Put your money where your mouth is

Who's gonna do the chart?

I did see JoefromChicago's thread on this... didn't respond since I've no useful opinions yet. Still don't, will try to catch up.

0 Replies

JoefromChicago. Amusing that we would each launch an almost identical thread at about the same time. I raised the idea on Nimh's thread, News and Discussion on House and Senate Races, on Thursday. There was some interest so I posted the Senate races I thought were in play. Then I asked for a volunteer to move it off of Nimh's site into its own place. Cyclop did it Friday pm at about the same time as you did yours. So it has his name, but it has my fingerprints on it.
I certainly didn't mean to compete. If there is any way to merge the two, feel free to do it. -john-

0 Replies

With regards to Mr Chaffee in Rhode Island: Yes, he is a Republican in a blue state; he is behind in the last polls I have seen (but probably within the margin of error) and his opponent has quite a bit more money left.

But, for the time being, I am thinking Chaffee will be okay if he can get his core base to not get discouraged and to turn out. He is a moderate Republican while Mr Whitehouse (great name for a politician, by the way) is listed as being quite liberal. Chaffee may pick up enough moderate Dems to squeak through based on the Power of Incumbency and Politics is Local theories.

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

With regards to Mr Chaffee in Rhode Island: Yes, he is a Republican in a blue state; he is behind in the last polls I have seen (but probably within the margin of error) and his opponent has quite a bit more money left.

But, for the time being, I am thinking Chaffee will be okay if he can get his core base to not get discouraged and to turn out. He is a moderate Republican while Mr Whitehouse (great name for a politician, by the way) is listed as being quite liberal. Chaffee may pick up enough moderate Dems to squeak through based on the Power of Incumbency and Politics is Local theories.

The problem with your analysis is that this cycle, even moderate Democrats are annoyed (or even pissed) at the current Republican leadership in Congress.

This time more than ever, Democrats are voting for party because all Democrats feel that it is imperative to get the Republicans out of the majority.

I like Chaffee as a person, in some circumstances I might even support him-- but not this year.

Democrats understand that a vote for Chaffee is a vote for Frist. Rhode Island Democrats think just like any other Democrats. Especially when everyone knows the balance in Congress is going to be very close... Chaffee doesn't have a chance.

0 Replies

You should also realize that thanks to 'open primaries,' Democrats voted for Chafee over laffey in the Republican primary. There were, IIRC, a huge number of party ID switch forms filed directly afterwards. They hedged their bets against a rabid conservative.

Republicans did the same thing to Ciro Rodriguez in San Antonio last year.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

hmm. As mentioned at the start of this, folks are welcome to change their predictions. I may do that in the RI race. I, a rabid liberal, have no great conviction. But I am sticking with him for the moment.
Tell me this, please. If Dems voted in the Repub primary, as was suggested, why wouldn't they vote for the "rabid conservative" in order to
polarize the race?

0 Replies

Mebbe to keep the rabid one out of realm of possibility..

0 Replies

Is there a deadline for submittal/mind changing?

0 Replies

No.
Before the election would be preferable, though.

0 Replies

Republicans keep the Senate, loose the house. I'm too much of a chicken to predict individual races.

0 Replies

Re: Put your money where your mouth is

nimh wrote:

MISSOURI Talent* (r) vs McGaskill (d)

This seems the very closest race of them all. Anything that would move even the one percentage point could decide it. Eg, this is the one state where the pronouncement of the verdict against Saddam in Iraq - what was it, two days before the elections? - will swing the vote. (I dont really think it'll have all that much effect in general.)

factcheck.org has just sent out an email on Talent's ads

Quote:

Talent For Deception
Missouri Sen. Talent's attacks share a simple, misleading strategy: false attribution
October 21, 2006

Summary

In four separate TV spots Republican Sen. Jim Talent of Missouri falsely attributes several unflattering quotes about his opponent to the Kansas City Star. Our examination reveals that the quotes actually come from rival Claire McCaskill's political opponents and critics, not from the Star's reporters or editors.

In another case, where a Talent ad uses a phrase that actually did come from a newspaper, it is out of context and misleading. The negative remark was in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial that was endorsing McCaskill for election.

Political campaigns often quote newspaper stories and editorials because voters tend to give them greater weight than the self-interested statements of office seekers. There's nothing misleading about that if the quotes are accurate, in context and properly attributed. But these Talent ads deceive voters by misappropriating the newspapers' credibility.

<snip>

Quote:

The Talent campaign ends two of the ads with the tagline, "but there's more to the story." We find that "the story" so far has been filled with misinformation.

I expect it'll surface on the factcheck.org website shortly.

0 Replies

John, you're not such a toughie on this as you are in US pro football...

Just like the football thing, I'm using this to learn. I may get equally nowhere on my picks.

Tnx for link, ehBeth.

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

Tell me this, please. If Dems voted in the Repub primary, as was suggested, why wouldn't they vote for the "rabid conservative" in order to
polarize the race?

Who says they didn't?

0 Replies

Quote:

Tell me this, please. If Dems voted in the Repub primary, as was suggested, why wouldn't they vote for the "rabid conservative" in order to
polarize the race?

To completely erase the possibility of Laffee winning. It would be better to have a Dem than Chafee, but better to have Chafee than any other Republican.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

OK, I think we have beaten this into the ground. It seems to me that, if voters in one party wanted to meddle in the other party's primary, they would vote for the more extreme candidate in order to leave the middle more open. Perhaps I am wrong.
Here in Virginia, the Dems have primaries sometimes. Other times, they follow the Republican route and have candidates selected by caucus. When there is a primary, open to all voters, there does not seem to me to be any effort by the opposing party to meddle.

0 Replies

Beaten into the ground? I have more questions on it. I'll agree it is tangential to what is a Prediction Game.

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

Tell me this, please. If Dems voted in the Repub primary, as was suggested, why wouldn't they vote for the "rabid conservative" in order to polarize the race?

Chafee, knowing and openly acknowledging that he wouldnt win a vote among only RI Republicans, openly and proactively targeted Independents and even Democrats in his campaign, encouraging moderates of every hue to help his cause.

I'm sure there were Democrats who, acting on the "politics is local" thing, simply thought - here's a nice guy, I like him - will help him. I think the strategic thinking stuff - like, if I help the radical guy in their race that will strategically benefit my party's candidate in the end - thats only the active, conscious partisans who think like that, act on it. But theres plenty of people who registered as Democrats simply because thats the closest to home, but dont act primarily on partisan interest, and might instead well act simply on likes/dislikes - like, sure, I'll help the nice guy out. Fewer than normally, I'll grant ebrown that, but I'm sure they're still there.

I'm sure there are also still Democrats who sincerely want the threatened species of traditional, socially liberal, Northeastern Republicans to survive, even knowing that it might be strategically disadvantageous for the Dems in the short term, but because they think its just better for the country in the long term.

Put your money where your mouth is

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know