Frum drives bus over Rove. LOL! (updated)

[ProSense]

David Frum knocks ‘the Architect’: ‘Rove hasn’t had a great batting record.’

In the Wall Street Journal today, Karl “the Architect” Rove insisted, “History will favor Republicans in 2010.” Appearing on CSPAN’s Washington Journal today, conservative writer David Frum knocked Rove’s optimism, saying the Republican party is “badly disorganized”:

FRUM: Karl Rove has not had a great batting record recently. He predicted the Republicans would hold the House in 06, and was assuring Republicans they would win in 2008 so I’m afraid that this is a little over-optimistic about 2010.

Watch it:

(http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/13/frum-rove/">Frum: "Rove Hasn't Had A Great Batting Record Recently")

Despite Rove’s reputation as a “political genius” and “mastermind,” he has consistently gotten it wrong when it comes to political predictions.

Updated to add:

Karl Rove's Spurious Numbers

by Jonathan Singer

Karl Rove, on the opinion page of The Wall Street Journal:

<…>

These numbers from Rove are intentionally misleading, an effort to mix apples and oranges to make the case that the Democrats are doomed – doomed -- in 2010, whether for the purpose of rallying the GOP base or depressing Democratic recruitment or fundraising efforts. Of course this isn't the first time that Rove has used fuzzy numbers. Many will recall Rove's feisty interview with NPR in October 2006 when he claimed to have "THE math" showing that Republicans would hold on to both the House and the Senate that fall -- but that doesn't mean I'm not going to shoot him down.

In order to arrive at these numbers, Rove not only throws in the first midterm election after a President is first elected to the White House, he also includes the first midterm election after a President assumes the White House -- a very different situation than what we see today. Why include these numbers? To cook the books so that the situation looks worse for the Democrats.

In what way will the 2010 midterms resemble the 1946 midterms, which occurred a little under two years after Harry Truman succeeded FDR, right in the middle of an economic downturn following World War II, and, more importantly, after 14 years of uninterrupted Democratic domain over the White House and the Congress? (The Democrats lost 54 seats in the House and 13 seats in the Senate, and control over the House and Senate, in 1946.) In what way does 2010 resemble the 1966 midterms, which were much more like the second midterm for the Kennedy/Johnson administration than a first midterm for a new Johnson administration? (The Democrats lost 3 seats in the Senate and 48 seats in the House that fall, though still had a 28-seat majority in the upper chamber and a 60-seat majority in the lower chamber.) The answer is that in neither case does the comparison apply.

Looking now at the House, specifically, when you take the eight midterm elections that actually look like 2010 -- a newly elected President, his party in Congress facing the electorate for the first time since he was elected office exactly two years earlier, not having previously served -- the party in power has lost an average of 16.125 seats, or about seven less than the number cited by Rove. If you remove the outliers at the top and bottom of the list (Bill Clinton's Democrats losing 54 seats in 1994 and George W. Bush's Republicans gaining eight seats in 2002), the average loss falls to 13.83 seats. In only two of the five instances in which the President's party controlled the House coming into the midterm did that party lose it (1954 and 1994); the other three times the party in power maintained its majority (1962, 1978 and 2002).

Taking a gander at the Senate, when you look at those eight midterm elections that are actually analogous to 2010, the party in power in the White House lost on average just 1.125 seats in the upper chamber of Congress. Just half of the time did the party lose any seats, with the party actually picking up seats in three elections (1962, 1970 and 2002) and not losing a single seat in one election (1982). Given the way the map looks in the chamber for 2010, I'm not banking on serious losses for the Democrats.

History isn't a predictor of the future, so this is a bit of an academic discussion. Nevertheless, if Rove is going to try to make historical comparisons to make the case that the Democrats are bound to lose, he'd better do a little better than this transparently specious claptrap (even if it is par for the course on the opinion page of The Wall Street Journal).

[Occam Bandage]

1. If Rove hadn't gotten so damn lucky in 2000, he'd be a complete unknown.

The dude has only engineered one successful nationwide campaign, and that was 2004. He would have lost in 2000 if not forthe bizarre and unlikely Floridian perfect storm of Nader, butterfly ballots, unchecked Republican-dictated voter purging, ballot miscounting, and Supreme Court intervention in the recount process. Add the 2006 and 2008 resounding rejections of Rove's brand of politics, and one has to wonder why exactly so many liberals live in fear of "Rovian tricks" and why so many conservatives take his word as gospel. Anyone who can hold a bat can get one hit, and any dumb fuck can win one race.

[ProSense]

2. Rove is a criminal

It wasn't a genius in 2002 and he damn sure isn't a genius now.

His claim to fame is fraud and theft. I hope when the 2010 elections roll around, his ass is mired in legal problems.

[Occam Bandage]

3. For all his failings, Rove does not lack in one skill:

track-covering. By January, I doubt there'll be hard evidence that Karl Rove has even been to Washington.

[ProSense]

4. Wow, you're impressed with Rove, huh?

Wonder why his track record is so lacking?

[Occam Bandage]

7. You must have some sort of filter installed in your browser

that takes things I write and replaces them with totally unrelated sentences.

"Wow, you're impressed with Rove, so explain why he's so bad" is not a rational response to either "Rove is a political failure who got lucky in 2000" or "Rove has many failings, but does seem to be skilled at erasing evidence of his own criminality." Honestly, I've looked over both my posts--and both your replies--twice, and I cannot for the life of me figure out where you're coming from.

[ProSense]

8. May I remind you about the attorneys scandal and all the other criminal activities with Rove's

prints on them? Rove has a lousy track record of covering his tracks. Track record here doesn't apply to his election fraud activities. The fact that he hasn't been indicted is probably due in large part to stonewalling by the Bush WH than anything else.

[Occam Bandage]

9. And the minute that anyone, anywhere finds enough evidence to indict, much less convict,

I'll say that I was wrong. In the mean time, I'm going to stick to my guns here. I don't care if everyone on Earth knows he did it; I (and he, and the courts) only care if there's enough evidence to prove he did it. The Plame affair and Fitzgerald investigation are a great example of the distinction between the two.

[ProSense]

10. The Plame affair and Fitzgerald investigation were marred by stonewalling.

Everyone knows that, but I still don't equate successfully covering one's track with stonewalling. If everyone believes he did it, he hasn't done a very good job covering his tracks. On the evidence, we'll see.

[Occam Bandage]

11. Which is a common if blunt tactic for effectively suppressing evidence.

I'm looking at results, not at how graceful his tactics looked. Rove is the political equivalent of a rusty 10-pound axe; grace is not his forte.

[RichardRay]

12. ..a rusty 10-pound axe

Absolutely, it's just that he so wants to be seen as some sort of Machiavellian operator of deep subtlety and insight.

How Karl Rove sees himself:


How he really is:



(sorry, I couldn't find a rusty one.)

[tulsakatz]

5. Frum was on American Journal this morning.....

...it was an interesting show. And yes, he did point out that Rove hasn't been right much lately, going back to the '06 election predictions.

But the part that really got my attention was when Frum spoke about the most recent election and how republicans can change their current prospects. He talked about how Obama gained support from minorities and specifically talked about Mexican Americans who generally make $30,000 per year. Then he said that people like this have more to gain from democratic govt programs than republican tax breaks.

It was refreshing to hear a republican tell the truth for a change instead of trying to promote the lie that republicans are for the common man like Joe the (not) plumber.........

[VaYallaDawg]

6. Wasn't Rove the jackass that predicted a "permanent Republican majority?"