Chris Bowers over at MYDD has put together an House race forecast database, which will be updated on a regular basis. Bowers says:
“What I am not worried about is competition. The sheer amount of information I offer in this forecast easily surpasses anything publicly available anywhere in the nation.”
It’s impressive, but I don’t know that the “sheer amount of information” is all that astronomical, but he’s probably right that you won’t find all of this information in any single quick-reference source. I’m sure the professionals will be printing it out regularly. The chart contains the following:
The top 60 House races in the nation, grouped by competitiveness tier.
Meanwhile, Osama is stalking Ned Lamont.
- The names of both the Democratic and Republican candidates in all 60 races.
- The relative cash on hand in all 60 races
- The partisan voting index for all 60 districts
- The 2004 margin in all 60 districts
- The latest poll, if any, from all 60 districts
- Notifications as to whether each district is an open seat, held by a freshman, has a repeat challenger, or has been targeted for ad buys by the DCCC
- Mini-commentary on each district
His projections are probably optimistic (for Democrats). Kos agrees with me:
“And for the record, I still don’t think we’ll win back either chamber. I’ve seen the GOP close the deal too many times before for me to get complacent and cocky. Nah. I think we’ll win 7-14 seats in the House, 3-5 in the Senate.”
The recent polling notwithstanding, I doubt that Virginia, Tennessee, and Nevada are really in play. Casey will probably beat Santorum in Pennsylvania. Brown is looking good in Ohio. And I’ve got a very good feeling about Montana because of an unusually strong Democrat in Tester. But I’d never bet on Missouri, and Chafee will probably pull it out Rhode Island if he wins his primary. One the up side, none of the previously indicated vulnerable Democrats look like they’re going down, not even Maria Cantwell. I say the Democrats pick up 3 (not including the Lamont win over Lieberman, which I believe is relatively certain current polls notwithstanding). I have no idea about the House, except that it appears that the Democrats will gain seats.
Oh, and Osama’s stalking Lamont (photo above from Lamont’s blog).
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 29, 2006 at 2:57 am
Fred
I’ll never understand why you hang with the Democrats.
August 29, 2006 at 4:39 am
Anonymous
Fred, when you see that intelligent, free-thinking people who do their homework and get their facts straight tend towards Democrats, does it ever make you think that maybe you hang with the wrong crowd?
August 29, 2006 at 5:16 am
Anonymous
intelligent, free thinking = democrats ? are you stupid or what ?
August 29, 2006 at 6:26 am
Eric V. Kirk
Well, I don’t relate to all Democrats. I’d vote for Pete McCloskey over about 3/4 of the Democrats in office.
August 29, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Anonymous
are you stupid or what?
Oh, well that was certainly intelligent and free-thinking. You have me wriggling in the crushing grasp of reason.
I don’t particularly care whether someone calls themself a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, a Green, or whatever. I, myself, have been 3 of the 4 at one time or another. What I do care about is that people be able to articulate their beliefs, and that they are able to recognize when the “party line” has abandoned its fundamental underpinnings.
Both Libertarians and Greens are typically far better at staying ‘on point’ than either the Dems or Repugs, but this is largely due to their more narrow focus and, frankly, their lack of power. It is much easier to hold to one’s ideals when you are on the outside, looking in.
Democrats (and here I mean individuals, not the party), in my experience, tend to think for hemselves, and aree much better at calling their own party on the carpet. I know very few blind-faith party-line Democrats.
On the other hand, the vast majority of Republicans I know (and I regularly converse with quite a few) let the party do the thinking for them. The level of free-thinking and intelligence displayed by them is commonly exhibited in brilliantly structured arguments such as “are you stupid or what?”
Now, of course there are many exceptions on all sides. I do know plenty of Dems who don’t seem to put much thought into why they are Dems, and a few Republicans who are as incisive about their own party as they are about the Dems.
If someone is intelligent, thoughtful, and able to truly reason their way through an argument, then it doesn’t really matter what they call themselves.
August 29, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Good points anon 8:38. Don’t take the comments too personally. The medium doesn’t bring out the best in people.
August 30, 2006 at 2:43 am
Carson Park Ranger
Perhaps we’re not hearing from thoughtful Republicans who are critical of their party, because traditonal conservatives are even more alienated from the Bush, neo-con Republican party than thoughtful Democrats are from the poll-driven, Clinton-dominated Democratic party.
August 30, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Well, there are Republicans critical of their party for a number of reasons. Some think the party is wimping out in its opposition to abortion. On the upside, some appear to be breaking ranks on the war. A dollar late and a day short, but better late than never.