Looks like the GOP will take over the Senate

toubab

Literotica Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Posts
12,592
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...f-republicans-winning-the-senate-are-growing/

"The odds of Republicans winning the Senate are growing"

"All three major election forecasting models saw an uptick in the likelihood of Republicans winning the six seats they need to retake the Senate majority over the past week, movement largely due to the party's strengthened chances in Alaska, Colorado and Iowa.

The most bullish model for Republicans is Washington Post's Election Lab, which, as of Monday morning, gives the GOP a 76 percent chance of winning the majority. Leo, the New York Times model, pegs it at 67 percent while FiveThirtyEight shows Republicans with a 60 percent probability. A week ago, Election Lab gave Republicans a 65 percent chance of winning the majority, Leo put it a 55 percent and FiveThirtyEight had it just under 55 percent."

It will take a political earthquake of some kind to prevent the Republicans from gaining at least six seats in the Senate come November. The signs are all there for at least a seven seat gain, and quite possibly eight seats or more. It's looking dire for the Dems.
 
One more beheading or show of cowardice by Obama oughta cinch it.
 
One more beheading or show of cowardice by Obama oughta cinch it.

When the Washington Post, New York Times, and Nate Silver are all saying it looks like a GOP takeover, there is no need for another beheading. I don't doubt there will be another one, however.
 
So the GOP went from probably winning two months ago to a little less probably but yeah, still probably winning last month, and back to probably winning again.

This is my surprised face.
 
So the GOP went from probably winning two months ago to a little less probably but yeah, still probably winning last month, and back to probably winning again.

This is my surprised face.

There is no surprise. The surprise will be if the GOP doesn't take over. And the closer we get to the election with the polls continuing to favor the GOP, the more likely it is they will take over.
 
There is no surprise.
So what was supposed to be the point of this thread? To inform anyone who cares about US politics of something they were already well aware of?
 
So what was supposed to be the point of this thread? To inform anyone who cares about US politics of something they were already well aware of?

The point is the increasing likelihood of a GOP takeover, obviously.
 
So the GOP went from probably winning two months ago to a little less probably but yeah, still probably winning last month, and back to probably winning again.

This is my surprised face.

The GOP shouldn't win at all but Obana and the Democrats keep pissing in the punchbowl to save violent negroes, and it hurts their prospects. Bill Clinton had the good sense to bitch slap the blacks when Sista Soljeh got in his face, and America loved it. But Barry Carter is the poster child for Muslim Negroes.
 
Never underestimate the establishment GOP's gift for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Not going to happen, but I would love to see the GOP lose the seat from Louisiana.
 
The GOP shouldn't win at all but Obana and the Democrats keep pissing in the punchbowl to save violent negroes, and it hurts their prospects. Bill Clinton had the good sense to bitch slap the blacks when Sista Soljeh got in his face, and America loved it. But Barry Carter is the poster child for Muslim Negroes.

In some ways Obama is a very strange individual. He seems to be deliberately saying and doing things to cost the Democrats the Senate, but he must not realize that, surely. If he does, that surely is strange.
 
He has no need of the Senate; he has pen, phone and press...

;)

I think he would prefer a united Congress to fight against. So would Hillary and the Cherokee.
 
Never underestimate the establishment GOP's gift for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Not going to happen, but I would love to see the GOP lose the seat from Louisiana.

The GOP has a knack for losing against all odds, for sure.
 
So he's playing chess instead of checkers, eh?

"Negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon knocks over all the pieces, shits on the board and then struts around like it won the game."
Vladamir Putin

He's playing for keeps. It ain't no game.

He's out to get as mush as the Left's agenda in place as possible.
 
"Negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon knocks over all the pieces, shits on the board and then struts around like it won the game."
Vladamir Putin

He's playing for keeps. It ain't no game.

He's out to get as mush as the Left's agenda in place as possible.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/pigeonchess.asp

"The "pigeon chess" concept is not one that originated with, or has been recorded as, something Russian president Vladimir Putin said about U.S. president Barack Obama, however. Like most such terms, it began much earlier as a more general put-down that over time was picked up and applied to various modern politicians. As far as we know, its earliest recorded expression came in a March 2005 user-submitted review of the book Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction on Amazon.com, which applied the imagery to a debate between the two camps referenced in the book's title:
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The pro-creationist reviewers of this book clearly demonstrate this to be true.
Last updated: 8 October 2013
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/pigeonchess.asp#LVQlxRZfq5Zhytk4.99"
 
"Negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon knocks over all the pieces, shits on the board and then struts around like it won the game."
Vladamir Putin

He's playing for keeps. It ain't no game.

He's out to get as mush as the Left's agenda in place as possible.

I doubt Putin actually said that, even if he thinks it to be true. It doesn't sound like something he would say. Not his style. At least not his public style. Privately, he may have said something like that. But it would probably remain private.

On further consideration, I think it probably would be to the advantage of the Democratic nominee in 2016 to run against a GOP controlled House and Senate. In chess, you sometimes sacrifice a piece, for a reason.
 
So Vlad knows a good line when he steals it.


It doesn't mean that it's not true!


Look at how he spiked the ball over his victory in Iraq right before he watched it turn into a Caliphate...

;)

He sure shit all over that checker board to adhere to his loonatic ideology of "time out" and "dialog."
 
On further consideration, I think it probably would be to the advantage of the Democratic nominee in 2016 to run against a GOP controlled House and Senate.

But not to try to govern with a GOP controlled House and Senate; the strategy is pointless unless it also aims at changing that.
 
Back
Top