"The Upshot’s new Senate election forecast gives Democrats a 60 percent chance of winning control of the chamber in November."
From your algorithms, equations, and calculations to God's ear.
From your algorithms, equations, and calculations to God's ear.
9
Surely the American electorate will punitively punish the Republican party for nominating such a horrific, reckless, and utterly unqualified candidate for president.. I mean, you would think, right??
16
You have told me Hillary has the same chance of loosing as an nfl kicker has of loosing a shot. How about a better comparison. I am a Mensa Member who knows nothing about football --
Sandy Barron
Fernandina Beach, FL
Sandy Barron
Fernandina Beach, FL
3
A 60 percent chance the Senate may go Democratic of course means there's a 40 percent chance it won't. Not overwhelming odds one way or the other. The expression "don't count your chickens before they hatch" comes to mind.
5
WASPs' (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) are now only 35% of electorate in 2016 election down from 65% from 1980 election, which helped to elect Ronald Regan. So America stay tuned what will happen in another 35 years. Its simply a numbers game.
Sure would have been nice to see some Wisconsin "numbers" on the Fiengold - Johnson Senate race. Are all the polling organizations ceding
this race to the former Senator?
this race to the former Senator?
2
I hope at some point later in the campaign, they really go after some house seats, even if the district was gerrymandered by the R's. Something along the lines of "if you vote for the Republican, you're voting for more gridlock.
Ailes or no Ailes, I'm one of those who believe Hillary will destroy Trump in the debates, so she won't need so much moolah to defeat him in November. But I'm not worried. Guys like Pedestal and Bill Clinton are pretty smart when it comes to these affairs.
Ailes or no Ailes, I'm one of those who believe Hillary will destroy Trump in the debates, so she won't need so much moolah to defeat him in November. But I'm not worried. Guys like Pedestal and Bill Clinton are pretty smart when it comes to these affairs.
4
These statistics are relatively meaningless and might create false confidence in some, leading them to think that they do not need to vote.
4
The chances for democrats ( and humanity ) of winning back the house AND senate goes up exponentially every time Trump opens his mouth . I think the Clinton ads ( so far ) have been devastating ( Trump's own words ) , but there will be many millions that will disregard that.
Take the time to patiently educate them ... It is our future on the line .
Take the time to patiently educate them ... It is our future on the line .
9
"Control" is a dubious distinction here. Neither party seems destined to win the 60 votes necessary to invoke cloture and thus avoid filibusters. If the Democrats win a majority they will be able to chair the committees in the Senate, but Republicans can block any Democratic initiatives, especially with the Republicans strongly positioned to keep control of the House.
4
If the Republican Party chooses to align itself with the white nationalists of the Trump campaign, they can't blame that on Hillary. That's entirely on them and it will tarnish the GOP for a generation.
34
articles like this are preliminary to the RNC announcement that it is shifting campaign funds into senate races and away from the trump candidacy.
notice how quiet trump has been lately?
notice how quiet trump has been lately?
8
The American people are sensible. Hillary will get 47% of the vote when facing an imbecile. That's likely to be her mandate. Divided government serves our interest until we can replace her with someone who is trustworthy.
8
" ... Divided government serves our interest until we can replace her with someone who is trustworthy."
There are a lot of us that are sick of putting our lives on hold while the republican party decides which century it wants to live in.
Time for us to move on.
There are a lot of us that are sick of putting our lives on hold while the republican party decides which century it wants to live in.
Time for us to move on.
15
If she does good things, who cares if she's trustworthy? Did a president ever tell a bigger lie than F.D.R in with regards to lend-lease. Did he really believe that Britain would return all those destroyers after the war? I don't think so.
To me untrustworthy describes Nixon and Vietnam, Reagan' supply side tax cut's that exploded the deficit and only helped his rich friends, or W and his mucking up Iraq after the victory. Whitewater and Vince Foster's death were invented scandals which nevertheless tarnished her reputation among low information voters. Drip, drip, drip...........
To me untrustworthy describes Nixon and Vietnam, Reagan' supply side tax cut's that exploded the deficit and only helped his rich friends, or W and his mucking up Iraq after the victory. Whitewater and Vince Foster's death were invented scandals which nevertheless tarnished her reputation among low information voters. Drip, drip, drip...........
12
Name a trustworthy President in the past century. I don't mean someone you agree with I mean a straight shooter - last ones were Eisenhower & Truman. They all lie or at best prevaricate.
3
Democrats would have had a better chance of retaking the Senate had they chosen a nominee with "coat tails." Bernie Sanders not only had solid support among Democrats, but among Independent voters (and even many Libertarians) as well.
President Hillary Clinton will skate to victory thanks to an unprecedented number of crossover votes from GOP voters who will NOT be voting for down-ballot Democrats.
President Hillary Clinton will skate to victory thanks to an unprecedented number of crossover votes from GOP voters who will NOT be voting for down-ballot Democrats.
7
Unproven. Bernie couldn't even beat HIllary.
38
Unlike the republican party, the Democratic Party lives in the 21 Century.
Senator Sanders has some great ideas so much so that the Democratic Party has added them to it's platform.
That said, Senator Sander is a socialist and the republican party would have road that fact right into the White House while they kept the Senate and the House.
That would have been very bad for the Country and the World. We would then have Corporations dictating to everyone and leading us back to where Bush/Cheney left off.
Case in point take a look at what republicans now have as a nominee. A man that has very close ties to the leader of Russia and is heavily in debt to China. Yet this is the man they want vote in to lead the Free World. A man that will sell our freedom to the highest bidder in a slip second as he fills his pockets.
Senator Sanders has some great ideas so much so that the Democratic Party has added them to it's platform.
That said, Senator Sander is a socialist and the republican party would have road that fact right into the White House while they kept the Senate and the House.
That would have been very bad for the Country and the World. We would then have Corporations dictating to everyone and leading us back to where Bush/Cheney left off.
Case in point take a look at what republicans now have as a nominee. A man that has very close ties to the leader of Russia and is heavily in debt to China. Yet this is the man they want vote in to lead the Free World. A man that will sell our freedom to the highest bidder in a slip second as he fills his pockets.
4
Bernie lost any chance of support from me after the New York Post interview where he could not provide the first detail on what the process would be for accomplishing his signature proposal. He barely seemed to know who was responsible for bank regulation, much less any of the valid arguments against his proposal.
And his new organization is about as successful and well run as the Republican Convention was. He's a lot more like Trump than his followers will admit ... except for the whole soullessness thing.
And his new organization is about as successful and well run as the Republican Convention was. He's a lot more like Trump than his followers will admit ... except for the whole soullessness thing.
2
What a horrible thought. A Democrat President who is amoral and a Democrat Senate that would be immoral.
6
NYChap--But, maybe the Democrats will actually pass some useful legislation, get along with the resident, take care of their constituents, and keep government open. So immoral...
11
At least a Democratic Senate would get something done instead of the ongoing stalemating of any legislation.
11
This is reassuring; however, I would have liked to see Iowa in the "competitive bracket." It's irritating and should be a no brainer for IA to be one; considering IA is the home of the number one obstructionist Chuck Grassley. Not so fast-Patty Judge was the one chosen to run against him. Which is baffling-as she is not exactly endeared to the people of Iowa due to her tenure as Secretary of Agriculture.
Furthermore, independents are in favor for a hearing on Merrick Garland, but yet, Chuck decided to hold steadfast to McConnell's non-sensensical obstructionist policies. Yet, he's more than likely going to win. This reminds me of branstad-Iowa got him out of office once and now he's back. Why? Because people just keep voting him in.
Furthermore, independents are in favor for a hearing on Merrick Garland, but yet, Chuck decided to hold steadfast to McConnell's non-sensensical obstructionist policies. Yet, he's more than likely going to win. This reminds me of branstad-Iowa got him out of office once and now he's back. Why? Because people just keep voting him in.
8
Man I hate Chuck Grassley, and I will be donating to his Democratic opponent n 2018.
5
The Democrats have a 60% chance of taking the Senate?
So what? The oligarchy has a 100% chance of maintaining control over the Senate no matter which party of the duopoly control the Senate, the House or the White House.
As long as voters continue to vote out of fear for the lesser of two evil political parties of the evil duopoly, they will continue to make a false choice for the evil oligarchy.
So what? The oligarchy has a 100% chance of maintaining control over the Senate no matter which party of the duopoly control the Senate, the House or the White House.
As long as voters continue to vote out of fear for the lesser of two evil political parties of the evil duopoly, they will continue to make a false choice for the evil oligarchy.
5
So, Democrats might have a President who can nominate Supreme Court justices and a Senate that can approve them. What would you prefer?
3
Nixon's re-election in 1972 may have some lessons for Secretary Clinton. In in Nixon demolished George McGovern in 1972, carrying every state except Massachusetts, but (according to the PBS documentary on Nixon), he felt disappointed, even "empty" for not winning Republican control of either House or Senate. David Broder, on this documentary, stated that it was "selfish" for Nixon to not help more to win Congressional control. My question is, what are ways a presidential candidate could help maximize a down ballot effect, and what would Clinton's best strategy be in this respect?
11
Bill, I think you're a little weak on the facts. You fail to mention the Eagleton affair which killed the campaign in its crib. And don't forget your boy Nixon was running the most corrupt campaign in American history, before or since.
On second thought what's the use? Go back to grinding your axe.
BTW who was right on Vietnam, McGovern or Nixon? That's the same Nixon who was all for making McGovern's lousy war record an issue until he learned that McGovern was a true war hero.
You think your facts support your attitudes. In fact, your attitudes self-select your facts.
On second thought what's the use? Go back to grinding your axe.
BTW who was right on Vietnam, McGovern or Nixon? That's the same Nixon who was all for making McGovern's lousy war record an issue until he learned that McGovern was a true war hero.
You think your facts support your attitudes. In fact, your attitudes self-select your facts.
5
Please explain how the Democrats have a "60 percent chance" to win the Senate if the Times own projections currently show that Republicans currently hold leads of more than 70 percent probability in 5 Republican held seats, while the Democrats hold a lead of 80 percent in one Republican held seat and narrower (52-62 percent leads in three other Republican held seat but the Republicans lead is 62 percent in a Democratic head seat, Nevada. If the current Times forecast is correct, the Democrats will have a net gain of THREE SEATS, and four are needed to have a 50-50 tie and five are needed to take control. How does the Times calculate that as a 60 percent chance for the Democrats to gain control?? The old days of flipping a coin seem more logical to me!
5
I was wondering the same thing, but I think it is because they forgot to include Wisconsin in the chart. So there are really five states with a more than 50 % chance of flipping R to D, giving Democrats a net gain of four seats if NV flips the other way.
3
Again, sloppy work by the Times as they 1) did not include Wisconsin in the chart 2) and even if they did, they did not look at their own numbers which project, even if including a Democratic win in Wisconsin, a net gain of just four seats, which would result in a tie, not "regaining control" independent of a Clinton victory.
Sadly, too many talented Times reporters and editors have been forced to take buyouts, leaving readers to have to figure things out between the lines. With staff departures from the Times, all of the news is not gathered and edited properly and "fit to print."
Sadly, too many talented Times reporters and editors have been forced to take buyouts, leaving readers to have to figure things out between the lines. With staff departures from the Times, all of the news is not gathered and edited properly and "fit to print."
4
The chance to end Republican obstruction will only come after the 2020 census, when the House will be redistricted. Until then, Republicans have guaranteed themselves a majority of safe House seats through gerrymandering. A positive scenario for our country would include a Clinton victory, Democratic control of the Senate, appointment of reasonable judges to SCOTUS, and successful efforts to depoliticize redistricting, as has occurred in Arizona and elsewhere.
44
Obama got about 75% of what he wanted, including two liberal SC Justices. Stop the nonsense about obstruction. Reagan dealt with it, Bill Clinton dealt with it, Abe Lincoln dealt with it. It is part of the job unless we have one party rule.
2
Um, Lincoln had to declare war.
The Democratic Congress worked with Reagan -- the two compromised repeatedly.
The obstruction of Clinton was so savage that it led to a completely unwarranted impeachment that a wide majority of the country opposed.
Obama's legislative achievements came when government was not divided. Republican obstruction of Obama is so complete that opposition to the president more important than a functioning government and has endangered the two-party system.
The Democratic Congress worked with Reagan -- the two compromised repeatedly.
The obstruction of Clinton was so savage that it led to a completely unwarranted impeachment that a wide majority of the country opposed.
Obama's legislative achievements came when government was not divided. Republican obstruction of Obama is so complete that opposition to the president more important than a functioning government and has endangered the two-party system.
49
WJC lied under oath in a judicial proceeding - the impeachment was fully warranted on that ground.
3
Two years ago I walked my feet off, canvassing for Senator Hagan. Someone came in with $1.2 million in last-minute money for Thom Tillis and we lost. The Kochs and their friends realize that the Senate is where the real action is so that's where they put their funds and friends.
36
Read Jane Mayer's "Dark Money" for enough details about how the ultra-rich control America than you can stand.
22
It'll be great if the Democrats can win the Senate, in part because a number of new (or returning) and more progressive Senators will take office, including Russ Feingold (WI), Maggie Hassan (NH), and Tammy Duckworth (IL). Some conservative Democrats, like Evan Bayh (IN), and Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), however, could also win, flipping the chamber but also slowing down any real changes from the kinds of legislation we're (barely) getting now. Then again, a Democratic-controlled Senate is better than a GOP obstructionist Senate, especially if Hillary Clinton wins.
I hope people are taking this election lightly, though. As others have pointed out, across the US white voters hold the cards to who'll control Congress and the White House. I don't think we'll get a Brexit 2.0 over here, but I think the outcome will be a lot closer than people think, especially if Hillary Clinton cannot get her act together and resolve this email and the Clinton Foundation messes. She keeps handing the GOP pieces of cr@p to work with. Why, I don't know. But someone has got to impress upon her that if she doesn't stanch this problem right away, she is going to squander what could be a decisive victory against one of the most buffoonish, duplicitious candidates in US history, Donald J. Trump, and his extremist running mate, Mike Pence.
I hope people are taking this election lightly, though. As others have pointed out, across the US white voters hold the cards to who'll control Congress and the White House. I don't think we'll get a Brexit 2.0 over here, but I think the outcome will be a lot closer than people think, especially if Hillary Clinton cannot get her act together and resolve this email and the Clinton Foundation messes. She keeps handing the GOP pieces of cr@p to work with. Why, I don't know. But someone has got to impress upon her that if she doesn't stanch this problem right away, she is going to squander what could be a decisive victory against one of the most buffoonish, duplicitious candidates in US history, Donald J. Trump, and his extremist running mate, Mike Pence.
20
"I hope people are NOT taking this election lightly, though."
13
I look forward to a Democratic president, Senate and a progressive Supreme Court justice so this country can get back to being a democracy.
42
Well, actually it's a Republic. But it would be great if that could be made again functional!
12
Well, sort of; the two are not mutually exclusive. A Republic is a form of representative democracy. The Roman Republic and the United States are not equivalent forms of government. For better or worse, we are mob rule by representation.
7
Good grief why? Having the executive branch and legislative branch split is the best thing for this country. Why would we want them passing more broken legislation and more broken regulations? And democrats have made it clear they will only accept justices that tow the party line and will legislate from the bench. This country is huge and diverse. Not every town and every state need to emulate California and San Francisco. We don't need federal top down regulation everywhere in the nation (in fact it's clearly unconstitutional). We should be giving power back to the states and not the federal government. Then if you want to live in a conservative area Texas would be happy to have you and if you want to live in a liberal paradise head on over to Cali or NY.
1
Sometimes living in the NYC-iverse is a little like occupying a bubble. For example, I NEVER thought GW could win one, let alone two terms... So all I really have to say here is: please don't toy with my heart on this, Times.
14
well, he didn't win two terms. He was Selected the first time, not Elected. The second term was the momentum win b/c his competition, Kerry, had nothing to offer other than being a decent, skilled, and articulate politician whom few people knew well enough and he just didn't have the oomph.
But again, first term for dubya was a (S)election; not Election.
But again, first term for dubya was a (S)election; not Election.
27
Kerry got messed with by the propaganda machine of Rove
3
Excuse me... the Supreme Court did not anoint a president. They ruled that Gore could not recount ONLY the Democratic counties in Florida.
Once that decision was handed down, Gore conceded because he knew he could not come out ahead recounting ALL the counties.
Once that decision was handed down, Gore conceded because he knew he could not come out ahead recounting ALL the counties.
This is very welcome news. The composition of Congress will determine whether Hillary tacks left or right, and whether we get sensible--left-leaning--Supreme Court justices. To the followers of Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, I voted for Nader in 2000 and felt good about it then, but we all know where it got us. Your candidates have as much chance of winning as the YouTube keyboard cat. Faced this election with a GOP nominee who is a clear and present danger to the republic, I exhort you to set aside your ideals, get a little dirty and vote for the superior candidate. And that, hands down, is Hillary.
28
A plausible scenario: RNC funnels gobs of cash immediately to down-ballot candidates to shore up Senate prospects. The cash flow continues through the election. Trump hangs onto gobs of donations currently sitting dormant in his marketing account. Trump drops out of race in September and RNC turns the reigns over to Mitt Romney as candidate. Gobs of Trump money floods into Romney campaign. Senate remains Republican domain. Presidency too close to call.
5
Democrats could retake everything in just a few elections, if more committed themselves to voting in elections that aren't electing a president. We need to take more effort to be involved in all elections, including the ones that tend to be overlooked, like state seats and the governorship.
Ignoring everything but the Presidential election is what got us a congress that has done nothing in 8 years, because the Republicans took advantage of the voter's apathy. It's time to change that.
Ignoring everything but the Presidential election is what got us a congress that has done nothing in 8 years, because the Republicans took advantage of the voter's apathy. It's time to change that.
19
I agree! I vote in every election now. It isn't hard. Remember what people in other places in the past have had to do to gain the vote! If you don't have the motivation this year you never will. But remember what Trump has given us this year can be lost in two years if people can't be bother to vote then.
3
That would be a tremendous help in getting past the gridlock we have suffered for several years. Then they need to destroy gerrymandering so House seats are more democratic.
13
I don't have the energy to care about the Senate seat in North Carolina at this point. If we can only get rid of the idiots running the State legislature, then we could get started on fixing the mess that Berger and Co. have created in our once wonderful state.
11
Congrats: NC is the new SC.
3
You have to vote in every election you can vote in. No matter who you're for.
1
How can we help this happen? We need a united front to make this happen, and I for one would love to see it. We have a Congress that is beyond dysfunctional, they have hampered this nation for too long. Let's fix this once and for all. New Congress, so we can get term limits, and non-gerrymandered districts.
36
"We" just have to get off our duffs and vote this election - for a change.
13
Big problem is that many states, like Texas, hold their Senate and House elections in off-years, when fewer voters are likely to vote. In our last off-year election, less than 50% of eligible voters went to the polls. When Senators and Representatives come up for re-election in two years, will the great public anger at the do-nothing Congress still be boiling then? Or will it have subsided to a simmer?
The Republicans count on being able to hang on in Congress for two more years, blocking as many attempts to pass legislation as they can, and hope that the American people will blame government ineptitude on President Clinton, rather than on the people whose shoulders the blame squarely rests: themselves -- the terrible Congress a minority of voters put into office. And when I say minority, I mean minority, because, I repeat, a big chunk will be elected in those off-year elections, when only a minority turns out to vote. We get what we deserve when we don't bother to get ourselves to the polls and expect that those who do vote will vote the way we want them to.
The Republicans count on being able to hang on in Congress for two more years, blocking as many attempts to pass legislation as they can, and hope that the American people will blame government ineptitude on President Clinton, rather than on the people whose shoulders the blame squarely rests: themselves -- the terrible Congress a minority of voters put into office. And when I say minority, I mean minority, because, I repeat, a big chunk will be elected in those off-year elections, when only a minority turns out to vote. We get what we deserve when we don't bother to get ourselves to the polls and expect that those who do vote will vote the way we want them to.
8
Reply to ACM Austin TX: To accomplish what we want here, we also need to have good, knowledge-based understanding of American government. My point: the states do not decide the congressional election schedule. Every seat in the House is on the ballot every two years. Each Senate seat is up for election every six years, and usually both Senate seats for a specific state are not up for election in the same year. This means that every two years, about one-third of Senate seats are on the ballot. These staggered term schedules are established by the US Constitution. As for state legislatures, I believe all states have elections for at least some of those seats between presidential elections.
There's a 100 percent chance that a DT presidency and a Republican controlled house and Senate would take this country over the abyss.
Get out and vote this November!
Get out and vote this November!
58
Though I'm pretty sure that watching Trump lose PA would be the highlight of my year... seeing Toomey go down would be a pretty close second. This idiot reactionary Wall Street hack loves to wave the flag and talk about his great love by and for the NRA- hey, I want you to have all of the assault rifles and ammo you want- but seems to hate women. He has stated in no uncertain terms that he would overturn Roe V Wade if he could, criminalize abortion and throw doctors in jail. His responses to letters are maddening regurgitations of any right-wing orthodoxy that his base requires. He has no nuance in his thinking at all, and it totally beholden to the Tea Party crackpot movement that he slimed into office with.
56
Today's polls mean very little. The only near-sure predictions are that Donald Trump will continue to demonstrate his extreme unfitness for high office, that he will blame everyone and everything else for his failure, that he will continue his crusade of crassness after the election, and that the media will still hang on his every word with no regard to the damage to our national democracy.
Everything is up for grabs. "Dead-broke" Hillary is a weak candidate, getting ever weaker by continuing revelations about her arrogance and her haughty and truth-shading responses to them. Then, of course, there's Bill, tanned, rested and ready to rain on Hillary's parade at every possible turn.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Everything is up for grabs. "Dead-broke" Hillary is a weak candidate, getting ever weaker by continuing revelations about her arrogance and her haughty and truth-shading responses to them. Then, of course, there's Bill, tanned, rested and ready to rain on Hillary's parade at every possible turn.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
3
Boy, if this isn't whistling past the graveyard I don't know what is.
8
I hope you're right Red, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Just remember all the confidence beforehand about the Brexit vote. [wink]
11
Totally unrelated events.
4
Both were pre-event "polls", that was my point.
1
I wasn't confident before the Brexit vote. Only fools were. I am confident before this. Speaking of Brexit, apparently Nigel Barrage will be campaigning with Trump now!
Since 1946, there has been unanimous control of Congress and the Presidency for a total of 20 years. That means that cooperation between the parties is almost always necessary. Those who choose not to cooperate, claiming they are always right and the other party is always wrong, contribute to gridlock and ineffective government, Those who understand the need for compromise are the great leaders of our time.
24
Thanks for the excellent explanation of what's wrong with the Tea Party and Mitch McConnell, and what's so very much right about this President.
7
To achieve an increase and hoping Clinton will win, a democratic unanimity that Sanders managed to prevent or diminish, through prolongation of the primary and his graceless convention acknowledgement of Clinton's recognition of his contributions must be achieved at all state levels. The sooner this comes about---and today's news about intra-Sanders people feuding is not helpful---the greater is the possibility that a Senate and House willing to work for the public good and not their re-elections and benefits can be achieved.
Let's hope there sanity can achieve such a goal.
Let's hope there sanity can achieve such a goal.
4
I'm an Independent but I'd like to see this happen just to have fun imagining the look on Mitch "Will of the People" McConnell's face when he gets the news.
33
Not to be a ninny but how obvious is that Jellyanne (Kellyanne) of Gilligan's Island is anything other than a bomb shell supplied by Roger Ailes to the Trump effort. How can any Republican Congressman not recognize the arrogance and abuse these men heap upon women. Jellyanne is unfortunately credited with climbing up in the Trump organization doubtlessly using the same techniques that works at Fox News. If anyone is naïve to the upcoming dustup with Trump's Eastern European wife secondary to Jellyanne's closeness to Trump will suffer the aftermath of "She's Fired".
11
We really need to find Mitch the Turtle a new home in some polluted creek, where high waters can simply take him away for good.
21
That has to be great news for Hillary!
She can get her campaigns of destabilization, chaos and war ratified without much of a hassle. Not that her pals, the neocon Republicans (e.g. McCain, et al.), would have given her any trouble when it comes to any of that.
She can get her campaigns of destabilization, chaos and war ratified without much of a hassle. Not that her pals, the neocon Republicans (e.g. McCain, et al.), would have given her any trouble when it comes to any of that.
2
The Upshot is composed of a whole lot of fanbois, cheerleading their favorite party.
They poll themselves, then publish it as news.
Their findings and polls are as reliable as an African political party's, or Mexico's PRI, making up the news and printing them as truth.
They poll themselves, then publish it as news.
Their findings and polls are as reliable as an African political party's, or Mexico's PRI, making up the news and printing them as truth.
5
They better. If HClinton is elected then she will be a do-nothing president just like Obama. The president needs the senate.
1
Mr. Obama has been a "do nothing" president? You clearly have not been paying attention.
11
Executive action is not governing.
1
But ginning up "evidence," invading Iraq, killing a hundred thousand or so, trashing the Mideast while kidnapping and torturing people, or appointing the fired head of the Arabian Horse Association as FEMA chief, that there is LEADERSHIP, I take it.
Thanks for the info.
Thanks for the info.
5
I hope the GOP gets utterly destroyed at all levels in the November elections. Then I pray they start their own country in, say, Texas. There they can call home their diaspora from all over the rest of the US, wall themselves off from the rest of the world and finally have a place to implement their psychotic world view unimpeded by liberals, gays, blacks, browns, Muslims, women, science and other un-Christian elements. I will joyfully volunteer to help Trump supporters in my area pack their things and head south.
37
Well, that would mean that I, along with most of Austin and Houston, would be moving north. How do y'all feel about housing thousands of displaced Texan refugees? You'd have to lower rents up there, because we can't afford to pay your prices!
1
Make Texas Mexico again!
1
Helping to pay for Democrats to leave Texas under these circumstances would be absolutely worth it. Keep in mind, however, you might earn more if you didn't live there and then you could afford more. Ever think of that?
Good points Katz. More than specific party affiliations we also need people, men and women, with the right character to be good effective useful helpful legislators and leaders.
Hopefully it will all come down to pursuing the right peace, prosperity and happiness for all...
Happy Janmashtami Josh...
Hopefully it will all come down to pursuing the right peace, prosperity and happiness for all...
Happy Janmashtami Josh...
The Democrats taking a majority in congress might not be as good news as it sounds. It will put our next Democratic president, Clinton the II in an awkward position; Who is she going to blame for doing nothing for the American people, if she can't say: It's the the Republicans I tell you, the Republicans.
But there are ways out. During the endless campaign Clinton used methods that can be useful in case she needs someone to blame for her incompetence. There are always the Russians/Putin and other usual suspect for everything going wrong. (Wikileaks, Hackers and 'the Russians I tell you')
Other idea is to keep making first grade level excuses like; I took millions from Wall Street because of the 9/11 attack. Otherwise the terrorists win.
Clinton's crowed of worshipers contributed two great sets of always working excuses that can answer the most sincere and accurate criticism:"They hate her because she's a women" offense or "they hate her because she a successful woman". works like magic.
The best - and most entertaining - defense of course accusing all of Clinton's critics as 'conspiracy theorists', which by itself is a kind of conspiracy theory.
But it will be easy for Clinton to do nothing to solve Americas problem, she didn't promised too much during her 'no we can't' campaign, and besides other presidents did the same (nothing). (that last one was her answer to recklessly mishandling classified material for years)
But there are ways out. During the endless campaign Clinton used methods that can be useful in case she needs someone to blame for her incompetence. There are always the Russians/Putin and other usual suspect for everything going wrong. (Wikileaks, Hackers and 'the Russians I tell you')
Other idea is to keep making first grade level excuses like; I took millions from Wall Street because of the 9/11 attack. Otherwise the terrorists win.
Clinton's crowed of worshipers contributed two great sets of always working excuses that can answer the most sincere and accurate criticism:"They hate her because she's a women" offense or "they hate her because she a successful woman". works like magic.
The best - and most entertaining - defense of course accusing all of Clinton's critics as 'conspiracy theorists', which by itself is a kind of conspiracy theory.
But it will be easy for Clinton to do nothing to solve Americas problem, she didn't promised too much during her 'no we can't' campaign, and besides other presidents did the same (nothing). (that last one was her answer to recklessly mishandling classified material for years)
1
I believe Comey's adjective to describe Hillary's handling of her email was "careless" not reckless. But the entire email issue is a straw man much in the same vein as Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation: excuses to find something to attack, especially in light of the Republican nominee who is subhuman.
16
So, actually, democrats have only a 43% chance of retaking the Senate (there's a 17% chance of a tie) - and this is based on calculations likely biased in favor of Democrats. This is a sad commentary considering that 24 seats are up for republicans and only 10 are up for democrats. The NYT headline clearly gives the opposite impression because the paper has little regard for the truth.
6
And Missouri shows a defiant need to ignore the truth. The "Show-Me" state is impervious to being shown.
3
Carl, he included a tie as a Democratic pickkup because he's calculating a Clinton win, meaning the Democratic vice-president casts the tie-breaker vote. In other words, Democratic control. This was made clear in the text. The NYT headline is not a lie.
5
Sure, this assumption was clear from reading the article - but the headline IS a lie. Further, the assumption that Hillary will be elected is not a given (especially with recent developments). This headline is clearly manipulative. If one makes the counter-assumption that Trump wins, then you could headline, "Republicans have a 57% chance to hold on to the Senate" (that's 40% + 17%). A 60% chance to win the Senate, based on an assumption with perhaps a 70% probability of being correct is VERY weak. Without the VP tie-breaker, there is probably no statistical difference in probability between the two parties (43% and 40%, plus error margin.) Lastly, I would wager (if I had any money) 5 to 1 that the model used to generate these numbers is itself highly biased in favor of Democrats/Clinton. (By the way, I'm a progressive who likes to get things done honestly.)
2
Even if the Dems take the senate, the GOP will have the 40 seats necessary for filibuster.
Time for hardball, Dems. After taking the senate change the rules to majority voting on Supreme Court nominees, them ram the new liberal court down the GOP throat.
The GOP deserves it, and America deserves a progressive court, not petty ideologues out for revenge.
Time for hardball, Dems. After taking the senate change the rules to majority voting on Supreme Court nominees, them ram the new liberal court down the GOP throat.
The GOP deserves it, and America deserves a progressive court, not petty ideologues out for revenge.
27
They really should change the name of the Republican party to the "Obstructionist Party" -- although I often feel just the mere word "republican" has some kind of odd, psychological, subconscious and false patriotic impact on those who still support the party despite all the of the damage they have, and continue to cause.
17
The Iowa Electronic Markets (https://tippie.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/) currently give only a 22% chance that the Republicans will retain control of both the House and the Senate. As those markets assess very little chance (less than 1%) that there will be a Democratic House and a Republican Senate, that implies roughly a 78% assessed chance of the Democrats taking control of the Senate either outright or in conjunction with independents (i.e., Sanders). The latter possibility has been increasing over time; the "other" contract on the market (i.e. other than outright control by one party or the other).
4
When the election is over, Hillary Clinton will be our next president. The Democrats will regain control of the Senate. The Republicans will continue to control the House. Republican obstructionism in the Senate and the House (due to the fact that they have paid very little political price for such obstructionism in the past 8 years) will continue unabated. As a consequence, there will continue to be Gridlock on the Hill with a capital "G", resulting in slower economic growth, no action on climate change, no critically needed changes to the ACA, etc. Low-information voters will blame Hillary for the mess.
The biggest and most important question is whether the Republicans in the Senate will block Hillary's nominees to SCOTUS. They have paid no political price for refusing to even give Merrick Garland a hearing, notwithstanding their constitutional duty to do so. I would not be surprised in the slightest if the Senate Republicans block every single one of Hillary's nominees.
The biggest and most important question is whether the Republicans in the Senate will block Hillary's nominees to SCOTUS. They have paid no political price for refusing to even give Merrick Garland a hearing, notwithstanding their constitutional duty to do so. I would not be surprised in the slightest if the Senate Republicans block every single one of Hillary's nominees.
8
if hrc is elected, th obstruction will be worse than w obama
4
If the GOP is in the minority in the Senate, and they block hearings on SCOTUS nominees, look for the Democrats to eliminate the filibuster altogether.
7
The Republicans cannot block hearings on SCOTUS if the Democrats are in the majority, but they can filibuster. I agree that if that behavior goes on long enough, the Democrats could propose to eliminate the filibuster. Whether the Democrats would be able to muster enough votes to actually eliminate the filibuster is another issue.
Wow! I hope this bears out. We really need to win the Senate or our Supreme Court will never get a new appointee. We desperately need a working Senate for a lot of reasons.
20
As an independent (like a large number of Americans), I have lost faith in the two party system. Professional politicians on the political extremes represent only the most ideological fringe of Americans. The rest of us in the 'political middle' are not represented by either political party.
It is time for a mainstream third (and fourth) political party in order to represent those Americans that don't adhere to the binary system of either 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Our current political system is corrupt and lacking in 'true choice' for voters and low voter turnout is evidence of this problem.
It is time for a mainstream third (and fourth) political party in order to represent those Americans that don't adhere to the binary system of either 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Our current political system is corrupt and lacking in 'true choice' for voters and low voter turnout is evidence of this problem.
6
you could have made a parliamentary system like th brits
but that was good enough for th exceptional ones
now youre exceptionally stuck in quagmire for th foreseeable future
Those parties already exist, they just can't get enough people to support them. Low voter turnout is the reason why things stay the same.
1
Not sure that the issue is truly party based, but rather the increasingly entrenched, Huxley-esque belief systems that attach to party affiliation. "I'm glad I'm a Beta," seems to be the blind report. Adding another party will not necessarily fix a rift this deep. What exists by way of choice is not terribly effective -- the lonesome candidacy of Johnson-Weld receives little attention. Although one might not agree with them, no one even seems to want to give a listen.
Unless the Democrats control at least 60 votes in the Senate after the election, Republican obstructionists may well stop any Supreme Court nomination from being confirmed while Hillary Clinton is President. They don't care about the country, as has been shown during President Obama's 2 terms.
34
Is there really no way the obstructionist Senators cant be sued? subpoenaed ? Into doing the right thing here? MCConnell is facing a strong opponent in KY & just might be voted out this time.
2
He was just re-elected two years ago. He wont be up for re-election for another four years.
2
I am cheered, but know who to work for no matter the result.
3
Hillary Clinton's landslide victory will help all Democrats up and down the ticket.
The GOP will lose at every level.
The GOP will lose at every level.
25
Every level, including morally, psychologically, spiritually as well as in practicality. As my Bronx- born Dad would have said, "Trow da bums out!"
6
Lay off the pipe dude.
You really sound like the workers at the Ministry of Truth in 1984.
You really sound like the workers at the Ministry of Truth in 1984.
2
Short sighted GOP should have taken the deal and confirmed Garland.
29
they are idiots
4
I guess you've forgotten the filibuster. You need 60 votes to appoint a Supreme Court Justice and no one is predicting 60 Democrats in the Senate. So the Democrats are still going to have the wheel and deal. The Senate rules are complicated and just when you've thought you've won, you need to think again.
1
After Hillary wins, they will give him hearings. The president should then withdraw his nomination and let Hillary pick a real liberal. Stupid Republicans, they blew their best chance in the S.C.
5
So the Senate goes back to Democratic control in 2016, it will return to Republican control in 2018.
3
I further predict this number has a 60% chance of continually rising after the first debate on 9/26...and with that there is hope for the environment, healthcare and our future!
16
You're probably totally right about the effect of the debates. However, this assumes that the debates actually take place. It would be no real surprise to a lot of us if Agent Orange weaseled out of the debates entirely.
Merrick Garland shouldn't make any short term travel plans.
5
The last time the Democrats controlled the house and Senate was in 2006. 2006 to 2008 was one of the worst periods in the history of this country. I love divided government. A Democratic President, a split Senate and a Republican Congress is exactly what this country needs.
3
Do a little research. The real problems in 2006 to 2008 originated in the Bush/Cheney White House. And the Dems controlled the House and Senate from 2008 to 2010, during which they passed some of President Obama's policy agenda that began pulling the country out of the ditch the Bush/Cheney administration left us in. unfortunately, the Repubs decided that they would oppose much of the President's policy proposals by requiring 60 votes in the Senate for many programs that would have made the country better.
35
We have basically that, and the GOP majority in the Senate (not to mention the House) have given the lie the GOP mantra of "personal responsibility" time and time again, all based on racism against President Obama.
There's an old saying, "You broke it, you own it." The GOP broke this nation's reputation with the war of choice (to profit Halliburton and "connected" private contractors) based on lies in Iraq, neglecting our infrastructure, and implying that some 150 million fellow Americans should somehow disappear as "life unworthy of life," a/k/a "takers." Yet they fail to own up to their mistakes and stupidity, instead blaming some "other."
It's time for a reckoning.
There's an old saying, "You broke it, you own it." The GOP broke this nation's reputation with the war of choice (to profit Halliburton and "connected" private contractors) based on lies in Iraq, neglecting our infrastructure, and implying that some 150 million fellow Americans should somehow disappear as "life unworthy of life," a/k/a "takers." Yet they fail to own up to their mistakes and stupidity, instead blaming some "other."
It's time for a reckoning.
9
No, sorry but just no. We can blame George W. Bush for 2006-08 being bad years.
11
It's time to send in those contributions to elect a Democratic Senate.
Don't delay!
Don't delay!
24
Make sure to help out the "get out the vote" leading up to Nov 8 in any way that you can.
10
I just did it! And I sent some to the DCC too. Send the future Democratic Congress People some love too!
6
If the Dems win the Senate, Bernie Sanders will succeed Republican Sen. Mike Enzi as the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, making Bernie one of the most powerful players in Congress. Not a bad consolation prize.
24
Progressive "icon" Mr. Sanders may too busy managing his 3 houses: Burlington, DC town house, and new $600,000 lakefront "cottage" in the Champlain Islands. Like Ms. Warren, who lives in a $1.5 million dollar Cambridge manse and who drives a BMW, don't get too deluded about the real "change" which you have been promised. These 1%er "progressives" don't live like the rest of us, they are, by any measure, rich. Please keep working harder and pay your taxes, thank you.
1
Bernie is no "1%er". I lived many years in VT. Ben and Jerry, probably, are not even 1%ers! Bernie's income and net wealth were examined in detail during the race. I don't recall the numbers, but he's among the least wealthy in the Senate (and 1-2 orders of magnitude below those running in 2016 for president.) The retirement home in Hero is another matter. I understand it had to do with inheritance from Jane's parents or something. It will put him in a higher tax bracket, but Bernie is as legit as they get - just ask a VTer. It's a small state; everyone knows what's going on. If he were a hypocrite he wouldn't have gotten 88% in the primary.
2
I cried listening to Merrick Garland accept President Obama's nomination for a seat on the Supreme Court. Here was a humble, decent, accomplished and vastly experienced candidate who truly deserved the chance to sit on the SCOTUS... A judge's judge, a moderate, and someone who should have easily slipped through confirmation hearings into the vacant seat. President Obama had chosen someone admired by everyone in government.
And this decent man who lived his life to serve our country was met by closed doors of the Republican Senators, who vowed they would not even grant him a meeting. Shame on the Republican majority, and should they lose that majority they surely deserve it for dishonoring such a pure soul as Merrick Garland. And I hope Hillary Clinton will uphold his nomination and allow him to take the seat on SCOTUS. There will be many more retirements and chances for Hillary to make her own mark on the court.
And this decent man who lived his life to serve our country was met by closed doors of the Republican Senators, who vowed they would not even grant him a meeting. Shame on the Republican majority, and should they lose that majority they surely deserve it for dishonoring such a pure soul as Merrick Garland. And I hope Hillary Clinton will uphold his nomination and allow him to take the seat on SCOTUS. There will be many more retirements and chances for Hillary to make her own mark on the court.
76
Not only that, Judge Garland's family survived the Holocaust.
What Romney insinuated back in 2012 with the "47%" comment was that some 150 million fellow Americans--the poor, the elderly, people of color, and LGBTQ people, all were somehow "life unworthy of life" and should vanish at no cost.
Even Hitler didn't have that sort of nerve--or cheapness--in the costly efforts to build and staff murder facilities--and transport the victims (including my own family remaining in Europe)--to kill some six million people.
It would be justice to both appoint Judge Garland to the Supreme Court and flush the Repubs down the toilet in this election.
What Romney insinuated back in 2012 with the "47%" comment was that some 150 million fellow Americans--the poor, the elderly, people of color, and LGBTQ people, all were somehow "life unworthy of life" and should vanish at no cost.
Even Hitler didn't have that sort of nerve--or cheapness--in the costly efforts to build and staff murder facilities--and transport the victims (including my own family remaining in Europe)--to kill some six million people.
It would be justice to both appoint Judge Garland to the Supreme Court and flush the Repubs down the toilet in this election.
3
No...... After Hillary wins, President Obama should withdraw his lame duck nomination. In January, Hillary will pick a strong liberal for the Supreme Court. The Republicans as usual in their hatred of President Obama destroyed their best option.
3
I'll bet right after the election in November, assuming Hillary wins, congressional Republicans will fall all over themselves to confirm Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS, under Obama, rather than risk Hillary nominating a more progressive-leaning candidate following her inauguration. Not that she necessarily would, but they won't want to take any chances. I agree with you that, if given the chance, I would hope Hillary would uphold Garland's nomination. He is a decent man and would make a fine SC justice.
4
I'm tired of polls. I'm tired of wasting time reading why one is right and the other is wrong. Correct and incorrect. And why one result is likely but means nothing if it actually happens.
1
I you relish paying taxes to support the salaries of over 500 congress people who will do absolutely nothing during a Clinton presidency, go ahead and knock yourselves out and vote for your GOP congressperson.
11
The campaign on both sides is so sickening. The latest spectacle is the star-studded fundraiser held for Hillary by Justin Timberlake right after Bill's birthday celebration on Martha's Vineyard. I'm reminded of the scene in The Godfather Part 2 where the mobster Simon Roth is cutting up the birthday cake into thick pieces and passing them around. It's a perfect metaphor for Hillary and her fat-cat foundation.
13
The current political system requires BOTH PARTIES and ALL CANDIDATES running for office to spend way too much time and effort on fundraising. why criticize Hillary for doing fundraisers in Hollywood where she has supporters while Trump and other Republicans hold fundraisers at other venues. Romney held many high ticket fundraisers in Utah where he had wealthy supporters. You are really criticizing the system, not Hillary.
10
A foundation that works to address climate change, the rights of girls and women, health and economic opportunity -is that the "fat-cat" opportunism that you mean, ed?
Conservatives have gone so far over the edge of odium that even humanitarian work disgusts them. Stupefying -no, sickening.
Conservatives have gone so far over the edge of odium that even humanitarian work disgusts them. Stupefying -no, sickening.
7
You fail to consider Trump's "campaign machine" being just a source of income to the Trump Organization. They are renting more office space in Trump Tower--and paying increased rents. He gets his TV time for free for being outrageous.
But he has NOTHING to offer besides coprolalia and narcissism. Perhaps he should look in the mirror all day, and have a hole cut in a strategic spot or the proper purpose (although the little hands indicate that proper purpose impossible).
But he has NOTHING to offer besides coprolalia and narcissism. Perhaps he should look in the mirror all day, and have a hole cut in a strategic spot or the proper purpose (although the little hands indicate that proper purpose impossible).
4
Wake Up Reince Priebus ! Drop Trump !
6
Anyone who votes Republican deserves to have a Zika baby.
Of course and sadly the poor life-long deformed child and later adult who will spend her or his entire life living off the taxpayers even as services to the disabled are cut doesn't deserve to suffer this cruel fate due to the stupidity of its parents.
And he or she certainly can't count on her/his Republican parents to pay taxes to pay for her/his care.
Of course and sadly the poor life-long deformed child and later adult who will spend her or his entire life living off the taxpayers even as services to the disabled are cut doesn't deserve to suffer this cruel fate due to the stupidity of its parents.
And he or she certainly can't count on her/his Republican parents to pay taxes to pay for her/his care.
8
The GOP unwillingness to fund additional monies for zika research, treatment and care of the unfortunate children, coupled with their effort to bind this to a rider defunding Planned Parenthood's efforts at women's health and avoidance of unwanted pregnancy (which is NOT abortion by any reasonable interpretation), is another cynical move to kill off fellow Americans by malign neglect.
This was implied by Romney's "47%" comment--some 150 million fellow Americans being somehow "life unworthy of life" and people who should vanish at no cost.
Today's GOP has become the REAL "life unworthy of life," embezzling their publicly-funded salaries and fringe benefits to serve party, power, and donor classes and turn the Constitution into pretty Kleenex. In my opinion, that is sedition verging on treason.
We still have the vote, and they can be voted out of office and shamed in front of their fellow citizens.
This was implied by Romney's "47%" comment--some 150 million fellow Americans being somehow "life unworthy of life" and people who should vanish at no cost.
Today's GOP has become the REAL "life unworthy of life," embezzling their publicly-funded salaries and fringe benefits to serve party, power, and donor classes and turn the Constitution into pretty Kleenex. In my opinion, that is sedition verging on treason.
We still have the vote, and they can be voted out of office and shamed in front of their fellow citizens.
9
'Anyone who votes Republican deserves to have a Zika baby.'
Way to go Liberals, making fun of babies born with life long defects.
No baby deserves to get Zika.
Even after reading stupidity like yours, still, no babies should get sick like that, no matter how happy that would make Liberals.
Way to go Liberals, making fun of babies born with life long defects.
No baby deserves to get Zika.
Even after reading stupidity like yours, still, no babies should get sick like that, no matter how happy that would make Liberals.
1
All to the good, but I have long wondered -- and this is a serious question -- why the courts have allowed GOP-controlled legislatures to so gerrymander Republican districts that no fair election is possible in them? Judges have, especially recently, put the kibosh on Republicans' attempts to suppress the vote of minorities. How is gerrymandering them into relatively harmless districts so different?
18
Senators are elected State wide. Gerrymandering has little impact at all. It's the House where Gerrymandering has a major impact.
4
Why did the Republican-dominated U.S. Supreme Court strip thousands of black Floridians of their right to vote in order to give Florida to and elect George W. Bush president even though Al Gore got more votes in 2000? The answer is pretty obvious.
6
Senate elections can't be gerrymandered. Save your ire for House races.
2
I'd offer a cautionary admonition about "forecasts": even liberal pundits were forecasting a Republican win of the Senate in 2010 and 2012; and those forecasts persisted right up to Election Day. It didn't happen in either case, largely because of (very) bad candidates offered by Republicans. It wasn't until 2014 that the Senate majority actually was taken by Republicans.
The candidates are tons more credible today. Don't count your cookies 'till they're baked, and we'd all be VERY well-advised to view "forecasts" with very jaundiced eyes.
The candidates are tons more credible today. Don't count your cookies 'till they're baked, and we'd all be VERY well-advised to view "forecasts" with very jaundiced eyes.
3
Actually, this particular preliminary forecast says that there's a 43% chance the Dems take back the Senate, a 17% chance that it's a tie, and a 40% chance the Repugnants retain control.
That's not exactly what I'd call Mindless Socialistic Optimism.
That's not exactly what I'd call Mindless Socialistic Optimism.
8
I notice the reference to the "wave election" of 2010. While it is true that the party that wins the presidential election historically has a setback in the off-presidential year two years later, it has been remarkable to me how little notice has been paid to what else was happening that year. The 2010 election was the first after the full devastating impact of the Great Recession was felt. Yes, the recession was going on in 2008, but that year the incumbent president had historically low popularity numbers -- something like 30 percent. Two years later, Bush was not an issue, the country had gone through the full disaster of the real estate and banking meltdowns, and the full fury of a badly hurt country was acted out against the new incumbent. If Hillary Clinton wins, it is likely that again the Democrats will suffer some setback in 2018, but if the economy continues to improve, especially job-creation and employment rates, and she does not preside over some foreign policy disaster or some ethical skeleton is not found in the closet, we might see less of an off-year regression. Age and demographics are against the GOP, as they well know, and the circled wagons of gerrymandering and filibustering can hold only so long. Besides, there's a new census in 2020, and the whole Congress must be redistricted again. Then there will be a huge movement against the injustices of gerrymandering.
12
This margin is too narrow for comfort. If Democrats do not take back the Senate, we are in for another four to eight years of obstruction and decay, not to mention the Supreme Court leading us down the road to totalitarianism.
I plan to double my contributions to the Democratic Senate Committee and support candidates in tossup states. I hope others will do the same.
I plan to double my contributions to the Democratic Senate Committee and support candidates in tossup states. I hope others will do the same.
66
While the writer espouses optimism with these numbers, there are two very important obstacles to this happening:
1. The baggage that is continually forthcoming in the Clinton campaign just simply cannot be ignored and the Republicans will milk it for all its worth.
2. While they have distanced themselves from the presidential campaign, the media is ignoring the extremely important process going on behind the scenes where the Koch Bros. and their cronies are spending their money concentrating on down ticket elections including judges.
The fact remains, if it was any other candidate other than Hillary, without her baggage, the democratic candidate would easily be at least 20 points ahead of Trump and the percentages to take back the Senate and House would be higher along with it. Hillary is just another corporate establishment candidate that will indulge in the status quo and offer real no alternative to the electorate that want real change.
1. The baggage that is continually forthcoming in the Clinton campaign just simply cannot be ignored and the Republicans will milk it for all its worth.
2. While they have distanced themselves from the presidential campaign, the media is ignoring the extremely important process going on behind the scenes where the Koch Bros. and their cronies are spending their money concentrating on down ticket elections including judges.
The fact remains, if it was any other candidate other than Hillary, without her baggage, the democratic candidate would easily be at least 20 points ahead of Trump and the percentages to take back the Senate and House would be higher along with it. Hillary is just another corporate establishment candidate that will indulge in the status quo and offer real no alternative to the electorate that want real change.
2
I'm sure we are all just as deeply shocked, shocked I say, to find out that a) politicians do favors, b) money buys you access.
Fortunately, money and access mean nothing to Republicans, and far less to Donald Trump, a man born poor who struggles inly to redeem Amurrica from greed...
Fortunately, money and access mean nothing to Republicans, and far less to Donald Trump, a man born poor who struggles inly to redeem Amurrica from greed...
1
What's the point of your hypothetical, Deus02? Sanders would have been in a worse position. But in any case, it is the hand we have to play now.
2
how about the House. Any action on climate change requires Other-Than-Republican majorities. And then there are the Democrats. So far all we've gotten is a lot of talk and half way measures like cap and trade. Goal needs to be to replace fossil fuel sources of energy quickly. The present situation is that CO2 ppm is still going up, and the warming that we already have is leading to more warming (less albedo from ice sheet melt, more water vapor in the atmosphere--a GHG, methane hydrate release, etc). On the development/fuel efficiency side, if you halve emissions from cars or ice boxes, but have twice as many sold, then there is no net reduction of CO2. Airplane travel the same: 25% more efficiency, but twice as many flights means a net gain, and at high altitude, the worst pollution. Economists seem to be still pressing more GDP growth over less pollution. Needlessly so, new energy sources are more jobs to install and much cheaper energy in the long run, and without the external costs of burning fossil fuels. How much is that flood in LA going to cost? And you can bet the oil industry down there is not going to pay for it. Just look at how much land LA has lost from oil drilling over the last 100 years. Like healthcare, when are local voters going to wake up?
Forget this Trump-Hilary nobody trusts them stuff for a minute. Tell us who are the local candidates for the House, who will make a difference. Fossil fuel surrogates need to be outed in this election.
Forget this Trump-Hilary nobody trusts them stuff for a minute. Tell us who are the local candidates for the House, who will make a difference. Fossil fuel surrogates need to be outed in this election.
11
Guess what? This will never happen:
"If Hillary wins, and the Dems retake the Senate, Merrick Garland should withdraw his name to prevent the current Republican-controlled Senate from approving him during a lame-duck session..."
Why would Garland do such a thing?
My very strong impression is that Garland would like to be a Supreme Court Justice. Withdrawing one's name from nomination to prevent one's confirmation is not the obvious route to that result. Obama might withrdraw Garland's nomination (though I doubt that too), but Garland won't.
Most likely if Hillary wins: nobody -- not Garland, not Obama, not Hillary -- would withdraw Garland's name before next January 20. Hillary probably would say she doesn't feel obliged to leave Garland's name on the table, but that's what she'll do. And the Senate would confirm Garland, regardless of which party ends up in control of the Senate. The Democrats would vote to confirm for obvious reasons, and the Republicans would vote to confirm because they'd worry that Clinton might name someone they like even less if they reject Garland.
"If Hillary wins, and the Dems retake the Senate, Merrick Garland should withdraw his name to prevent the current Republican-controlled Senate from approving him during a lame-duck session..."
Why would Garland do such a thing?
My very strong impression is that Garland would like to be a Supreme Court Justice. Withdrawing one's name from nomination to prevent one's confirmation is not the obvious route to that result. Obama might withrdraw Garland's nomination (though I doubt that too), but Garland won't.
Most likely if Hillary wins: nobody -- not Garland, not Obama, not Hillary -- would withdraw Garland's name before next January 20. Hillary probably would say she doesn't feel obliged to leave Garland's name on the table, but that's what she'll do. And the Senate would confirm Garland, regardless of which party ends up in control of the Senate. The Democrats would vote to confirm for obvious reasons, and the Republicans would vote to confirm because they'd worry that Clinton might name someone they like even less if they reject Garland.
5
Proving once again that all along President Obama is playing 3 dimensional Chess, while everyone else seems to be struggling with Checkers!
12
Honestly, I hope that President Obama would withdraw his name. Let Hillary nominate a strong California liberal. Yeah.
When is The Times going to a front page, above the fold article on the pay for play big money transactions between the Clinton foundation, the State Department while lead by Hillary Clinton, and all the foreign donors and countries that funneled their money to the Foundation in exchange for special access to Clinton and federal government business? When? Or is The Times really just a mouthpiece for the Clinton campaign?
14
@paul
Is this a case of selective reading?? -- If you actually read the paper, you'd see there are (and have been) quite a few articles on the problems facing the Clinton campaign because of the Foundation.
And if you can't join this thread, write a letter to the Editor.
Is this a case of selective reading?? -- If you actually read the paper, you'd see there are (and have been) quite a few articles on the problems facing the Clinton campaign because of the Foundation.
And if you can't join this thread, write a letter to the Editor.
5
The "pay" to a foundation doing good around the world and the "play" was what? A meeting that may have been obtained anyway? A connection for a possible job interview? This is how Congress works, networking is how any business works and this wasn't for personal or professional gain but for a charity which gets high marks. I remember an energy policy worked out by Mr. Cheney and a group of energy companies in closed door meetings, bringing a squawk by the left but no investigation. This may be a reason to want to change the system, but to beat up on her for funding a foundation while Congresspeople do this daily to fund their re-elections seems unfair to me. Reminds me of that great Casa Blanca line, "I'm shocked, shocked that there's gambling going on here." People from my nutmeg state should not be hypocritical!
16
The Times is the one that researched and first advanced the story on her emails from which all this other stuff has come out. To claim the NYT is not investigating Clinton is just patently false.
5
I am sure that I am only the latest of many posts with this sentiment, but why do these polls matter? Most political polling has been excrement lately, both because people game them and because cell phone number lists are still incomplete.
OK, it's click bait. That I understand. But poll results are click bait that matters. Poll results, en masse, can change public perception of a campaign and its prospects, and in doing so nudge what people do.
If polls tended to be accurate that might be defendable , but they are not. Stop pretending that they are.
OK, it's click bait. That I understand. But poll results are click bait that matters. Poll results, en masse, can change public perception of a campaign and its prospects, and in doing so nudge what people do.
If polls tended to be accurate that might be defendable , but they are not. Stop pretending that they are.
5
One has to wonder and considering that Clintons lead is not that large, are there are a significant number of people involved in these polls whom are just not admitting that they are voting for Trump?
1
http://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/
No single poll by itself is ever 100% accurate. But in their aggregate, polls have been extremely accurate in predicting the outcomes of recent elections.
State level races are harder, especially in states where there is little or no polling, because small sample sizes lead to highly volatile measurements, but at the national level, with lots and lots of both national and state polls factored in, looking at polling data is very useful and usually pretty accurate.
No single poll by itself is ever 100% accurate. But in their aggregate, polls have been extremely accurate in predicting the outcomes of recent elections.
State level races are harder, especially in states where there is little or no polling, because small sample sizes lead to highly volatile measurements, but at the national level, with lots and lots of both national and state polls factored in, looking at polling data is very useful and usually pretty accurate.
1
Just what are conservative values, anyway? Trickle Down Tax breaks for billionaires, perpetual wars for profit, corporate trade agreements that offshore American jobs, and environmental deregulation? Portraying Creationism as a legitimate scientific theory while denying global warming? Deprivation of healthcare, birth control, education, and Social Security? Supreme Court "Justices" who gut the Voting Rights Act, equate corporations with people, and flood our elective process with anonymous cash, while saturating our schools, theaters, churches, and shopping malls with assault weapons? A thinly veiled version of bigotry that seeks out the same political results as Donald Trump? Conspiratorial Congressional obstruction, systematic voter suppression, and taxing capital gains at a lower rate than meager wages earned while performing actual labor?
Trump's agenda isn't much different than that of the entire Republican Party... His delivery is just less sophisticated. I, for one, will never vote for ANY Republican...
Trump's agenda isn't much different than that of the entire Republican Party... His delivery is just less sophisticated. I, for one, will never vote for ANY Republican...
81
Let me enlighten you, but please do try to follow. We want smaller government, lower taxes, protection of our borders, free trade with smart worldwide deals, more jobs and less regulations impeding the great American entrepreneurial spirit.
1
The Democrats have supported pretty much the same agenda in legislation. The only hard difference has been the rhetorical positions of both parties.
Well said! The best assessment of "what the Republican Party can do for you" that that I have read. Bravo! Still baffles me how ordinary people vote republican.
5
51 votes doesn't help much for the Supreme Court, since a 60 vote majority is needed. It does allow for approval of all other appointments because of the nuclear option that Democrats enacted. The nuclear option angered the Republicans to no end. And it wouldn't surprise me if the parties made a deal, with the Republicans cooperating on Supreme Curt appointments in exchange for the Democrats' revoking the nuclear option. That would return Senate rules to normalcy. A normal Senate, can you imagine that?
1
no
1
Unfortunately, if Garland is withdrawn and a younger, more progressive nominee is put forth by Clinton, I don't think anything short of the nuclear option will get him/her confirmed.
While this is a delightful thought, an even happier one would be retaking the House by 2018. The one problem with this is that the DNC hasn't yet aggregated its fecal matter sufficiently to put out enough vote-worthy candidates to accomplish this and they don't seem to have any real plan to do so.
It's all well and fine to have the Presidency and half the Senate but taking back the House needs to be made a priority so that the country has a real chance to totally rebuke the crypto-fascism being offered by the Rs.
It's all well and fine to have the Presidency and half the Senate but taking back the House needs to be made a priority so that the country has a real chance to totally rebuke the crypto-fascism being offered by the Rs.
28
Historically, Democrats do not show up for midterm elections. They stand a better chance in 2020 - an especially important election because, if the Democrats win, they can redraw the anti-Democracy congressional districts that the Republicans put in place after winning in 2010. Republicans have held a majority in the House with a minority of the voters ever since.
2
If moderate Republicans who could work with Democrats as they did of old can once more get elected to the House, we would get things done. It could be rough while the current crop remain, but a good drubbing might bring saner candidates the next time around.
1
This seat counting diversion is all well and good, but 60 is the new 50 when it comes to getting anything done in the Senate. If the Democrats don't have 60 seats, the Republicans will filibuster and filibuster and filibuster some more, as they've done since Obama's first midterms. That will include filibustering legislation as well as "advise and consent" approvals of Presidential appointments like Supreme Court justices. So, just getting a simple majority won't help unblock the "do nothingness" of Congress.
12
I wish Democratic Party retake senate but I am not too optimistic. Democratic party is not that much organized and party works are not militant and regimented like the Republican party workers. The Democratic party voters are lazy and are of different interest groups. The Republican voters are active and all white Christian.
4
the biggest advantage to Ds winning senate races - lots of long time Rs are staying home in protest of their party's choice of presidential candidate.
6
Sorry Bob, but that is a MSM try at hype and an attempt to help HRC. The turnout will be huge for Trump and I am most certain the black turnout (13% of population) will be very low as they have no Black candidate and they have suffered the most in the past 8 yrs.
2
Huge. Of course, huge. Do you really have no idea how silly this sounds?
1
@Chuck: And I am certain Black voter turnout will be at an all-time high to defeat the guy who gave birth to the movement that dared question President Obama's legitimacy.
2
Once this is over, Hillary should nominate Obama to the Supreme Court.
About 70% of Republicans heads will explode.
About 70% of Republicans heads will explode.
80
Want to see even more heads explode? Yes, nominate Obama. Michelle.
3
Political punditry from a neophyte. Democrats take the Senate winning 51-49 seats. Hillary wins 372 to 166 electoral seats. Republicans retain the House 234-201.
3
The supreme court appointment issue may result in surprising ticket splitting by Republicans who vote for Hillary . It ain't over till the fat lady votes.
7
I, as a lifelong Republican, do not personally know of a single conservative who will vote for Hillary....not one
2
Of course you don't, Chuck: you live in a bubble.
3
So you and your friends are not voting this cycle, Chuck? For surely it's unthinkable to vote for your party's nominee. If not for the things that have come out of his mouth, then certainly any self-respecting Texan could never stomach voting for a New York City social liberal.
3
If Hillary wins, and the Dems retake the Senate, Merrick Garland should withdraw his name to prevent the current Republican-controlled Senate from approving him during a lame-duck session, then after Jan 20th Hillary can nominate the most left-wing extremist and the Dem-controlled Senate can approve. Of course the Republicans can't complain because "the people will have been able to speak through the election!" They deserve to get burned by playing with fire.
21
Clinton? Appoint a left winger to the SCOTUS? What are you smoking? She'll appoint a corporatist who's ok with gay rights and indifferent to abortion rights.
Tom from Dublin, Actually Judge Garland, a very decent man, might be too Left for Ms Clinton. In the debates we need to push both candidates more to the Left. You get?
@state
FYI. There's a lot better chance that Clinton would appoint a left-winger than Trump would -- Besides, if you left types had your act more together, you might get something done other than just sitting around and complaining.
FYI. There's a lot better chance that Clinton would appoint a left-winger than Trump would -- Besides, if you left types had your act more together, you might get something done other than just sitting around and complaining.
1
It's always amusing when those who know nothing about polls, statistical models or analysis try to convince the rest of us that the expert predictions, however carefully calculated, are just wrong.
Read this piece again. They correctly called 35 of the 26 Senate seats in 2012. They don't mention that they also correctly called the presidential winner in all 50 states and the District of Columbia the same year, Karl Rove's televised tantrum notwithstanding.
Aggregate polls do account for local and regional factors, for voter unrest and for any other anomaly or peculiarity anyone cares to mention.
It doesn't mean circumstances can't change, but at this very moment, the poll stands.
Learn to live with it.
Read this piece again. They correctly called 35 of the 26 Senate seats in 2012. They don't mention that they also correctly called the presidential winner in all 50 states and the District of Columbia the same year, Karl Rove's televised tantrum notwithstanding.
Aggregate polls do account for local and regional factors, for voter unrest and for any other anomaly or peculiarity anyone cares to mention.
It doesn't mean circumstances can't change, but at this very moment, the poll stands.
Learn to live with it.
4
Typo obviously - 35 of the 36 Senate seats.
2
There is many a slip between the cup and the lip. Media should avoid forecasting as to who will win election or which part will control the Senate. Are they the media forecasters astrologers? So much can happen between now and the day of the election.
7
Is there a forecast for the House as well?
2
Sadly, a 60% chance is somewhat meager considering that republicans have accomplished zero in their senate majority. Those GOP thugs can't even fund zika without cutting women's healthcare and ebola efforts. And they are offering CDC 40% less than they requested! GOP won't confirm Supreme Court nominees or even give them a hearing. They all want fast track TPP and then are silent on it going into the election (hello democrats!). If democrats weren't so mealy mouthed and calculating they would have a 90% chance of winning senate. Instead, they give GOP a shot at it again and continue their strategy of snagging defeat from the hands of victory.....
16
Many of us in NC are hoping for Deborah Ross to unseat Richard Burr. It is still a long shot, but not impossible.
4
Nothing could be better than a huge Clinton victory while flipping the Senate AND House Democratic. It could happen. Wait for the debates when Trump's only weapon is to insult Hillary, while she responds with ideas. A large majority of Americans will reject Trump. They will vote Democratic for House and Senate and in state elections as well. The tide will turn. Trumpism and the Republican agenda of the past 35 years will be soundly defeated. America will vote overwhelmingly for a positive future.
17
She hasn't responded with any ideas. All her so called Ideas are something about "I feel your pain" with her supposed policies brought by others are policies that do not solve anything by masking it. Learn basic economics and/or review history and you will find out that the Democrats party's ideas and policies fail on all counts except for convinicng the uninformed and the weak will that they are doing what is good for everyone and lining there pockets from organizations that support their actions. You will most likely never see an actual middle class democratic politician. (They typically are replaced, switch parties, or get rich)
3
9
In the words of Mike Tyson - "everyone has a plan...until they get punched in he face."
The chart leaves out Wisconsin. Has Ron Johnson conceded already?
3
34 Senate seats are on the ballot this November, plus all 435 seats in the House.
1
Time is not on the Republicans' side. Hillary will probably delay and stonewall long enough to get her through the elections, but the various issues dogging her will not go away. The window to impeachment will be wide open, and the Republicans will waste no time in taking advantage of it. A vast right- wing conspiracy? You ain't seen nothing yet.
6
So you admit it's a conspiracy. That's progress, at least.
6
Sounds great, until you look at 2018, and find that Dems are up for election on 24 seats, and the GOP is up for 10 seats.
Seems like a recipe for continued gridlock, in that I'm assuming a Clinton victory in '16, followed by a standard vote for the 'other guys' in her first mid-term.
Seems like a recipe for continued gridlock, in that I'm assuming a Clinton victory in '16, followed by a standard vote for the 'other guys' in her first mid-term.
2
Great. We can have Chuck Schumer, for years the most vociferous defender of the tax break for hedge fund managers, as the Senate majority leader. I'm sure he will stop being the mouthpiece for all those wealthy people who give big campaign contributions and start focusing on the needs of the rest of the 99% who choose to throw their money away on worthless things like housing, food, and healthcare.
3
So you're saying that we're much better off with Yertle the Turtle as majority leader?
Like it or not, those precious few months that Obama got with majorities in both houses was the lone shot that we had to get some meaningful legislation through and we managed to get ACA (plus a few other things, but that was the most notable). The window of opportunity will probably be as small, if not smaller, especially with the GOP retaining control in the House. And while Schumer would be majority leader, he's not going to be the sole power broker in the Senate. With Warren and Bernie holding down the lefty caucus, this will be a more progressive Senate than you might think.
Housing, food and healthcare still have a shot.
Like it or not, those precious few months that Obama got with majorities in both houses was the lone shot that we had to get some meaningful legislation through and we managed to get ACA (plus a few other things, but that was the most notable). The window of opportunity will probably be as small, if not smaller, especially with the GOP retaining control in the House. And while Schumer would be majority leader, he's not going to be the sole power broker in the Senate. With Warren and Bernie holding down the lefty caucus, this will be a more progressive Senate than you might think.
Housing, food and healthcare still have a shot.
3
It will be no thanks to Gabby Gifford's PAC if Kirk and Toomey lose. I fail to understand how she could possibly endorse Mark Kirk for Senate in IL over Tammy Duckworth--a decorated war veteran who took part in the recent Democratic gun control "sit in" in Congress.
How can she and the ARS possibly think any meaningful gun control legislation will ever get through a GOP House AND Senate?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/gabby-giffords-pac-endorses-pat-to...
And THIS is what Giffords and her PAC are endorsing in IL--a racist GOP Tea Party senator who has only "distanced himself" from Trump and the gun lobby in order to win re-election. As Trump would say, "Disgusting. Sad." I wish she and her PAC would either have stayed out of our state elections or she would take back her endorsement. It's a betrayal of the people of Illinois.
http://cltv.com/2016/08/22/mark-kirk-on-iran-payment-obama-acting-like-d...
How can she and the ARS possibly think any meaningful gun control legislation will ever get through a GOP House AND Senate?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/gabby-giffords-pac-endorses-pat-to...
And THIS is what Giffords and her PAC are endorsing in IL--a racist GOP Tea Party senator who has only "distanced himself" from Trump and the gun lobby in order to win re-election. As Trump would say, "Disgusting. Sad." I wish she and her PAC would either have stayed out of our state elections or she would take back her endorsement. It's a betrayal of the people of Illinois.
http://cltv.com/2016/08/22/mark-kirk-on-iran-payment-obama-acting-like-d...
10
It is well established that people are influenced by predictions of election outcomes, witness the controversy of elections being called on the basis of returns from the East Coast in national elections. Those thus influenced do not vote for the "projected" winner, they just stay home and don't bother to vote as they feel their ballot will not matter.
The Times has been projecting a Hillary and Democratic landslide for some weeks now with their "box scores" and I wonder if this does not add up to engineering the outcome of the coming election. Not that the venerable New York Times would engage in such activity.
The Times has been projecting a Hillary and Democratic landslide for some weeks now with their "box scores" and I wonder if this does not add up to engineering the outcome of the coming election. Not that the venerable New York Times would engage in such activity.
3
What a great prospect for the nation!
The END of gridlock, the prospect of getting judges and Federal appointees confirmed and in office (as per the Constitution), the chance to actually fund needed infrastructure repair, and also to reform some environmental, prescription drug, and consumer laws, now being prevented by right-wing special special interest toadies.
The END of gridlock, the prospect of getting judges and Federal appointees confirmed and in office (as per the Constitution), the chance to actually fund needed infrastructure repair, and also to reform some environmental, prescription drug, and consumer laws, now being prevented by right-wing special special interest toadies.
16
I truly hope that the Democrats regain the Senate, even if by a slim margin. Yet I fear that with the House under GOP control, at least for another four years, we will continue being frustrated by the Republican congressional obstructionism. Just as with Obama, Secretary Clinton is in for a bumpy ride. But I for one would rather be by her side on this political roller coaster than risk being figuratively pushed off by her totally inept opponent, Mr. Trump.
6
When the Republican 'leadership' proceeded with the strategy of obstructionism over productive service to the country I wrote letters to my representatives. When the Republican 'leadership' voted for a government shutdown for grandstanding I made a personal commitment to remember that in the upcoming elections. Shutting down the government was unnecessary and dysfunctional. When you consider 'we the people' wound up paying people back wages for not working and/or providing necessary services, it cost the taxpayers more for getting less. What a stupid and embarrassing fiasco.
The endless stream of 'do nothing' votes against the ACA is another example of why many Republicans have not earned their seats. Want to improve a good concept and make the healthcare system better? - keep the marketplace and require all government employees, including elected officials, to use it for their healthcare/insurance or pay out of pocket. We will all see better services and the 'law makers' will actually understand what they are voting for. Why should the taxpayers pay for their insurance if they don't want to do their jobs?
The endless stream of 'do nothing' votes against the ACA is another example of why many Republicans have not earned their seats. Want to improve a good concept and make the healthcare system better? - keep the marketplace and require all government employees, including elected officials, to use it for their healthcare/insurance or pay out of pocket. We will all see better services and the 'law makers' will actually understand what they are voting for. Why should the taxpayers pay for their insurance if they don't want to do their jobs?
13
The Senate needs to be taken back by the Democrats. Along with electing Hillary Clinton the Democrats need control of at least one branch of congress so that the United States can start moving forward. Congress needs to address education, inner city problems, crumbling infrastructure, climate change and healthcare. Congress has to stop spending money on investigating Benghazi and emails and start to do the people business, not the Republican's business.
45
The Republicans have never been a friend of the working class and Democrats now just pay lip service. That is why neither party controls for long. It's why much that needs to be done, doesn't get done, e,g, infrastructure, job re-training, environmental protection.
Outside of a minor miracle, Ms. Clinton will be the next President. Not exactly "Great Expectations."
Outside of a minor miracle, Ms. Clinton will be the next President. Not exactly "Great Expectations."
2
If the dems do take the senate, the first thing they should do is end filibuster abuse. Go back to the old way where you actually have to hold the floor by talking. There should be a cost associated with such a serious maneuver that ultimately goes against majority rule.
24
But the Dems are the ones who changed the rules.
3
This needs to get up to 95 percent before I'll feel any comfort.
13
Vote WAVE!
5
Democrats: identify which races you support (ALL of them) and send in your 10 bucks. If we all do that, we have a better chance. Grassroots support.
9
Sorry, but Hillary's coattails are getting shorter and shorter. This election is really an anomaly. She will be faced with a hostile Republican Congress that will seize on every chance to impeach her no matter what she does. It will be a slow death. But she can only blame herself for having such vulnerability.
4
Sure: Like Obama was only to blame himself for his black skin.
No matter what Dem president, the Republican Congress will obstruct anyway.
No matter what Dem president, the Republican Congress will obstruct anyway.
6
"She will be faced with a hostile Republican Congress that will seize on every chance to impeach her..."
Pretty much the SAME way things have been with Obama, no? Face facts, the "problem" is with the Republicans, NOT Clinton or Obama!
Pretty much the SAME way things have been with Obama, no? Face facts, the "problem" is with the Republicans, NOT Clinton or Obama!
16
@ed
A hostile Republican Congress is by no means, nothing new.
And speaking of coattails getting shorter, they must be up to Donald Trump's neck by now, since he wants to bring in Goon Squads to mind the polls.
NOTHING is more vulnerable than desperation.
A hostile Republican Congress is by no means, nothing new.
And speaking of coattails getting shorter, they must be up to Donald Trump's neck by now, since he wants to bring in Goon Squads to mind the polls.
NOTHING is more vulnerable than desperation.
6
Chuck Grassley of Iowa needs to go.
25
So very true.
4
In today's version of lying with statistics, we include the "overgeneralization" in which we claim that a split is control .... unless, of course, you already know that Hilary is empress elect. Keep up the good campaigning.
1
A split does mean control in the Senate because the Vice President will break any ties.
2
It is all very simple this coming election. Why would any sane person vote for any Republican?
79
Answer: Ignorance and Bigotry
20
Mark, there are a lot of crazies out there. An awful lot. One can only hope they are too lazy to register to vote and too stupid to find their polling place if they do.
1
The first Republican caucus in the Senate following the election is going to be a sad affair and after the inauguration it’s going to be lonely. Trump, the anti-politician, in his mad campaign for the White House is going to unseat several traditional Republican and return the Senate to the Democrats. Mitch McConnell and the GOP have themselves to blame for allowing this Frankenstein to take over.
Trump refused to align himself with or support Sen. John McCain or Rep. Paul Ryan. By not supporting two of the leaders of the party he also built a wall between himself and the less well known GOP candidates. The message was, “Everyone, you’re on your own”. His throw out the establishment approach happens to include several freshman Republicans. Oops.
The Republicans have a candidate but are leaderless. Trump will support whatever side will deliver a win, handy for someone with no core beliefs. Trump doesn’t promote Republican or Conservative values, only his values, and those shift by the week.
Trump refused to align himself with or support Sen. John McCain or Rep. Paul Ryan. By not supporting two of the leaders of the party he also built a wall between himself and the less well known GOP candidates. The message was, “Everyone, you’re on your own”. His throw out the establishment approach happens to include several freshman Republicans. Oops.
The Republicans have a candidate but are leaderless. Trump will support whatever side will deliver a win, handy for someone with no core beliefs. Trump doesn’t promote Republican or Conservative values, only his values, and those shift by the week.
8
As several people have pointed out, the Republicans created their own monster in their lab funded by the Kochs, ALEC (also the Kochs), the Tea Party (ditto), and the congressional redistricting plan, REDMAP (Koch support). This is a supremely delicious moment in political history, when the monster turns on his creators. And, Hillary Clinton, one of the most distrusted politicians in history, is the luckiest woman on earth.
3
You describe a scene reminiscent of Milton's description of the fallen angels after Satan's hosts were defeated. I'm afraid the contest between good and evil will not be as clear-cut as that in the real world. Hillary is no archangel, and Trump will have many heirs who will carry on for him and what he stands for no matter what the outcome of the elections. Trump has exposed the underlying stench and corruption of the entire political system. Once the rock has been turned, the worms underneath can no longer hide.
2
That's true, ed, the republican party's nominee certainly has turned over the that party's rock, and the stench reeks.
4
We should not forget that just because a Senator is a Democrat means they are going to vote party line. We are not like the Republicans who move in lock step motion.
If Hillary is going to be able to get the programs and policies in place that we desire, she will need help in both the Senate and the House. This is the year to make sure all your family members and neighbors vote Democrat.
If Hillary is going to be able to get the programs and policies in place that we desire, she will need help in both the Senate and the House. This is the year to make sure all your family members and neighbors vote Democrat.
8
There is something very unsettling about these Upshot forecasts. They seem fuzzy, not unlike reading tea leaves. I don't trust your assessments, the data seems really soft, and it reminds me of the way mediums work. There is nothing in your approach that makes anything decisive. Flipping a quarter would bring out the same conclusions your make.
2
Your expectations are unrealistic. It's only August 24th! We don't know which voters will show up, or what yet-unknown news events will influence the outcome. Some people may flip.
Any "certain" prediction now really would tea-leaf reliable. Remember the Brexit prediction and many other exit and prediction polls that have missed over the years? There can be no certainty yet. This seems statistically sound to me.
Any "certain" prediction now really would tea-leaf reliable. Remember the Brexit prediction and many other exit and prediction polls that have missed over the years? There can be no certainty yet. This seems statistically sound to me.
Of course there's nothing decisive. It's a prediction, not an oracle. If you want something decisive, just wait until Nov. 8th. With two exceptions (1876 and 2000), the election has accurately predicted who will win the election.
1
Electoral probabilities are, of course, a moving target. How many GOP voters will show up to vote the down ballot races even though they can't bring themselves to vote for Donald Trump? How many will, once they are at the polls any way, simply close their eyes and pull the lever for Trump because "At least, he's not the Democrat."? How many Independent and Democratic voters feel apathetic because the Democratic choice is 'just as bad' as the Republican nominee? [not many I hope but more than zero]
The Democrats won't have as good a chance at switching seats from Red to Blue as this one for a long time. They would be smart not to waste it. Not the Democrats ever do anything that's politically smart.
The Democrats won't have as good a chance at switching seats from Red to Blue as this one for a long time. They would be smart not to waste it. Not the Democrats ever do anything that's politically smart.
5
What we know for sure is that a majority of Americans will vote for Democratic Representatives in 2016, yet the House will remain firmly in GOP control nonetheless. Here in GA, as in many southern states, the popular vote for the House will split nearly 50/50, and yet republicans will take 75% of the seats. The Gerrmandered House is broken!
19
@mford
Hopefully that's true ... but in several southern states there's still the problem of voting rights being unfairly (and unlawfully ) challenged.
That's something to keep an eye on.
Hopefully that's true ... but in several southern states there's still the problem of voting rights being unfairly (and unlawfully ) challenged.
That's something to keep an eye on.
6
You can also thank the various laws and court decisions that, in an effort to guarantee minorities being elected, pack overwhelming numbers of likely Democratic voters into a few districts, and spread out likely Republican voters over a larger number of districts. If for example, there are three districts and District 1 has 90% Democratic votes and Districts 2 & 3 have 55% Republican votes, assuming equal number of votes in each district, it winds up with 2 Republican and 1 Democratic but the Democrats got 60% of the votes. That's not gerrymandering, that's the law (of unintended consequences).
4
@mann
That's news to me. Besides, we all know there are rarely a significant amount of "minorities" runnining for office that will make a vast difference in the vote -- ESPECIALLY, if they can't!!
That's news to me. Besides, we all know there are rarely a significant amount of "minorities" runnining for office that will make a vast difference in the vote -- ESPECIALLY, if they can't!!
2
Here's hoping that we can rid ourselves of some of tea party crowd who were swept in a few years ago. That has been a failed experiment funded by the Koch syndicate as a ground game for their John Birch utopia, where no one pays taxes and no one gets benefits. These people don't belong in government. I don't care if the Kochs want to keep every penny and not pay taxes. Congress and government will be much healthier under a Democrat majority.
Hopefully we will finally make some progress as a country. And if the GOP needs some ideas for next time: bring back the establishment Republicans. All of the people who were thrown out because they weren't rabidly right wing need to be invited back now.
Hopefully we will finally make some progress as a country. And if the GOP needs some ideas for next time: bring back the establishment Republicans. All of the people who were thrown out because they weren't rabidly right wing need to be invited back now.
8
Most of the polls relating to the Senate elections treat these elections as separate from the Presidential election. They ask people about their choices for their respective Senate seats.
This is appropriate, but also misleading. Ticket splitting is at a very low ebb, and the possibility that, asked about a Senate race in isolation, a respondent will consider the possibility that he or she will vote a straight ticket, is much less than what is likely to happen on Election Day.
This is appropriate, but also misleading. Ticket splitting is at a very low ebb, and the possibility that, asked about a Senate race in isolation, a respondent will consider the possibility that he or she will vote a straight ticket, is much less than what is likely to happen on Election Day.
1
Dave--NOT for me. I'm voting a straight ticket. I used to split, back when Republicans were respectable, but never again, until they get the big picture.
16
This analysis fails to discuss in any detail the strengths/weaknesses of the Democratic candidates contesting all of the 24 open Republican Senate seats.
In Ohio, incumbent Rob Portman, an establishment Republican if there ever was one, is likely to beat challenger Ted Strickland, the former Democratic governor. Both are excrutiatingly boring, and Portman has literally hidden from Trump and Trump's lunatics in the state. I'm not sure Strickland is even campaigning; he's not been in southwest Ohio at all.
The Ohio Senate race, however, does demonstate the influence of SuperPac money in "down ballot" races. Anonymous donors are throwing in millions of dollars to assist Portman with hard-hitting TV ads. This money is being managed by Karl Rove and agents of the Koch brothers.
Should this same effort be made on behalf of other GOP candidates, incumbents and challengers, chances of the Republicans maintaining their Senate majority are much better than this article suggests.
In Ohio, incumbent Rob Portman, an establishment Republican if there ever was one, is likely to beat challenger Ted Strickland, the former Democratic governor. Both are excrutiatingly boring, and Portman has literally hidden from Trump and Trump's lunatics in the state. I'm not sure Strickland is even campaigning; he's not been in southwest Ohio at all.
The Ohio Senate race, however, does demonstate the influence of SuperPac money in "down ballot" races. Anonymous donors are throwing in millions of dollars to assist Portman with hard-hitting TV ads. This money is being managed by Karl Rove and agents of the Koch brothers.
Should this same effort be made on behalf of other GOP candidates, incumbents and challengers, chances of the Republicans maintaining their Senate majority are much better than this article suggests.
7
Whether or not a Dem. win of the WH in 11/2016 is a launching pad for a Dem. annexation of the Senate, may still remain rather a politically polemical problem. Byzantine number games and statistical intricacies of savvy soothsayers can still rule the roost in all walks of life, and can make plucky political prognostications. The 2010 and 2014 Dem fiascoes in Congress are still green in one's memory.
And hence, a sanguine and/or mercurial Dem attitudes can be deleterious and ill-advised. But then, if Hillary becomes the next POTUS, and develops a convivial and bonhomous relationship with the GOP elected officials, the numbers might turn in her favor.
It may not be a Sisyphean task for the Dems to retake the US Senate and the House, if they play the cards right, close to their chests, at certain needed times. That might need a fabulous finesse and sangfroid to accomplish the desired objectives. Prediction of future is whole new ball of wax.
And hence, a sanguine and/or mercurial Dem attitudes can be deleterious and ill-advised. But then, if Hillary becomes the next POTUS, and develops a convivial and bonhomous relationship with the GOP elected officials, the numbers might turn in her favor.
It may not be a Sisyphean task for the Dems to retake the US Senate and the House, if they play the cards right, close to their chests, at certain needed times. That might need a fabulous finesse and sangfroid to accomplish the desired objectives. Prediction of future is whole new ball of wax.
1
Winning the Senate has to be the number one objective for the Democrats.
Achieve this and Hillary will be carried to the Presidency on their coat tails.
If not the Country will have some kind of protection against Trump lunacy.
It needs a get out to vote call and a clear agenda to achieve this
President Obama, Mrs Obama , Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Senator Sanders need to add their powerful voices to the support of Democrat candidates.
This is our chance to take the USA Forward by reducing income inequality by raising the minimum wage, equal pay for all , good jobs created by an infrastructure program and focus on renewable energy. Tax reform , immigration reform , affordable college, progress towards universal Healh care.
This will lead to further growth by enabling higher consumer disposable income.
We are all job creators.
Achieve this and Hillary will be carried to the Presidency on their coat tails.
If not the Country will have some kind of protection against Trump lunacy.
It needs a get out to vote call and a clear agenda to achieve this
President Obama, Mrs Obama , Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Senator Sanders need to add their powerful voices to the support of Democrat candidates.
This is our chance to take the USA Forward by reducing income inequality by raising the minimum wage, equal pay for all , good jobs created by an infrastructure program and focus on renewable energy. Tax reform , immigration reform , affordable college, progress towards universal Healh care.
This will lead to further growth by enabling higher consumer disposable income.
We are all job creators.
15
The Greedy Obstructionist Party Senators, who all followed the McConnell Doctrine (being "a'gin" anything Obama might propose simply because he proposed it), which was hatched before he was even sworn in for his first term, richly deserve to be figuratively tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.
My favorites who have potential to lose their seats are NC Senator Richard Burr, of my home state, and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire.
Burr is a good Tea Party Republican who is a fervent supporter of the infamous NC bathroom birther law, HB2, the voter suppression legislation enacted by the Tea Party NC legislature found to be passed with invidious discriminatory intent, and has a spate of other retrograde positions in an attempt to take NC politics back to the time of Jesse Helms, an avowed racist.
Ayotte, an intelligent woman, is a champion of the campaign to defund Planned Parenthood, which is the principal avenue by which poor women have access to basic preventive health services, like obgyn exams and breast screenings. Her unconscionable positions, including her duplicitous stance of voting for Trump but not supporting him, are a permanent stain on her legacy.
I call her and other supposedly moderate Republicans who won't disavow Trump, Vichy Republicans, for obvious reasons.
In losing their seats these unprincipled obstructionists will reap what they have sown.
My favorites who have potential to lose their seats are NC Senator Richard Burr, of my home state, and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire.
Burr is a good Tea Party Republican who is a fervent supporter of the infamous NC bathroom birther law, HB2, the voter suppression legislation enacted by the Tea Party NC legislature found to be passed with invidious discriminatory intent, and has a spate of other retrograde positions in an attempt to take NC politics back to the time of Jesse Helms, an avowed racist.
Ayotte, an intelligent woman, is a champion of the campaign to defund Planned Parenthood, which is the principal avenue by which poor women have access to basic preventive health services, like obgyn exams and breast screenings. Her unconscionable positions, including her duplicitous stance of voting for Trump but not supporting him, are a permanent stain on her legacy.
I call her and other supposedly moderate Republicans who won't disavow Trump, Vichy Republicans, for obvious reasons.
In losing their seats these unprincipled obstructionists will reap what they have sown.
131
Yes, Trump is sinking some down-ballot candidates with him. But recently he has cleaned up his act somewhat (probably too late—does anybody really believe he's changed his stance on immigration or cares about minorities?). In short, we shouldn't be too complacent about a Clinton victory, let alone about retaking the Senate.
We need to unplug the real Donald again. Let's get Elizabeth Warren out there on the stump.
As for the Clinton Foundation as liability: what has gotten into the American press? Do they not realize that for almost all of our history ambassadorships have gone to large donors? This is not Teapot Dome. No oil leases were sold. Let's get a grip.
We need to unplug the real Donald again. Let's get Elizabeth Warren out there on the stump.
As for the Clinton Foundation as liability: what has gotten into the American press? Do they not realize that for almost all of our history ambassadorships have gone to large donors? This is not Teapot Dome. No oil leases were sold. Let's get a grip.
38
"The Upshot’s new Senate election forecast gives Democrats a 60 percent chance of winning control of the chamber in November."
So, we have a 60% chance of higher taxes, less military spending, more control of education, more testing for children, more manufacturing, research and development leaving the U.S. and the TPP will be signed. Additionally we have a 60% chance that the nuclear deal with Iran will remain in place thus placing the Mideast at greater risk. There is also a 60% probability that trade with China will increase and China will build more militarized sand islands in the South China Sea. Taiwan will have a 60% probability of falling to China and North Korea will have a 60% greater chance of acquiring more nuclear weapons.
Also, ISIS, Al Nusra, and Al Qaeda will have a 60% greater chance of survival while Afghanistan and Iraq will have a 60% great probability of being abandoned by the U.S..
There is also a 60% greater chance that the 2nd Amendment will be repealed, gun control laws will be increased and gun owners, innocent gun owners will be forced to register their firearms. AR type rifles will have 60% chance of being permanently banned.
Criminals will have a 60% chance of longer prison sentences. Inner cities will have a 60% chance of greater poverty, unemployment and racial conflict.
I am not convinced that having Democrats returned to power will assure anything except the status quo. I am also not convinced that Republicans will bring any improvement.
So, we have a 60% chance of higher taxes, less military spending, more control of education, more testing for children, more manufacturing, research and development leaving the U.S. and the TPP will be signed. Additionally we have a 60% chance that the nuclear deal with Iran will remain in place thus placing the Mideast at greater risk. There is also a 60% probability that trade with China will increase and China will build more militarized sand islands in the South China Sea. Taiwan will have a 60% probability of falling to China and North Korea will have a 60% greater chance of acquiring more nuclear weapons.
Also, ISIS, Al Nusra, and Al Qaeda will have a 60% greater chance of survival while Afghanistan and Iraq will have a 60% great probability of being abandoned by the U.S..
There is also a 60% greater chance that the 2nd Amendment will be repealed, gun control laws will be increased and gun owners, innocent gun owners will be forced to register their firearms. AR type rifles will have 60% chance of being permanently banned.
Criminals will have a 60% chance of longer prison sentences. Inner cities will have a 60% chance of greater poverty, unemployment and racial conflict.
I am not convinced that having Democrats returned to power will assure anything except the status quo. I am also not convinced that Republicans will bring any improvement.
2
So, we have a 100% chance that everything bad in the world that happens will be the fault of the Democrats. Your knowledge of future events is astounding.
8
Maybe it's that you just don't understand statistics, but I suspect you're among those Republicans who casually distort facts to try to scare credulous voters. There is a zero percent chance that the Second Amendment will be repealed, even if Democrats take both house of Congress, the Presidency, and consequently the next four Supreme Court justices. Zero. Your scaremongering about Al Qaeda, ISIS, Afghanistan and Iraq is similarly fatuous, despite your attempt to attach a number (60%? really?) to it. And as to assault weapons being permanently banned, if it happens (as it did temporarily for the ten years up to 2004), that would be because 80+% of Americans support making weapons that deadly unavailable to civilians.
Facts: they should be your friends, but Republicans keep trying to bury them.
Facts: they should be your friends, but Republicans keep trying to bury them.
12
A fool and his stupidity are never parted.
1
If the GOP is handed a sweeping defeat this November they will redouble their effort to further intensify their obstruction, create even greater and more ridiculous propaganda while working tirelessly to further investigate Benghazi, email misadventures and any other “infractions”, misdeeds or perceived corruption they can dream up about her. An embarrassing defeat will only strengthen their resolve in to stymie Government.
9
And so we must work harder to expose them and to maneuver around them, Democrats should have been playing hardball all along. No accommodation. No working across the aisle. We need to fight fire with fire. We need to learn to govern from both the majority and the minority positions the way republicans do.
12
If the GOP is handed a sweeping defeat, including the House, would they be able to obstruct? They will be the minority party, with Dems holding committee chairmanships.
2
Well, I would say that not taking back the Senate would be a disaster to say the least.
If Hillary wins, she is Impeached by June 2017, by a Republican Senate, of longer, but it will eliminate any governing until its completely dead, say by 2020.
If Donald wins, taking back the Senate will hold back the neocon change back to the pre Civil War South, say 1850...which I think for most non-Republicans would be a positive
If Democrats do not take back the Senate, and Hillary loses, then it's a "pack your bags" regime of moving to Canada or points beyond....and watch the carnage from afar
If Hillary wins, she is Impeached by June 2017, by a Republican Senate, of longer, but it will eliminate any governing until its completely dead, say by 2020.
If Donald wins, taking back the Senate will hold back the neocon change back to the pre Civil War South, say 1850...which I think for most non-Republicans would be a positive
If Democrats do not take back the Senate, and Hillary loses, then it's a "pack your bags" regime of moving to Canada or points beyond....and watch the carnage from afar
6
Today is August 24, 2016.
African Americans are suffering in larger numbers, for longer periods of time during the Obama presidency than any other race in America.
The last time African Americans suffered more than any other race, in these numbers and for these protracted periods of time? The late 1850s.
As a race, the last time we've suffered the levels of decline and blight that we are seeing during the Obama presidency was when slavery was legal.
The Obama presidency has been nearly as bad as slavery in terms of poverty, violent deaths, child malnutrition (1 in 4 Black children starving in America since 20130 for African Americans.
Yet somehow the same Republican Party that ended slavery and stood up to Democrats in the 1960s are seeking to return America to the 1850s?
No really...what's wrong with you?
African Americans are suffering in larger numbers, for longer periods of time during the Obama presidency than any other race in America.
The last time African Americans suffered more than any other race, in these numbers and for these protracted periods of time? The late 1850s.
As a race, the last time we've suffered the levels of decline and blight that we are seeing during the Obama presidency was when slavery was legal.
The Obama presidency has been nearly as bad as slavery in terms of poverty, violent deaths, child malnutrition (1 in 4 Black children starving in America since 20130 for African Americans.
Yet somehow the same Republican Party that ended slavery and stood up to Democrats in the 1960s are seeking to return America to the 1850s?
No really...what's wrong with you?
3
It strikes me a hypocritical that the Progressives/Liberals who threaten to leave the country when Trump is elected, always mention Canada as their chosen destination. With all the noise generated about the "rights" of illegal immigrants, why not move to Mexico or El Salvador, countries who could benefit from the wisdom of the Left? Or, are they Hispanic-phobes?
2
The Republican Party that "ended slavery and stood up to Democrats" -- has turned into the Republican Party that has given us Donald Trump.
3
In Europe they dissolve a government and elect a new one in six weeks. Here, the 2016 campaign has been going on since right after the 2012 election, and they're already talking about 2020. Must we really see the daily scoreboard about Hillary's chances, and now this? Seeing that the odds are supposedly stacked so greatly in her favor can make her supporters complacent about the need to vote, and energize Trump's supporters. Three words only: "Dewey Defeats Truman."
4
No chance of Dems retaking the House until the cure the cancer of gerrymandering. And "cancer" is a good metaphor to use because besides the practice being a disease, when you look at how the districting maps change, it sort of looks like cancer.
What gerrymandering does of course, is to allow the state legislature in power to redraw the districting maps to favor their own party in getting Representatives elected, so both parties do it.
But no question the GOP is measurably the worse of the two. The worst of it is that gerrymandering is fed and nurtured by racism, nativism, and class and economic divisions. It is democracy perverted.
What gerrymandering does of course, is to allow the state legislature in power to redraw the districting maps to favor their own party in getting Representatives elected, so both parties do it.
But no question the GOP is measurably the worse of the two. The worst of it is that gerrymandering is fed and nurtured by racism, nativism, and class and economic divisions. It is democracy perverted.
189
Oh Lord with the gerrymandering.
Obama liberals, don't you ever get tired of the same lies?
Obama liberals, don't you ever get tired of the same lies?
6
Gerrymandering: facts are stubborn things. They don't go away just because they are unpleasant to certain people. Aligning congressional districts to provide victory for either party is an insult to democracy, a way to cancel out the votes of some and make others worth more. What about that pleases you?
6
You've obviously never looked at a map of districts in Texas or Florida. Districts with no identifiable geometry, snaking north and south and then suddenly expanding into a misshapen bubble. Lines drawn to divide one side of a street from the other. Districts so tiny, you need a magnifying glasd to see them, while others are so large, you're surprised they don't spill over into the next state. Neighborhoods split up into chunks, none of them the same size or shape.
Draw the dang lines using latitude and longitude, and then we'll see some changes.
Draw the dang lines using latitude and longitude, and then we'll see some changes.
4
Hillary, Hillary, Hillary...why do you do this to yourself? Don't you realize after all this time that your paranoia, distrust of people, and need for secrecy, are impediments.
Beginning with your failed closed-door national healthcare revamping in the 90's, you have sought to insulate yourself with isolation, protecting your information and explorations with opaqueness. Your dependence on "controlling" your efforts and message, have cost you mightily.
That you regard transparency as your enemy places all your activities under scrutiny and question and by doing so, you've become your own worst enemy. You have set a low bar for truthfulness despite having abilities that could permit you to be an excellent Chief Administrator.
Donald Trump's persona and crassness invites appropriate ridicule and dismay. You, on the other hand invite suspicion given your responses to inquiry and your careful deflection of fact.
Personally, I do not question your ambition, believing that you have a vision worth sharing and implementing. But, unless you suppress the paranoia and the resultant needs for absolute secrecy, then everything you do will be suspect.
After you succeed in your quest you will need to face the American people with a clarity of purpose and a commitment to unvarying truthfulness. Otherwise, you will set the stage for continuing disappointment, both in you and in your mission.
Beginning with your failed closed-door national healthcare revamping in the 90's, you have sought to insulate yourself with isolation, protecting your information and explorations with opaqueness. Your dependence on "controlling" your efforts and message, have cost you mightily.
That you regard transparency as your enemy places all your activities under scrutiny and question and by doing so, you've become your own worst enemy. You have set a low bar for truthfulness despite having abilities that could permit you to be an excellent Chief Administrator.
Donald Trump's persona and crassness invites appropriate ridicule and dismay. You, on the other hand invite suspicion given your responses to inquiry and your careful deflection of fact.
Personally, I do not question your ambition, believing that you have a vision worth sharing and implementing. But, unless you suppress the paranoia and the resultant needs for absolute secrecy, then everything you do will be suspect.
After you succeed in your quest you will need to face the American people with a clarity of purpose and a commitment to unvarying truthfulness. Otherwise, you will set the stage for continuing disappointment, both in you and in your mission.
6
Try to stay on topic in the future.....
18
@borg
Have you ever asked yourself WHY Hillary Clinton might be so distrustful??? Do you think that over 30 years of being in the Republican cross-hairs might have something to do with it???
Or, maybe the constant cascade of vitriolic comments coming from a general public that is too often, too quick to jump to the (wrong) conclusion.
Whatever the case, Clinton is far less frightening than her counterpart on the Republican side.
Have you ever asked yourself WHY Hillary Clinton might be so distrustful??? Do you think that over 30 years of being in the Republican cross-hairs might have something to do with it???
Or, maybe the constant cascade of vitriolic comments coming from a general public that is too often, too quick to jump to the (wrong) conclusion.
Whatever the case, Clinton is far less frightening than her counterpart on the Republican side.
13
And without gerrymandering and voter suppression what would the percentage be?
4
Gerrymandering doesn't effect the Senate. Well at least not until the republican start redrawing state lines to make things more 'fair' for 'real americans'.
12
Does that include the "election observers" that Donald Trump is threatening to use???
4
Trump will "make America great again" by helping Democrats win both the House and Senate. The last time I checked, 88 seats are in play, enough to break the GOP's stranglehold on Congress. Goodbye, lockstep opposition to everything proposed; hello, full Supreme Court and implementation of Obama's best proposals, including the American Jobs Act and common sense gun control measures. That's how we make America great again. And goodbye Citizens United, too. But while it's still in force, HRC is using it to beat the GOP at its own game. I call that smart politics.
89
Sadly, you are waaaay too optimistic. The chance of Democrats retaking the house is close to 0%. And without a bullet-proof majority of 60 Democrats in the Senate (which also isn't going to happen), the Republicans will filibuster HRC's nominees for SCOTUS. But at least a Democratic-majority Senate and a Democratic president will probably be able to mitigate the worst of the damage Republicans might otherwise be expected to do.
oh please...if the Dems had a WAVE candidate, rather than a hunker and hold the bunker...meaning the states Obama won in 12...one, any thing less than a 7 seat NET pick up would be a very bad November night.
5 seats does not "beat the monkey" as stats classes have it. & NV is gone, and the odds for the GOP to hold incumbent seats is better than a coin flip.
(as far as the House goes on the Stephanopolous Sun Morn show Balz scotched the talk of Dem victory tout suite...ain't a gonna happen...)
The talk of Trump causing the loss of the Senate is GOPs looking for an excuse before the fact. But here's the funny thing, I suspect the leaders of the GOP Hill would happily hand Ms C the WH to keep their majorities....call it the Grand Bargain...then they just hire a special prosecutor and we are back to the 90s all over again.
If the Dems get a 1 seat majority, it will be gone in the wave of 2018 regardless....
wrong candidate at the top. Both parties even...
5 seats does not "beat the monkey" as stats classes have it. & NV is gone, and the odds for the GOP to hold incumbent seats is better than a coin flip.
(as far as the House goes on the Stephanopolous Sun Morn show Balz scotched the talk of Dem victory tout suite...ain't a gonna happen...)
The talk of Trump causing the loss of the Senate is GOPs looking for an excuse before the fact. But here's the funny thing, I suspect the leaders of the GOP Hill would happily hand Ms C the WH to keep their majorities....call it the Grand Bargain...then they just hire a special prosecutor and we are back to the 90s all over again.
If the Dems get a 1 seat majority, it will be gone in the wave of 2018 regardless....
wrong candidate at the top. Both parties even...
2
Hilary will win, despite the relentless attacks that have been carefully orchestrated against her for years. Only a few of those attacks were credible, and those were minor, nothing more than the usual types of political shenanigans that NO politician avoids. She is flawed, but acceptable.
Would she lose to a better Republican candidate? Perhaps, but their field was weak and their final candidate a train wreck.
Unfortunately her presidency will be hobbled, as was Obama's, by a high level of hatred from the Republicans and the far right. She needs a very strong Democratic congress. The country needs a very strong Democratic congress to get us going again. We have real problems to tackle, and the R's won't let anything get done.
Would she lose to a better Republican candidate? Perhaps, but their field was weak and their final candidate a train wreck.
Unfortunately her presidency will be hobbled, as was Obama's, by a high level of hatred from the Republicans and the far right. She needs a very strong Democratic congress. The country needs a very strong Democratic congress to get us going again. We have real problems to tackle, and the R's won't let anything get done.
74
The real question is whether the Republicans will learn anything. For years, they have put up a posture that they are the responsible ones, the grown-ups in the room, fiscally careful -- while doing the reverse. Dumb wars, dumb tax breaks, lying about climate change because it was convenient, and fiscal policies that only helped their donors.
The middle-class Republican base became so cynical that they resorted to conspiracy theories and selected a conspiracy theorist as the nominee. Of course they did! They can't vote Democratic when the RNC is telling them that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim who wants the terrorists to win!
How about acting like grown-ups again and working with the Democrats to actually, you know, pass some laws that help people?
The middle-class Republican base became so cynical that they resorted to conspiracy theories and selected a conspiracy theorist as the nominee. Of course they did! They can't vote Democratic when the RNC is telling them that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim who wants the terrorists to win!
How about acting like grown-ups again and working with the Democrats to actually, you know, pass some laws that help people?
15
If the threat posed by Hillary appointing lawless Obama to the Supreme Court is not frightening enough for all law-abiding, taxpaying Americans to unite and vote Republican nothing will.
4
How much you wanna bet Mr. Pres will never serve on SCOTUS? He will be way more valuable to us working like Carter has for decades to make the world better. Why? Because he is a humanitariun, something the entire GOP knows nothing about.
12
Hopefully, President Obama will one day become Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Yes, America will then fully be GREAT.
9
Please explain your use of the term "Lawless"? If you cannot, in clear and legal terms, I would suggest that you refrain from making yourself look cranky and less than intellectual.
3
Well alright!
Polls mean something again!
Remember just a few months ago when that "other" candidate was sweeping the polls and "she that must not be criticized", was sliding down. We were told ad nauseam that polls didn't mean a thing. That they were just a snapshot of a teeny tiny select group. But, hey! Here we go again with POLLS!
Pretty soon exit polls might mean something again too right NYT, DNC?!
Hey my fellow commentators, has anyone else tried to use the words Pantsuit.
Then the word propaganda in one sentence?
Seems it is ok to speak of Obama Boys and Bernie Bro's, but we are being stifled in the tit for tat verbiage allowed. Anyone else care to try the PP?
Polls mean something again!
Remember just a few months ago when that "other" candidate was sweeping the polls and "she that must not be criticized", was sliding down. We were told ad nauseam that polls didn't mean a thing. That they were just a snapshot of a teeny tiny select group. But, hey! Here we go again with POLLS!
Pretty soon exit polls might mean something again too right NYT, DNC?!
Hey my fellow commentators, has anyone else tried to use the words Pantsuit.
Then the word propaganda in one sentence?
Seems it is ok to speak of Obama Boys and Bernie Bro's, but we are being stifled in the tit for tat verbiage allowed. Anyone else care to try the PP?
3
Potter Trolls! Back to your common rooms students!
4
Bernie Sanders has proven that the era of big money in politics can be beaten back by the people standing up and taking notice All we have to do is get up off our duffs and show up at the polls. ( Obviously with the proper ID required by republicans )
I think we that not only will Democrats take back the senate , but will take a 5 seat majority in the house. ( you heard it here first )
The REVOLUTION continues...
I think we that not only will Democrats take back the senate , but will take a 5 seat majority in the house. ( you heard it here first )
The REVOLUTION continues...
17
I sincerely hope you're right. America has had enough of conservative Republican fiscal policy failures.
9
When things are going well ( or at least better than before ), there are many people who have the tendency to vote republican, thinking they are overburdened by taxes or regulation . This is the fallacy myth that continues to be propagated by republicans. They have mastered the message that we somehow cannot work together and that success is only from one's own bootstraps.
When we work together ( all paying our fair share of taxes ) then we don't pay more in the long run for all those that require help on the low end of the scale.
I am hopeful that the bad cycle will be broken and the political pendulum is swinging back to reality ( and to the left ) from the extreme right.
When we work together ( all paying our fair share of taxes ) then we don't pay more in the long run for all those that require help on the low end of the scale.
I am hopeful that the bad cycle will be broken and the political pendulum is swinging back to reality ( and to the left ) from the extreme right.
2
It's pretty clear that around Labor Day, Reince Preibus and the RNC will have to fish or cut bait on Trump. I think they will abandon the good ship Trump (much as they did with Dole in '96) and focus all their energies on saving the Senate (and to a lesser extent, the House). Because Hillary is so far ahead, the DNC will probably put their money behind close Senate and House races themselves, and also try to swing certain reddish states that could conceivably go blue: Georgia, Arizona, Utah, maybe South Carolina.
I think Hillary wins by nine points (53-44), the Dems get 6, maybe 7 Senate seats, and probably at least a dozen House seats. The House remains R, the Senate switches, but it won't be filibuster-proof. This won't be the wave election I would like to see, if for no other reason than to break the logjam in Congress. The party of No has got to go. And by 2020, no later, the R party will cease to be a force in this country, at long last. There will be a new, conservative party, and I wish them well. May they avoid the ruinous choices of the current Republican Party.
I think Hillary wins by nine points (53-44), the Dems get 6, maybe 7 Senate seats, and probably at least a dozen House seats. The House remains R, the Senate switches, but it won't be filibuster-proof. This won't be the wave election I would like to see, if for no other reason than to break the logjam in Congress. The party of No has got to go. And by 2020, no later, the R party will cease to be a force in this country, at long last. There will be a new, conservative party, and I wish them well. May they avoid the ruinous choices of the current Republican Party.
13
So your prediction is Hillary wins by nearly double digits, the Republicans lose EVERY contested Senate seat and the Democrats win every single one of theirs.
Love your optimism! ;-)
I want to agree with you but the Harvard Law in me keeps nagging that the last time the Democratic Party won 100% of all of their Senate races and the Republicans lost 100% of theirs, was never.
Love your optimism! ;-)
I want to agree with you but the Harvard Law in me keeps nagging that the last time the Democratic Party won 100% of all of their Senate races and the Republicans lost 100% of theirs, was never.
3
Your math is off. The Democrats are defending 10 seats. Cook Report says 9 are solidly D, and only Reid's seat is a toss-up. The Republicans have 24 to defend, and eight are toss-ups: Rubio, Kirk, Coats (open), Ayotte, Burr, Portman, Toomey and Johnson. Two that might be expected to be solidly R are judged by Cook to lean R: McCain and Blunt. If I were optimistic, I'd say that the D's get all eight plus McCain and Blunt and hold Reid. That would be plus 10 to the Democrats. But six or seven seems reasonable to me.
2
DC, there's never been an election like this either, so it would appear that the old rules don't seem to apply quite so well.
The flaw in the model is bumping up a Democrat's chances for the Senate when Clinton's chances rise in the polls. Old line Republicans like Mitt Romney may well vote for Clinton but keep to the Republicans down ballot.
7
Clinton has no coattails. Fortunately, some of us will vote for Dems down ballot without a vote for Prez.
The fate of the vulnerable GOP senators lies in the ability of Trump to kind of center himself with his gentler and kinder "teleprompter strategy"- thereby gaining independents without losing that rabid base of voters who propelled him to the nomination. There is a essentially zero-probability of this occurring, so look for Madam President and Majority Leader Schumer.
5
Done with the failed predictions of Trump's demise, the NY Times is off on another goose chase--this time with the Senate race.
I applaud their efforts, but the Washington lawyer in me has to take note of one thing. If everything Josh Katz says happens--if every Republican loses their Senate seats in the battleground states, every Democrat has to win all of theirs.
Let me repeat this.
For the Democrats to retake the Senate, the up for grabs Republicans have to lose their seats and the Democrats have to win their up for grabs Senate races as well.
In other words, the Democrats have to win 100%...EVERY single contested Senate seat on both sides.
That's not going to happen.
Then again this is the same newspaper that predicted Donald Trump wouldn't win a single primary race.
I applaud their efforts, but the Washington lawyer in me has to take note of one thing. If everything Josh Katz says happens--if every Republican loses their Senate seats in the battleground states, every Democrat has to win all of theirs.
Let me repeat this.
For the Democrats to retake the Senate, the up for grabs Republicans have to lose their seats and the Democrats have to win their up for grabs Senate races as well.
In other words, the Democrats have to win 100%...EVERY single contested Senate seat on both sides.
That's not going to happen.
Then again this is the same newspaper that predicted Donald Trump wouldn't win a single primary race.
4
What part of 60% chance do you not comprehend? And congratulations on using "Washington lawyer" as a mark of distinction.
9
What part of bogus do you not understand?
The 60% chance proffered in this column requires a hook line and sinker buy in to the subjective, dishonest and misleading pretext of the article. Dude says Trump only has an 11% chance of winning as PART of his argument, and you're yelling at me while Josh is being fitted for a straitjacket?
The 60% chance proffered in this column requires a hook line and sinker buy in to the subjective, dishonest and misleading pretext of the article. Dude says Trump only has an 11% chance of winning as PART of his argument, and you're yelling at me while Josh is being fitted for a straitjacket?
1
Your comments law man are so dull and devoid of true contemplation you lost credibility months ago with your right wing hooey....
11
I'm hoping that Trump will finally tire of the charade and give up. Get mad at the prospect of losing and take his marbles and go home. Pence (read "ANYONE") seems like a decent-enough and sane nobody, and he could pick a VP with a little more substance. Anyone, even Pence, will beat Hillary, and with a half decent VP pick (anyone other than Cruz or Gingrich or Christie) he will get all those who are now ready to hold their noses and vote for Billary as the lesser of to evils--that is, still evil.
Pence? Mr. "I never met a reproductive right I didn't want to roll back" Pence? Mr. "it snows so climate change must be a hoax" Pence? And I notice you couldn't come up with a name for your "half-decent VP pick". There are no options there. Nikki Haley is running hard and fast from this loser ticket, as well she should be.
12
Pence is not only an ideological disaster, he's incompetent and clueless, so a 3-fer!
2
Too much big money behind GOP Senators, ain't gonna happen.
Dems, don't count your POTUS egg before the 'counted' votes are in--this could be our first self-contested election followed by martial law. Or the other way around.
Dems, don't count your POTUS egg before the 'counted' votes are in--this could be our first self-contested election followed by martial law. Or the other way around.
4
I agree, I don't buy it. Incumbents always have an edge on the Senatorial level, IMO.
Remember that electing "Blue Dog" Democrats won't do much good. They will be afraid of voting for anything left of Republican policy anyway. This is one reason why we got ObamaCare instead of single payer universal healthcare (which could not have had its most important component overturned by the supreme court, by the way).
9
I give money this year to turn the Senate blue. I will not vote for president, but I will support and vote straight ticket Dem otherwise. D for Drive, let's get 'er done.
3
The obstructionist attitude and disrespect that the Republican Senate has shown President Obama and the American citizens only proves that they do not deserve to control the Senate. It's time for a Democratic Senate to go along with a Democrat in the White House. Hopefully we will also have a Democratic House in the near future to stop this damaging Washington impotence.
100
A majority isn't enough. Republicans would still have enough seats to filibuster.
2
Every new Senate can change its own rules. The filibuster, and anonymous holds, must go.
11
EASY. Take ALL 24 seats from the Republican'ts and then NO more filibusters and obstructionism, racism, bigotry, misogyny, guns, theocracy, etc. Need minimum 60! Nothing less will do. Yes, it can, and must be done 2016 for this country to heal and move ahead and grow! Can then permanently eliminate all influences from Reagan, and both Bushes from last 40years. C'mon Americans, we can and must do this to rid us of that disease called Republican'ts. Let's join the civilized world and the 21st century rather than the first century 2016.
Tell ALL you know to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and then all of this will be gone, permanently.
Just another reason to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the Republican'ts and the corporations and their ilk so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong.
Tell ALL you know to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and then all of this will be gone, permanently.
Just another reason to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the Republican'ts and the corporations and their ilk so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong.
34
The "down Ballot" results will be determined by the polls just prior to Election Day. If it's close, the Republicans will show up and vote. If it looks like a Hillary landslide, they stay home and the Dems win back the Senate. Till then, it's only guess work because the Clintons have so much baggage, you never know what scandal is next. Of course, between now and then, Trump will utter his usual absurdities. Maybe one of them is the final nail for Republicans who choose Country over Party.
4
That's great news
If and when that happens I think it would be great to have a detailed article discussing what senate democrats have promised the average Americans. Media needs to help Americans keep their politicians accountable.
Where do they stand on healthcare, crimes, taxes, etc. we're spending too much time discussing trump. If like to know what my senator has been doing or obstructing.
Most people just vote along party lines for senators because they know very little about each individual.
That's gotta change
If and when that happens I think it would be great to have a detailed article discussing what senate democrats have promised the average Americans. Media needs to help Americans keep their politicians accountable.
Where do they stand on healthcare, crimes, taxes, etc. we're spending too much time discussing trump. If like to know what my senator has been doing or obstructing.
Most people just vote along party lines for senators because they know very little about each individual.
That's gotta change
4
And it will swing right back to Republican control in 2018... conservative control of Congress and liberal control of the White House is basically a reflection of U.S. political leanings.
I'd be elated if the Democrats retake the senate....With a Democratic controlled senate, President Clinton could at least get judicial nominees confirmed (Supreme Court, Circuit Court, District Court), so that's a big deal...
7
This is the best thing that has come out of donald trump's campaign.
7
This is excellent news. Perhaps now we can actually get some legislation passed for the benefit of the American people, as opposed to what we've had under the useless, do-nothing GOP Congress.
If only the House districts weren't so gerrymandered. Democrats won an overwhelming number of House votes in 2012, but due to Republican gerrymandering after the 2010 census, a lot of those districts stayed in GOP hands, despite the displeasure of the electorate. Cheat to win, it's a GOP classic.
I want our government to work for the American people. The Republicans don't - they don't want our government to work, and they themselves don't want to work when they're elected to public office. Time to take out the trash.
If only the House districts weren't so gerrymandered. Democrats won an overwhelming number of House votes in 2012, but due to Republican gerrymandering after the 2010 census, a lot of those districts stayed in GOP hands, despite the displeasure of the electorate. Cheat to win, it's a GOP classic.
I want our government to work for the American people. The Republicans don't - they don't want our government to work, and they themselves don't want to work when they're elected to public office. Time to take out the trash.
10
I am not sure why this is considered news, or is in any way helpful to any voters. The next poll and the next poll and the next poll will tell constantly changing stories -- none of which matter or inform.
3
And the House? The US will only advance if there isn't divided government.
3
The Federal judiciary is the real prize. Democrats running the House would be nice, but Clinton really needs a Democrat Senate to win smooth confirmation of her appointees.
5
Unfortunately, the House will remain on the dark side. The Republicans have too big of an advantage to wipe away in one election. But the Dems may be able to cut into their lead to set up taking control in 2018 or, more realistically, 2020.
4
I have a question about the polling. How reliable can polls possibly be, when many folks, inundated by robo-phone calls, screen their calls and do not pick up the phone for unknown callers, or worse, "electorate" callers.
So exactly who is talking to the pollsters, creating these predictions? Not folks with jobs, nor busy moms, nor folks just sitting down to dinner.
So exactly who is talking to the pollsters, creating these predictions? Not folks with jobs, nor busy moms, nor folks just sitting down to dinner.
4
People with a cell phone but no landline are almost never called, which means a huge portion of the electorate never gets polled at all.
Moreover, when I had a landline, the robo-pollsters that called were almost invariably Republican. They asked skewed questions that could not be answered with a "yes" or a "no." If they don't bother to hire real people who are capable of holding a real conversation, because thay would cost their corporate masters extra money, then I'm not interested in participating.
Everyone simply wants easy answers to complicated issues these days: "Press 1 for 'yes,' press 2 for 'no.'"
No thanks. Hanging up now.
Moreover, when I had a landline, the robo-pollsters that called were almost invariably Republican. They asked skewed questions that could not be answered with a "yes" or a "no." If they don't bother to hire real people who are capable of holding a real conversation, because thay would cost their corporate masters extra money, then I'm not interested in participating.
Everyone simply wants easy answers to complicated issues these days: "Press 1 for 'yes,' press 2 for 'no.'"
No thanks. Hanging up now.
2
Republican pollsters ask skewed questions that can ONLY be answered with a yes or no - they do NOT want to hear what voters actually think of their policies and their candidates.
2
Why does The Donald YELL all the time? So irritating. Hillary is attacked for being "shrill," yet no one seems to be bothered by The Donald's extremely obnoxious speaking style. I'm gonna have to turn off my TV for the duration -- or at least try to. Also thanks Wally Wolf -- I wouldn't hire Trump to mow my lawn either, OR to deliver my groceries.
8
His delivery is so angry, and I would add, verbose. Imagine having to sit in his staff meetings and listen to that pompous loudmouth hour after hour.
1
Trump loses in a landslide and the Republican Party still has a 40% chance of retaining the Senate bringing us four more years of gridlock. So much for the wisdom of the American people. When Trump stated he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and still not lose any support; it seems there is a parallel with the Republican Party. They can put Trump up as their nominee, they invaded Iraq which caused the disintegration of the Mid East, and they unanimously voted against any infrastructure improvements which would dramatically help the working man and they can still have a good probability of retaining control of the Congress.
14
I have voted Straight D in every election since the Bush Rampage. I will always vote straight D. How many times does your economy have to be destroyed before you quit electing the Wrecking Crew? How many soldiers have to die or murder innocent civilians in meaningless and costly wars before you start voting to save our country? How many times will you allow crooked bankers to loot our treasury before you demand enforcement of the laws? Clinton will be a weak president, but Trump and the incredibly stupid and utterly corrupt GOP will destroy our meager recovery and make us hide our heads in shame.
49
Sadly, my fellow Texan, we are surrounded by people who would literally shoot themselves in the foot (open carry, anyone?), and then cut off their noses to spite their faces afterward. The Texas Republican's zeal for self-destructive legislation knows no bounds. These lemmings vote exactly as they're told by their Republican overlord churches -- most of which deserve to lose their non-profit status, because they have become political entities, pushing for legislation, trying to enshrine their religious beliefs in law -- rather than real places for private worship.
5
Amen Big Text!
2
GOP racist liars notwithstanding, we don't count our votes before they're cast. But it would be a great thing for the progressive (as opposed to the regressive) agenda for the Dems to take the Senate.
5
Thanks for ruining my Morning..
Can't wait to cast the ballot and welcome back Russ Feingold. Six years ha been way too many for Ron Johnson. Johnson's DC phone message - "Thanks for your call, but don't expect a call back before three weeks. Senator Johnson is very, very busy!" Oh my.
Those Republicans can sit back in their homes and write their letters to the Iran government - but they will no longer be getting paid by the American people to do it. Get 'em out of DC.
Those Republicans can sit back in their homes and write their letters to the Iran government - but they will no longer be getting paid by the American people to do it. Get 'em out of DC.
6
Reduction to numbers, through polling and now through odds, makes for clickbait, but doesn't explain the issues or the candidates. For voters who are not national political strategists, it means little. Maybe it's just cheaper to crunch numbers on 8th Ave. than to send a reporter 90 miles west to write about Pennsylvania's senate race, where gun-loving incumbent Pat Toomey is trying to stop liberal Katie McGinty from becoming the state's first U.S. Senator. More shoe-leather reporting, please!
Far more than Trump being scary, IMHO the prospect of Hilary getting to pack SCOTUS with liberal left wingers from Harvard and Yale law schools is terrifying.
Replacing Scalia, and Ginsburg when she retires or dies [one or the other seems a sure thing soon, no?] would make it 5-3 for the left wing for a long time, with one centerist. And while Roberts, Alito and Thomas are likely around for a long time, the other Justices save Sotomayor and Kagan are pretty old and could 'go' at any time.
What new rights and obligations we didn't know existed would such a Court find in constitutional emanations and penumbras? And what prior cases such as 2d Amendment rights and Citizens United would be overturned?
The mind boggles. Why, we might even find out Al Gore was actually elected President in 2000 [that's a joke, folks, but not much of one, I admit...]. So keep your eyes on those Senate races. As the Donald might say, they are "HUGE"...
Replacing Scalia, and Ginsburg when she retires or dies [one or the other seems a sure thing soon, no?] would make it 5-3 for the left wing for a long time, with one centerist. And while Roberts, Alito and Thomas are likely around for a long time, the other Justices save Sotomayor and Kagan are pretty old and could 'go' at any time.
What new rights and obligations we didn't know existed would such a Court find in constitutional emanations and penumbras? And what prior cases such as 2d Amendment rights and Citizens United would be overturned?
The mind boggles. Why, we might even find out Al Gore was actually elected President in 2000 [that's a joke, folks, but not much of one, I admit...]. So keep your eyes on those Senate races. As the Donald might say, they are "HUGE"...
1
"Liberal left wingers from Harvard and Yale Law Schools..."
You mean like Roberts, Thomas and Alito?
You mean like Roberts, Thomas and Alito?
11
You mean like the new right that Corporations are people?
2
A 1990 paper on presidential coattails does not inspire a lot of confidence in your analysis.
The "highly unfavorable" ratings of both Trump and Clinton are historically high. Furthermore, their "highly favorable" ratings are historically low. (See for example, http://www.gallup.com/poll/193376/trump-leads-clinton-historically-bad-i...
My guess is your algorithms do not take either one of these bits of data into account. How could they, these rating are unprecedented.
Another guess would be that some percentage of Trump voters will be voting against Clinton and, likewise some percentage (maybe a larger one?) will be voting against Trump and not for Clinton.
I see no swallow-tailed coat for either one of them but certainly not for Clinton.
(I have no data or algorithms to support any of these guesses.)
The "highly unfavorable" ratings of both Trump and Clinton are historically high. Furthermore, their "highly favorable" ratings are historically low. (See for example, http://www.gallup.com/poll/193376/trump-leads-clinton-historically-bad-i...
My guess is your algorithms do not take either one of these bits of data into account. How could they, these rating are unprecedented.
Another guess would be that some percentage of Trump voters will be voting against Clinton and, likewise some percentage (maybe a larger one?) will be voting against Trump and not for Clinton.
I see no swallow-tailed coat for either one of them but certainly not for Clinton.
(I have no data or algorithms to support any of these guesses.)
3
With some many rep. seats up and a unpopular candidate like Trump, I thought the odds of a dem. take back would be greater like 75-80%..
3
The CONservative "takeover" was about deception and manipulation of the system. It was not about the majority vote or the will of the people.
It's Almost Like Another Country Voted During The Midterm — One That Doesn't Really Look Like Us
http://www.upworthy.com/its-almost-like-another-country-voted-during-the...
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Voting (HBO) [YouTube]
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/dxhtvk/suppressing-the-vote?mode=jqm
Vote Out the Republicans at all levels of government...all!
It's Almost Like Another Country Voted During The Midterm — One That Doesn't Really Look Like Us
http://www.upworthy.com/its-almost-like-another-country-voted-during-the...
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Voting (HBO) [YouTube]
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/dxhtvk/suppressing-the-vote?mode=jqm
Vote Out the Republicans at all levels of government...all!
9
Hopefully this is true but never underestimate the gullibility of conservative voters.
16
I'll be on schpilkes until Nov. 9, when I will either have a martini or drink lye.
5
Who cares.
They will find another mute Majority Leader who will become Minority Leader faster than even Harry Reid could muster.
The Democrats are now a right wing party, and way more would realize this without the US media going full tilt Trump-foil. What have the Democrats fought hardest for over the last 16 year when they occupied the White House? Democratic Senators no longer even try to persuade other Senators or the population either. Sen. G. is so invisible I can't spell her name, and the only time I see Sen. Schumer is when he's peddling an upper middle class issue or urging greater US aggression in the Middle East. Who could have deregulated the banks and media more effectively than the Democrats?
They are a stealth Republican Party whose stealth is contingent upon a now 100% corporate-driven press.
They will find another mute Majority Leader who will become Minority Leader faster than even Harry Reid could muster.
The Democrats are now a right wing party, and way more would realize this without the US media going full tilt Trump-foil. What have the Democrats fought hardest for over the last 16 year when they occupied the White House? Democratic Senators no longer even try to persuade other Senators or the population either. Sen. G. is so invisible I can't spell her name, and the only time I see Sen. Schumer is when he's peddling an upper middle class issue or urging greater US aggression in the Middle East. Who could have deregulated the banks and media more effectively than the Democrats?
They are a stealth Republican Party whose stealth is contingent upon a now 100% corporate-driven press.
22
Yes, and this is one of the reasons they lost the senate in the first place. No one gets excited enough to go to the polls when they are promised a continuation of the status quo and that we will successfully hide in the "center" until the next election.
If you want to get people to the polls you have to actually fight against the billionaires and their global corporations. And this is very difficult when you are taking so much of their money, This wouldn't be so necessary if the media had to give up some free air time to facilitate free and fair elections Considering that the air waves belong to us, and the cables travel though our streets, this would be more than fair, but as Nathaniel mentioned the Democrats didn't fight for this either.
You don't win a tug of war by moving toward the center, especially a fake "center" that is pushed by corporate mass media and corporate lobbyists/politicians, but which does not represent the actual policy preferences of the vast majority of the People, who want to tax the rich to pay for investment in our country and our children.
If you want to get people to the polls you have to actually fight against the billionaires and their global corporations. And this is very difficult when you are taking so much of their money, This wouldn't be so necessary if the media had to give up some free air time to facilitate free and fair elections Considering that the air waves belong to us, and the cables travel though our streets, this would be more than fair, but as Nathaniel mentioned the Democrats didn't fight for this either.
You don't win a tug of war by moving toward the center, especially a fake "center" that is pushed by corporate mass media and corporate lobbyists/politicians, but which does not represent the actual policy preferences of the vast majority of the People, who want to tax the rich to pay for investment in our country and our children.
I would actually suggest that the tighter the race becomes, the more likely the Senate will flip to the Democratic side. Most of the people in the middle of the political spectrum who could vote for Trump also have serious misgivings about him. If they are vacillating between Clinton and Trump, and decide to vote Trump on election day, they will definitely want to keep him in check with a Democratic vote for their Congressional representative.
9
Many of the Republicans who cannot bring themselves to support Trump may not vote at all, which creates a further problem for the other GOP candidates.
The Republican leadership must face the truth . It's not just the fact that they have a disaster in the form of Donald Trump at the top of the ticket that will cause them to lose their Senate majority. The real problem is that for the past two years they had Mitch McConnell as the leader of the Senate. What have they done to improve the lives of all Americans? The intransigence of McConnell's do-nothing Senate should be the downfall of the Republican Party in this country. The House will follow.
267
The Republican doesn't care about improving the lives of all Americans. They care about staying in power, keeping their own generous benefits and perks and lining the pockets of their big money campaign contributors.
4
The House will be Republican for a long time because of the gerrymandering. The USA needs an independent election commission to ensure fairness in the democratic process. This includes fair congressional boundaries.
It means people are tired of gridlock, obstructionism and useless right-wing, extremists of the McConnell brand. It also follows that Scalia will be fired posthumously. Hillary, when elected, should appoint young (30 ish) attorneys to SCOTUS to ensure a very looong period of progressive interpretation of the Constitution.
149
Ugh, no. Clinton will appoint corporate tools. She's an old school Republican, not a progressive.
Our choices this year are Old School Republican and New School Fascist. It's a no-brainer.
2
I strongly disagree, even though I would prefer the SCOTUS to move farther to the left. Our system will not improve if we continue to play the same games. Whoever wins the Presidency, hopefully Hillary, should appoint the most qualified, thoughtful, and experienced judges. It is unlikely these judges will be 30ish. I understand that you are referring to the benefits of a long tenure for judges you prefer, however this doesn't serve any of us well, just continues the same old partisanship that got us to the current sorry state of affairs.
The latest AP report on influence peddling by HRC and the Foundation will undermine the election. The whole thing looks corrupt.
6
As does the gerrymandering which has lead to the polarization and gridlock in the Senate/House, which this article is about. Try to stay focused.
3
The facts as presented are false.
2
2% chance of taking the House.
5
I'll take those odds.
2
Every seat counts
7
All of these models depend on people showing up to vote Republican like in the past. This is the biggest wild card and maybe just a 10% reduction could lead to a real sweep by Dems. Iowa isn't even listed. I see a massacre.
7
These models also depend on people showing up to vote for Clinton. Clinton is not only hated by Republicans, but she is deeply mistrusted by many on the left. Right now, instead of trying to get the left out to vote for her, she is running to the right, trying to steal Republican votes from Trump. But even if it works this will do nothing for Democratic down ballot candidates. Republicans that show up to vote against Trump will vote Republican down ballot.
The more Democrats shift right to make themselves electable, the more irrelevant, and hence unelectable, they become.
Anyway it doesn't much matter. Politicians follow what their biggest donors want unless the People hit the streets (and the net) in big enough numbers to overwhelm the money factor. As long as people think they can vote every two or four years and forget politics in between, big money will determine policy.
It really is that simple.
The more Democrats shift right to make themselves electable, the more irrelevant, and hence unelectable, they become.
Anyway it doesn't much matter. Politicians follow what their biggest donors want unless the People hit the streets (and the net) in big enough numbers to overwhelm the money factor. As long as people think they can vote every two or four years and forget politics in between, big money will determine policy.
It really is that simple.
1
The Times and others are overly optimistic about a Clinton win and thus a Democratic Senate. The hideous Trump threat is all too real. The worst thing bout this optimism is that it will probably make voters who are against Trump but also dislike Clinton stay home or vote third party.
47
Staying home is bad. Voting third party is good. When many people vote third party, then, even if that party loses, the other parties move toward their positions to
The Goo Goos won very little 100 years ago, but they changed the direction of US politics. It can be also argued that the Working People's Party in NYC won major concessions from Cuomo.
Beyond that, what if a third Party won more votes than Trump. It is not that unlikely. That could be a major shake up that we really need.
I'll be voting Green, because they have the policies that I believe in. I don't believe in voting for evil, lesser or otherwise.
But it is important to vote, even in a crooked system like ours, because they don't want you to vote. If it was up to them only the billionaires would vote, and the media would dutifully call .25% to .15% "a landslide."
The Goo Goos won very little 100 years ago, but they changed the direction of US politics. It can be also argued that the Working People's Party in NYC won major concessions from Cuomo.
Beyond that, what if a third Party won more votes than Trump. It is not that unlikely. That could be a major shake up that we really need.
I'll be voting Green, because they have the policies that I believe in. I don't believe in voting for evil, lesser or otherwise.
But it is important to vote, even in a crooked system like ours, because they don't want you to vote. If it was up to them only the billionaires would vote, and the media would dutifully call .25% to .15% "a landslide."
The Electorate has a zero percent chance of betterment no matter who is elected, whether Democrat or Republican.
What we need are candidates unbeholden to Big Money and Party Bosses.
Will that ever happen? Send a message this fall and find out!
What we need are candidates unbeholden to Big Money and Party Bosses.
Will that ever happen? Send a message this fall and find out!
6
Send that message by voting Green. If you stay home, they spin it as "you don't care." And if "you don't care" who is elected, then you don't care what they do.
The only way to wrest our country from the evil clutches of the .1% is start shooting them until they say uncle. Believe me it is the only way.
But, they control the Government and would have a nice chimney present for those attempting to "kill the rich." Drones be everywhere B.
But, they control the Government and would have a nice chimney present for those attempting to "kill the rich." Drones be everywhere B.
If we continue to do what we've always done McGloin, we'll continue to get what we've lately been gettingL Zippo, no matter the color.
Pick a candidate who represents best what you want. Neither major party candidate can do that.
Pick a candidate who represents best what you want. Neither major party candidate can do that.
1
The Republican Senate has blocked Obama's endless efforts regarding:
middle class jobs
the sources of gun violence
climate change
student loans / bank regulation
humane immigration reform
and so much more - like ignoring his Supreme Court candidate!
Why would anyone vote Republican for the Senate or House?
middle class jobs
the sources of gun violence
climate change
student loans / bank regulation
humane immigration reform
and so much more - like ignoring his Supreme Court candidate!
Why would anyone vote Republican for the Senate or House?
333
But Obama has not made a habit of going to the American People and explaining how he would improve their lives, and what they can do to help him.
Obama has always preferred negotiating behind closed doors (starting with the health insurance companies) even though he is a terrible negotiator, always leading with his desired result.
If a president wants the congress to do something (even the same party) she has to go to the American People and get them to lobby for their own self interest. The president can help educate, motivate and organize the people into an unstoppable force. That is what the Bully Pulpit is for and how it is used.
Clinton promises to do what Obama did, but with more drinking with Republicans. That is the way to get more billionaire sponsored policy.
(Trump thinks the president is a dictator and can do whatever he wants.)
Obama has always preferred negotiating behind closed doors (starting with the health insurance companies) even though he is a terrible negotiator, always leading with his desired result.
If a president wants the congress to do something (even the same party) she has to go to the American People and get them to lobby for their own self interest. The president can help educate, motivate and organize the people into an unstoppable force. That is what the Bully Pulpit is for and how it is used.
Clinton promises to do what Obama did, but with more drinking with Republicans. That is the way to get more billionaire sponsored policy.
(Trump thinks the president is a dictator and can do whatever he wants.)
Unquestionably we are much better off today than we should have been able to expect we would be, when viewed from the bottom of that deep chasm left by Bush.
And this despite the fact that since 2010 the GOP-dominated House has done absolutely nothing except pass lots of anti-abortion measures. The 112th, the 113th and now the 114th congress’s, that have endured unceasing obstruction led by Boehner/Ryan in the House and McConnell in the Senate, are the most shameful, lowest rated and least effective in US history
And this despite the fact that since 2010 the GOP-dominated House has done absolutely nothing except pass lots of anti-abortion measures. The 112th, the 113th and now the 114th congress’s, that have endured unceasing obstruction led by Boehner/Ryan in the House and McConnell in the Senate, are the most shameful, lowest rated and least effective in US history
7
In house because of gerrymandering by T-Party Repubs in rural areas, the paranoid alt-righters (who only watch FOX or get their "news" from Breitbart) don't understand what's really going on in the world.
2
A slim majority in the Senate would, at least mean Hillary wont have to face frivolous investigations into her finances, her charity, her health, her speeches, her taxes, her Emails, her diet, her grandchildren, her credit card charges, her haircuts, her clothing, her religion, her Netflix cue, her receipts for the family vacation to the Grand Canyon in '65 etc. etc. etc. If all a 51% majority means is an end to the partisan witch hunts, I'll consider that a major victory.
615
Without those "frivolous investigations" as distraction more would realize just how far right the Clintons really are.
1
"If all a 51% majority means is an end to the partisan witch hunts, I'll consider that a major victory."
Not likely unless that 51% majority is in the House.
Not likely unless that 51% majority is in the House.
4
sadly, but true. Now mediocrity is the new norm as opposed to actually accomplishing things
2
Poles are in a state of flux and change from day-to-day, week-to-week, and month-to month.
With the latest set of the release of the Clinton e-mail data, I'm sure many voters will want a "checks and balances" system in the Senate and Congress.
The latest news purports to show or suggest a link between contributing to the Clinton Foundation and access to the then Secretary-of-State Hillary Clinton.
Below are 2 citations with regard to what I just mentioned:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_CLINTON_FOUNDATI...
http://nypost.com/2016/08/23/new-revelations-show-a-nation-for-sale-unde...
With the latest set of the release of the Clinton e-mail data, I'm sure many voters will want a "checks and balances" system in the Senate and Congress.
The latest news purports to show or suggest a link between contributing to the Clinton Foundation and access to the then Secretary-of-State Hillary Clinton.
Below are 2 citations with regard to what I just mentioned:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_CLINTON_FOUNDATI...
http://nypost.com/2016/08/23/new-revelations-show-a-nation-for-sale-unde...
3
You should be looking at poll aggregators, not individual polls. Check out Princeton Election Consortium.
What most people don't realize is that the state department has been for sale to the highest bidder for at least a hundred years.
Why do you think that many ambassadors are big donors?
https://scholarsandrogues.com/2007/06/25/bushs-patronage-appointments-to...
https://www.opensecrets.org/obama/ambassadors.php
And the state department helps corporations take over countries (in tandem with the CIA) so that they can extract their resources and keep labor cheap (and keep your pay down through the substitution effect).
Why do you think that many ambassadors are big donors?
https://scholarsandrogues.com/2007/06/25/bushs-patronage-appointments-to...
https://www.opensecrets.org/obama/ambassadors.php
And the state department helps corporations take over countries (in tandem with the CIA) so that they can extract their resources and keep labor cheap (and keep your pay down through the substitution effect).
“With so many seats remaining uncertain, the race could still tip in either direction, with Republicans possibly retaining a slim majority or Democrats running the table. As of today, the most likely outcome is a tie.”
Does that mean less fractious and feckless government, or more of the same do little chaos?
Does that mean less fractious and feckless government, or more of the same do little chaos?
5
One might wrongly determine that we suffer from a dearth of news worthy of reporting in this nation, given that we are subjected to a 24 hour a day deluge of polls from every conceivable crack and crevice. Obviously some polls are more credible than others, but I, for one, am fed up with the whiplash. I won't begin to take polls seriously until about October, and I believe the nation would be far better served by serious analysis and rational, in-depth reporting on the candidates and their respective positions (or lack, thereof, on the right.) There are a multitude of serious challenges confronting the world - one of the most serious, according to our own military, is global climate change, yet one entire party adamantly refuses to acknowledge, let alone address, this issue. Considering that a huge swath of our nation sits on threatened coastlines, the fact that the GOTP will not budge should make headlines - that would be more illuminating than one poll after another. Let's discuss real issues and put a moratorium upon these polls, please.
81
Are polls useless? Probably at this point. But if I would like to donate some money to a candidate, I like to know which ones need the $ and that might actually win a seat. Looks like NV and NC would be a good shot, and I shouldn't waste my money in OH. Now if I was a Koch, it wouldn't matter, but my assets are missing more than a few of the zeros they have.
1
I disagree, preferring the statistical analyses of people who know what they're doing at fivethirtyeight.com, election.princeton.edu and The Upshot at nytimes.com over the electile dysfunction by various talking heads.
People talk about "retaking" or "keeping" the Senate as though it actually means something; while it's become painfully obvious over the last 8 years that unless a party's majority is greater than 59 seats, then no one controls the Senate. It's far past time that some the arcane rules of this filibustery, anonymous vote holding, do nothing chamber of government were revisited.
284
Correct if you replace "no one controls the Senate" with "Huge Corporations Control the Senate"
4
Democrats would head all the committees, which would mean few to no witch hunts, a fair hearing for Supreme Court nominees, and people in place who believe in climate change, evolution, health care for all, marriage equality, and pro-choice.
And any Republican senators who have been fence sitting to keep their jobs (hello, Senator Collins for one,) would feel free to join their colleagues for things they've been afraid of for the last 8 years of McConnell and his band of bigots.
That's why it means something.
And any Republican senators who have been fence sitting to keep their jobs (hello, Senator Collins for one,) would feel free to join their colleagues for things they've been afraid of for the last 8 years of McConnell and his band of bigots.
That's why it means something.
5
I agree, but that kind of change would require a constitutional amendment. IMO, the framers intentionally made the Senate the way it is to curtail, or rein in the effects of democracy. If we were truly a democracy, we clearly would not have the disparities in wealth that we now have.
1
I wouldn't hire Donald Trump to mow my lawn much less vote for him to become president of the United States. The very fact that there is a fairly large group of people who will vote for him is an excellent indicator of a serious lack of education in this country.
540
Or an excellent indicator of how the DNC and Obama threw their weight behind the wrong candidate. Every morning I wake up and hope that nothing further emerges from the emails. Then I read an article this morning about Bill collecting $17 million from a for profit university which leaves its students mired in debt and deliberately works to extend their time in school. Does the Clinton greed know no bounds???? Lord help us that this is the best we could do.
3
You also cannot argue with gerrymandered voting districts, voting restriction laws (ie voting ID laws), and a fickle low information electorate that incredibly put a bunch of gleeful stalwart GOP obstructionists in power not once but twice since 2010.
8
I would love to hire Donald Trump to mow my lawn; then I could have the pleasure of not paying him.
7
Polls largely serve the narrative that the GOP is doomed, because they use a starting point sample of "likely" and registered voters that was built in 2012 - a year when the GOP actually was doomed. But what do we know about this year?
On the fundamentals that can be quantified, we know the GOP holds a significant new voter registration advantage, we know that in most swing states Democratic voter registration has been falling, and we know that primary turnout was flipped from '08 and that in '16 it was the GOP that enjoyed the turnout advantage.
On atmospherics that can't really be quantified but that are easy to see, it sure looks like Trump has an advantage when it comes to an enthusiastic base of support. Look at turnout to his rallies. And consider the Bradley effect or the "shy Trump supporter" thesis. This actually does show up in polls, with landline based polls showing a smaller preference for Trump than automated ones and the fact that Trump consistently beat his polls in the primaries.
And even looking at the charts provided in this column, with toss-ups across the board, I think this one is going to be really, really close. It might even be a Brexit type situation.
Which makes me wonder about the non-stop anti-Trump coverage and stories like this that predict Trump's demise, when the facts being presented don't even back it up. What explains this cognitive dissonance? Bias? Or is it a media business strategy designed to set-up a "surprise result?"
On the fundamentals that can be quantified, we know the GOP holds a significant new voter registration advantage, we know that in most swing states Democratic voter registration has been falling, and we know that primary turnout was flipped from '08 and that in '16 it was the GOP that enjoyed the turnout advantage.
On atmospherics that can't really be quantified but that are easy to see, it sure looks like Trump has an advantage when it comes to an enthusiastic base of support. Look at turnout to his rallies. And consider the Bradley effect or the "shy Trump supporter" thesis. This actually does show up in polls, with landline based polls showing a smaller preference for Trump than automated ones and the fact that Trump consistently beat his polls in the primaries.
And even looking at the charts provided in this column, with toss-ups across the board, I think this one is going to be really, really close. It might even be a Brexit type situation.
Which makes me wonder about the non-stop anti-Trump coverage and stories like this that predict Trump's demise, when the facts being presented don't even back it up. What explains this cognitive dissonance? Bias? Or is it a media business strategy designed to set-up a "surprise result?"
9
Have you actually listened to what this man is saying? How can anyone who even finished high school seriously consider voting for him? He would turn our country inside out and probably start World War III since he was wondering why we don't use the nuclear weapons that we have. Yes, he has a big turnout for his Traveling Trump Show, but that's because he's a reality star, not a serious candidate for president. Thank God there are enough people in this country who can see through him and know what a disaster it would be if he would ever win the presidency.
8
Thousands showed up to Sanders's rallies, too, but he still lost the nomination by a mile. There are simply a lot of voters who don't go to rallies - mostly because they are busy working - but they will quietly cast their votes. And most will be for Clinton - despite, or perhaps even because - the Republicans work so hard to discredit her that you know they are afraid of losing their own power.
6
What odd responses, from both you and Wally Wolf. If only a small minority of morons are supporting Trump, then why even bother wasting words describing how he's going to lose? He can't both be a threat, and a non-threat.
All I did was point out that the data table presented in this article, along with well known and widely cited advantages in primary turn-out, registration, and a pattern of out-performing his own polling - means Trump's chances are probably better than reported. Plus, the fact that he "can't win" is reported every three weeks, and has been since he started running. And yet he won despite the media's predictions. Why this makes people angry is beyond me.
Ultimately, either your estimation of his ability to win - and your estimation of his supporters - is off, or his ability to win is off. Since he's the one with the better track record of proving the naysayers and prognosticators wrong, I'm simply making a rational and educated guess when I predict that he's going to do better than anticipated. The mystery to me is why there's so much cognitive dissonance on display. Why, despite a record of beating polls and predictions, his detractors keep doubling down with their inaccuracies and aspersions? Is it really just a blind spot, like with Brexit, and the GOP mid-term sweeps in 2010 and 2014 that were bigger than anticipated? Or is something bigger at work? That people are getting these things wrong, and have, isn't up for dispute.
All I did was point out that the data table presented in this article, along with well known and widely cited advantages in primary turn-out, registration, and a pattern of out-performing his own polling - means Trump's chances are probably better than reported. Plus, the fact that he "can't win" is reported every three weeks, and has been since he started running. And yet he won despite the media's predictions. Why this makes people angry is beyond me.
Ultimately, either your estimation of his ability to win - and your estimation of his supporters - is off, or his ability to win is off. Since he's the one with the better track record of proving the naysayers and prognosticators wrong, I'm simply making a rational and educated guess when I predict that he's going to do better than anticipated. The mystery to me is why there's so much cognitive dissonance on display. Why, despite a record of beating polls and predictions, his detractors keep doubling down with their inaccuracies and aspersions? Is it really just a blind spot, like with Brexit, and the GOP mid-term sweeps in 2010 and 2014 that were bigger than anticipated? Or is something bigger at work? That people are getting these things wrong, and have, isn't up for dispute.
1
This "poll" forgets one thing, people may vote in Clinton, but will not give her coat tails. The last time the Democrats had control, we got TARP, Obamacare, the "stimulus", etc. Many Americans never recovered from the Clinton/Bush, Democrat/Republican created recession.
The media, and politicians, think Americans are naive enough to vote a straight party ballot. Yes, there are people who do that. But, that huge bloc of unaffiliated voters are going to pick and choose; these are the ones who will decide the election.
Do not be surprised that the Senate and House remain in GOP hands. And neither Clinton or Trump will have any form of mandate from the people or Congress. We the people expect four more years of gridlock; thanks to a selection process, and special interest money, which failed the American people. Thus, it will be Congress, and the Supreme Court, to limit the damage by keeping Clinton or Trump in check.
The media, and politicians, think Americans are naive enough to vote a straight party ballot. Yes, there are people who do that. But, that huge bloc of unaffiliated voters are going to pick and choose; these are the ones who will decide the election.
Do not be surprised that the Senate and House remain in GOP hands. And neither Clinton or Trump will have any form of mandate from the people or Congress. We the people expect four more years of gridlock; thanks to a selection process, and special interest money, which failed the American people. Thus, it will be Congress, and the Supreme Court, to limit the damage by keeping Clinton or Trump in check.
14
It's less to do with how people vote, and more to do with how their districts have been redrawn. Redrawn by who you wonder? Good question.
1
At a Republican retreat, at the Library of Congress, right before Obama’s 2009 inauguration, Mitch McConnell said:
“there are enough of us to block the Democratic agenda-as long as they all marched in lockstep.”
“As long as Republicans refused to follow his (President Obama’s) lead, Americans would see partisan food fights and conclude that Obama had failed to produce change.”
January 20, 2009 Republican Leaders in Congress literally plotted to sabotage and undermine U.S. Economy during President Obama's Inauguration. In Robert Draper's book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives" Draper wrote that during a four hour, "invitation only" meeting with GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister, Frank Luntz, the below listed Senior GOP Law Writers literally plotted to sabotage, undermine and destroy America's Economy.
The Guest List:
Frank Luntz - GOP Minister of Propaganda
Rep. Paul Ryan(R-WI)
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA),
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX),
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX),
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA),
Sen. Jim DeMint (SC-R),
Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ-R),
Sen. Tom Coburn (OK-R),
Sen. John Ensign (NV-R) and
Sen. Bob Corker (TN-R).
Non-lawmakers present Newt Gingrich
During the four hour meeting:
The senior GOP members plotted to bring Congress to a standstill regardless how much it would hurt the American Economy by pledging to obstruct and block President Obama on all legislation.
“there are enough of us to block the Democratic agenda-as long as they all marched in lockstep.”
“As long as Republicans refused to follow his (President Obama’s) lead, Americans would see partisan food fights and conclude that Obama had failed to produce change.”
January 20, 2009 Republican Leaders in Congress literally plotted to sabotage and undermine U.S. Economy during President Obama's Inauguration. In Robert Draper's book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives" Draper wrote that during a four hour, "invitation only" meeting with GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister, Frank Luntz, the below listed Senior GOP Law Writers literally plotted to sabotage, undermine and destroy America's Economy.
The Guest List:
Frank Luntz - GOP Minister of Propaganda
Rep. Paul Ryan(R-WI)
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA),
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX),
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX),
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA),
Sen. Jim DeMint (SC-R),
Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ-R),
Sen. Tom Coburn (OK-R),
Sen. John Ensign (NV-R) and
Sen. Bob Corker (TN-R).
Non-lawmakers present Newt Gingrich
During the four hour meeting:
The senior GOP members plotted to bring Congress to a standstill regardless how much it would hurt the American Economy by pledging to obstruct and block President Obama on all legislation.
10
@Nick, the political science research states otherwise. The vast vast majority of voters, vote straight-ticket. Over 90%. People who would pick and choose are far less likely to actually be registered and actually vote.
Political campaigns are about getting your people to vote and discouraging the other side's people from voting. Once you get a registered voter in the voting booth, they vote a straight ticket whether or not they have formally affiliated with a political party.
That's the political science research, not wishful thinking.
Of course, do not be surprised when the House remains in GOP hands despite a strong majority of votes for Democrats. Operation REDSTATE was incredibly effective in 2010, and the House has never been so effectively gerrymandered.
Political campaigns are about getting your people to vote and discouraging the other side's people from voting. Once you get a registered voter in the voting booth, they vote a straight ticket whether or not they have formally affiliated with a political party.
That's the political science research, not wishful thinking.
Of course, do not be surprised when the House remains in GOP hands despite a strong majority of votes for Democrats. Operation REDSTATE was incredibly effective in 2010, and the House has never been so effectively gerrymandered.
8
Pollsters are shameless! And polls add to the pollution of the Presidential campaign season. There's very little real signal and a lot of noise!
28
My concern is your reporting when it regards polls. For awhile you published a daily count of the chances of Hillary winning (usually in the 80 percentile), or Trump ( in the teens). Then that is followed a few days later by an article that cautioned about the likelihood of Clinton winning in a landslide. Now this article which I really take with a few grains of salt. The one thing that frustrates me more than anything in election season is this continuous onslaught of polls with results so inconsistent and confusing that they only add to the increase in my blood pressure.
111
What, exactly, is confusing? Clinton has an ~80+% chance of winning, but is unlikely to by more than 10% (defined as a landslide).
I mean, none of this means anything, really, but it's not confusing, just silly.
I mean, none of this means anything, really, but it's not confusing, just silly.
5
Electoral College votes are what count, not popular vote. Remember that.
1
There is a vast amount of poll data with great variation in quality and bias. This data is selectively utilized for propaganda purposes by the media. This paper will try to show that the election is in the bag for Hillary as it had done in the primary.... even though this is not the truth. It's shameful.
Given the enthusiasm for Trump and the number of voters who will actually vote, I think the Democrats have a 0 percent chance of taking back the Senate. This factor is being ignored by the folks taking polls but on elections day, there will be no ignoring.
12
I have a gut sense that the enthusiasm you refer to is 83.2% on a thrillometer. That is a big big number, believe me! 91.43% of pollsters DO ignore the "factors", all 9% of them. While your number of zero is probably closer to 60, the gap will be closed by those who do not vote twice or more, estimated by Mr. Trump to be 137% of those eligible. All those silly statistical models predict that the earth is flat, which is mostly true, except for the bumpy parts.
51
Got the inside scoop do ya James? You may be affected by Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Ask your doctor about that.
8
If the CEO of the EpiPen company was the daughter of a Republican, you and I both know the Republican would be crucified in the media.
I do hope the author is wrong and that the Republicans retain their senate seats which they appear to have a good chance of doing. The Democrats would be bad for our country and this is one change the American people do not need.