GOP Majorities Safe?
According to a Barron's article, they think so. They have essentially used fundraising numbers to determine who they believe will win a race. As a result of their fundings, they see the GOP at 52 seats in the Senate (including a win by Santorum) and the GOP losing 8 seats in the House. They have basically paid no attention to polls in their endeavor.
Their mentality is that since 1972, 93% of House incumbents who outspent their opponents by more than $200,000 have won. Their numbers for Senate races aren't as concrete, but history says incumbents who spend more win.
This is interesting b/c it allowed Barrons to predict the GOP gains in 2002 and 2004 that many did not see coming.
Last week I told you Karl Rove was optomistic about the midterms, and I said it was probably b/c of the $55 million cash advantage the GOP has. This Barrons article is using the exact same formula as the GOP strategists.
I know for a fact that the RNC is using this formula, so time will tell if this will work.
Their mentality is that since 1972, 93% of House incumbents who outspent their opponents by more than $200,000 have won. Their numbers for Senate races aren't as concrete, but history says incumbents who spend more win.
This is interesting b/c it allowed Barrons to predict the GOP gains in 2002 and 2004 that many did not see coming.
Last week I told you Karl Rove was optomistic about the midterms, and I said it was probably b/c of the $55 million cash advantage the GOP has. This Barrons article is using the exact same formula as the GOP strategists.
I know for a fact that the RNC is using this formula, so time will tell if this will work.
posted by GOPHokie @ 11:05 PM
3 Comments:
At 10/22/2006 11:21 PM,
Anonymous said…
As a dem I actually hope this prediction is true. Why get the Congress back just to struggle with the administration to clean up their mess, likely getting nothing done and being used as a scapegoat for all the damage your party has wrought over the last 6 years in power.
I'd rather pick up some seats in both chambers to moderate congressional action over the next two years and focus on winning the presidency in'08.
At 10/23/2006 6:26 AM,
Kenton said…
Before GOP strategists can get all gidd, Barron's concedes that their analysis was invalid in '58, '74', and '94--all wave elections. I disagree with them--I see '06 as a wave.
At 10/23/2006 11:57 AM,
GOPHokie said…
brimur, its funny you say that since I've heard alot of GOPs say they want the dems to take Congress so we can win it back along with the White House in 2008. Some are even speculating thats why the stock market is giddy, b/c they want the dems to win in '06 for that to come to fruition.
Kenton, you are correct their theory does not work for a wave election. I am not sure if the 93% takes that into account though. Another question is what defines a wave. I mean, in the past a 15 seat change was probably considered a moderate year.
Post a Comment
<< Home