Can GOP win the Senate in 2014?

[Darkwind]

Yes, I think they have finally learned how the game is played today.

No they haven't. The Senate will remain in Democrat hands because the GOP does not have the nutsack to actually take on the Dems and the media.

Cruz, Paul, Rubio, Ryan, Cantor, and others are doing that right now. The new young GOP is coming to life and telling the truth.

Plus, the media is over its honeymoon with obama. They are tired of being lied to and spied on.

Far to little, far too late.

You will also note that of those listed, only Paul seems to have the guts to expose the media's role in politics. Rubio is actually trying to help the Democrats pick up 11 million new voters.

 

[regent]

Automobiles are regulated, drivers are regulated, traffic is regulated, insurance required, and the auto kill rate has come down. Imagine the slaughter if there were no automobile regulations.
But as most of us know, guns are needed by the public as much as automobiles and gun deaths are just simple trade-offs to meet those needs.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's a simple answer. Take all guns away from democrats.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Senate races are not subject to gerrymandering. It will be difficult for obstructionist filibuster happy Republicans to gain seats in the Senate.

But....this sure is an intense debate.

And tiger.....you are still not funny. Even your Ebonics is lame. Your friends are being mean to you by not telling you how lame you are.

 

[longknife]

To NOT vote for someone just because an organization you don't like donates $$$ to the campaign seems to be quite a bit short-sighted.

I always review their stands on ISSUES, biography and how they live, and what makes them QUALIFIED for the position.

I don't care what party they represent.

I would hope people would be far more open-minded than you appear to be.

 

[mamooth]

Propaganda points don't run for office. Candidates do, so let's look at the races.

There are two very likely (R) pickups, in SD and WV, deep red states where a Democrat is retiring and a non-crazy (R) is running.

Kentucky is very unlikely for a Dem pickup. McConnell may be very unpopular, but he's got more money than God to toss around, and he is the incumbent in a deep red state.

There are competitive races in Alaska, Lousiana, but it's likely the popular Democratic senators there will hold on. Less likely is for the Democrat to hold on in Arkansas.

Everywhere else, no change. Give Arkansas to the (R)s, the likely outcome is +3R. Even if the Republicans flip the other two competitive races, +5R still isn't enough. With the VP tiebreaker, the Republicans need +6.

 

[Missourian]

Here's the problem.

Here in Missouri, Akin wasn't even on the radar in conservative Missouri...it was Sarah Steelman and maybe John Brunner.

But Missouri has open primaries and as neither McCaskill nor Obama had a primary, many Democrats voted in the Republican Primary to attempt to give McCaskill the weakest possible opponent.

August 7, 2012
(Primary election day in Missouri.)

The underdog in the Show-Me State, however, is clear: vulnerable Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, who will face the winner of the primary in November.


Brunner and Steelman, both partial self-funders, are seen as the stronger general election candidates by Democrats — and some Republicans, too. Akin is seen as a lackluster campaigner, burdened by his comfort with earmarking, among other weaknesses.


Missouri: GOP Senate Primary Is Tossup to the End : Roll Call Politics

And it worked!

In the next primary, many states will face this same challenge...with an incumbent senator and no presidential primary, we'll see Democrats try this same tactic again.

It makes it so important to get out and vote in the primaries. Get true conservatives, or as close as you can get, and strong candidates on the ballot...ESPECIALLY in states with open primaries.

I've never understood why people think open primaries are a good idea. They're just an invitation for the other party to screw with the selection. It goes both ways.

Me either...and it definitely does go both ways.

Closed primaries aren't perfect, both it makes "party crashing" a more difficult proposition.

FairVote.org | Congressional and Presidential Primaries: Open, Closed, Semi-Closed, and "Top Two"

 

[RandallFlagg]

It's too early to tell if the Senate will go to the right. However, if history is any judge, coupled with the current situation at DOJ, the president, and if they continue to stew, yes, the republicans will keep the House and take the Senate.

Unfortunately, if that happens, it is an even bet that whomever the idiots on the left run (I'm assuming it will be Hillary the Wide) will probably take the White House.

 

[MarcATL]

By: Ron Pearson and Trevor Smith, Ph.D., 5/28/2013 02:32 PM

The 2014 elections can be a rerun of the 2010 elections, but with one major difference: Republicans have a good chance to take over the Senate. Democrats have to defend 21 seats, while Republicans only have 14 Senate seats up for election.

I can only hope. Read more @ Can GOP win the Senate in 2014? | Human Events

Why? Are you so eager to see the end of the United States? With control over the House, Republicans have managed to oppose almost every significant measure to help the country, I can't imagine what they would do if they controlled the Senate, too. They are a bunch of lunatics, and I hope enough people realize it and don't allow them to take control - their only goal will be to destroy Obama and they don't care if they take the country down too, while doing it.

They've already stated as much, from the very night Obama swore in the first time. They simply do. not. car. They've calculated in their minds that if the country goes south under Obama's watch they can successfully sell his failure as a President and get back into power that way.

These people represent the WORST of US Politics.

 

[Darkwind]

By: Ron Pearson and Trevor Smith, Ph.D., 5/28/2013 02:32 PM

The 2014 elections can be a rerun of the 2010 elections, but with one major difference: Republicans have a good chance to take over the Senate. Democrats have to defend 21 seats, while Republicans only have 14 Senate seats up for election.

I can only hope. Read more @ Can GOP win the Senate in 2014? | Human Events

Why? Are you so eager to see the end of the United States? With control over the House, Republicans have managed to oppose almost every significant measure to help the country, I can't imagine what they would do if they controlled the Senate, too. They are a bunch of lunatics, and I hope enough people realize it and don't allow them to take control - their only goal will be to destroy Obama and they don't care if they take the country down too, while doing it.

False premise.

You assume that the Democrats and the President are attempting to help the country instead of themselves.

I contend that we are better off for the limited and ineffective interference with the Democrat agenda and would be infinitely better off if they actually managed to stop any of it.

 

[Darkwind]

By: Ron Pearson and Trevor Smith, Ph.D., 5/28/2013 02:32 PM


I can only hope. Read more @ Can GOP win the Senate in 2014? | Human Events

Why? Are you so eager to see the end of the United States? With control over the House, Republicans have managed to oppose almost every significant measure to help the country, I can't imagine what they would do if they controlled the Senate, too. They are a bunch of lunatics, and I hope enough people realize it and don't allow them to take control - their only goal will be to destroy Obama and they don't care if they take the country down too, while doing it.

They've already stated as much, from the very night Obama swore in the first time. They simply do. not. car. They've calculated in their minds that if the country goes south under Obama's watch they can successfully sell his failure as a President and get back into power that way.

These people represent the WORST of US Politics.

It was obvious to all thinking individuals that Obama and his agenda is bad for America. As rush put is, We were not hoping for him to fail. We ARE hoping for his policies to fail, for they are NOT what this country needs.

 

[MarcATL]

It was obvious to all thinking individuals that Obama and his agenda is bad for America. As rush put is, We were not hoping for him to fail. We ARE hoping for his policies to fail, for they are NOT what this country needs.

This is just your OPINION. However the FACTS state otherwise...

America Is Definitely Better Off Under Obama - Robert Schlesinger (usnews.com)

Despite What Critics Say, Economy Has Improved Under Obama

The economy is improving whether conservatives like it or not

 

[RandallFlagg]

Why? Are you so eager to see the end of the United States? With control over the House, Republicans have managed to oppose almost every significant measure to help the country, I can't imagine what they would do if they controlled the Senate, too. They are a bunch of lunatics, and I hope enough people realize it and don't allow them to take control - their only goal will be to destroy Obama and they don't care if they take the country down too, while doing it.

They've already stated as much, from the very night Obama swore in the first time. They simply do. not. car. They've calculated in their minds that if the country goes south under Obama's watch they can successfully sell his failure as a President and get back into power that way.

These people represent the WORST of US Politics.

It was obvious to all thinking individuals that Obama and his agenda is bad for America. As rush put is, We were not hoping for him to fail. We ARE hoping for his policies to fail, for they are NOT what this country needs.

That may be (and I agree) but you have to take into consideration that we are now dealing with a "third" segment of society - the entitled.

These folks now, for the most part, dictate to the democrats what their policies "should" be in regards for their best interest. So obviously, when the right opposes 57 million people on government handouts, the "entitled" labels the right as "extremists" or "uncaring" or "unfeeling" or "racist" or whatever other code word they continually regurgitate to hopefully sway public opinion.

Frankly, I DO hope for Barry's policies to fail and I hope they fail HARD. Everything this guy has proposed has been a complete failure for the American people as a whole. Complete and utter failure. Now, even his BS "Obananacare" is being threatened by the very idiots that "passed it to see what's in it".

Well, sir, they passed it. And now that they "see what's in it" they are trying, like cockroaches, to run under the refrigerator when the lights come on....

 

[Redfish]

It was obvious to all thinking individuals that Obama and his agenda is bad for America. As rush put is, We were not hoping for him to fail. We ARE hoping for his policies to fail, for they are NOT what this country needs.

This is just your OPINION. However the FACTS state otherwise...

America Is Definitely Better Off Under Obama - Robert Schlesinger (usnews.com)

Despite What Critics Say, Economy Has Improved Under Obama

The economy is improving whether conservatives like it or not

the economy is getting slightly better in spite of obama, not because of him. Even a radical marxist like obama cannot kill the american economy--even though he continues to try to kill it.

and you, my left wing friend are exactly why this country is so screwed up right now. You are so full of hate that you cannot see reality or think logically. Your hate controls everything you say and do. pathetic..

 

[RandallFlagg]

It was obvious to all thinking individuals that Obama and his agenda is bad for America. As rush put is, We were not hoping for him to fail. We ARE hoping for his policies to fail, for they are NOT what this country needs.

This is just your OPINION. However the FACTS state otherwise...

America Is Definitely Better Off Under Obama - Robert Schlesinger (usnews.com)

Despite What Critics Say, Economy Has Improved Under Obama

The economy is improving whether conservatives like it or not

the economy is getting slightly better in spite of obama, not because of him. Even a radical marxist like obama cannot kill the american economy--even though he continues to try to kill it.

and you, my left wing friend are exactly why this country is so screwed up right now. You are so full of hate that you cannot see reality or think logically. Your hate controls everything you say and do. pathetic..

Yep. You are 100% correct. The economy is coming back in SPITE of government (I lump EVERYONE in government into this pile). Wall Street now does more business with foreign entities, but is slowly turning the corner on that one.

Housing is begining to see a large resurgence - not because of "gubmit" but because banks have started relaxing their standards to allow more home loans. A friend of mine in the mortgage business says that they are now working from 9AM to 8PM processing all the clients they have. Housing starts are up across the country. Again, not because of "gubmit" but because of DEMAND.

"Government" whether it be (D) or (R) doesn't have a damned thing to do with it. It's called CAPITALISM.

 

[JWBooth]

Hope not.

Too much gets "accomplished" now

 

[MarcATL]

It was obvious to all thinking individuals that Obama and his agenda is bad for America. As rush put is, We were not hoping for him to fail. We ARE hoping for his policies to fail, for they are NOT what this country needs.

This is just your OPINION. However the FACTS state otherwise...

America Is Definitely Better Off Under Obama - Robert Schlesinger (usnews.com)

Despite What Critics Say, Economy Has Improved Under Obama

The economy is improving whether conservatives like it or not

the economy is getting slightly better in spite of obama, not because of him. Even a radical marxist like obama cannot kill the american economy--even though he continues to try to kill it.

and you, my left wing friend are exactly why this country is so screwed up right now. You are so full of hate that you cannot see reality or think logically. Your hate controls everything you say and do. pathetic..

LOL @ "in spite of", and you call me hate-filled, even though your rage and hatred for Obama is seeping through the bits and bytes of the World Wide Web.

Even if it's as slow and scanty improvement as you're suggesting, it TOTALLY busts up your rhetoric about Obama being abysmal to the American economy.

It's simply not true.

 

[Redfish]

This is just your OPINION. However the FACTS state otherwise...

America Is Definitely Better Off Under Obama - Robert Schlesinger (usnews.com)

Despite What Critics Say, Economy Has Improved Under Obama

The economy is improving whether conservatives like it or not

the economy is getting slightly better in spite of obama, not because of him. Even a radical marxist like obama cannot kill the american economy--even though he continues to try to kill it.

and you, my left wing friend are exactly why this country is so screwed up right now. You are so full of hate that you cannot see reality or think logically. Your hate controls everything you say and do. pathetic..

LOL @ "in spite of", and you call me hate-filled, even though your rage and hatred for Obama is seeping through the bits and bytes of the World Wide Web.

Even if it's as slow and scanty improvement as you're suggesting, it TOTALLY busts up your rhetoric about Obama being abysmal to the American economy.

It's simply not true.

"in spite of" is not an insult, its a figure of speech..

but lets list his economic accomplishments, OK?
more people poverty than ever before
more people on food stamps than ever before
ran the national debt from 9T to 16T in 5 years
unemployment locked at around 8%
taxes going up on everyone
Obamacare dispised by unions and congress asking to be exempt
The dollar on the way out as the international currency
The credit rating of the USA downgraded for the first time in history

do you really call these things successes?

 

[ScienceRocks]

the economy is getting slightly better in spite of obama, not because of him. Even a radical marxist like obama cannot kill the american economy--even though he continues to try to kill it.

and you, my left wing friend are exactly why this country is so screwed up right now. You are so full of hate that you cannot see reality or think logically. Your hate controls everything you say and do. pathetic..

LOL @ "in spite of", and you call me hate-filled, even though your rage and hatred for Obama is seeping through the bits and bytes of the World Wide Web.

Even if it's as slow and scanty improvement as you're suggesting, it TOTALLY busts up your rhetoric about Obama being abysmal to the American economy.

It's simply not true.

"in spite of" is not an insult, its a figure of speech..

but lets list his economic accomplishments, OK?
more people poverty than ever before
more people on food stamps than ever before
ran the national debt from 9T to 16T in 5 years
unemployment locked at around 8%
taxes going up on everyone
Obamacare dispised by unions and congress asking to be exempt
The dollar on the way out as the international currency
The credit rating of the USA downgraded for the first time in history

do you really call these things successes?

1. Yep, at least in the past 60 years. A lot of people living off of food stamps.
2. Because of Bush's policies he continued. Bush wasn't budgeting the wars, i.o.u's and ssi into the budget as Obama is. Either way Obama is still using Bush's policies and not investing in the infrastructure he should be investing in.
3. 7.5% now officially but 3 million people dropped out of the work force with a growing population. Not good.
4. That sucks.
5. Obamacare doesn't make any sense as I thought Obama wanted to help people?
6. That sucks
7. That sucks

All together Obama is Bush's third term.

 

[Redfish]

LOL @ "in spite of", and you call me hate-filled, even though your rage and hatred for Obama is seeping through the bits and bytes of the World Wide Web.

Even if it's as slow and scanty improvement as you're suggesting, it TOTALLY busts up your rhetoric about Obama being abysmal to the American economy.

It's simply not true.

"in spite of" is not an insult, its a figure of speech..

but lets list his economic accomplishments, OK?
more people poverty than ever before
more people on food stamps than ever before
ran the national debt from 9T to 16T in 5 years
unemployment locked at around 8%
taxes going up on everyone
Obamacare dispised by unions and congress asking to be exempt
The dollar on the way out as the international currency
The credit rating of the USA downgraded for the first time in history

do you really call these things successes?

1. Yep, at least in the past 60 years. A lot of people living off of food stamps.
2. Because of Bush's policies he continued. Bush wasn't budgeting the wars, i.o.u's and ssi into the budget as Obama is. Either way Obama is still using Bush's policies and not investing in the infrastructure he should be investing in.
3. 7.5% now officially but 3 million people dropped out of the work force with a growing population. Not good.
4. That sucks.
5. Obamacare doesn't make any sense as I thought Obama wanted to help people?
6. That sucks
7. That sucks

All together Obama is Bush's third term.

pretty good, Matt. but govt spending is not "investing" its "spending". Remember, the govt has only three sources of money to spend----take it from us in taxes, borrow it, print it. The govt never "earns" money.