The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

"A pizza in every kitchen!!!"

(Just helping him out with a slogan)

I like it!

@H2O MAN,

Re the Senate in 2012: the make up is 47 Repubs vs 53 Dems/Indys. As noted earlier there are 33 races with 23 being Dems/Indys and 10 Repubs.
I found a pretty good site but I forgot where it was. Another one, Rothenberg Political Report, has projections as of Feb 1st. I don't know much about him and any bias he may have.

Currently Safe Democrats/Independents: 12
Democrat Favored: 3
Lean Democrat: 3
Toss Up/Tilt Democrat : 2
Pure Toss Up: 2
Republican Favored: 1
= 23
Currently Safe Republican: 7
Republican Favored: 2
Lean Republican: 1
Toss Up/Tilt Republican: 1 (a pickup)
= 10 + 1 pickup

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

That makes my forecast of 5-8 republican gains look pretty good. As I indicated I was projecting the continuation of recent trends which implies a gradually worsening situation for Democrats. Based only on the analysis above 4-7 micht be better, the diffewrence representing my expectation that the public is continuing to move against Democrat programs.

I doubt that Cyclo will accept this. I expect instead he will want to quibble about individual forecasts, calling it scientific analysis. I'm not very interested in that because I think at this point it is a futile exercise which adds more sound and fury but no more accuracy..

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Are you serious? That projection shows a one seat pickup for the Republicans! And you think that it provides any sort of evidence to support your prediction of 5-8 seats? And your evidence is a nebulous 'gradually worsening situation' for the Dems, one that polling doesn't seem to support at all? What can one say to this? You're projecting a fantasy as something that's reality based, and you know it. Don't even deny it.

You knew before you even wrote that that you were wrong and that it doesn't support your case. Just can't back down now, can ya?

Your propositions are evidence-free and you have no intention of providing any evidence. I'm downgrading your political discussion rating as of this moment, to a lower category - from 'interesting' to 'uninformed.'

Look, I don't want to go on and on. But I can't take this sort of stuff seriously. There are a lot of folks who say crazy things and then can't provide any evidence to back it up. Who get huffy when anyone even asks them to do so. If that's the route you want to go down, fine.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

From swingstateproject:

Quote:

The same trend toward greater consistency in voting for president and U.S. representative in 2004 (Figure 6-3) appeared in Senate elections as well, resulting in a four-seat addition to the Republicans' Senate majority. . . The Democrat's main problem was again structural. They had to compete with the more-efficient distribution of Republican voters. Although Gore had won the national vote in 2000, Bush carried thirty of the fifty states, including twenty-two of the thirty-four states with Senate contests in 2004. Democrats had to defend ten seats in states Bush had won, including five left open by retirements, all in the South, where support for Democrats has been eroding for several decades. Meanwhile, Republicans were defending only three seats in states won by Gore. . . Seven of the eight Senate seats that changed party hands in 2004 went to the party that won the state in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections; Salazar's victory was the lone exception. . . More generally, twenty-seven of the thirty-four Senate contests were won by the party whose presidential candidate won the state's electoral votes, tying 1964 for the highest level of congruence in president-Senate election results in the past half century. When the 2004 winners were added to the continuing Senate membership, fully 75 percent of Senators represented states where their party's candidate won the most recent presidential election, the highest proportion in at least fifty years.

So what does this mean for the parties going into 2012. More below the fold.
JonathanMN :: The Link Between Senate and Presidential Voting
In 2012, Democrats have 23 Senate seats up for election. These are listed below and the states in bold were won by McCain in 2008.

Democratic-Held Senate Seats
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

In contrast, Republicans only have 10 seats up in 2012. These are listed below and the states in bold were won by Obama in 2008.

Republican-Held Senate Seats
Arizona
Indiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Nevada
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Wyoming

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

You are merely applying your Democrat Bias to RJB's data to replace my Republican bias. It appears to me that you apply exactly the same (actually a little worse) bias to the available data of which you accuse me. The only difference is you claim of scientific objectivity for your opinions and I label mine as opinion.

RJB's data quoted below;

Quote:

Currently Safe Democrats/Independents: 12
Democrat Favored: 3
Lean Democrat: 3
Toss Up/Tilt Democrat : 2
Pure Toss Up: 2
Republican Favored: 1
= 23
Currently Safe Republican: 7
Republican Favored: 2
Lean Republican: 1
Toss Up/Tilt Republican: 1 (a pickup)
= 10 + 1 pickup

Indicates that 52% (12) of 23 Democrat Senate seats up for reelection are "safe" while 70% (7) of 10 Republican seats similarly in play are "safe" Republican. In addition there is one "Tilt Republican" Independent or interim filled seat in play. That's a total of 34 senate seats up for reelection with 19 considered safe for incumbents and 15 credited with some degree of uncertainty, ranging from 3 Democrat & 2 Republican seats "favored" for the incumbent, to 7 Democrat and 1 Republican seats indicated as leaning or tilting for the incumbent or a tossup (presumably in some rough approximation of a probability spectrum). In addition to these is the independent seat indicated as tilt Republican.

Lets assume all the safe seats are won by incumbents of both parties and that the Republicans get the one independent pickup indicated above. That leaves the issue depending on the outcome of the 15 uncertain seats. Of these only 3 are Republican. Let's assume each party picks up 1/3rd of the opponent's seats in this category. That means Democrats win 1 current Republican seat and Republicans win 3-4 current Democrat seats. With the independent pickup that indicates the Republicans pick up at least 3 seats.

The probability estimates behind "favored", "lean", and "tilt" are not specified, so even these conclusions are approximate, based on the data.

My adjusted estimate of 4-7, based on the current situation looks rather consistent with this data.

The essential features of the data are the greater number of Democrat Seats subject to reelection (23 vs. 10) than Republican and the much smaller fraction of the Democrat seats in play that are considered safe for their current incumbents (52% vs 70%). It doesn't take a lot of thinking to figure this out. However, independent thinking is an essential component of the "scholarship" you claim to bring to the problem.

Perhaps you spend too much time on political blogs or reading partisan propaganda and too little thinking for yourself.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I think this ignores the fact that the most likely thing to happen in any seat which even slightly 'leans' towards one side or the other is for the incumbent to hold on to the seat. Historically, this is exactly what has happened.

Not only that, but the idea that the scenario you are providing isn't influenced by the strength of the candidate on the top of the ticket is a real stretch. Millions of extra people come out to vote in presidential years and the correlation between a strong presidential candidate and success in Senatorial election is a well-understood one. Just look at 2008 - the Dems won something like 9 seats in the Senate, in large part because of the strength of their ticket at the top.

There are other factors to consider as well, such as the fact that the RNC is heavily in debt and that the Dems are fund-raising rather well at the moment. The 'tea-party' phenomenon didn't lead to success in the Senate in nearly the same fashion as it did in the House this last cycle; people expect their senators to be rather more reserved and less, well, crazy. So it's difficult for me to see the force which is pushing Republicans these days - a right-wing push from their base to assert more strength - resulting in a large number of Senatorial victories.

And the economy could get better or worse and trump everything we're talking about here.

I'd rather see you provide more analysis like this with less prodding. We can have a productive discussion when people explain what their rationale for something is, or why they think something will happen. It's interesting. Vague assurances that something will happen are boring and lead to no discussion.

I rescind my hasty and unkind words regarding the interesting-ness of your discourse in my last post.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Back on topic.

Pawlenty - a guy that many consider to be a top runner - is getting himself in trouble with his repeated and vociferous promises to reinstate DADT in the armed forces. I understand that the dude feels that it's necessary to play to his base, but huge majorities of the country supported ending that policy as well as large majorities of our military leaders.

I just don't see how such a stance will be defendable on the large stage. It's funny to say, but these guys have to watch what they say for months or even years at a time...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I note that none of the new information that you are now belatedly offering has anything to do with polls, which, according to you are the gold standard for intelligent predictions. You have previously rejected out of hand my clearly stated opinions regarding trends in public policy and the still unfolding financial crises that have fuelled the Republican resurgance so far (and, in my view promise to continue fuelling it), and emphasized that ONLY polling data is reliable proof. Now that a thoughtful analysis of polling data has been shown to refute your argument, you (1) reject it out of hand with a bit of hand waving, and (2) introduce new inferential information even less relevant than mine and far more subject to rapid change.

This isn't merely sloppy. It is a rather transparent but pompous attempt at bullying your way to a point, and doing so with a remarkable display of hypocrisy.

Even if the Republicans win ONLY the seats (currently Democrat & Republican) labelled as in play but leaning or tilting Republican they will pick up 4 seats !

I thought that corporate America and Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce were flooding the Republicans with money. How is that you now doubt their future giving?

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I note that none of the new information that you are now belatedly offering has anything to do with polls, which, according to you are the gold standard for intelligent predictions.

My opinion on the matter certainly does - including specific polling that I've seen of the people who actually ARE up for re-election. I didn't go into depth about this in my last post but I'd be MORE than happy to if you like.

Quote:

You have previously rejected out of hand my clearly stated opinions regarding trends in public policy and the still unfolding financial crises that have fuelled the Republican resurgance so far (and, in my view promise to continue fuelling it)

That's because your opinions just don't match public opinion polling on the matter, at all. And you're not really willing to discuss the difference between your opinions and what the public signals in polls that they think should be a priority for the nation; you've specifically disparaged these polls many times in the past, preferring instead to substitute your own opinion of the situation. I can't have much a discussion about that.

Quote:

and emphasized that ONLY polling data is reliable proof. Now that a thoughtful analysis of polling data has been shown to refute your argument,

What? What thoughtful analysis of polling data? Specifically. The last thing you analyzed was Rothernbergs' projections, but you don't go into any data that actually supports those. More of an Appeal to Authority than analysis.

Quote:

you (1) reject it out of hand with a bit of hand waving, and (2) introduce new inferential information even less relevant than mine and far more subject to rapid change.

I disagreed with your analysis based on historical trends, not waved it away. The vast majority of incumbents win re-election and I'd be willing to bet that when a President from their party is up for re-election as well, that number increases even further.

2 is a valid point in that it's new information in the argument, but hardly less relevant.

Quote:

This isn't merely sloppy. It is a rather transparent but pompous attempt at bullying your way to a point, and doing so with a remarkable display of hypocrisy.

Pff, you have no standing to criticize anyone in this region. You regularly make assertions with no intention of backing them up with anything but condescension.

Quote:

Even if the Republicans win ONLY the seats (currently Democrat & Republican) labelled as in play but leaning or tilting Republican they will pick up 4 seats !

Well, that's assuming that they also hold all their seats as well. I have serious doubts that Ensign and Brown are going to do so. But hey, you don't want to talk about individual candidates, remember?

Yes, if the Republicans have a great year and defend ALL their seats successfully while picking up ALL the weak Democratic ones, they will get 4-5 seats. You're talking about pretty much the best-case scenario for Republicans.

Quote:

I thought that corporate America and Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce were flooding the Republicans with money. How is that you now doubt their future giving?

Don't you recall that this is a presidential election year? This whole discussion started, you will recall, with my assertion that the candidate at the top of the ticket will have a massive impact on the elections down-ticket.

How much money this cycle is going to go to the Republican presidential primary? The Dems have to spend NONE of that money. The RNC is already 25 million in debt and it could get a lot worse. I don't doubt their future giving, but they are starting off in a big hole - and it's going to be hard to keep up.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I meant to add this to the proceeding post, but forgot -

One of the main reasons Republicans enjoyed electoral victory in the House in 2010 was the fact that they engaged in a specific and intentional plan to scare the elderly into believing that the Obama admin and the Dems were determined to cut their Medicare. Older folks (mostly white) voted very heavily in the election and this was one of the prime concerns they listed in exit polling regarding their reasons for voting.

How does this dynamic support the current plans of the Republicans in Congress.... to cut Medicare? When we discuss upcoming elections, and you claim that 'currently observable trends' will continue, is there ever an acknowledgment that the Republicans are planning to do many of the things that they campaigned against last cycle? Or do you believe that people are just too dumb to notice?

Let's just look at HC reform for the incoming Republican candidate. It's pretty clear that the issue will not be decided by the SC by then. How will the Republican candidate satisfy the Tea party/scrap the whole bill position, with the majority of Americans who want everything BUT the mandate to remain? I have a very difficult time seeing how a coherent narrative will be formed by the Republican party in the next 12 months on this or a host of other issues. So, I feel that 'relying on current trends' to make one's predictions is a truly foolish thing to do at this point. Better to examine actual polling, actual issues, and make projections on that data....

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Most Americans also believed that Obama increased their taxes - when in fact he cut them. I'm not sure they will remember or care.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

One of the main reasons Republicans enjoyed electoral victory in the House in 2010 was the fact that they engaged in a specific and intentional plan to scare the elderly into believing that the Obama admin and the Dems were determined to cut their Medicare.

This is the same thing the dems did to defeat Bush and the repubs.
The dems claimed that Bush wanted to cut Social Security, they claimed that the elderly were going to have to choose between eating and medicine, etc.

The repubs used the same tactic.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Bush did try to "cut" social security; he wanted to change the system into an individual managed investment retirement plan.

Quote:

March 31, 2005
Majority Against "Bush's Approach" to Social Security
Support for private accounts depends on how reform is described
by Lydia Saad
Page: 12

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- President George W. Bush's proposal to restructure Social Security with private investment accounts remains less than popular with the American people. A March 18-20 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll measured support for the proposal with three different questions, and found the public evenly divided, at best, on the issue.

Republicans are the only partisan group showing majority support for Bush's approach to addressing the long-term fiscal problems with the Social Security system. Democrats are solidly against it, while independents lean toward the Democrats' sentiments.

Most Americans feel fairly well informed about the debate over the future of Social Security. However, self-reported level of knowledge on the issue has little bearing on attitudes about Bush's plan. Those who say they understand the debate "very well" are generally no more supportive or opposed to Bush's plan than those who understand it only "somewhat" well, or not well at all.

Then, the stock market tanked.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Most Americans also believed that Obama increased their taxes - when in fact he cut them. I'm not sure they will remember or care.

Wrong, PrezBO cut no taxes - he raised them and more taxes are on the way.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

He wasnt trying to "cut" SS as much as restructure it.
Those currently collecting benefits would not have been affected by the change, but those affected by the change would only have had their SS partially privatized.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-11-10-social-security_x.htm

I didnt agree with his plan, but to call it a "cut" is misleading.
It wasnt really a cut as much as it was a shifting of benefits and finances.
It would have caused a $2 trillion deficit, and I was opposed to that.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Most Americans also believed that Obama increased their taxes - when in fact he cut them. I'm not sure they will remember or care.

According to Politifact...

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-false.gif

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Raising taxes on Ciggies and tanning isn't the same thing as raising federal income taxes.

Most people recognize that this is what the conversation is about - taxes that affect everyone. Not specific goods or instances.

The truth is that Americans at all levels, and corporations, are enjoying their lowest rates of taxation in the last 50 years.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Exactly.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Senator Webb announced today that he's not seeking re-election in VA. This neccessarily changes the scenario in favor of the Republicans; it's going to be an almost guaranteed pickup for George Allen now Mad

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know