POLL: OK - Official predictions Poll- who will be in charge of the Senate on 11/5
- Thread starter DougS
- Start date
looks like 53-55
Î
Repubs right now
My mobile still logs me in with the old screen name I have no idea how
This post was edited on 10/31 8:49 AM by IronworksRoad
Î
Repubs right now
My mobile still logs me in with the old screen name I have no idea how
This post was edited on 10/31 8:49 AM by IronworksRoad
Re: looks like 53-55
Republicans will without doubt have the majority. The question is how big, and we may not know that until the runoffs are over. Also, North Carolina, Georgia, and New Hampshire should be interesting.
Republicans will without doubt have the majority. The question is how big, and we may not know that until the runoffs are over. Also, North Carolina, Georgia, and New Hampshire should be interesting.
never under estimate republican ability
To blow an election, but they are in great shape right now.
Probably both Louisiana and Georgia go to runoff with Rs wing both AFTER the majority has been decided. The trend today is that both north Carolina and new Hampshire come our way but its not done yet.
To blow an election, but they are in great shape right now.
Probably both Louisiana and Georgia go to runoff with Rs wing both AFTER the majority has been decided. The trend today is that both north Carolina and new Hampshire come our way but its not done yet.
short of 4 or 5 Republican candidates being caught this weekend at....
a Halloween-themed, Eyes Wide Shut-type party with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, it is hard to imagine even the Republicans blowing this one.
And what gives me a little bit of optimism in all of this is that one of the big reasons the Republicans will come out with their majority next week is that they did a better job at pushing forward less divisive people rather than loons.
a Halloween-themed, Eyes Wide Shut-type party with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, it is hard to imagine even the Republicans blowing this one.
And what gives me a little bit of optimism in all of this is that one of the big reasons the Republicans will come out with their majority next week is that they did a better job at pushing forward less divisive people rather than loons.
I believe the pubs will take over by a few and will gain 8 to 10 seats in the house. What will be interesting is how many bills will be passed by the new senate that Reed has not let come to the floor and how many Dems will vote for them. Then Obama will either have to sign or veto. It will be interesting'
I don't think we know for 100% sure on the 5th
Between the Kansas race (if the independent wins, who does he caucus with?), LA/GA runoffs if nobody gets 50%+1, and Alaska being very slow counting ballots, that's a few seats up in the air.
I suspect the Republicans will eventually end up with a slim Senate majority until 2016.
This post was edited on 10/31 10:51 AM by Fro
Between the Kansas race (if the independent wins, who does he caucus with?), LA/GA runoffs if nobody gets 50%+1, and Alaska being very slow counting ballots, that's a few seats up in the air.
I suspect the Republicans will eventually end up with a slim Senate majority until 2016.
This post was edited on 10/31 10:51 AM by Fro
After all run-offs, either 52 or 53 for Republicans
I think of the 10 "toss-up" states, only NC and NH, and maybe KS goes Dems way. The exception might be is if things really swing to the right on election day. I just don't believe Brown can overcome Shaheen, even though the numbers are saying dead heat. I think the other 7 toss-ups are going red.
I think of the 10 "toss-up" states, only NC and NH, and maybe KS goes Dems way. The exception might be is if things really swing to the right on election day. I just don't believe Brown can overcome Shaheen, even though the numbers are saying dead heat. I think the other 7 toss-ups are going red.
Need 60 votes to really be 'in charge' anyway.
Interesting conversation this week with a GOP Senate staffer: not anxious to be in a slim majority with a Dem President. They also said they don't think they'll still hold a majority after 2016.
Even though I'm a Dem, also enough of a moderate to believe that forcing more compromise on the White House the next 2 years won't be a bad thing.
Interesting conversation this week with a GOP Senate staffer: not anxious to be in a slim majority with a Dem President. They also said they don't think they'll still hold a majority after 2016.
Even though I'm a Dem, also enough of a moderate to believe that forcing more compromise on the White House the next 2 years won't be a bad thing.
if only they were half as good as Pubs
At that. The ground game of Pubs is to make it harder to vote. Great use of patriotism!!
Posted from Rivals Mobile
At that. The ground game of Pubs is to make it harder to vote. Great use of patriotism!!
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Re: Obama will veto everything and there won't be enough
I think there will be cross over votes from the Dems. Not sure there will be enough but Obama will be on record. It will be interesting. Reed has failed to bring well over a hundred bills to vote because he knows many would pass.
I think there will be cross over votes from the Dems. Not sure there will be enough but Obama will be on record. It will be interesting. Reed has failed to bring well over a hundred bills to vote because he knows many would pass.
Do you think being easier to vote has given us better candidates?
I'm down for making voting harder and also limit the power of the voter; such as repealling the 17th amendment.
Incresed voter participation, esepecially in the primary process, has given us
1. More political extremists
2. Elected officials less wiling to compromise
3. Bigger influence of money in government and policy
4. Officials more concerned about re-election than good policy
5. Pandering to political interest groups
6. More incivility in government
7. Less competence.
8. Appeals to idelogy and ignorance
I'd like to hear your case why being easier to vote gives us better government.
This post was edited on 10/31 2:05 PM by CO. Hoosier
I'm down for making voting harder and also limit the power of the voter; such as repealling the 17th amendment.
Incresed voter participation, esepecially in the primary process, has given us
1. More political extremists
2. Elected officials less wiling to compromise
3. Bigger influence of money in government and policy
4. Officials more concerned about re-election than good policy
5. Pandering to political interest groups
6. More incivility in government
7. Less competence.
8. Appeals to idelogy and ignorance
I'd like to hear your case why being easier to vote gives us better government.
This post was edited on 10/31 2:05 PM by CO. Hoosier
Re: I haven't read or watched much
Republicans have screwed up past elections but those were Presidential ones where Obama was on the ticket and got a lot of minority and young voters to turn out. That likely won't be the case this time. It looks more like 2010.
Republicans have screwed up past elections but those were Presidential ones where Obama was on the ticket and got a lot of minority and young voters to turn out. That likely won't be the case this time. It looks more like 2010.
My biggest issue with campaigns...
First, can the GOP actually pickup seats? I'll admit, I despise politics so much, I haven't been able to get myself up to speed with the close elections. I did notice that the GOP appears to be a slight favorite according to RCP's aggregation of polls to take a majority or split the Senate.
However, given what I have seen locally, I wonder if others may comment on the GOP's campaign efforts. There are some moderate Republicans running for office (at least, fairly moderate in my opinion) in MN (Gov and Senate races). Neither seems to have been provided with significant financial or political backing from the GOP and it blows my mind. Gov. Dayton is hardly a shoe-in candidate and has a horrendous personality and ability to speak in public.
While I don't respect politicians that are lifetime politicians, I similarly don't respect those that move from Show Biz to politics. And yea, I realize Reagan was one of those people. But, I do think Franken runs a more intelligent campaign and was less of a chance to lose than Dayton.
But, either way, the GOP has essentially pulled out of the state of Minnesota, leaving it to be a significant uphill battle to get moderate Republicans elected. I'm wondering, is this a trend across the country? If you aren't anti-gay marriage and anti-pro choice, are you basically doomed when you run as a Republican?
First, can the GOP actually pickup seats? I'll admit, I despise politics so much, I haven't been able to get myself up to speed with the close elections. I did notice that the GOP appears to be a slight favorite according to RCP's aggregation of polls to take a majority or split the Senate.
However, given what I have seen locally, I wonder if others may comment on the GOP's campaign efforts. There are some moderate Republicans running for office (at least, fairly moderate in my opinion) in MN (Gov and Senate races). Neither seems to have been provided with significant financial or political backing from the GOP and it blows my mind. Gov. Dayton is hardly a shoe-in candidate and has a horrendous personality and ability to speak in public.
While I don't respect politicians that are lifetime politicians, I similarly don't respect those that move from Show Biz to politics. And yea, I realize Reagan was one of those people. But, I do think Franken runs a more intelligent campaign and was less of a chance to lose than Dayton.
But, either way, the GOP has essentially pulled out of the state of Minnesota, leaving it to be a significant uphill battle to get moderate Republicans elected. I'm wondering, is this a trend across the country? If you aren't anti-gay marriage and anti-pro choice, are you basically doomed when you run as a Republican?
Here is my prediction.
The Republicans will gain control, however with Obama in office they will not accomplish much and in the next presidential election they will lose control but win the presidency. In the next mid-term, due to disgust with the Democrats for not accomplishing anything Republicans will once again gain control. With control of both houses and the presidency the Republicans will, much like Bush, accomplish virtually nothing.
It isn't the Republicans and it isn't the Democrats, it is our form of government. What worked well at one time, just isn't cutting the mustard anymore, we outgrew it. The Romans did the same thing.
The Republicans will gain control, however with Obama in office they will not accomplish much and in the next presidential election they will lose control but win the presidency. In the next mid-term, due to disgust with the Democrats for not accomplishing anything Republicans will once again gain control. With control of both houses and the presidency the Republicans will, much like Bush, accomplish virtually nothing.
It isn't the Republicans and it isn't the Democrats, it is our form of government. What worked well at one time, just isn't cutting the mustard anymore, we outgrew it. The Romans did the same thing.
A couple of things to know about
the runoffs. In Louisiana its an open primary with 2 Pubs and 1 Dem. If no one gets 50% +1, they go to the top two head to head in early December. That would take out the Republican who is getting 9% in polling and virtually all of those votes would go to the other Pub. That is a pick up and nearly certain if it doesn't happen Tuesday.
In Georgia, the state law requires that any person to win any statewide race receive 50%+1. If it doesn't happen on Tuesday, then the Libertarian and a couple of minor candidates fall out. The libertarian votes would go Repub but not until January 6 (that is the day after the Senate organizes). Republicans have one the last 5 runoffs including 2 in which the Republican didn't get the highest number of votes in the General
So, what prediction? Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota, Arkansas and Louisiana are in the bag. +5 = 50. Kentucky is a hold and safe stays =50. Colorado is a near sure thing = 51. Alaska is a probable = 52. Iowa is right behind Alaska = 53. Georgia as earlier mentioned is a likely R hold but not until January = 53. Now watch North Carolina and New Hampshire. NC is tied today and NH has closed to almost even. If the tide we think may be coming actually rolls in, those two go to the R column. Then there's Kansas where the Independent says he'll caucus with the majority (Rs) if he wins. But its still hard to imagine Kansas going D/I. Its a +29 state.
These estimates aren't final. I want to see Monday morning poll reports before imagining how big this might be.
BTW, Republicans right now appear to be picking up more than 10 House seats.
This post was edited on 10/31 2:34 PM by Ladoga
This post was edited on 10/31 2:42 PM by Ladoga
the runoffs. In Louisiana its an open primary with 2 Pubs and 1 Dem. If no one gets 50% +1, they go to the top two head to head in early December. That would take out the Republican who is getting 9% in polling and virtually all of those votes would go to the other Pub. That is a pick up and nearly certain if it doesn't happen Tuesday.
In Georgia, the state law requires that any person to win any statewide race receive 50%+1. If it doesn't happen on Tuesday, then the Libertarian and a couple of minor candidates fall out. The libertarian votes would go Repub but not until January 6 (that is the day after the Senate organizes). Republicans have one the last 5 runoffs including 2 in which the Republican didn't get the highest number of votes in the General
So, what prediction? Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota, Arkansas and Louisiana are in the bag. +5 = 50. Kentucky is a hold and safe stays =50. Colorado is a near sure thing = 51. Alaska is a probable = 52. Iowa is right behind Alaska = 53. Georgia as earlier mentioned is a likely R hold but not until January = 53. Now watch North Carolina and New Hampshire. NC is tied today and NH has closed to almost even. If the tide we think may be coming actually rolls in, those two go to the R column. Then there's Kansas where the Independent says he'll caucus with the majority (Rs) if he wins. But its still hard to imagine Kansas going D/I. Its a +29 state.
These estimates aren't final. I want to see Monday morning poll reports before imagining how big this might be.
BTW, Republicans right now appear to be picking up more than 10 House seats.
This post was edited on 10/31 2:34 PM by Ladoga
This post was edited on 10/31 2:42 PM by Ladoga
Yep, the same
people that are now blaming the Republicans for everything will still be blaming them when they pass something (if they are in control of both houses) and Obama vetoes it. Of course they will think it's okay since Obama's position is more in-line with their position. Don't get me wrong....I can see why Obama would veto stuff and the left would agree with his veto. What I don't get is why they can't see the exact opposite of that.
I do agree with your last paragraph. If the parties can't work together (after all Tip O'Neil and Reagan could make deals) then nothing will be accomplished. However, I think a lot of the problems are strictly Obama's fault. I've heard Gingrich (no fan of his) talk about his battles with Clinton. He said when they were having those battles he and Clinton talked 5 out of 7 days. Even Democrats have complained about Obama not being engaged with anyone. I honestly think that he thinks he's the most intelligent person in the world and no one dare question his side of something.
people that are now blaming the Republicans for everything will still be blaming them when they pass something (if they are in control of both houses) and Obama vetoes it. Of course they will think it's okay since Obama's position is more in-line with their position. Don't get me wrong....I can see why Obama would veto stuff and the left would agree with his veto. What I don't get is why they can't see the exact opposite of that.
I do agree with your last paragraph. If the parties can't work together (after all Tip O'Neil and Reagan could make deals) then nothing will be accomplished. However, I think a lot of the problems are strictly Obama's fault. I've heard Gingrich (no fan of his) talk about his battles with Clinton. He said when they were having those battles he and Clinton talked 5 out of 7 days. Even Democrats have complained about Obama not being engaged with anyone. I honestly think that he thinks he's the most intelligent person in the world and no one dare question his side of something.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
It won't matter because Obama is going to Executive Order everything he can
get his hands on. He's already said that he will bypass Congress to, "get things done".
get his hands on. He's already said that he will bypass Congress to, "get things done".
I wonder why he hasn't just cancelled the elections?
This sure seems like a waste of time, you know?
This sure seems like a waste of time, you know?
Pretty short yardstick there.
Looking in my rearview mirror the invasion of at least one of those countries looks little like an accomplishment and more like a disaster. And Medicare changes added to the cost of a country already mired in debt? With no tax increase to fund it?
This post was edited on 10/31 4:00 PM by SSB
Looking in my rearview mirror the invasion of at least one of those countries looks little like an accomplishment and more like a disaster. And Medicare changes added to the cost of a country already mired in debt? With no tax increase to fund it?
This post was edited on 10/31 4:00 PM by SSB
This is going to be really close.
I think Montana, SD, WV, Arkansas, Louisiana and Alaska are over.
Iowa, Colorado, Georgia, still up in the air.
I also Orman wins in Kansas.
If I'm doing my math right, that means, if Iowa, Colorado and Georgia all go for the Dems, They will have 50 seats, Orman will caucus with them, and they'll keep control 51-49.
If The Repubs win one of those three seats, that means they'll have a 50-49 seat lead, and who Orman sides will will decide control. My guess is Repubs.
If the Repubs win two of those three seats, Orman will definitely caucus with them, and it will be effectively 52-48.
I think right now, that's going to be my official guess. 52-48. I reserve the right to change it.
goat
I think Montana, SD, WV, Arkansas, Louisiana and Alaska are over.
Iowa, Colorado, Georgia, still up in the air.
I also Orman wins in Kansas.
If I'm doing my math right, that means, if Iowa, Colorado and Georgia all go for the Dems, They will have 50 seats, Orman will caucus with them, and they'll keep control 51-49.
If The Repubs win one of those three seats, that means they'll have a 50-49 seat lead, and who Orman sides will will decide control. My guess is Repubs.
If the Repubs win two of those three seats, Orman will definitely caucus with them, and it will be effectively 52-48.
I think right now, that's going to be my official guess. 52-48. I reserve the right to change it.
goat
No way.
That's a tad bit of a stretch to say that both NC and NH are trending to the GOP right now. NC I can see, but it's going to take something special for Brown to pull this out.
goat
That's a tad bit of a stretch to say that both NC and NH are trending to the GOP right now. NC I can see, but it's going to take something special for Brown to pull this out.
goat
Repubs have 45 right now
If they get those 6, that's 51. If they lose Kansas that's 50 and the Dems have to run the table to get a tie with Orman..
I think Georgia definitely is R but after the January 6 runoff. That's 51.
But Iowa and Colorado will likely go Repub anyway.
As of Wednesday - the same measuring distance from the election - no targeted Dem incumbent other than Shaheen was above 45%.
In 2010 every incumbent who was under 48% polling average on the corresponding date lost the election.
If they get those 6, that's 51. If they lose Kansas that's 50 and the Dems have to run the table to get a tie with Orman..
I think Georgia definitely is R but after the January 6 runoff. That's 51.
But Iowa and Colorado will likely go Repub anyway.
As of Wednesday - the same measuring distance from the election - no targeted Dem incumbent other than Shaheen was above 45%.
In 2010 every incumbent who was under 48% polling average on the corresponding date lost the election.
Short list but long on impact...
...for senior's drug costs and events in the Middle East.
We can all argue just how successful these initiatives were in terms of benefits versus cost, and just what a definition of accomplishment might be. However, one thing for sure is, these initiatives were game changers.
...for senior's drug costs and events in the Middle East.
We can all argue just how successful these initiatives were in terms of benefits versus cost, and just what a definition of accomplishment might be. However, one thing for sure is, these initiatives were game changers.
That's why I said....
....if the Dems swept all three, the Repubs would only have 49. (The six mentioned, minus Georgia and Kansas).
Colorado is too close to call and almost impossible with the changes in procedures. If I had to guess out of the three, I'd give the Dems the best chance there, but who knows.
The Georgia runoff is also tricky. It's not entirely clear how big of a favorite Perdue would be (if at all) in a runoff.
I didn't mention the possibility of the GOP sweeping all three, since at that point, it's pretty moot.
Not sure where you're getting your numbers, but I see several polls from this week, including Wednesday, that have Dems in battleground states sitting at 47/48, including Hagan.
The smart money is on the Repubs to win the Senate. The smart money is not on a clean sweep. This is going to be close.
goat
....if the Dems swept all three, the Repubs would only have 49. (The six mentioned, minus Georgia and Kansas).
Colorado is too close to call and almost impossible with the changes in procedures. If I had to guess out of the three, I'd give the Dems the best chance there, but who knows.
The Georgia runoff is also tricky. It's not entirely clear how big of a favorite Perdue would be (if at all) in a runoff.
I didn't mention the possibility of the GOP sweeping all three, since at that point, it's pretty moot.
Not sure where you're getting your numbers, but I see several polls from this week, including Wednesday, that have Dems in battleground states sitting at 47/48, including Hagan.
The smart money is on the Repubs to win the Senate. The smart money is not on a clean sweep. This is going to be close.
goat
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
If he does executive orders then he doesn't care who wins. He has said that
he will go around congress on amnesty after the election. I for one believe him. He is trying to live up to his election promises. He said he would transform the United States. And he's doing a bang up job. This is why Rush Limbaugh said he hoped that Obama failed because if Obama is successful then America loses.
he will go around congress on amnesty after the election. I for one believe him. He is trying to live up to his election promises. He said he would transform the United States. And he's doing a bang up job. This is why Rush Limbaugh said he hoped that Obama failed because if Obama is successful then America loses.
Similar threads
