2016 Senate

[djAdvocate]

so, Democrats are favored to win the Senate back, but it looks very close.  right now Sabato has it as a 47-47 tie.



let's assume that Democrats and Republicans can put away the (47) each and look at the (6) remaining.

[djAdvocate]

8/9/16

Nevada = R+2.4%
Indiana = NO POLLING
Ohio = R+5.7%
PA = D+0.5%
NH = D+1.0%
Florida = R +4.4%

so, right now, it looks like the GOP will hold onto it, or it will be a tie.

[djAdvocate]

note: this poll was never published, but here is the latest internal poll published for IN:

The July 12-14 survey of 602 likely voters by the Democratic Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group found 54 percent of Hoosiers want Bayh to be their next senator, 33 percent favor Young and 13 percent are undecided, with a margin of error of plus-or-minus 4.1 percent.

this is three weeks old. 

so, right now, this is way too close to call.  if it is a 50-50 split, then whoever wins the WH controls the Senate.

[djAdvocate]

this is a major influencing factor on the congressional races:

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

so is this:

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2016_generic_congressional_vote-5279.html

the top one has been trending Democrat since April, the latter one, since March.  both are at their highest election date level since 2008 (if they hold).

[djAdvocate]

i like the way this site illustrates the race:

www.rollcall.com/news/gonzales/ratings-changes-in-two-top-senate-races

very cool graphic.

[djAdvocate]

holy carp!  Obama is at +7%, and 52% approval.  didn't think i would see this until after the election.

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Aug 10, 2016 1:22:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

so, Democrats are favored to win the Senate back, but it looks very close.  right now Sabato has it as a 47-47 tie.



let's assume that Democrats and Republicans can put away the (47) each and look at the (6) remaining.

So if they do, would you rather a Democrat for President or someone else?

[djAdvocate]

Aug 11, 2016 19:11:29 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Aug 10, 2016 1:22:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

so, Democrats are favored to win the Senate back, but it looks very close.  right now Sabato has it as a 47-47 tie.



let's assume that Democrats and Republicans can put away the (47) each and look at the (6) remaining.

So if they do, would you rather a Democrat for President or someone else?

someone else.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Aug 11, 2016 20:24:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 11, 2016 19:11:29 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

So if they do, would you rather a Democrat for President or someone else?

someone else.

Things probably do work better when the government branches are split between different political powers.

[tallguy]

Back when we actually believed in a "loyal opposition"  I would have agreed with you.  Right-wingers lately have pretty much killed that idea.  Opposition now is neither responsible nor constructive.  It now seems to be more spite. 

[djAdvocate]

i would rate NC a tossup, as well:

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/senate/nc/north_carolina_senate_burr_vs_d_ross-5693.html

this is the pivotal seat, if reply #1 is accurate.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Aug 13, 2016 9:02:17 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Back when we actually believed in a "loyal opposition"  I would have agreed with you.  Right-wingers lately have pretty much killed that idea.  Opposition now is neither responsible nor constructive.  It now seems to be more spite. 

"Left-wingers" were also obstructionists, especially during the last two years under Bush when they really did very little to actually improve anything and actually did whatever they could to keep things form improving...selective memory is a great thing. The reason I remember it is that's when I finally realized democrats were just as full of crap a republicans in saying one things but doing another...it's also when I stopped identifying as a Democrat because the only time either party seems to have any sense is when they are in the minority and complaining about all the things "the other party is doing" when they are just as guilty.  So no, it's wasn't "right-wingers lately" that pretty much killed the idea.

[tallguy]

I will stipulate that both parties were moving away from it, but the Republicans pledged to oppose everything the current President did before he even took office.  That sets a new low ANYWHERE.  So yes, they pretty much killed the idea. 

[djAdvocate]

here is another interesting graphic:

www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Senate/sen_graph-2016.html

it is basically a tie, with the nowcast at 51-49 GOP.  i think that i must have missed a poll or two that they are catching, but i don't have the time to research it, except to say that i would trust this site- they were pretty much spot on in 2014.

[djAdvocate]

no movement here, but Huffington seems to feel that they have something to say:

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-78-percent-chance-50-senate-seats_us_57b8a525e4b0b51733a3cda0

i disagree.  i think their odds are less than 50% of a clear majority, and perhaps 50% of a tie.

[djAdvocate]

this is a very bad sign for Republicans.  of course, it is only one poll, but it is the fourth one in a row that doesn't look good:

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2016_generic_congressional_vote-5279.html

if you guys don't think this survey matters, you need to look into it a bit more.  it has a large influence on elections.

[djAdvocate]

ok.  wow.  EV has the Democrats winning the Senate now:

www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Senate/Maps/Aug22.html

again, i am not sure i buy it, but there it is.

[tallguy]

Aug 23, 2016 6:05:44 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Well McConnell has now said that they may not vote to confirm a Justice to the Supreme Court even AFTER the election, so that can't help their cause.  Sooner or later they have to stop obstructing and just do their jobs!

Says who!

[djAdvocate]

that should actually be the new GOP logo.

[billisonboard]

Aug 23, 2016 6:05:44 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Well McConnell has now said that they may not vote to confirm a Justice to the Supreme Court even AFTER the election, ...

deminmaine , I looked for a story on this and found nothing. Can you help me out please.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 23, 2016 12:47:28 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 23, 2016 6:05:44 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Well McConnell has now said that they may not vote to confirm a Justice to the Supreme Court even AFTER the election, ...

deminmaine , I looked for a story on this and found nothing. Can you help me out please.

Billis-in a couple of weeks, look for a Time Magazine article titled 'Unpacking the court: is eight enough?' That is the article that Dem may be and DJ is referencing.

Also-check your PMs.

[happyhoix]

Aug 24, 2016 5:44:48 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Aug 23, 2016 12:47:28 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

deminmaine , I looked for a story on this and found nothing. Can you help me out please.

billisonboard-
I went back and re-checked the article last night.  What it actually sez is- McConnell has said there will not be a vote before the election, and he won't commit to one even after it.   It goes on to say that several conservative such and so's are also hoping that there will not be a vote after the election if Hillary wins.   That is a bit different.

My apologies for the over reach, and thanks for the query.  As tennesseer suggests above, the content should be available online in a week or two as well.

Wait, how can they refuse to vote on SCJ nominees? Is that even possible?

There's some old farts on the court, is the plan to just let them die off and not replace them as long as a dem is president

[billisonboard]

Aug 24, 2016 10:52:28 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

... Wait, how can they refuse to vote on SCJ nominees? Is that even possible? ...

Wouldn't be interesting if the Supreme Court held the Senate in contempt for not voting on a nominee. Better yet, the POTUS nominates and Supreme Court allows the person to sit on the bench and make rulings. Can anyone say, "Constitutional Crisis"?

[djAdvocate]

so much for respecting the constitution, eh?

[Wisconsin Beth]

Aug 24, 2016 10:52:28 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Aug 24, 2016 5:44:48 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

billisonboard-
I went back and re-checked the article last night.  What it actually sez is- McConnell has said there will not be a vote before the election, and he won't commit to one even after it.   It goes on to say that several conservative such and so's are also hoping that there will not be a vote after the election if Hillary wins.   That is a bit different.

My apologies for the over reach, and thanks for the query.  As tennesseer suggests above, the content should be available online in a week or two as well.

Wait, how can they refuse to vote on SCJ nominees? Is that even possible?

There's some old farts on the court, is the plan to just let them die off and not replace them as long as a dem is president

that's how I took it.

[billisonboard]

Aug 24, 2016 11:50:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

so much for respecting the constitution, eh?

I can respect, to a degree, the Senate holding hearings and voting down nominees until they get one that they feel is acceptable. That would be fulfilling their constitutional responsibility. But this total stonewall is ridiculous.

[dondub]

 This is really no surprise at all.

 Here is Mitch back in late 2008: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for president Obama to be a one term president." The repos have put politics

above governance ever since, including blocking a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have tightened the borders. This is allegedly one of their big issues.

Instead they have allowed it to fester for years.

[happyhoix]

Aug 24, 2016 11:58:21 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 24, 2016 11:50:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

so much for respecting the constitution, eh?

I can respect, to a degree, the Senate holding hearings and voting down nominees until they get one that they feel is acceptable. That would be fulfilling their constitutional responsibility. But this total stonewall is ridiculous.

That's the traditional way to get one that isn't (hopefully) too radical in either direction.

Refusing to consider any nominees at all is equivalent to holding your breath until you turn blue.

[MN-Investor]

Another site you might want to view re 2016 Senate races -

The New York Times - 2016 Senate Election Forecast

The Democrats have a 60% chance of winning the Senate.

Lots of graphs and stuff at the link.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 24, 2016 14:49:30 GMT -5 MN-Investor said:

Another site you might want to view re 2016 Senate races -

The New York Times - 2016 Senate Election Forecast

The Democrats have a 60% chance of winning the Senate.

Lots of graphs and stuff at the link.

i like the Times coverage of the election, but i am reluctant to use them, as some will claim that their bias impacts their reporting on this subject.