ChrisWeigant.com

The Future Of Immigration Reform

[ Posted Monday, February 10th, 2014 – 18:17 UTC ]

Last week, John Boehner made a rather stunning turnaround on whether the House will be passing some sort of immigration reform this year. To be snide: first he was for it, before he was against it. What happened in between (one assumes) is that he tried to sell the idea to his own caucus. Who (from all appearances) wasn't buying it. While this might not be the end for immigration reform this year, the idea certainly can now be said to be on life support, at best. What this means for the future of immigration reform is anybody's guess at this point, so I thought I'd map out a few scenarios which assume immigration reform is not going to pass before this year's elections.

Republicans -- especially those in the House fighting to keep their jobs this year -- are leery of taking on immigration reform right now. They reason they've got a big advantage in the midterm elections, they think, is because their signature issue of hating Obamacare is going to be good enough to propel them to victory in the Senate. So why delve into a subject that is contentious and divisive within the Republican Party in the meantime? If you buy into the assumptions made, this reasoning makes perfect sense for House Republicans. The only problem with it is that there's always a reason not to do something this big, and this might be the only chance Republicans get before the 2016 presidential election to pass immigration reform.

Some Republican strategists are hinting that maybe -- just maybe, mind you -- Republicans will take up the issue right after the November vote. In the "lame duck" period of Congress (between the election and January, when the new Congress is sworn in), House Republicans will magically get their act together, produce legislation, and then forge some sort of compromise with the Senate so a bill can reach President Obama's desk. That's a lot to ask for in a very short period of time, of course. But what Republicans don't admit (or possibly haven't thought out yet) is that this scenario only really works if Republicans lose big in the upcoming election. If Republicans win big, why would the outgoing Congress pass something when the incoming Congress will be more heavily Republican? If the status quo holds (if neither Republicans nor Democrats win big), then Republicans will be disappointed at not winning big (which they are all currently telling themselves is inevitable) and won't have much stomach for taking on such a contentious issue. They'll be demoralized, especially if Democrats hold the Senate, and they won't be enthusiastically launching any big reform efforts. But if Republicans lose big, then they will reason that any reform efforts passed before the next Congress is sworn in will be "more Republican" -- most especially if they have lost control of the House. So they'll have a big motivator to passing something quickly, before the next Congress has a chance to act.

Looking a bit further into the future than the fantasy of the lame duck Congress quickly passing sweeping reform measures, there are essentially three or four scenarios worth considering. Sadly, for those who support immigration reform, the opportunities will shrink to pass real reform in 2015 or 2016 in all but one of these. As mentioned, it's always easy for Congress to find reasons not to act. Let's take a look at them one by one, from the most optimistic (for Democrats) to the most pessimistic (for the chances of real reform passing).

 

Democrats win big, take House

This rosy-tinted scenario begins with an upset at the polls. Democrats not only hold onto the Senate, but also take control of the House. Next January, the first order of business will be taking up immigration reform. Because it will be a brand-new Congress, the Senate bill which previously passed will expire. So the Senate could either pass the same bill or tweak it slightly. The House would pass their own version, and a compromise would quickly be reached. To get through the Senate again, Democrats will need a filibuster-proof 60 votes, which likely will mean some Republicans will have some influence in the final bill. So it won't be solely Democratic ideas which make it into the final legislation. But it will guarantee that whatever passes is real reform -- defined as "reform which doesn't create an impossible path for undocumented immigrants to follow." Obama, of course, will happily sign the bill into law.

 

Status quo wins, Congress remains split

In this scenario, the Republicans hold onto the House and the Democrats hold onto the Senate. Depending on who increases their margin in both houses, perhaps some sort of lame-duck compromise is reached, but this would be a long shot. What will likely happen is that the issue will be waiting for the new Congress in January. I should note that this scenario also works (in reverse) in the unlikely event that the Democrats take the House while the Republicans take the Senate (the longest of longshot outcomes this November).

But if both houses stay essentially unchanged, the big question is whether House Republicans would tackle the issue early in 2015 or not. This is what Republicans are saying now (as an excuse for inaction in 2014) -- that they'll come back in 2015 eager to work on solving the problem. Well, maybe not "eager," but at least "willing." The problem with this plan, as pretty much everyone is currently pointing out, is that even if the House does make a good faith effort to pass immigration reform in early 2015, it will put the issue front and center in the Republican primary campaign (which will ramp up almost immediately after the votes are counted this November).

By doing so, the presidential candidates are going to become the de facto party leaders on the issue. And, as we've seen before (see: Mitt Romney, "self-deportation") this means the candidates can be expected to veer hard right, in order to woo Republican primary voters. This will lock in the anti-immigration reform stance for the 2016 campaign, which may well lose the White House for Republicans.

All of which is true, but I'm not so sure this isn't a convenient excuse for Republicans to never take up immigration reform. After all, "election season" never really ends in Washington. If Republicans can't tackle immigration reform in the year after a presidential election (which they proved incapable of doing in 2013), the year before a midterm election (this year), or either of the two years before a presidential election (2015 and 2016), then by definition they can never politically manage to get it done. Which is pretty much where we've been for the past few decades, in fact.

The Republican Party is widely split on the advisability of passing any sort of immigration reform. Many -- including many of their base voters -- are not convinced that anything of the sort should be done at all. The business elites within the party want it to happen, as do the party leaders who are aware of their growing inability to win presidential elections with the way American demographics are changing. But I find it hard to believe that punting the issue to 2015 is going to change this calculus in any appreciable way. Which means not doing anything on immigration reform (with the possible exception of some sort of grandstanding bill from the House which will never pass the Senate) until at least 2017. When the entire cycle will begin anew.

 

Republicans win big, take Senate

If the Republicans are right and win big this fall, they would wind up controlling both chambers of Congress. This would significantly change the power dynamic, but how that relates to immigration reform is murky.

Because (as mentioned) the old Senate bill would be dead, the Senate will have another bite at this apple. It is almost impossible for the Republicans to win a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats, but they could always change the rules and do away with the legislative filibuster to avoid this problem. This would leave all the congressional Democrats in both houses out in the cold. Democrats in Congress would have no leverage or real input on what could pass, at this point.

Which would clear the field for Republicans to write what they consider to be "immigration reform" bills. These would not resemble what already passed the Senate, to put it mildly. They would be heavy on enforcement, and provisions for undocumented immigrants would be either so cumbersome as to not be workable in the real world or they would be entirely non-existent.

Even if the Senate Democrats, by virtue of being able to filibuster, had some impact on the legislation, the real question becomes what will be seen as acceptable -- to both President Obama and to immigrants-rights groups. If the legislation which emerges is so odious that the immigrant-rights groups condemn it, then Obama could easily veto it and state that it wasn't "real reform."

The problem, though, is what happens if Republicans surprise everyone and come out with a bill that -- at least on its face -- seems reasonable enough to most people. What if they obfuscate the reality (that few immigrants will ever be able to walk any "path" to legalized status) well enough that even immigrants-rights groups begin to waver? "Well, it's better than nothing" from such groups would put Obama in a very tight place. Would he veto the bill knowing that it won't help many people at all (and knowing that this might be the last chance for real reform in a generation), or will he too buy into the "it's better than nothing" thinking, and go ahead and sign a bad bill?

 

Republicans win it all in 2016

This is a longer-term scenario, which I included just for the sake of argument. This ignores the outcome of the 2014 midterms and assumes that whatever the outcome that no immigration reform will happen until after the next presidential election. This is, of course, the most pessimistic scenario imaginable for Democrats.

If Republicans hold the House, the Senate, and win the White House in 2016, what happens to immigration reform's chances? Well, in this case, two things could conceivably happen. The first is that immigration reform simply won't happen at all, for the foreseeable future. If Republicans score such a commanding victory, then they'll all tell themselves that they were right all along and nothing really needs to happen on immigration.

It gets even scarier for Democrats, though, if they do decide to move on immigration. Because if they hold all the reins of government, then they may decide to pass all the enforcement ideas any Republican has ever come up with, and cement either "self-deportation" or (even worse) "round them up and send them home" deportation as the desired outcome of any "immigration reform" effort. Draconian bills will pass both the House and the Senate, and the new Republican president will happily sign them all into law.

 

When you look at all the options, what immediately becomes apparent is that elections matter. If immigration reform does not happen this year, then the chances are fairly high that it won't happen during the next Congress, either (at least, nothing that would qualify as real immigration reform).

Which brings us back to where this conversation really started. The window for immigration reform to happen seems to be closing. Unless Democrats pull off a stunning upset victory in November, the chances for immigration reform successfully happening are greater now than they will be until at least 2017, when the next president is sworn into office. Republicans who shy away from tackling the issue now will shy away from tackling it before then, and the reasons for such inaction will remain the same (or become stronger, even). The issue is always going to divide the Republican Party -- that fact is just not going to change in the next three years.

The only shred of optimism left to cling to for those who want to see immigration reform pass this year is that perhaps John Boehner is merely pandering to his own party's base voters in a temporary fashion. He may possibly be performing a classic "bait and switch" on his own party. We are, right now, in the heart of primary season for the midterms. Republican voters are about to get a chance all over the country to nominate candidates for House and Senate seats for the November general election. It was rumored last year that Boehner was going to wait until after the primary dust settled before making his push for immigration reform. This may still be true, no matter what Boehner is now saying.

Once the slates of candidates are set after the primary elections, Boehner will know that Tea Party primary challenges for congressional Republicans are at least two years away (the maximum possible time, in the House). If the Tea Party doesn't do well in the primaries, then Boehner would have a freer hand to introduce the issue in the House. Some Republican voters would stay home in disgust in November and not vote at all, but the feelings against Obamacare run so high in the base that this could overwhelm any "stay at home" movement.

John Boehner knows that his party's chances to win national elections on the presidential level would be much improved by passing immigration reform. He also knows that this is not true for his House Republicans. The only way for him to walk this tightrope is to now appear to be against immigration reform, and then later champion whatever version the House comes up with as "true Republican immigration reform." This could be what he's doing right now, in fact.

Unfortunately, this is pretty much the only chance immigration reform is now left with. Because if Boehner doesn't buck his own Tea Party this year (after the primaries are over), the chances of anything meaningful passing before 2017 become pretty dismal.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

25 Comments on “The Future Of Immigration Reform”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    This would leave all the congressional Democrats in both houses out in the cold. Democrats in Congress would have no leverage or real input on what could pass, at this point.

    Yea, let's see how DEMOCRATS like it when it's done to them!! :D

    They would be heavy on enforcement

    As it SHOULD be...

    Let's face the facts. (And that is NOT an ugly word around here, appearances to the contrary)

    Joe and Jane SixPack really don't care about immigration reform. They conclude (and I agree) that more should be done to take care of middle class Americans first and foremost..

    The only people who care about immigration reform are Democrat "leaders" who want to mint fresh new Democrat voters and Republican "leaders" who want to pander to their corporate masters..

    NO political "leader" really cares about the immigrants themselves...

    It's all done to further their respective Party agenda..

    And, as usual, it's ya'all and me and every day Americans who wind up getting screwed...

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Democrats retaking the House is a very long shot, but control of the Senate seems, to me, to hinge on the state of the US economy. Obama's popularity will rise or fall with the economic reports, but as far as the underlying dynamics go, "it's the economy stupid." Every thing else is going to be pretty much correlation, unless another war suddenly breaks out somewhere.

    Republicans will do everything possible to sabotage the economy, using Health Care as a useful distraction.

    Immigration Reform is just another distraction fluttering about, trying to get noticed.

    When historians of the 25th century telepathically communicate from their glass jars, they will characterize the 21st century as "The Era of Distractions."

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans will do everything possible to sabotage the economy, using Health Care as a useful distraction.

    That simply belies the severity of how bad the ACA really is..

    Considering how much crap that Obama and the Dems put this country thru to keep obamacare intact and unchanged prior it it's disastrous roll-out, that makes the "train-wrecky-ness" all the more damaging to the Dem's chances in the coming mid-term..

    I am willing to wager that Obama and the Dems are thinking, "If only we had delayed obamacare for a year"!! :D

    bortaS bIr jablu'DI' reH QaQqu' nay'

    :D

    When historians of the 25th century telepathically communicate from their glass jars, they will characterize the 21st century as "The Era of Distractions."

    I disagree. The 21st Century will be known as the era that the US became a third-world banana republic. And the era of throwing our allies under the bus and allying with the world's enemies..

    Is Obama Quietly Courting A Coalition With Iran?
    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/021014-689504-obama-shifting-mideast-alliance-to-iran.htm

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not really pertinent to Immigration, but definitely relevant as to how future historians will view the Obama Administration..

    The NSA’s Secret Role in the U.S. Assassination Program
    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/

    It's kind of a long read and technical in some points..

    But for those who actually have a MORAL argument against the Bush policies that Obama has adopted and expanded, it must be very frightening..

    Of course, there are very VERY few on the Left who actually have a *moral* argument against those policies anymore...

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M (3)

    "third-world banana republic"

    Not so fast...the US will have to import the bananas, causing further trade imbalance.

    "a potential Deng Xiaoping, someone from within the ideological solidarity system who can, measure-by-stealthy-measure, lead his country away from ideology and toward internal reform"

    I just can't see this as a bad model for dealing with Iran.

    (4)

    The concerns raised by Scahill and Greenwald are the same ones that have concerned me about drone implemented assassination campaigns. It's ultimately counterproductive and a misuse of technology. Pretty much all the stuff in The Intercept article has been out in the open lit. for years.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not so fast...the US will have to import the bananas, causing further trade imbalance.

    {{chortle}} {{chortle}} :D

    I just can't see this as a bad model for dealing with Iran.

    IF Rhuajihadihoni was ACTUALLY Iran's leader, rather than just a figure head for the religious fanatics actually running Iran, then you would be correct.

    But he ain't, so you ain't.. :D

    The concerns raised by Scahill and Greenwald are the same ones that have concerned me about drone implemented assassination campaigns. It's ultimately counterproductive and a misuse of technology. Pretty much all the stuff in The Intercept article has been out in the open lit. for years.

    And yet, the Left (nearly enmasse) supports the Commander In Chief unequivocally..

    Why is that??

    Because Party loyalty is more important than anything else...

    If this is such "common knowledge" as you claim, why does Obama garner nearly universal support amongst the Left??

    The ONLY possible explanation is because he has a '-D' after his name...

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    IF Rhuajihadihoni was ACTUALLY Iran's leader, rather than just a figure head for the religious fanatics actually running Iran, then you would be correct.

    Put another way..

    Rhuajihadihoni has as much real power in the Iranian government as the Queen Of England has in the USA government. :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M (6)

    And yet, the Left (nearly enmasse) supports the Commander In Chief unequivocally..

    Why is that??

    Glad you asked, if even rhetorically. Because of the Republican alternatives! At the ballot box (or chad dispenser) it always comes down to voting for "the least lizard" or in the case of 3 or more choices a lessor lizard with a good shot of defeating a greater, more scary lizard. To be interested in politics is to be familiar with disappointment....and settling.

    (6,7)

    Deng Xiaoping didn't hold supreme power either, but he was a member of the political elite and a reformer. A good conduit for negotiations - in both directions. Soft power is real power.

    Rouhani seems comparable to Deng in many respects.

    and back to (3)

    I am willing to wager that Obama and the Dems are thinking, "If only we had delayed obamacare for a year"!!

    No, they don't - the roll out came out a year before elections because everybody in the administration knew there would be problems with enrollment.

    I've had a chance to actually use the healthcare insurance I bought through the national exchange, and it works fine! Kept my primary care physician, and every specialist I use has accepted my insurance after making one short phone call. Now, I'm just one anecdotal data point, but I doubt I'm completely atypical. I'm due for some minor surgery, so we'll see how that plays out. Basically, Romney Care is beginning to work as intended. The secret will leak out.

    In the long run, I'm an insurance bargain... an Old Invincible!

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Glad you asked, if even rhetorically. Because of the Republican alternatives! At the ballot box (or chad dispenser) it always comes down to voting for "the least lizard" or in the case of 3 or more choices a lessor lizard with a good shot of defeating a greater, more scary lizard. To be interested in politics is to be familiar with disappointment....and settling.

    That's not logical..

    Put another way...

    If Democrats acts as evil and as corrupt as Republicans (and there are unequivocal FACTS to prove this is accurate) then the claim that Republicans are worse than Democrats is completely unsubstantiated and totally illogical..

    What IS more logical and accurate is that Democrats simply tell you what you WANT to hear. You believe them and THAT is why you claim that Republicans are worse than Democrats.

    Given the FACTS, which explanation is more logical?

    Yours or mine?? :D

    Basically, Romney Care is beginning to work as intended. The secret will leak out.

    That's what ya'all have been saying since October.

    And yet, we STILL find new and exciting horror stories about TrainWreckCare every day..

    And yet, there are NO happy and sunny stories to speak of...

    And yet, Obama has to BREAK THE LAW to extend mandate after mandate after mandate.

    Obviously, it can't be THAT good if Obama has to lie and cheat and break the law over it, eh???

    I mean, logically speaking...

    Rouhani seems comparable to Deng in many respects.

    Obviously you aren't too familiar with Iran's system of government..

    Roujihadi has no more power to effect change in Iran than *I* have to effect change here in the US...

    Once again, time will tell who is right and who is not.. With respect to both Iran *AND* TrainWreckCare..

    But, considering what is happening in the here and now with both, I would say the facts are clear as to who is right and who isn't.. :D

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    I hope you are still with us after the Mid-Terms. :D

    It's gonna be a whole new world....

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've had a chance to actually use the healthcare insurance I bought through the national exchange, and it works fine! Kept my primary care physician, and every specialist I use has accepted my insurance after making one short phone call. Now, I'm just one anecdotal data point, but I doubt I'm completely atypical.

    And yet, apparently you are..

    Because MILLIONS of Americans were NOT able to keep their same plan, were NOT able to keep their same doctor.

    Don't they count???

    Shouldn't Obama and the entire Democrat Party be held accountable for their blatant lies??

    Ya'all sure wanted to hold Bush and the Republicans accountable?

    Why not clean ya'alls house first??

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I am dragging us off topic.. Sorry about that.. I am sure there will be another TrainWreckCare commentary soon, so I'll just hold my water til then... :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TheStig -

    When historians of the 25th century telepathically communicate from their glass jars, they will characterize the 21st century as "The Era of Distractions."

    You mean like the heads of Richard Nixon and Al Gore in Futurama?

    Heh. Couldn't resist. "I have ridden the mighty Moon Worm" is the coolest thing any veep has ever said... sorry Liz...

    :-)

    Michale -

    On Iran's leadership structure, weren't you warning of all sorts of dire things when Achmandinejad (sp?) was in the same position? I mean, you can't have it both ways, either he's powerless or not...

    And yet, there are NO happy and sunny stories to speak of...

    But TheStig just narrated one. Maybe the "..." means "that Republicans will admit are real"?

    -CW

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    On Iran's leadership structure, weren't you warning of all sorts of dire things when Achmandinejad (sp?) was in the same position? I mean, you can't have it both ways, either he's powerless or not...

    Yes I was.

    And yes, most of them have come to pass..

    Ironically enough, Iran's leadership is much like Israel's leadership, insofar as the power of the Presidency..

    It's a ceremonial position.

    When he is not being accused of rape, how often do we hear about "The President Of Israel"??

    Barely at all. It's more about the Prime Minister of Israel. THAT is where the real power is..

    So it is with Iran...

    The President can't do squat without clearing it with the religious fanatics. They hold the REAL power in Iran.

    And they haven't changed one iota..

    One only has to read what is going on with Iran to know that..

    But TheStig just narrated one. Maybe the "..." means "that Republicans will admit are real"?

    That's ONE...

    Where are all the rest??

    You mentioned a couple people that were going to be a lot better off under the ACA...

    Are they a couple more happy stories??

    For every TS, I can show you a hundred, a THOUSAND Americans that were screwed over...

    Even former SUPPORTERS of obamacare are starting to realize how bad it is.

    What makes them wrong and ya'all right??

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Durbin’s claim that 10 million now have health insurance because of Obamacare
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/10/durbins-claim-that-10-million-now-have-health-insurance-because-of-obamacare/

    Once again, I am forced to ask...

    If TrainWreckCare is so good, why do Democrats have to constantly lie to try and sell it??

    Why did Obama and the Democrats blatantly lie over and over and over and over again to get it passed??

    I don't expect an answer, because the only honest answer would have to be, "You are right, Michale. obamacare is NOT good for Americans".

    And I know ya'all would rather gouge out yer eyes with a rusty spoon before you would admit THAT... :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    Democrats retaking the House is a very long shot, but control of the Senate seems, to me, to hinge on the state of the US economy. Obama's popularity will rise or fall with the economic reports, but as far as the underlying dynamics go, "it's the economy stupid."

    I was wondering what your thoughts are on this chart:

    http://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2014/02/10/Photos/MG/MW-BU310_scary__20140210132547_MG.jpg?uuid=d13c2b42-9280-11e3-9759-00212803fad6

    vis a vis your comment about it being the economy that will determine control of Congress after the mid-terms...

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M (16)

    I think the similarity between the modern and 1920s plots is largely an illusion caused by the arbitrary choice of Y axis scales, which in effect truncates the modern Y axis. This creates a visual impression that the modern market growth rate closely matches the Depression era growth rate over comparable months.

    In fact, the 20s market valuation increased about 88% from start date to just before the crash, over the comparable period, while the modern market only increased 28% over the comparable months.

    The resolution of the graphs isn't very good, but my rough count shows about 50% more peaks in the 20s than in the modern era. The fine structure of peaks and valleys doesn't look all that similar, black vs red.

    I would not bet the farm on the basis of this graph.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would agree that the actual VALUES have very little if anything in common.

    Give the it's almost a century between the two, that is to be expected..

    But you simply cannot deny that it is uncanny that the PROPORTIONALITY of the values are so closely aligned...

    I can understand why you would not want to take it at face value...

    Because it spells certain doom for Democrats in the mid-terms..

    Which, of course, also explains why I LOVE it's face value... :D

    All that aside, the simple fact that it goes so far back and is STILL (proportionally) accurate doesn't bode well for the wish that lightning won't strike twice...

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    TheStig wrote:

    m (18)

    The only thing that's uncanny is that Demark has chosen different scaling factors for old Y and modern Y, so that both lines begin near the bottom left and end up near the top right just before the actual or expected crash. Do that for any two roughly linear trends, and you'll tend to get rough visual proportionality.

    The mind expects trends and tries to find them in random fluctuations. Like the face of Jesus on a piece of burnt toast.

    Do you wear pads on those knuckles? :)

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only thing that's uncanny is that Demark has chosen different scaling factors for old Y and modern Y, so that both lines begin near the bottom left and end up near the top right just before the actual or expected crash. Do that for any two roughly linear trends, and you'll tend to get rough visual proportionality.

    For example...??? :D

    I get it. I really do. Your political ideology forbids you from considering that Dems will be utterly routed this November..

    The fact that those trends are even ROUGHLY linear should scare the bejeezus out of Democrats. :D

    But the nice thing is, when it happens, I'll be able to say "Well, lookie here"...

    If it doesn't, then you get the honors.. :D

    We should know soon enough..

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M -

    "I get it. I really do. Your political ideology forbids you from considering that Dems will be utterly routed this November.."

    I find people with unusually strong ideology tend to assume everybody else has an equally strong ideology.

    My ideology, which even I don't know describe in any simple way, allows me this snapshot impression of CW's midterm scenarios:

    I believe the most likely outcome is status quo, my odds roughly 60%.

    The next most likely outcome is that Republicans win big, odds 40%. I would give them higher odds if the Tea Party wing allowed them to field stronger, less ideological candidates.

    I rate the odds of a Democratic takeover of the House to be very low, close enough to zero for practical purposes.

    I don't know if DeMark is a is a brilliant stock market analyst or a huckster, although I lean pretty strongly towards the latter. He has no strong academic background in math modeling and statistics. He doesn't publish in peer reviewed journals. I can't find any objective and peer reviewed validation of his approach. Most of what I read about him is cheer leading from day trading acolytes.

    From:

    http://www.cxoadvisory.com/6779/individual-gurus/how-about-tom-demark/

    "There are apparently no quantitative studies of the statistical or economic significance of the indicators on this site. The weak performance claims in the third item above would be very difficult to prove or disprove. A prospective buyer might wonder:

    Why, if the indicators have great economic value, their creator would sell them rather than just use them privately.

    Whether the indicators carry material data snooping bias.

    Whether their broad dissemination would extinguish any past efficacy."

    Excellent questions indeed!

    By itself, the graph you referenced seems, to me, to have no predictive value. The presentation is deceptive, although not necessarily deliberately deceptive. For what it's worth, I have 30 years worth of applied stats and modeling experience (academic, government and private sectors) with publications in peer reviewed literature. I've "borrowed" a lot of economic models during my career, but as fate would have it, I've never actually done any formal (paid professional) economic analysis of the stock market.

    You asked for an opinion.....

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    I find people with unusually strong ideology tend to assume everybody else has an equally strong ideology.

    The only strong ideology I have is the ideology of common sense.. No politics required..

    You asked for an opinion.....

    I did indeed..

    I also figured exactly what you would say..

    You didn't disappoint.. :D

    Ya ever notice how every one of your opinions has Democrats as the good guys and Democrats always being right and Democrats always winning??

    I have... :D

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TheStig [21] -

    Oh, c'mon, I'd put it at 65% status quo, 25% GOP wins big, 10% Dems win.

    But then, I'm an incurable optimist...

    :-)

    Michale [22] -

    Are you high, or what?

    You state:

    Ya ever notice how every one of your opinions has Democrats as the good guys and Democrats always being right and Democrats always winning??

    But you're responding to:

    I rate the odds of a Democratic takeover of the House to be very low, close enough to zero for practical purposes.

    Are you jumping the gun on that FL medical marijuana? Inquiring minds want to know.

    -CW

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww right, the "winning" part may not be entirely accurate..

    But the Democrats always being the good guys and the Democrats always being right parts are dead on ballz accurate..

    I have commented on that phenomena before but never got a response.

    How is it that the Democrat Party is ALWAYS right?? How is it the Democrat Party is ALWAYS good and noble and the Republican Party is ALWAYS the epitome of evil??

    The laws of probability would make such a claim IMPOSSIBLE...

    It's the "Blackwhite" concept in a nutshell...

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww right, the "winning" part may not be entirely accurate..

    Although I would point out that predicting that Democrats won't win the House is like predicting that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west..

    It's not really in question..

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.