# 2014 US Senate predictions



## Hoosier4Liberty (Feb 14, 2014)

United States Senate elections, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the specific Senate predictions per state, post here.

Based on current evidence, here are the winners for the competitive states in my projection:
-Kentucky-McConnell *barely*.  The state's nearly 30 points more GOP in its spread than the national average, but McConnell's approval ratings stink and Grimes could manage to win statewide.  
-Georgia-Whoever wins the GOP primary, most likely Phil Gingrey.  I wouldn't be surprised if Michelle Nunn wins in November, but she won't get the 50% needed to avoid a runoff, and Dem turnout always tanks in December elections in this state.
-Alaska:  Sullivan should win this one fairly easily so long as Joe Miller doesn't decided to be a retard and run as an independent.  
-Arkansas:  Pryor's done with Cotton.  Polling confirms this, and the state has moved far to the right.  Should be safe.
-North Carolina:  Thom Tillis.  He's leading in the primary and general polling.  Hagan is down against everyone and it's hard to see her recover.
-Louisiana:  This is a true tossup, but I might give Landrieu the tiniest of edges on this one.  This election will be guaranteed to be a runoff(Jungle primary system in LA) between Cassidy and Landrieu.  Unless this state is to decide control of the Senate, I think Landrieu's shown with her durability she can barely eke it out.
-Michigan:  Terry Land.  The GOP does very well in Michigan during midterm elections as shown by 2010.  She's a popular secretary of state and should win this one.  
-South Dakota/Montana/West Virginia:  These should all be safe GOP pickups, though Montana is a bit shaky thanks to the Walsh appointment to the Senate.  But Walsh is corrupt enough that he should go down in flames in Novebmer.
-Iowa:  Barely Braley. I think Matt Whittaker's a decent candidate, and Iowa could very well go down in a GOP wave.    I have the same feelings about Oregon, Minnesota, and New Hampshire.  
-Virginia:  Mark Warner. Despite the buzz about this race, Mark Warner's very popular and it would take a true GOP crush day to see him lose. 
-Colorado:  This should be a GOP pickup as Udall is quite vulnerable.  But Ken ****ing Buck decides that he has to run again.  Owen Hill, Amy Stephens, and other candidates would all likely win, but Ken Buck appears poised to win the primary and thus Udall is favored to win.  This race deeply annoys me.  

All the other races not mentioned are safe.  My calculations give the GOP a 7 seat gain for control of the Senate with 52 seats.  

What are your predictions?


----------



## Nyvin (Feb 14, 2014)

Terri Land is going through a lawsuit with cooperating with Super PACs right now.   She has to survive that before the race can be called.

Also the only real reason she's polling ahead is she has better name recognition then Peters.    Once the public becomes more aware of her hardcore conservative rhetoric it will probably turn off Michigan voters who are actually on the moderate side.   There isn't much of a "hardcore conservative" base in Michigan.   She does have skeletons in the closet that will haunt her from her 8 years as Sec of State and the RNC stuff she ran.

I still see North Carolina, Alaska, and Kentucky as toss-ups.   Georgia still depends on the GOP primary which isn't really decided yet,  it will be funny if Paul Broun wins it and slips up the race to Nunn.   

I'll admit Montana most likely will go to Steve Daines.    He's a tough match honestly.


----------



## Nyvin (Feb 14, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> When the GOP fails to win the senate AND loses ground in the house... will their tears still taste so sweet?
> 
> Or will they be less satisfying because of how little effort it took to beat them this time around?



The way I see it...the GOP gains seats in the Senate, the Democrats gain Governorships.   I don't see it as a very significant election.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 14, 2014)

Ah the sweet smell of impeachment..........

Coming soon to a country that used to be free.


----------



## Interpol (Feb 15, 2014)

When you take away the 36 senate races being contended in November, it leaves 34 Democrats (including those Independents that caucus with them) and 30 Republicans. 

Republicans need to win 21 of 36 for the Senate majority. 20 will not do, because Biden is the tiebreaker. 

I just don't see a pathway to 51 for the GOP this year, particularly when we get to know at least a couple of the really strange characters we have yet to meet who will be running as Teabagger Republicans, and who will say crazy shit that will turn people off who are moderates. 

I too think Udall and Warner will hang on. Landrieu I'm not sure. 

If McConnell can't hang on in Kentucky (there seems to be some Mitch-fatigue out that way) then fuggedaboudit, that means the Democrats will have had a good election night. 

I'm not sure the Democrats can turn the House, but they can probably pick off another half dozen seats.


----------



## SayMyName (Feb 15, 2014)

Americans are so resigned to the conduct of the status quo, that I think they will vote the same way they normally do out of apathy. The House and Senate will remain roughly the same as now, with perhaps one or two wild cards coming in from parties out side the main two, meaning Libertarian or Independents.


----------



## birddog (Feb 15, 2014)

It should be a landslide for the Republicans!  There is a good chance of a 51-52 R senate, and the House will gain R seats.  This should be obvious to anyone!


----------



## WelfareQueen (Feb 15, 2014)

The oodsmakers are saying a 60% chance the Republicans take the Senate.  That sounds about right to me.


----------



## Zander (Feb 15, 2014)

Republicans will win 6-9 Senate seats and take control of the Senate. 

Republicans will add to their House majority. 

Obamacare will be a yoke around the neck of every Democrat in the country. 

 It's like 2010 all over again..


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 15, 2014)

Hoosier4Liberty said:


> United States Senate elections, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> For the specific Senate predictions per state, post here.
> 
> ...




I think _Yurtle The Turtle_ finally becomes a highly paid lobbyist come November, with Grimes beating him, thanks to an assist from teabagger Bevins.

Pryor over Cotton, mainly because Cotton comes off as a real dope, and even Arkansans can see it.  Plus, Billary are planning on campaigning for Pryor, and they are still hugely popular in the state.

Nunn in Georgia.  It's very close to becoming a Blue state right now, and the teabaggers will seriously damage each other in the primary.

Udall in Colorado.

Landrieu in Louisiana.

Warner in Virginia.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 15, 2014)

Dems hold Senate 51-49
Dems pick up 8 seats in the House
Dems pick up two Governorships

Things stay the same


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2014)

Zander said:


> Republicans will win 6-9 Senate seats and take control of the Senate.
> 
> Republicans will add to their House majority.
> 
> ...



Yes, if we drop the far right TeaP stupidity and concentrate on ACA reform as well as reaching out to honestly to women, Hispanics, minorities, and immigrant needs.


----------



## Nyvin (Feb 15, 2014)

Zander said:


> Republicans will win 6-9 Senate seats and take control of the Senate.
> 
> Republicans will add to their House majority.
> 
> ...



9 seats is probably too high.   8 is most likely the max, and even that is really aiming high.

51-52 GOP senators is realistic (+6-7 seats)  53 would be a clean sweep and no Dem wins in GA or KY (+8 seats)

I don't see 9 seats being available,   and remember with 8 you're talking about beating a heck of a lot of incumbents which doesn't happen all that often.


----------



## Hoosier4Liberty (Feb 15, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> The oodsmakers are saying a 60% chance the Republicans take the Senate.  That sounds about right to me.



That's almost exactly what my own mathematical simulation shows:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/337481-gop-has-60-chance-of-taking-back-senate-in-2014-a.html

Though now it would be a little different, I'd put NC/MI as redder and KY as bluer than before.  


birddog said:


> It should be a landslide for the Republicans!  There is a good chance of a 51-52 R senate, and the House will gain R seats.  This should be obvious to anyone!



I agree 100% with House seats.  I don't know what the liberals are smoking here thinking Dems will gain house seats.  2014 will be a much better environment for them than 2012, so their logic is absolutely inane.  Senate, I'm forecasting 51-52 seats right now based on my mathematical predictions, but Kentucky is really, really scaring me.  If only Matt Bevin weren't a complete idiot and hypocrite.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 15, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Dems hold Senate 51-49
> Dems pick up 8 seats in the House
> *Dems pick up two Governorships*
> 
> Things stay the same



Which two?


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 15, 2014)

Hoosier4Liberty said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > The oodsmakers are saying a 60% chance the Republicans take the Senate.  That sounds about right to me.
> ...



Bachmann is retiring, so that's an opportunity for Democrats.

Alex Sink will beat Jolly in Florida.

Cotton is running for Senate, so that's another chance.  Ditto Gingrey.

Southerland is weak.

The Cocaine Cowboy is out, but Naples, FL is pretty Republican, so they will prolly hold that one.

Bill Maher is promoting his #flipadistrict, which may be very effective.  I hope he picks Paul Ryan, who is not as strong in his district as you would think.  Rob Zerban may actually beat him this time.


----------



## Interpol (Feb 16, 2014)

There is clearly a greater hunger in the land today for immigration reform to pass than there was 4 years ago. 

There is a greater hunger to raise the minimum wage than there was 4 years ago. 

Republicans will trot out their Obamacare canard all year, and it will please their base, but I just don't see anywhere near the excitement on their side that they had 4 years ago. 

Republicans had the greater hunger 4 years ago while younger Democratic voters didn't realize the importance of midterm elections. 

This year it seems there is a more progressive groundswell out there than in 2010, and it should make things interesting in the House.


----------



## william the wie (Feb 16, 2014)

The news on the ACA from insurance company quarterly reports will not hit until June 30 for those who signed up last year and Sept. 30 for those signing up this year. The analysis of that data will decide the size of the mid-term results.


----------



## Nyvin (Feb 16, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dems hold Senate 51-49
> ...



Pennsylvania and Maine are almost a shoe in at this point.    Florida is leaning toward Crist (D),  but not solid yet.

Michigan, Arizona, and Ohio are possibilities.    I guess we'll see about Texas (don't count on it)

The Republicans might pick up Arkansas.


----------



## Hoosier4Liberty (Feb 16, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Hoosier4Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > WelfareQueen said:
> ...


Bachmann's retiring, if anything, will make it easier for the GOP to hold that seat.  Bachmann's 2012 challenger got out of the race once she retired. 
Alex Sink and David Jolly are in a very, very close race.
Gingrey and Cotton are in very GOP districts.  


Besides, we have Dem retirements with Jim Matheson and Mike McIntyre in very GOP districts.  Plus, Nick Rahall is very vulnerable this time around.

EDIT:  Sorry for the confusion, I meant a better environment than 2012 for the House, not 2010.  My mistake.


----------



## Hoosier4Liberty (Feb 18, 2014)

I think it's important to note that the individual races have recently been trending in the GOP direction.


----------



## william the wie (Feb 18, 2014)

Hoosier4Liberty said:


> I think it's important to note that the individual races have recently been trending in the GOP direction.


True. However until the ACA spin breaks it will not be obvious in the polling data. More importantly at least one critical date, Sept 30, which will cover the cost data for April 1 to June 30th for those who signed up Jan. 1 to March 31 is only a bit over a month before the election. The primaries will be over long before then and in many cases suddenly vulnerable Ds will have no or underfunded opposition and that could lead to an official GOP split.


----------



## JWBooth (Feb 18, 2014)

Aipac, Raytheon, FLIR, General Dynamics, Bath Iron Works, AM General, General Electric, McDonnell Douglass, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, KBR, Raytheon....


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 19, 2014)

51(+independents)/49. Democrats holding the senate thank god.


----------



## JWBooth (Feb 19, 2014)

...US Chamber of Commerce, AMA, National Assn. of Realtors, American Hospital Association, AARP, Exxon Mobil, Verizon, Monsanto, Con Agra, AT&T, ...


----------



## Hoosier4Liberty (Feb 19, 2014)

JWBooth said:


> ...US Chamber of Commerce, AMA, National Assn. of Realtors, American Hospital Association, AARP, Exxon Mobil, Verizon, Monsanto, Con Agra, AT&T, ...



A whole lot better than George Soros, the SEIU, teacher's unions, moveon.org, and Hollywood.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Feb 19, 2014)

SayMyName said:


> Americans are so resigned to the conduct of the status quo, that I think they will vote the same way they normally do out of apathy. The House and Senate will remain roughly the same as now, with perhaps one or two wild cards coming in from parties out side the main two, meaning Libertarian or Independents.



Pretty much exactly what I was going to say.
No one can really predict what voters will do based on historical data. (Example using previous models when a sitting President is below 50% approval rating - the opposing party will gain 25-30 seats)
 All one has to do is look at the last election. Congress was less than 20% approval rating yet there was virtually no one voted out of office. All of the same people were re-elected.
 Even after the unparalleled disaster that Obamacare has become - and only starting - I am not at all convinced that Democrats will change their vote. Therefore, no matter how bad Obama's popularity gets - it will have marginal effects on the next election.


----------



## JWBooth (Feb 20, 2014)

Hoosier4Liberty said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > ...US Chamber of Commerce, AMA, National Assn. of Realtors, American Hospital Association, AARP, Exxon Mobil, Verizon, Monsanto, Con Agra, AT&T, ...
> ...



Bought and paid for is bought and paid for. and the lobby interests I listed, I looked them up, they are the biggest bidders when buying legislators.


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 20, 2014)

william the wie said:


> The news on the ACA from insurance company quarterly reports will not hit until June 30 for those who signed up last year and Sept. 30 for those signing up this year. The analysis of that data will decide the size of the mid-term results.



That could me most of it. Other factors in play are immigration reform, next week the House and Senate come back into Session and testimony from the CBO about the Minimum Wage Report will kick out some sound bites, unemployment benefits is not going to go away just yet.

From the way I read it, except for the unknown of the ACA data, every one of these are popular with the American publican and opposed by the Republican party. There are no hot button topics the Republicans can pull up, not even in the Republican controlled house. The McConnell/Cruz tension is hardly behind closed doors and is pretty much a zero sum game between the two. A win for either one of them is probably not a net gain for the party and a stalemate between them is even worse. How's that for a no win situation.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 20, 2014)

2014 will hinge on McConnell, why vote Republican and vote against the R Senate leader at the same time - one or the other will prevail and prove to be the national trend.

there is a real chance the D's can gain in both the Senate and House.


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 20, 2014)

BreezeWood said:


> 2014 will hinge on McConnell, why vote Republican and vote against the R Senate leader at the same time - one or the other will prevail and prove to be the national trend.
> 
> there is a real chance the D's can gain in both the Senate and House.


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 22, 2014)

This from yesterday's news:



> Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) net approval rating has dropped 12 points in the last year, and he could face an increasingly competitive primary race for reelection, a new poll suggests.
> 
> Thirty-eight percent of Kansans disapprove of Roberts while 29 percent approve, according to an automated poll released Friday by Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling (PPP).
> 
> ...


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 22, 2014)

What is not mentioned in the above article is that an ad campaign pointing out that Sen. Roberts does not actually own a house in Kansas is hurting his numbers quite a bit.


----------



## william the wie (Feb 22, 2014)

Well this thread is calling for predictions so I will call net 9 for the Rs.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 22, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Texas will remain red.


----------



## william the wie (Feb 22, 2014)

If the rate of decline in presidential and ACA approval the Ds should experience a net loss of two governors.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 22, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


The latest revelations will make re-election nearly impossible for Scott Walker.  And his POTUS chances are now shot.  Just like Christie.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 22, 2014)

Davis is beating Brownback in Kansas.  Another Democratic pickup possibility.


----------



## william the wie (Feb 22, 2014)

I agree with you on Walker and POTUS but I haven't seen polling data that supports your position on reelection to governor.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 22, 2014)

Hoosier4Liberty said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Hoosier4Liberty said:
> ...




Not really.  Sink was up 7 points a week ago and will certainly rise even higher.  A lot of retirees in that district and they won't vote against their interests, with a teabagger.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 22, 2014)

william the wie said:


> I agree with you on Walker and POTUS but I haven't seen polling data that supports your position on reelection to governor.


That's because the other shoe just dropped a few days ago.


----------



## GHook93 (Feb 22, 2014)

Even objectively looking, there doesn't seem to be any Republican incumbent seat that is vulnerable, but there are 9 to 11 vulnerable Democratic seats. Note: The Democrats won't get the national election push they got in 2008.

Here is what I see moving:
AK - Going red 
AR - Pryor used to be popular, but he has fallen. He now viewed as a liberal in a red state going against s solid candidate like Cotton.
LS - A liberal in a red state in a red year with a popular red governor.
MI - Retiring incumbent. Popular Republican Governor. Non-Presidential election push. I see an upset.
MN - Franken can't steal this one. He barely won in a very blue election in 2008. This election is going red.
MT - Red state in a red year. You do the math.
NC - Hagan is very unpopular. This is a red state in a red year, with a popular red governor.
OR - Merkley should have lost in very blue 2008 if the libertarian didn't take 5% of the vote (Merkley won by 3%). That won't happen this time. This is the big upset I predict.
SD - Johnson is retiring. A red state in a red election.
VA - Battleground state. No presidential push and Warner is vulnerable.
WV - Polls show Rockefeller getting creamed. Good ridden douche bag. 

In the end I see the R picking up 9 of these 11. Gaining 54 seats. Republicans will have a solid House. Therefore Obama's last 2 years will be nearly lame-duck! Nothing will be accomplished, when a lot needs to be accomplished. I wonder if Obama will take notes from Clinton and actually work with the other side. I highly doubt it!


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 22, 2014)

If it breaks that way look for an Executive Order dissolving Congress.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 22, 2014)

BreezeWood said:


> there is a real chance the D's can gain in both the Senate and House.



  There is absolutely zero chance of that.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 22, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > there is a real chance the D's can gain in both the Senate and House.
> ...



Largely will depend on how effective the Democraps are in bringing out the dead vote.  If you see empty hearses going into cemeteries on election day be afraid. Very much afraid.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 22, 2014)

Republicans pick up South Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alaska, Louisiana, and Michigan in the Senate.  They pick up governorships in Arkansas, Illinois, and Hawaii.  The Democrats pick up governorships in Pennsylvania, Florida, and maybe Maine.

The Republicans net a few more seats in the House.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 22, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> Even objectively looking, there doesn't seem to be any Republican incumbent seat that is vulnerable, but there are 9 to 11 vulnerable Democratic seats. Note: The Democrats won't get the national election push they got in 2008.
> 
> Here is what I see moving:
> AK - Going red
> ...



I stopped right here because you obviously don't pay attention.

Piyush Jindal is VERY unpopular these days.  From 4 days ago:

-*Bobby Jindal continues to be one of the most unpopular Governors in the  country, with only 35% of voters approving of him to 53% who  disapprove.* Even among Republican primary voters in his home state only  37% want him to run for President, compared to 51%  who think he should  sit it out. Mike Huckabee is the top choice of GOP primary voters in the  state at 20% to 13% for Jindal, 12% for Ted Cruz, 10% for Rand Paul, 9%  for Jeb Bush, 8% each for Chris Christie and Paul Ryan, 7% for Marco  Rubio, and 2% for Scott Walker.


Public Policy Polling: Bobby Jindal

​


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 22, 2014)

It's interesting nobody is paying attention to Hawaii and Kansas.  Sam Brownback is trailing his Democratic opponent by two points in the latest PPP poll.  In Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie is trailing his Republican opponent by eight, which is really bad given how heavily Democratic Hawaii is.


----------



## william the wie (Feb 22, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> It's interesting nobody is paying attention to Hawaii and Kansas.  Sam Brownback is trailing his Democratic opponent by two points in the latest PPP poll.  In Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie is trailing his Republican opponent by eight, which is really bad given how heavily Democratic Hawaii is.


Good point.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 22, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> It's interesting nobody is paying attention to Hawaii and Kansas.  Sam Brownback is trailing his Democratic opponent by two points in the latest PPP poll.  In Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie is trailing his Republican opponent by eight, which is really bad given how heavily Democratic Hawaii is.


I mentioned Kansas:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/340405-2014-us-senate-predictions.html#post8667882


----------



## Nyvin (Feb 23, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Republicans pick up South Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alaska, Louisiana, and Michigan in the Senate.  They pick up governorships in Arkansas, Illinois, and Hawaii.  The Democrats pick up governorships in Pennsylvania, Florida, and maybe Maine.
> 
> The Republicans net a few more seats in the House.



A Republican governor in Hawaii?   Hard to believe.

I also don't buy that all four incumbents in Arkansas, Alaska, North Carolina, and Louisiana will all lose either...that hasn't happened in a long time.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 23, 2014)

birddog said:


> It should be a landslide for the Republicans!  There is a good chance of a 51-52 R senate, and the House will gain R seats.  This should be obvious to anyone!



That is how I see it.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 23, 2014)

candycorn said:


> birddog said:
> 
> 
> > It should be a landslide for the Republicans!  There is a good chance of a 51-52 R senate, and the House will gain R seats.  This should be obvious to anyone!
> ...


Then you are underestimating Obama and the Democrats.  He learned from his mistake of not getting involved in the 2010 midterms.  He just gave a speech talking about the need to engage and go on the offense this time.

Republicans have given Democrats all sorts of ammunition for the midterms, in every state, from Texans palling around with Ted Nugent, to Christie's corruption, to Scott Walker's corruption, to Rick Scott and his ilk denying health insurance to millions, to Snyder's bankruptcy of Detroit, to West Virginia's Republican deregulation resulting in chemically tainted water, to North Carolina's disenfranchisement of voters, and their governor being in bed with the corporation that just polluted their water.

The list goes on and on.  The campaign ads write themselves.


----------



## william the wie (Feb 23, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > birddog said:
> ...


Even conceding all of your points, which I do not, the Ds still have to contend with:

A) Their world champion circular firing squad.

B) The D administration's continuing tap dancing over its own signature legislation.

If you look at the senate if not for non-Ds caucusing with the Ds Biden would not be able to leave the senate during any vote. So losing considerable numbers of senate seats to non-R parties like the Greens and socialists is a real possibility.

In the house the same possibility of primaries returning far more radical candidates in the primaries cannot be discounted.

In other words even if your predictions about the Rs were right that does not save you from a revolt on the left that will push independents into the arms of the Republicans.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 23, 2014)

william the wie said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



When was the last time the Socialists or the Greens won a Senate seat?  I mean, besides never?

You can point out Bernie Sanders, but he caucuses with the Democrats.  As would any Socialist or Green.



> In the house the same possibility of primaries returning far more radical candidates in the primaries cannot be discounted.
> 
> In other words even if your predictions about the Rs were right that does not save you from *a revolt on the left that will push independents into the arms of the Republicans*.


How would a revolt on the Left convince Independents to vote against their own interests or vote for extremists on the Right?

Isn't it the current revolt on the Right that has pushed Independents into the arms of Democrats?  Have they stopped that revolt and become sane and rational again?  No.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 23, 2014)

Would be nice to see Obama campaign for as many Democrats as possible.

Kissing each one on both cheeks (OK, all four....) as he departs the stage.

Whaddya suppose those Democrat candidates might call that special kiss???


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 23, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Would be nice to see Obama campaign for as many Democrats as possible.
> 
> Kissing each one on both cheeks (OK, all four....) as he departs the stage.
> 
> Whaddya suppose those Democrat candidates might call that special kiss???


You are still operating under the assumption that Obama is not popular, even though he won re-election by a landslide right after the last time you were convinced he was unpopular.


----------



## Nyvin (Feb 23, 2014)

william the wie said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



If the Greens and Socialists suddenly win a bunch of seats in the Senate...do  you really think they're going to side with the Republicans on...pretty much anything???

Bernie Sanders is independent because he thinks the Democrats aren't left wing "enough" he advocated for single payer health care reform.   The idea of Greens and Socialist winning seats and that being a bad thing for Democrats is idiotic.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Feb 23, 2014)

This election clearly has the Dems more at risk of losing seats.  They also have a POTUS who is unpopular to boot.........economy still stinks and the people will make the Party in charge pay for it.

I'm looking at 51 Republicans in the Senate or even possibly a tie as the infighting in the GOP will cause possible casualties..........

The GOP will hold the Senate and gain about 12 seats there.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 23, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > Would be nice to see Obama campaign for as many Democrats as possible.
> ...



Was the question too hard?


----------



## birddog (Feb 23, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > Would be nice to see Obama campaign for as many Democrats as possible.
> ...



Since his lies about Benghazi and Obamacare have been exposed even in the MSM, he would not win the election if it was held now.  It's sad we have to have such a fraudulent liar for President!


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 23, 2014)

birddog said:


> Since his lies about Benghazi and Obamacare have been exposed even in the MSM, he would not win the election if it was held now.  It's sad we have to have such a fraudulent liar for President!



It WAS sad.

Now, on His better days, it's just delightfully amusing.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 23, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > Would be nice to see Obama campaign for as many Democrats as possible.
> ...





eagle1462010 said:


> This election clearly has the Dems more at risk of losing seats. * They also have a POTUS who is unpopular to boot.........*



See what I mean, folks?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Feb 23, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > HenryBHough said:
> ...



LOL

I guess you ignore the polls on his so called popularity.

Like your side cherry picks the great success of Obamacare.........

Take your medicine next election.  The ACA says it's good for you.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 23, 2014)

ACA won't help Republicans if people aren't constantly reminded that it's OBAMACARE.  Let that ACA stuff get traction and the libs will then blame it on Bush.


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 23, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > Would be nice to see Obama campaign for as many Democrats as possible.
> ...



It is like they can see the future. Right up until just before the end where that little twist of events brings everything crashing down around them. Go ahead righties, run on unpopular Obama and Obamacare. I am going to squint as that train wreck of strategy of yours comes into the station.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Feb 23, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > HenryBHough said:
> ...



Or Squirm when your bad karma bites you in the butt............


----------



## candycorn (Feb 23, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > birddog said:
> ...



I'd be pleased as punch if I'm wrong.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 23, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



It's not because of anything the Democrats are going to be doing...it's because of the public's sentiment to almost always vote against the party in the Oval during the 6th year of his administration.  Not because of what the Dems would or would not be doing. Third parties have no bearing on it.


----------



## Votto (Feb 23, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Dems hold Senate 51-49
> Dems pick up 8 seats in the House
> Dems pick up two Governorships
> 
> Things stay the same



Which is music to your ears.  Just continue the status quo.

Over 100 years of progressivism and with only a 10% approval rating for Congress and they all keep getting elected anyway.  Sounds about right to me.

Somehow I don't think it will take another 100 years to double the national debt though.  I will give them 10 years to do it.


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 23, 2014)

eagle1462010 said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



If this talk is from Senators and Representatives not falling over themselves to be seen with the President and vise versa I would think with all the Constitutionalists around here it would be known that separation of powers came before separation of parties. Although there were only a few short years between the two.


----------



## Hoosier4Liberty (Feb 24, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



While I admired Washington's convictions, political parties are inevitable when there's disagreement.  

Look.  President Obama's policies have been disastrous. Failed stimulus, $1 trillion healthcare law, NSA, IRS, AP, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, high unemployment, increasing poverty, and stagnant wages.  It's unacceptable.


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 24, 2014)

Hoosier4Liberty said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



What is is. The Democratic Congressmen and women and those running for office are individuals each with their unique merits. I think it best they say who they are on the stage alone before they start trying to show off who they are friends with.


----------



## Shrimpbox (Feb 24, 2014)

While I know this is an intellectual exercise I am amazed how many people seem to be speaking with such authority. Will someone please  resuscitate this thread after the elections.

The lesson I learned in the last election was that my perception of what was happening ended up having no relationship to the reality. In fl the vote was close to fifty fifty in the pres election which meant that every other person I met should have been an Obama supporter.  But my experience was that 75 to 80 percent of the people I met professed to be against Obama. In traveling from ala. To s. Fla. To n. Carolina the bumper stickers on the interstates were four to one for Romney. Every small business person I talked to was anti obama . In my county which was overwhelmingly democratic Romney won the vote 60-40.    So all I can conclude is that I don't know the people that voted for Obama and they don't know me. A troubling assessment about a truly divided country.

As far as the fl gov election we may have two of the weakest candidates on record. Scott who is known as skeletor Has alienated many state workers but may be able to patch up the snubs enough to win election vs crist. Crist, who is known as hypocrist, is the most pathetic ,spineless, and two faced politician in fl. He changes parties more than most people change underwear and his only motivation is to hold political office. Trying to call this election at this point is a fools errand.


----------



## william the wie (Feb 24, 2014)

Shrimpbox said:


> While I know this is an intellectual exercise I am amazed how many people seem to be speaking with such authority. Will someone please  resuscitate this thread after the elections.
> 
> The lesson I learned in the last election was that my perception of what was happening ended up having no relationship to the reality. In fl the vote was close to fifty fifty in the pres election which meant that every other person I met should have been an Obama supporter.  But my experience was that 75 to 80 percent of the people I met professed to be against Obama. In traveling from ala. To s. Fla. To n. Carolina the bumper stickers on the interstates were four to one for Romney. Every small business person I talked to was anti obama . In my county which was overwhelmingly democratic Romney won the vote 60-40.    So all I can conclude is that I don't know the people that voted for Obama and they don't know me. A troubling assessment about a truly divided country.
> 
> As far as the fl gov election we may have two of the weakest candidates on record. Scott who is known as skeletor Has alienated many state workers but may be able to patch up the snubs enough to win election vs crist. Crist, who is known as hypocrist, is the most pathetic ,spineless, and two faced politician in fl. He changes parties more than most people change underwear and his only motivation is to hold political office. Trying to call this election at this point is a fools errand.


True.


----------



## Hoosier4Liberty (Feb 25, 2014)

william the wie said:


> Shrimpbox said:
> 
> 
> > While I know this is an intellectual exercise I am amazed how many people seem to be speaking with such authority. Will someone please  resuscitate this thread after the elections.
> ...



Indeed.  Bring it on!


----------



## Nyvin (Feb 25, 2014)

Hoosier4Liberty said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



The poverty rate has been going down since 2011,  the "end" of the recession or at least the closest thing to an end so far.

NSA, IRS, Benghazi, and Fast and Furious are not Policies...they're goofy conspiracy theories that have not resulted in any official charges other then some lowbie IRS officials.  

"failed" stimulus???   Can you tell me exactly what would've happened if the stimulus wasn't put into play?   We would most likely be in a severe depression.

As for stagnant wages, he supports raising the minimum wage, and wages have been stagnant for the past 25 years at least.

The healthcare law can't be called off as failed, it probably will have problems...it's national healthcare reform afterall...but certainly will have many positive effects and good things worth keeping.

Some of the failed policies in my opinion would be extending the Bush tax cuts back in 2010, and possibly some fault on the enactment of the sequestration.


----------



## Hoosier4Liberty (Feb 25, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Hoosier4Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



The stimulus promised unemployment would be 5% now......it sure isn't.  The healthcare law was rammed through with few reading it and the majority of Americans want to repeal it. Scandals are scandals, whether you like it or not.  And wages grew under Reagan and fell under Obama.


----------



## Nyvin (Feb 25, 2014)

Hoosier4Liberty said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > Hoosier4Liberty said:
> ...



Scandals that are unproven and have no legal charges behind them are looney conspiracy theories...especially fast and furious...the fact that you even mention that joke shows you believe in goofy conspiracy theories.    Have you ever heard of the guy that started that story?   He's a nutjob, plain and simple.

I don't remember President Bush saying that unemployment would be 5% from passing the stimulus when he first proposed it in 2008.   

Healthcare reform of some kind was desperately needed and just repealing it and going back to the mess we had before is idiotic.    Fix the broken parts, keep the good.   Repealing the whole thing at this point is a pipe dream.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 5, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Dems hold Senate 51-49
> Dems pick up 8 seats in the House
> Dems pick up two Governorships
> 
> Things stay the same



Have you studied it closely enough to determine which seats the Dems lose?  
I hope you're right.


----------



## william the wie (Mar 5, 2014)

candycorn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dems hold Senate 51-49
> ...


It depends of the net approval/disapproval of the sitting president at the time of the election for federal offices. At the state level it is all local as in I thought and still think Scott would not stand a chance against a sock-puppet but against Christ he's about a 9-8 underdog at worst.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 6, 2014)

Shrimpbox said:


> While I know this is an intellectual exercise I am amazed how many people seem to be speaking with such authority. Will someone please  resuscitate this thread after the elections.
> 
> The lesson I learned in the last election was that my perception of what was happening ended up having no relationship to the reality. In fl the vote was close to fifty fifty in the pres election which meant that every other person I met should have been an Obama supporter.  But my experience was that 75 to 80 percent of the people I met professed to be against Obama. *In traveling from ala. To s. Fla. To n. Carolina the bumper stickers on the interstates were four to one for Romney.* Every small business person I talked to was anti obama . In my county which was overwhelmingly democratic Romney won the vote 60-40.    So all I can conclude is that I don't know the people that voted for Obama and they don't know me. A troubling assessment about a truly divided country.
> 
> As far as the fl gov election we may have two of the weakest candidates on record. Scott who is known as skeletor Has alienated many state workers but may be able to patch up the snubs enough to win election vs crist. Crist, who is known as hypocrist, is the most pathetic ,spineless, and two faced politician in fl. He changes parties more than most people change underwear and his only motivation is to hold political office. Trying to call this election at this point is a fools errand.



You think the number of bumper stickers is determinate?

There are many people like me who just will not put a bumper sticker of any kind on their auto.

And some on the Left are rightly fearful of getting fired for displaying a Liberal sticker:

Duck Dynasty Lesson: When Free Speech Can Cost You Your Job - MainStreet

Woman fired for having pro-John Kerry bumper sticker on her car. | Stupid Evil Bastard

The insubordinate bumper sticker.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 6, 2014)

the right can be violent.

I don't use bumper stickers either


----------



## GHook93 (Mar 6, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



PA is a shoe in. However, Maine is far from a shoe in. Republicans will pick up AR. And don't count on D's winning MI, AZ or OH. FL will remain red. 

IL is going Red without a doubt. Right now Bruce Rauner is going to WIPE Quinn. Quinn won by less than 100 votes in the last election against Brady. Brady lost on the far right social issues, esp abortion. Rauner is an outside and social moderate. Heck we really don't know his views on abortion and I wouldn't be surprised to he him could out as pro-choice leaning. Nevertheless, the election will be on the economy. IL is in the worst shape in the nation. Even Democrats view Quinn as a failure. Rauner's strong business background and outsider appearance will destroy Quinn. I see a landslide victory!


----------



## GHook93 (Mar 6, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Republicans pick up South Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alaska, Louisiana, and Michigan in the Senate.  They pick up governorships in Arkansas, Illinois, and Hawaii.  The Democrats pick up governorships in Pennsylvania, Florida, and maybe Maine.
> 
> The Republicans net a few more seats in the House.



Hawaii? No way. It's staying Blue.

See this website it makes some good predictions. Summary:
Dems Gain: Maine, Florida
GOP Gain: Arkansas, Illinois
2014 Gubernatorial Races: Polls, Projections, Results - Election Projection


----------



## birddog (Mar 6, 2014)

I was at a Lincoln Dinner Sat night, and Rauner was one of the speakers.  He was an absolute firebrand when he spoke!  I don't know his total position on the Second Amendment, but if he's the one to take back the governorship, so be it!

Quinn is toast!


----------



## william the wie (Mar 6, 2014)

birddog said:


> I was at a Lincoln Dinner Sat night, and Rauner was one of the speakers.  He was an absolute firebrand when he spoke!  I don't know his total position on the Second Amendment, but if he's the one to take back the governorship, so be it!
> 
> Quinn is toast!


You may be right on outcome but wrong on causation. Chicago recently was downgraded to BBB+ with negative outlook, junk ratings start at BBB-. IL as a whole is rated A, the lowest rating for any US state. IL and Chicago in particular have been in default on vendor credit for years.

IL is teetering on the brink but with the Illinois Canal you should avoid the title of next Detroit but it will look like that is what is coming.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 6, 2014)

Elections will largely depend on whether ObamaCare continues to grow in popularity. ObamaCare started out to be a big negative for any candidate supporting it, but has steadily climbed and is now pretty much a neutral thing. I don't see any sign of the upward trend reversing.


----------



## william the wie (Mar 6, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Elections will largely depend on whether ObamaCare continues to grow in popularity. ObamaCare started out to be a big negative for any candidate supporting it, but has steadily climbed and is now pretty much a neutral thing. I don't see any sign of the upward trend reversing.


 I haven't seen any data supporting your position what is your source?


----------



## Nyvin (Mar 6, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Florida Governor - Scott vs. Crist

Pretty much every single poll that's out recently is showing Crist leading Scott, sometimes by >5%.   There is absolutely no way to definitively say the GOP will win the Florida governor house this year.   I'm not saying Crist has it on lockdown, but he's certainly currently favored to win.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Arkansas Governor - Hutchinson vs. Ross

In Arkansas Hutch has an advantage, but it's always less then 5%, and sometimes Ross picks up a poll here and there.   Arkansas has a long history of electing democrats to state offices.   The reason it's favored for the GOP to win is because Beebe is term limited.

Both Sabato and Crystal have the Maine governor race as leans democrat.

The Arizona race will be particularly interesting I think, since Brewer is term limited and the state is rapidly changing.   The polls have shown both sides winning so hard to tell at this point.


----------



## william the wie (Mar 6, 2014)

Scott against anyone but Sink or Crist would be polling 30 points back. I'm not complaining but how in hell do the Ds manage to come up with such turkeys?


----------



## Zander (Mar 6, 2014)

william the wie said:


> Scott against anyone but Sink or Crist would be polling 30 points back. I'm not complaining but how in hell do the Ds manage to come up with such turkeys?



They copied the Republicans.....


----------



## william the wie (Mar 6, 2014)

Can't rep you Zander, that was a good one.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Mar 6, 2014)

william the wie said:


> Can't rep you Zander, that was a good one.




I repped him for you.


----------



## william the wie (Mar 6, 2014)

Thank you.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 6, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Elections will largely depend on whether ObamaCare continues to grow in popularity. ObamaCare started out to be a big negative for any candidate supporting it, but has steadily climbed and is now pretty much a neutral thing.



On what planet?


----------



## mamooth (Mar 7, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Elections will largely depend on whether ObamaCare continues to grow in popularity. ObamaCare started out to be a big negative for any candidate supporting it, but has steadily climbed and is now pretty much a neutral thing.
> ...



The planet where you'll choose to ignore all the data you don't like.

Poll: Support Rises for Lawmakers Who Back Obamacare - Washington Wire - WSJ
---
The survey found respondents almost exactly split on the question of whether they would be more or less likely to vote for a congressional candidate who supports the Affordable Care Act, with 34% saying they would be more likely to vote for the candidate and 36% saying they would be less likely to do so. Some 27% said it would not make a difference.

That&#8217;s a significant jump in support levels from November&#8212;a month after the troubled launch of HealthCare.gov, the federal insurance exchange that serves 36 states&#8212;when just 21% said a candidate&#8217;s support for the law would make them more likely to vote for them, compared to 37% who said it would make them less likely to do so. A much larger percentage&#8212;40%&#8212;were indifferent.
---


----------



## candycorn (Mar 7, 2014)

The GOP should win the Senate.  They should have won it in 2012 though...  They can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory but that shouldn't happen this time.


----------



## william the wie (Mar 7, 2014)

candycorn said:


> The GOP should win the Senate.  They should have won it in 2012 though...  They can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory but that shouldn't happen this time.


 The real question is how much Obama's strategy of Ocare implementation delay suppresses D turnout and increases R turnout? That will be answered this year. Blue state finances keep getting lower bond ratings and predominantly Red states will benefit the most from automation due to lower taxes. That should kick in by 2016.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 7, 2014)

william the wie said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > The GOP should win the Senate.  They should have won it in 2012 though...  They can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory but that shouldn't happen this time.
> ...



Unlikely that there will be much change on the ground based on that in 2016.  The reason is that for the vast majority of Americans, Obamacare hasn't mattered a bit; their insurance hasn't changed except that they can now keep their kids on up to the age of 26.  The exchanges for those who do not have insurance and now are forced to pay to buy insurance will be disasters for the Democrats since this hits the pocketbook.  

I think what the crucial number is whether there are enough voters in swing states that had to change from their policies and doctors and are upset about it in the first part.   In the second part, the calculation of whether or not to blame the presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton for Obamacare and are only voting on that topic.  

There are 64 votes the GOP needs to swing.  Assuming the GOP keeps all that they won in 2012, the GOP needs to add two big states and 2-4 little ones.  It's hard to see that sort of swap but it isn't impossible to believe that there will be enough vitriol to cause it.

This may be the most interesting election that we have seen in a long time.


----------



## william the wie (Mar 7, 2014)

candycorn said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


 Some disagreement.

Since the establishment GOP has no unifying ideology no one votes for the Rs. Given that current D ideological positions come from 1880s Europe and thus predates the mass market that originated in the 1920s the Rs can be confident that being the un-D will work most of the time.

Eventually this cruise control politics will bite us in the butt since it is at least three massive economic changes behind the times: the mass market; the electronics revolution (that began in the 1890s and is still expanding) and the logistics revolution that took off in the great war and is also still expanding.

The most probable time for this butt biting is when the peak of the CONUS baby boom turns 62 in 2020. Strauss & Howe made this point in 1992. So we should see increasing political volatility until at least 2021 and probably longer.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 7, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> FL will remain red.



If you are claiming Rick Scott will beat Charlie Crist, you're dreaming.

Crist's appeal with the retirees can not be over-stated, plus Floridians remember him as a good governor who presided over good growth.  He also handled emergencies well.  He'll get plenty of Republican votes, where Scott will get zero Democratic votes.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 7, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans pick up South Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alaska, Louisiana, and Michigan in the Senate.  They pick up governorships in Arkansas, Illinois, and Hawaii.  The Democrats pick up governorships in Pennsylvania, Florida, and maybe Maine.
> ...


I like this better:

RealClearPolitics - Latest Polls


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 7, 2014)

william the wie said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Elections will largely depend on whether ObamaCare continues to grow in popularity. ObamaCare started out to be a big negative for any candidate supporting it, but has steadily climbed and is now pretty much a neutral thing. I don't see any sign of the upward trend reversing.
> ...


They've now passed 4 million in signups, in addition to 3 million young people staying on parent's insurance, along with 3.3 million added with the Medicaid expansion.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 7, 2014)

william the wie said:


> Scott against anyone but Sink or Crist would be polling 30 points back. I'm not complaining but how in hell do the Ds manage to come up with such turkeys?


Crist was a good governor, and Sink was a good CFO.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

I mean, neither of them were indicted on Medicare fraud or anything . . .


----------



## william the wie (Mar 7, 2014)

I live in FL. Sink avoided FL indictment by the skin of her teeth and political influence. Crist was rejected by the Rs first and then the general electorate last time around. Crist is polling well now and might win but like I said with anyone else it wouldn't even be close.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 8, 2014)

william the wie said:


> I live in FL. *Sink avoided FL indictment by the skin of her teeth and political influence.* Crist was rejected by the Rs first and then the general electorate last time around. Crist is polling well now and might win but like I said with anyone else it wouldn't even be close.



I am also a resident.  What indictment?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Mar 8, 2014)

birddog said:


> It should be a landslide for the Republicans!  There is a good chance of a 51-52 R senate, and the House will gain R seats.  This should be obvious to anyone!



Bookmarked for future comedic value.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 8, 2014)

william the wie said:


> I live in FL. Sink avoided ...






> National GOP turns on Florida candidate - Alex Isenstadt - POLITICO.com
> 
> Despite Jollys problems, polls show a close race, with Sink narrowly ahead heading into the election.




Florida's 13th District Special Election - Tuesday, March 11th.


the election will be this Tuesday between Sink and Jolly, clearly a bell weather for the midterms - and which party will have the advantage if only temporarily heading into the Summer. 

.


----------



## candycorn (May 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Dems hold Senate 51-49
> Dems pick up 8 seats in the House
> Dems pick up two Governorships
> 
> Things stay the same



Man, I hope you're right.  I don't see it happening though.


----------



## WelfareQueen (May 9, 2014)

Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball has been one of the most accurate predictors over the last ten years.  Right now....He has it R-49 D-48 with three seats toss ups.  Those are North Carolina, Alaska, and Louisiana.  He is saying R-net gain 4 to 8 seats.  

I can tell you right now the Dems lose North Carolina.  So then it comes down to Alaska and Louisiana.  I have no clue what will happen in those States.  

Here's the link.  Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » 2014 Senate


----------



## Nyvin (May 9, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball has been one of the most accurate predictors over the last ten years.  Right now....He has it R-49 D-48 with three seats toss ups.  Those are North Carolina, Alaska, and Louisiana.  He is saying R-net gain 4 to 8 seats.
> 
> I can tell you right now the Dems lose North Carolina.  So then it comes down to Alaska and Louisiana.  I have no clue what will happen in those States.
> 
> Here's the link.  Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » 2014 Senate



North Carolina is the least conservative of the three, why pick that one?


----------



## WelfareQueen (May 9, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball has been one of the most accurate predictors over the last ten years.  Right now....He has it R-49 D-48 with three seats toss ups.  Those are North Carolina, Alaska, and Louisiana.  He is saying R-net gain 4 to 8 seats.
> ...




I live next door to North Carolina and have family there.  The State narrowly went for Romney.  Kay Hagen repeated the "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan," over and over.  She is seen in the State as an Obama rubber stamp.  She will not win re-election.  Bank on it.  

The other two States, I cannot comment on because I do not know them politically.


----------



## Interpol (May 16, 2014)

At the time that this thread went up, incumbent Democratic Arkansas senator Mark Pryor was behind an average of 3-5 points to his Republican opponent. 

Pryor was seen as one of the 2008 winners who didn't stand a chance at re-election this fall, but in the last two months he has enjoyed a 15 point swing in his favor, now leading by an average of 10 points. 

Why? Because his opponent wants to raise the retirement age to 70 and wants to voucherize Medicare, two things that aren't even popular among many older Republicans. 

I've said it all year so far that November is for Republicans to lose, and though the trends seem to be working against the Democrats in theory, in lived reality the Republican agenda is not popular with the public even in a state like Arkansas, which Obama lost by like 18 points.


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2014)

It's all about turnout, turnout, turnout. The Democrats hold more popular positions, but that doesn't mean anything if they don't get their voters to the polls.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (May 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> It's all about turnout, turnout, turnout. The Democrats hold more popular positions, but that doesn't mean anything if they don't get their voters to the polls.



If their positions were so popular then I'd think they'd have little problem getting them there.


----------



## Nyvin (May 16, 2014)

Interpol said:


> At the time that this thread went up, incumbent Democratic Arkansas senator Mark Pryor was behind an average of 3-5 points to his Republican opponent.
> 
> Pryor was seen as one of the 2008 winners who didn't stand a chance at re-election this fall, but in the last two months he has enjoyed a 15 point swing in his favor, now leading by an average of 10 points.
> 
> ...



If Pryor wins in 2014...it will be entirely because Tom Cotton was an idiot and destroyed himself.    And right now it's looking like that's exactly what he's going to do.    

Everything I've read about that guy indicates he's an idiot to me,  I'm not just being partisan here, I truly think he's a moron.


----------



## Missourian (May 17, 2014)

My prediction...no matter which party wins, we the people lose.


----------



## natstew (May 17, 2014)

Missourian said:


> My prediction...no matter which party wins, we the people lose.



Now that right there is a sure bet!


----------



## sameech (May 17, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> I live next door to North Carolina and have family there.  The State narrowly went for Romney.  Kay Hagen repeated the "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan," over and over.  She is seen in the State as an Obama rubber stamp.  She will not win re-election.  Bank on it.
> 
> The other two States, I cannot comment on because I do not know them politically.



I agree, though it will be more complex an issue than "if you like your plan, you can keep it" by my measure.  Hagen will be outspent 2 or 3 to one in the end and therein will be the ballgame.


----------



## Machaut (May 17, 2014)

sameech said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > I live next door to North Carolina and have family there.  The State narrowly went for Romney.  Kay Hagen repeated the "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan," over and over.  She is seen in the State as an Obama rubber stamp.  She will not win re-election.  Bank on it.
> ...


The Hag*a*n election is going to be decided by casual voters.

NC SBE Election Results

Primaries have a much lower turnout that general elections, and the number of votes cast in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat (488,554) only barely surpassed the votes in the Democratic primary (482,369) for the same race. It will come down to swaying the casuals, the undecideds, the "I usually don't vote because who cares" crowd--not necessarily Unaffiliateds (NC's version of being registered as Independent), but people of any affiliation who either don't normally vote or who only vote in general elections. Personally, I don't think that Thom Tillis (the Republican nominee for the Senate seat) will pick up that many more guaranteed votes than he got in the primary, and I also think that a sizeable chunk (in the tens of thousands) will refuse to vote for him. Libertarian candidates always gets roughly 2% of the vote, despite not representing 2% of registered voters, and those who voted for candidates like Greg Brannon and Heather Grant (the second and third place candidates, respectively) in the primary will be far less likely to set differences aside and vote for Tillis.

I suspect that we will be heading into a close race that will be decided by the lowest common denominator. Tillis will paint Hagan as Obama's mouthpiece (the line "Kay Hagan votes with Obama 96% of the time" has already been floating around for a while), while Hagan will paint Tillis as a crooked politician (e.g. Tillis supporting legislation to allow natural gas companies to claim eminent domain to steal a person's land for the purpose of exploiting natural gas resources on that land, and Tillis then suddenly getting contributions from PACs representing gas companies, their executives, etc.). Sean Haugh, the Libertarian candidate, will likely pick up a large number of Republican votes and could wind up becoming a spoiler in the election, i.e. he may siphon just enough votes away from Tillis to ensure that Hagan gets re-elected by a narrow margin.


----------



## UJANGTEUING (May 20, 2014)

I am here just listened to add insight and knowledge as I am still learning in this


----------



## midcan5 (May 20, 2014)

This from the same people who predicted a Romney Ryan landslide. Sure thing.


----------



## PeoplePower (May 23, 2014)

I feel like NC will be the Senate race most indicative of the national mood. Hagan, of the other democratic incumbents facing challenges, is the only one who doesn't seem to have an independent brand and most represents the national Democratic Party. Plus she current holds that seat, just as Democrats currently hold that senate and the presidency. Tillis is an "establishment" candidate who has advanced the agenda of the Tea Party in the state legislature, which sort of represents where the national Republican Party is at.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## HenryBHough (May 23, 2014)

Brave (albeit stupid) Democrats will invite Our Kenyan Prexy to come to their state and campaign on their behalf.

Those who really want to get re-elected will ask him, pretty please with sugar on it, to go to Hawaii and golf instead.

Except in Illinois, New York, and California which are already beyond redemption.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 23, 2014)

Georgia - Kentucky - Mississippi: 2014 pick-ups for the Democrats ... 

.


----------



## PeoplePower (May 29, 2014)

Those are all possibilities. Mississippi depends on the GOP primary. The other two are anyone's game.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## WelfareQueen (May 29, 2014)

BreezeWood said:


> Georgia - Kentucky - Mississippi: 2014 pick-ups for the Democrats ...
> 
> .



Gonna archive this one.  Should be great for some laughs in a few months.


----------



## candycorn (May 29, 2014)

BreezeWood said:


> Georgia - Kentucky - Mississippi: 2014 pick-ups for the Democrats ...
> 
> .



No way.

The GOP takes the Senate and Obama becomes known as Vet-O-Bama


----------



## Bush92 (May 29, 2014)

Mary Landrieu is toast.


----------



## PeoplePower (May 29, 2014)

Nunn and Grimes are both great candidates, and in Mississippi, McDaniel is terrible. 

Landrieu is a pretty strong candidate who had been polling well considering the climate, and Cassidy is much weaker than expected. It'll be close, but I expect Landrieu to pull it out, especially is Moon and Mitch give her some help.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## GHook93 (May 30, 2014)

2014 Senate Elections: Polls, Projections, Results - Election Projection

These predictions are based on the polls.

They have the GOP picking up LS, MT, NC, SD and WV (5 seats) for a 50/50 split. I think the GOP is going to also take AK and AR for a 52-48 split. Far cry from the 60 filibustering busting amount, but good enough.


----------



## candycorn (May 30, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> 2014 Senate Elections: Polls, Projections, Results - Election Projection
> 
> These predictions are based on the polls.
> 
> They have the GOP picking up LS, MT, NC, SD and WV (5 seats) for a 50/50 split. I think the GOP is going to also take AK and AR for a 52-48 split. Far cry from the 60 filibustering busting amount, but good enough.



Once they get a majority, the GOP has every right to do away with the filibuster; the Dems foolishly did the same thing for some issues.


----------



## william the wie (May 30, 2014)

candycorn said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > 2014 Senate Elections: Polls, Projections, Results - Election Projection
> ...


Since the Ds hold the White House they are the current scapegoat party. Expect a lot of fallout due to the war on air pollution in China, Putin's screw ups in the Ukraine, Brazil's overspending on the world cup and legitimate domestic complaints as well. This could be blowout year for the Rs mostly but not entirely due to politicians in other countries.


----------



## PeoplePower (May 30, 2014)

candycorn said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > 2014 Senate Elections: Polls, Projections, Results - Election Projection
> ...




They got rid of it for appointees, not legislation.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Big Black Dog (May 30, 2014)

2014 US Senate predictions

I predict that when the elections are over there will be 100 Senators.  Some Democrats, some Republicans and a couple Independents.  NONE of them will be worth a shit.


----------



## Nyvin (May 30, 2014)

william the wie said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



At this stage there is absolutely nothing suggesting a blowout year.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Georgia - Kentucky - Mississippi: 2014 pick-ups for the Democrats ...
> ...



Well, that's fair, we surely had some fun after 6Nov12. Of course, should those states go Dem, then we will remind you of your statement. Fair is fair


----------



## WelfareQueen (May 31, 2014)

I think the Senate goes narrowly Republican.  I have always said the Dems will lose North Carolina.  If I am wrong I will eat my crow as needed.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 31, 2014)

Here's the underlying problem. 

This is the GOP's "Special Olympics" election.  

Even if they win, they are still retarded.  

Of the 12 states in play, 11 of them are states that Republicans carried in 2012 and 10 of them they carried in 2008.  I would honestly hope they could win at least half of them. 

The problem I see is that if they do retake the senate, they aren't going to fix the problems that caused them to lose in 2012. - That they've completely alienated women, working folks, minorities and the young.  

Nope, they'll take a look at these off-year elections in states they shouldn't really be contesting at this point and think people love them again.


----------



## candycorn (May 31, 2014)

PeoplePower said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Yes, I know which is why I qualified it by saying "for some issues." The importance however is that it sets the precedent.


----------



## candycorn (May 31, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the underlying problem.
> 
> This is the GOP's "Special Olympics" election.
> 
> ...



Right on all counts. I will add in that getting the 2nd house of Congress into your column won't  magically make the GOP responsible either meaning that I fully expect a monthly bill to repeal Obamacare to land on the President's desk.


----------



## candycorn (May 31, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



What?

Off year elections almost always favor the party not occupying the white house.  
The seats the DEMS are defending in the Senate are almost all competitive
Obamacare represents change and it hasn't been accepted yet

If the GOP can't wrest control from the DEMS this year, they should disband.


----------



## WelfareQueen (May 31, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the underlying problem.
> 
> This is the GOP's "Special Olympics" election.
> 
> ...




*Alienated women, working folks, minorities and the young?  Really?  Why didn't you include Unicorns and Elves?  


Complete bullshit without factual basis....but what the hell, right?  

*


----------



## PeoplePower (May 31, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the underlying problem.
> ...




Look up the GOPs demographics.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## birddog (May 31, 2014)

I'm thinking 52-48 in favor of Republicans.  It's a different mood in the country that may not be accurately measured in the usual polling ways.


----------



## WelfareQueen (May 31, 2014)

PeoplePower said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




So you're saying working folks, women, and the young never vote GOP.  Wow...thanks for the info.


----------



## PeoplePower (May 31, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> PeoplePower said:
> 
> 
> > WelfareQueen said:
> ...




I'm saying those are all demographics that Democrats win come election time.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Nyvin (May 31, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > william the wie said:
> ...



Winning back the senate isn't a blowout year,  especially with a map as favorable as 2014.   I fully expect 52 GOP seats in the Senate to be the max.


----------



## WelfareQueen (May 31, 2014)

PeoplePower said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > PeoplePower said:
> ...




Nope....Working Folks generally go Republican unless they're union.  White females generally go Republican.  The young are fairly narrowly split.  Blacks are really the only demo blacks that can reliably be said to always go for one party.  Not exactly high praise when you look at Detroit, Chicago, Washington and other big cities that suck and happen to be heavily black and heavily Democrat.


----------



## PeoplePower (May 31, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> PeoplePower said:
> 
> 
> > WelfareQueen said:
> ...




WHITE working votes, not working votes in general.

Younger voters are reliably democratic, women favor democrats, and democrats also have Latinos, Asian Americans, and Blacks.



http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/23/a-closer-look-at-the-parties-in-2012/

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/12.pdf

http://billmoyers.com/2012/11/30/why-are-asian-americans-increasingly-voting-for-democrats/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120839/women-likely-democrats-regardless-age.aspx


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## william the wie (May 31, 2014)

I would suggest looking at UE claims and Ocare out of pocket expenses. A cross-check would be the declining number of illegals. Year to date returns on REITs such as ZFC  and OAKS have bagged up to two decent years of returns in five months. The 10 year treasury is going up in value. That means the economy is in deep trouble, no official recession in sight but "Growth Recessions" are definitely not a fun thing and really bad for the party in power.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 31, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> [
> *Alienated women, working folks, minorities and the young?  Really?  Why didn't you include Unicorns and Elves?
> 
> 
> ...



YOu mean you don't like the message. 

I think when you put adjectives in front of the word "Rape" and call women who want contraception as part of their health coverage "sluts", that alienates women. 

I think when you talk about Birth Certificates, securing the border, Willie Horton and Welfare Queens, you alienate minorities. 

I think when you support free trade, right to work, at-will employment and other anti-worker policies, you alienate working people. 

And, yes, when you cut tuition and student loans, you alienate young people. 

So this is the bed the GOP has made.   Much like the Democrats of the 1980's, the GOP is too busy trying to reassure an insecure base than reaching out to the voters it needs to win.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 31, 2014)

birddog said:


> I'm thinking 52-48 in favor of Republicans.  It's a different mood in the country that may not be accurately measured in the usual polling ways.



No, it's not a different mood. 

Its the fact that we have a senate that gives votes to states with less than a million people in them.  

So the states that will put the GOP over the top are 

Alaska- 735,132
Montana - 989,415
South Dakota- 814,180
West Virginia - 1,852,994

The last three are only in play because the current Democrat retired. 

In fact, the only large state that is in play in this senate contest is North Carolina.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 31, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> [
> Nope....Working Folks generally go Republican unless they're union.  White females generally go Republican.  The young are fairly narrowly split.  Blacks are really the only demo blacks that can reliably be said to always go for one party.  Not exactly high praise when you look at Detroit, Chicago, Washington and other big cities that suck and happen to be heavily black and heavily Democrat.




Wrong on all counts. 

Demographics of How Groups Voted in the 2012 Presidential Election

Blacks-  93%
Hispanics- 71%
Asian-    73%

So Minorities- firmly Democratic. 

18-29 Demographic- Obama won 60% of them compared to 37 for the Weird Mormon Robot. 

He won women 55-45%. 

Obama won 58% of union households and 49% of non-union households. 

He also won incomes under 50K 60-38%

In short, all these Demographics, the GOP got it's ass kicked last time. 

But you'll win a few backwater states with small populations, and think the country loves you again.


----------



## WelfareQueen (May 31, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




One election with a minority candidate.  Hispanics voted much more heavily for Bush.  They can be swayed.  Ditto young voters.  Blacks seem to be the only voting blocs that are totally locked in.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 31, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> [
> 
> One election with a minority candidate.  Hispanics voted much more heavily for Bush.  They can be swayed.  Ditto young voters.  Blacks seem to be the only voting blocs that are totally locked in.



Uh, no, guy. 

The GOP has to change their fucking tune to sway people.  

Bush got more of the Hispanic vote because he stood up to the Minutemen and nativists and called for immigration reform.  

10 years later, that hasn't happened.  Republicans have been the ones blocking it.


----------



## Dot Com (May 31, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



^ that


----------



## WelfareQueen (May 31, 2014)

I want immigration reform.  I think most Americans do.  The question:  Do folks trust Obama with enforcement.  Would you?


----------



## JoeB131 (May 31, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> I want immigration reform.  I think most Americans do.  The question:  Do folks trust Obama with enforcement.  Would you?



HOw can it be worse than what we are doing now? 

The reason why Simpson Mazolli was such an epic fail is that it relied on the very employers who were hiring illegal labor to be the ones to enforce workplace eligibility. 

When I was interviewing in 2001, there was this one place I interviewed where the guy said in no uncertain terms, "Well, as long as they got something that looks good, that's okay with me.'  

The warehouse crew were all immigrants, most of them didn't speak English, and I doubt he was paying them that much.


----------



## WelfareQueen (May 31, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > I want immigration reform.  I think most Americans do.  The question:  Do folks trust Obama with enforcement.  Would you?
> ...




Sounds like we're in agreement.  We need immigration reform.  I think any Sovereign Nation needs secure borders.  In my mind...truly secure the border and put the folks here on a path to citizenship.  I think that is fair and reasonable.


----------



## Nyvin (May 31, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> One election with a minority candidate.  Hispanics voted much more heavily for Bush.  They can be swayed.  Ditto young voters.  Blacks seem to be the only voting blocs that are totally locked in.



It's still debated if Bush really got 44% in 2004.   The historical norm is in the mid thirties to high twenties






The 2004 election is an exception...not a norm.


----------



## Nyvin (May 31, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> I want immigration reform.  I think most Americans do.  The question:  Do folks trust Obama with enforcement.  Would you?



Obama already offered to have the reform be enacted after 2016....


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 1, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WelfareQueen said:
> ...



Well, securing the border is a fallacy. They WILL find a way around any fence you put up. 

There will always be that hole in the fence or that corrupt border guard who looks the other way. 

You see, Immigration is one of those issues that really highlights the fact that the GOP is made up of Rubes who are manipulated by the Rich. 

The Rich WANT illegal immigration.  They want poor people who will work for shit wages and not complain about bad working conditions.  

The Rubes, however, are just smart enough to see why that's a bad deal for them. And a lot of them tend to be racist and are horrified at the thought of a Mexican deflowering their daughters.  

So the rich are pushing for this, and man, Boenher really wants to say, "What is they bidding, my Master", but they are all afraid the rubes will turn on them and nominate a bunch of crazy teabaggers.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 1, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...



I think the Dems will see it as a "shellacking" ala 2010


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 1, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > One election with a minority candidate.  Hispanics voted much more heavily for Bush.  They can be swayed.  Ditto young voters.  Blacks seem to be the only voting blocs that are totally locked in.
> ...



Good point, and I'll go one further.  

for those Republicans who think that an Amnesty bill is going to make it all better need to look at 1988.  Reagan passed an Amnesty bill. But G.H. Bush actually did WORSE with Hispanics in 1988 than Reagan did in 1984.


----------



## Nyvin (Jun 1, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Borderline impossible.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 2, 2014)

> Independent Sen. Angus King says he might switch sides and caucus with the*GOP
> 
> 
> Now King is saying, much as he did throughout 2012 when he was running for the Senate, that he might caucus with the GOP come 2015.




the Demo's need to hold the Senate by (2) not just one - the party switcher is just waiting for his opportunity.




> Well, well, well. After a surprisingly quiet 15 months, Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine has decided to make a stink. First came his vote Wednesday against cloture for the Paycheck Fairness Act, claiming it would hurt businesses and making him the only non-Republican to oppose the legislation. (Yes, even Joe Manchin voted in favor.) The bill failed.




won't hear much from party switching King though if the Democrats do hold the Senate - till his committee reassignment ....

.


----------



## Hoosier4Liberty (Jun 3, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...



Not really Nyvin.  It's not likely, but it's possible.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - 2010 Generic Congressional Vote

The generic ballot in June 2010 looks very similar to how it does now (locked neck-in-neck between the two parties).  

I could easily (about 25-30%  chance IMO) see the GOP break away and curbstomp those big-government liberal Democrats who support bigger government and less economic freedom.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 3, 2014)

Hoosier4Liberty said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Looks close


RealClearPolitics - 2014 Election Maps - Battle for the Senate

46-46 with 8 Tossups.  Hardly a "Curbstomp"


----------



## Nyvin (Jun 3, 2014)

Hoosier4Liberty said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



In 2010 the GOP only won 6 seats, and that was considered a "blowout".   Six seats is the bare minimum to take the majority in 2014.  They still didn't take the majority in 2010.   

In 2010 the GOP beat three incumbent democrats (the other three pickups were open seats). That was in a blowout year mind you,  in 2014 you're expecting to beat three just to take the majority with 51 seats (not including John Walsh in this)...to go further then that you have to win in harder states that Obama won in 2012.

In 2014 there is nowhere near as much momentum behind them and the polling shows close races for all the incumbents in competitive seats.    Also this time there is the chance of pickups in Kentucky and Georgia.

A blowout year "bigger" than 2010 (which is what's needed) is borderline impossible.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Jun 3, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Hoosier4Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...





Keep repeating it like a mantra.  Whatever helps.....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 3, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Dems hold Senate 51-49
> Dems pick up 8 seats in the House
> Dems pick up two Governorships
> 
> Things stay the same



Put down the crack pipe, comrade....


----------



## WelfareQueen (Jun 3, 2014)

No offense, but only idiots would vote for the party of the bumbling clusterfuck that is Obama and his Administration.  Even his defenders can't defend this level of stupidity and incompetence.  

Other than morons who always vote Democrat, even as their cities and ghettos crumble...this election cycle will go strongly to the Republicans.  How could it not?


----------



## Hoosier4Liberty (Jun 3, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Hoosier4Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...



You're failing to take account the difference in Senate classes.

In 2010 the Senators who got elected in 2004 were put up for reelection.  2004 was a fairly Republican year, so there weren't that many pickup opportunities available.

In 2014, the Senators who got elected in 2008 will be put up for reelection.  2008 was a Democratic landslide year.  Therefore, it will be easier for the GOP to gain seats in 2014 than 2010.  Therefore, a blowout need not be "bigger" than 2010; a smaller "blowout" would be sufficient to get 6 seats.

Bottom-line is that Georgia will almost certainly go GOP due to:
1) the fact that both GOP candidates are quite electable(Kingston/Perdue)
2) Nunn has not yet been attacked(explaining her high poll numbers)
3) the run-off (so Nunn must go over 50%)

Kentucky will go GOP due to the immense partisan lean of the state.  More importantly, the Democrats have never won KY without a strong coal country backing, and Alison Grimes' quote saying "I do support the national Democratic agenda" is going to kill her in those areas on the KY-WV border that Dems need to win.  McConnell also now leads in the HuffPollster average.

I think we both agree that MT/WV/SD are easy GOP pickups, more or less.

That gets us to GOP + 3.  

Next up:
Louisiana- While I used to think Landrieu was quite formidable and thought she would win, she's slipped a lot in polling and even NYTimes Upshot(which is bearish on GOP Senate chances) has Landrieu as a clear underdog.  
Arkansas-Pryor appeared to be rebounding, but a Crossroads poll has Cotton + 3 and Rasmussen has Cotton +4.  While both of these polling firms lean GOP(though Rasmussen is suspect, which I'll explain later), Arkansas undecideds are overwhelmingly anti-Obama and anti-Obamacare.  I'd like to see another PPP poll(which previously had Pryor +1 or Pryor + 2, I believe) or Quinnipiac/SUSA one to get a better feel on the race.  But I think the momentum is back in Cotton's direction and he should pull it off.
North Carolina-Hagan's been trailing recently.  She was down 5 in a Civitas poll and down 1 in Rasmussen (note that Rasmussen is no longer run by Scott Rasmussen, so while it's tilted R in the past, it might not be any longer.  Rasmussen consistently gives Obama higher approvals than other polling firms, so it might not be a biased pollster anymore).
Tillis is likely in the lead here.
Alaska-Like in North Carolina, the Republican (Dan Sullivan) leads in Huffington Post Pollster average, though barely.  Alaska is weird because polls there underestimate incumbent strength and overestimate Democratic strength.  This one's hard to call.  

Bottom line is that in the 4 races above in red states, the GOP will almost certainly win at least 2 of them, quite likely 3, or possibly 4.  The GOP leads in HuffPollster polling average in Louisiana, Alaska, and North Carolina, and barely trails in Arkansas(but Cotton looks like he's rebounding there).  

This gives the GOP a +5 to +7 seat gain.

All they have to do to secure a Senate takeover is to win 1-3+ of the following seats, which even gives the GOP breathing room if they screw up elsewhere:
Colorado-Mark Udall is only barely ahead, and Cory Gardner proved he could take out an incumbent Dem.  Plus the new coal regulations could hurt Udall.  I say Udall has slight edge but not much.
New Hampshire-Scott Brown isn't looking great here due to the carpet-bagger/energy bill problem, but 2010 proved that when the GOP wins in NH, they win big(Ayotte won the Senate election w/ 60%).  Even a somewhat-weakened candidate like Brown can win if the environment is good enough in NH.  
Iowa-Joni Ernst is a solid candidate against Bruce Braley.  Probably the best GOP chance in this list.
Michigan-Terry Land's slipped in polls to Gary Peters, but she still has an outside chance if the environment turns from a gale on the Democrats to a tsunami.
Virginia/Oregon/Minnesota-Gillespie, Wehby, and McFadden are all decent candidates against solid incumbents in blue-ish states(except Gillespie, who is facing a very popular opponent in a true swing state).  These are all serious long-shots, but expanding the map definitely hurts the Dems.

My guess would be GOP + 6 or +7.


----------



## Nyvin (Jun 3, 2014)

> My guess would be GOP + 6 or +7.



This is exactly what I've been saying...52 seats is probably the max, and that's a clean sweep of all (truly) competitive seats.   People saying "blowout" as in getting 53-55+ seats really don't know what they're talking about.

I would guess that the GOP will pickup somewhere between 3 and 6 seats.  +7 would be the GOP winning LA, AK, NC, and AR, which is remotely possible, but certainly not likely.   

It's unlikely the GOP will only pickup 2 or less seats,  since SD, MT, WV are all gimme's and it's not very like the Democrats will win GA "And" KY.


----------



## Nyvin (Jun 3, 2014)

Hoosier4Liberty said:


> Next up:
> Louisiana- While I used to think Landrieu was quite formidable and thought she would win, she's slipped a lot in polling and even NYTimes Upshot(which is bearish on GOP Senate chances) has Landrieu as a clear underdog.
> Arkansas-Pryor appeared to be rebounding, but a Crossroads poll has Cotton + 3 and Rasmussen has Cotton +4.  While both of these polling firms lean GOP(though Rasmussen is suspect, which I'll explain later), Arkansas undecideds are overwhelmingly anti-Obama and anti-Obamacare.  I'd like to see another PPP poll(which previously had Pryor +1 or Pryor + 2, I believe) or Quinnipiac/SUSA one to get a better feel on the race.  But I think the momentum is back in Cotton's direction and he should pull it off.
> North Carolina-Hagan's been trailing recently.  She was down 5 in a Civitas poll and down 1 in Rasmussen (note that Rasmussen is no longer run by Scott Rasmussen, so while it's tilted R in the past, it might not be any longer.  Rasmussen consistently gives Obama higher approvals than other polling firms, so it might not be a biased pollster anymore).
> ...



Of the four, the only one I'd say has any clear lead is Cassidy against Landrieu,  it's not a crushing lead, but a lead.   Pryor is also shown to have a small lead against Cotton,  I think Cotton is a horrible candidate and he'll probably end up destroying himself, but just my opinion.  The other two are clearly very competitive and it's next to impossible to say at this point who will win.


----------



## Hoosier4Liberty (Jun 3, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> > My guess would be GOP + 6 or +7.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The difference is that you're asserting that the GOP's max is 7, while I'm saying that the GOP's mean is 6 or 7.  There's a difference here.  I'm not inclined to necessarily say what the "maximum" is right now, as so much could change between now and November.  A GOP max of 7 means that you're giving the GOP virtually no chance of winning any states that Obama carried (+7 = GOP carries all Romney states) despite several competitive races occurring there.  If Senate Majority PAC is spending money in Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Michigan, I think they view those seats as being threatened and potential GOP pickups.

I think a realistic GOP minimum is 4(maybe 3), where minimum means about 10th percentile(again, a 25% chance the political forces go moderately or fiercely in the D direction, and then all bets are off).  The 90th percentile for the GOP is probably around 8-10 seats (All 7 Romney states + Iowa + /- Colorado; if the GOP is really lucky they could eke out at least 1 win in NH/MI/MN/VA/).  
You say that 6 is the realistic maximum.  I disagree and think it's closer to the median.

It appears that the following 3 races are points of contention:
Georgia/Kentucky:  I don't think the Dems have greater than a 25% chance in either of these races.  I assume you think close polling makes these states tossup/Tilt R, but the partisan gravity and fundamentals of a state must be taken into account.  

I see a net gain of 0 for the Dems in these 2 races, while you think that it will most likely be a gain of 1(I think).  Since you think the mean result is 4.5 (average of 3 and 6) and I think it's 6-7, this explains a good chunk of the gap.

Arkansas:  I think Arkansas is the other source of the gap, and I concede that my optimistic analysis depends on the last 2 polls showing Cotton momentum.  A new poll or 2 will show us more where we're at with that race.

Those 3 races explain our forecast differences.

Sorry for my long block posts(they're my style), but I hope you get my perspective now.


----------



## Nyvin (Jun 3, 2014)

Hoosier4Liberty said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > > My guess would be GOP + 6 or +7.
> ...



Well, Iowa is an open seat, but it's a state that has a democratic lean and Obama's approval isn't as low there.   Plus Bruce Baley is well liked in the state.    Colorado would be a long shot with the incumbent,  especially if the Republicans don't act on immigration reform with all the hispanics there.   

To take history into account...other then the 3 recent tidal wave elections of 1994, 2008, and 2010...neither party has had more then 5 pick ups, and most of the time at least half the pick ups are in open seats.   That means in an average election you're only going to beat 2-3 incumbents.

To win 6 seats the GOP needs to beat 3 incumbents (not including Walsh).    To win anymore they'd either have to win in Michigan or Iowa, or beat even more incumbents.    Unless the election suddenly has a large surge toward the GOP (which nothing is as of yet showing it will) then I really do stand by my words that 6 seats is the realistic max, with a possible, but unlikely 7.


----------



## Nyvin (Jun 3, 2014)

To be honest I won't be surprised at all to see the Democrats lose the Senate.   After all, no President has held a favorable Senate for 8 years since FDR,  so it's not like it's out of the norm.    Of course I'm sure that TONS of conservatives out there are going to label it as some confirmation of "Obama's failings" or some political rhetoric.

I would be more surprised to see the GOP pick up enough seats to where it can reasonably hold the Majority after the 2016 election, where Democrats will be heavily favored to win for a variety of reasons.


----------



## william the wie (Jun 3, 2014)

To reiterate my earlier point. We are not in a true recession but we are in a growth "recession" as labor force fraction growth exceeds economic and job growth. Also most of the other engines of world economic growth: the EU, Japan, China, India, Russia, South Africa and Brazil; are hitting pretty solid walls of many different types. 

Africa and to a lesser extent Latin America's oil and gas boom is bringing a lot of low cost energy supply online when there is a lot of and still growing investment in high cost energy in the developed world. The expected result of that is a big uptick in economic growth and a fairly big downtick in employment. Robots, additive manufacture, desalinization plants and other forms of automation/cleaner environment are energy intensive.

Not only do minimum wages and Obamacare have some effect on labor costs but more importantly mask the declining costs of automation. 56 senate seats GOP are a much higher probability than current polls can predict. My offline buddy Kwasi did not mention the Gabon oil boom going online Sunday and since he is a native of Gabon and an analyst for Deutsche Bank I suspect it was a surprise to him too that it when the news hit that it had happened Monday or Tuesday. Things are moving that fast.


----------



## Nyvin (Jun 3, 2014)

william the wie said:


> To reiterate my earlier point. We are not in a true recession but we are in a growth "recession" as labor force fraction growth exceeds economic and job growth. Also most of the other engines of world economic growth: the EU, Japan, China, India, Russia, South Africa and Brazil; are hitting pretty solid walls of many different types.
> 
> Africa and to a lesser extent Latin America's oil and gas boom is bringing a lot of low cost energy supply online when there is a lot of and still growing investment in high cost energy in the developed world. The expected result of that is a big uptick in economic growth and a fairly big downtick in employment. Robots, additive manufacture, desalinization plants and other forms of automation/cleaner environment are energy intensive.
> 
> Not only do minimum wages and Obamacare have some effect on labor costs but more importantly mask the declining costs of automation. 56 senate seats GOP are a much higher probability than current polls can predict. My offline buddy Kwasi did not mention the Gabon oil boom going online Sunday and since he is a native of Gabon and an analyst for Deutsche Bank I suspect it was a surprise to him too that it when the news hit that it had happened Monday or Tuesday. Things are moving that fast.



56 Senate seats would be 11 pickups...that's more pickups then in 1994, 2006, 2008, or 2010.   The GOP would have to beat around 6 incumbents and lose zero races for this to happen.   The last time something this massive happened was 1958, which was the largest Senate change in US history.   

There is nothing on the US landscape that suggests a change this massive,  unemployment is mediocre, president's approval is somewhat low but not horrid.   I think your aiming a bit high.


----------



## william the wie (Jun 3, 2014)

Could be. But the flow of jobs away from China and back to North America in general and the US in particular, began to start trickling in in Jan of this year instead of early in 2015 as McKinsey predicted in their report. ($0.99 as an ebook if memory serves.) Intel has announced the smallest chip in the world today (On Matthew's computer thread technically yesterday my time.)

So, automation is moving much faster than expected and in the retraining time that means fewer jobs.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 4, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> To be honest I won't be surprised at all to see the Democrats lose the Senate.   After all, no President has held a favorable Senate for 8 years since FDR,  so it's not like it's out of the norm.    Of course I'm sure that TONS of conservatives out there are going to label it as some confirmation of "Obama's failings" or some political rhetoric.
> 
> I would be more surprised to see the GOP pick up enough seats to where it can reasonably hold the Majority after the 2016 election, where Democrats will be heavily favored to win for a variety of reasons.



Barack Obama and Eric Holder are guilty of violations of 18 U.S. Code § 875; specifically;

{Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. }

The extortion racket known as "Operation Choke Point" is an open violation of the law, extorting banks and financial institutions who deal with the POLITICAL enemies of the administration, absent any violation of law by either party.

It is irrefutable fact that Obama is a crook - a criminal.

SO here is a "what if." With a Republican House and Senate, they impeach Obama for this specific crime - given the iron clad proof of criminal acts by Obama and his shock collar, Holder, but with the GOP majority, they remove Obama from office. Do you see the democrats with an advantage in 2016?

I realize that the Republicans have no balls, we have a corrupt press, and an entertainment industry that would run demagoguery even beyond what they did to Bush - but IF they were to hold Obama for this blatant, irrefutable criminal act, what do you think that would do to 2016.

EMILY MILLER: DOJ accused of targeting gun industry with 'Choke Point' program | Fox News


----------



## mamooth (Jun 4, 2014)

A fine day for Democrats, as the Tea Party continues to work diligently to elect Democratic senators. 

In the Democratic-leaning but still competitive state of Iowa, the Republican primary choice is Joni Erst, a woman much like Sarah Palin, except further to the right. Hence, Iowa is now a Democratic lock.

In Mississippi, the extremely conservative incumbent Republican Thad Cochran could have won the general election in a cakewalk. But apparently he wasn't conservative enough, and the Tea Party candidate Chris McDaniel beat him in the primary. However, he didn't get 50%, so there has to be a runoff, so the Republicans spend the next 3 weeks spending all their cash and knocking each other down. And the Tea Party candidate probably wins. After that, it's a competitive race for the Democrats, who are running a conservadem candidate.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jun 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> After that, it's a competitive race for the Democrats, who are running a conservadem candidate.




The closest creature in nature to a "conservadem candidate" is the Hoop Snake which is visible only for very short periods.


----------



## william the wie (Jun 4, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest I won't be surprised at all to see the Democrats lose the Senate.   After all, no President has held a favorable Senate for 8 years since FDR,  so it's not like it's out of the norm.    Of course I'm sure that TONS of conservatives out there are going to label it as some confirmation of "Obama's failings" or some political rhetoric.
> ...


Politically this is dumber than dogsquat.

A) It makes martyrs for the opposition.

B) Obama makes the Ds look even less competent than they really are so impeaching him is a very bad idea.

C) Taking the blame for a Biden presidency is an additional huge cost.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 4, 2014)

william the wie said:


> Politically this is dumber than dogsquat.
> 
> A) It makes martyrs for the opposition.



Only if they fail to make their case.

For 6 years, I've been in complete agreement, but I see Operation Choke Point as crossing a line that cannot be ignored. 

This is what Impeachment was meant to address.



> B) Obama makes the Ds look even less competent than they really are so impeaching him is a very bad idea.



I don't agree. Obama is a cult of personality, that the democrats rally around.  Criticism of Obama results in charges of racism, which are used to protect not just Obama, but ancillary characters such as Biden. 



> C) Taking the blame for a Biden presidency is an additional huge cost.



Valid point, but if we are a nation of laws, then there are some acts that cannot be ignored. If we are a nation where democrats are above the law, then by all means carry on.


----------



## peach174 (Jun 4, 2014)

Interpol said:


> When you take away the 36 senate races being contended in November, it leaves 34 Democrats (including those Independents that caucus with them) and 30 Republicans.
> 
> *Republicans need to win 21 of 36 for the Senate majority*. 20 will not do, because Biden is the tiebreaker.
> 
> ...




Of those 21 seats, 17 of those seats is where the Republican chances of winning are quite good.  If the Republicans win those 17, then they need four more.


----------



## Nyvin (Jun 4, 2014)

william the wie said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...



Not to mention Impeachment is an extremely difficult process and requires 2/3s majority support in both chambers of congress.   You'd have to have a very good case to be successful with impeachment of a president.


----------



## Dot Com (Jun 4, 2014)

National Republicans say they are 'all in' for Cochran - NBC News


> McDaniel has challenges, too. "He's broke, has scandal still hanging over him, national attention now on his controversies, he said. It's going to be expensive and outside parties will need to invest and help, but this remains a dead heat."


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 5, 2014)

*... and six-term Sen. Thad Cochran.*

does Cochran really need a 7th term ??? - why not conceed to the new generation, instead of the inevitable loss - times up for Cochran.



*McConnell is running for re-election to a sixth term ...*

a little different for McConnell as posibly becoming the Senate Majority Leader, but in the same lite, times (really) up for McConnell as well.

.


----------



## Zander (Nov 4, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Hoosier4Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > United States Senate elections, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


----------



## Zander (Nov 4, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Dems hold Senate 51-49
> Dems pick up 8 seats in the House
> Dems pick up two Governorships
> 
> Things stay the same


----------



## Zander (Nov 4, 2014)

BreezeWood said:


> 2014 will hinge on McConnell, why vote Republican and vote against the R Senate leader at the same time - one or the other will prevail and prove to be the national trend.
> 
> there is a real chance the D's can gain in both the Senate and House.



Pass the duchey.....


----------



## Zander (Nov 4, 2014)

[QUOTE="Synthaholic]
The latest revelations will make re-election nearly impossible for Scott Walker.  And his POTUS chances are now shot.  Just like Christie.[/QUOTE]

MMhmmmm.....


----------



## Zander (Nov 4, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > birddog said:
> ...



yeah....sure.....


----------



## Shrimpbox (Nov 4, 2014)

I tip my hat to Hoosier who uncannily predicted almost perfectly the results of this election. Way to go bro


----------



## Shrimpbox (Nov 4, 2014)

And thanks for keeping it honest Zander. I am so glad you unearthed this and we get to see who is blowing smoke and who knows what they are talking about.


----------

