Tons of things. There are generic indicators that are developed by state parties that look at past voting history and registration. In states where voters have to register then its pretty straightforward in terms of projecting how a large chunk of the electorate will vote. In states without party registration (aka Texas) the clearest indicator is primary voting history. You can then look to see how many (and which) primaries someone has voted in to determine their vote come election day. That's a very rough measure of voting and leaves a lot of unknowns since a large group of people have never voted in a primary. What you then do is overlay that rough breakdown and adjust by where people live. For example, all campaigns can take a look at vote totals in 06 and 08 and break it down to the smallest possible level (precinct). So you can see precincts where the vast majority of people vote one way or the other. Someone living in a precinct where say 90% of people voted democrat becomes an additional indicator. On top of that there are statistical models that attempt to predict how someone will vote for a generic democratic or republican candidate that combine a wide variety of factors. Factors from things as basic as ethnicity and income to as minute as how someone spends their money in a grocery store or even what kind of car someone owns. (fun fact - you're more likely to be a republican if you own a truck in an urban area as opposed to a rural area) Anyway there's more to it than that but that's a general idea. That said most campaigns dont even bother going that in depth so they use some rather crude measures but because we're talking about sample sizes in the millions, you can afford to be crude and still have some decent accuracy.
I am listening to a debate between Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) and her opponents Taryl Clark (D) and Bob Anderson (IP). So far she is spouting a lot of the same right wing Tea party talking points as usual, not surprising. What is more surprising is just how poor a job the other candidates are doing going after her, especially Taryl Clark. Honestly there are several here on D & D who could do a much better job of taking on Bachmann in a debate. Just disappointing and based on the polls and debates Bachmann looks to keep her seat easily.
Did they gerrymander all the crazies into her district or something? You might expect her to come from the South or even CA or a border state, but Minnesota? Seems odd.
A bit but the gerrymandering isn't as bad in MN as it is in some states since the courts have drawn the districts the last two years. Her district is a conservative district mostly but encompasses some of the northern Twin Cities suburbs and the college town of St. Cloud. In Bachmann's two previous US Rep races she has never won in a landslide and last election didn't even win a majority. She has benefited from poor opponents in her first race and also from having the anti-Bachmann vote split in the last race with a darkhorse candidate taking 10% of the vote.
Yes, I am thinking a little "barely applied pressure" to her head and neck with a boot would be in order, just for her facial expressions alone.
Again, the things Dems should be running on. <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AmWjlA9FlAo?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AmWjlA9FlAo?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Democrats deserve the spanking they are going to get. It aint because of the Tea Party though, it's because they let morons tell them that Tarp and the stimulus didn't work. They let people think that it didn't work! We had a financial crisis worse than the great depression and a market crash that was larger, and yet 2-3 years later we are in recovery. Last time it took a decade and unemployment hit 30%! People whine about 10% unemployment???? What did you expect? Would people had rather seen nothing done and hit 30%. OBama would be called Hoover. But that's politics. That's what happens. So Republicans will take the congress and then sit there and wonder what to do other than try to start wars, cut taxes, and reverse everything Obama accomplished.
the stupid thing the democrats have done on stimulus is not stress that $300MM is tax cuts. unbelievable on TARP, it was Bush who signed under with both dem and republican support, something we won't see for a while even if another crisis looms. sad
Except by counting all the people (teachers, police, etc.) that were about to be fired until stimulus money arrived to keep their jobs safe.
