White House Confidence

Amusing post from Cato's Jerry Taylor last week, worth reconsidering this morning:

According to a UPI story today, the Bush White House predicts that the GOP will shock the world and hold on to majorities in the House and Senate come Tuesday.

Keep that prediction in mind when assessing similar predictions about our inevitable victory in Iraq, as long as we resist the temptation to "cut and run."

In the face of all available evidence, NRCC Chair Tom Reynolds insisted this morning that last night was not a referendum on Iraq.  Rather, the election was about "isolated corruption cases," and "historical cycles" in voting habits.

Comments

[Jesse Walker]

When people start talking about "historical cycles" as though they were predictable laws of physics, you know they're out of arguments.

[bb]

? kind of like when they start talking about "adapting to win" in Iraq.

[Buckshot]

I'm going to enjoy listening to Rush rant&rave this morning. I'm curious to see if he's as clueless as Tom Reynolds.

[bb]

Buckshot,

I will save you the time. He is.

[ed]

Predictions? What are they good for?

In the face of all available evidence, NRCC Chair Tom Reynolds insisted this morning that last night was not a referendum on Iraq. Rather, the election was about "isolated corruption cases," and "historical cycles" in voting habits.

"A rising tide of voter disgust with corruption will toss the Republicans out of the U.S. House of Representatives in November elections..."
-Ron Bailey

That particular prediction didn't mention Iraq at all.

[Chris S.]

If you're looking for some hilarious cluelessness, drop by Free Republic.

The election discussion is great, but my favorite thread was actually an election diversion thread by the name of "Man Says Bibles Stopped Bullet." After losing an election, it's always nice to chat about bible-related 'miracles.'

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Nick just posted something that seems to go along with Reynold's assertion:

The exit polls showed that 42 percent of voters called corruption an extremely important issue in their choices at the polls, followed by terrorism at 40 percent, the economy at 39 percent and the war in Iraq at 37 percent.

Not a big point spread, but Iraq is in 4th place. That'd get you some cash if it was a football card.

[Ethan]

Um, Ed, Mr Reynolds wasn't making a prediction, but rather was analyzing what had already happened, so I don't see the point of comparing his claim to Mr Bailey's prediction. The war in Iraq was one of a very small number of major factors influencing people's votes.

[bigbigslacker]

There is some progress on the political scene. At least the Republicans aren't blaming their lost races on a voter "temper tantrum".

"When people start talking about "historical cycles" as though they were predictable laws of physics, you know they're out of arguments."

I agree. Let us know when this starts happening!

[creech]

Rush's spin is that conservatism didn't lose yesterday, the Republicans did because they were too wimpy, squishy, and moderate "country clubbers."

[highnumber]

Rush's spin is that conservatism didn't lose yesterday, the Republicans did...

I heard Larry Kudlow say the same thing while I was scanning AM radio this morning. He didn't say anything about squishy country-clubbers, though.

[crimethink]

I'd love to see Tom Reynolds' explanation of how he managed to win if the election was about corruption. If he were an employer and had known what he'd known about the Foley IM scandal, he'd be fired and sued for negligence.

[Again]

That's kind of a cheap shot. What did you expect them to say? "The Democrats are SO gonna cream us."

Of course they predicted victory for themselves.