djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 8, 2014 14:25:42 GMT -5
dj, where have you been? MSNBC is crowing this morning the Dems are virtually sweeping the Senate races. Louisiana Iowa Kentucky North Carolina And one or two others Joe was virtually creaming his jeans this morning over this, as well as Clinton politicking for races in Arkansas. You just know he wishes ol Bill could run again. i was in Chicago, to answer your question. i am very close to calling Louisiana and Arkansas for the GOP. very close = less than 5% probability shift. still have the GOP at 60% favourite. but if the Democrats could get back in the race in Iowa, i would feel differently.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Oct 8, 2014 15:07:02 GMT -5
In Chicago? Man, I could have come up and bought you some Chicago deep dish! Catch any of the negative Governor and Senate campaign commercials while you were there?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 8, 2014 16:04:39 GMT -5
In Chicago? Man, I could have come up and bought you some Chicago deep dish! Catch any of the negative Governor and Senate campaign commercials while you were there? oh hell no. i zoned out on HBO. that's right, i forgot you are downstate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 9, 2014 11:57:02 GMT -5
with four weeks to go, i am moving Arkansas to GOP favored from leans GOP, and AK from tossup to leans GOP:
10/9/14
Republican solid : 48 Democrat solid: 47
Leaning Republican: AK, LA Leaning Independent: KS
Tossup: CO, IA
edit: GOP needs to win 3 of these 5 and leads in 3 of those 5.
Iowa has been trending badly for Democrats since "the lawyer comment", even though the GOP candidate is fairly whackadoodle (she still believes that Iraq had WMD, and an early campaign ad had her pointing a gun at the camera and vowing to "kill ObamaCare").
the news for Democrats is better in Colorado, but that is not enough, as they need to win BOTH of those states to hold majority.
there is a new potential tossup in South Dakota, and recently Kentucky has given some favorable polling to Alison Grimes. however, those two states are still Republican-favored-to-win as of today.
i think the Kansas seat is out of reach of the GOP at this point, but i am not prepared to call it for the independent yet. he has run a near perfect campaign so far, which is rather amazing for a rookie.
so, to summarize: the GOP is still a 60% favourite. however, they are showing some weakness in "gimme states" like SD and KY. if the elections were held today, they would take the Senate, imo. so, the advantage is theirs, and the Democrats need a "game changer" in IA or one of those gimme states to get back in this. as of today, Iowa decides who controls the Senate, and Democrats trail there by 4% with four weeks to go. not an impossible margin, but a very tough hurdle to clear.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Oct 10, 2014 7:03:24 GMT -5
The problem I have with Republicans holding a majority in the Senate is, there is no freaking way they can hold all of them in line to vote how they need them to vote. I honestly believe they need 54 seats to hold actual control. One or two will always go postal and vote against the legislation. Biden might still wind up being the tie breaker. The President and the Democrats will be safe for the two years of Republican control.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 10, 2014 10:05:17 GMT -5
you might be right. but i think that it will moderate anything that is proposed in the Senate, IE = judicial appointments
10/10 edit/update: the GOP is leading in all four of the contested races right now: IA, LA, AK, and CO. i am raising their odds of taking the Senate to 70%.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 10, 2014 12:30:01 GMT -5
you might be right. but i think that it will moderate anything that is proposed in the Senate, IE = judicial appointments 10/10 edit/update: the GOP is leading in all four of the contested races right now: IA, LA, AK, and CO. i am raising their odds of taking the Senate to 70%. I guess I will be the contrarian on this- I think they will lose one- and I base that on unscientific principles. That's the problem I think- that they have to win them all. Only takes one upset- and if history shows anything there are always upsets.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 10, 2014 12:40:24 GMT -5
you might be right. but i think that it will moderate anything that is proposed in the Senate, IE = judicial appointments 10/10 edit/update: the GOP is leading in all four of the contested races right now: IA, LA, AK, and CO. i am raising their odds of taking the Senate to 70%. I guess I will be the contrarian on this- I think they will lose one- and I base that on unscientific principles. That's the problem I think- that they have to win them all. Only takes one upset- and if history shows anything there are always upsets. the problem is, EVT, the Democrats need to win TWO to maintain majority. that is TWO, not one. they are barely behind in Colorado. i can see them winning that one. i don't think Cory is much of a candidate, and i think Udall is a pretty good one. it is IOWA that the Democrats should be worried about. due to their "47%" moment, the Democratic candidate is trailing by 4% over a real nutsack. it is truly embarrassing that they are behind here. if they lose this one, it is 100% their fault. but make no mistake- they are pretty solidly (aka "outside of polling error") behind right now, so they are going to have to really pull a rabbit out of their hat, or hope that Annie Crazypants says something even dumber than she has already. edit: it is also LAME, imo, that Begich is losing in Alaska by a similar margin- but he is. Democrats have good candidates in all four of these tossup races. they SHOULD win two of them. but if the elections were held today, they would lose ALL FOUR.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Oct 10, 2014 22:41:07 GMT -5
MSNBC went after Grimes in Kentucky (Senate candidate) this morning throwing her under the bus based on one question she refused to answer the other night.
Question: Did you vote for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012? She refused to answer other than to say she was a Clinton Democrat........ Asked again and she hid behind the right of a secret ballot box and would not say how she voted....... CNN tonight did the same thing, and said she should have just admitted she did not vote for him. Yeh, like that would work Now we know candidates other than Governor Quinn in Illinois are running as far away as possible from the President, but this is getting out of hand. It is as bad as 2008 when Bush had to stay home at the White House and could not back any candidate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 11, 2014 0:18:09 GMT -5
MSNBC went after Grimes in Kentucky (Senate candidate) this morning throwing her under the bus based on one question she refused to answer the other night.
Question: Did you vote for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012? She refused to answer other than to say she was a Clinton Democrat........ Asked again and she hid behind the right of a secret ballot box and would not say how she voted....... CNN tonight did the same thing, and said she should have just admitted she did not vote for him. Yeh, like that would work Now we know candidates other than Governor Quinn in Illinois are running as far away as possible from the President, but this is getting out of hand. It is as bad as 2008 when Bush had to stay home at the White House and could not back any candidate. Grimes is a longshot in KY. i thought she would have a really good chance. she is, after all, 2x as popular as McConnell. i also reasoned that this is a very anti-incumbent year, if you listen to what people are saying, and if there was ever a guy that reeks of incumbency, it is MM. however, one must never underestimate the power of a seasoned politician. MM has always been a good campaigner, but it is safe to say that he is practically speaking, one of the best at this point. KY is a state where Obama has 12% lower approval than he does nationally. it is a state that Romney won by 22%. if Grimes won at this point, it would be nothing short of a miracle. she should just spill the beans at this point. she has nothing to lose for being honest in a race that she is probably not going to win.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 16, 2014 11:16:53 GMT -5
no change in the overall picture, so the GOP is now about a 70% favourite of winning control.
the GOP is gaining ground in AK, KS (which is now a tossup), and CO. the GOP is losing ground in GA and LA (georgia is now "leans republican") IA is still a complete mystery to me.
Republican solid : 47 Democrat solid: 47
Leaning Republican: AK, LA, GA
Tossup: CO, IA, KS
note: the GOP leads in all SIX of these races, so they could, conceivably, end up with 53.
|
|
Icelandic Woman
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 4, 2011 22:37:53 GMT -5
Posts: 4,832
Location: Colorado
Favorite Drink: Strawberry Lemonade
|
Post by Icelandic Woman on Oct 16, 2014 13:26:19 GMT -5
I am so sick of the political ads I could just scream. Which brings me to a question I thought I would ask all you politically savvy peeps. Why in the hell do we have midterm elections. Why aren't elections just every 4 years period?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 16, 2014 14:41:01 GMT -5
I am so sick of the political ads I could just scream. Which brings me to a question I thought I would ask all you politically savvy peeps. Why in the hell do we have midterm elections. Why aren't elections just every 4 years period? You should move to a politically insignificant backwater. I live in the poorest county of our state, with the smallest population, and it typically goes about 80% for the GOP (very conservative southern state). I think I've seen at most 10 political ads so far this campaign season. We're too small and too solidly GOP to waste media dollars on. It's been very nice
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 16, 2014 14:54:54 GMT -5
I am so sick of the political ads I could just scream. Which brings me to a question I thought I would ask all you politically savvy peeps. Why in the hell do we have midterm elections. Why aren't elections just every 4 years period? i think the idea was to stagger the load. but these days, congresspeople pretty much start campaigning the day they take office.
|
|
Icelandic Woman
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 4, 2011 22:37:53 GMT -5
Posts: 4,832
Location: Colorado
Favorite Drink: Strawberry Lemonade
|
Post by Icelandic Woman on Oct 16, 2014 14:55:01 GMT -5
I am so sick of the political ads I could just scream. Which brings me to a question I thought I would ask all you politically savvy peeps. Why in the hell do we have midterm elections. Why aren't elections just every 4 years period? You should move to a politically insignificant backwater. I live in the poorest county of our state, with the smallest population, and it typically goes about 80% for the GOP (very conservative southern state). I think I've seen at most 10 political ads so far this campaign season. We're too small and too solidly GOP to waste media dollars on. It's been very nice LOL I think moving just to avoid political ads would be a bit of an overreaction but I do envy you, not for the GOP part but for the lack of ads.
|
|
Icelandic Woman
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 4, 2011 22:37:53 GMT -5
Posts: 4,832
Location: Colorado
Favorite Drink: Strawberry Lemonade
|
Post by Icelandic Woman on Oct 16, 2014 14:57:13 GMT -5
I am so sick of the political ads I could just scream. Which brings me to a question I thought I would ask all you politically savvy peeps. Why in the hell do we have midterm elections. Why aren't elections just every 4 years period? i think the idea was to stagger the load. but these days, congresspeople pretty much start campaigning the day they take office. If that was the only reason it was a bad one. I would be fine with just being hit with the full load every 4 years instead of enduring it every other year.
|
|
Icelandic Woman
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 4, 2011 22:37:53 GMT -5
Posts: 4,832
Location: Colorado
Favorite Drink: Strawberry Lemonade
|
Post by Icelandic Woman on Oct 16, 2014 15:11:18 GMT -5
Why aren't (National) elections every four years?
- Members of the House of representatives only serve two year terms- they are up for election every two years.
- Members of the Senate serve 6 year terms, but they are staggered so 1/3 of the body is up for election every two years, maintaining institutional integrity.
The word "mid term" is confusing, because it refers to the President, not the Congress for whom the "mid term" election is really for! The political system in this country is so screwed up. It should be 4 year terms with a 2 term limit for all! Period!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 16, 2014 16:19:54 GMT -5
i think the idea was to stagger the load. but these days, congresspeople pretty much start campaigning the day they take office. If that was the only reason it was a bad one. I would be fine with just being hit with the full load every 4 years instead of enduring it every other year. i disagree. remember, this was set up almost 100 years ago, if you include senate races. elections were not nearly so "public" back then.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 16, 2014 16:20:30 GMT -5
Why aren't (National) elections every four years?
- Members of the House of representatives only serve two year terms- they are up for election every two years.
- Members of the Senate serve 6 year terms, but they are staggered so 1/3 of the body is up for election every two years, maintaining institutional integrity.
The word "mid term" is confusing, because it refers to the President, not the Congress for whom the "mid term" election is really for! The political system in this country is so screwed up. It should be 4 year terms with a 2 term limit for all! Period! personally, i would rather see everyone with (8) year terms and NO term limits, but i would settle for having all campaigns 100% publicly financed.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 16, 2014 16:48:57 GMT -5
I would like us to have a very limited time frame like the Brits.
The prime minister decides to dissolve parliment, he asks the Queen to dissolve it, she does, and then the next election will be held in a month. Everyone gets a month to campaign with a spending cap of 33 million and then they vote.
The Brits aren't any smarter than us. If they can pick a candidate within a month, so can we.
Frankly the longer our politicians campaign, the more chance they have of saying something really dumb, or having a mistress pop out of the woodwork, or text around pictures of his penis.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 16, 2014 22:37:26 GMT -5
Was looking at the other thread about 2 year vs. 4 year elections.
All that tells me is that we have the capacity to completely change congress if we want to- every 2-4 years we can replace everyone. So why don't we? My theory is the majority of people are fucking stupid- and that is backed by the bazillions of wasted money on campaign cash that could have been spent on something positive for the human race. Garbage in, garbage out. Carlin is right- politicians suck because the population sucks- we get exactly what deserve- fuck hope
I am convinced I will die and this country will still be full of assholes arguing about everything while the elite make the rules. Always has been and always will be.
People are stupid- if they were not elections would cost nothing.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 17, 2014 11:22:28 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2014 11:28:41 GMT -5
happy: do you know the status of the 40,000 missing voter registrations?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 17, 2014 11:49:12 GMT -5
happy: do you know the status of the 40,000 missing voter registrations? You mean the mostly black and latino voter registrations? If I had to guess, I would say in someone's car trunk, under a pile of garbage at a landfill, or sunk to the bottom of the Chattahoochie.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2014 0:39:54 GMT -5
happy: do you know the status of the 40,000 missing voter registrations? You mean the mostly black and latino voter registrations? If I had to guess, I would say in someone's car trunk, under a pile of garbage at a landfill, or sunk to the bottom of the Chattahoochie. by "status", i meant "where does it stand", not "where are the registrations". i know the registrations are nowhere.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2014 0:41:48 GMT -5
no change in the overall picture, so the GOP is now about a 70% favourite of winning control. the GOP is gaining ground in AK, KS (which is now a tossup), and CO. the GOP is losing ground in GA and LA (georgia is now "leans republican") IA is still a complete mystery to me. Republican solid : 47 Democrat solid: 47 Leaning Republican: AK, LA, CO Tossup: IA, KS, GA note: the GOP leads in all SIX of these races, so they could, conceivably, end up with 53. i moved Colorado to "leaning Republican", and Georgia to "tossup". same deal though: the GOP still leads in all six, with a little over two weeks to go....... edit: since 4 of those six states are red states, i am putting the odds at 7:3 GOP, as of today. edit2: two of the last three polls show a dead heat in Arkansas, but i can't really think that one will go Democrat, so i am leaving it in solid GOP for now. edit3: i just reviewed all (10) of the key races, and i think that Democrats have reason today for SOME encouragement. the polls have been closing in October, and now most of these races are within polling error. the reason i don't just call all of these races "tossup" is twofold. one is that these states are, for the most part, GOP strongholds- meaning that even a slight lead for the GOP is likely to hold. the other reason is that MOST of the polling still indicates the GOP are heavy favourites in places like AK and LA. it is hard to imagine them losing there, but in half the states, the GOP has lost ground in the last two weeks, but gained ground in CO, LA and KS. in fact, i am going to move LA into the GOP column unless something changes by TUESDAY. dems have to win all (3) tossups, but i think their odds of that are slightly better than 2 weeks ago in two of those. but not enough to ratchet down to 6:4 GOP odds of winning.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 20, 2014 7:09:10 GMT -5
You mean the mostly black and latino voter registrations? If I had to guess, I would say in someone's car trunk, under a pile of garbage at a landfill, or sunk to the bottom of the Chattahoochie. by "status", i meant "where does it stand", not "where are the registrations". i know the registrations are nowhere. Sorry I thought you meant where they physically were Actually the republican secretary of state says there are no missing voter registrations and he has the numbers to prove it. Dems claim they signed up 80,000 voters and half are missing. Whole he said she said thing. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2014 13:48:12 GMT -5
no change in the overall picture, so the GOP is now about a 70% favourite of winning control. the GOP is gaining ground in AK, KS (which is now a tossup), and CO. the GOP is losing ground in GA and LA (georgia is now "leans republican") IA is still a complete mystery to me. Republican solid : 46 Democrat solid: 46 Leaning Republican: AK, LA, CO, AR Leaning Democrat: NH Tossup: IA, KS, GA note: the GOP leads in SEVEN of these races, so they could, conceivably, end up with 53. . i am moving AR back to Leans Republican, and NH back to leans Democrat today. NOTE: SD is moving toward Democrats now. it is far from a tossup, but i might move it to "leans" tomorrow. it is a three way race, and the non-Republicans are both quite competitive. the Independent has gone nowhere, but the Democrat is up 7% in the last (3) weeks of steady gains. this situation is very similar to Kansas, but without the ability for the Democrat to pull out (and in the case of Kansas, the Independent was the stronger of the three candidates). i consider this slightly bad news for the GOP, which now must dedicate personnel and money to states that two months ago were a lock. but again, i still think the GOP is 7:3 to win.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2014 14:48:26 GMT -5
In New Hampshire I will be very surprised if Jean Shaheen (D) loses to out of stater/ flatlander Scott Brown (R) he is definitely getting closer, but like you, i doubt it.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 20, 2014 15:42:12 GMT -5
he is definitely getting closer, but like you, i doubt it. NH does lean Republican, and used to be solidly so* before the GOP went wackadoodle. What really hurts him, aside from being a recent transplant to the state, is that he honed this image for Massachusetts that is just a tad off in NH. A little too cute, and not quite real enough. I am not really explaining it right, and I am not even trying to diss the guy here, but what plays out well in urban and suburban MA only plays well in some parts of NH.
He is just not quite Granite State enough, imo. I could well be wrong, but I don't think so. I think a known quantity like Shaheen wins.
* ETA- the other reason they lean less Republican is people moving in from away- many for the commute to the Boston area, and ironically some of these people are more disposed to vote for Brown- and/ or a Democrat like Shaheen.
Seems to me like Scott Brown is taking up residence in a new state every few years, then running for the senate. I guess he's trying to find a state that's gonna embrace him cuz he's cute.
|
|