2014 battle for control of the US Senate

Americans will not work for $12 an hour in the fields anymore.

They will if you take their welfare check away.

You are a true patriot and clearly proud of your fellow Americans.

What do you have against people having to work for a living? Are you one of the people collecting the welfare checks?
the majority of people on welfare need it .....it wil be ironic when the day comes when you need it and can't get it ....
 
Don't put it past democrats to throw both the 2014 and 2016 elections. It would be to their best interests to lose both.

We are rapidly approaching an unavoidable conflict with radical islam. How better to blame the coming conflict on republicans but to put them in charge on the eve of such war?
Republicans Start The Wars, Democrats Finish Them
 


That is EXTREMELY optomistic for the Democrats EXTREMELY. And not in line with current polling data at all.

Though I am a Democrat, when it comes to polling numbers, I am brutally neutral. The numbers have been and are still pointing toward a GOP take-over of the Senate in 2014, which would also be right in line with electoral history.
The GOP looks to be in the lead. But, they've had a tendency to really screw it up in 2012
 
Why do you think the GOP symbol is Dumbo all grown up? Of course running against a herd of braying jackasses when arrogance beats stupidity in straight sets for the utter futile foolishness sweepstakes being dumb isn't so bad.
 
The GOP looks to be in the lead. But, they've had a tendency to really screw it up in 2012

True, but second-term mid-terms tend to be even more brutal to sitting presidents and their parties than the first-term mid-terms were.

See:

Bush 43 2006
Reagan 1986
NIxon/Ford 1974
Kennedy/Johnson 1966
Eisenhower 1958
FDR/Truman 1946

Big exception:

Clinton 1998

With luck, the DEMS might be able to battle the GOP to a 50-50 tie, including Angus King.

The DEMS could win GA and KY and the independent (Orman) could take Kansas away from the GOP, but the GOP would still need only 8 seats to win, and three of them are already for all intents and purposes in the bag. Getting another 5, even in this scenario, is very doable for the GOP.

I'm not writing this because I am suddenly a cheerleader for the GOP. Obviously, I am not. But I have always been and always will be brutally neutral when it comes to the numbers. And the aggregates are currently showing the DEMS in a terrible position, and that is BEFORE a possible GOP wave could form. In this kind of environment, the GOP will pick-up MT, SD and WV - even the DEMS are pretty much conceding these states. And right now, the DEM incumbents are fighting for their political lives in IA, AR and LA. All of those three seats could very easily flip, with polling being so tight. CO, AK and NC are the next tier of states where it is extremely close, but the DEM candidates are just a nose ahead. The GOP could easily pick-up those states if a large wave appears. And two of those races were races that, 6 years ago, were landslide wins for the Democrat. So, there are nine states right there that the GOP could sweep, irrespective of potential losses in KY, GA and now, KS.

Now, were Democrats to register and go to vote in mid-terms with the same fervor as they do in presidential elections, we would not even have to be talking about this, but Democrats have a historically bad record of voter apathy when it comes to mid-terms and then they wake up the next morning and say "whutt?? whutt happened?". Republican voters, the die-hards, on the other hand, have proven themselves to be more disciplined and more aware when it comes to mid-terms.

That could, of course, change in this year. Already, the voter registration figures I am collecting are showing that indeed, more people are registering in 2014 than registered in 2010, four years ago, but that may barely be keeping pace with the natural population growth of our Union.

The VERY best case scenario for the DEMS is that they pick-up both KY and GA (both very real possibilities), the Independent wins in KS (a VERY real possibility) and then caucuses with the Democrats (also a very real possibility), the McDaniels supporters bawk in MS, making the race competitive and therefore forcing the GOP to sink money into the state, and then, the DEMS hold 2 of the 3 upper-tier close states. I bet that, when all is said and done, Mark Begich pulls this one out in Alaska: he barely won six years ago, but now has universal name recognition in AK and with the unusual situation that just occured with the gubernatorial, where the DEM has pulled out and a Unity-ticket was formed with the Independent and the former Democratic Sen. candidate, a certain number of voters who vote for that Unity-ticket will likely also vote for Begich. Also, Hagan in NC is staying a nose ahead of Tillis, who has a lot of baggage and who debates badly. Since the demographics of NC are changing, I think she will pull it out. Likewise, in IA, Braley is a fighter and Jodi Ernst also has baggage. For the same reasons as NC, I bet that Braley pulls it out.

Udall comes from a family of political fighters and 2010 proved that even in bad years for the Democratic party, a Democrat can win in CO. Wait and see. This will depend on DEM voter engagement or apathy in Denver and the outlying regions.

But I have real doubts about AR and LA, for the same type of demographic reasons as for NC: both of those states are becoming deeper and deeper red states and Mary Landrieu, whom I like and respect, may have used up the rest of her constituents' good will. It may very well be that the third time is not a charm for her at all.

Pryor is an interesting candidate in AR, because he is campaigning based ON Obamacare and not against it, and although he is doing the right thing imo, he will likely lose. If both Clintons head to their former home-state and campaign like hell for him, he may just pull this one out, but we are talking about a state that went for Jimmy Carter by +30.01% in 1976 to a state that went for Mitt Romney (who is NOT a born again evangelical or Southern Baptist, as Jimmy Carter was) by +23.69% in 2012. That's a 53.7% shift in the statistics from blue to red over 36 years (roughly 1.5 generations). Most people do not know that Mitt Romney made electoral history in 2012 in Arkansas:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond CNN Presidential Election calls 1992-2012 a timeline study

By the way, Mitt Romney set an electoral record in Arkansas in 2012: This is the first time in television history that Arkansas has been called immediately for a Republican candidate. In fact, this is first time EVER that Arkansas has been called immediately for a Republican.

I made that observation way back in June, 2013.

Usually, I don't make big comparisons between presidential cycles and mid-terms, because often, the two don't jive with each other at all, but AR doesn't do voter registration by party affiliation - all we can really go on is how voters have behaved in the past. And in the AR General Assembly, both houses are in the hands of the GOP. In the AR House it went from D-54 R-46 in the last assembly to R-51 D-48 GREEN-1 in the current session. In the AR Senate, it went from D-20 R-15 to R-21 D-14 (now: R-22 D-13). A Republican, John Boozman, unseated Democratic incumbent Blanche Lincoln in the 2010 Senatorial in a landslide. All four of Arkansas' congressional seats are in the hands of Republicans. All four of them won their seats in 2012 with landslide margins. Womack won his seat with 76% of the vote. Tom Cotton, who is now challenging for the senate seat, won his congressional seat in 2012 by +22.

The only real ray of sunshine for the Democats in AR is Governor Mike Beebe (who I think could be a real presidential contender), who, in the middle of the Tea Party wave of 2010, held his seat and won re-election over Republican Keet by +30. Beebe has never gone under 70% favorability in his state, not once. I know of no other Governor in modern history who can make this claim. If anyone can correct this statement, please do, but I have been looking and not found another example comparable with Beebe vis-a-vis favorabillity/unfavorability.

But other than Gov. Beebe, the state is about as red as red can get. And Tom Cotton is considered a major rising star in the GOP. Politico rated him as "most likely to succeed" way back in January, 2013. I just don't see how Mark Pryor survives in this mid-term atmosphere. Wait and see.

Looking at the mid-terms right now, even in September, is a lot like looking at John King's analysis of the 2012 election night returns, starting at 11 PM, after California, Washington State and Hawaii were called for Obama, bringing him to 229 EV (FOX already had him at 242 at that time). King went through the electoral map of the states left an summized the states that were very likely to go for Obama, like NV and NM and WI, and within 10 minutes, they did. It got to the point where King simply reminded that Obama only needed just one state out of 6 possible hitherto uncalled states to win. It was obvious that Obama had the better cards in his hand. Just as it is very obvious that the GOP has had the better cards in it's hand all year this year, and still does right now. And that is BEFORE a potential wave (which is not registering yet) may appear.

And even if the DEMS race to a 50-50 draw, Angus King could tip the scales overnight and switch caucuses, were the GOP to offer him more juicy assignments than he already has. King could literally become the "King-maker" of 2014. But it is unlikely that it will be that close.

So, the next time conservatives think I only talk down GOP candidates, remember this posting. In many states, the GOP is fielding a better crew than it did in 2010. It will now come down to GOTV and voter intensity.
 
Remember that our GOP has had trouble with total numbers for a long time.

We did everything right, the Dems did almost every thing wrong, and we still fell short in the popular vote and needed to be bailed out by USSC.
 
I see using the Blue I button makes you feel better, Henry, and makes me laugh at you. :lol:
 
Senate race should be interesting

Right now, republicans have a slight lead but I am for NC and Kansas to flip
 
Yeah, but enough? And if the I wins, he will caucus with the majority party.
 
The GOP looks to be in the lead. But, they've had a tendency to really screw it up in 2012

True, but second-term mid-terms tend to be even more brutal to sitting presidents and their parties than the first-term mid-terms were.

See:

Bush 43 2006
Reagan 1986
NIxon/Ford 1974
Kennedy/Johnson 1966
Eisenhower 1958
FDR/Truman 1946

Big exception:

Clinton 1998

With luck, the DEMS might be able to battle the GOP to a 50-50 tie, including Angus King.

The DEMS could win GA and KY and the independent (Orman) could take Kansas away from the GOP, but the GOP would still need only 8 seats to win, and three of them are already for all intents and purposes in the bag. Getting another 5, even in this scenario, is very doable for the GOP.

I'm not writing this because I am suddenly a cheerleader for the GOP. Obviously, I am not. But I have always been and always will be brutally neutral when it comes to the numbers. And the aggregates are currently showing the DEMS in a terrible position, and that is BEFORE a possible GOP wave could form. In this kind of environment, the GOP will pick-up MT, SD and WV - even the DEMS are pretty much conceding these states. And right now, the DEM incumbents are fighting for their political lives in IA, AR and LA. All of those three seats could very easily flip, with polling being so tight. CO, AK and NC are the next tier of states where it is extremely close, but the DEM candidates are just a nose ahead. The GOP could easily pick-up those states if a large wave appears. And two of those races were races that, 6 years ago, were landslide wins for the Democrat. So, there are nine states right there that the GOP could sweep, irrespective of potential losses in KY, GA and now, KS.

Now, were Democrats to register and go to vote in mid-terms with the same fervor as they do in presidential elections, we would not even have to be talking about this, but Democrats have a historically bad record of voter apathy when it comes to mid-terms and then they wake up the next morning and say "whutt?? whutt happened?". Republican voters, the die-hards, on the other hand, have proven themselves to be more disciplined and more aware when it comes to mid-terms.

That could, of course, change in this year. Already, the voter registration figures I am collecting are showing that indeed, more people are registering in 2014 than registered in 2010, four years ago, but that may barely be keeping pace with the natural population growth of our Union.

The VERY best case scenario for the DEMS is that they pick-up both KY and GA (both very real possibilities), the Independent wins in KS (a VERY real possibility) and then caucuses with the Democrats (also a very real possibility), the McDaniels supporters bawk in MS, making the race competitive and therefore forcing the GOP to sink money into the state, and then, the DEMS hold 2 of the 3 upper-tier close states. I bet that, when all is said and done, Mark Begich pulls this one out in Alaska: he barely won six years ago, but now has universal name recognition in AK and with the unusual situation that just occured with the gubernatorial, where the DEM has pulled out and a Unity-ticket was formed with the Independent and the former Democratic Sen. candidate, a certain number of voters who vote for that Unity-ticket will likely also vote for Begich. Also, Hagan in NC is staying a nose ahead of Tillis, who has a lot of baggage and who debates badly. Since the demographics of NC are changing, I think she will pull it out. Likewise, in IA, Braley is a fighter and Jodi Ernst also has baggage. For the same reasons as NC, I bet that Braley pulls it out.

Udall comes from a family of political fighters and 2010 proved that even in bad years for the Democratic party, a Democrat can win in CO. Wait and see. This will depend on DEM voter engagement or apathy in Denver and the outlying regions.

But I have real doubts about AR and LA, for the same type of demographic reasons as for NC: both of those states are becoming deeper and deeper red states and Mary Landrieu, whom I like and respect, may have used up the rest of her constituents' good will. It may very well be that the third time is not a charm for her at all.

Pryor is an interesting candidate in AR, because he is campaigning based ON Obamacare and not against it, and although he is doing the right thing imo, he will likely lose. If both Clintons head to their former home-state and campaign like hell for him, he may just pull this one out, but we are talking about a state that went for Jimmy Carter by +30.01% in 1976 to a state that went for Mitt Romney (who is NOT a born again evangelical or Southern Baptist, as Jimmy Carter was) by +23.69% in 2012. That's a 53.7% shift in the statistics from blue to red over 36 years (roughly 1.5 generations). Most people do not know that Mitt Romney made electoral history in 2012 in Arkansas:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond CNN Presidential Election calls 1992-2012 a timeline study

By the way, Mitt Romney set an electoral record in Arkansas in 2012: This is the first time in television history that Arkansas has been called immediately for a Republican candidate. In fact, this is first time EVER that Arkansas has been called immediately for a Republican.

I made that observation way back in June, 2013.

Usually, I don't make big comparisons between presidential cycles and mid-terms, because often, the two don't jive with each other at all, but AR doesn't do voter registration by party affiliation - all we can really go on is how voters have behaved in the past. And in the AR General Assembly, both houses are in the hands of the GOP. In the AR House it went from D-54 R-46 in the last assembly to R-51 D-48 GREEN-1 in the current session. In the AR Senate, it went from D-20 R-15 to R-21 D-14 (now: R-22 D-13). A Republican, John Boozman, unseated Democratic incumbent Blanche Lincoln in the 2010 Senatorial in a landslide. All four of Arkansas' congressional seats are in the hands of Republicans. All four of them won their seats in 2012 with landslide margins. Womack won his seat with 76% of the vote. Tom Cotton, who is now challenging for the senate seat, won his congressional seat in 2012 by +22.

The only real ray of sunshine for the Democats in AR is Governor Mike Beebe (who I think could be a real presidential contender), who, in the middle of the Tea Party wave of 2010, held his seat and won re-election over Republican Keet by +30. Beebe has never gone under 70% favorability in his state, not once. I know of no other Governor in modern history who can make this claim. If anyone can correct this statement, please do, but I have been looking and not found another example comparable with Beebe vis-a-vis favorabillity/unfavorability.

But other than Gov. Beebe, the state is about as red as red can get. And Tom Cotton is considered a major rising star in the GOP. Politico rated him as "most likely to succeed" way back in January, 2013. I just don't see how Mark Pryor survives in this mid-term atmosphere. Wait and see.

Looking at the mid-terms right now, even in September, is a lot like looking at John King's analysis of the 2012 election night returns, starting at 11 PM, after California, Washington State and Hawaii were called for Obama, bringing him to 229 EV (FOX already had him at 242 at that time). King went through the electoral map of the states left an summized the states that were very likely to go for Obama, like NV and NM and WI, and within 10 minutes, they did. It got to the point where King simply reminded that Obama only needed just one state out of 6 possible hitherto uncalled states to win. It was obvious that Obama had the better cards in his hand. Just as it is very obvious that the GOP has had the better cards in it's hand all year this year, and still does right now. And that is BEFORE a potential wave (which is not registering yet) may appear.

And even if the DEMS race to a 50-50 draw, Angus King could tip the scales overnight and switch caucuses, were the GOP to offer him more juicy assignments than he already has. King could literally become the "King-maker" of 2014. But it is unlikely that it will be that close.

So, the next time conservatives think I only talk down GOP candidates, remember this posting. In many states, the GOP is fielding a better crew than it did in 2010. It will now come down to GOTV and voter intensity.
I'm not cheerleading for the Democrats on this, either. Obama sat back and wouldn't hit back on the TeaBagged attacks on the ACA. And, he and Democrats went way too small on the stimulus, and didn't focus more of it on big spending infrastructure projects, or come up with more money for states to keep more state workers in their jobs, back in 2010.
 
Bernie will not caucus with the GOP: why would a bear use an outhouse when he has the woods?

But an I win in KS will have the winner caucusing with the majority party, whether Pub or Dem.

It's about power.
 
If Orman wins, then that would mean 3 I's in the Senate and Jake is right about Bernie Sanders - he is a socialist and is not going to caucus with the GOP. But both Angus King and Mark Orman could. That being said, it is unlikely. Orman is a FORMER Republican who then tried a Democratic bid for Senate, I believe it was, 2 years ago. He is pro Obamacare and he is socially pretty progressive. So, an Orman win down in Oz-land really would be a shock for the GOP, to say the least. Not a deadly shock, but a shock nonetheless.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top