Sunday, October 22, 2006

Barron's Predicts Republicans Retaining House and Senate

Don't these people know that the Democrats and the MSM have already declared this election for the Democrats? Why in the world would anyone think that the Republicans have a shot at winning? It's already lost, the votes have been tallied (sure it's just polls right now, but they have such a history of accuracy we might as well not even bother counting the actual votes) and the Republicans have lost. Pelosi is measuring her new office for drapes, Franks is ready for his portrait and Rangel has all but seized control of the tax code ("When I become chairman of the Ways and Means Committee"--link via PowerPundit). Why go against the tide (heck, the tsunami):

JUBILANT DEMOCRATS SHOULD RECONSIDER their order for confetti and noisemakers. 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

We studied every single race -- all 435 House seats and 33 in the Senate -- and based our predictions about the outcome in almost every race on which candidate had the largest campaign war chest, a sign of superior grass-roots support. We ignore the polls. Thus, our conclusions about individual races often differ from the conventional wisdom. Pollsters, for instance, have upstate New York Republican Rep. Tom Reynolds trailing Democratic challenger Jack Davis, who owns a manufacturing plant. But Reynolds raised $3.3 million in campaign contributions versus $1.6 million for Davis, so we score him the winner.

Likewise, we disagree with pollsters of both parties who see Indiana Republican Rep. Chris Chocola getting whomped by Democratic challenger Joe Donnelly, a lawyer and business owner from South Bend. Chocola has raised $2.7 million, versus $1.1 million for Donnelly. Ditto in North Carolina, where we see Republican Rep. Charles Taylor beating Democrat Heath Shuler, a former NFL quarterback, because of better financing. Analysts from both parties predict a Shuler upset.

Is our method reliable? It certainly has been in the past. Using it in the 2002 and 2004 congressional races, we bucked conventional wisdom and correctly predicted GOP gains both years. Look at House races back to 1972 and you'll find the candidate with the most money has won about 93% of the time. And that's closer to 98% in more recent years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Polls can be far less reliable. Remember, they all but declared John Kerry president on Election Day 2004.


With only two weeks to go, a barrage of contradictory poll findings is apt to confuse the oddsmakers, not to mention voters. But we're sticking with our numbers, and they say one thing: The Democrats don't have quite enough heft to push aside the elephant.
The last line is great! I like the imagery. Let's hope they're right because I get a stomach ache thinking of Speaker of the House Pelosi and Rangel writing tax code.

Go read the rest because they have analysis of some specific races (they have Talent and Burns winning but Kean, Jr. losing, which is not surprising, we like our politicians tainted with an air of corruption) and they also talk about the effect the election is having on the market.

(Link via Hugh Hewitt)

Related posts (Yes, I know I'm a little obsessed with this but then, who isn't? I'm just responding to what's been written.):

The Post Crowns Pelosi Speaker of the House
Bush and Rove predict victory but the Post thinks they are delusional
See, Bush and Rove have a reason for optimism
60 Minute's Voter Suppression Piece
Oh. My. Heck!!! He called for a fast
The Democrats have won the election
Karl Rove Predicts Republican Victory
Brilliant Strategy
More Voter Suppression
Yes, they really sound discouraged
Say it on the record, you cowards