Science! Republicans Keep Senate, Lose House

Several studies in The American Political Science Associations' PS: Political Science and Politics journal predict that the Republican Party will retain its majority in the U.S. Senate, but that the Democrats will take over the House of Representative.

It's science. You can't argue with it.

Remember, it took Ph.D.'s with advanced computer modeling to make these predictions. I need a punchline for a joke that goes something like, "What do you call 4 Ph.D.'s who use complex forecasting models to say exactly what that moron Chris Matthews has been saying for months?"

I'm thinking, "Tenured" ought to do the trick.

Klarner and Buchanan predict:

* Democrats will receive 224 seats in the House--6 more than needed for control and a gain of 22 seats overall

* There is a 94.9% probability that Democrats will win the House

* Even when very pro-Republican assumptions were made about who would win primaries, the model predicts Democrats have a 69.2% chance of winning the House and will likely emerge with 220 seats

* Democrats will have 48 Senate seats after the election--a net gain of 3 seats, but 3 short of a majority even when Bernie Sanders and Jim Jeffords (I-VT) are counted as Democrats

* There is a 4.7% chance the Democrats will win a majority in the Senate

* The most competitive Senate races in 2006 are those in Pennsylvania (51% chance of a Democratic win), Minnesota (57%), Ohio (39%), Nevada (36%), and Rhode Island (61%)

Abramowitz, using a different model:

* A Democratic gain of 29 seats in the House of Representatives

* A Democratic gain of 2.5 seats in the Senate, limited by a relatively small GOP exposure of 15 seats in this election cycle

* An advantage of 10 points in the generic vote produces a swing of about 2 Senate seats with all else equal


Posted by: Rusty at 01:35 PM


1 Government Grant writters

Posted by: Papa R. at October 23, 2006 03:11 PM

2 "Superfluous"
is what I'd call them.

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at October 23, 2006 03:29 PM

3 Well, that's it then. I guess it's time to tell our Democratic friends to not bother voting, since science has already proven the outcome...

Posted by: Mark at October 23, 2006 03:29 PM

4 You've blinded me with science!

Posted by: Vinnie at October 23, 2006 04:15 PM

5 I bet the same modeling software predicts massive global warming too,

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at October 23, 2006 05:29 PM

6 Academic meatheads have no place in politics. Their stupidity over the last 40 yrs has proven them to be consistently wrong. Most are totally devoid of common sense and have no idea where money comes from.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 24, 2006 06:25 AM

7 'Most are totally devoid of common sense and have no idea where money comes from.'

No silly, they know that the Government prints money when it needs it. D'uh.

Posted by: Fersboo at October 24, 2006 10:46 AM

8 Didn't one of Nasa's Mars missions miss the planet because some scientist confused meters, with yards? I could be wrong ...

Hee hee! Say this six times fast ...
"Mars missions miss "

USA all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at October 24, 2006 10:09 PM

9 You guys are all brilliant. Forget about the fact that this study was conducted last April and June.....

Posted by: JJP at October 25, 2006 08:32 AM

10 "You guys are all brilliant."

Well golly! Thanks!

(Didja hear that? Brilliant! I knew it! WhooHoo!)

Posted by: Michael Weaver at October 25, 2006 05:08 PM

Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0047 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0031 seconds, 18 records returned.
Page size 9 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.