Tuesday, August 29, 2006
|
|
Stuart Rothenberg v. Michael Barone on The Wave Theory of Election '06
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
6:11 PM
|
|
The transcript of my interview with Stuart Rothenberg will be up here later, and the audio will be here. I think Rothenberg is a very good analyst, but like all analysts, can get captured by his own spin. Rothenberg is predicting a big wave for the Democrats in the House, and specified the races. I have been hunting for polling stats on each of the six races in which Rothenberg saw the worst news for the GOP. They are listed in the order of vulnerability for the GOP that Rothenberg asserted, from most vulnerable to least vulnerable:
CD-7: SurveyUSA: O'Donnell 45%, Perlmutter 45% - 8/22/06
IO-1: No polling for the Mike Whalen (R) Bruce Braley (D) race.
AZ-8: No polling available because the primary is September 12.
IN-2: In the most recent media poll, GOP incumbent Chris Chocola is down by five points to Democrat Joe Donnelly. The margin of error is 5 points, and the undecideds ar 13%.
IN-8: GOP incumbent John Hostettler is up for a 7th term 2006. He is opposed by Brad Elllsworth.
IN-9: GOP incumbent Mike Sodrel faces a challenge from former Dem Congressman Baron Hill. No media polling available.
This is simply not the stuff of which "waves" are made, and Michael Barone confirmed as much in the second hour of my program. (The transcript of that interview will be here; the audio here.) Barone is not full of happy talk for the GOP, only a much more cautious approach to what is a very, very fluid political environemnt. Barone notes the general scarcity of polling in many of these six races and other "toss ups" cited by Rothenberg, and Barone certainly doesn't see any evidence on which to base a prediction that eight out of 10 "toss-ups" will break Democratic.
ElectionProejection may have the most comprehensive data assemblage and analysis around. (Certainly if he's good enough for Michael Barone's respect, he should be good enough for you.) You can cross check the rest of Rothenberg's races with EP's massive data set. When you are done reviewing the data, ask yourself who has the better turn-out machine, the better message machine, and the most money on-hand overall.
Teh aggressiveness of the punditry may have in fact helped the GOP turnout effort, so I am not complaining. But the pundits should keep in mind that reputations can be lost in a single cycle. "Zogby" is a punch line, now, not a brand. Preidcting "waves" that never materialize can have the same effect on even the best brands.
|
|
Chocola may be down in the latest poll but when I was on the campaign trail for him last Saturday I heard quite a few people express their support for Chris. Although there is some anti-incumbency feelings out there most of it is coming from people who are unhappy with the Bush administration. Only a handful of people are against Chocola because of something he's done.
There is also a perception at the grassroots level that Joe Donnelly (Chocola's D challenger) is bought and paid for by George Soros. Since March the district has been hammered by ads from MoveOn.org claiming that Chocola is just a rubber stamp for the Bush admin. Some Hoosiers just don't like the idea of an outsider (Soros) pouring his money into a race that is non of his business. The mentality seems to be "this is our business, we're Hoosiers, we can take care of this without any help from you Mr. Soros".
As for Sodrel I think that he stands a strong chance of reelection down the 9th Congressional District. Hill just doesn't have what it takes to lead. But I may be wrong.
Hostettler always faces a tough race in the "Bloody 8th" district. Due to anti-Bush anti-Republican feelings though, he may narrowly lose. |
|
The Delay seat, TX 22, is likely to go to Lampson for a number of reasons:
- the lame fight that the attorneys for the Republican party put up in court means that the Republican candidate will be a write in. More on this later.
- the Republican candidate, Shelly Sekula-Gibbs, is a lightweight member of the Houston city council. I think she is not only a meddling nanny stater (as her term on ciy council supports), she also has been reported to not work well with others.
- Lampson has a bunch of money in a race where media buys will be key. The national Democrats want this seat real, real bad.
- The local conservative base in Houston is really POed at the process for chosing a write-in. The national party tried to anoint the mayor of Sugarland (Williams), but the precinct chairs in the district caucused and chose Sekula-Gibbs. After sone nasty internal invective and back and forth with the national party, Williams withdrew. The base resents the meddling from DC, as the caucus process was the starting point from which a replacement for Delay would have been chosen, if they had prevailed in court.
There is also anger over the court case. The powers-that-be decided to take it immediately to Federal court, instead of the more conservative State courts. A local legal analyst said that the case was lost when Delay was asked where he would be on election day and said "I don't know." instead of "At my new home in Virginia."
So, I'd say that barring a miracle, TX 22 will go to Lampson. |
|
|
I think if you will go back to the press coverage of the 2002 elections and the predictions of the pundits, you will see the same things being said about that election that you see about the current election. The special elections that have been held within the past year don't show the Democratic trend that most of the political pundits claim is inevitable. The Bilbray-Busby race in San Diego is a good example. |
|
I think Whaley has a great shot to keep a democratic area - Iowa's first district - in Republican hands.
fyi- Iowa is abbreviated "IA", not IO. As much as Iowa and Ohio get mixed up, I'd think you of all people would be looking out for Iowa, Hugh ;-)
ffyi- if you ever get a chance to eat at one of Whaley's Machine Shed restaurants, do. Out of this world farm-style breakfasts... |
|
Honestly, if Bush hits Iran this fall, and he should given the Iranians announcement that they are procceeding with their heavy-water plans, then all bets are off this November.
I hope he does it for the military and security reasons, but wouldn't it be great to see the Dem's biting their lips not knowing what to say?
Close the border and we enusre keeping both the House and Senate. |
|
|
I think Michael Barone is probably closer to the mark than Stuart Rothenberg in terms of where the congressional election stands as of now. Guys like Rothenberg and Charlie Cook are basically liberals who try to pass themselves off as objective middle-of-the-roaders when in reality they are hoping for Democrat gains and giving them the benefit of the doubt on close calls. And let us also be reminded that even where there is polling data available in some of these races, such analysis must assume a turnout rate that may well understate ultimate Republican strength given the success the GOP has had with Voter Vault. After all, Democrats still cannot fathom the degree to which Republicans were able to drive turnout in Ohio and throughout the country in 2004 with their new technology and process. |
|
So it has come to pass. We face another exercise in self-government looming in the not to distant future. This time a confluence of factors make it impossible to analyze this election as run of the mill standard faire. We are at war. I believe that the current unease detected in the polls reflects an anxious populace just now confronting the realization that we are at war with an Islamic fascist enemy embodied by Iran. As the campaigns move into high gear we cannot lose sight of the contemporaneous event now winding through the UN: the confrontation with Iran over WMD.
There, the global community will finally bring concrete measures against Iran for its obstinacy on nuclear weapons development over the last 5 years. No one seriously believes that, spurred by diplomacy, Iran, will suddenly undergo an epiphany and say, “oh, your right…never mind”. With respect to our mid-terms, this means that all the implications of a nuclear Iran can and will be laid before the world and American people. Sort of like a two month long issue ad for the GOP. All the implications of a weaponized Islamic fascist community, with every inference and extrapolation, will be set before the American people in November. I can see no more advantageous context in which the Republicans could dream of running an election.
“It’s the War Stupid”. Consider this: The Ds leadership is on record as supporting cut and run from Iraq, against NSA operations, against Guantanomo Bay, in a word, against every aggressive war time measure to effectively prosecute the war on terror. And that’s just it. The GOP can hammer this basic point: Are we at war or not? To answer in the negative leaves the impression of childish fantasist. Even worse, a remarkably obtuse and dangerous childish fantasist not willing to heed the Islamic fascists own words when they say they are at war with western civilization.
The GOP, in the body of the President, must herald “We are at war, and who can you trust to protect you more”. Consider the natural coalescing around the Commander in Chief as he begins the War Drums against Iran. Also, consider the strategic advantage that Iraq and Afghanistan will serve as launch sites for heavy bombardment of Iran. These incursions will seem brilliantly prescient from the perspective of D-Day Iran. After all, Bush knew America might very well have to go to war against Iran so he had the forethought to place US forces in the most advantageous posture, but still give diplomacy every chance it deserved. And you can bet that the American people will see it that way too. All this will be undisputed as the Ds can only advance their Lamont appeasement candidates. There track record has been to oppose everything. They predicted doom with the first sandstorm on the road to Baghdad in 2003. How will the Ds respond when the issue is “how will you prosecute war against Iran?” Bush’s brilliant strategic thinking has unfolded from the single un-rebutted assumption, nay, conclusion: We are at War. The GOP has to close the deal with America. We have to say in unwavering words: Voting for Democrats will get you Killed!!!! |
|
|
The program that Hugh had with the projections was a real service to listeners who really are serious about who will lead this nation in these dangerous times. I would love to know the issues that are going on in the districts that separate the candidates. Also, I love the idea that polls will be reported on these districts by people like Barone, Cook, Rasmussen and Rothenberg. Since I teach political science, these discussions Hugh has are very important. Any Democrat, any Democrat elected endangers our national security. Period. For Pub Purists to stay home in this cycle is nonsense and indeed foolish over one or two issues. The national security issue is THE ISSUE. All other pale in importance. And keep thinking, Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, Jackson Lee, Conyers in charge of this nation. Makes one sick and fearful just to think of it. Make these district evaluations a weekly affair, Hugh. Pastor Glenn, abundanthope.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|