GOP Doing well in another kind of predicting poll:

[RMNIXON]

Survivor! - Barron's Online

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.

__________________________________________________ _______________


Lets just continue with our Drape measurments and ignor this possible indicator shall we.

[Thorgrim]

As respected Republican Robert Novak said, that method was a ridiculous way to measure election results

[RMNIXON]

Yeah, those high percentage rates of accuracy are just wacky.

Here is a better method:


Pollster: Don't you just hate Republicans?

Answer: I guess I do?

Pollster: Will you actually Vote?

Answer: Hell no, I got better things to do!


Count that as a Republican negative....

[Thorgrim]

Yeah Robert Novak knows nothing about politics...

Anyway, to other readers, note that "its been close to 98 in recent years" well gee whats been happening the past 5 years...oh i know, the GOP has been improving its majority! What does the GOP have...A LOT MORE MONEY

So the GOP became more popular, got more seats in every elections the past few years, has a cash advantage as well...I know, the conclusion is MONEY IS THE ONLY SERIOUS ISSUE

It's the biggest joke I've ever heard

Rick Santorum is a prime example, he's scandal free, no new controversies in months, etc

The only thing "wrong" with him is that he has really right wing views in a light blue state, otherwise, he's delivered for PA, is a good speaker, etc

Santorum had an ENORMOUS cash advantage over his opponent, infact, Casey couldn't run ads until around Labor Day, but Santorum spent MILLIONS over the summer all across PA hammering away with ad buys that everyone in PA saw 100x, and since Labor day he's put on even more ads, and is outspending Casey by huge margins

Casey is a terrible campaigner, he can't speak well in public, and his ads suck

Based on incumbency, and cash advantage, it should be a shoe in

Look at the numbers:
Santorum has spent over 25 million dollars to boost his numbers and reduce his opponents numbers

Casey has spent about 10 million, less than half, and in a much shorter time

By every law in politics, Santorum should be clubbing Casey, but what happened?

In February of 2005, OVER 20 MONTHS AGO Santorum was polling 40%, since then, he has never broken 43% not ONCE in ANY POLL OUT OF OVER 60 POLLS

He couldn't break 43% once in 60 polls, he's been stuck at 40-43 for 20 months, Casey is at 55% right now and is going to fucking dropkick Santorum

Why? BECAUSE MONEY AND INCUMBENCY AREN'T THE ISSUES, there is an anti-GOP wave and it doesn't check your campaign account before it hits you

[JaJae]

I dunno about this. Lamont keeps dumping more and more money into his campaign and he keeps losing more and more each day. I guess you can't look at case studies though and have to look at the big picture. I just don't know if those accuracy rates are really all that truthful.

[Thorgrim]

What's funny about this though, is that "93% more money re-election" blah blah

well, only 10% of the house faces serious challengers, and the other 90% ofcourse they have more money

So, that 93% number could hold and the Dems could pickup 30 seats, and more like 40 considering Dem challengers have outraised several GOP incumbents

Another big hole in that stupid prediction article

[Thorgrim]

BTW RM, Novak rips that apart here:

http://www.humanevents.com/enpr/current_enpr.html#2