November 06, 2006
A Completely Unscientific Election Prediction
All across yonder 'sphere and throughout the mainstream media, pollsters, pundits, and prognosticators as making "informed" predictions of tomorrow's elections back with the best research they can muster.
Bah. Who needs them?
With so many polls seemingly at odds with one another, they seem almost worthless at making predictions. I think it is perhaps better to admit that the polls are only really decent at noting trends, and at this point, all of the major polls and many of the minor ones are trending away from a large number of pickups for Democrats in the House and Senate to a much closer barnburner finish.
Consider the historical fact that such polls tend to oversample Democrats and undersample Republicans, and I think we stand a pretty decent possibility of seeing Republicans being able to declare victory in both the House and Senate, if by narrower margins than what they currently hold.
Why?
You can't beat something with nothing.
While few American's think that the Republican dominated government is doing a great job, tehy are at least doing something. The Democrats have completely failed to come up with anything approaching a cohesive strategy or message.
Americans dislike losing, and hate surrendering.
We are not a nation of quitters. While few people agree with the current direction of the war in Iraq, we do not like to quit, and we do not like to abandon our soldiers nor our allies. Our allies in the Iraqi government don't want us to go until their country is stabilized. The overwhelming response form our soldiers is that they don't want to go until Iraq is stabilized. Leading terrorists are openly rooting for a Democratic victory, and the Democrats have built an unsteady "cut and run" coalition that their leadership has unwisely decided to run on. As Americans, we hate losing and hate quitting even more. The liberal Democratic views of Iraq are simply unpalatable to many who consider them defeatists.
Tax and Spend fears.
Democrats, this time led by Charles Rangel, have scared the American people with their promise to not extend the current Bush tax cuts and the probability that they will try to raise taxes. I don't personally know anyone who wants to pay more taxes. Do you?
Impeachment Screeching.
The can say otherwise all they want, but Thomas already has them on the record, damned with their own words. If Democrats take control of the House, we'll get two years of investigations targeting the President and Vice President for censure and impeachment. If, like Nixon or Clinton, a President clearly did something wrong in office, the American people can tolerate the mess of an impeachment, even if they don't actually like it. The Democrats, have ever, have done just enough prior to the elections so that many voters know it is on their mind, even as Democrats have failed to make a strong enough case that such investigations are anything other than sewer-level political maneuvers.
Turnover ratio.
Just like in sports, politicians can look at near-term gaffes to influence the final outcome, and most of the mistakes of the past few weeks have undoubtedly come from Democrats, from Rangel calling Vice President Cheney a "son of a bitch," to John Kerry's continuing swipe at the intelligence of the troops that never seems to end. These mistakes have overshadowed any Republican mistakes, and have stifled the Democratic momentum they seemed to have in past weeks, and may have even reversed it.
Weather Woes.
It seems that nobody ever talks about this variable (and so perhaps I'm off base), but weather would seem to have at least some effect on voter turnout, and with many races being very close, weather-suppressed turnouts could hurt some candidates and help others. According to weather.com, the Pacific Northwest is going to be wet and windy, while the South will be rained on all day, with rain hitting the Great Lakes states and parts of the Northeast in the afternoon. The west and Great Plains states appear dry and sunny all day long. My guess is that voters reliant on public transportation may stay home in foul weather, and it seems most of those public transportation voters are likely Democrats. If weather effects are enough to determine outcomes is anyone's guess, but it could be a factor.
Final Prediction.
I'll go out on a limb and predict that the Republicans hold the House by six seats and the Senate by three.
Update: Scott Elliott's much more scientific and time-tested Election Projection will be updating his final projections during the course of the evening.
You've done a fabulous job outlining why things will be the way they'll be. I totally agree with your predictions. In fact, I've been predicting the same outcomes for quite some time on my blog, and for much the same reasons, If not so eloquently expressed.
Skoal.
Posted by: askmom at November 6, 2006 06:00 PMWeather... that's brilliant! In fact, I think I'll enjoy a guiness in honor of your brilliance.
Posted by: david at November 6, 2006 06:32 PM"You can't beat something with nothing."
A classic: 'How come you Dems don't have any good ideas or Iraq, huh? Huh?' You guys make a mess then crow that we don't know how to clean it up. Lovely. Meanwhile W's plan is, don't admit a mistake, let my successor sort it out.
"Tax and Spend fears."
Because spend on credit is so much sweeter. Bush has racked up as much debt as all preceding presidents. It looks like I'm the conservative now.
"Impeachment Screeching."
Clinton perjured himself about his sex life. Bush lied us into war based on WMD, and now he and you lie and pretend it was an excersize in nation building all along, even though nation building is liberal baloney. Nice twist, that.
"Weather Woes"
That's pitiful.
"Final Prediction"
Please put your money where your mouth is, tradesports.com. You stand to win big.
Posted by: Earl at November 6, 2006 07:36 PMI'd just love to see your predictions come to fruition tomorrow. I will be doing my part here in Minnesota.
I would really just like to rub Earl's face in it. He is as obnoxious as some of those other loons and KOS Kiddie trolls who used to stop bye - before they were beaten into submission with the purity of logic and reasoned debate.
Are you familiar with the club known as Liberals Against Reasoned Debate And Sensible Solutions? It's also known as L.A.R.D.A.S.S. Have not come up with a definition for F.A.T.H.E.A.D. yet .....
Have a wonderful election day tomorrow, CY.
Posted by: Retired Spy at November 6, 2006 08:34 PMWell golly gee, Earl, tradesports will take your money, too.
Got Money? (TM)
Posted by: Lee at November 6, 2006 08:37 PM*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
Have A God Blessed Week!!!!
Blessings
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.
Earl,
I call BS. Prove what you said about more debt than all preceeding presidents. Let's have some facts. Show us. Ya can't just come in and spout BS anymore. It's too easy to back up your position if it has merit. So let's see it.
Posted by: Specter at November 6, 2006 08:56 PMBush has racked up more debt even accounting for inflation, than any president, ever!, we are so much worse off than we were 6 years ago.
Posted by: Jswan at November 6, 2006 11:40 PMSpecter: see "3. The National Debt (Nominal Dollars)" here http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html. Start suckin' friend, and take it slow and enjoy yourself.
Lee: I guess you're right, tradesports will probably take my money too. Thanks for opening my eyes.
Retired Spy: "purity of logic and reasoned debate" What's cool you is that as you puff your chest out and say something you think is smart but really you sound like a moron. Just sayin.
The jig's up boys, time to pay the piper.
Posted by: Earl at November 7, 2006 12:50 AMMy guess is that voters reliant on public transportation may stay home in foul weather, and it seems most of those public transportation voters are likely Democrats.
That's because Mother Nature is racist. RACIST I SAY. I can practically hear the tribal drums resonating in the background.
Earl have you forgotten that President Clinton's main method of debt reduction was to cut military spending. That the Clinton Administration cut spending to the lowest level since the Korean War, while prices for everything increased? I guess if we follow the Dem's suggestion and abandon the Middle East we could cut the deficit even more, you know by more than the 1/2 President Bush and Co. cut it by this year, while at war.
One question though. If we cut and run in the Middle East and cut the military spending aren't the troops, should they be called into action when another warmongering Rethuglican is elected in say another 100 years, going to be scrambling for sufficient body armor and protection like they were during the first stages of the war? You know, after Clinton had raped the military budget.
But I guess this isn't a concern since most liberals feel we can gather those who would do us harm and sing campfires songs to resolve our differences. Or maybe you'd prefer to take President Clinton's approach and bury your head under a pillow and hope our enemies don't throw too much sand in the Vaseline when they stick it to us next time.
Posted by: phin at November 7, 2006 08:27 AMI don't personally know anyone who wants to pay more taxes.
That's not the question, though. The people that don't pay any taxes but receive gov't largesse on the backs of those that do also have a vote, and they are getting closer and closer to being a majority. And those folks know exactly where the butter on their bread (and more than likely, the bread itself) comes from: higher taxes on the lazy, evil rich.
Posted by: Daveg at November 7, 2006 10:06 AMBush lied us into war based on WMD...
I'm no proctologist, but I'm wondering just how far you have to bury your head up your rear to still believe that. The NYTimes doesn't even agree with that anymore, or at least so they intimated last week.
Posted by: Daveg at November 7, 2006 10:08 AMDaveg:
"Bush lied us into war based on WMD...
I'm no proctologist, but I'm wondering just how far you have to bury your head up your rear to still believe that. The NYTimes doesn't even agree with that anymore, or at least so they intimated last week."
I guess your memory isn't real good. Rumsfeld said flat out they are near Tikrit, Bush said that Iraq pursued uranium from Niger, Condi warned about the mushroom cloud. They blamed this on George Tenet, but then they gave him the Presidenatial Medal of Freedom, which is kind of odd for a huge screw up. Now they pretend that it was an excersize in nation building all along. You might be going on the fact that they found 500 old nerve gas shells, but David Kay said these are so old they are less dangerous than items under a kitchen sink.
I guess you were on a different planet than the rest of us during 2002-2003.
Posted by: Earl at November 7, 2006 07:46 PMEarl,
"... Bush has racked up as much debt as all preceding presidents."
"...see "3. The National Debt (Nominal Dollars)here http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and _media/TheNationalDebt.html."
While I agree that the national debt is a serious problem, I believe that your interpretation of data and attribution of responsibility to Bush is flawed.
First, I believe it is more meaningful to use real dollars (adjusted for inflation) that is available in section 4 of your reference. Second, your reference data should be updated to current figures, noting the recent decrease in deficit as the economy has grown stronger (arguably due to the effects of administration policies and tax cuts).
Bush inherited a national debt of nearly 7 trillion dollars; since it is now at approximately 8.5 trillion dollars, it has clearly gone up significantly, but not more than accumulated during all previous administrations.
Also, 9/11 and its consequences cannot be ignored. War has virtually always driven the national debt up, quickly and significantly. Essentially, there are two combat theaters that have been opened up (Afghanistan & Iraq), both with overwhelming support from Congress (whether you agree with it or not). Congress ultimately controls the purse-strings on spending.
If you truly still believe that Bush lied in reference to WMD in Iraq, you may have highly selective memory and a closed mind on the subject, unable to objectively process all the contrary evidence available, much less appreciate the lack of logic in your belief. Do you also believe Democratic party leadership, nearly all world leaders, and an overwhelming majority of others in both public and private positions having access to the best information available at the time deliberately lied in expressing the belief that WMDs did exist and/or were a serious problem? Although our government may have been wrong, it does not necessarily follow that they lied.
