Back to the article, some highlights:
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.
As I’ve been saying, a one-seat (or similarly small) GOP majority in the House will allow a group of 30 or so centrist House Republicans (among which I expect to be included) to exert tremendous influence – even to the point of demanding a new GOP leadership.
This means I would encourage Speaker Hastert, Majority Leader Boehner and others (including some committee chairmen) to step down from their leadership positions – even if they had nothing to do with the Foley debacle – in favor of a new, and more centrist, group.
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.
Barron’s says the major difference between 1994 and this year is that, unlike in 1994, the economy is relatively strong.
In 1994, though the economy was improving, unemployment was above 6% and personal income began to fall in the quarter prior to the election, souring the mood of the electorate. People blamed their pain on high taxes, which they associated with Democrats, and ushered in Newt Gingrich & Co. Though the current economy is slowing, unemployment remains relatively low, at 4.6%, and disposable income growth is positive. While GDP figures will be revised downward in coming weeks and unemployment figures could edge up, it may not matter. Those numbers are interesting stuff for economists, but voters will continue to focus on pocketbook issues like the price of gas and the value of their 401(k)s. Pump prices have been falling and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has been on a tear, reaching 12,000 last week.
The Barron’s analysis is very even-handed, calling for a GOP majority by, for example, saying that Shays (CT) will hold on but that Bass (NH) will lose. In the Senate, they expect Santorum (PA) to hang on but Chafee (RI) to lose. It’s a very interesting article that you have to purchase (either online or hard copy).
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.
So, I urge you folks to take a hard look at my positions on my web site, and say to yourselves honestly whether you would prefer a moderate Republican in the majority who can actually get things done, or a conservative Democrat in the minority who will be as ineffective for the next two years as he’s been for the past five years.
and I think it is good he has opposition. Naturally I would prefer he was not the Democratic candidate and Democrats had someone more progressive to vote for. Choice between him and a “moderate” republican is a choice that is not much a choice at all.
<
p>
But Barron’s is delusional. Santorum hanging on? Only through fraud. The GOP may keep the Senate, but only a miracle (for them) will prevent a Democratic takeover of the House.
<
p>
In the end, I would vote for Lynch, holding nose, because he will caucus with the Democrats, vote to make Pelosi speaker and that is a goal worthy of putting up with him. For now.
<
p>
Lets hope in 2008 we have a true progressive we can vote for.
<
p>
I hold the “levee” theory that Krugman espoused in his recent column. Either the Democrats will make a small gain of probably less than 15 seats (but at least 7 or 8), or they’ll make a big gain of 25+. It’s looking like “big gain” is getting more likely, but there are a lot of seats polling within the margin of error, and it doesn’t take much of a shift to push them all one way or the other. Republicans narrowly keeping control is definitely still a possiblitiy.
<
p>
However, Robinson’s argument here is circular. He’s saying it’s gonna be close, and the Republicans could hold the house by a very narrow margin, something we very much don’t want to see happen… so our reaction to that, in his opinion, should be to assume it will happen, and make it more likely by giving the Republicans one more seat. Not buying it.
cover for Diebold, no doubt.
<
p>
There is no purpose for the Republican party anymore. The whole thing needs to go the way of the Whigs. Once it’s been exterminated from politics, maybe conservatives can come up with a non-criminal organization to belong to.
Iowa Electronic Market as an indicator. It’s never been wrong because people put money on the outcome. (didn’t one of Bush’s sr officials try to establish a “Terrorism Market” along the same lines as the Iowa Market? He got hounded out of his position for the work – I think the guy was one of Reagan’s ad visors).
<
p>
The market has the House shifting to D, and the Senate Staying R.
<
p>
Here are the charts:
<
p>
Key:
Line indicates Futures Price:
<
p>
Red line: “Republicans Increase Chamber control”
Green line: “Republicans Hold control”
Blue line: “Republicans Lose Chamber control”
<
p>
US House:
<
p>
US Senate:
<
p>
Compare the lines. In the US House, “Republican Lose” futures are trading substantially above “Republican Hold” and “Republican Maintain” futures.
<
p>
In the Senate, “Hold” is above “Lose” which is above “Gain,” I’m not sure how to interpret the convergence of “Hold” and “Lose” – perhaps it means the races are tightening… I hope.
<
p>
I’m not a “futures” expert (or even an amateur) but I believe that, in the case of the House, People are willing to pay about 68 cents for RLose future worth a dollar but they are only willing to pay 28 cents for a RHold future and 4 cents for an RGain future.
<
p>
Mark
Sorry, you don’t win the prize. Thanks for playing though…
<
p>
I sure as hell would recommend anyone of good conscience who wants Washington to be held accountable to NOT send Jack to Congress, but send Lynch back, flawed as he is from a progressive standpoint.
<
p>
This is the same bad argument we get from, say, NARAL when they endorse someone like Chafee over his Dem opponant (or just choosing to not endorse at all).
<
p>
But keeping the Repubs in power only means one thing: no acountability at all. Even if it’s by one seat.
<
p>
Sending even a flawed Dem to the Congress means one more seat that counts towards the Dems, and that means we have the numbers to hold chairmanships, investigations, issue supoenas, etc. Sending a “moderate” Republican (there’s any such thing? yeah right – I bet he’s still far to the right of me on a lot of issues I care about) means a possiblity of keeping the a-holes in power.
<
p>
I would never, ever, ever ever vote for a Republican against any Democrat. And that includes some of the state Dems we have in Lowell, who are most definitely flawed in a lot of ways. It’s not just party loyalty. It’s just common sense – and basic math.
Under any rational analysis of the situation, regardless of how Barrons magazine sees the funding, the GOP simply can’t retain the house. That’s the rational approach. but. as we’ve seen, the rational approach doesn’t always predict accurately and so I cannot predict, with any degree of confidence who will control the house next year. If everybody was rational, John Kerry would be President now.
<
p>
Howevr, while I would never underestimate the irrationality of GOP voters I would also counsel GOP leadership not to assume that that irrationality will always break in their favor.
<
p>
I can’t help but notice that GOP scandals may have reached a saturation point in both number and depth… What’s more, while each scandal can be accurately characterized as ethical and/or moral lapses they also may be accurately described as betrayal: that is to say, in form and substance, they are behaviors actively opposed to stated values. The anti-gay party is riddled with gay staffers and actively protects a gay predator. You don’t have to have any opinion whatsoever on gays to see the problem with this.
<
p>
Sometimes bad behavior is just an extension of the personality: Bill Clinton, for example, is a sweet-talking charmer. While certainly not acceptable, it’s easy to see how this can slip ito adultery. Note well that this does not excuse Clintons behavior. It does, however, excuse the voters who knew what they were getting when they voted for him. GOP voters don’t have this out: they bought a product that turned out to be the opposite of its packaging. Buying the product again forces the voters to feel like hypocrites.
<
p>
The case with the GOP goes beyond bad behavior: the party of rectitude, the ‘daddy’ party, not only sinned, but the sins are the mirror image of the values they profess: in addition, they actively avoided taking ‘personal responsibility’ for these sins. Again, actively in opposition to their stated values.
<
p>
In addition to this, the GOP has long stoked the fires all the while never once expecting to get burnt. It seems to me, that the GOP has had a good long run of riding the tiger: but remember, those who ride the tiger end up inside. Over and above the moralistic packaging and virtuous labelling, the GOP has spent years, and several gazillion dollars, making people angry over just these issues. They tried, and in large part succeeded, in tapping into the irrationality this anger produces. If they think they can still navgate this minefield and escape the consequences of the environment they’ve built, they really are delusional.
<
p>
The GOP has put their own base in the position of being hypocrites for continuing to vote for them. While I stand in awe of the ability of many to live with cognitive dissonance, I can’t see that many enough can do so this time.
<
p>
What more, as if this weren’t already enough, the ‘law and order’ party is reduced to the extremely ridiculous argument that, should the Democrats take control, they’ll exercise hearings and subpoenas against lawbreakers and disorder…!!! How broken is that? Who believes that?!?!
I took a look at your website, and you do seem to come across as a moderate Republican. I like the idea of reducing goverment spending, although I think your emphasis on social programs is misguided when the Defense budget is fully 50% of our total expenses. It’s nice to see a Republican who is willing to admit that the government has no business in the bedroom and shouldn’t restrict a woman’s reproductive choice. As a moderate and a responsible person, no doubt you are willing to publicly condemn Kerry Healey’s thugs staking out houses with children and her flat out lies in this campaign.
<
p>
Right?
<
p>
But Jack, if there were a one-seat majority, YOU could be that one seat. And while I appreciate your friendly participation here, I simply will not encourage anyone in the 9th district to cast a vote for a potential majority-maker for the GOP, the party of Jim Sensenbrenner, Marilyn Musgrave, Tom Tancredo, and other far-right ideologues.
<
p>
On the contrary, I want to work hard to get them out of power. And the possibility of bringing a bit more pork to the district (and be honest–even as a Republican, your leverage as a freshman would be limited) doesn’t outwiegh that.
My point is a very practical one. To paraphrase a certain gubernatorial candidate: “If you people would come down off your high idealogical horse some time, I would be happy to show you how politics works in the real world of Capitol Hill.”
<
p>If my opponent is re-elected, it’s a lose-lose for Boston and the 9th District, whereas if I’m elected it’s a win-win.
<
p>If Lynch is re-elected, the Dems don’t gain any seats towards taking over the House, and all we’ll be left with is a low-ranking conservative Democrat who won’t be able to get anything – and I mean ANYTHING – done. (I defy anyone to point to a single Lynch accomplishment since he’s been in Congress).
<
p>However, if I’m elected, it’s a win-win. If the GOP majority is more than one seat, I – along with other moderate House Republicans – will be able to effect real change on Capitol Hill (perhaps a new “Republican Revolution” – but this one bringing the party of Lincoln back to the center). And yes, even as a freshman Republican in a GOP-controlled House, I would still have more power & influence than Barney Frank, Ed Markey, and Marty Meehan combined because the Rules of the House (unlike those of the Senate) give ALL the power to the majority and absolutely none to the minority. (If you don’t believe me, ask Barney Frank – who’s been waiting for the past decade to take over the House Financial Services Committee – one of the big 3 committees on the Hill).
<
p>But an even stronger reason for 9th District voters to send me to Congress is if I happen to be the one seat that keeps the House in GOP hands. Imagine how much leverage I would be able to exert then! I could threaten to caucus with the Dems unless there’s a clean sweep of the current leadership. Heck, I might even be able to wrangle a subcommittee chairmanship out of the deal – something that Lynch will NEVER get.
<
p>So the absolutely best outcome for Boston and the 9th District is to vote for Robinson and hope that Robinson ends up being the one seat that keeps the GOP in power. Then you’ll really see the hair fly – and real change in the direction of our country for the better!
Jack:
<
p>
I don’t live in your district, so my opinion doesn’t count for much. I would certainly vote for you if:
You renounced the Republican nominee for Governor and stated that her campaign was a disgrace. Endorse Mihos or Patrick, doesn’t matter, but distance yourself from the people who haven’t exactly been out there helping you anyway.
Pledge to flip to the Democrats unless the GOP retained a viable majority without your vote.
<
p>
Republican moderates are becoming oxymorons. The Republican leadership has excluded even the moderates in their caucus from decisions, only advancing issues that have a majority of the majority and blocking moderate Republicans from building alliances with moderate Democrats.
<
p>
The GOP has left you behind. Please, wake up to the reality.
Jack,
<
p>
Surely you jest. Vote for you on a theory that doesn’t hold water? Sorry.
<
p>
When you and the 20 other moderates in the Republican Party attempt to vote out the leaders you will lose.
<
p>
The election is on the line here, and Hastert and Boehner’s bone-head dealing with Foley is costing plenty. MANY, many house Republicans could save their seats by throwing these guys out NOW. Is there any movement to do that? No. Why? They don’t have the votes. So what would make us think that the moderates will vote out the power structure once the crisis is over?
<
p>
It was a nice try Jack, but completely out of touch with reality.
<
p>
Oh, and by the way. I struggle to make house payments, car payments, and provide for my children. Next time you tell me to get off my high horse, I’m going to tell you to stick your cell phone (you know, the one you were on when you got into the car accident talking to a reporter?) where the sun don’t shine.
You need to look at both sets of outcomes, otherwise it is win-mmmmmmppphhh and mmmmmppphphph-lose.
<
p>
So…
Lynch wins and the Dems do not regain control. You cover that.
Robinson wins and the Dems do not regain control. You cover that, although the replies seem to disagree with your conclusion.
Lynch wins and the Dems do take the House. Well then Barney Frank does get to Chair of the Financial Services Committee and Boston and the 9th district are served by a member of the majority, with more pull of pork and better committee seating, even though he be a flawed and conservative member of the majority.
Robinson wins and the Dems take the House. Well, again Barney gets his Chair, but now the district is served by a freshman member of the minority party, an untested and unproven commodity, wildly inconsistent by many accounts, moderate though he may be.
<
p>
Seems to me that the 9th and Boston are best served by having the Dems take the House, and that means an extra gain of a Republican seat if Lynch’s seat crosses the aisle. The math just doesn’t work
First
No you would not. Those “Rules of the House” you refer to are controlled by the Republican party. They run under a “Majority of the Majority” rule – unless a majority of Republicans agree the Leadership will not act. You are powerless.
<
p>
Additionally, Mr Lynch is much more senior than you. Better to be a senior member of the minority party – which at least holds seats on committees – than the most junior member of a party that requires lockstep allegience.
<
p>
That makes no sense. If you are the seat that causes the GOP to retain, you have kept the GOP in power. Additionally, no one seat is the one that causes a retention – any member could so threaten.
<
p>
Rep Lynch is also already a Ranking Member of a Subcommittee and would presumably be the Subcommittee Chair if control changed. There is no reason to believe that Rep Lynch could ‘never’ be a Subcommittee Chair nor is there any reason to believe you could become one.
<
p>
Furthermore, why should we believe you? If you wanted to be a Dem, there was a primary.
Here’s why I wouldnt vote for you.
<
p>
Your proposal is to handle Iraq by dividing it into three states, defined by ethnic group. Partitioning countries has a bad record. You’ll open the door to ethnic cleansing on a grand scale, enflame Kurdish nationalism,and the Sunnis will fight it every step of the way.
<
p>
There is only one thing to do about Iraq now. Set up a timetable to shift all control and responsibility to the Iraqi government and leave. Iraq isn’t our country to partition, it isn’t our country to rule.
<
p>
In short Mr. Robinson, you are proposing that young Americans take up the bloody and ultimately doomed task of dividing Iraq along ethnic lines. You are setting us up for sinking billions more and thousands of more American lives to sooth the egos of Republicans who can’t admit that this whole Iraq adventure was doomed from the start.
<
p>
At least Lynch is coming around and supporting a phased pullout. I’d vote for that any day over your terrible and bloody ideas.