'Good map for Dems': Nate Silver assesses odds of GOP winning Senate...all Dems need is to pick up 2 seats (PA &WI) & they don't need Manchin & Sinema

[Oddball]

But late into the morning after Election Day, they keep finding ballots for Democrats. Strange how that works, eh.

Remember in 2016 how the networks waited for hours hoping for more ballots from Philadelphia to show up and give PA to Hillary. Only that time it never happened. But that was an outlier.

Same thing in Michigan....They also put the kibosh on Jill Stein's demand for an audit of the state.....I smelled cheatery that failed right then and there.

 

[basquebromance]

That was a lie and was clearly PROVEN to be a lie. That makes you a LIAR.

or a sarcastic Hillary hater

 

[iceberg]

she did win the presidency though, had Russia and the electoral college and Comey's letter and sexism and ageism not been a factor

Doosh

 

[Esdraelon]

both Green New Deal and Medicare For All for starters, which Fetterman of Pennsylvania and Mandela Barnes of Wisconsin both support

TMK, the only thing the Senate has the power to do, unilaterally, is to approve judges/Justices and to advise and to consent (or refuse) on Treaties with foreign nations. Those two items you listed both will require MASSIVE amounts of future funding, and the House will have to go along for it to happen.

 

[Concerned American]

Nate Silver also said Hillary would win at least 320 electoral votes in 2016. How'd that work out?

Hopefully Tiffany Smiley will break the democrat monopoly in WA. Judging by Patty Murray's advertising, they are plenty worried the democrats will lose that seat.

 

[XponentialChaos]

If Republicans don't win the Senate, they're just going to whine that there was election fraud again.

 

[Winston]

TMK, the only thing the Senate has the power to do, unilaterally, is to approve judges/Justices and to advise and to consent (or refuse) on Treaties with foreign nations. Those two items you listed both will require MASSIVE amounts of future funding, and the House will have to go along for it to happen.

What funding does approving judges and appointees, or ratifying treaties require?

 

[scruffy]

she did win the presidency though,

No she did not.

Not even close.

had Russia and the electoral college and Comey's letter and sexism and ageism not been a factor

Bullshit.

 

[kyzr]

No she did not.
Not even close.

The idiot dems believe their own bullshit polls. One more time... This never gets old...

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yeah, but they don't need the House to unilaterally choose to pack SCOTUS and they most certainly will do so as soon as they are able.

Uh, yeah they do! The House has to pass any law expanding the courts. That is not going to happen!

 

[kyzr]

Dems need to win in WI & PA, not easy, as well as hold serve in their "tossup elections"

(5) Democrats who barely won last time:

Mark Kelly (AZ)

Bennet (CO)

Warnock (GA)

Masto (NV)

Hassan (NH)

I'd bet that not all (D) incumbents will win in November. We'll see how smart voters are.

 

[Care4all]

What part of their agenda? Also, do you think that ramming through unpopular laws on a bare tie-breaker vote will stand for long? They can pack SCOTUS but as soon as the majority flips again, the Rs will just change the balance again. How far are you willing to go in support of your party mandating things rather than negotiating at all? It's going to end badly for us all if that's the course we choose to take. Every 2-4 years we'll see major flips in policy and it will help no one. It just brings secession closer.

But that is what the supreme court did, by their Dobbs decision....they threw out 50 years of stare decisis of the Roe, then Casey decision....

Now we all feel it is just a whacko supreme court with right wing activists.... with their ease in making a reversal of something all of us were told to believe....the State government could not mess with our privacy and self determination rights, and the right to make our own medical decisions.

It makes a mockery out of all supreme court decisions of the past on the subject and makes us not trust them.

Stare decisis is important to the stability and trust, in our legal system..... This court spit on it.

 

[Concerned American]

whacko supreme court with right wing activists

You can actually say that with a straight face? With the likes of Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan and you have the gall to call the other six justices "activist?"

 

[Care4all]

You can actually say that with a straight face? With the likes of Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan and you have the gall to call the other six justices "activist?"

Yes, absolutely!

It was a conservative majority supreme court, with a conservative chief justice, that gave us both the Roe and Casey decisions 45 plus years ago too.... Not a liberal court.

 

[Concerned American]

Yes, absolutely!

It was a conservative majority supreme court, with a conservative chief justice, that gave us both the Roe and Casey decisions 45 plus years ago too.... Not a liberal court.

It has been 50 years since Roe, and the make up of the court is not the issue. You stated that this is an activist court. I beg to differ. This is a constitutionalist court with the exception of the activist, Sotomayor and to a lesser extent Kagan. The jury is still out on Jackson.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yes, absolutely!

It was a conservative majority supreme court, with a conservative chief justice, that gave us both the Roe and Casey decisions 45 plus years ago too.... Not a liberal court.

The Casey decision was in 1992, nowhere near 45 years ago and was a 5-4 decision.

 

[Care4all]

The Casey decision was in 1992, nowhere near 45 years ago and was a 5-4 decision.

Thanks for the correction...