HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » This really, really, real...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 10:55 PM

This really, really, really sucks from Intrade

Intrade
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=91247

Chance that Republicans will take control of the Senate.
64.6%

9 replies, 1983 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply This really, really, really sucks from Intrade (Original post)
Laura PourMeADrink Apr 2012 OP
Common Sense Party Apr 2012 #1
Dawson Leery Apr 2012 #2
saras Apr 2012 #3
provis99 Apr 2012 #5
emilyg Apr 2012 #6
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #9
LiberalFighter Apr 2012 #4
CobaltBlue Apr 2012 #7
Hippo_Tron Apr 2012 #8

Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 11:00 PM

1. But how often is Intrade completely wrong about these things?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 11:02 PM

2. It's still early.

Cook and Sabato see the Democrats narrowly holding the Senate at this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 11:03 PM

3. Would Intrade profit from a Republican Senate?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saras (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 11:15 PM

5. that's not how Intrade works.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saras (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 11:50 PM

6. No.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saras (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 12:35 AM

9. Intrade doesn't care

People bet against each other and intrade basically takes a piece from both sides as the matchmaker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 11:07 PM

4. There are 197 days until the election

That is 6 months and 14 days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 12:02 AM

7. Republicans: presidency before the Senate

Chance that Republicans will take control of the Senate. 64.6%


only if the Republicans prevail, in 2012, with winning back the presidency through unofficial nominee Mitt Romney!


Go back to the 1910s, with the 17th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, allowing for states' citizens to directly elect their U.S. Senators.

There is no presidential election year on record with a party having won the presidency while that prevailing party lost control of the Senate and/or House to the losing party.

1916: Woodrow Wilson (D) same-party control of Senate, House; lost both in 1918
1920: Warren Harding (R) same-party control of Senate, House
1924: Calvin Coolidge (R) same-party control of Senate, House
1928: Herbert Hoover (R) same-party control of Senate, House; lost House in 1930
1932: Franklin Roosevelt (D) unseated Hoover; Democrats won House in 1930; FDR's win flipped Senate to his party
1936: Franklin Roosevelt (D) re-elected; same-party control of Senate, House
1940: Franklin Roosevelt (D) same-party control of Senate, House
1944: Franklin Roosevelt (D) same-party control of Senate, House (FDR was the only two-term president, during the last 100 years, who never lost same-party control of either house of Congress!)
1948: Harry Truman (D) after losing both Senate and House in 1946, he flipped both back to the Democrats as he won a full term
1952: Dwight Eisenhower (R) party switch of presidency brought along with it likewise pickups of Senate, House
1956: Dwight Eisenhower (R) he already lost same-party control of Senate and House in 1954; no switching in 1956 (a la Bill Clinton, 40 years later)
1960: John Kennedy (D) same-party control of Senate, House
1964: Lyndon Johnson (D) same-party control of Senate, House
1968: Richard Nixon (R) never had same-party control (the only two-term president the last 100 years in this position)
1972: Richard Nixon (R) re-elected
1976: Jimmy Carter (D) same-party control of Senate, House
1980: Ronald Reagan (R) like FDR, he flipped Senate as he himself was a party switch winning over the presidency (while unseating Jimmy Carter); Democrats retained control of House
1984: Ronald Reagan (R) no change in party control of Senate, House; he lost Senate in 1986
1988: George Bush (R) Democrats had control of Senate, House
1992: Bill Clinton (D) same-party control of Senate, House
1996: Bill Clinton (D) a la Dwight Eisenhower, he already lost same-party control of Senate and House in 1994
2000: George W. Bush (R) same-party control of Senate, House
2004: George W. Bush (R) lost Senate in 2001; won it back with congressional elections of 2002; retained same-party control of Senate, House in 2004; and, with the congressional elections of 2006, he became first two-term president to lose same-party control of Senate and House in his second term since Woodrow Wilson (1918)
2008: Barack Obama (D) same-party control of Senate, House; lost House in 2010


There is a pattern here. When the party of the president loses control of the Senate and/or House, it happens in congressional midterms (1918, 1930, 1946, 1954, 1986, 1994, 2006, 2010). Or it happens if there is a party switch with the presidency, be it one that is open (1952) or with an incumbent who becomes unseated (1932, 1980).

Close break in pattern came in 2000. The Republicans had 54 in their Senate during the second term of Democrat Bill Clinton. The controversial 2000 presidential election notwithstanding, when the switch was made to the Republicans and George W. Bush, the lost four of those seats for a 50/50 tie. (That allowed Vice President Dick Cheney to serve as a tie-breaking vote.)

I've come across too many assumptions over the last year or so that make it sound like it is assured the Republican Party will win back the Senate. Well, they now believe they won't unseat Barack Obama. But there are still rumblings the Senate is theirs to lose. Problem is that the experts and the pundits are in the habit of ignoring voting patterns. And the pattern established is this: if you're an incumbent president, with same-party control of one or both houses of Congress coming into an election, and you end up getting re-elected: why would the voters opt for the opposition party, whose candidate failed to unseat you, to win over majority control of the Senate and/or House?

If the Republicans were, in 2012, to win back the Senate while Obama gets re-elected that would become a break in pattern. (Fulfilling what nearly happened with Bush in 2000.) If Republicans win back the Senate well, it would be happening while the party of the presidency has flipped to their side.

My prediction is this: Obama wins re-election. House seats, in numbers, will be somewhat connected with congressional districts. But the Senate will stay under control of Obama's party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CobaltBlue (Reply #7)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 12:33 AM

8. Your 100 years of history reflects national political mood swings, though

And there's a good argument to be made that rather than having such swings, we're now in an era where 45% of the country votes one way, 45% votes the other way, and 10% is actually persuadable. If your permanent national baseline is 45% (and that means your candidate fails to persuade 1% of the swing voters), it's far more likely that you will take back the Senate while losing the presidency in a year where the other factors for the Senate happen to be overwhelmingly in your favor.

If Obama wins by the kind of margin that he won by last time, I doubt the Republicans will take over the Senate. But if he barely eeks it out over Romney 51-49 and one swing state makes the difference like in 2000 and 2004, the Republicans could easily take the Senate.

Imagine if in 2004 Republicans had five open seats to defend in the northeast rather than the Democrats having five open seats to defend in the south. Bush may still have been re-elected, but there would've almost certainly been a Democratic senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread