In the absence of useful public polling on the Massachusetts race, Sean Trende performs an analysis based on comparative election results and some thoughtful guesstimation. His conclusion:
So at the end of the day, you can still place me pretty firmly in the “will be stunned if Brown wins” category. That said, I wouldn’t be bowled over if the race was much closer than it should be, perhaps in the 54%-46% range.
He also notes in passing that the absence of leaked Republican polls showing Brown with a chance probably means that there aren’t any – that is, there are almost certainly polls, just not ones showing him with a chance…
I find Trende’s analysis persuasive, but I acknowledge Sully’s point that we’re in a “crazy time, a Perot-like time.” Since the passage of O-care in the Senate and other events, the times may be even crazier and Perotier than they were a couple of months ago in Virginia and New Jersey, whose results Trende uses to underpin his Taxachusetts speculations. And 3 weeks is a lot of time for an electorate to think things over in an off-year election, especially in Peroty times.
But I’d still bet with Trende if I had to.
“Can Republicans Win Ted Kennedy’s Senate Seat?” – Real Clear Politics; h/t HotAir headlines.
Comments 3
This is one of those situations that occur from time to time when a mere possibility will have the effect of amplifying opposition to it. I’ve lived in Massachusetts. A long time too. Waving Ted Kennedy’s bloody shirt, as it were, will energize even dispirited Democrats. Massachusetts has had a fairly distinctive position in recent decades of inflicting devoted liberals on the rest of the country while frequently electing so-called centrist Republicans to manage the state.
The failed Mondale senatorial campaign of 2002 has certain similarities. Then, waving the bloody shirt of Paul Wellstone did not succeed in overcoming Bush’s popularity, which was fairly high. Minnesotans, unlike Massachusettsians, can be downright quirky. Franken and Ventura come to mind. Obama, however, is still plenty popular in the blue hole of Massachusetts. The real clue as to whether Brown has the big mo he needs will be if and when the President campaigns there for the Dim. If he does, it will mean that Brown has a shot. Of course, Obama may not be able to resist butting in to a sure thing so as to take credit for it. It’s very tricky, but in either case the seat stays Democrat.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Economics; The Year 2009,REDUX
The mass-media is currently in non-stop mode directing the “official” narrative of our economic condition to us masses. Here is the Contrarian version. The actual facts please no interest groups simply because no interest group is favored by an economic disaster.
One of the queerest things is how all bubbles are exactly the same and all depressions following bubbles are reproductions of previous depressions. Every bubble features people saying, ‘We are in a new economy now, one with no risk!’ while every depression has experts like Bernanke who say, ‘My measures prevented a Great Depression this time.’ But for some bizarre reason, each event stubbornly plays out nearly exactly the same.The global depression was launched by the collapse of a global credit bubble which began when Japan allowed its ZIRP banking system to be the basis of ‘the Japanese carry trade’ whereby borrowers would get money from Japan and then leverage it to infinity due to ‘no risk’ insurance sold by AIG in the derivatives market which then expanded from $10 billion to $600 trillion. The bubble in all systems whether energy or real estate, continues to destroy stability. The immense bail outs performed by Western central banks has altered nothing fundamental. This just kept reckless lenders from going bankrupt faster. And bailed out the world’s biggest creators and holders of the entire CDO credit risk markets.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA HEADS the list of Americans who believe that the continuing financial crisis should be blamed on excessive risk-taking by bankers who had an unbridled desire to make money in mortgages. These would-be reformers want stronger government regulation of the bankers to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again. A deeper examination, however, reveals that this is neither a housing crisis nor a Wall Street banking crisis. This is a monetary crisis, rooted in the lending of money created out of thin air. This is what leads to economic booms and busts.
We will endure economic policy failure until we realize the cause is the creation of money and credit by the Fed? Wall Street bankers,who game the system and make profits during each boom, are mere bit players in these crises. By fostering the booms and triggering the busts, the real villain is the institution of central banking itself. Thus, instead of providing stability to the economy, central banking has created great instability. Until this is understood, we will make little progress in preventing future crises or easing the current one.
We need to move to a money that is 100% backed by a commodity, such as gold. Only then can we rid the economy of the devastating effects of the creation of money and credit out of thin air. And,Ironically, the proof is that all the economic decision makers and influence peddlars,oppose asset backed currency. It would put most of them out of work.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:30 pm
@ rex caruthers:
Be calm, my economic dog of war. I intend as soon as I can get around to it (maybe a day or two, maybe this aft, but I can’t imagine spending NY Eve that way) to put up a looking-forward economic forecast post, at which point I’ll either quote your comment (is that all you?) or transfer it to the new comment thread.
December 31st, 2009 at 2:17 pm