Democrats Will NOT Take Congress!

Parent Cafe
1

<p>This article challenges the notion that the Democrats will take control in Congress: <a href=“http://online.barrons.com/public/article/SB116138396438799484-uMRQ4ejl3lonVnJ_TXy6k9fPXls_20061121.html?mod=9_0002_b_free_features[/url]”>http://online.barrons.com/public/article/SB116138396438799484-uMRQ4ejl3lonVnJ_TXy6k9fPXls_20061121.html?mod=9_0002_b_free_features&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

2

<p>I haven’t read the article 'Noles, but it seems that at least a few reasonable pundits agree that there will be a razor thin majority no matter who is in control. And that means…</p>

<ol>
<li>Even more partisanship (if that is even possible, LOL)</li>
<li>Empowerment of moderates</li>
</ol>

3

<p>Ya gotta look at the details:

</p>

<p>Using this kind of analysis, the republican majority in congress should be much greater.</p>

4

<p>I agree with you Newsmassdad. That is why columnist Robert Novak the predictations based on that ‘money analysis’ ridiculous.</p>

5

<p>Hi LW…this is further down the article…it’s not absolute:</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

6

<p>Then there are those dang exit polls in November 2004, which had always been accurate in the past. Something so odd about what was predicted, and the outcome.</p>

7

<p>Yes, Allmusic. Have you seen the report from the Princeton computer scientists?</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WMG34cv0zM[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WMG34cv0zM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

8

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, the pollsters (those pros who love numbers, talk about sampling errors and so forth) never predicted the Kerry win. It was the press that jumped to premature conclusions, based on premature release of the data.</p>

<p>The solution turns out to be quite simple: the polling staffers who process the results in the future will be in rooms without outside phone lines and no cell phones.</p>

<p>So let’s not perpetuate the urban legend of the erroneous polls. It was the erroneous release of unqualified, improperly analyzed data.</p>

9

<p>The problem with their claim about the candidate with the most money winning 93-98% of the time is that in House races the incumbent (if there is one) wins about 95% of the time, and almost always has more money (and often no real opponent). And a majority of open seats are essentially safe for the incumbent party, at least if there hasn’t just been a redistricting. In a race that isn’t at all competitive, the winner always has a prohibitive money advantage. So practically anyone could do 90% or better predicting House races, on the basis of money, incumbency, party registrations, whatever . . . since usually they all amount to the same thing. The trick is picking the 10, 15, 20 exceptions.</p>

<p>The local counterexample is Curt Weldon (R, incumbent) vs. Joe Sestak (D). Weldon is a 10-term incumbent, and has a pretty huge war chest. The district is majority-Republican. Weldon should win going away. But he’s behind in the polls. Why? (a) The district voted for Kerry, and Bush hasn’t gotten more popular since then. (b) Sestak is a retired Admiral (great commercial – a bunch of uniformed servicepeople scolding Weldon for attacking Sestak’s military record, ending with “This is what WE do when Joe Sestak speaks!” and the camera pans back as a whole crowd of them salutes). (c) The district will probably vote for Dems for governor and senate. (d) Oh, yes, the FBI just raided Weldon’s daughter’s office and carted away boxes of documents regarding some government contracts that Weldon may or may not have tossed to her and some Bosnian friends of hers.</p>

<p>So, basically, Weldon is probably toast, with or without a general anti-Republican landslide, but no “technical” analysis is going to show that.</p>

10

<p>To win the midterm elections will mean someone will have to explain why we are there and how to win. Go Elephants. W is already testing wordings in troop removal-waffles with syrup.</p>

11

<p>If that’s really what it will take for the Republicans to keep control of the legislature, then Hello Nancy & Harry! I can only dream.</p>

<p>Realistically, the Reps have a decent chance of surviving, notwithstanding that they ain’t gonna explain why we are there, and NO ONE has any idea how to win.</p>

12

<p>Democrats Suffer Bouts of Optimism, Prozac Sales Plunge</p>

<p>by Scott Ott</p>

<p>(2006-10-23) — With polls showing Republicans could lose control of Congress after the November elections, Capitol Hill physicians have been swamped with Democrats reporting symptoms of optimism, a condition almost unknown among their people.</p>

<p>Eli Lilly, the maker of the anti-depressant drug Prozac, annouced today that sales in the Washington D.C. region have plunged in the weeks since former Rep. Mark Foley, R-FL, stepped down in the wake of scandal involving lurid emails to Congressional pages. And each time CNN announces a new body count plateau for American troops in Iraq, the company said, Prozac sales in the D.C. area dip again.</p>

<p>“Our core customer base in this area is rapidly vanishing,” said an unnamed Lilly spokesman.</p>

<p>“However, longterm prospects for Prozac look bright,” he added, “since optimism is an acute condition among Democrats, not chronic.”</p>

<p>“They’re only optimistic about winning and about power,” he said. “Even if they sweep in November, their view of America’s future will lead them right back to the pharmacist, but this time they’ll have long coat-tails, bringing much of America with them.”</p>

<p>“For the anti-depressant industry,” he added, “a Democrat-controlled Congress means happy days are here again.”</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2365[/url]”>http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2365&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

13

<p>Democrats Offer to Let GOP Keep Some Seats</p>

<p>by Scott Ott</p>

<p>(2006-10-19) — With Republican electoral prospects dimming by the hour, Congressional Democrats today offered to forego “the embarrassment of counting the votes” from the upcoming national elections, but to let the GOP keep some of its seats in the House and Senate.</p>

<p>“It’s kind of like an out-of-court settlement,” said presumptive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA. “We’ll let our friends across the aisle avoid the humiliation of a public thrashing by our strong, attractive Democrat candidates, but we’ll demonstrate mercy by conceding a few seats, so that Republicans have at least a token voice in national affairs.”</p>

<p>An unnamed spokesman for the Republican National Committee (RNC) called the Democrat offer “gracious”, and said the two parties were negotiating over when and where Interim House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-IL, will give the concession speech.</p>

<p>Republicans have staggered in recent weeks under a barrage of painful publicity ranging from plunging fuel prices, to record stock market closes, to the Bush administration’s failure to produce inflation despite growing employment, reduced tax rates and soaring tax revenues.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, Democrats ride a wave of public adoration due to the party’s clear, positive vision for protecting the civil rights of foreign terrorists, retreating from Iraq so that rival Muslim sects can work out their differences without American interference, and restoring the Clinton era “spirit of cooperation” with North Korea.</p>

<p>While some critics have suggested that both parties wait until the American people speak at the ballot box before declaring winners and losers, Rep. Pelosi called that kind of thinking “a quaint relic of ancient history, made obsolete by political pollsters and media pundits.”</p>

<p>“After all,” she said, “just because we’re the Democrat party doesn’t mean we have to be slavishly democratic. Some things are better decided by a few smart people behind closed doors.” </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2361[/url]”>http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2361&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

14

<p>“After all,” she said, “just because we’re the Democrat party doesn’t mean we have to be slavishly democratic. Some things are better decided by a few smart people behind closed doors.” </p>

<p>Got that right! But if you want to see true democracy in action…</p>

<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061023/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_corruption[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061023/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_corruption&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>But look on the bright side: every penny looted from the Iraqi treasury is another penny not being used to purchase weapons to kill Americans.</p>

15

<p>Don’t you just love those Democrats?</p>

<p>"Republicans have staggered in recent weeks under a barrage of painful publicity ranging from plunging fuel prices, to record stock market closes, to the Bush administration’s failure to produce inflation despite growing employment, reduced tax rates and soaring tax revenues.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, Democrats ride a wave of public adoration due to the party’s clear, positive vision for protecting the civil rights of foreign terrorists, retreating from Iraq so that rival Muslim sects can work out their differences without American interference, and restoring the Clinton era “spirit of cooperation” with North Korea."</p>

<p>That is one of the most amusing pieces I’ve read in a while…</p>

16

<p>“So let’s not perpetuate the urban legend of the erroneous polls. It was the erroneous release of unqualified, improperly analyzed data.”</p>

<p>Or if you subscribe to conspiracy theories it was those electronic voting machines. :)</p>

17

<p>Who knows if it is urban legend or not. The exit poll disparities have been well studied by math people far more knowledgable than I.</p>

18

<p>exit polls seem only to be valid in other countries…gee…imagine that</p>

19

<p>Are you suggesting a massive right-wing conspiracy that cheated Kerry out of the Presidency?</p>

<p>Republicans have obvious power and enormous control over the thousands and thousands of conspirators necessary to cheat even in one state, much less over multiple states. Don’t you think even one conspirator would want to sell the story to the tabloids for a million or two? Even now - years after the event?</p>

<p>Could it be that such theories are just plain nonsense? Yes.</p>

20

<p>“Are you suggesting a massive right-wing conspiracy that cheated Kerry out of the Presidency?”</p>

<p>Not massive. Not a conspiracy. Just cheating.</p>