24 GOP Senate seats will have to be defended this year

[nat4900]

dems might take the senate. It would not surprise me. They are not going to get a super majority though.

Perhaps.....a super majority may be "a bridge too far"....but still a possibility in a presidential election cycle, and because of a high degree of disappointment in what senate republicans promised and then "delivered".

 

[candycorn]

Dems take White House and Senate, House stays GOP.

 

[SwimExpert]

Sorry, but I am against giving the keys to just one party.

What we really need is to have a multiplicity of parties, forcing cooperative coalitions to be continually rebuilt every two years.

No.. Our government should be made up of Statesmen( women). Not politicians.

Well, for that matter our government should be made up of unicorn tamers and fairies.

 

[SwimExpert]

Sorry, but I am against giving the keys to just one party.

What we really need is to have a multiplicity of parties, forcing cooperative coalitions to be continually rebuilt every two years.

That's maybe the one thing the founders never accounted for. That 1 party could control everything. But then again, they've only held on to it for a couple of years when it's happened.

It would be nice for there to be some kind of check to balance things when one party rules it all.

The irony is that the founders actually screwed the pooch on this one. You want a check to balance out the power, but what most people don't realize is that the "check" the founders put in actually gives rise to the problem. Because the constitution demands absolute majorities for election of the President, the system was destined to devolve to a dichotomy.

 

[SwimExpert]

What we really need is to have a multiplicity of parties, forcing cooperative coalitions to be continually rebuilt every two years.

Basically the parliament system.

No, not at all. That you would make such a claim is a disturbing reflection of your lack of understanding of the two systems and the inherent differences between them.

The Parliamentary system is one that combines legislative and executive functions into a single body. In addition, the body has virtually limitless legislative range. For example, in the UK, all acts of Parliament are inherently constitutional.

By contrast, a Presidential system maintains a strict separation between the legislative and executive functions of the government. Because the roles are independent from each other the potential for oppressive government is reduced. An oppressive legislative action cannot be enforced if the President is unwilling to do so.

Neither of these systems has anything to do with the diversity of political alliances or affiliations. However, your response does highlight the painfully simplified perspective to which American political thought has degraded in the 21st century.

 

[BluesLegend]

Keep this in mind: There are 24 GOP senate seats to defend

Keep this in mind, a majority are sick of the Democrats lies and failures hence the historic beatings the Democrats suffered in 2010 and 2014 losing 1,200 seats nationally, governorships, an ass kicking so historic you have to go all the way back to 1921 to find a ***** slapping that epic. So bring it!

 

[nat4900]

Keep this in mind, a majority are sick of the Democrats lies and failures hence the historic beatings the Democrats suffered in 2010 and 2014 losing 1,200 seats nationally, governorships, an ass kicking so historic you have to go all the way back to 1921 to find a ***** slapping that epic. So bring it!

Some day.....maybe....you'll learn the difference between mid-term and presidential election cycles.

 

[BluesLegend]

Keep this in mind, a majority are sick of the Democrats lies and failures hence the historic beatings the Democrats suffered in 2010 and 2014 losing 1,200 seats nationally, governorships, an ass kicking so historic you have to go all the way back to 1921 to find a ***** slapping that epic. So bring it!

Some day.....maybe....you'll learn the difference between mid-term and presidential election cycles.

Ahahaha you fools even with Obama on the ballot in 2012 lying his ass off barely scraped back 6 of the 56 seats you lost in 2010. OH SNAP!! And when Obama's lies became obvious in 2014, when his personal apology on national tv taking the blame fell on deaf ears WHAMO voters spanked the Dem's again in another blow out loss.

 

[FA_Q2]

The GOP will lose seats in the House, but, I think, retain a majority. In the Senate, we have the same situation as 2014, only with the parties reversed. That will go Dem. The Presidency, Dem. The GOP has a severe image problem with the far right wingnuts setting the agenda.

Not it won't. Just a handful of the 24 senate seats are 'vulnerable'
According to the info in this link Johnson of Wisconsin, Toomey of PA and Kirk in Illinois....There is also the seat held by Rubio in Florida which is a toss up.
For Democrats, the seat held by fmr Sen majority leader Harry Reed is up for grabs. It will be interesting to see if Nevada which has leaned democrat in recent POTUS elections does not tilt back to the right
It looks like if the tea leaves are being read correctly the dems may pick up 1-3 seats giving them 49.
Senate 2016: Sorting Out the Democrats' Best Targets - Rasmussen Reports™

And that is accurate from everything I read also. I figure that if Kirk holds Illinois, it is going to be a very bad election day for the Democrats though; in fact, even if it is a close loss.

Why?

The dems are very likely to retain the WH. No matter what happens in the senate, that is still a rather good day for the democrats.

 

[FA_Q2]

dems might take the senate. It would not surprise me. They are not going to get a super majority though.

Perhaps.....a super majority may be "a bridge too far"....but still a possibility in a presidential election cycle, and because of a high degree of disappointment in what senate republicans promised and then "delivered".

You are banking on something that really is not there. The right is not really unhappy with what has been 'delivered' because they have a patsy for that - Obama. The WH has always been the scapegoat for what ever the party that does not have the WH does/does not accomplish.

The only true unhappiness comes from the far right whenever someone voted for something Obama supported and those people are going to vote the republican ticket no matter what.

 

[OnePercenter]

Keep this in mind, a majority are sick of the Democrats lies and failures hence the historic beatings the Democrats suffered in 2010 and 2014 losing 1,200 seats nationally, governorships, an ass kicking so historic you have to go all the way back to 1921 to find a ***** slapping that epic. So bring it!

The only thing that proves is that the typical voter DOES HAVE a six month memory span.

The effects of the Republican-BushCo-corporate America failure of 2001-2008 are the reasons the middle class are having financial problems today.