The Democrats will Retain Control of the Senate

[4est_4est_Gump]

A Gallup poll finds that 65% of Democratic voters remain confident their party will maintain control of the U.S. Senate--a position that may spell shock and disappointment if new statistical projections prove accurate.

According to Gallup, Americans as a whole believe by a 10-point margin that the GOP will win the Senate. Among Democrats, however, just 30% believe Republicans will win the Senate versus 65% who believe Democrats will retain control.

Breitbart

RCP rolling average is Republicans up by 7. There seems to be a reversal of 2012 when Republicans were not believing the polls.

 

[Que]

Breitbart

RCP rolling average is Republicans up by 7. There seems to be a reversal of 2012 when Republicans were not believing the polls.

Well, they don't know hardly anyone who didn't vote for Obama, so how could Republicans possibly win?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Well, they don't know hardly anyone who didn't vote for Obama, so how could Republicans possibly win?

 

[Wat_Tyler]

I took Liberty and gave you Death.


I'm guessing the Dems retain control by a very narrow margin, like 1 or 2.


Maybe it'll be toed so teh ohter Uncle Joe can earn his keep.


Like they'll pass anything anywho.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That's the spirit Wat!



Soon enough, soon enough...

 

[Wat_Tyler]

There's no hurry.


The horned toad is still pointing to Mexico.


http://33.media.tumblr.com/be94bb2a5ebfec296c4ea195533daaf3/tumblr_n0v71lUAmO1si1aaoo1_400.gif

Every time I see something like this, it reminds me of how much a failure I am.

 

[Ishmael]

Breitbart

RCP rolling average is Republicans up by 7. There seems to be a reversal of 2012 when Republicans were not believing the polls.

The Iowa Electronic Market has been remarkably accurate over the years at predicting electoral results. You should take a look at the market re. control of the Senate. Nobody is putting their money on the dems.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Iowa Electronic Market has been remarkably accurate over the years at predicting electoral results. You should take a look at the market re. control of the Senate. Nobody is putting their money on the dems.

Ishmael

Well somebody's betting heavily on Dem!

The U.S. Senate race in North Carolina calls to mind Henry Kissinger’s notion about the Iran-Iraq war: Could both sides actually lose?

The sitting Democrat, Kay Hagan, holds only a tenuous lead, unlike more secure purple-state incumbent Democrats in Virginia and New Hampshire. Tar Heel State Democrats are cautiously optimistic that she’s winning, but the influx of money—more than $13 million so far from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Harry Reid’s super-PAC, plus nearly $10 million from her own campaign—betrays a sense of desperation. Despite leading in 13 straight polls, Hagan, 61, hasn’t polled above 50 percent the entire year and has been stuck in the mid-forties for months. There’s a real fear that she’s already maxed out her support.

True, Hagan’s Republican opponent, Thom Tillis, hasn’t pulled ahead, as have fellow GOP challengers in, for instance, Arkansas and Alaska. Tillis, the 54-year-old speaker of the state house of representatives, has been behind in every poll since August, which has Republicans fretting. What looked like a winnable seat in a potential wave year could be slipping away. “It’s probably easier to win Colorado than North Carolina,” says John Hood, president of the conservative John Locke Foundation in Raleigh.

Tying Hagan to Barack Obama ought to be good politics for Tillis. In a recent poll from NBC News and Marist College, Obama’s approval rating in North Carolina is 39 percent. Half of respondents say they have a negative opinion of the president, and 48 percent disapprove of Obamacare. Sixty-seven percent say the country is on the wrong track. Things aren’t much better for Obama in another new poll from USA Today and Suffolk University, showing 53 percent of North Carolina’s likely voters disapprove of the president’s job performance, while 50 percent say Obamacare has been a “generally bad idea.”

But disenchantment with Obama isn’t quite translating into support for Tillis. The Marist poll found Hagan leading Tillis 44 percent to 40 percent, while Suffolk found Hagan ahead 47 percent to 45 percent. (Libertarian candidate Sean Haugh polled 7 percent and 4 percent, respectively, though Democrats and Republicans alike say they expect his share to drop enough to make him a nonfactor.) Suffolk found that Tillis is winning just 78 percent of those who disapprove of Obama. Hagan, on the other hand, wins 91 percent of those who approve of the president.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/one-got-away_810895.html?nopager=1

 

[Wat_Tyler]

I'm reckoning that my repug isn't raising enough shekels, but we'll see, I suppose.

http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8ym1yJUDl1qdoxp5o1_500.png


He gets my vote simply because he's not the incumbent.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Is she a short-change artist?

 

[Wat_Tyler]

She looks more like an ATM from that angle.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Well, I see where I'm suppose to swipe my card, but where do I punch in my pin?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Democrats mean well but always end the night in jail with the car in the body shop.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Predictable Adre, personal shot, not what you think.



Magic H8 Ball™ sez Typical.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

She already knows your pin.


Meanwhile, in other news, this won't end well:

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1975214_918312981531285_410121283901878086_n.jpg?oh=3c0a1e62d98b7542a9b7168568ac74a4&oe=54ADE944

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Oh hell 2 da NO!

 

[toubab]

Breitbart

RCP rolling average is Republicans up by 7. There seems to be a reversal of 2012 when Republicans were not believing the polls.

I vote no, but realize the Republicans are capable of losing under the best of circumstances for them. I just don't know how they can lose this one. I'm thinking a seven seat pickup, plus or minus one.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I vote no, but realize the Republicans are capable of losing under the best of circumstances for them. I just don't know how they can lose this one. I'm thinking a seven seat pickup, plus or minus one.

Well, I read the great optimism of the Democrat writers over at RCP as they tout their early voting and get out the vote ground game as being able to turn the tide in the last two weeks. Then again I see conservative pundits saying that when the undecided break, they break according to the popularity of the President, a President who made it perfectly clear that his policies were on the ballot. I think he should have stuck with the political truism that [midterm] elections are local and just stayed quiet while raising money for the flurry of last-minute attack ads.

Then again, he's won two elections; he may feel that it is the defense of his policies that will carry the day.

The only difference either way will be the method of legislative death, the veto or Harry Reid killing it.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

muffguy,



You're brilliant!

 

[toubab]

Well, I read the great optimism of the Democrat writers over at RCP as they tout their early voting and get out the vote ground game as being able to turn the tide in the last two weeks. Then again I see conservative pundits saying that when the undecided break, they break according to the popularity of the President, a President who made it perfectly clear that his policies were on the ballot. I think he should have stuck with the political truism that [midterm] elections are local and just stayed quiet while raising money for the flurry of last-minute attack ads.

Then again, he's won two elections; he may feel that it is the defense of his policies that will carry the day.

The only difference either way will be the method of legislative death, the veto or Harry Reid killing it.

The Republicans and their writers were optimistic in 2012, or at least pretended to be. Means nothing.

Early voting in Iowa looks very good for the Republicans compared to 2010.

 

[Que]

I'd rather he be in a position to have to veto.. even that won't happen because there won't be a filibuster proof majority.

Still it will be good to put Democratic Senators in the position of finally having to vote for something.

Since they are actually the party of no ideas and the party of no.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Republicans and their writers were optimistic in 2012, or at least pretended to be. Means nothing.

Early voting in Iowa looks very good for the Republicans compared to 2010.

I made the point up above about how in 2012, the Republicans denied the polls and Nate Silver while in this election cycle, the roles seem to be reversed.

The question is, do the Democrats have good cause to reject the polling data.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'd rather he be in a position to have to veto.. even that won't happen because there won't be a filibuster proof majority.

Still it will be good to put Democratic Senators in the position of finally having to vote for something.

Since they are actually the party of no ideas and the party of no.

Agreed.

It is about time Harry Reid was not in the position from keeping the President's fingerprints off of the really hard decisions that are required to govern effectively instead of leading from behind.



Still, the result will probably be the same.

 

[toubab]

I made the point up above about how in 2012, the Republicans denied the polls and Nate Silver while in this election cycle, the roles seem to be reversed.

The question is, do the Democrats have good cause to reject the polling data.

No more cause than the Republicans did in 2012, in my opinion. I don't want to take the time to look it up, but if you go back over midterm elections over the last hundred years, especially second midterms, I think there was only one time the party holding the White House didn't take a beating, and it was usually a serious one. The exception was a tie, as I recall, and was due to the Republicans' impeachment of Clinton, in my opinion.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No more cause than the Republicans did in 2012, in my opinion. I don't want to take the time to look it up, but if you go back over midterm elections over the last hundred years, especially second midterms, I think there was only one time the party holding the White House didn't take a beating, and it was usually a serious one. The exception was a tie, as I recall, and was due to the Republicans' impeachment of Clinton, in my opinion.

You might want to double-check that.

The Republicans, I believe, did better than the political mythology has represented.