When people say crazy things that you just know will be proven wrong by history, it's always tempting to write it down, save the webpage, take a screenshot, or save that video. If it does turn out that they were wrong, it can be used for anything from a good laugh or two with the buddies, to evidence that said person should never be listened to again.
I get this feeling every time a Republican opens their mouths, and if you listen to what President Bush says today, versus what he was saying during his first campaign, you'll understand the true meaning of the word hypocrite. But that's not what this is about.
While strolling through a massive folder I keep on my desktop that is aptly named Desktop keep, I located a saved webpage (in the wrong place) also aptly named stupid mag says repubs will hold.html. Oh, how fascinating!
Unfortunately for me, it was just a Drudge Report flash so much of the content wasn't there, and I had to go searching to find it rest of it. And I have.
Now I don't think it is unfair to say that people who disagreed with the general outlook on the November midterm elections are stupid in any way shape or form, but when you deviate significantly from what is generally thought and then you turn out to be wrong, well you're looking pretty stupid there, ain't ya?
Democrats taking back both chambers of Congress was never a certainty, but as the elections neared, the polls continued to trend in our favor all across the country. Every day it seemed like Republicans were withdrawing funding from a race that was right at the tipping point in an attempt to prop up another race that was on the fence but was once considered a "safe" seat. My guess is Republicans wanted to keep their most senior good ol boys even when the math wasn't playing out in that strategies favor.
Just a few weeks before the elections, Barron's magazine writer Jim McTague predicted that the GOP would hold both houses by slim margins. According to unreliable sources (Wiki, duh) Barron's may be the only mainstream magazine or news publication to have openly called for the impeachment of President Bush.
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.
It's funny that McTague would use the word hubris, because I had considered using it in my title as a matter of insult. The definition of hubris is an "Overbearing pride or presumption." It turned out that McTague and Barron's were being a bit presumptive, because most of the country saw this coming and accepted the fall of the House as a forgone conclusion. In fact, the only people who didn't see it coming perhaps were the ones that currently occupy the White House, namely President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and professional politico Karl Rove. That is not very good company.
We expect the Republican majority in the House to fall by eight seats ... the party's loss could be as large as 14 seats
After all the races have been settled, the GOP ended up losing 30 seats in the House, while independents lost 1, over double the number of seats required to capture (or in their case) lose the majority. Not only did Republicans lose their grip on the House, Democrats now hold a larger majority than Republicans ever did during their 12 year reign. Despite the large turnover in 2006, the 31 Democratic seat gain still pales in comparison to the 54 that the GOP gained in 1994.
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.
Democrats picked up seven seats in the Senate to take the majority, on top of the 31 in the House, but the failed predictions don't stop there.
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.
Analysts from both parties were correct, as Shuler unseated scandal laden Charles Taylor.
Is our method reliable? It certainly has been in the past. Using it in the 2002 and 2004 congressional races, we bucked conventional wisdom and correctly predicted GOP gains both years.
Must have been using Karl Rove's math.
Look at House races back to 1972 and you'll find the candidate with the most money has won about 93% of the time.
Republicans pissed off the country so much that money didn't matter anymore. Wow.
Barron's wasn't the old predictors to foul this one up, but it feels the best because I saved their rants and now can laugh at them along with me. In the interest of public disclosure, however, my prediction wasn't that much different. I thought Democrats would take the House majority +1, and capture five Senate seats. In fairness, I expected George Allen and Conrad Burns to pull through because they were polling better than Jim Webb and John Tester were, and were both losing with 90% of the votes in.
I'm happy I was wrong, and I'm happy Barron's was wrong. The country is better off than it was a year ago, and in two years, it will be in better hands all around.