It seems like the Dems will be taking both houses of Congress.

[Drake Tungsten]

We can't let this thread drop out of sight; it's relevant and the pwning of Oerdin is great. So, here's a prediction that the Republicans will retain both houses of Congress. Enjoy!

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.

http://online.barrons.com/public/article/SB116138396438799484-IdCXhh7Ie9DTbX74S9pa7pqHYY4_20061120.html?mod=9_0002_b_free_features

[RGBVideo]

Well Drake, let's give you and your link the benefit of doubt and check if they're anything but partisan hackery your kind of "moderate who is almost certainly voting for a straight democratic ticket in 2006" (your words from 2005 after you were being blamed for being a republican tool) would most certainly loathe. Let's take a look at this analysis by picking up a random race they've analyzed and let's compare it to long-term average of opinion polls.


OK, So this analysis of yours just showed us that M. Kennedy is a certain Senator in 2007, right? I wonder what actual poll numbers are saying about this particular race? 2 minutes of googling brings us:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/October%202006/MinnesotaSenate.htm

Date Klobuchar Kennedy
Oct 4 53% 36%
Aug 28 47% 40%
Aug 1 50% 38%

Wow, it looks like the link you provided contains some deep, non-partisan analysis! Fair and balanced!

OMG LOL OERDIN PWNED AGAIN! , right?

[GePap]

Barron's annalysis is based on the sole notion that whichever candidate has more money to spend at the end will win.

This is the most important bit to know about Barron's analysis:

It's true that our formula isn't foolproof. In 1958, 1974 and 1994, the wave of anti-incumbent sentiment was so strong that money didn't trump voter outrage. We appreciate that voters in 2006 are hopping mad at the GOP because of the war and because of scandal. We just don't agree that the outrage has reached the level of those earlier times. The reason is that the economy in 2006 is healthier. And the economy is the only other factor that figures in our analysis.

So that is basically it. Barron's, unlike almost everyone else, thinks that 2006 is not like 1994, so their analysis will win. Their rationale for why this isn;t like 1994? They see the strong economy as the tipping point.

I think they are wrong because I think they misinterpret the populations feelings on the economy, and most importantly, the depth of the sentiment caused by the Iraq war.

[Ramo]

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.

Yep, it's a pretty ridiculous analysis. If you go only by money and ignore the polls, Santorum, Burns, DeWine, Talent, Allen, and Menendez (though it does look like Allen and Menendez have the advantage, but not rediculous ones as the money game would predict) will win in landslides. And Tarrant's going to pull off the most amazing comeback win in history, leaping 30 points in a few weeks.

Here's another silly prediction in the article:


I'm not saying that Busby won't win, but if she does, the Dems are getting a helluva lot more than 8 seats (she only got 45% in the special election earlier this year held right after Duke Cunningham was convicted).

[Whoha]

From the barrons piece I have to re-evaluate my stance on the house, the democrats may just win.

[Dinner]

Fox has been absolutely pro-Republican this election. To the point that they're virtually cheer leading.

[Drake Tungsten]

"moderate who is almost certainly voting for a straight democratic ticket in 2006"

I don't remember promising to vote a straight Democratic-ticket in 2006. I'm voting for Nelson for Senator, but I haven't decided who I'm voting for in the Congressional race.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Fox has been absolutely pro-Republican this election. To the point that they're virtually cheer leading.

And this surprises you why?

But that's OK... the Big Three Networks are cheer leading for the Democrats

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And considering the millions of network watchers in comparison to the handful of cable news network watchers I'ld say on balance the Dems (as has been the case as long as I have been alive) have the better time of it when it comes to media bias.

[Drake Tungsten]

I wish they would just admit their liberal bias, like the BBC has. Then Fox News could admit its conservative bias and we could all stop *****ing and arguing about the obvious...

[Odin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I wish they would just admit their liberal bias, like the BBC has. Then Fox News could admit its conservative bias and we could all stop *****ing and arguing about the obvious...

THERE IS NO LIBERAL BIAS IN THE MAINSTEAM MEDIA!!!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I wish they would just admit their liberal bias, like the BBC has. Then Fox News could admit its conservative bias and we could all stop *****ing and arguing about the obvious...

1. Bull**** alert. I'm sure there's a better source about the meeting than one that affirms:

BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities

2. Ah yes, The liberal media

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Odin


THERE IS NO LIBERAL BIAS IN THE MAINSTEAM MEDIA!!!

Spoken with the same self assurance that makes up the Odieverse.

Given Odie's track record I'ld say we have a winner.

Given poll after poll lindicates that members of themedia are at least 5 times more liberal than conservative. Latest Pew poll came in at 34% liberal 7% conservative. Prior to that numbers wer 50+% to barely over 10 since the 70's.

or perhaps there is the candid admission by Thomas Edsall (former editor of the WaPo)

In the interview, as Hewitt and Edsall discussed the rise of conservative talk radio and the biases of the mainstream media, Edsall stated the following:

EDSALL: ... I agree that whatever you want to call it, mainstream media, presents itself as unbiased, when in fact, there are built into it many biases, and they are overwhelmingly to the left.

Hewitt appeared so surprised by the remark that, after a pause, he replied, "Well, that's very candid." Candid, indeed, Hugh!

I heard this interview (its posted) and Edsall is no friend of the conservatives. Consequently, his admission is all the more schocking or refreshing.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm sure there's a better source about the meeting than one that affirms:

I'm sure there is, but I was too lazy to look for one.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

Given poll after poll lindicates that members of themedia are at least 5 times more liberal than conservative. Latest Pew poll came in at 34% liberal 7% conservative. Prior to that numbers wer 50+% to barely over 10 since the 70's.

"Members of the media" in such polls tend to be defined as journalists. The problem is, as abundant academic studies of the media have shown, journalists don't ultimately determine the content of the media. Journalist's political leanings lose out to (1) media owners political leanings; (2) the need to keep shareholders happy, and (3) the need to sell advertising, every time. And all three of those tend to be conservative, not liberal, influences (one exception is media's love of liberal values of diversity and tolerance -- inclusiveness sells more toothpaste than exclusiveness).

If nothing else, would have though that the sorry spectacle of the mainstream media asking no questions at all in the run-up to Iraq might have put the myth of liberal media to rest. I guess not.