Congratulations Soon-To-Be-Senator

[Edgetho]

Crap like this might play well back in DC or in New York or Sang Frang, but in the vast majority of America...?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=P6Qme_Plx3w]Mark Pryor Attacks Tom Cotton's "Sense Of Entitlement" About His Military Service - YouTube[/ame]

democrats are going to lose between 9 and 15 Senate Seats in November.

Barring something dramatic, some sea-change.... I'm calling for a minimum takeover of 10 Seats.

Minimum. Maybe as many as 15+

 

[JakeStarkey]

Maybe eight or nine. However, the Texas smack down of the far right and TeaP candidates in favor of the mainstream GOP certainly bodes well for the GoP in the fall.

 

[Edgetho]

Maybe eight or nine. However, the Texas smack down of the far right and TeaP candidates in favor of the mainstream GOP certainly bodes well for the GoP in the fall.

You might want to read some sites other than your pro-dimocrap comfort zones.

I'm telling you.... The Republican Party is actually concerned about winning TOO MANY Senate Seats.

They're worried that if they take the Senate by 12-15 Seats, that they still won't be able to get much done because of the road block of the lying-cocksucker-in-chief in the ovule office and that America will blame THEM for not advancing our agenda.

Barring anything major, dimocraps lose between 12 and 15 seats. Maybe more.

What can they possibly run on, dewd?

obamacare? That is a disaster.

The economy? Another disappointment.

Jobs? There aren't any good paying jobs any more.

How about the FACT that Average American Family Income is down by $2,500 since the lying-cocksucker-in-chief infected the White House.

What have they got to run on?

I'll tell you what they have.. They have the same thing they've always had -- Lies.

"If you like your Insurance, you can keep it. Period".

If you like your Doctor...

"If Syria uses gas, they will pay a price. They will have crossed a Red Line."

What a load of shit.

Then there's Benghazi, which a majority of Americans think dimocraps lied about.

The IRS which the majority of Americans think dimocrap scum are covering up.

All you got is lies to run.

Which is no different than any other election cycle, frankly.

dimocraps lie. It's what they do.

To be blunt with you.... I'm a little concerned about what the lying-cocksucker-in-chief might do with this Crimea dealio.

he knows he looks like the feckless, effeminate, coward he is.

he knows he has to do something because the whole world is laughing at him.

If he had any brains (he doesn't) he would immediately approve the Keystone XL Pipeline that he's been holding back as an election-time trump card, but he won't do that.

That leaves him with very few options. And he's GOT to do something.

He's a coward. And the most dangerous person on Earth is a cornered coward.

He could easily start something we can't get out of.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

If the Pubbies take the Senate with 12 to 15 seats, Obama's toast. Gone in sixty seconds will be a description of Obama's future job prospects after January 20th, 2015.
For that reason Obama and the Democrats will try to suspend the mid term elections

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Odd considering Dem Senator in CT outright lied about his military service

 

[Kosh]

He claims that serving in the military is not a qualification for serving in the senate.

Oh my!

This from the party that put a person with no experience in life other than learning far left ideals in college as president.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I am going to fight hard for the best science institutions on earth this fall!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Crap like this might play well back in DC or in New York or Sang Frang, but in the vast majority of America...?

Mark Pryor Attacks Tom Cotton's "Sense Of Entitlement" About His Military Service - YouTube

democrats are going to lose between 9 and 15 Senate Seats in November.

Barring something dramatic, some sea-change.... I'm calling for a minimum takeover of 10 Seats.

Minimum. Maybe as many as 15+

Given the track record of the TP'ers to shoot themselves in the foot your prediction seems optimistic. Six is all that it will take to seize the Senate and that is feasible. Better to lock down those than try to run the table. But no one is going to listen to reason on the extreme right. They will be foaming at the mouth for a veto proof majority in the Senate and their overreach will end up doing themselves more harm than good. The Dems only have a majority in the Senate right now because the TP'ers didn't know when to stop talking. There is no reason to believe that 2014 is going to be any different.

 

[rightwinger]

Crap like this might play well back in DC or in New York or Sang Frang, but in the vast majority of America...?

Mark Pryor Attacks Tom Cotton's "Sense Of Entitlement" About His Military Service - YouTube

democrats are going to lose between 9 and 15 Senate Seats in November.

Barring something dramatic, some sea-change.... I'm calling for a minimum takeover of 10 Seats.

Minimum. Maybe as many as 15+

With 33 seats in play, Republicans will pick up 15 with Dems only holding 5 seats

You must be listening to Fox

 

[Statistikhengst]

Crap like this might play well back in DC or in New York or Sang Frang, but in the vast majority of America...?

Mark Pryor Attacks Tom Cotton's "Sense Of Entitlement" About His Military Service - YouTube

democrats are going to lose between 9 and 15 Senate Seats in November.

Barring something dramatic, some sea-change.... I'm calling for a minimum takeover of 10 Seats.

Minimum. Maybe as many as 15+

Given the track record of the TP'ers to shoot themselves in the foot your prediction seems optimistic. Six is all that it will take to seize the Senate and that is feasible. Better to lock down those than try to run the table. But no one is going to listen to reason on the extreme right. They will be foaming at the mouth for a veto proof majority in the Senate and their overreach will end up doing themselves more harm than good. The Dems only have a majority in the Senate right now because the TP'ers didn't know when to stop talking. There is no reason to believe that 2014 is going to be any different.

The probablility that the GOP gets six seats and indeed takes the Senate is extremely high and also absolutely in according with congressional electoral history, especially mid-terms, all of which is outlined here in extreme detail, since the mid-terms of 1854.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...pared-to-presidential-terms-1855-present.html

(I published that thread here in USMB in the middle of January)

Everyone can see for himself that the party not in power usually makes impressive gains in the congress during a mid-term election, ESPECIALLY during a 2nd term mid-term.

But there is no statistical evidence at all that the GOP is heading for 10-15 seats.

In fast, Arkansas is one of the six they are betting on just to get to the six.


But at the end of the day, what does it bring? The GOP is most definitely not going to secure a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate if it does take the chamber (which, again, I see as extremely likely) and if anyone thinks that the Senate Majority Leader, whomever he may be, is going to completely rescind the filibuster, think again.

What would probably happen is that the House, sensing blood, would push through another "repeal Obamacare" bill, which the Senate could try to pass with a simple majority, which would then be vetoed by the President.

Or, the House could get really, really stupid (I wouldn't put it past them) and decide to vote to impeach Obama, which would then of course die in the Senate. And there we would have a repeat of 1998, 16 years later. It's pretty sad. But I'm not sure they are going to do this, for it would make them look so batshit crazy, even more so than they really are, that this probably helps Clinton in 2016.

No matter how you shuffle the deck, we are looking at gridlock from 2015-2017.

My two cents.

[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

Oh, and the content of the OP is bullshit.

 

[william the wie]

I'm more optimistic about Republican chances than Statistikhengst but only because of economic effects that will lower the president and his party's approval rating. A few warnings first:

What is being called China's Bear, Stearns moment is at best its Bear, Stearns hedge fund moment that happened 9 months before the company itself went belly up.

The Ukraine crisis is more about Polish and possibly Ukrainian plans for fracking that might see Russia's Gazprom holding a rapidly depreciating asset than anything else. Putin wants to weaken Obama so that the huge Iranian gas fields cannot be exploited because Obama will not be able to get sanctions lifted. Polish fracking is bad for Russia Iran exporting LNG to Europe would be catastrophic.

Deflation in Europe is likely without much cheaper energy, but despite the headlines it has not happened yet. The prediction behind the headline is that there is a 65% probability that the ECB will not pull a stupid and that is from One (1) analyst. Everyone else is more optimistic.

Major D donors are trying to push Ds to the left in this election on jobs vs. the environment and the Ds have huge problems in the states. Chicago is BBB+, CA is on the hook for junk bonds issue by towns and counties and Cuomo's New New York initiative is taking "Friendly" fire shrapnel from De Blasio.

In sum Rs are not going to win Ds are going to lose. The current 4 non-Ds in the Senate D Caucus could be as high as 8 in 2017 with a slight R Senate majority. The Ds are radicalizing faster than the Rs.

 

[FA_Q2]

Crap like this might play well back in DC or in New York or Sang Frang, but in the vast majority of America...?

Mark Pryor Attacks Tom Cotton's "Sense Of Entitlement" About His Military Service - YouTube

democrats are going to lose between 9 and 15 Senate Seats in November.

Barring something dramatic, some sea-change.... I'm calling for a minimum takeover of 10 Seats.

Minimum. Maybe as many as 15+

10-15 is not likely at all and 15+ almost an impossibility. I would have to ask what your prediction was for the last election because this type of prediction is completely in line with those that thought Romney was going to win in a landslide.

How did that work out again?


The republicans are likely to pick up some seats and might even take the senate. They are not going to get within a mile of pulling 15 seats though.

 

[FA_Q2]

Crap like this might play well back in DC or in New York or Sang Frang, but in the vast majority of America...?

Mark Pryor Attacks Tom Cotton's "Sense Of Entitlement" About His Military Service - YouTube

democrats are going to lose between 9 and 15 Senate Seats in November.

Barring something dramatic, some sea-change.... I'm calling for a minimum takeover of 10 Seats.

Minimum. Maybe as many as 15+

Given the track record of the TP'ers to shoot themselves in the foot your prediction seems optimistic. Six is all that it will take to seize the Senate and that is feasible. Better to lock down those than try to run the table. But no one is going to listen to reason on the extreme right. They will be foaming at the mouth for a veto proof majority in the Senate and their overreach will end up doing themselves more harm than good. The Dems only have a majority in the Senate right now because the TP'ers didn't know when to stop talking. There is no reason to believe that 2014 is going to be any different.

The probablility that the GOP gets six seats and indeed takes the Senate is extremely high and also absolutely in according with congressional electoral history, especially mid-terms, all of which is outlined here in extreme detail, since the mid-terms of 1854.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...pared-to-presidential-terms-1855-present.html

(I published that thread here in USMB in the middle of January)

Everyone can see for himself that the party not in power usually makes impressive gains in the congress during a mid-term election, ESPECIALLY during a 2nd term mid-term.

But there is no statistical evidence at all that the GOP is heading for 10-15 seats.

In fast, Arkansas is one of the six they are betting on just to get to the six.


But at the end of the day, what does it bring? The GOP is most definitely not going to secure a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate if it does take the chamber (which, again, I see as extremely likely) and if anyone thinks that the Senate Majority Leader, whomever he may be, is going to completely rescind the filibuster, think again.

What would probably happen is that the House, sensing blood, would push through another "repeal Obamacare" bill, which the Senate could try to pass with a simple majority, which would then be vetoed by the President.

Or, the House could get really, really stupid (I wouldn't put it past them) and decide to vote to impeach Obama, which would then of course die in the Senate. And there we would have a repeat of 1998, 16 years later. It's pretty sad. But I'm not sure they are going to do this, for it would make them look so batshit crazy, even more so than they really are, that this probably helps Clinton in 2016.

No matter how you shuffle the deck, we are looking at gridlock from 2015-2017.

My two cents.

[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

Oh, and the content of the OP is bullshit.

Gridlock is definitely in the future but this time it is far more likely that Obama is actually going to have to veto those bills rather than let them hide under Reid’s desk. It will be interesting to see if that is a boon or not for the republicans.

I have to wonder at the bold though – are you certain of that? I am not that sure. The democrats opened that genie and proved that if push comes to shove they are willing to throw out the minority party completely when they decide it is necessary. I would not be surprised in the least if the republicans 1 uped them when the chance presents itself. I would think that it is a rather terrible thing to do (as I thought what the democrats did as absolutely terrible) but I am not confident that they will be restrained. Hell, it’s even hard to argue a reason to be restrained when the other side already started the ball rolling.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Given the track record of the TP'ers to shoot themselves in the foot your prediction seems optimistic. Six is all that it will take to seize the Senate and that is feasible. Better to lock down those than try to run the table. But no one is going to listen to reason on the extreme right. They will be foaming at the mouth for a veto proof majority in the Senate and their overreach will end up doing themselves more harm than good. The Dems only have a majority in the Senate right now because the TP'ers didn't know when to stop talking. There is no reason to believe that 2014 is going to be any different.

The probablility that the GOP gets six seats and indeed takes the Senate is extremely high and also absolutely in according with congressional electoral history, especially mid-terms, all of which is outlined here in extreme detail, since the mid-terms of 1854.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...pared-to-presidential-terms-1855-present.html

(I published that thread here in USMB in the middle of January)

Everyone can see for himself that the party not in power usually makes impressive gains in the congress during a mid-term election, ESPECIALLY during a 2nd term mid-term.

But there is no statistical evidence at all that the GOP is heading for 10-15 seats.

In fast, Arkansas is one of the six they are betting on just to get to the six.


But at the end of the day, what does it bring? The GOP is most definitely not going to secure a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate if it does take the chamber (which, again, I see as extremely likely) and if anyone thinks that the Senate Majority Leader, whomever he may be, is going to completely rescind the filibuster, think again.

What would probably happen is that the House, sensing blood, would push through another "repeal Obamacare" bill, which the Senate could try to pass with a simple majority, which would then be vetoed by the President.

Or, the House could get really, really stupid (I wouldn't put it past them) and decide to vote to impeach Obama, which would then of course die in the Senate. And there we would have a repeat of 1998, 16 years later. It's pretty sad. But I'm not sure they are going to do this, for it would make them look so batshit crazy, even more so than they really are, that this probably helps Clinton in 2016.

No matter how you shuffle the deck, we are looking at gridlock from 2015-2017.

My two cents.

[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

Oh, and the content of the OP is bullshit.

Gridlock is definitely in the future but this time it is far more likely that Obama is actually going to have to veto those bills rather than let them hide under Reid’s desk. It will be interesting to see if that is a boon or not for the republicans.

I have to wonder at the bold though – are you certain of that? I am not that sure. The democrats opened that genie and proved that if push comes to shove they are willing to throw out the minority party completely when they decide it is necessary. I would not be surprised in the least if the republicans 1 uped them when the chance presents itself. I would think that it is a rather terrible thing to do (as I thought what the democrats did as absolutely terrible) but I am not confident that they will be restrained. Hell, it’s even hard to argue a reason to be restrained when the other side already started the ball rolling.

Hey, thanks for writing.

To the bolded: no, I am not totally sure. McConnell sure made some noises. But Reid only went nuclear on a procedural thing, on nominees, to break the GOP stalemate technique on clearing nominees, btw, something they already promised they would not do and then they broke their word.

I personally am not for the Filibuster, so if it dies, whether under a Democratic or Republican leadership in the Senate, it's all equal to me.

But you are right: the kind of legislation that a Republican controlled Senate would bring to a simple majority vote could have massive ramifications for 2016 - it could hurt them badly.

Wait and see.

 

[FA_Q2]

Hey, thanks for writing.

To the bolded: no, I am not totally sure. McConnell sure made some noises. But Reid only went nuclear on a procedural thing, on nominees, to break the GOP stalemate technique on clearing nominees, btw, something they already promised they would not do and then they broke their word.

I personally am not for the Filibuster, so if it dies, whether under a Democratic or Republican leadership in the Senate, it's all equal to me.

But you are right: the kind of legislation that a Republican controlled Senate would bring to a simple majority vote could have massive ramifications for 2016 - it could hurt them badly.

Wait and see.

I don’t think that Reid went nuclear on just nominees because that is as far as they want it to go. In general, I think that the democrats are better at selling their message and strategizing the results of what they do than the republicans who tend to focus on the base and local areas rather than the overall electorate.

I believe that Reid knew the nuclear option was not really a popular one and that they are not going to stay in the majority for long. Going nuclear across the board would have bought them quite a bit more ire but the question is what that would have gained them? With the republicans in the house, nothing at all. Anything blocked by the 40 senators certainly would not make it through the house which has (as far as I can tell) a far more hardliner group of representatives. Why sacrifice the political capital for something that gains them nothing?

Did you not notice that the nuclear option was used in cases where the house was irrelevant and this was just between the president and the senate? I think there was clear planning in that move. Further, they wanted to make a real impact in the nominees that they were placing in the courts and they were able to do so with so many vacancies AND absolutely no opposition to any of them. I don't think that the republicans will give a damn though and have as much restraint even though they get nothing from a full obliteration of the filibuster (Obama is still going to veto most of what they pass). Look how they have 'dealt' with many issues and political messes. in general, they are more than willing to sink the party for the most asinine things. It is one of the problems that the republicans are currently having with their brand - they are rather shitty at strategizing.

I am somewhat surprised that you are against the filibuster though. It is not the principal that scares the shit out of me with its loss but the concept of a unified government that has ZERO opposition from the other party. Quite frankly, unopposed political parties generally fuck shit up FAR more than is acceptable. Anytime that we have one party control things go in the shitter. How bad is that going to get when the opposition party has absolutely NO say in how government is ran. That is exactly what destroying the filibuster does – it gives them literally nothing to work with. Without it, I see a future MORE divided with larger chasms between the political parties. That does not bode well for any of us.

 

[Freewill]

Maybe eight or nine. However, the Texas smack down of the far right and TeaP candidates in favor of the mainstream GOP certainly bodes well for the GoP in the fall.

You may wish to rethink what you are putting out for your democrat handlers.

Abbott, Davis win in Texas primaries roiled by Tea Party clout

See just because they tell you something and you keep repeating it does not make it the truth. Even in this story when they tell about a TP endorsed candidate winning they can't help but put a slant on it with their use of clout. But that is what propagandist like you and your handlers do.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hey, thanks for writing.

To the bolded: no, I am not totally sure. McConnell sure made some noises. But Reid only went nuclear on a procedural thing, on nominees, to break the GOP stalemate technique on clearing nominees, btw, something they already promised they would not do and then they broke their word.

I personally am not for the Filibuster, so if it dies, whether under a Democratic or Republican leadership in the Senate, it's all equal to me.

But you are right: the kind of legislation that a Republican controlled Senate would bring to a simple majority vote could have massive ramifications for 2016 - it could hurt them badly.

Wait and see.

I don’t think that Reid went nuclear on just nominees because that is as far as they want it to go. In general, I think that the democrats are better at selling their message and strategizing the results of what they do than the republicans who tend to focus on the base and local areas rather than the overall electorate.

I believe that Reid knew the nuclear option was not really a popular one and that they are not going to stay in the majority for long. Going nuclear across the board would have bought them quite a bit more ire but the question is what that would have gained them? With the republicans in the house, nothing at all. Anything blocked by the 40 senators certainly would not make it through the house which has (as far as I can tell) a far more hardliner group of representatives. Why sacrifice the political capital for something that gains them nothing?

Did you not notice that the nuclear option was used in cases where the house was irrelevant and this was just between the president and the senate? I think there was clear planning in that move. Further, they wanted to make a real impact in the nominees that they were placing in the courts and they were able to do so with so many vacancies AND absolutely no opposition to any of them. I don't think that the republicans will give a damn though and have as much restraint even though they get nothing from a full obliteration of the filibuster (Obama is still going to veto most of what they pass). Look how they have 'dealt' with many issues and political messes. in general, they are more than willing to sink the party for the most asinine things. It is one of the problems that the republicans are currently having with their brand - they are rather shitty at strategizing.

I am somewhat surprised that you are against the filibuster though. It is not the principal that scares the shit out of me with its loss but the concept of a unified government that has ZERO opposition from the other party. Quite frankly, unopposed political parties generally fuck shit up FAR more than is acceptable. Anytime that we have one party control things go in the shitter. How bad is that going to get when the opposition party has absolutely NO say in how government is ran. That is exactly what destroying the filibuster does – it gives them literally nothing to work with. Without it, I see a future MORE divided with larger chasms between the political parties. That does not bode well for any of us.

I am 100% against the filibuster. It is arcane and has nothing to do with Democracy. We aren't supposed to use filbusters for course corrections. That what ELECTIONS are for.

If a party is swept into power and abuses that power, then surely that party will be punished the next time around at the ballot box. That's the way it's supposed to be. But with the filibuster, all the minority party does is to blur the lines and eventually, the voters get pissed at all participants. Deadlock brings nothing.

I believe strongly in the line item veto for the President for budget stuff and I am against the filibuster - and my feeling is completely independent of whomever is occupying 1600 Pennyslvania Ave. I felt the same way when Bush was president.

 

[The Rabbi]

Maybe eight or nine. However, the Texas smack down of the far right and TeaP candidates in favor of the mainstream GOP certainly bodes well for the GoP in the fall.

You may wish to rethink what you are putting out for your democrat handlers.

Abbott, Davis win in Texas primaries roiled by Tea Party clout

See just because they tell you something and you keep repeating it does not make it the truth. Even in this story when they tell about a TP endorsed candidate winning they can't help but put a slant on it with their use of clout. But that is what propagandist like you and your handlers do.

Jake is a lo-lo.

It is undoubted the GOP will take the Senate and hold the House, probably picking up seats. The American Public has had it with Obama and his Obamacare crap. Our economy is shit, our foreign policy is a disaster. Prices are going up. All of this because of 5+ years of total Democratic rule. And people get it, eventually.
As for the OP, Mark Pryor is toast. Kay Hagen in NC is also toast. The crazy running in the GOP primary still polls higher than she does.