Gotta Love Drudge

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Usual Drudge disclaimer...

Link

MAGAZINE SHOCK: REPUBLICANS WILL HOLD CONGRESS
Sat Oct 21 2006 18:05:12 ET

BARRON'S COVER Survivor!
The GOP Victory

By JIM MCTAGUE

JUBILANT DEMOCRATS SHOULD RECONSIDER their order for confetti and noisemakers, BARRON's claims in their next edition. 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.

Developing...

Worst case is the GOP hods the house by one seat? Seems a little optomistic to me.

 

[Aisengard]

I would be more impressed with the headline if the magazine was Time. I've never even heard of this 'Barron'.

 

[Pens1566]

They're the only ones making that prediction.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I would be more impressed with the headline if the magazine was Time. I've never even heard of this 'Barron'.

You've never heard of Barron's? It's kind of like a weekly version of the WSJ. That's probably the best way to describe it. A weekly financial publication. Link

 

[theeedude]

Our analysis -- based on a race-by-race examination of campaign-finance data

So basically their analysis is based on whoever raised the most money wins? Typical business publication approach.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Our analysis -- based on a race-by-race examination of campaign-finance data

So basically their analysis is based on whoever raised the most money wins? Typical business publication approach.

I guess the money transfer between the GOP and Diebold went through.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: senseamp

Our analysis -- based on a race-by-race examination of campaign-finance data

So basically their analysis is based on whoever raised the most money wins? Typical business publication approach.

I guess the money transfer between the GOP and Diebold went through.

There's a pin number I'd like to hack.

 

[Balt]

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.

I think I'll have to put more faith in the polls that actually.. you know.. ask a sample of the voters who they are going to vote for.

 

[Craig234]

You've never heard of Barron's? It's kind of like a weekly version of the WSJ.

The WSJ is a combination of an excellent business newspaper and an embarrassing, right-wing, extremely irresponsible editorial board.

You know, the editorial section even has a policy of not publishing any corrections to its errors - only paper I know of.

They're your usual adolescent airmchair general smirking ideologues who are the enemy of our country.

Edited to put the correct quote prefacing my comment.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Balt

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.

I think I'll have to put more faith in the polls that actually.. you know.. ask a sample of the voters who they are going to vote for.

Except for a couple of exceptions they all have been saying they have to stick with GOP because they are only ones that can protect us from Terrists, Gays and dead baby making cells.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I would be more impressed with the headline if the magazine was Time. I've never even heard of this 'Barron'.

You've never heard of Barron's? It's kind of like a weekly version of the WSJ. That's probably the best way to describe it. A weekly financial publication. Link

Both WSJ & Barrons are pro Bush in their outlook.

 

[Lemon law]

With better than two weeks to go---look for new events to put anyone's prediction into a cocked hat.

Plenty of GWB slime yet to slither out.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Balt

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.

I think I'll have to put more faith in the polls that actually.. you know.. ask a sample of the voters who they are going to vote for.

The WSJ is a combination of an excellent business newspaper and an embarrassing, right-wing, extremely irresponsible editorial board.

You know, the editorial section even has a policy of not publishing any corrections to its errors - only paper I know of.

They're your usual adolescent airmchair general smirking ideologues who are the enemy of our country.

Wow. Thanks again for making a point that has nothing to do with the thread it's posted in.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I would be more impressed with the headline if the magazine was Time. I've never even heard of this 'Barron'.

You've never heard of Barron's? It's kind of like a weekly version of the WSJ. That's probably the best way to describe it. A weekly financial publication. Link

Both WSJ & Barrons are pro Bush in their outlook.

Yeah, I know. See my comment in the OP.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I would be more impressed with the headline if the magazine was Time. I've never even heard of this 'Barron'.

Well here is a good example of just how out of touch you are.
The magazine has been around since 1921 and is one of the largest weekly financial and stock market magazines on the market.
Next time you are in a book store walk by the magazine section, it should be right next to Forbes and Fortune in the financial section.

 

[ProfJohn]

Someone in the National Review commented on this story as follows

Barron's is predicting that Republicans hold both the House and the Senate. They use candidates' fundraising totals to predict outcomes, noting that it usually works and that in years when it hasn't, the economy has been worse than it is now. But how often does this method work in tight races? Their percentages are skewed by the vast number of races in which a not-seriously contested incumbent raises a lot of money.

The piece is a pick-me-up for Tom Reynolds, Rick Santorum, and Mike Sodrel (but not for Chris Chocola or John Hostetler). But I don't think the analysis is very solid.

See, look how fair and balanced I am

It is interesting that this magazine says the Republicans will hold both house, and Rove has been saying the same for weeks. That is why my sig says what it says. I would not be surprised if the GOP keeps both houses.
Also note that Rush seems to have launched into some kind of get out the vote effort. (I only get to listen to him for 15 or so minutes a week so I only know details of this second hand.)

As a Democrat I would be getting ready for some disappointed election night news, at best you may pick up 20 seats in the house and MAYBE get a tie in the senate. And that is despite the constant drum of negative news on the war, the totally unreported facts of our great economy and the Foley scandal (which hit right as the Republicans were in the midst of a surge.)

 

[theeedude]

I don't think picking up the House and not the Senate is going to be a disappointment.
You only need House for checks and balances and investigative subpoena power, that Dems can use to build on in 2008.
Plus they'll be able to write bills to put Republicans on the spot, like attaching minimum wage bill to homeland security bill instead of tax cut bill like GOP has done. Then let what's left of GOP in house vote against it, and beat it over their heads in 2008.
For Senate, I'd be happy if Dems win their home turf seats, Ohio, Penn, R.I., N.J.
If GOP loses the Senate, it will be a complete blowout. I mean they'd have to lose Montana, Tennessee, and Missouri, deep Red territory.

 

[Lemon law]

Even if senseamp is over-optimistic and Barrons is right---with a resultant smaller GOP majority in the House and Senate---my fear is that a releived GWB will confuse the election
with having a national mandate---just as he mumbled about having political capital to spend after the 04 elections--and discovered---the first time he tried to use it---that no one
trusted him to mess with social security. with Iran still on the table---I am worried.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Even if senseamp is over-optimistic and Barrons is right---with a resultant smaller GOP majority in the House and Senate---my fear is that a releived GWB will confuse the election
with having a national mandate---just as he mumbled about having political capital to spend after the 04 elections--and discovered---the first time he tried to use it---that no one
trusted him to mess with social security. with Iran still on the table---I am worried.

Then again he might be right. Given the "dire" circumstance the Dems have been stating for the last six+ years... How could they NOT win the congress? How could they possibly lose here? As a staunch conservative it blows my mind that this is even still an issue. Given the current circumstances, the Dems should ROLL on this election.

If the Dems lose this will be the equivilant of the Cards blowing it against the Bears last Monday.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Even if senseamp is over-optimistic and Barrons is right---with a resultant smaller GOP majority in the House and Senate---my fear is that a releived GWB will confuse the election
with having a national mandate---just as he mumbled about having political capital to spend after the 04 elections--and discovered---the first time he tried to use it---that no one
trusted him to mess with social security. with Iran still on the table---I am worried.

Then again he might be right. Given the "dire" circumstance the Dems have been stating for the last six+ years... How could they NOT win the congress? How could they possibly lose here? As a staunch conservative it blows my mind that this is even still an issue. Given the current circumstances, the Dems should ROLL on this election.

If the Dems lose this will be the equivilant of the Cards blowing it against the Bears last Monday.

Well the trend lines are pointing in the Democrats favor. They have everything going for them at this point. It's tough to see any October surprise having a significant effect.

 

[nageov3t]

I have the utmost faith in the democratic party in their ability to totally and completely **** up a sure thing.

 

[BrownTown]

which way are they saying TN is gonna go? Its been awhile since i've seen the polls.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Balt

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.

I think I'll have to put more faith in the polls that actually.. you know.. ask a sample of the voters who they are going to vote for.

In that case I'll put more faith in the actual elections than some sample of the voters.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Craig234

You've never heard of Barron's? It's kind of like a weekly version of the WSJ.

The WSJ is a combination of an excellent business newspaper and an embarrassing, right-wing, extremely irresponsible editorial board.

You know, the editorial section even has a policy of not publishing any corrections to its errors - only paper I know of.

They're your usual adolescent airmchair general smirking ideologues who are the enemy of our country.

Edited to put the correct quote prefacing my comment.

Q F T

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I would be more impressed with the headline if the magazine was Time. I've never even heard of this 'Barron'.

Barron's is a glossy weekly for fat-cats and fat-cat wannabes. It's been ages since I looked at a Barron's but I never recalled seeing any political analysis in there.

Given the overwhelming advantage that incumbents have in American national politics (between gigantic warchests and gerrymandered districts, those of us seeking change in our national direction should not become complacent. At a minimum, talk it up among your friends, families, neighbors and work mates. Make sure Mom and Dad and Grandma are going to vote, and that they have a ride to the polls. Organize child sitting parties so parents have the opportunity to go the polls. Make election day a celebration, not a "why vote, it will be more of the same old, same old" day.

The price of complacency will be GWB crowing about his clear mandate again, and further eroding the this great country. I'm not sure how much more damage this country can bear before we irreversibly slip into an abyss that we will not recover from.