final Rothenberg Ratings for House, Senate and Governor

[nlm]

New Rothenberg Ratings
The latest Rothenberg Political Report ratings are out. Here are exclusive excerpts provided to Political Wire:

The Senate: "While Senate control is in doubt, with Democrats most likely to win from 5 to 7 seats, we do not think the two sides have an equal chance of winning a majority in the Senate. Instead, we believe that state and national dynamics favor Democrats netting six seats and winning control of the United States Senate."

The House: "Going into the final days before the 2006 midterm elections, we believe the most likely outcome in the House of Representatives is a Democratic gain of 34 to 40 seats, with slightly larger gains not impossible. This would put Democrats at between 237 and 243 seats, if not a handful more, giving them a majority in the next House that is slightly larger than the one the Republicans currently hold. If these numbers are generally correct, we would expect a period of GOP finger-pointing and self-flagellation after the elections, followed by a considerable number of Republican House retirements over the next two years."

Governors: "With Republican seats like Idaho, Alaska, and Nevada in play for state-specific reasons, and Minnesota vulnerable to a Democratic wave, the ceiling for possible Democratic gains is high. We have narrowed our earlier projection from Democratic gains of 6-10 to 7-9."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/11/02/new_rothenberg_ratings.html

[angus]

or pessimistic, depending on your point of view.  My own portfolio is pretty heavy in Big Pharma, and have been watching closings of my own holdings on the NYSE daily with great interest.  I'm inclined to sell big on Friday if nothing changes.  The Democrats aren't going to be as Pharma-friendly as their predecessors.  Not that I disagree with jerky spastic Mike, aka Alex Keaton.  I think we should also be looking into putting federal funds into fetal tissue stem cell research.  But on the other hand, as for Mike, sure, the GOP isn't friendly to Stem Cell Research, but whatever chances that poor bastard had for any hope of a cure within his lifetime is bound to be dashed as much  by the pharma-unfriendly democrat party as by the stemcell-unfriendly republicans.  And my guess is that the Democrats will take the lower house of congress.  If so, then among Nancy Pelosi's stated goals are many that will definitely have the effect of damaging pharmaceutical industry in a big way.  If you think Bush's August 2001 edict nixing federal money for stem cell monies was a bad deal (and I agree that it was), wait till you see the anti-Pharma business plans the dems have in store.  Not that I care personally one way or the other about Michael Fox.  But I do care about my own family and its economic future.  If the Democrats also take the upper house of congress, then you'll wish you'd sold as well.  Especially since Bush hasn't the balls to use his veto pen.  My advice:  sell Merck, Lilly, and the rest.  Or bid it up early in the day tomorrow so I can sell a bit higher.  And aparently I'm not the only one who thinks that.  They're all falling since Monday.  Tomorrow I decide.  But the decision's pretty much already made. 

Any buyers? 

And if we sell off Big Pharma based on the fact that we think the anti-pharma folks will take at least one house on Big Tuesday, what do we buy?  Seriously, what are you folks buying into?

Thanks. 

[okstate]

How accurate has Rothenberg been in the past?

[angus]

Don't doubt it.  I won't report stats here, because I think if you're interested you'll look him up, but Rothenberg is the man.  Restauranteurs, venture capitalists, showmen, people who work for hourly wages by entertaining the public, lobbyists, lawyers, and pretty much anyone who needs to know who's coming to Washington see Stuart Rothenberg as a sort of sage.  A visionary.  A cross between Boomhauer of King of the Hill and Albert Einstein.  If Rothenberg says the Democrats will win 237 to 243 seats in the US House of Reps, then the Democrats will win 237 to 243 seats in the US House of Reps.

[Democratic Hawk]

Well, in his predicting that the Republicans pushed to the sub-200 seat mark in the House, Rothernberg seems too optimistic but his Senate and Governor predictions seem more realistic

Dave

[Deano963]

I am very surprised that such an established national political forecaster like Rothenberg is predicting Dem House gains of 34-40 seats. Even I am not predicting that many seats to flip. Hopefully I'm wrong and Rothenberg is right.

[AuH2O]

Because of gerrymandering, the results Rothenberg is predicting would be the biggest off-year victory in the history of the United States. Actually it wouldn't even be close. That would be like the GOP winning 100+ seats in 1994.

That doesn't make him wrong, but I think he underestimates the degree of the slaughter he's projecting in the House. If the GOP loses 40+ House seats, they won't win any Senate competitive Senate or Governor races either.

[okstate]

I wonder if Rothenberg is overplaying the GOP's problems.

I don't know much about his past accuracy.

Sabato missed 3 total races out of all those in the House, Senate, and Governor in 2004, so he was doing pretty well then. He did miss the Presidency, however, because he had Florida going to Kerry.

Cook looked to be pretty good in the House in 2004, as well, missing just a couple of seats at most. But he doesn't really "call" tossup races at all, so that's a different matter. He didn't miss any Governorships, Senate races, or Electoral College calls, but a lot of those were in tossup.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Because of gerrymandering, the results Rothenberg is predicting would be the biggest off-year victory in the history of the United States. Actually it wouldn't even be close. That would be like the GOP winning 100+ seats in 1994.

That doesn't make him wrong, but I think he underestimates the degree of the slaughter he's projecting in the House. If the GOP loses 40+ House seats, they won't win any Senate competitive Senate or Governor races either.

not necessarily: a lot of Republican incumbents in the house are in trouble for corruption, vs fewer in the senate (only Dewine and Burns have corruption issues; the others are suffering from associations with Bush and the sour national mood)

[angus]

Charlie Cook is an interesting fellow too.  When they go on the road together, rothenberg plays the straight guy to cook's slapstick.  Good team, they are.  Anyway, they're old drinking buddies, with Cook being the more extroverted of the two.  I'd be surprised if when they agree they turn out to both be very wrong simultaneously.  But I also agree with AuH2O that it's possible that the democrats win 40 seats in the House but the GOP still hold the Senate.  Good for Bush, since he doesn't seem to have the balls to confront a united congress.  Not necessarily good for investors, since even the slightest whiff of federal involvement sends consumers elsewhere.  Luckily, my German stocks are doing well since Angela Merckel became Bundeskanzler.  There are some Chinese and Mexican options as well.  But I'm in favor of investing in the USA whenever possible.  Hard call, though.  You and I have access, theoretically, to all the polling data they have.  It's just that we haven't spent a lifetime analyzing that sort of stuff.  I'd defer to Cook and Rothenberg, and if they smell a Democrat House majority come January, I'd plan accordingly by close of business Monday.  Still, anyone who wants to bid up Merck, Walmart, and Haliburton early Friday has my sincere blessings. 

[AuH2O]

I'm a little worried because I graduate law school in 2009, which won't give the GOP much time if they win in 2008 to stop the Dems from screwing the economy.

Of course, I'm one of the lucky ones that will probably be OK anyway. A lot of middle class people are going to get burned.

[mgrossbe]

what type of law are you planning on going into remember trial lawyers are one of the biggest dem backers.

[AuH2O]

Securities. Everything is better with a good economy, but there's still work to be done even if things are going downhill.

Trial lawyers like Democrats because they want to be able to win frivolous lawsuits. Most trial lawyers are poor though, once and so often they hit the jackpot (i.e. John Edwards).

[Sam Spade]

34-40 seats is roughly the equivalent to a reverse 1994, all told.

[Democratic Hawk]

Aye, and if Rothenberg's predictions hold, imagine the carnage were it not for gerrymandering

Dave

[mgrossbe]

Good for you man, on a different post i was saying how much i like gmu when you were being attack, foolishly, by someone. I work for the state legislature here but i do probono trial law. Please, when you become a lawyer take the bar and do some pro bono work for whatever causes you believe. It really does make you feel good at the end of the day. I for instance work against the death penatly and against child/spousal abuse but honestly if you care about it is really rewarding.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm a little worried because I graduate law school in 2009, which won't give the GOP much time if they win in 2008 to stop the Dems from screwing the economy.

Of course, I'm one of the lucky ones that will probably be OK anyway. A lot of middle class people are going to get burned.

Hmmm paranoia much?

Last time I checked the economy was stronger than under Clinton, than it was under Reagan and Bush I. And don't give me any nonsense that the mid 90s boom was a result of the trickle of Reaganomics - one of the most socially destructive economic programs. It was because there was a sensible centerist, moderate Democrat - who believed in balaced budgets.  

People talk all about the "middle class" in America... which is very funny since almost every American regards themselves as that. Put it this way - if the estate tax is a worry for you, you are NOT middle class.

Yes, the stock market is very strong right now... wonder why? Could it the massive corporate profits which are the results of the Republicans ripping apart regulations and encouraging outsourcing. ..

*cough*

On topic - There has been a turn in many states - it looks like up to 4 IN house seats could switch... I'm  starting to think my 222-213 prediction is a bit low... I'm now thinking 230-205.


....

I'm in my final year of studying law - I will be going into intellectual property law - but also I have been volunteering as an adviser at a low-income legal service. I hope when I get older to get into Constitutional law and international human rights law... but they take time.

I agree with mg here, pro-bono shows people that the law it not just about feathering our own nests - legal knowledge is a precious commodity - very few have it, but almost all will need it - irrespective of how much money they have.

[mgrossbe]

Were do you go to school?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

the University of Sydney.

[mgrossbe]

well i do not know much about australia or their schools but i would assume that it is one of the better schools there. Also, i hope you do not only agree with me but back it up in actions.

[opebo]

I'm a little worried because I graduate law school in 2009, which won't give the GOP much time if they win in 2008 to stop the Dems from screwing the economy.

Of course, I'm one of the lucky ones that will probably be OK anyway. A lot of middle class people are going to get burned.

The middle class has been burned already, AuH2O - essentially they have been burned away by rightwing economic policy.  I'm sure you are thinking of the upper-middle class, which contrary to media depiction and popular misunderstanding is actually a very tiny proportion of the population.

In any case, the economy is always better during Democratic rule than Republican, though the condition of the economy of course has little impact on the well-being of the working class (distribution being more important than growth).

I suggest you calm yourself - your life of miserable toil will await you regardless of administration.

[A18]

A securities lawyer has a life of 'toil?' Wow, you're dumb.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That's actually why I don't want to get a "real" job until I'm 30 (I want to work for some sort of research group or think tank or maybe some type of auditing job). Those type of jobs make you boring and are just too stressful. Once I get out of college I'd rather work at a bar or record store.

[Deano963]

I'm a little worried because I graduate law school in 2009, which won't give the GOP much time if they win in 2008 to stop the Dems from screwing the economy.

Of course, I'm one of the lucky ones that will probably be OK anyway. A lot of middle class people are going to get burned.

 

People talk all about the "middle class" in America... which is very funny since almost every American regards themselves as that. Put it this way - if the estate tax is a worry for you, you are NOT middle class.

Bingo.

I love how republicasns try to say that the middle class would be so devastated if the estate tax is not repealed. How f***ing idiotic. I wonder if republican leaders even realize that most Americans do not own yachts and $5 million mansions.  Think NAFTA, CAFTA and skyrocketing healthcare and college costs when you are trying to figure out why the middle class is hurting republican morons.......

[AuH2O]

I'm a little worried because I graduate law school in 2009, which won't give the GOP much time if they win in 2008 to stop the Dems from screwing the economy.

Of course, I'm one of the lucky ones that will probably be OK anyway. A lot of middle class people are going to get burned.

Hmmm paranoia much?

Last time I checked the economy was stronger than under Clinton, than it was under Reagan and Bush I. And don't give me any nonsense that the mid 90s boom was a result of the trickle of Reaganomics - one of the most socially destructive economic programs. It was because there was a sensible centerist, moderate Democrat - who believed in balaced budgets.  

People talk all about the "middle class" in America... which is very funny since almost every American regards themselves as that. Put it this way - if the estate tax is a worry for you, you are NOT middle class.

Yes, the stock market is very strong right now... wonder why? Could it the massive corporate profits which are the results of the Republicans ripping apart regulations and encouraging outsourcing. ..

*cough*

On topic - There has been a turn in many states - it looks like up to 4 IN house seats could switch... I'm  starting to think my 222-213 prediction is a bit low... I'm now thinking 230-205.


....

I'm in my final year of studying law - I will be going into intellectual property law - but also I have been volunteering as an adviser at a low-income legal service. I hope when I get older to get into Constitutional law and international human rights law... but they take time.

I agree with mg here, pro-bono shows people that the law it not just about feathering our own nests - legal knowledge is a precious commodity - very few have it, but almost all will need it - irrespective of how much money they have.

Clinton had a GOP Congress most of the way. The Democrats spent the Social Security trust fund in the '80s, which really screwed us, and now there's no good solution (and Democrats certainly don't offer one). Democrats aren't going to balance the budget, that's a joke. The GOP didn't do it for long but at least a few of them care about it.

The estate tax isn't what I mean about the economy. The estate tax is retarded and unfair because really rich people easily get around it, small business people and farmers get f'ed, but it's other tax rates that matter... capital gains and income. Bush lowered taxes in every bracket, despite constant Dem lies to the contrary. It's just a fact, look up the relevant legislation.

Raising taxes on "the rich" sounds good but its dumb economically because the government is inefficient. It transfers money from efficient uses (investment, consumption) to inefficient uses (bigger government). The end result is a net loss, the size of which obviously depends on the onerous nature of the tax increase.

The losers aren't rich people, because they can take the hit and still be fine. The losers are everyone BUT the rich. It's basic economics. Take a yacht-building company, for instance. Sure, some rich people get yachts, which are hardly essential for a good standard of living, but hundreds of people support families because of a job related to yacht building. Money flows from rich people, who get fancy things that don't really matter, to working people.

It's easy to blast the rich but hitting them hits everyone. Inconvenient but true.