Tidbit of the Day, from Rasmussen:

Democrats now have a net advantage of 3.3 percentage points over the GOP. In June of 2004, the Democrats had a 2.5 percentage point advantage. Please keep in mind that these figures are for all adults, not Likely Voters. Republicans typically do a bit better among Likely Voters (in fact, the two parties ended up even among those who showed up to vote in 2004).

The whole "registered vs. likely" thing has been explained in great detail (see here and here for examples) but is just one more reason why the numbers you see (and WILL see) from the MSM polls are likely to be skewed.

Otto's thought for the day: Politics is first and foremost about winning. "If I were a Reepub candidate"...I would hit that ANWR issue like a heavy bag. If my opponent is on the record for voting or verbally in favor of the caribou over the humans, I would make a huge point of it. There is going to be a LOT of anger about gas prices come November, and most of it will be initially aimed at the incumbents.

Finally, in the "Libs Say The Darndest Things" department, the following:

Wednesday, November 3, 3:15PM...For many opponents of Bush, this election has been a wrenching event, not unlike a death in the family.

This was blogged by a freakin' PROFESSOR at freakin' PRINCETON, the day after the 2004 Presidential election -- and not some liberal arts weenie either. The guy is in freakin' MOLECULAR BIOLOGY. Anecdotal, to be sure, but to me perfectly illustrative of how religious these people are about their politics. A death in the family?! Are you kidding me?!

When you take that kind of irrational emotion into the market, any market, you're gonna get yer clock molecularly cleaned. I hope Prof Wang has some dough in the IEM. So does Dixi.

After an absolutely shite day at work, I haveth not the energy to go link-searching for some evidence/date to back up my claim on this one...more to be done on that front. But at any rate, here's the theory:

As has become clear from the last two presidential elections, there is a clear separation, voting preference wise, between the bigger cities (Democratic) and the more rural areas (Republican). Population is supposed to be roughly equal for every House seat; in other words, the one representative from the great state of Montana has about the same number of constituents as one of the representatives from the not-so-great state of Maryland...both around 400K or so. Not sure about other metro areas in the country, but at least here in DC, the Democratic candidates win BIG...not unusual to see 20 or 30 point margins of victory. But it wouldn't matter if the margin was a hundred points...there's only one seat up for grabs. Thus, the most accurate polling for the House outcome AS A WHOLE would involve a statistically random sampling FOR EACH SEAT rather than a nationwide poll that did not take specific Congressional districts into account.

This, of course, accounts for the following:

A) Eve of the 2002 off-Prez election: Nationwide poll shows 48-48 preferences

B) Actual result: Republicans gain 6.

My guess or rough rule of thumb, based on the above, is that each percentage point in the nationwide poll represents one seat -- or, that if a poll showed a six point lead for the Donkeys (let's say, 50-44), that in reality the outcome would be a net zero for both sides -- stasis.

That's one of the things I'm basing my big RGain bet on.

More reasons to follow...

I'll be referencing Rasmussen a lot in the run-up to November. His track record for the last six years or so is outstanding. Personally, I think Zogby used to be the best, but then something happened...it's like he went corporate or something (which he probably did) and started conducting all sorts of weird, generally anti-conservative polls that of course got big play in the Dinosaur Media. See ya, Zogs...

Anyways, today's short comment is about a number I think you'll hear/see quite a bit between now and the election. Nationwide party preference numbers. It's a good quick soundbite for the Demmies, and I KNOW it will boost their confidence and also have some effect in the IEM market traders. I happen to think that number is misleading vis a vis the market outcome. This week's posts will explore why.

More to come...

'Sup...yeah, I'm back...

On a specialized blog thang. Iowa Electronic Markets' 2006 House Bonanza. Visited the site two weeks ago to see if there was any action vis a vis the off-Prez election. Sho 'nuff. My baby girl Dixi, the '05 Windveil Blue Mustang with the hottest ass EVER, needs a new set of pipes -- shorty headers, to be exact -- and I need some windfall kwon to make the purchase.

And once I saw the share price of the "Republicans Gain" action, I wrote a check for $100 faster than you can say "SHOW ME THE MONEY!" and mailed it to the Tippie Homiez. I'm so confident of a big payday right now, I may just go ahead and get the shorties next week, and then make a deposit of 1,000 clams or so come November to cover the bill.

A thousand? Yeah, I think that's about right. As of COB yesterday, here was the price info:


07/21/06 RH.gain06 .097
07/21/06 RH.hold06 .469
07/21/06 RH.lose06 .442

Meaning, in the winner-take-all format, if ol' Otto can get about 10 cents to the dollar on a purchase price, that's a thousand shares...at one dollar per share after the win.

So how can I be so cocky about this right now? You watch the Evening News lately? (Yeah, I actually did, tonight, NBC...a new low, I'm so ashamed.) Nothing but one horror story after another. Lebanon, Iraq, gas prices, the searing heat, the scorching drought, the shaky stock market, the Dubya stem cell veto...hellfire and brimstone for the full half hour. Kind of strange and kinky coming from a bunch who pretty much flat-out do not believe in God.

But that's actually Reason Number One why that RHGain price is so unbelievably good to me. It can't get much worse than this, if you're a Republican strategist. Toss in the whole Abramoff thing too, while we're at it. This is about as bad as it can get, I think.

And so what does Rasmussen say? Bush's ratings are up since mid-May. Up 6% for Strongly Approve, and up 8% for overall approval. Meaning...bring on more bad news. Especially on the international front.

If Hezbollah and OBL had half an ounce of clue about the American electorate, they would take a long summer vacation. Just let everything wind down for a bit. Then the MSM would pick up the slack and start talking up the deteriorating quality of baby formula, or the repressive nature of Christian outreach missions to New Orleans, or some such drivel that plays well with the gals. As long as the war is the top story, the Demmies will lose more seats. That, my friends, is a stone GUARANTEE.

Reason Number Two, at least as of right now: Congressional districting. Tommy The Hammer (DeLay) did such a good job of gerry-rigging the maps, it will take a Kennedyesque act for most incumbent Elephants to lose. I don't really agree with gerrymandering, but let's be honest here, you lefties...your side did it like it was going out of style when you ran the show. It's part of the package when you take over, a Spoil Of Victory. DeLay was every bit as ruthless and effective redrawing those lines as Carl Albert or Jimmy Wright or the Tipster or any of those Democrat magnates were. THAT, I think, is why he was so despised by the Left.

But you know what? In the end, I'm just a freaking contrarian. If RHLose were at 7 cents, I'd buy it. I cannot stand large groups or the thinking therein, so I'm just gonna pick the lonely orphan and run with it like freaking LaDainian Tomlinson. Dixi will thank me...and that's plenty enough.