Comments on: Monday Morning Handicapping http://informedspeculation.com/2006/02/13/monday-morning-handicapping/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:53:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: DBrooks http://informedspeculation.com/2006/02/13/monday-morning-handicapping/comment-page-1/#comment-12799 DBrooks Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:38:55 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/02/13/monday-morning-handicapping/#comment-12799 Most everyone who read his Horserace Blog during the 2004 election knows that Jay Cost is an insightful observer of electoral politics. His take on that election, both before and after, was in-depth, detailed, and accurate. I think he, along with Michael Barone, is one of the brightest people looking at elections today. Given that, I am anxious for Part II, and I am comforted by his current assessment. For those of you who aren't familiar with him, go to The Horserace Blog at http://jaycost.blogspot.com, and read through the archives. For political junkies, it's great stuff. Most everyone who read his Horserace Blog during the 2004 election knows that Jay Cost is an insightful observer of electoral politics. His take on that election, both before and after, was in-depth, detailed, and accurate. I think he, along with Michael Barone, is one of the brightest people looking at elections today. Given that, I am anxious for Part II, and I am comforted by his current assessment. For those of you who aren’t familiar with him, go to The Horserace Blog at http://jaycost.blogspot.com, and read through the archives. For political junkies, it’s great stuff.

]]> By: David M. Smith http://informedspeculation.com/2006/02/13/monday-morning-handicapping/comment-page-1/#comment-12727 David M. Smith Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:31:14 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/02/13/monday-morning-handicapping/#comment-12727 Hi Mark, Jay Cost did a very good job of describing the variables in his theory. I am curious to read more tomorrow. However, it seems to me that there may be too much reliance on history in his theory. Voters seem to me to be wising up. We know that Presidential approval rating does not translate to votes as much as it did at one time. A conservative can say the country is headed in the wrong direction and that George W. Bush is a big spending liberal, but still vote for Republicans because the alternative is to vote for a bigger spending Democrat. There is also a larger percentage of voters than ever who don’t cast their vote based on their own personal economic situation. A person making a million dollars a year who is a registered Democrat will not all of a sudden start voting for a Republican and an unemployed Republican will probably not all of a sudden start voting for a Democrat. There are too many other issues that are important to voters in both parties. The third factor regarding exposure is probably true, but can’t be determined based on historical averages. The statistical mean voter in America for years was a Democrat. Not anymore. Nowadays the statistical mean voter is a Republican. This is why I see 2006 as being a draw. A few seats will change hands, but not enough factors in our country has changed since 2004 for any significant shift to happen. Hi Mark,

Jay Cost did a very good job of describing the variables in his theory. I am curious to read more tomorrow.

However, it seems to me that there may be too much reliance on history in his theory. Voters seem to me to be wising up. We know that Presidential approval rating does not translate to votes as much as it did at one time. A conservative can say the country is headed in the wrong direction and that George W. Bush is a big spending liberal, but still vote for Republicans because the alternative is to vote for a bigger spending Democrat.

There is also a larger percentage of voters than ever who don’t cast their vote based on their own personal economic situation. A person making a million dollars a year who is a registered Democrat will not all of a sudden start voting for a Republican and an unemployed Republican will probably not all of a sudden start voting for a Democrat. There are too many other issues that are important to voters in both parties.

The third factor regarding exposure is probably true, but can’t be determined based on historical averages. The statistical mean voter in America for years was a Democrat. Not anymore. Nowadays the statistical mean voter is a Republican. This is why I see 2006 as being a draw. A few seats will change hands, but not enough factors in our country has changed since 2004 for any significant shift to happen.

]]>