Election 2006 - Don't stop worrying yet! (Eric Alterman)
Most polls, analysts, and pundits now agree that the Republicans are headed for trouble in the midterm elections, which a good chance of losing control of the House and even a slim chance of losing control of the Senate, if everything breaks right for the Democrats. However, as Eric Alterman regretfully points out, not quite everyone agrees with this prognosis. Essentially, the alternative scenario argues that the Republicans' money advantage will be decisive in the end, despite everything.
--Jeff Weintraub
====================
Eric Alterman (Altercation)
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
I don't really relish being right about this election, but Barron's did a race-by-race analysis, all 468 Congressional contests, taking into account cash on hand, as well as organization assets on the ground, and comes up with small Republican majorities in both houses as the most likely result. (That makes it me, Karl, Barron's, Jon Alter, and Mickey if you're keeping score.) Using the same methodology in the 2002 and 2004 congressional races, Barron's 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. ... 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." Remember, money matters, not issues, not voters, not really much of anything, save money -- and, of course, the Republicans' natural structural advantages. (Well, I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. Media Matters says the methodology used by Barron's in 2002, 2004, and 2006 hasn't been consistent, here.)
I don't really relish being right about this election, but Barron's did a race-by-race analysis, all 468 Congressional contests, taking into account cash on hand, as well as organization assets on the ground, and comes up with small Republican majorities in both houses as the most likely result. (That makes it me, Karl, Barron's, Jon Alter, and Mickey [Kaus] if you're keeping score.) [....] "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." [according to Barron's ...] Well, I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. [....]Let's hope so.
--Jeff Weintraub
====================
Eric Alterman (Altercation)
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
I don't really relish being right about this election, but Barron's did a race-by-race analysis, all 468 Congressional contests, taking into account cash on hand, as well as organization assets on the ground, and comes up with small Republican majorities in both houses as the most likely result. (That makes it me, Karl, Barron's, Jon Alter, and Mickey if you're keeping score.) Using the same methodology in the 2002 and 2004 congressional races, Barron's 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. ... 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." Remember, money matters, not issues, not voters, not really much of anything, save money -- and, of course, the Republicans' natural structural advantages. (Well, I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. Media Matters says the methodology used by Barron's in 2002, 2004, and 2006 hasn't been consistent, here.)
posted by Jeff Weintraub at 8:48 PM
<< Home