• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Survivor! The GOP Victory Barron's Magazine: Republicans to hold Congress (1 Viewer)

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The Coming GOP Victory

Interesting read according to highly regarded Barrons Magazine


http://tailrank.com/712698/The-Coming-GOP-Victory



Found 1 day ago on online.barrons.com
JUBILANT DEMOCRATS SHOULD RECONSIDER their order for confetti and noisemakers. Thus, our conclusions about individual races often differ from the conventional wisdom. Look at House races back to 1972 and you'll find the candidate with the most money has won about 93% of the time.
 
Re: The Coming GOP Victory

Navy Pride said:
Interesting read according to highly regarded Barrons Magazine


http://tailrank.com/712698/The-Coming-GOP-Victory



Found 1 day ago on online.barrons.com
JUBILANT DEMOCRATS SHOULD RECONSIDER their order for confetti and noisemakers. Thus, our conclusions about individual races often differ from the conventional wisdom. Look at House races back to 1972 and you'll find the candidate with the most money has won about 93% of the time.

The candidate with the most money wins 93% of the time. That says something about American politics.
 
Re: The Coming GOP Victory

Iriemon said:
The candidate with the most money wins 93% of the time. That says something about American politics.

But not necessarily what you think it does. There are a number of reasons why the "natural" winner of an election would be given more money to campaign with-- not the least of which is garnering favors for later.

Bad candidates with deep pockets don't win elections, despite their money. The people who win elections are the people who have the most other peoples' money.
 
Re: The Coming GOP Victory

Navy Pride said:
Interesting read according to highly regarded Barrons Magazine

http://tailrank.com/712698/The-Coming-GOP-Victory
Your link is to a BLOG! Where's the entire story so we can se what Barrons actually wrote?

Do you know who the author of the story is NP and what his political leanings are? I do....His name is Jim McTague and he is an editorial writer for Barrons.

Do you know who owns Barrons? The Wall Street Journal. Have you ever read a WSJ editorial? They're right wing to the extreme! So what a coincidence that their editorial writer for Barrons is also to the extreme right?

You're #1 in partisan posting NP, though Aquapub gives you a run for the money.

NP....you want to bet a donation to Debate Politics, say $50 that the Dems win the House? If they win you contribute $50, if they lose I will?

If you don't want to bet money how about Avatars for 30 days? I get to choose what yours would be and vice versa? Is it a bet?
 
Re: The Coming GOP Victory

Korimyr the Rat said:
But not necessarily what you think it does. There are a number of reasons why the "natural" winner of an election would be given more money to campaign with-- not the least of which is garnering favors for later.

Bad candidates with deep pockets don't win elections, despite their money. The people who win elections are the people who have the most other peoples' money.

Or maybe because more people support them so more people give them money?
 
Re: The Coming GOP Victory

Nexus said:
Thank you! Did you notice this part of the story, it's quite revealing..it's like it was written using Navy Pride logic:

We ignore the polls. Thus, our conclusions about individual races often differ from the conventional wisdom. Pollsters, for instance, have upstate New York Republican Rep. Tom Reynolds trailing Democratic challenger Jack Davis, who owns a manufacturing plant. But Reynolds raised $3.3 million in campaign contributions versus $1.6 million for Davis, so we score him the winner.
The entire story is whacked!
 
Re: The Coming GOP Victory

Navy Pride said:
Interesting read according to highly regarded Barrons Magazine


http://tailrank.com/712698/The-Coming-GOP-Victory



Found 1 day ago on online.barrons.com
JUBILANT DEMOCRATS SHOULD RECONSIDER their order for confetti and noisemakers. Thus, our conclusions about individual races often differ from the conventional wisdom. Look at House races back to 1972 and you'll find the candidate with the most money has won about 93% of the time.

I suppose "victory" is a relative term. The closest thing to a victory the GOP can hope for is losing a small number of seats and keeping control of both houses of Congress.

But are you talking about a victory in the sense that the GOP will actually GAIN seats? I'll bet you any amount you want that that does not happen.

And I agree with Korimyr that the amount of money a candidate raises has little direct influence on his victory or defeat.
 
Last edited:
Survivor!

The GOP Victory
By JIM MCTAGUE

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

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. Thus, our conclusions about individual races often differ from the conventional wisdom. Pollsters, for instance, have upstate New York Republican Rep. Tom Reynolds trailing Democratic challenger Jack Davis, who owns a manufacturing plant. But Reynolds raised $3.3 million in campaign contributions versus $1.6 million for Davis, so we score him the winner.

Likewise, we disagree with pollsters of both parties who see Indiana Republican Rep. Chris Chocola getting whomped by Democratic challenger Joe Donnelly, a lawyer and business owner from South Bend. Chocola has raised $2.7 million, versus $1.1 million for Donnelly. Ditto in North Carolina, where we see Republican Rep. Charles Taylor beating Democrat Heath Shuler, a former NFL quarterback, because of better financing. Analysts from both parties predict a Shuler upset.

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

What happens when after all the Democrats have going for them they still lose come November? Will the blame themselves this time or will it be the doings of the notorious diebold machines?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:


What happens when after all the Democrats have going for them they still lose come November? Will the blame themselves this time or will it be the doings of the notorious diebold machines?


I don't want them to lose, but if they do, it will because they have not offered an alternative, and that is their constant...........
 
I smell stollen elections... fixed computer voting machines... Voter Identification limiting voters to living US citizens complaints... My goodness you need an ID to vote what is this country coming to?
 
Topsez said:
I smell stollen elections... fixed computer voting machines... Voter Identification limiting voters to living US citizens complaints... My goodness you need an ID to vote what is this country coming to?

LOL, I hear you, we are going straight down the toilet, the electronic votes work perfectly in the Democratic areas, and fail miserably in the Republican ones, what can we do?:rofl
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:

Re: Survivor! The GOP Victory Barron's Magazine: Republicans to hold Congress

The title of this thread is in violation of DP rules...so now we have a duplicate thread that also has an incorrect title that is in obvious violation of one of the most basic DP rules...as if Trajan didn't know this when he add:

Barron's Magazine: Republicans to hold Congress


What a shocking development....
 
26 X World Champs said:
The title of this thread is in violation of DP rules...so now we have a duplicate thread that also has an incorrect title that is in obvious violation of one of the most basic DP rules...as if Trajan didn't know this when he add:

Barron's Magazine: Republicans to hold Congress


What a shocking development....

This may very well change the entire election..............:rofl
 
26 X World Champs said:
The entire premise of the article is stupid! They make picks like Kennedy in MN who is trailing by 56-40 in the CLOSEST poll....

Exactly, why worry about, save your partisan ammo!;)
 
26 X World Champs said:
The title of this thread is in violation of DP rules...so now we have a duplicate thread that also has an incorrect title that is in obvious violation of one of the most basic DP rules...as if Trajan didn't know this when he add:

Barron's Magazine: Republicans to hold Congress


What a shocking development....

The title of the article is in the thread the additition was placed there so that people will know what the thread is about.
 
26 X World Champs said:
The entire premise of the article is stupid! They make picks like Kennedy in MN who is trailing by 56-40 in the CLOSEST poll....

Well this guy was right about the last two elections. He bases his assertion on which candidate recieves the most money that is because that if a person gives a donation to a campaign then that is a sewn up vote, giving money to a candidate is a pretty good indicator of whether one is actually going to come out and vote for said candidate.
 
26 X World Champs said:
The title of this thread is in violation of DP rules...so now we have a duplicate thread that also has an incorrect title that is in obvious violation of one of the most basic DP rules...as if Trajan didn't know this when he add:

Barron's Magazine: Republicans to hold Congress


What a shocking development....


Actually, you're incorrect. I have the actual paper article in front of me, and the "Survivor!" bit is what the headline says. "Republicans to hold Congress" is the subheading of the story.
 
Last edited:
RightatNYU said:
Actually, you're incorrect. I have the actual paper article in front of me, and the "Survivor!" bit is what the headline says. "Republicans to hold Congress" is the subheading of the story.
NO! This is a clear violation of rules that you're allowing because YOU agree with the article (you already wrote that you do) and it supports the GOP view that you also have clearly stated you believe in.

The rule states:

2. The title of every post must be identical to the title of the news story headline. This is important as it helps to avoid multiple topics about an issue, while starting discussions out on a more neutral basis.
IDENTICAL, not subtitle, not adding words like "Barrons Magazine."

If this thread title is not altered then from now on people can add a comment like Bush does on bills, a signing statement if you will.

The link that was provided most definitely does NOT include the words that I previously highlighted, it is a cop-out to write that the "print" version has the added words, that is not germain to this link, story or forum rules.
 
26 X World Champs said:
NO! This is a clear violation of rules that you're allowing because YOU agree with the article (you already wrote that you do) and it supports the GOP view that you also have clearly stated you believe in.

The rule states:


IDENTICAL, not subtitle, not adding words like "Barrons Magazine."

If this thread title is not altered then from now on people can add a comment like Bush does on bills, a signing statement if you will.

The link that was provided most definitely does NOT include the words that I previously highlighted, it is a cop-out to write that the "print" version has the added words, that is not germain to this link, story or forum rules.

Dang dude what's your problem it's not like I put a giant flame bait in the title I only added that to help people know what the article is about.
 
Barron's said:
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.

They say they don't agree because the outrage has not reached the level of those earlier times. Yet every poll that addresses that subject - the 'outrage' - indicates that in fact it has reached that level. And the author of the Barron's article offers no evidence at all for his assertion. It is a :spin: article. Nevertheless, its assertions will have a bearing if the 'outrage' drops off.
 
26 X World Champs said:
NO! This is a clear violation of rules that you're allowing because YOU agree with the article (you already wrote that you do) and it supports the GOP view that you also have clearly stated you believe in.

The rule states:


IDENTICAL, not subtitle, not adding words like "Barrons Magazine."

If this thread title is not altered then from now on people can add a comment like Bush does on bills, a signing statement if you will.

The link that was provided most definitely does NOT include the words that I previously highlighted, it is a cop-out to write that the "print" version has the added words, that is not germain to this link, story or forum rules.

Ahem......

Forum Rules said:
Publicly disrespectful behavior from a member toward a moderator regarding moderator actions or decisions may result in a summary suspension of that member's posting privileges.

It is perfectly within Right@NYU's discretion to keep the title or to change it. If he feels that it is appropriate and feels that it follows the rules adequately, then that's the end of the story. Including the subtitle of a story is completely appropriate.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom