Nate Silver Says GOP Has 60% Chance To Take The Senate This November

[Pens1566]

Well we shall see. This guy has been wrong on a lot of stuff even the 2012 elections..LOL

Who has been wrong on a lot of stuff? Silver?

 

[hal2kilo]

I will not be surprised if the Republicans regain the majority in the Senate. History is on the Republicans side and the execution of the ACA has been seriously flawed.

Sometimes reality sucks. Prospects should be better for the Dems in 2016.

 

[Zaap]

The party needs to moderate on social issues to some degree...if that's Democrat Lite then so be it imo.

Most "social issues" are a truckload of bullshit designed to distract and divide people. I agree only in the sense that Republicans should stop even getting caught up in the bullshit and let Dims do all the pandering, poverty pimping and snake oil selling that most things passing for "social issues" revolve around.

Reps need to stop being Dim Lite (or even worse than Dims) when it comes to government power grabs and abuse, and fiscal insanity.

 

[Vic]

Most "social issues" are a truckload of bullshit designed to distract and divide people. I agree only in the sense that Republicans should stop even getting caught up in the bullshit and let Dims do all the pandering, poverty pimping and snake oil selling that most things passing for "social issues" revolve around.

Reps need to stop being Dim Lite (or even worse than Dims) when it comes to government power grabs and abuse, and fiscal insanity.

Yeah, individual liberty is just a truckload of bullshit. Keep thinking that way, buddy.

 

[dank69]

Most "social issues" are a truckload of bullshit designed to distract and divide people. I agree only in the sense that Republicans should stop even getting caught up in the bullshit and let Dims do all the pandering, poverty pimping and snake oil selling that most things passing for "social issues" revolve around.

Reps need to stop being Dim Lite (or even worse than Dims) when it comes to government power grabs and abuse, and fiscal insanity.

If Dems are the standard for government power-grabs, that would make the GOP high test.

 

[HTFOff]

Along with their anti marijuana legalization agenda

Ahem.

The Bolsheviks ( or Democrat, for the layman) have held 2 out of 3 branches of government for quite some time now. Can you provide me with a bill, executive order or amendment to the control substances act which makes marijuana legal? Not some bullshit "guidelines" which mean dick, lest you make it convenient for the GOP( if and when they retake gov't) to enforce laws already on the books. Because federal preemption, and shit. (Washington, Colorado.)

 

[Zaap]

Yeah, individual liberty is just a truckload of bullshit. Keep thinking that way, buddy.

LOL! Like libs or Dims are for individual liberty!

So it's opposite day around here again?

 

[dank69]

Ahem.

The Bolsheviks ( or Democrat, for the layman) have held 2 out of 3 branches of government for quite some time now. Can you provide me with a bill, executive order or amendment to the control substances act which makes marijuana legal? Not some bullshit "guidelines" which mean dick, lest you make it convenient for the GOP( if and when they retake gov't) to enforce laws already on the books. Because federal preemption, and shit. (Washington, Colorado.)

Do you know where Bills originate?

 

[FerrelGeek]

What I'm saying is that Reid may very well re-instate the filibuster so that the (minority) dems can block again. It may be a moot point, as you allude, but it wouldn't surprise me. Everything in DC is politics / power and you and me be damned. But either way, the biggest impact of the reps winning the senate will be appointments.

Obama is no Clinton. Clinton at least signed on to some things the reps sent to him after they won majority. Obama will still use his phone and pen to do whatever he wants for his last 2 years.

That doesn't make any sense.

Reid only eliminated the filibuster on most presidential appointments, why would he reinstate that while Obama is still president? Also, considering the pretty decent likelihood that the Democrats would control the Senate again in 2016 even if a Republican wins the White House it wouldn't matter then either.

 

[dank69]

What I'm saying is that Reid may very well re-instate the filibuster so that the (minority) dems can block again. It may be a moot point, as you allude, but it wouldn't surprise me. Everything in DC is politics / power and you and me be damned. But either way, the biggest impact of the reps winning the senate will be appointments.

Obama is no Clinton. Clinton at least signed on to some things the reps sent to him after they won majority. Obama will still use his phone and pen to do whatever he wants for his last 2 years.

Like the repeal of Glass-Steagall?

 

[hal2kilo]

Like the repeal of Glass-Steagall?

Good one.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

What I'm saying is that Reid may very well re-instate the filibuster so that the (minority) dems can block again. It may be a moot point, as you allude, but it wouldn't surprise me. Everything in DC is politics / power and you and me be damned. But either way, the biggest impact of the reps winning the senate will be appointments.

Obama is no Clinton. Clinton at least signed on to some things the reps sent to him after they won majority. Obama will still use his phone and pen to do whatever he wants for his last 2 years.

Wait, what would the Senate Democrats block that they can't block under the current rules? This still makes absolutely no sense.

Also, the median ideology of the Republicans in Congress is much, much further to the right than when Clinton was in office. As a great example, John Boehner was considered one of the radical new Republicans when he joined. Now he's considered a RINO. Willing to compromise with 90's era Republicans is nothing like trying to compromise with 2014 Republicans. The current crop has radicalized to a pretty serious extent.

 

[Vic]

LOL! Like libs or Dims are for individual liberty!

So it's opposite day around here again?

Hey, you were the one who said it.

 

[FerrelGeek]

If Dems are the standard for government power-grabs, that would make the GOP high test.

 

[werepossum]

I was going to say something similar, but I like your version much better

That being said, if the stupid party does manage to pull of a majority win, Reid will ensure that the filibuster is re-instated on the last hour that he's majority leader. Can't let THEM have the power he deemed necessary to have for his side.

On principle I agree, but see below. Eskimospy makes a good point as to why this would be senseless and possibly even counter-productive. Still, you may be correct as it would allow Reid to stall and allow Obama to keep the high ground, essentially triangulating against Congress as a whole without having to veto anything and thus defend his veto.

That doesn't make any sense.

Reid only eliminated the filibuster on most presidential appointments, why would he reinstate that while Obama is still president? Also, considering the pretty decent likelihood that the Democrats would control the Senate again in 2016 even if a Republican wins the White House it wouldn't matter then either.

That's a good point. Personally I do not think the Senate should be allowed filibusters on Constitutionally mandated duties anyway. Congress has no mandate to pass any particular laws, but does have a Constitutional mandate to pass a budget and appropriations bills and to provide advice and consent on Presidential nominations requiring Senate approval.

I will not be surprised if the Republicans regain the majority in the Senate. History is on the Republicans side and the execution of the ACA has been seriously flawed.

Sometimes reality sucks. Prospects should be better for the Dems in 2016.

Completely their own fault, unless you believe that the Pubbies have some inherent duty to make practical the Democrats' legislation.

 

[hal2kilo]

On principle I agree, but see below. Eskimospy makes a good point as to why this would be senseless and possibly even counter-productive. Still, you may be correct as it would allow Reid to stall and allow Obama to keep the high ground, essentially triangulating against Congress as a whole without having to veto anything and thus defend his veto.


That's a good point. Personally I do not think the Senate should be allowed filibusters on Constitutionally mandated duties anyway. Congress has no mandate to pass any particular laws, but does have a Constitutional mandate to pass a budget and appropriations bills and to provide advice and consent on Presidential nominations requiring Senate approval.


Completely their own fault, unless you believe that the Pubbies have some inherent duty to make practical the Democrats' legislation.

I have no argument there. I meant to phrase it "seriously flawed execution by this adminisration".


Feel better?

 

[werepossum]

I have no argument there. I meant to phrase it "seriously flawed execution by this adminisration".


Feel better?

Well . . . Maybe a little.

 

[Vic]

Ahem.

The Bolsheviks ( or Democrat, for the layman) have held 2 out of 3 branches of government for quite some time now. Can you provide me with a bill, executive order or amendment to the control substances act which makes marijuana legal? Not some bullshit "guidelines" which mean dick, lest you make it convenient for the GOP( if and when they retake gov't) to enforce laws already on the books. Because federal preemption, and shit. (Washington, Colorado.)

There's a difference between being not for something and being actively against something. The Dems might not be for legalization (because they're pussies trying to please everyone) but the Republicans are decidedly against legalization. So with that in mind, and me being of the pro legalization mindset, why would what you posted here mean anything to me?

But go on, I'm always intrigued by the Republican mentality that if I'm not for you then I must be against you. It makes me not want to be for you.

 

[BUnit1701]

Do you know where Bills originate?

K Street?

 

[boomerang]

K Street?

Zactly :thumbsup:

 

[werepossum]

Zactly :thumbsup:

Seconded.

 

[dank69]

Says the guy who has no clue what the recent change to the Filibuster accomplished but has no problem spouting off as though he does, exposing himself as the complete fool that he is. You know those people who watch too much Fox News that studies found to be completely misinformed about current events? That's you. Keep posting stale memes like you have some idea of where you are.

 

[zinfamous]

K Street?

...

 

[First]

I'm not sure a case can be made that Senate control matters practically at all for the next 2 years, frankly, given the presidential veto. For one, nothing comes out of the Senate anyway given Repub filibusters on even routine legislation, something partisan Dems might payback on anyway. Second, given that a Dem-controlled Senate can't get past House opposition anyway, what will change precisely with a bare 51 seat Repub majority for 2 years? Repubs blocking nominations, I suppose? Which is as pointless and hollow a victory as they come given that Repubs are practically guaranteed to lose any bare majority in 2016 with the heavily Dem-favored map, combined with a demographically Dem-friendly presidential election, and the extreme likelihood of HRC becoming president and nominating roughly the same folks.

EDIT: Repubs lost their opportunity, badly, in combined results of the 2010 and 2012 Senate elections. They could have conceivably controlled the Senate by 2012, and at that point would have very likely controlled the Senate for 4 years and not allowed immigration or all sorts of other bills to take root. Of course, perhaps letting Republicans have the run of the place (Congress) would have been a good idea given their unrivaled ability to turn off Americans to the true consequences of their antiquated policies.

 

[First]

Additionally, it's not difficult to see even a slight recovery in Obama and Obamacare's approval ratings flipping that to a 60% likelihood of Dems holding the Senate. It wouldn't take much of an improvement in the economy or Obamacare for that to happen, particularly with Obama/Obamacare approval up in recent weeks (46% in Rasmussen/Gallup daily tracking polls for Obama) and Dems' brand still proving to be superior overall in all 4 polls taken this month here.