A major financial advisor believes republicans will retain control

[still_one]

of congress

The reasoning is as follows:

Incumbents hold near insurmountable advantages:

since 1954, the incumbent reelection rate has been around 90%
In the last four elections, at least 97% of the incumbents have won reelection
only 13 of the nation;s 435 house seats changed parties in 2004
Only twice since 1974 did more than 10% of seats change party hands in the house

The other main advantage stated is the trend toward gerrymandering. District lines have created districts that maximize incumbents chances of winning reelections.

Two other reasons used are the following:

The best indicator to forecast who will win an oopen seat is how the district voted in the morst recent Presidential election.

In most republican held open seat districts, the percentage of voters who voted for bush in the last presidential election is significantly higher than the roughtly 51% of the popular vote he received. This show how entrenched the republican party is in these areas, a result of the power of gerrymandering and another reason major change is unlikely.

This advisor believes that markets do not care which party is in power, but they abhor major policy changes, especially in areas that affect property rights and wealth redistribution.

For my own views, I sense the country has had enough of the bush administration's policies. I think many moderate republicans will either NOT vote or vote Democratic. As long as the Democrats come out in force and vote, I think we will win.

[MadMaddie]

1. Ummm...apparantly he forgot about when the Republicans routed

the Dems 12 years ago....there were many incumbant Dems that got removed from office to give the Repugs control.....

These fuckers have selective memories....

[still_one]

7. Yes, but his argument is a lot of redistricting has occurred

He also says that the House majority has never changed hands without the Senate also doing so.

The reason I think things are different is because moderate republicans have become disillusioned with what has happened to their party. At least from people I talk to who have been republicans for some time, are now talking about not even voting. If that is a trend, then all we need to do is come out in force.

If the republicans LOST BOTH HOUSES, that would be the most damning statement from the people toward the administration's policies

[Epiphany4z]

2. The best indicator

The best indicator to forecast who will win an oopen seat is how the district voted in the morst recent Presidential election.

yea...when we have oh say.......a sane persident...I don't think you can use that one as an indicator this time. GW is truly a different situation.

[Tellurian]

11. Right- but he's forgotten the Dems WON the last 2 Presidential elections

So, technically he's right..maybe someone should bring it to his attention..

Stolen Elections don't count for Republicans!

[still_one]

13. The reason I believe he is wrong, is because

I think the republicans are losing their moderates
because of the actions of this administration

[Divine Discontent]

21. exactly

GWB is a vilifying idiot, and old political records don't hold now. and on top of that, there's a huge scandal right before the election they didn't want, THE FOLEY COVER UP over his attempts to have sex with cutie pie teenage boys.

We don't have a sane President, like we did in (my lifetime that I remember) Carter, 1st term Reagan, Bush, Clinton... this Bush II is kookier than a dodo! and condescending to all who try and question him w/things he juss don't wanna talk bout! :)

[wtmusic]

3. Actually, markets love a Congress at odds with the President

because legislative gridlock = security.

If (when) Democrats move in on the Hill, buy as much stock as you can.

[still_one]

8. and that's what I always thought also, markets like grid lock

the big difference now is that in the last six years this administration and the republicans have allowed the corporations to write the legislation. That is also why it is so important that we win the midterm election

[swag]

4. Who is this advisor? Where and when did s/he/it say this?

In what context?

What are this advisor's specific interests?

[still_one]

9. It was in reference to the market outlook in 2006

it was part of a solicitation of new investment accounts.

Ken Fisher if you are interested in who it was

[swag]

15. Thanks.

Since it is the man listed #297 on the list of wealthiest Americans, maybe he is engaging in thinking wishful for the preservation of those deficit-enhancing tax cuts that transferred so much wealth from future generations to him.

Regardless, his conclusions do not flow logically, if you state the premises accurately.

"The best indicator to forecast who will win an oopen seat is how the district voted in the morst recent Presidential election."

Sample size is 109 Congresses? That's a bit slight.

In most republican held open seat districts, the percentage of voters who voted for bush in the last presidential election is significantly higher than the roughtly 51% of the popular vote he received. This show how entrenched the republican party is in these areas, a result of the power of gerrymandering and another reason major change is unlikely.

Recent polls, at least, belie this assertion.

This advisor believes that markets do not care which party is in power, but they abhor major policy changes, especially in areas that affect property rights and wealth redistribution.

Markets and our economy have done better under Democratic administrations. That has been demonstrated. This advisor is delusional on this count, and probably all others.

[still_one]

20. I pretty accurately reflected his conclusions

I obviously don't agree with them, and it isn't because I am bias for the Democrats. It is because I think the republicans are in trouble with their own constituents, and people are really looking for a change

[speedoo]

16. I would not call Ken Fisher a "major" financial advisor.

Particularly if he is soliciting new money to manage. His track record is mediocre.

Major financial advisors have clients knocking on THEIR doors with checkbooks in hand.

He's a third-tier player, at best, IMO.

And all he's doing is parroting the conventional talking points of those who want the rethugs to maintain control, which is what he thinks his potential new clients want to hear.

He has very little political insight.... his forecast is worthless.

[still_one]

19. most of these so-called financial advisors are worthless

I just thought his comments about the midterm election were interesting, because he pretty much was taking a side, even though he said he was non-partisan. In addition, I found it interesting that he was throwing politics into the mix.

[MattP]

5. Gore

Remember when all the finace guys said that Gore would win.....Oh snap he did win.

[Lexingtonian]

6. wtf is this?

If you're going to post an incoherent and wrong argument, you might as well at least identify the source.

Charlie Cook pointed out three weeks ago that there are two kinds of analysis of this election: the people who've observed American politics for 10-15 years at most keep on betting on small changes, because they've never seen or understood the factors that mean big changes. They've come up with a linear correlation model, usually, with results that move tightly around a mean.

The older crowd in both Parties said this summer that it was probably landslide/turnaround election time- these are the people who saw 1974, 1982, 1994 up close. In some cases, 1966/68. It's about 1 midterm election in 5 that crushes one side beyond what the small change predicated models predict.

[still_one]

10. read my response to swag, item 4

I am bringing this up for discussion, because I believe it will be different this time. He also made the statment that since the 17th amendment allowed for direct election of Senators in 1913, the House majority has never changed hands without the Senate also doing so.

[Lexingtonian]

17. well...

You could at least state a reason or two why you don't think his idea is correct, rather than just assert disbelief.

[still_one]

18. Reason I think he is wrong is because most people are anti-incumbent

this time. I think the republicans are demoralized, and the Democrats are more motivated than I have seen in years. The two things that I think will turn the election for us this time though are the women vote, and the independents

[Eurobabe]

12. Is that the same financial advisor who thinks the Dow at 11900

has "real fundamentals" to support this run-up of late?

[still_one]

14. Let me put it this way, he believes stocks are undervalued

and the economy is doing well

The question is will Democrats turnout and vote?

If we took back Congress, IT WOULD MAKE A HUGE STATEMENT