The Democrats will Retain Control of the Senate

Will the Democrats keep control of the Senate


  • Total voters
    25
Classic Keynesian Theory worked as advertised to help bring America back from the Bush Recession, the squealing of the discredited Mises.org folks to the contrary notwithstanding.

No. It didn't. It acted as a brake on the recovery which is why this recovery has underperformed all previous ones and is still anemic.

In no economic system can you remove potential working capital from the system, launder it through an inefficient bureaucracy, spend it, (rather than invest it) and have any additional production capacity created.

I recognize that people that shill for those of your stripe like to refer to spending as investment...but it is not. If no return on investment is sought, no return will be paid. Spending is just spending.
 
The Republican wave in 2010 may, in the end, be what saves Democrats in 2014.

Four years ago, when Harry Reid thought he and his Senate majority were vulnerable, Democrats swooped into action, creating a super PAC known as Commonsense Ten, which devoted itself to protecting embattled Democrats and expanding their majority in the Senate. In late July of that year, it secured a landmark ruling from the Federal Election Commission that allowed it to rake in unlimited donations from corporations and labor unions.

In the following year, 2011, Commonsense Ten renamed itself the Senate Majority PAC and Reid’s top political strategist, Rebecca Lambe, took the reins. If the Senate Democrats fighting for their political lives survive the November elections, they will have Reid, Lambe, and her PAC to thank. It has ramped up its spending more than tenfold since 2010, to more than $35 million this cycle from about $3.2 million four years ago, to protect the party’s incumbents and the Democrats’ Senate majority.

“Democrats have come back significantly into the outside spending game in a way that they weren’t doing,” says Steven Law, the president and chief executive officer of American Crossroads, which has since 2010 been the dominant super PAC on the right.

Senate Majority PAC has given Democrats some distinct advantages, allowing them to attack Republicans early in the campaign season on explicitly political terms. Super PACs are required to disclose their donors, but they are permitted to raise unlimited funds and to run ads urging citizens to support or oppose political candidates. The Senate Majority PAC, which has outraised every super PAC on the right (the closest is American Crossroads, which has hauled in $13 million), was up with ads against Arkansas representative Tom Cotton and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell as early as June 2013. By November of the same year, it was rallying around embattled North Carolina senator Kay Hagan.

A handful of former Reid advisers sit atop the organization: His former chief of staff, Susan McCue, is the co-chairman, and his former communications director, Craig Varoga, runs Patriot Majority, the nonprofit group affiliated with the PAC. By dint of their affiliation with the Senate majority leader alone, Reid’s former staffers give Senate Majority PAC the aura of a one-stop-shop for top-dollar Democratic donors looking to lend their party a hand. Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg cut them a check for $2.5 million; the liberal hedge-fund manager Tom Steyer dropped the group $5 million; the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees has donated $500,000.
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/390436/print

KOCH BROTHERS!!!​

;) ;)
 
Republicans point to a handful of headline-making incidents they say have deterred donors from making public contributions — chief among them the case of Frank VanderSloot, who, after making a donation to Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, found himself listed on the Obama campaign’s website on a list of GOP donors with “less-then-reputable” character, and who went on two receive two IRS audits; and that of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, who was ousted from his position in April after it was revealed that he had contributed money in 2008 to oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage in California (the online dating website OkCupid.com, among others, had begun to push its users to boycott Mozilla’s Firefox web browser).

Then, of course, there is the experience of the Koch brothers, Charles and David, who have been featured in dozens of television ads, flayed by Senate Democrats throughout the election cycle, and lambasted by Reid for everything from “actually trying to buy the country” to being flat out “un-American.”

The Kochs, who in 1986 sat for a lengthy New York Times profile chronicling the family’s disputes and dramas, are today in virtual hibernation. Many Republican donors have followed suit.

“All the attacks on us definitely sent a message to people that if you support what we’re for and what we’re doing, you’re going to pay a price,” says Mark Holden, who serves as general counsel for Koch Industries. “And while some people are still willing to go forward, other people, understandably, aren’t willing to pay that price.”

Conservative donors have instead largely steered their money into 501c(4) social-welfare groups, which are not required to disclose their donors. The hitch: Unlike super PACs, whose purpose is by definition to influence the political process, social-welfare groups are required to spend more than 50 percent of their time on activities related to “social welfare” and their political advertisements cannot expressly advocate for or oppose specific candidates. Americans for Prosperity, a Koch-backed 501c(4), was on the air nearly as early as Senate Majority PAC, and it plans to spend $125 million by the end of the midterm season.

;) ;)
 
"The closer we get to Election Day, the more cut-n-pastes we'll see from the unemployed conservative demographic. It's always been that way" - Abraham Lincoln
 
No. It didn't. It acted as a brake on the recovery which is why this recovery has underperformed all previous ones and is still anemic.

In no economic system can you remove potential working capital from the system, launder it through an inefficient bureaucracy, spend it, (rather than invest it) and have any additional production capacity created.

I recognize that people that shill for those of your stripe like to refer to spending as investment...but it is not. If no return on investment is sought, no return will be paid. Spending is just spending.

Precisely.
 
Well shucky darn! Stop counting the ballots, the election is already won!

The midterm elections are less than three weeks away, but by several measures, Democrats have already won.

Sure, elections are about the race to the top between competing candidates, but they’re also a barometer on long-term trends, issues and party trajectories. While the winners of this season’s sprints have yet to be determined, Democrats look well-positioned for the lengthier political marathon.
Sally Kohn
 
I think most people realize the "War on Women" does not exist. It's just a catch phrase the Dems invented in their desperation. :eek:

Shovin' a ten inch "shaming rod" into a woman's hoo-ha involuntarily isn't war, it's an act of love, and caring and all that shit.
 
Back
Top