Congratulations to the Democratic Party Supporters on this Forum

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
I voted democrat this year out of disgust with the republicans (in fact, I made 4 political donations this year after never before having made one) and there are two things I want to see from them: stem cell research and an attempt at a balanced budget. If they can give me those two things they'll have my vote again in 2008.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone else find it ironic that the democrats are now the party of the balanced budget?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
There have been no rebuttals to my statement...

It's sad that your head is so firmly up your butt, but let me try to put this year's senate races in perspective by offering actual statistics about 6th year midterms (6YM).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a lot of fancy statistics and gratuitous ad hominem, but none of it actually addresses his statement in question. DYSW?

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love the "mathematical certainty" that the numbers that unreliable pollsters produce must be better than the votes that real people cast on election day.

Exit polling is the most accurate polling. It should be within 0.5%. When this number varies by much in elections around the world the USA looks on those elections as having voter fraud. It is hard to see where it wouldn't show the same here.

MS Sunshine

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure President Kerry agrees with you.

When was the last time they did an exit poll of absentee ballots?

After all the mistakes made by the exit polls, you would think people would realize how unreliable they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absentee ballots aren't counted on election night, so your point is irrelevant.

[bisonbison]

pvn: That's a lot of fancy statistics and gratuitous ad hominem, but none of it actually addresses his statement in question. DYSW?

He said: "without a Senate majority and a resounding win in the House, its a hollow victory that is meaningless in the context of prior 6th year elections...those results are what set the goalposts."

I took the recent history of 6th year elections, and showed what the goalposts for senate victories actually are with historical data. In this context, a 4 seat senate pickup would be a solid outing for the Dems and a 5 seat pickup, even though it won't give the majority, would be a plus outcome. Not a hollow victory.

A 6 seat pickup, the amount needed for a Dem majority in the senate, would require the dems to win 40% of the contested R seats without losing a single one of their own, when the democrats have 3 more seats in play. It's not impossible, but it's a stretch goal.

I did directly address his statement in question, with plenty of clear argumentation that people can take exception to. Personal attack deleted

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The senate will be hard since uneducated people in Wyoming, Idaho, etc vote against their own interests.

If you believe this is true, then the onus lies on democrats to be better educators and campaigners.

Also, paging Copernicus to this thread. Paging Copernicus to this thread. We need responses to some rebuttals.

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been no rebuttals to my statement, only dismissals of the relevance of the history of 6th year administrations, erroneous claims that winning the House and not the Senate is "huge", and guesses at the outcome of the election that appear to be based on week old polls.

When a supposedly equal or superior team is spotted 21 points in a game, winning by 10 is nothing to gloat about.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong, but thanks for playing.

From Kevin Drum's site Washinton Monthly:

Having essentially conceded defeat, the latest conservative game is to pretend that even if the Democrats pick up 20 or 30 House seats on Tuesday, it's no big deal. Charles Krauthammer: "Since the end of World War II, the average loss for a second-term presidency in its sixth year has been 29 House seats." Ann Coulter: "The average sixth-year midterm election, like this year, is much worse for the president's party, which typically loses 34 seats in the House."

Nice try, guys, but here's the reality. Up through the 70s, big swings in House elections were common, but in the last 20 years there's only been a single year with a big swing (1994). Aside from that, the average change has been less than five seats. You can see the same thing if you look only at sixth-year midterms:


1958: 49 seats
1966: 47 seats
1974: 49 seats
1986: 5 seats
1998: 5 seats


See the trend? In the two sixth-year midterms since 1980, only five seats changed hands. There are plenty of reasons for this, including improved gerrymandering, huge money imbalances, and increased self-segregation.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
There have been no rebuttals to my statement, only dismissals of the relevance of the history of 6th year administrations, erroneous claims that winning the House and not the Senate is "huge", and guesses at the outcome of the election that appear to be based on week old polls.

Deleted, but let me try to put this year's senate races in perspective by offering actual statistics about 6th year midterms (6YM).

Since WW2, there have been 7 presidents elected to a second term of office: Truman, Ike, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush. Truman and Johnson didn't serve full first terms, and Nixon didn't serve a full second, but I'm trying to be thorough here. The midterm elections in their second terms were in 50, 58, 66, 74, 86, 98 and 06.

In 50:
President: Truman, D
Senate before election: 54D, 42R
Contested seats: 23D, 13R (+10D)
Net Gain: +5R
Senate after election: 49D, 47R

In 58:
President: Ike, R
Senate before election: 50D, 48R
Contested seats: 13D, 21R, +2 open in Alaska (+8R)
Net Gain: +15D, 2 from open elections in Alaska
Senate after election: 65D, 35R

In 66:
President: Johnson, D
Senate before election: 67D, 33R
Contested seats: 20D, 15R (+5D)
Net Gain: +3R
Senate after election: 64D, 36R

In 74:
President: Nixon, R
Senate before election: 56D, 42R, 1 Independent, 1 Conservative
Contested seats: 20D, 14R (+6D)
Net Gain: +4D
Senate after election: 60D, 38R, 1I, 1C

In 86:
President: Reagan, R
Senate before election: 47D, 53R
Contested seats: 12D, 22R (+10R)
Net Gain: +8D
Senate after election: 55D, 45R

In 98:
President: Clinton, D
Senate before election: 45D, 55R
Contested seats: 18D, 16R (+2D)
Net Gain: no change
Senate after election: 45D, 55R

Things to note:
1. The prez's party never gained senate seats.
2. In all but 2 years, the president's party had more seats contested.
3. 1986 was the only time since 1918 that senate control switched hands in a 6YM.

So, what should our expectations be for 2006? What would a historically normal result be?

In 06:
President: Bush, R
Senate before election: 45D, 55R
Contested seats: 18D, 15R (+3D)


Well, if we say "what portion of the prez party's contested seats are lost?", we get:

1950: 22%
1958: 62%
1966: 15%
1974: 29%
1986: 36%
1998: 0%

For an average of 27% loss. Given that 15R seats are in play this year, a normal result in this very small sample would be a Dem gain of 4 seats, for a 49D, 51R Senate. A gain of 5D seats, which would still leave the Republicans in control of the Senate, would be a + outcome.

So, there's your rebuttal. You're an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]


Nice, Iron is doing a great job in the forum, as expected.

Now try talking about the House, which is what I was clearly talking about, because Ive already said the Dems arent taking the Senate. Personal attack deleted

[mmbt0ne]

Copper,

feel free to respond to where I showed you how Harold Ford Jr. differs from the Democrat's party line. You asked and received, but then ignored.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Copper,

feel free to respond to where I showed you how Harold Ford Jr. differs from the Democrat's party line. You asked and received, but then ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because no response was called for...I asked for information, you gave it to me. thank you.

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]

Now try talking about the House, which is what I was clearly talking about, because Ive already said the Dems arent taking the Senate. Idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, sure. Let's look at 6th year elections since 1980. How many seats changed hands? Anyone? Anyone? Beuller??

FIVE seats changed hands in 1986. Ditto in 1998.

Next earliest 6th-year election? 1974 -- 49 seats. Hmmm.., sure sounds like there was something big going on. Didn't someone resign or something?

So, pretty much like all other Republican goalpost-moving talking points, your original post on this topic is a bunch of BS. How's that for a rebuttal?

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
Now try talking about the House, which is what I was clearly talking about, because Ive already said the Dems arent taking the Senate. Personal attack deleted

[/ QUOTE ]

See the post right above yours, but thanks again for playing.