Last updated:
1:57 PM, 2 September 2010



Jim Miller on Politics

  Email:
jimxc1 at gmail.com



What's he reading? Francis Parkman.

News Compilers
(Why These?)

A&L Daily
Drudge
egopnews.com
Hot Air
Jewish World Review
Lexis-Nexis
Lucianne
memeorandum
Monsters and Critics
Newsalert
Newsback
Orbusmax
Presseurop
Rantburg
Real Clear Politics
SciTech Daily
Yahoo


Big Media
(Why These?)

Atlantic Monthly
BBC
CNN
Chosen Ilbo
Fox News
Globe and Mail (CA)
Guardian (UK)
Investor's Business Daily
Le Figaro (FR)
Le Monde (FR)
The Local (Sweden)
National Review
New Republic
New York Times
The New Yorker
The Politico
Seattle PI
Seattle Times
Slate
Slashdot
The Spectator (UK)
Der Spiegel
Telegraph (UK)
Times (UK)
*El Universal
U. S. News
USA Today
Wall Street Journal
Washington Examiner
Washington Post
Washington Times


References:

Adherents
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Census Quick Facts
Dave Leip's Election Atlas
FactCheck
Federal Statistics
How Stuff Works
NationMaster
Refdesk
Snopes
StateMaster
Tax Facts
Unionstats
Wikipedia


Smart Media
(Why These?)

ABC News Note
The American Spectator
Michael Barone
City Journal
Commentary
Front Page Magazine
Michael Fumento
The Hill
Charles Krauthammer
Media Research
Michael Medved
New York Sun
Number Watch
Pajamas Media
Public Interest
Roll Call
Spinsanity
Tech Central Station
Townhall
The Weekly Standard


Blogs
(Why These?)

My Group Blog:
Sound Politics

Northwest:


The American Empire
AndrewsDad
Chief Brief
Clear Fog Blog
Coffeemonkey's weblog
Croker Sack
"DANEgerus"
Economic Freedom
Evergreen Freedom Foundation
Federal Way Conservative
Hairy Thoughts
Huckleberry Online
Andy MacDonald
NW Republican
Orcinus
Public Interest Transportation Forum
<pudge/*>
*Northwest Progressive Institute
*Progressive Majority
Matt Rosenberg
Seattle Blogger
Seattle Bubble
Washington Policy Center
West Sound Politics
Zero Base Thinking


Other US:


Ace of Spades HQ
Alien Corn
Ann Althouse
American Thinker
The Anchoress
Armies of Liberation
*Art Contrarian
"Baldilocks"
Balloon Juice
Baseball Crank
La Shawn Barber
N. Z. Bear
Beldar
Bleat
Big Government
Bookworm Room
Broadband Politics
Stuart Buck
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Chef Mojo
Chicago Boyz
Classical Values
Gina Cobb
Confederate Yankee
Jules Crittenden
Daily Pundit
Discriminations
Gregory Djerejian
Daniel W. Drezner
Econlog
Econopundit
Election Law
John Ellis
Engage
Dean Esmay
Gary Farber
Grasping Reality With Both Hands
Fausta
FiveThirtyEight
Flares into Darkness
Flopping Aces
The Long War Journal
Gateway Pundit
Keith Hennessey
Hugh Hewitt
Siflay Hraka
Instapundit
Iowahawk
Joanne Jacobs
Jeff Jarvis
The Jawa Report
Brothers Judd
JustOneMinute
Mickey Kaus
Kesher Talk
Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion
Little Green Footballs
Michelle Malkin
Greg Mankiw
Marginal Revolution
Mazurland
Megan McArdle
Minding the Campus
The ModerateVoice
Mudville Gazette
"neo-neocon"
Betsy Newmark
Newsbusters
No Watermelons Allowed
Ambra Nykola
The Ornery American
OxBlog
Parapundit
"Patterico"
Daniel Pipes
Polipundit
Political Arithmetik
Political Calculations
Pollster.com
Power and Control
Power Line
Protein Wisdom
QandO
Radio Equalizer
RedState
Riehl World View
Right Wing News
Rightwing Nuthouse
Dr. Sanity
Scrappleface
Screw Loose Change
Linda Seebach
Sense of Events
Joshua Sharf
Rand Simberg
Smart Politics
Stability For Our Time
The Strata-Sphere
Andrew Sullivan
Don Surber
Sweetness & Light
Taking Hayek Seriously
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf
TigerHawk
USS Neverdock
VDH's Private Papers
Verum Serum
Villainous Company
Volokh Conspiracy
Washington Monthly
Wizbang
Dr. Weevil
Matt Welch
Winds of Change
Meryl Yourish
zombietime


Canadians:


Colby Cosh
Dust My Broom
Five Feet of Fury
Kate McMillan
Damian Penny
Bruce Rolston


Latin America:


Babalú
Caracas Chronicles
*The Devil's Excrement
Venezuela News and Views


Overseas:


"Franco Aleman"
Bruce Bawer
Biased BBC
Tim Blair
Peter Briffa
Brussels Journal
Butterflies and Wheels
Crooked Timber
Davids Medienkritik
Egyptian Sand Monkey
EU Referendum
Greenie Watch
*Guido Fawkes
Harry's Place
Mick Hartley
Oliver Kamm
*JG, Caesarea
¡No-Pasarán!
Fredrik Norman
Melanie Phillips
John Ray
samizdata
Shark Blog
Natalie Solent
*Somtow's World
Bjørn Stærk
Laban Tall
Michael Yon
This is Zimbabwe

*Science Blogs:
The Blackboard
Cliff Mass Weather
Climate Audit
*Climate Depot
Climate Science
Future Pundit
Gene Expression
The Loom
In The Pipeline
Roger Pielke Jr.
Real Climate
A Voyage To Arcturus
Watts Up With That?

Media Blogs:
Dori Monson
David Postman
Rhetorical Ammo
Tierney Lab
Top of the Ticket

R-Rated:
Horse's A**
Huffington Post

*new



Pseudo-Random Thoughts


Here's A Question For Megan McArdle:  (If only because she may have already thought about it.)  It's widely believed that taller men have an advantage in elections over shorter men.  And there is evidence for that conclusion, though it is not as strong as many claim.

This morning, when I saw that picture on Drudge of Carly Fiorina and Barbara Boxer together, I immediately wondered whether the same was true for women candidates.  (According to a very quick search, Fiorina is about 5'7", Boxer about 5' even, so the height difference is quite noticeable.)  Does her height give Fiorina an advantage?

As you have most likely guessed, I would really like that to be true in this particular contest.  And, according to the polls I have seen, the race is close enough so that a small advantage might make the difference.

(Many tech people are not fans of Fiorina's time at Hewlett-Packard.  I haven't followed the events there (or at Lucent) closely enough to have an opinion on that subject.  But I am impressed by most of her business career.  Not every CEO has a degree in philosophy and medieval history — or starts out as a secretary.

FWIW, women candidates — who are usually shorter than their male opponents — are widely believed to have a small advantage in elections here in Washington state.)
- 1:57 PM, 2 September 2010   [link]


And Take Your Oil With You?  The Los Angeles Mayor wants two Texas oil companies to go home.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Tuesday rebuked Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp., which operate refineries in Wilmington, for bankrolling a measure that would effectively scuttle the state's efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

"Go home, Texas oil companies," Villaraigosa urged at a news conference aimed at encouraging voters to oppose Proposition 23, a November ballot initiative to suspend California's 2006 climate change law until the state's unemployment rate drops.  "We won't compromise our environmental and health standards so you can make more money," he said.
But I am pretty sure Mayor Villaraigosa doesn't want them to take their oil refining operations with them.

(Or maybe he does.  In recent decades, California has "exported" much of its pollution to other states.  For example, California now gets a significant proportion of its electricity from coal plants in other states, such as this one in Arizona.)
- 8:06 AM, 2 September 2010   [link]


Alaska Can Be Tough On Incumbent Senators:  As this post, written before Lisa Murkowski's defeat, notes.
If Miller's lead stands, Murkowski would be the third U.S. Senator in Alaskan history to fail to win her party's nomination - out of just seven men and women who have served that office from The Last Frontier State.  (With one of these, Democratic Senator Mark Begich elected in 2008, yet to face a primary challenge as Senator).

Murkowski would join Democrats Ernest Gruening and Mike Gravel as multi-term incumbents who eventually fell so out of favor that they failed to win their own party's primary in their reelection bids.
And Alaska congressmen have had their own troubles, as Eric Ostermeier goes on to explain.

(In contrast, Hawaii is notably friendly to incumbents, which is one of the reasons I think Republican Charles Djou has a good chance to keep Hawaii's 1st district.)
- 7:35 AM, 2 September 2010   [link]


Nick Schultz Wishes Obama Really Was A Chicago-Style Politician:   According to Schultz, if Obama were a Chicago-style pol, he could have made the Ground Zero mosque controversy disappear.
In full Chicago mode, Obama could have sent a minion to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg with the following message: Name your price.  What does Bloomberg need from Obama that would make it worth his while to make the project and the controversy go away?  New York City mayors have enormous political control over their town.  That means it is easy to find all sorts of ways to make a building project stall or just go away altogether — a permitting glitch appears, a bureaucratic snafu arises, an obscure regulation is noticed or conjured that makes moving ahead anytime soon impossible.

Obama gives Bloomberg incentive to engineer an impossible problem into yesterday's news, and the American people are spared an ugly and divisive debate.
Schultz isn't quite correct, as he halfway concedes a bit farther on, when he says that a "great" Chicago pol would have figured out how to make that mosque controversy disappear.  Implicitly, a "not-so-great" Chicago pol would not have figured out how to make the controversy disappear.  And, as anyone who knows even a little Chicago history can tell you, there were many, many not-so-great Chicago pols for every great one.

So Obama is not a "great" Chicago pol.  And, as David Freddoso argued, in the best book I have seen about Obama, that Obama is a mix of a Chicago pol and a 1960s radical.  Sometimes, the two would come to similar conclusions; often they won't

In the mosque controversy, the 1960s radical side of Obama has been dominant.
- 2:52 PM, 1 September 2010   [link]


Obama's Iraq Speech Got Mixed Reviews:  Victor Davis Hanson attacked it.
But there was something bizarre about his entire Iraq speech — it was as if it were being delivered by an exhausted Obama factotum, rather than the animate Obama of old.  So we got a flat Iraq / flat Afghanistan / flat hope-and-change recession address.  It almost seemed a chore.

Perhaps Obama's ennui arises from the impossibility of squaring his circle.  How could an erstwhile fierce critic of Iraq — as well as his diplomatic team (e.g., Biden with his loud wish to trisect Iraq, and Hillary Clinton with her "suspension of disbelief")—convince us that Iraq was a "remarkable chapter"?
. . .
So was Iraq worth the cost?  And could Obama have cited anything positive other than banalities?  In some sense, that was asked post facto of every war — whether it was the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, WWI, Korea, or Vietnam.  The truth about Iraq is that, for all the tragedy and the loss, the U.S. military performed a miracle.  After nearly seven years, a constitutional government endures in that country.  It is too often forgotten that all 23 of the writs for war passed by the Congress in 2002 — from enforcing the Gulf I resolutions and stopping the destruction of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs, to preventing the Iraqi state promotion of terrorism, ending suicide bounties on the West Bank, and stopping Iraq from invading or attacking neighbors or trying to acquire WMD — were met and satisfied by the U.S. military.  It is also too often forgotten that, as a result, Libya gave up its WMD program; Dr. Khan's nuclear franchise was shut down; Syria left Lebanon; and American troops in Saudi Arabia, put there as protection against Saddam, were withdrawn.  Perhaps a peep about some of that—especially the idea that in an oil-short world, Saddam Hussein might have been more or less free to do what he pleased again in Iraq.  (The verdict is out on Iran; playing a genocidal Hussein regime against it was morally bankrupt.  Currently, Shiites participating in consensual government could be as destabilizing to Iran in the long run as Iranian terrorists are to Iraq in the short run.)
Max Boot said it was "about as good as we could expect".

(Note:  Hanson and Boot do not necessarily disagree with each other, since a speech can be "about as good as we could expect", and still be a poor speech.)

John Podhoretz praised the speech, mostly, but ended with this stinger
No wonder he was so nice to George W. Bush last night.  The speech sounded like Bush.  Not as eloquent or as memorable, but, hey, that's life.
Not many people on the left will like the idea of Barack Obama as a second-rate George W. Bush.

(I'll probably have some thoughts of my own on the speech in a few days.)
- 10:05 AM, 1 September 2010   [link]


Senator Murray Is Number 1!  While browsing in the back pages of the 2010 Almanac of American Politics, I learned that Washington's senior senator has another achievement that deserves recognition.

No, she hasn't won another "no rocket scientist award".  (I think the magazine no longer runs that contest.)  Instead, she has done something more substantive.  Here's how the Almanac describes her achievement:

These are the members at the far ends of the ideological spectrum, based on National Journal's 2008 vote ratings.  Scores are a composite of ratings of economic, social and foreign policy votes.

The most liberal senator, by that measure, was Patty Murray.  Her composite score of 92.7 beat out every other senator, including Barbara Boxer (who must be terribly jealous), Richard Durbin, Patrick Leahy, and even Socialist Bernie Sanders.

Congratulations, Senator Murray!  And let me suggest that you use this achievement in all of your campaign ads.  Don't be shy.  Let the voters know that you were the farthest-left senator in the last Congress.

(Does this make Murray officially an extremist?  I suppose so, though you will never get a local journalist to say so.)

Cross posted at Sound Politics.
- 7:52 AM, 1 September 2010   [link]


Too Bad He's Ineligible:  Because, right now, Ohio voters would rather have George W. Bush in the White House.
We'll start rolling out our Ohio poll results tomorrow but there's one finding on the poll that pretty much sums it up: by a 50-42 margin voters there say they'd rather have George W. Bush in the White House right now than Barack Obama.
I think I can hear the gnashing of teeth in local newsrooms, even from here.

George W. isn't eligible, but I have heard that he has a sibling or two who might be.

(FWIW, George H. W. Bush, having served only one term, is eligible for another — and, in my opinion, would do even better in a head-to head poll.  But I suspect that Bush 41 thinks that he has has more important things to do — like jumping out of a perfectly good airplane one more time.)
- 2:42 PM, 31 August 2010   [link]


The Ground Zero Mosque Developer Has An Unusual Background For A Religious Leader:  But you do have to give him credit for having convictions.

Perhaps Sharif El-Gamal has reformed since the 1990s.

Cynical types will suspect that he is simply a front man for one or more people who would prefer to avoid publicity.

(I am pretty sure that alcohol is a no-no for devout Muslims.)
- 10:13 AM, 31 August 2010   [link]


Dick Morris Says The Republicans Can Win The Senate, Too:  Here's his brief summary.
The most likely results are that Republicans win the eight seats in which they now lead and also take Illinois and Nevada for a gain of ten seats and control.  They also have a good shot in California and possible upsets in New York and Connecticut.
That would be an amazing gain, were it to happen.

Bettors at InTrade and the Iowa election markets disagree, though both show the odds improving for a Republican takeover.

As of now, I agree with the bettors, though the latest Washington state poll does make me feel more optimistic.
- 8:27 AM, 31 August 2010   [link]


Some Thoughts On That 10 Point Generic Poll Lead:  Yesterday, Gallup announced this surprising result.
Republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in Gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences.  The 10-percentage-point lead is the GOP's largest so far this year and is its largest in Gallup's history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for Congress.
If the Republicans have a 10 point lead in registered voters, then they probably have a 12 point lead in likely voters.

Nate Silver makes two arguments about the poll, that it is probably an outlier, and that, taken with other recent polls, it shows that House Democrats are in great danger of losing their majority.
Still, even if the poll is an outlier, that doesn't mean it should simply be dismissed.  Instead, the question is: an outlier relative to what?  If the Democrats' true deficit on the generic ballot were 5 points, it would not be all that unusual to have a poll now and then that showed them trailing by 10-points instead, nor would it be so strange for a couple polls to show the race about tied.  Indeed, that seems to be about where the generic ballot sits now.  No non-Internet survey has shown the Democrats with a lead larger than 1 point on the generic ballot for over a month now, whereas their worst results of late seem to put them in the range of 10-11 points behind.
I had come to the same tentative conclusions independently and would add this for perspective:  In 1994, Republicans beat Democrats in the popular vote, 47.8 to 44.0 percent; in 2002. Republicans beat Democrats in the popular vote 49.6 to 45.0 percent.  If Republicans are really leading by 5 percent in the generic vote, then they have good reason to expect to win as many seats as they did in 1994 and 2002.

(Gallup does less "massaging" of its data than some other polling firms, and so may be more likely to have "outliers".  If you look at that Gallup graph, you can see the results bouncing up and down.   Looking at those bounces in the graph makes me willing to predict that the next Gallup poll will not show nearly as large a Republican lead).
- 7:03 AM, 31 August 2010   [link]


HHS Secretary Sebelius Thinks We Need "Reeducation"  On the effects of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid anti-reform insurance bill, commonly known as ObamaCare.
With a number of polls showing a sustained level of opposition to the Democrats' health care reform efforts more than five months after passage, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the Obama administration has "a lot of reeducation to do" heading into the midterms.
Reeducation may not be the best word for her purposes, since many Americans, especially older Americans, associate "reeducation" with nasty camps in communist countries.  (And a few of us wonder whether that word choice shows something about Secretary Sebelius's thinking.)

(Her predecessor, Mike Leavitt, may be one of those she thinks in need of reeducation.)
- 5:52 AM, 31 August 2010   [link]


Bush Versus Obama In Louisiana:  According to Public Policy Polling, Bush is winning.
Louisianans are feeling more and more that George W. Bush's leadership on Katrina was better than Obama's on the spill.  54% think Bush did the superior job of helping the state through a crisis to 33% who pick Obama.  That 21 point margin represents a widening since PPP asked the same question in June and found Bush ahead by a 15 point margin.  Bush beats Obama 87-2 on that score with Republicans and 42-30 with independents, while Obama has just a 65-24 advantage with Democrats.

Louisianans are generally softening with time in their feelings about how Bush handled Katrina.   Almost as many, 44%, now approve of his actions on it as the 47% who disapprove.  Of course it should be noted that many of the people most negatively impacted by the federal government's handling of Katrina aren't in Louisiana to answer polls about it now.
(Emphasis added.)

FWIW, I recall seeing, soon after Katrina, a poll that showed that Louisianans rated Bush's performance higher than Governor Blanco's or Mayor Nagin's.  It didn't get much national publicity, since it didn't fit the "mainstream" media narrative.  I thought the poll deserved more attention, since the people of Louisiana had far more direct experience with Katrina than most of the country did.
- 4:09 PM, 30 August 2010   [link]


Bedbugs And Mosquitoes, Clinton And Obama:  The great Chinese writer Lu Xun once explained why he preferred bedbugs to mosquitoes.
Although bedbugs are quite unpleasant when they suck your blood, at least they bite you without a word, which is quite straightforward and frank.  Mosquitoes are different.  Of course, their method of piercing the skin may be considered fairly thoroughgoing; but before biting, they insist on making a long speech, which is irritating.  If they are expounding all the reasons that make it right for them to feed on human blood, that is even more irritating.  I am glad I do not know their language. (p. 109)
When I re-read that selection recently, I was, instantly, reminded of our last two Democratic presidents; Clinton may have backed any number of bad policies (especially before the Republicans took control of Congress), but at least he didn't whine incessantly about how we deserved those bad policies.

Is that comparison unfair to Obama?  I suppose so, but I don't think it is completely unfair.

(Not familiar with Lu Xun?  (I wasn't before I read about him in Simon Leys' books.)  Then you might want to begin with his famous story, "The True Story of Ah Q", which you can find here, or, for a better bargain, in this collection.  Warning: It is not the kind of feel-good story that Oprah would like; in fact, I am pretty sure she would hate it.

Incidentally, Simon Leys uses that passage to make an argument about the Maoists then ruling China, calling them the "Great Mosquitoes".)
- 1:11 PM, 30 August 2010   [link]


For Those Who Would Like To Coo over a pretty baby girl, some pictures of Florence Rose Endellion Cameron.

For those who would like to chuckle over some political snark, Iain Hollingshead imagines how David Cameron (and his political advisor) might have come up with that third name, "Endellion".

(I liked both the pictures and the snark.)
- 9:52 AM, 30 August 2010   [link]


How Chairman Livingston Cut Spending:  With the odds now in favor of Republican control of the House of Representatives, it is time, perhaps past time, to ask how much difference that control could make.  The best way to examine that question is to look at what happened in a roughly comparable situation, after the 1994 election.  And so I plan a series of posts describing what Republicans did after that election.

Since Republican and independent voters are most concerned with the Pelosi-Reid-Obama spending spree, I will begin with what Robert L. Livingston, who became chairman of the House Appropriations Committee after the election, was able to do to control spending.

The Wikipedia article tells some of the basics of his career— and much about the personal scandal that drove him from office — but nothing about his achievements as chairman.  Fortunately, I have a 1998 Almanac of American Politics that includes a brief description of his achievements:

Yet for all the sturm and drang — he brought an alligator skinning knife, a "Cajun scalpel," to his first meeting — he got quite a job done.  Appropriations started the 104th Congress by cutting the Democrats' spending bills, then cut non-defense spending FY96 spending by $5.5 billion — very much contrary to precedent.  After the bruising battle over the budget, when Bill Clinton vetoed many appropriations bills, Livingston and his committee allowed spending increases for FY97.  But comparing the Democrats' last bills (FY95) and Livingston's latest, non-defense spending fell from $246 billion to $235 billion, while defense rose only from $262 to $265 billion.   Total discretionary spending was something like $50 billion less than what it would have been under Democratic projections. (p. 628)

(FY = fiscal year.)

Those who understand how most government budgeting is done — in increments or, very seldom, decrements, from last year's budget — will understand that saving $50 billion once is likely to set a baseline so that nearly the same amount can be saved in succeeding years.

Those who have studied budgeting in other industrial democracies will be especially impressed by Livingston's achievements.  It is extraordinarily difficult to control spending when so many legislators, from Tokyo to Canberra to Oslo to Ottawa to London to Washington, D. C., believe they can buy votes with the right appropriations.  (And they are often right to think so.)

A 2011 Republican Appropriations chairman would find it easier to duplicate Livingston's achievements in some ways, harder in other ways.  The spending spree under Pelosi-Reid-Obama has been so wasteful, so political, that the chairman would find many easy targets.  On the other hand, it is still unlikely that the Republicans will control the Senate, so the chairman would not have the help that Bob Dole and other Republican leaders gave Livingston.

Even so, I would guess that a Republican House Appropriations chairman could reduce spending by at least $100 billion from what it would be under a Democratic chairman — and that, as long as the party control doesn't shift back, could keep those savings year after year.

Cross posted at Sound Politics.

(Newt Gingrich deserves some share of the credit for Livingston's budget achievements.  Gingrich was able to make Livingston chairman, even though Livingston was only 5th in seniority, and then backed Livingston in the budget fights.  Since Gingrich is Gingrich, he lost some of the credit he should have gotten for this achievement by poor politicking.  But Gingrich wasn't the first to get snookered by Bill Clinton, who is, as we all know, one of the cleverest politicians to come along in many years.)
- 9:16 AM, 30 August 2010   [link]


Drudge Juxtaposes:  As he often does, this morning Matt Drudge juxtaposes two things to make a point, indirectly.  Sometimes, Drudge puts two headlines next to each other; sometimes he puts a picture next to a headline.  This time, he has pictures of Obama and Putin on their vacations, Obama riding what will look like a girl's bike to many Americans and Putin getting ready to shoot a whale with a crossbow.  (In order to get a sample from the whale.)

When Drudge juxtaposes, he is usually using one headline or picture to comment on another.  This morning Drudge is telling us that the leader of Russia is manly man — unlike the leader of the United States.  That comparison may draw laughs and sneers from Western journalists and academics, but not from the rest of the world, where strength in a leader is almost universally admired.

(For the record, Obama is riding a "comfort" bicycle like the Giant Sedona I bought earlier this year.)
- 6:10 AM, 30 August 2010   [link]


Another Day, Two More Estimates Of Republican House Gains:  Political scientists Bafumi, Erickson, and Wlezien use a straightforward model to come to this conclusion.
Our preliminary 2010 forecast will appear (with other forecasts by political scientists) in the October issue of PS: Political Science.  By our reckoning, the most likely scenario is a Republican majority in the neighborhood of 229 seats versus 206 for the Democrats for a 50 seat loss for the Democrats.  Taking into account the uncertainty in our model, the Republicans have a 79% chance of winning the House.

The model has two steps.  Step 1 predicts the midterm vote division from only two variables, the generic poll result and the party of the president.  With this estimate of the partisan tide in place, step 2 forecasts the winners of 435 House races using separate statistical models for open seats and races with incumbent candidates.  At each step, the forecast takes into account uncertainty about the inputs.
The model, as described, sounds plausible to me, since there are strong reasons for treating open seats and seats defended by incumbents differently.  (And their model results were very close to the actual results in the last off-year election, in 2006.)

Political scientist James E. Campbell uses, as far as I can tell from this article, a more complex model, and comes up with an almost identical answer.
The presiding Democrats stand to lose about 51 seats in November, says James E. Campbell, professor of political science at UB.  His prediction stems from a crystal ball filled with scientific equations based on polling and current events, all pointing to a stunning reversal of fortune for Democrats, who took over the House in 2006.
According to the article, he has a "sterling record of prognosticating presidential elections".

(Caveat:  I haven't seen the details on either model.  And it is not unusual for a model to work well for an election or two and then fail.)
- 2:43 PM, 29 August 2010
To put this in historical perspective, note that a net gain of 50 or 51 seats would bring the Republicans back to the numbers they held after the 1994 and 2002 elections.  Note also that the Republicans were able to win 230 seats in 1994 and 229 seats in 2002 with just 47.8 percent and 49.6 percent of the popular vote, respectively.  (They did win majorities of the two-party vote in both years.)
- 7:34 AM, 30 August 2010   [link]


Archives

June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002, Part 1 and Part 2
November 2002, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
December 2002, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3

January 2003, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
February 2003, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
March 2003, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
April 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2004, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2004, Part 1, Part 2. Part 3, and Part 4
October 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2005, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2006, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2007, Part 1 and Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2007, Part 1 Part 2, and Part 3, and Part 4
June 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2007, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2007, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2008, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
May 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2009, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2009, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2009, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. and Part 4

January 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2010, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2010, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2010, Part 1






Coming Soon
  • Carbon, Carbon Dioxide, and Crescent Wrenches
  • De-Lawyering and Attorney General McKenna


Coming Eventually
  • JFK and Wiretaps
  • Green Republicans
  • The Rise and Fall and Rise of Black Voting
  • Abortion, Cleft Palates, and Europe
  • Kweisi Mfume's Children
  • Public Opinion During Other US Wars
  • Dual Loyalties
  • The Power Index
  • Baby Dancing
  • Jocks, but no Nerds
  • The Four Caliphs



Best Posts


Books


Strange Obama


The Unknown Bush


University Reform


Uncorrected Mistakes


Vote Fraud


The Gang of Four


Articles


Assignment Desk
(What's This?)


Columns


Common Mistakes
(What's This?)


Chomsky Cult Program


*new