nm

[Infohawk]

Link

After the election, the money trail tells no lies, and holds no secrets. The graph below is of the cumulative independent expenditures for the DCCC and NRCC from October 1st through the election.

Here's how they break down:

EDIT the format doesn't show up well here.. see link for numbers

NRCC Number of IE's Expenditures % of Numbers % of total $

Against Candidate 611 $40,435,187.13 76.00% 89.50%
For Candidate 193 $4,741,391.33 24.00% 10.50%

Total 804 $45,176,578.46

DCCC Number of IE's Expenditures % of Numbers % of total $

Against Candidate 31 $4,822,996.44 9.12% 17.57%
For Candidate 309 $22,622,874.58 90.88% 82.43%

Total 340 $27,445,871.02


The Republican Party, having seen the "right way - wrong way" poll numbers in the negative, as well as low re-elects for a lot of their endangered incumbents, were forced to tear down everything in order to to hold on to power. This was a well-coordinated attack by Bush, the RNC, and the other Republican organizations to drive up the general Democratic Party negatives, as well as each Democratic candidates negatives.

That's a 10:1 ratio in terms of dollars spent in negative advertising of the NRCC over the DCCC.

Seven cycles in a row now, the Democrats in the House have gotten their teeth kicked in by the thugs in the NRCC, and what does the DCCC do? Play nice, and expect that the historical cycles and poll indicators will propel them into the majority. Democrats in the House continue to wait, while the Republicans find ways to beat the polls, make history, and gain more power.

If the Democrats in the House want to regain the majority before the next historical cycle gives them a break in 2012, they will start picking a fight. Not in the halls of Congress, but out in the street, out in the CD's.

 

[conjur]

Ever seen The Perfect Candidate? That might explain the trend toward negativity.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
...
If the Democrats in the House want to regain the majority before the next historical cycle gives them a break in 2012, they will start picking a fight. Not in the halls of Congress, but out in the street, out in the CD's.
....

your talking of picking a fight,

ON THE INTERNET!

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Infohawk
...
If the Democrats in the House want to regain the majority before the next historical cycle gives them a break in 2012, they will start picking a fight. Not in the halls of Congress, but out in the street, out in the CD's.
....

your talking of picking a fight,

ON THE INTERNET!

I should have put that in quotes. It's from a website. It's not mine.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Yep, that site is spot on, their predictions for the 04 election:

Prediction for 2004

The Democrats start with 5 predicted takeaways & Republicans 2 predicted takeaways. Of the 15 Toss-Ups, the Republicans will takeaway 2, and the Democrats will takeaway 6. This results in a predicted 7-seat net gain for the Democrats.

Current Prediction

Republicans 229 222
Democrats 206 213

Let?s just call Jeffords the Democrat that he is. It?s 51-49 Republicans over Democrats. This prediction has Democrats with 3 takeaways, and Republicans with 3 takeaways, resulting in the Democrats holding 48 seats, the Republicans 51, and Louisiana with a run-off that the Dems win-- stays at a Republican lead of 51-49.

This is going against the recent historical grain, as usually the Senate races tend to break one way or another with a trend across the board. Here, it?s a wash.

Chris's Electoral Projection
Kerry Bush
Solid-Lean 238 227
Toss-up 53 20
Total 291 247

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

There is a difference between predicting an outcome and using data of past outcomes.

 

[klah]

What is the source of those figures?

That seems to be an admittedly anti-Bush blog, so are the figures from another organization or just from one of the people that submit stories there?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Infohawk
...
If the Democrats in the House want to regain the majority before the next historical cycle gives them a break in 2012, they will start picking a fight. Not in the halls of Congress, but out in the street, out in the CD's.
....

your "cutting and pasting quotes" of picking a fight,

ON THE INTERNET!

I should have put that in quotes. It's from a website. It's not mine.

ok, fixed

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: klah
What is the source of those figures?

That seems to be an admittedly anti-Bush blog, so are the figures from another organization or just from one of the people that submit stories there?

Yeah it seems pretty biased. That doesn't bother me as much as the fact they don't explain how they got the numbers or cite sources.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: klah
What is the source of those figures?

That seems to be an admittedly anti-Bush blog, so are the figures from another organization or just from one of the people that submit stories there?

Yeah it seems pretty biased. That doesn't bother me as much as the fact they don't explain how they got the numbers or cite sources.

kinda like how, according to the Bush campaign, Kerry voted to raise taxes 346 Gazillion times, but according to the Kerry campaign, he only voted to raise taxes like 3 or 4 times. (both exagerations of course)

It all depends on your definition of "negative", it can be skewed rather easily.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Train
It all depends on your definition of "negative", it can be skewed rather easily.

After reading more about another source (also biased though) it appears that negative was defined as talking about the other candidate while positive meant talking about yourself. I think that's a fair definition of "negative."

But this article didn't use that definition I don't think. The guy from this site used a broader definition of negative which could more easily be skewed. Anyway I was going to criticize him but you have to register.