The Democrats will Retain Control of the Senate

[Ishmael]

The problem with the democrats is that they've been signing the same old mantra for over 3 decades now. "War on women", "Kill granny", etc. None of which have materialized. Each election cycle they paint themselves further and further into the "Chicken Little" corner.

The problem with the republicans is that they have been unable to find a way to effectively articulate their ideas. And when they do find someone that can his/her voice is drowned out be the presses incessant coverage of utterances by Bozo's such as that dude in Indiana last election cycle. The very worst of the republicans are portrayed as the 'norm' while the very worst of the democrats are portrayed as the aberrations they are. And in this election cycle the republicans are saying nothing, merely allowing the democrats to commit suicide. And while effective it is a short term tactic so overall the article does have a point re. long term prospects.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

My favorite is when the usual idiot here dusts off the cat food or medications for granny line...

 

[Ishmael]

My favorite is when the usual idiot here dusts off the cat food or medications for granny line...

And they are always parroting the utterances of some democrat on the stump. As predictable as the rising of the Sun.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The consensus is mantras, bumper stickers and useful idiots.

 

[Ishmael]

The consensus is mantras, bumper stickers and useful idiots.

The miracle of Democracy.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Are you gonna cruise the miracle mile?

 

[RobDownSouth]

The consensus is mantras, bumper stickers and useful idiots.

If by "mantra" you mean "Republican party strategery", I completely agree with you.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Something peculiar has happened. As I write, none of the Republican candidates for Senate has become a public embarrassment. On the contrary: For the first time in a decade, it is the Democratic candidates, not the Republican ones, who are fodder for late-night comics. That the Democrats are committing gaffes and causing scandals at a higher rate than Republicans not only may be decisive in the battle for the Senate. It could signal a change in our politics at large.

...

In Montana, Senator John Walsh bowed out after he was exposed as a plagiarist. His replacement: avowed “punktuator” and socialist Amanda Curtis. In Kentucky, Alison Lundergan Grimes won’t reveal her presidential vote, citing — I am not making this up — the constitutional right to privacy (maybe what she had in mind was her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination). In Colorado, Mark Udall’s pro-abortion strategy is so tone-deaf, so extreme, that the press has dubbed him “Mark Uterus.” In Louisiana, Mary Landrieu is saddled with charges of taking improper charter flights, and of claiming her parents’ home as her own, raising questions of residency. In Arkansas, Mark Pryor couldn’t give an answer when a reporter asked if he approved of the president’s handling of the Ebola crisis. In Alaska, Mark Begich had to pull a scurrilous attack ad. In New Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen is outraged by a Washington Free Beacon story revealing her involvement in a business that sold stolen goods.

Representative Bruce Braley of Iowa is in a category all his own. His classless remark about longtime Senator Chuck Grassley being a farmer had such an impact that months later, when Braley said at a debate that his first call as senator would be to the Iowa Republican, the audience burst into laughter. Then there is the story of how Braley threatened a neighbor with a lawsuit over her pet chicken. It revealed him to the world as Congressman Schmuck.

...

The liberal agenda is stagnant. Liberal discourse is insular, sophomoric, divorced from everyday life. What liberals say about race and gender and climate change is designed not to persuade the unconvinced but to rally the base. MSNBC is imploding. Vox.com is a laughingstock. The New Republic, now a hedge fund, is running articles calling for revolution against straight, white, and middle-class men. Have they looked at their masthead?

The Democrats are in danger of entering a period of caricature and jest similar to what the GOP has so long endured. The onset is sudden. One minute you are on top: proud, exultant, vindicated, and rather vindictive. You feel invincible. You can’t lose.

Then, without warning, the wheel of fortune turns. Your armor of confidence is ripped away. Loss becomes not a possibility but a reality. A few moments ago you were boastful, demanding, serious. Now you are a joke. And once you become a joke, it is difficult to persuade others to stop laughing.

Matthew Continetti
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/390610/print

 

[Ishmael]

Matthew Continetti
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/390610/print

While true enough, that insight only applies to this election cycle. In two years that 'wheel of fortune' is going to spin again.

In order for the republicans to prevail over the long term they're going to actually have to do something. Provide solutions to the real problems we face. And that my friend is going to be a daunting task. With Obama in the white house you know that much of the legislation is going to be vetoed. And that Obama is going to use the bully pulpit to blame the republicans for those veto's. Hell, he may even try to trot out the 'obstructionist' mantra.

And even though it will be Obama's pen that strikes down any meaningful attempts to fix the real problems it will be the republicans that will bear the apparent brunt of 'doing nothing.' The press will make damn sure of that happening.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yes, the press* will go to work on the people to get their minds right.

If the Senate is lost, then it will be outright warfare against that part of the nation which has rejected their agenda.

 

[RobDownSouth]

In order for the republicans to prevail over the long term they're going to actually have to do something.

Ishmael

Philosopher Ishmael is rather profound this morning.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

WASHINGTON — The confidential memo from a former pollster for President Obama contained a blunt warning for Democrats. Written this month with an eye toward Election Day, it predicted “crushing Democratic losses across the country” if the party did not do more to get black voters to the polls.

“African-American surge voters came out in force in 2008 and 2012, but they are not well positioned to do so again in 2014,” Cornell Belcher, the pollster, wrote in the memo, dated Oct. 1. “In fact, over half aren’t even sure when the midterm elections are taking place.”

Mr. Belcher’s assessment points to an urgent imperative for Democrats: To keep Republicans from taking control of the Senate, as many are predicting, they need black voters in at least four key states. Yet the one politician guaranteed to generate enthusiasm among African Americans is the same man many Democratic candidates want to avoid: Mr. Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/us/in-black-vote-democrats-see-lifeline-for-midterms.html?_r=0

 

[Ishmael]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/us/in-black-vote-democrats-see-lifeline-for-midterms.html?_r=0

A very tough call for the dems. While Obama is certainly a mobilizing factor for one segment of the electorate, he has the effect of mobilizing the opposition just as effectively.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It's hard to believe how far the man has been removed from the myth of 2007-08; rather than uniting, he polarizes and it would seem to be a purposeful, even vindictive type of division.

 

[Ishmael]

It's hard to believe how far the man has been removed from the myth of 2007-08; rather than uniting, he polarizes and it would seem to be a purposeful, even vindictive type of division.

Alinsky 101.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I think he has proved to be everything that we presaged. There are, however many out there who have angrily denied it who cannot accept it thank to the power of repetition.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

While true enough, that insight only applies to this election cycle. In two years that 'wheel of fortune' is going to spin again.

In order for the republicans to prevail over the long term they're going to actually have to do something. Provide solutions to the real problems we face. And that my friend is going to be a daunting task. With Obama in the white house you know that much of the legislation is going to be vetoed. And that Obama is going to use the bully pulpit to blame the republicans for those veto's. Hell, he may even try to trot out the 'obstructionist' mantra.

And even though it will be Obama's pen that strikes down any meaningful attempts to fix the real problems it will be the republicans that will bear the apparent brunt of 'doing nothing.' The press will make damn sure of that happening.

Ishmael

Maybe not. The Clintons are at war with Obama and will discredit and repudiate him from now on. He can veto, and will, but many Democrats will forsake him as they did Carter. Even Carter sneers at Obama.

Obama is the sacrifice white guilt offers for slavery and Jim Crow. Obama pissed it away.

I'll be surprised if the GOP does much as they want most of what Obama wants.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Another thing to keep an eye on:

...

Hidden in the congressional gains of the 2010 Republican landslide, the GOP controlled 59 state legislative chambers, far more than at any time in modern history, and as a direct consequence of that, Republican governors like Scott Walker were able to push through laws to limit public employee unions, reduce voter fraud, and protect the sanctity of life, among other conservative reforms.

Because 2010, like 2000, was the election to choose state legislatures who would draw congressional and state legislative districts for the next decade, this Republican midterm gain was particularly important. So even when Obama was re-elected in 2012, the congressional seats that had been drawn after the census largely by Republican state legislators elected a comfortable (albeit smaller) House Republican majority, and the state legislative districts drawn largely by Republicans gave the GOP 56 of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers – a slight drop, but far more than Republicans had ever held in the heyday of Reagan or Eisenhower, both of whom won two landslide presidential elections.

After the 2014 midterm, which looks increasingly like a Republican wave election that will bring victory to Republicans in state elections as well as Senate and House elections, that 56 state legislative chambers could grow – perhaps a lot. The Democrat majority makes for just one vote in the Colorado Senate, Iowa Senate, Nevada Senate, and Washington Senate. In other chambers, the Democrat majority could easily be swept away by a modest Republican tide: Colorado House, Maine Senate, Minnesota House, Minnesota Senate, Nevada House, New Mexico Senate, New Mexico House, New York Senate, Oregon House, Oregon Senate, Washington House, and West Virginia House.

Depending upon the outcome of gubernatorial races, this could put Republicans in a position to actually control state government in states like Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa. These legislatures could pass and Republican governors sign new laws that rein in the political levies of public employee unions or create new and more effective ways to investigate and prosecute voter fraud.

No one is going to be talking about state legislative races on the Tuesday evening of this midterm, but the impact on politics and policies could be huge.

Bruce Walker
http://americanthinker.com/2014/10/state_legislatures_and_2014.html#ixzz3GaUV16g8

 

[cowslinger64]

It's hard to believe how far the man has been removed from the myth of 2007-08; rather than uniting, he polarizes and it would seem to be a purposeful, even vindictive type of division.

Yep....right again. Fuckin Obama



The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.” The excerpt includes a special bonus nugget of Mitt Romney dissing the Tea Party.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/

 

[Ishmael]

Another thing to keep an eye on:


Bruce Walker
http://americanthinker.com/2014/10/state_legislatures_and_2014.html#ixzz3GaUV16g8

I find it at once interesting, distressing, and sad that the author has ignored one of the largest impacts that those republican majorities has had on the states in question, that being the economic soundness of the state and the comparative economic growth of the private sector within those states.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

On that site, I think that is assumed to be a shared and obvious truth which really does not need to be restated in each and every daily article.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Interesting point.

If Democrats cannot find minorities who were unable to vote because of lack of ID in the upcoming Texas elections, then their hysteria over Jim Crow today falls flat on its face...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

All of the major Senate forecasting models, including ours at Election Lab, now rely heavily on averages of public polls. This raises the question of whether those averages will be correct on Election Day, and whether any misses could affect which party manages to retain control of the Senate. In particular, there is the question of whether polling misses might mean that the Democrats end up with a slim Senate majority after all.

There are reasons to be skeptical that this will happen. It’s not just that we can’t easily predict whether the polls will over- or underestimate one party’s vote share, as discussed by Nate Silver and by Mark Blumenthal & Co. And it’s not just, as Josh Katz and Sean Trende have found, that Senate polls already tend to be pretty accurate at this point in time — especially when candidates have a 3- to 4-point lead, as do Republican candidates in Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky and Louisiana.

The other key point is this: Late movement in Senate polls tends to be in the direction of the underlying fundamentals. I discussed this movement in the polls in an earlier post, and it’s worth revisiting it now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...probably-wont-help-democrats-in-senate-races/

As we noted back in January, a slightly more elaborate fundamentals-based forecast based on elections since 1980 favors the Republicans. And this is what poses a challenge for the Democrats: Right now they need the polls to move in their favor, but in key states this would entail movement opposite to what the fundamentals would predict and therefore opposite to the trend above.

Of course, it’s not impossible for polls to move in that direction. The graph depicts an average across many Senate races, and not every race may conform to this pattern. It’s just unlikely that the polls will move enough in that direction for Democrats to benefit on Election Day.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I find it at once interesting, distressing, and sad that the author has ignored one of the largest impacts that those republican majorities has had on the states in question, that being the economic soundness of the state and the comparative economic growth of the private sector within those states.

Ishmael

Why does propaganda distress and surprise you? The GOP needs to shitcan Karl Rove and hire some smart asses to corn hole the Democrats, I'm thinking of the late Lee Atwater. He was merciless with Democrats.

When Charlie Crist brought out his little pussy fan I woulda brought out a big dildo for him and said. NOW YOU GOT SOMETHING TO WORK UP A SWEAT WITH, CHARLIE. All Scott did was sulk.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I find it at once interesting, distressing, and sad that the author has ignored one of the largest impacts that those republican majorities has had on the states in question, that being the economic soundness of the state and the comparative economic growth of the private sector within those states.

Ishmael

Yeah, like Kansas for example..

Sam Brownback was SO GOOD for them huh? So much for the "Cut taxes and engage draconian spending cuts (especially to public schooling)" to stimulate the economy huh?

We can see what happens when a state hacks personal income taxes, corporate taxes and sales taxes all at once without tapping an alternate source of revenue. Non-partisan budget analysts for the state legislature project that without new sources of revenue or even deeper spending cuts, the state faces some $1.3 billion in deficits in the coming five years. In a state whose budget for general expenses is $6.3 billion per year.

Now scale that up to a national level and think about that for a moment.