Thanks for this information. I had been thinking lately that RCP seemingly was changing it focus a bit, did not know that they had a relationship with Time Magazine.

As a Vietnam vet I experienced the slanting of the news by Time. What they showed of Vietnam was considerably different than the Vietman I experienced, and I spent over 10 month in the field, thus not a base camp warrior type, so I personally feel I have a feel for their distortions.

Sorry that RCP is now assoicated with Time. Probably will spend less time looking at that Web site.

Yeah, I've noticed lately that RCP has been giving more prominence to leftist articles and analyses. I thought that they were just trying to make themselves look more "mainstream" because they're cited by pundits so much. Didn't know about the Time affiliation. But that explains a lot.

RCP changed a long time ago from a middle of the road site to left wing. I was a daily visitor, now visit once a month. Let em die on their own.

VERY NOTICEALBE!!! NO DOUBT LEFT LEANING BLOGOSPHERE AND NOW THAT YOU HAVE ENLIGTHENED US ALL OF THEIR AFFILIATION WITH TIME, EXPLAINS MORE COMMENTARY LEANING LEFT AND OPINES.......HAD THIS IN MY FAVORITES BUT OVER THIS PAST YEAR, HAVE REMOVED RCP AND REPLACED WITH NONE OTHER THAN THE EVER RELIABLE WIZBANNNNGGGG!!!!

Thanks! I thought I was imagining the change. It is amazing how the little clues get brushed aside until someone else comments.

I find I go there much less than before.

quit going there months ago as they had gone down hill in their "reporting"

All I can say is PUH-LEASE.

They used to be a far-right, barely-viewable-with-even-a-mountain-of-salt website. Now they're somewhat fair in what they show, although they still have more conservative op-eds than liberal ones, but not by nearly as wide a margin as they used to. Maybe the REASON they're cited more now is because they've lessened their bias and aren't that far from being fair and balanced.

In addition, maybe the wording wasn't the best, but TX-22 is, quite simply, Dem pickup #1. It's the first race that can clearly be stated a Dem pickup. In any year, any race is difficult to win a write-in campaign. The district is not overwhelmingly gop due to tommy's own law-breaking--although it is a gop-lean. In addition, a moderate Dem who has in the past represented over 20% of that district. In addition, the write-in campaign had to be organzied in a short period of time, with someone whose name is not exactly Jane Smith, and with a severe monetary deficit. Furthermore, the gop does not have the resources this cycle to pour in millions to educate the voters about the write-in process and even have a chance of holding the seat.

Dems may win seats, we may lose seats, but we'll win TX-22. Anyone who states otherwise is just in denial.

I guess when you start seeing articles by Margaret Carlson and David Corn posted every other day that's some kind of clue the jig is up. Looks as if an Internet presentation must move left to gain traction in the MSM. I used to read Polipundit every day until they had that bust up with the main guy throwing a tantrum...that seemed unfair to the readers I thought. Now I need another source for the services offered by RCP if I can't trust them. Where to go?

As someone who likes both RCP and Wizbang, I have to say, take a deep breath and relax, you are overreacting. RCP is a site that both is right leaning, but includes a bunch of links to articles across the spectrum. Their analysis on the blog is definitely right leaning, but recognizes reality. TX22 is probably going Dem and the lack of polling is an indicator. On the other hand, the opposite indicator is that the RNCC just dropped over 400k for issue ad placement on that race, but I don't think anyone has seen it yet. Some race has to be #1 and that may be it... I would give RCP a little more rope, I don't think the Time connection has any effect on them editorially, but we will see. It just happened in the last month...btw, they also tied in with FoxNews....

On what, besides your hope, do you base your prediction, Jeremy? As I said, I live almost in Sugar Land and despite what you may think, Sekula-Gibbs is pretty well-known and liked in SL. Certainly, the write-inrequirement and late entry - to say nothing of the dirty tricks used by Donks in this race, make it tougher. But this race is far from over, and Nick Lampson is not at all assured of making good on his theft. Besides, people in SL know the players, and it's not as if Ronnie Earle was an honorable force in this matter, or that Democrats could pick one rule and stick to it - were the Donks hypocrites in New Jersey, or in Texas, seeing as they played both ends on that question?

But in any case, my point was not simply that TX-22 is a much more contested race than most people inside the Beltway understand. It's the notion that an absence of data proves anything. It's the arrogance of assuming a result on no basis other than rumor and bias.

I have pointed out before, that it is laughable to suggest a lead is solid when 'undecideds' are in double digits.

I have pointed out before, that when polls sharply disagree with each other, this is a warning flag for assuming conclusions.

And the bottom line here, is that when you look at the hard numbers, MOST of these races cannot be said to be conclusive in their direction. Certainly it's specious to presume a Donk takeover.

I did not take a look at one or two articles in RCP and decide they were Leftist because I didn't like those stories. I looked at the change in their methodology and worked the numbers.

These boys have changed teams, and that's a fact.

I think RCP is guilty of their own success. I think they're publishing a lot of left leaning articles because the MSM is going full bore to throw the election to the Dems so that's all there is.

As far as the polling goes, I've stated in other posts that there is just no way that a pollster can know what's going on in local elections. DJ, you've cited, TX-22, I can cite CO-5, another reader cited a district in Long Island, NY. The polling just gives them a set of numbers and they have too many districts to try to understand local events.

RCP just comments on the polls. They don't have the time to do the research either. Now what would be nice is if we could comment on their site so that we can give them the info they need to really understand the pulse of the country. If there's a way to do that, I haven't figured it out.

DJ--I completely agree that the absence of data tells us nothing. That's why I said they didn't do a great job getting their point across. However, what I base my judgement about that race on is this: when's the last time a write-in campaign for Congress worked?

Throw in the fact that the gop can't pour in millions and the fact that Lampson is not some unknown w/no money, and you have a Dem pickup. Is it guaranteed? Nothing is guaranteed. But is it by far the most likely seat to switch (i.e. Dem pickup #1)? Yes.

A quick point about people "on the ground" in these states or districts. You talk to a few people. Even if you work for a campaign, maybe you talk to a few hundred. The odds are they're conservatives just like you. To say that you know what's happening there more than a poll of 1500 people just because you're "on the ground" is a fallacy. The polls may be correct, or they may not be correct. But I think these assumptions about who you talk to are ludicrous.

I doubt there has been a real change at RCP, despite the partnership with Time - which was a good business move for both.

The problem is, anytime you rely so heavily on the polls, they become your master. If the methodology is failing to provide accurate results for the public pollsters, averaging them merely gives a an "average" wrong answer.

Similarly, there are more pro-Democratic op-eds linked there because there are more being hosted by the media at large. They've always tried to give a "survey" of opinion pieces, and this year we even have conservative writers badmouthing GOP prospects.

What was once a pretty clever idea - just averaging all the poll results together - has probably run its course as pollsters can no longer afford the cost of procuring a valid sample. But don't hate the player, hate the game.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Regarding TX-22, every time I suggest we will lost the seat, I get objections from people who live, or have lived, in or near that part of Texas. They are quite clear that they don't believe the conventional wisdom, and are often angry at the assumption by northeastern elitists that they would have difficulty spelling "Sekula-Gibbs."

Of course, Democrats will fight tooth and nail not to count any vote that omits the hyphen or doesn't capitalize the "G," because that's how they honor democracy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On IN-08, Hotstettler has been down double digits in previous years, too. He doesn't run the modern media campaign with phone banks, consultants, pollsters, and computers. It's all ground game with him - that district is as well organized as any mid-20th Century big city ward system. If Hotstettler loses, it won't be because his voters don't show up.

By RCP's logic, it stands to reason that Rep. "Dolla Dolla" Bill Jefferson (D-New Orleans) of LA-2 stands to lose because there's no polling out and he's facing stiff competition.

Jefferson's embroiled in an FBI investigation that saw them raid his house and take $90,000 from his freezer, raid his office and cause a collective heart attack on The Hill, and caused a massive waste in resources during the Katrina rescue efforts by taking a detour to go into his house and remove several unidentified boxes of materials, getting a National Guard truck stuck in the process and requiring the help of a helicopter.

Jefferson's facing 2 Republicans, 9 Democrats, and a Libertarian in a district that is NOWHERE near as safe as it was pre-Katrina.

(In the September election for LA Secretary Of State, the Dem only got an 80-vote plurality out of New Orleans, which typically goes 80-20 for the Dems. That was enough for the Dem candidate to concede to the Republican after a runoff was announced.)

Jeremy, don't think I didn't notice your switch. This is not about whether TX-22 will go to Lampson or Sekula-Gibbs, but how RCP played it.

You just don't make a call based on an ABSENCE of information. That's bias by definition, and that's exactly how RCP ran that one. That's why I ran that district first; not because they think Lampson will win, but because they are basing it on no information, and pretending that their guess is better than solid indicators.

And sorry, telling me that even a thousand people in D.C. know better than people in TX-22 itself is laughable. I don't call races in New York state, for the reason that I at least know better than to rely on second-hand guesswork and anecdoctal fantasies.

Both Sekula-Gibbs and Lampson are running on tight finances, both have solid name recognition, both have good party backing (though you'd never know about GOP support for S-K from the press reports outside Houston). The differences are the write-in requirement for Sekula-Gibbs, but also the fact that Lampson is known to be the outsider, no more a Sugarlander than Hillary is a real New Yorker. And for all the bluster in NY and DC, TX-22 is still very conservative, and that makes Sekula-Gibbs' base a hell of a lot stronger than Lampson's base here.

Does that mean Sekula-Gibbs will win? Hard to say, for all the reasons we've been over. But to pretend that it's a lock for Lampson is both stupid and dishonest. Especially if your logic depends on not doing your research or gathering information. RCP used to be better, much better, certainly they used to be able to admit what they did not know.

There's only one reason to cast this race as they have, especially since they have colored all the significant races with the same crayon -

Democrat Dirt.

Wrote this on another thread but am repeating here:

Margin of error races will most likely go to the person most representative of that district: Rs in R districts/states and Ds in D districts/states. Since the so-called Republican/conservative apathy is largely a myth in my opinion, and since the majority of all these polls coming out recently are margin of error but for a few exceptions, I maintain that the Rs will maintain control of both houses. I am not active in politics but I am a scientist who was trained to carefully examine data. So that's my call for what it's worth if anything.

Jim--I don't know where you read that about IN-8, but the main reason I've heard it's close is that his opponent, Ellsworth, is a very popular local sheriff, and that while the district tilts gop, it's not overwhelmingly so.

Brandon--Jefferson might lose, but it's a safe DEM seat, even if that Dem isn't him.

DJ--What switch? I specifically said in both my posts that they didn't articulate their reasoning well. But I also said (in both posts) that TX-22 is an almost-certain (2nd most certain party-switch in politics this year after NY-gov) switch.

Also, I specifically said the that Lampson will win BECAUSE of the write-in aspect of the race. I've said nothing of his opponent's popularity. So I don't know what you're arguing against. YES I do think the write-in campaign will fail--not because TX-22 voters are stupid but because they ALWAYS fail.

The Dems spent TONS of money to win a write-in for their chosen candidate in a PRIMARY with about 2-3% turnout. And the guy's name was as simple as it can get. I just don't think it'll happen. And I'm far from alone.

As for my statements about people "on the ground" posting on a conservative blog, I stand by that 100%. I think someone who's studied elections past for a living as well as seen multiple polls of 700, 1000, or even 1500+ voters, can make as good or better statements about a race than someone who posts on a blog who just happens to live there.

I live in a district represented by Nita Lowey. If she were in a contested race, would I really know any more about the race than you do? Maybe, if there were local issues you were unaware of. But a professional elections analyst would be aware of those.

Also, I was more specifically commenting on people who make comments that start with things like, "everyone I've talked to..." If you live in MO, and 15 months ago you told me about a POSSIBLE (at the time) ballot initiative regarding stem-cell research that I didn't know about because it wasn't a national story yet, THAT is informative. But my point was regarding the MANY conservatives I've seen on many blogs (not just this one) regarding who they've "talked to" and what "they've heard." Naturally, if you're very conservative, you're likely to have more conservative friends than liberal friends. Plus, if you're politically active, you're at fundraisers and events for CONSERVATIVES!! Just think about it.

Thank you.

Ignore the Wienbug. He used to post at Polipundit with his lame
"viewpoints"...and now he thinks WizBang is fertile ground
for them.

To bad about Warner.

Sounds like another liberal media conspiracy is afoot!!!

RCP is still right wing -- just look at the archives. They are far more conservative pieces than liberal pieces.

Jeremy ~ you seem to have a lot of faith in the analysts this year.

If a given analyst called it wrong in 2002 and 2004, would that make you more or less likely to believe his call in 2006?

What possible difference could "studying polls of 700, 1000, or even 1500+ voters" mean in a district where NO recent polls have been taken?

It is true that write-in candidacies don't have a strong track record in federal elections. That's because there is little popular motivation for the overwhelming majority of them. They are usually an ego trip for the candidate. If the public gets mad, though . . .

1954: after winning the Democratic primary, Senator Burnet Maybank died in September. Party leaders met to replace him with SC Speaker Edgar Brown only hours after the funeral, infuriating the public. Strom Thurmond easily won his write-in campaign in the general election.

I don't know if the folks in TX-22 are as mad about the Ronnie Earle outrages and the Democratic efforts to keep a Republican name off the ballot - but I wouldn't bet against it.

Michael--It is too bad. As you know if you read my comments, I think (for many reasons which would take too long to articulate right now) that the Dems NEED a moderate at the top of the ticket. There are four such potential candidates. Warner is now gone. I love Richardson but supposedly he has baggage (although I don't know what it is). That leaves Bayh and Vilsack. If the gop nominates a Senator, I'm okay w/Bayh, as he was a governor and garnered more Indiana votes in 2004 than did gwb. Right now however, I'm leaning towards Vilsack. We'll see though.

Anon--exactly. Someone above made a very good point that for the first time in a long time, conservative columnists have been talking a lot about Dem gains, which could make it seem like there have been more "liberal" op-eds.

Jim--You're mixing up two of my points. Obviously, if there are no polls taken, there are no polls to study. The TX-22 comment was separate from that one. The one about analysts versus some random guy commenting on a blog (who is a conservative but happens to live in the district) was aimed at those who say MO Senate is "not in play" or the same for TN Senate or Reynolds' seat in NY. Maybe they're lean-gop slightly (although I think Reynolds' seat is lean-Dem at this point), but they're not "not in play."

You read the blogs. You know what I'm talking about. It's one thing to say, "I think we'll hold these seats for x, y, and z reasons." And even if your reasons are arguable, so be it--that's the game we play, and that's why we all love talking about politics.

But I know you've read the same things I've read. There'll be a thread about a slew of Rasmussen polls showing dewine, burns, and santorum each down 8, and someone will say something like, "the polls are biased (despite ras being the best in 2004), so add 10 points to each, and the gop holds those 3. Oh, and MO isn't even in play."

I'd laugh just as hard in the people at kos said that NJ wasn't in play.

That's what I was referring to. Someone saying, "I'm from MO, and I can tell you that McCaskill is despised here." Well clearly she's not. Maybe the people YOU talk to don't like her, but that's cause you probably associate most with conservatives.

Jim--I'm not saying it's impossible, and your analysis is probably right about public anger. But look at it this way. 45% of the voters voted against Tom DeLay in 2004, with gwb at the top of the ticket, and with all of the clout that Tom DeLay had. You think Shelley can hold all but 5% of DeLay's support as a write-in??? Not to mention that Lampson isn't Hillary Clinton. He's represented part of that district before. He's moderate. He doesn't have high negatives. And yes, he has millions vs. next-to-nothing for her.

I have to ask HOW you know Lampson "doesn't have high negatives" when there hasn't been any polling?

Jim--there was TONS of polling done when DeLay was in the race. Also, Lampson was a sitting Congressman quite recently.

Jeremy is still lying, I see.

1. The switch, Jeremy, was you trying to get away from the topic of the article to focus on whether Lampson or Sekula-Gibbs will win TX-22. You haven't touched the methodology of pretending an honest analyst can project on zero data.

2. Just how stupid would we have to be to accept the notion that primary-date polls which don't even show a head-to-head match between Sekula-Gibbs and Lampson, are somehow relevant indicators of the voters' intentions in two weeks? You are tossing off non-seqiturs like Hillary not being in the TX-22 race. We, uh, already knew that, but it doesn't help Lampson or make TX-22 less conservative that Hillary is safely distant in Nyawk City.

3. There have actually been two polls released regarding TX-22. The reason they don't get play is that one, showing Lampson well ahead, was paid for by Lampson's campaign. Another, showing Sekula-Gibbs ahead by a chunk, was paid for by her campaign. Take that for what it's worth.

4. I have nothing against partisanship, just so long as its honest. James Carville annoys the heck out of me when he gets on a rant, but at least he's straight about who he is and what he is trying to do. Same for Rush Limbaugh, for the same reason. My issues come when someone pretends objectivity when they are partisan.

DJ,

1--5 times I've said it!! They said it wrong!! Saying that they based their TX-22 prediction on no polling is wrong and stupid. I would guess they mis-spoke. HOWEVER!!!!!!...TX-22 is a Dem pickup, so their conclusion was right. Just cause it pisses you off doesn't mean you need to trash the whole site.

And I hate that I'm sticking up for them cause they're still far right of center in their bias. But even the biggest right-wing kook (although apparently not) can see that TX-22 is a likely Dem pickup.

2--Maybe I assumed too much. You know what a write-in campaign is, right? So even if you polled and the poll showed 55-45 for Shelley, that would still likely mean a double-digit win for Lampson. Go look at the history of write-in campaigns.

4--I couldn't agree more. I actually listen to Rush and Hannity on occasion. I know what their angle is, and that's fine. It's this reason that I think fnc should be thrown off the air for libel. Even if they didn't have a disclaimer in the order of, "Watch FNC--where conservatives go for news," they'd be fine. But to go out of their way to say, "Fair and balanced; we report, you decide," is actually libel, and they should be prosecuted for such.

DJ...I'm with you. I've noticed the change so strongly that I have quit going to the site. I loved it when they were...well, fair and balanced...

They had been a site of intelligent articles. The "Time" influence is so disappointing.

Jeremy,

Normally you'd be right about LA-2 being safely Democrat, even with Jefferson's baggage.

However, things have changed due to Katrina.

The Dem turnout plan in New Orleans is centered around bussing voters to the polls to ensure lots of votes.

That's out the window because Katrina-induced migration moved Jefferson's typical base to Baton Rouge, Houston, and elsewhere, meaning that they will likely be unavailable to vote in THIS election.

If the recent LA Secretary Of State election is any indicator, the "new" New Orleans of the immediate electoral future (2006 and 2008) will be winnable for Republicans, as the vote was about 60-40 Republican when all candidates were added together.

The lone Dem nominee "won" Orleans Parish by 80 votes plurality, but he wasn't even close to having a majority.

If the district is still as overwhelmingly Dem as it ever was, I'd think that the Dem candidate for LA Secretary Of State would have continued to the runoff and hoped to ride Jefferson's coattails in New Orleans rather than throw in the towel.

To sum up, this no longer appears to be a Solid Dem district due to population changes, but we won't know until Election Day whether it's a Leaning Dem district or a competitive one.

Well one conserv, Hugh Hewitt, thinks RCP is a very fair polling place. They need to poll some very important House races. I would like to see them carry a number of polls, including Battleground. I think they are pretty fair. Citing left wing columnists as well as rightists is pretty fair unless one only sees Human Events as the only place where polls match up to reality! I want a balance of polling citations with right and left commentary. As a conserv, I then want an analysis by the best rightists on all the polls. This gives me a good view of just how the races are going since Dems are always polled more.

--I love Richardson but supposedly he has baggage (although I don't know what it is). --

Secretary of Energy, Los Alamos and other security breaches, IIRC.

It was so bad I remember a dem congresscritter at that time saying he'd never be VP - he was a possible Gore VP.

I was an avid RCP reader last election, and a fan of both Tom Bevan and John McIntyre. I too have noticed a trend toward -- not left-leaning inclinations but rather distilled analysis.

Tom and John remain conservative strategists who are now savy businessmen. They must be more central in their thinking and less politically motivated in their analysts.

I too am somewhat disappointed on a personal level -- because I truly enjoyed their savy insight. I am also disappointed that we don't see much of Gerry Daly - formerly of Daly Thoughts and lately of Crosstabs.

But although it is disappointing, it is quite foolish to label John and Tom liberals.

I hate to repeat, but I am convinced the problem with the RCP projections is the model has collapsed: public polling is done on the cheap and declining response rates have rendered cheap polling less accurate than it was 25 years ago.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Read Jay Cost's column there from Monday.

So, any "leftward" trend at RCP is a factor of increased number of politic articles favoring Dems and the flawed polls. They are at the mercy of their model.

Others who began as balanced and accurate, like Cook, Rothenberg, and Sabato have been seduced into the inner circle - or perhaps they seduced their way in, not realizing it was a diabolical trap. They can't keep attending the cocktail receptions and dinner parties for the "in" crowd if they say anything that would upset Democratic sensibilities, so they are more hestitant to say those things. They probably don't even realize they are doing it - except Sabato, who inserted himself into the Allen/"n-word" brouhaha, ruining his credibility forever.

Everyone should remember: due to a lack of polling data, at one time the earth was assumed to be flat.

Ever since then the liberals have been traveling in circles, while insisting that they were straight lines. Ever notice how they keep falling over the edge?

Yoop

Jeremy ~ I missed your reply to my question about how you knew Lampson didn't have high negatives:

Jim--there was TONS of polling done when DeLay was in the race. Also, Lampson was a sitting Congressman quite recently.

Um, there was? Got a link? Because I can't find a single one. I mean, you would think if there were "TONS" at least ONE would be on the web, wouldn't you?