Election Predictions

[red states rule]

13 days to go before Dems face the wrath of the voters. The House is a done deal and Dems will proably lose over 50 seats

The Senate will stay in Dem control but by perhaps 2 or 4 seats, I do hope Reid is sent into retirement

In Governorships Republicans will gain in several states and end up with about 30 -32 states

What are your predictions?

[Kathianne]

13 days to go before Dems face the wrath of the voters. The House is a done deal and Dems will proably lose over 50 seats

The Senate will stay in Dem control but by perhaps 2 or 4 seats, I do hope Reid is sent into retirement

In Governorships Republicans will gain in several states and end up with about 30 -32 states

What are your predictions?

That those who want change not count votes before they're cast:

http://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/2010/10/five-reasons-not-to-get-cocky.html


Sunday, October 17, 2010
Five Reasons Not to Get Cocky

Around the dexterosphere, the question about the coming election seems to be whether it will be more like 1994 or 1894. Amidst the confident babble, Instapundit has made a trademark out of the whisper, “Don’t get cocky, kid.” It’s not just that cockiness enrages the gods and lacks social grace. This year, in particular, there are solid reasons to doubt that November 2nd will be nearly as happy a day as we hope:

1. It’s not enough to win; you have to win by more than the margin of fraud. That concern ought to be obvious in states like Illinois and Nevada, where a Republican has to run about five percentage points ahead to be sure that he’ll be declared the winner, but it also exists in places like Washington State. There almost all voting is by mail, which means that ballot secrecy is optional and verification of voters’ identity hit-and-miss.

As John Fund has documented in Stealing Elections, electoral crime has never been easier. Which party benefits? Look at which one denies that there’s a problem and relentlessly opposes even such minimal security measures as the presentation of identification at the polls.

2. An unenthusiastic vote counts just as much as an enthusiastic one. The “enthusiasm gap” matters only if the unenthusiastic Democrats don’t cast ballots. They may not, but shepherding them to the polls (or fraudulently subbing for them) is going to be a high and well-financed Democratic priority. It’s true that the “GOTV machine” didn’t work for Republicans in 2006 or 2008, but that’s because a high Republican voter turnout depends crucially on informal networks. When a large proportion of GOP activists stopped urging their friends and neighbors to vote, the “machine” faltered. The Democratic Party relies far more on paid efforts, which can go forward even if morale is low.

3. Money still talks, and Dem money talks louder and smarter. “Democratic Funding Fades” was an encouraging Wall Street Journal headline – and, alas, a misleading one. In the last paragraph, we learn, “The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics said the Democratic Party and candidates had raised a total of $1.25 billion so far for the election. The comparable GOP figure is $1.1 billion.” The Democrats are moaning that their funding margin isn’t as vast as in the last two elections, but a $150 million advantage ain’t peanuts.

What’s more, the Democrats’ money is likely to be more astutely deployed. Most of it comes from labor unions or rich socialists, or is funneled through umbrella organizations. It can be easily directed to the races where it is most needed. The more chaotic, small-donor-based Republican fund raising is inherently inefficient. Money tends to flow to candidates who catch the rank-and-file’s fancy. To take a couple of examples, Christine O’Donnell, whose chances of winning are near to nil, and Michele Bachman, a Minnesota congressman whose chances of losing aren’t much greater, have raised vast sums that could have been better used to, say, bolster Dino Rossi’s close race in Washington State or turn the Oregon Senate race into a contest. So far as I can tell, there are many underfunded Republican candidates in winnable districts this year, while no Democrat who has a chance is going to lose because of lack of cash.

4. If lying didn’t work, nobody would do it. Dishonest Democratic ads have proliferated as the election draws near. The claim that Republican campaigns are being financed from abroad is only the most prominent. On the Right, we tend to see this trend as a sign of desperation, and our hopes rise correspondingly. Bear in mind, though, that most citizens have better things to do than follow politics closely and that ignorance makes them risk-averse. One reason why incumbents usually win is that the fact of incumbency lends them a patina of safety. At least, nothing disastrous has happened on their watch. If there is even a small chance that a challenger will be dramatically worse, e. g., is financially beholden to shadowy foreign benefactors, caution dictates voting against him.

5. The pollsters are skating on stilts. The key to accurate polling is gauging who will and won’t vote. Mid-term elections are notoriously harder to poll than Presidential years, and mistakes in turnout models are more likely this year than in most, because the electorate in 2008 was so atypical. Poll takers seem to be assuming that turnout among the last election’s first-time Obama voters will fall off sharply. That sounds plausible, but it may be that the decline will be almost entirely among those who are now disillusioned and might be inclined to vote Republican in remorse. Those who approve of the One’s performance, for whatever irrational reasons, could be more strongly motivated than the typical voter, old or new. In any event, if the polls are going to be badly wrong, this is the year for them to fail...