Nate Silver; GOP Controls the Senate after 2014 Election

[candycorn]

Senate Control in 2014 Increasingly Looks Like a Tossup - NYTimes.com

There's a lot to unpack in the post but what it comes down to is a prediction by Nate Silver that the GOP will control the senate after the 2014 election.

I think he's right.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Isn't he the one who predicted Obama would win?

Wasn't he recently a Liberal Darling on these boards?

 

[Freemason9]

Given the floodgates of corporate money that the Republican Supreme Court has opened, I would be very surprised if Democrats can afford to buy many more national elections. We are the end of American representative democracy.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Given the floodgates of corporate money that the Republican Supreme Court has opened, I would be very surprised if Democrats can afford to buy many more national elections. We are the end of American representative democracy.

Are you one of the Low Level Masons? The ones who dress like People of WalMart?

I ask because it seems you're pretty uninformed about Politics, being a Mason and all.

 

[g5000]

Senate Control in 2014 Increasingly Looks Like a Tossup - NYTimes.com

There's a lot to unpack in the post but what it comes down to is a prediction by Nate Silver that the GOP will control the senate after the 2014 election.

I think he's right.

His 2012 election prediction was based on polls. This article is not.

Basically, the guesstimate boils down to the fact that more Democrats are up for re-election than Republicans, which is a "duh" moment since they are in the majority.

Add in the fact that Americans are pissed off at Congress in general, and that does not bode well for incumbents up for re-election.

However, our Congress has become an American Politiburo. For Senators running for re-election, they have an over 80 percent win rate. For Representatives running for re-election, they have an astonishing 98 percent win rate. I am not making those numbers up.

This means seats pretty much only change hands when someone dies or retires in districts or states that are not solid Republican or Democrat.

This is because the field is heavily rigged in the incumbents' favor. Incumbents can and do hand out favors to special interests in the form of tax expenditures (to the tune over over a Trillion dollars a year!) and regulatory controls which favor established special interests and lock out upstarts.


So do the numbers. 80 percent of Democrats up for re-election will win. So how many GOP wins does that mean?

80 percent of Republicans up for re-election will win. So how many Democratic wins does that mean?

 

[Freemason9]

Given the floodgates of corporate money that the Republican Supreme Court has opened, I would be very surprised if Democrats can afford to buy many more national elections. We are the end of American representative democracy.

Are you one of the Low Level Masons? The ones who dress like People of WalMart?

I ask because it seems you're pretty uninformed about Politics, being a Mason and all.

Money controls elections. Corporations control money. The GOP is pro-corporate.

Hence, the GOP will win elections.

Simple enough, porkchop?

 

[candycorn]

Isn't he the one who predicted Obama would win?

Wasn't he recently a Liberal Darling on these boards?

Not so much of a liberal darling as a pariah in crazy koo koo land (AKA Conservistan)

 

[candycorn]

Senate Control in 2014 Increasingly Looks Like a Tossup - NYTimes.com

There's a lot to unpack in the post but what it comes down to is a prediction by Nate Silver that the GOP will control the senate after the 2014 election.

I think he's right.

His 2012 election prediction was based on polls. This article is not.

Basically, the guesstimate boils down to the fact that more Democrats are up for re-election than Republicans, which is a "duh" moment since they are in the majority.

Add in the fact that Americans are pissed off at Congress in general, and that does not bode well for incumbents up for re-election.

However, our Congress has become an American Politiburo. For Senators running for re-election, they have an over 80 percent win rate. For Representatives running for re-election, they have an astonishing 98 percent win rate. I am not making those numbers up.

This means seats pretty much only change hands when someone dies or retires in districts or states that are not solid Republican or Democrat.

This is because the field is heavily rigged in the incumbents' favor. Incumbents can and do hand out favors to special interests in the form of tax expenditures (to the tune over over a Trillion dollars a year!) and regulatory controls which favor established special interests and lock out upstarts.


So do the numbers. 80 percent of Democrats up for re-election will win. So how many GOP wins does that mean?

80 percent of Republicans up for re-election will win. So how many Democratic wins does that mean?

In 2016, there are more GOP seats in play just like Dem seats today.

 

[g5000]

19 Democrats are up for re-election in 2014. Three of them are retiring (Baucus, Johnson, Rockefeller). Ed Markey was elected to fill Kerry's seat when Kerry was appointed as SecState, and he is up for re-election in 2014.

Johnson and Rockefeller's seats have a good chance of flipping to the GOP. Baucus's seat will stay blue.


Of the remaining 16 Democrats, let's say 80 percent get re-elected, sticking with the formual I mentioned above. That's 13 seats.

So that means of 19 Democrats seats up for election, 16 will stay Democrat, while three will go Republican.


14 Republicans are up for re-election. Two are retiring (Chambliss and Johanns).

Chambliss and Johanns are in deep red states. Their seats will stay Republican.

Then there is the NJ appointee, Jeff Chiesa. He just got there, and there is going to be a special election for that seat this October. Whoever wins that seat will have to run for re-election in 2014. Pretty wild.

I'm going to call that seat a win for the Democrats.

That leaves 11 Republicans who will experience the 80 percent formula I am using. Which means 9 will stay GOP, 2 will change hands.


That translates to a net loss of 0 to 1 seats for the Democrats in 2014. Barring an economic crash or alien invasion, the Democrats maintain their majority. If the economy really starts to pick up, the Democrats may see their majority actually get larger.

 

[RadioRefugee]

Silver blew 2010, got 2012 right and by 2014....who knows?

Working for the Times makes every word suspect.

 

[konradv]

This is because the field is heavily rigged in the incumbents' favor. Incumbents can and do hand out favors to special interests in the form of tax expenditures (to the tune over over a Trillion dollars a year!) and regulatory controls which favor established special interests and lock out upstarts.

IMO, it's why we should go to public financing of elections. If candidates didn't need big donors, they wouldn't need to keep giving out expensive hand-outs.

 

[g5000]

This is because the field is heavily rigged in the incumbents' favor. Incumbents can and do hand out favors to special interests in the form of tax expenditures (to the tune over over a Trillion dollars a year!) and regulatory controls which favor established special interests and lock out upstarts.

IMO, it's why we should go to public financing of elections. If candidates didn't need big donors, they wouldn't need to keep giving out expensive hand-outs.

No, that is treating the symptom instead of the disease.

One large part of the cure is to ban tax expenditures. You should not be penalized with higher taxes for not buying a house or for not particpating in any number of other government social engineering and behaviorial modification schemes. The current structure is highly regressive, and it is how we arrived at the individual health insurance mandate.

It makes absolutely no sense two people, or two business entities, earning identical incomes are paying widely different income taxes, all to preserve the American Politiboro's hold on personal power.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Given the floodgates of corporate money that the Republican Supreme Court has opened, I would be very surprised if Democrats can afford to buy many more national elections. We are the end of American representative democracy.

Are you one of the Low Level Masons? The ones who dress like People of WalMart?

I ask because it seems you're pretty uninformed about Politics, being a Mason and all.

Money controls elections. Corporations control money. The GOP is pro-corporate. Hence, the GOP will win elections. Simple enough, porkchop?

Obama was the first Billion Dollar Candidate.
Team Obama raises $1 billion - Kenneth P. Vogel and Dan Berman - POLITICO.com
Money Controls Elections
Bankers Control Money
The Democrats are Pro Banker

Hence, the Democrats will win elections.

It's a simple enough concept for even a Low Level Mason like you to understand.

 

[Avatar4321]

Given the floodgates of corporate money that the Republican Supreme Court has opened, I would be very surprised if Democrats can afford to buy many more national elections. We are the end of American representative democracy.

First, you guys said that in 2012. It seems to have worked out well for you.

Second, no one should be buying elections. If Democrats are doing that, then we have a pretty big problem.

Third, We have a Representative REPUBLIC.

 

[Avatar4321]

This is because the field is heavily rigged in the incumbents' favor. Incumbents can and do hand out favors to special interests in the form of tax expenditures (to the tune over over a Trillion dollars a year!) and regulatory controls which favor established special interests and lock out upstarts.

IMO, it's why we should go to public financing of elections. If candidates didn't need big donors, they wouldn't need to keep giving out expensive hand-outs.

So instead of donating or not donating to candidates we choose, the government is going to mandate that our hard work supports every nut job out there?

No thanks.

 

[NightFox]

The GOP is pro-corporate.

Surely you jest...... Did you completely miss the reality that crony capitalism and influence peddling are the favorite past times of BOTH major parties? Take the hyper-partisan blinders off, the truth is ugly but at least it's the truth and it beats living in a partisan fantasy world.

 

[g5000]

Obama was the first Billion Dollar Candidate.

Key word, "first". He won't be the last.

Just more evidence the campaign finance "reform" of the past 40 years has been completely ineffective, and always will be. Despite all the "reforms" of the past 40 years, the re-election rate of the American Politboro has remained unchanged.

Because we keep treating the symptoms and not the disease.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Silver doesn't say what your headline does.

"A race-by-race analysis of the Senate, in fact, suggests that Republicans might now be close to even-money to win control of the chamber after next year’s elections. "

Isn't the truth optimistic enough for you?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Silver blew 2010, got 2012 right and by 2014....who knows?

Working for the Times makes every word suspect.

I think he works for ESPN doesn't he?

 

[NightFox]

Silver doesn't say what your headline does.

"A race-by-race analysis of the Senate, in fact, suggests that Republicans might now be close to even-money to win control of the chamber after next year’s elections. "

Isn't the truth optimistic enough for you?

Just out of curiosity, what's "optimistic" about that? If it said "It appears that None of the Above will take control of the Senate" or "the American People are ready to outsource the Senate to Switzerland" THAT would be optimistic but predicting that another group of miscreants with a different letter behind their names might take control, that's not optimistic.. that's "same crap, different day" stuff.