NY-20 Final Predictions

[Sam Spade]

I have no clue - really.  Except I expect it to be close (+/-5%).

I've given up on trying to make predictions for special elections, honestly.  It's too difficult.

[Sam Spade]

I believe I should add a couple of points to my non-prediction.

First off, I will predict special elections, for now, if they occur in "the South", because those races, so long as Obama is in the White House, will be quite predictable.  Other races don't have that air of predictability as of yet.

Second, Republicans would be much better off long-term if they lost today.  I don't feel as if a bottom is in yet.

[Sam Spade]

Why would Republicans be better off if they lost today? I doubt this special election is going to significantly alter the long-term fates of either party, if at all.

Spin that the party is on the right track, and a strengthening of its current (esp. congressional) leadership, is probably not in the party's longterm interests.
They're in danger of falling into the same trap they fell into in ca.1935. And you know how that turned out for them.

This isn't 1935, rather it's more like 1930 where 1929 was in the opposite parties' hands.  Which makes everything a bit more confusing.

But I think we probably agree on the general points, yes.

[Sam Spade]

Why would Republicans be better off if they lost today? I doubt this special election is going to significantly alter the long-term fates of either party, if at all.

Spin that the party is on the right track, and a strengthening of its current (esp. congressional) leadership, is probably not in the party's longterm interests.
They're in danger of falling into the same trap they fell into in ca.1935. And you know how that turned out for them.

This isn't 1935, rather it's more like 1930 where 1929 was in the opposite parties' hands.  Which makes everything a bit more confusing.

But I think we probably agree on the general points, yes.

1929 was not like 2008.  The economy was clearly in trouble starting in 2007 and that was when the recession started.  It wasnt like the economy "suddenly" got bad in September 2008 like in 1929. 

Echoing what the above posters said - the economy did not just collapse in 1929 - warning signs were already apparent.  For example, the housing market clearly topped in mid-1928 (housing market crashes usually presage these types of events).

I believe in our present case, the housing market topped in mid-2006 or so.  Which means the Fed's actions prolonged the catastrophic crash for about a year or so (which sounds about right in my book).

The point that I'm making is much broader - when the history books are written, historians will now doubt place *the crash* as the collapse of Lehman Bros. in September 2008.  That is our October 1929 in my book (I know others will disagree with my characterization) simply because similar events (e.g. the massive flight to bonds) occurred during both events.

Timescales can be affected by government intervention, but in the end the strictures of the market will win out.  Simply put, keep your eye on the big picture! 

Anyway, I'm ending my own personal threadjack here right now...