"Political Scientists Say Democratic Control a 'Near Certainty'" - MUST-REA...

[greeneyedboy]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/10/25/political_scientists_say_democratic_control_a_near_certainty.html
from a politicalwire summary of the research:

In a new http://polmeth.wustl.edu/retrieve.php?id=657">research paper, three political scientists attempt to use the results of generic congressional polls to predict the outcome of the midterm elections.

"Via computer simulation based on statistical analysis of historical data, we show how generic vote polls can be used to forecast the election outcome. We convert the results of generic vote polls into a projection of the actual national vote for Congress and ultimately into the partisan division of seats in the House of Representatives. Our model allows both a point forecast-our expectation of the seat division between Republicans and Democrats-and an estimate of the probability of partisan control. Based on current generic ballot polls, we forecast an expected Democratic gain of 32 seats with Democratic control (a gain of 18 seats or more) a near certainty."

repeating this part just because i love it so much (emphasis mine):
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/25/13291/514 - Chris Bowers's commentary

. . . The system of damns in levees {sic} that Republicans have in places (maps, voter suppression, fundraising, media, GOTV) appears incapable of withstanding a blow of gr{e}ater than eight percent. In what had been a fairly static, evenly divided nation from 1992-2004, that advantage of up to eight points was overwhelming, as we slowly depressingly learned over the past decade. That advantage was also why narrowly targeting the swing via triangulation was a nearly hopeless crusade for Democrats, since we needed a big win to break the system. However, with a wave of greater than eight points, not only can we take control, but we can also smash much of the Republican power system. We can dismantle the K-Street project, redraw maps, shift the media, shift fundraising, make real electoral reform--the works. We can significantly reduce the eight-point, built in Republican advantage by taking control, which will come in very handy should the nation revert to an even split. So, when you are watching generic ballot polls, keep the number 8 in mind. Anything above, and we should have blue skies up ahead.

http://polmeth.wustl.edu/retrieve.php?id=657 - the research itself

(this is the piece that was cited in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=242425&mesg_id=242425">an earlier thread, but it deserves its own thread IMO. )

i beg of you: please read and comprehend what the article is saying before throwing the "what about theft!?!?!! woe is us!!!" posts in. read and you will see that the researchers factored in what we know about polling results vs. official results. the researchers don't say that everything's hunky dory and fair--it certainly is not!--but they do say that the margins the Democrats currently have are too large to be overcome by the dirty tricks we're so familiar with, and if those margins hold, the Democratic wave will help many blue ships come in.

[greeneyedboy]

1. translation: keep up the GOTV.

no time to get complacent, but there's no call for lamentation either.

[w4rma]

11. Exactly. GOtV is the most important thing anyone here can do in the next

couple of weeks.

[RedEarth]

12. That's exactly right........

[fairfaxvadem]

2. Not according to Turd Blossom!!

the headliner over at Rawstory has him interviewed saying "i have all the REAL numbers and the polls you have are crap, blah, blah, blah...."

You know, everyone can't be wrong except for Rove but he is so slimey, I am sure he sees some wiggle room in some places to do some real damage on Nov. 7th.

GOTV, all the way to the 7th....

I did a DU search for this story and didn't see it posted so sorry if it's a dupe....

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Rove_dukes_it_out_with_NPR_1025.html

[greeneyedboy]

3. Q. how do you know when he's lying? (A: his lips are moving)

[fairfaxvadem]

4. I know! I know!

But it's still better to know what that dirtbag is saying publicly, we've been through too many elections with him not to pay attention.

[texpatriot2004]

5. K & R nm

[yurbud]

6. instead of re-gerrymandering the map, why not do some basic reform

larger districts that are multi-seat, so both Democrats and Republicans (and God forbid, even third parties) who happen to live in areas where they are the minority don't feel like they are pissing in the wind when they vote.

A set up like that would also be more sensitive to ideological swings in the country rather than favoring very marginal candidates who are nonetheless protected by gerrymandering.

A piece of shit like Mark Foley might have been spit out sooner if he was one of 10 candidates running for 5 seats instead of the only republican running in a republican district.

[greeneyedboy]

8. we are long overdue for real reform. meanwhile this study makes total sense.

i have long felt that we needed a little buffer to balance out the fraud on the other side, and very glad that our buffer so far is 3x what we need for sure victory, 6x what we need for very likely victory.

[midnight]

10. Pissing in the wind. Indeed. That is how I feel since 2001.

[yurbud]

7. if the Democrats don't fix the system this time, we are unlikely to get

another shot at doing it peacefully. Every time the right is defeated, the Democrats forgive and forget, and the GOP comes back that much sooner, stronger, and more vicious.

Watergate

October Surprise

Iran Contra

Clinton impeachment

In each case, Democrats had what should have been pivotal victories that they could have used to drive a stake through the worst elements of the right, and instead they gave them a band aid and some aspirin.

It's like a concentration camp inmate giving CPR to Mengele if he had a heart attack. As soon as he comes to and collects himself, he will send the inmate on his way to the gas chamber.

[greeneyedboy]

9. to sum up: we need an 8 point average lead nationwide. we have more than that.

now isn't the time for drinking the champagne, but you might want to pick some up at the store while you're getting out the vote.

[yurbud]

14. points out both the frustration I had with Kerry and constraint he was

operating under.

I wonder if he was aware of that 8% zone and was trying to get just barely more than that or overwhelm it.

If he got just barely more than that, the idea might have been to bunt to get through Bush defenses.

If he overwhelmed it, the cheating wouldn't help Bush, but the Bushies might have panicked and Kerry would have had an unfortunate accident or even an old school elimination from the race a la RFK.

The first option might explain his very finely calibrated position on the war and his extremely restrained, but still winning performance in the debates. Without raising his voice, being bellicose, or even personal, he could have revealed Bush retarded spoiled Ruprecht that he is.

[Lugnut]

13. Sounds good to me

I'm not taking any chances though. I'll be voting.

[greeneyedboy]

15. you and everyone else, i hope. we know what's at stake.