in 2004, IIRC.
Larry "Bad Rug" Sabato again?
Where I went to school the polysci majors were the ones who couldn't make it in any other major (except education).
A near certainty? They must be uysing the "global warming predictor" on elections now.
-the only certainty is that hillary clinton is going to take NY state again. To the shame of true NYers.
The 72-hour plan means nothing I assume?
Conservatives...give up...it is hooooooopeeeeelessssssss..
Naah..I'll fight till I can't.
Generic ballot.....nuf said.
"polisci" I guess
I have been expecting a narrow Dem win in the House. But since these "experts" almost always get it wrong . . . .
Just like any poll -- unreliable.
That settles it: Republican landslide.
The propaganda is deep and persistent..
Our staff of 72 democrats and 3 independents who plan to vote democratic contributed to this report..
Confound the experts. Vote in droves. Drag every right thinking person with you to do the same.
If you read the report, the last paragraph says in essence that if things change, this forecast is wrong.
Talk about an exercise in futility.
Garbage in, garbage out...
after six years of constant barrage of democratic talking points, demagoggery, and smearing a good many good people, if the democrats CAN'T capture both houses, they ought to fold up shop.
I mena if they can't take addvantage of all this, then they should give it up, and give Soros his money back.
If by "political scientists" they mean college professors, forget it. This report has no credibility at all.
First of all, the profs are wickedly bias toward Democrats; and secondly, the profs are ill-equipped to deal with the real world - 'cause they don't live there.
Tradesports.com numbers, btw, are starting to move up in our favor.
Breathe easy, friends. All will be well.
Make sure you and your friends vote.
They always try (vainly) to preserve some shred of credibility...always at the end of the article.
More Democrat Media shenanigans.
Ther's only one problem, the polls are all weighted towards demoRATS 10-12%.
"Political Scientists Say Democratic Control [of House] a "Near Certainty""
I always thought the term "political science" was an oxymoron.
That's not "propoganda" that's deep...
And Don Carlos predicts that as early as Nov 8th, the 'Rat rallying cry will be "we demand a recount", "systematic disenfranchisement", and "widespread voter fraud"!
Not really scientists, or politicians:
The American Political Science Review (APSR) continues to be the foremost scholarly research journal of political science.
APSR presents peer-reviewed research articles by political scientists of all subfields. Areas covered include political theory, American politics, public policy, public administration, and international relations.
..yes, experts are always right...
Rex great post thanks. We all must remember the Goebbels disinformation wave by the media in 2004 that tried to percieve DEM dreams into reality.
You know, speaking as a polysci graduate, I gotta comment on your remark. No, I'm not offended, I actually applaude your brilliance.
Walter, maybe these so called scientists work for Professor Frank of " The Simpsons".
Maybe these guys can predict the winner of the Broncos/ Colts game this weekend also.
Political science is the highest science, but also the least mathematical science. Applying mathematics to election prediction should be left to actual scientists not political scientists--who do better when they stick to the ancient methods of contacting the spirit world.
Generic samples, even if sufficiently large (and culled to exclude unregistered and unlikely voters) ignore regional variation, demographic concentration, voter intensity, and a whole lot of other things that determine the outcome of individual races. Like turnout, for example. Or weather. Or ground-game efficiency (how many personal contacts do I need to make to increase turnout by "x" percent in one key district?)
This is just more FUD from the Democrat-Media Complex.
Beat me to it.
NJ Supremes just handed the election to the Republicans, who will hold the House by a nose.
Just a couple of pointy head dopes trying to influence the election. I'm sure the RATS have promised them all kinds of funding for further research on why water runs downhill.
"No, not for all your money. Why did you think I would?"
I believe now, more than ever, that Republicans will retain control of both the House and the Senate. Maybe only by a slim majority but I think we'll still have the majority.
That's not fair. I'm a poli sci major. I have a 3.75 GPA and I LOVE to argue with my lib professors.
Never trust a political "scientist" to know beans about statistics.
Let's break this statement down:
"Political Scientists" are College Professors, since no sane corporation would ever pay anyone to sit around and BS.
"Near Certainty" for an future event is a "Wish"
So, a rough translation is: "College professors wish for Democratic party control of the House of Representatives."
...hardly a surprise there...and well worth ignoring.
Thank You New Jersey!!!!!!!!! Great way to wake up the GOP base.