POLL: OK - Official predictions Poll- who will be in charge of the Senate on 11/5
- Thread starter DougS
- Start date
Organizing is
electing a leader and that takes 51 votes. Republicans could easily have 51 before Georgia is determined - if it goes to a runoff. So, they'd elect their leader - a Republican - and then Georgia would be one more.
If, however, they happen to be sitting there with 50, Georgia would determine the outcome. The VP can break ties, but ONLY if it a 50-50 tie. Until Georgia is determined in the event of a runoff, a 50-50 tie is impossible.
electing a leader and that takes 51 votes. Republicans could easily have 51 before Georgia is determined - if it goes to a runoff. So, they'd elect their leader - a Republican - and then Georgia would be one more.
If, however, they happen to be sitting there with 50, Georgia would determine the outcome. The VP can break ties, but ONLY if it a 50-50 tie. Until Georgia is determined in the event of a runoff, a 50-50 tie is impossible.
Once in my lifetime.
Under GWB we had a Republican president and Republican majorities in both houses. It was the conservative wet dream, we would finally make changes that would address spending, deficits, and debt.
But instead taxes were lowered and the rate of debt accumulation increased dramatically. The myth is dead. I will never look at the Republican party the same again, you're right, it was a game changer.
Under GWB we had a Republican president and Republican majorities in both houses. It was the conservative wet dream, we would finally make changes that would address spending, deficits, and debt.
But instead taxes were lowered and the rate of debt accumulation increased dramatically. The myth is dead. I will never look at the Republican party the same again, you're right, it was a game changer.
This is another case where Orman throws a monkey wrench in it.
If they are sitting at 49-49 with Orman as the wild card, Orman may side with whichever party wins Georgia. In theory, he could caucus with the GOP, and the GOP could control the Senate for three days, then, if Nunn wins, his GOP vote would become meaningless, and he'd switch sides.
It's probably academic. If the GOP wins the Senate, Georgia will probably be the cherry on top, not the deciding state.
goat
If they are sitting at 49-49 with Orman as the wild card, Orman may side with whichever party wins Georgia. In theory, he could caucus with the GOP, and the GOP could control the Senate for three days, then, if Nunn wins, his GOP vote would become meaningless, and he'd switch sides.
It's probably academic. If the GOP wins the Senate, Georgia will probably be the cherry on top, not the deciding state.
goat
I think best case D scenario will be 51 R's
I can't see anything less than that when it is done. 52 Rs will be a good night, 53 a bad night, 54 and more is terrible.
I know we will disagree on this, but the victory is in part due to the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP. They fought hard in the primaries, and I think Kentucky and Georgia may have been in play had they lost. I know the GOP establishment isn't popular with some GOP members here. But this is that famed point where situation determines strategy. With all the negatives on the Dems, all the Reps had to do was run out the clock. They nominated people better at that, and it has worked.
The next 2 years will be very interesting.
I can't see anything less than that when it is done. 52 Rs will be a good night, 53 a bad night, 54 and more is terrible.
I know we will disagree on this, but the victory is in part due to the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP. They fought hard in the primaries, and I think Kentucky and Georgia may have been in play had they lost. I know the GOP establishment isn't popular with some GOP members here. But this is that famed point where situation determines strategy. With all the negatives on the Dems, all the Reps had to do was run out the clock. They nominated people better at that, and it has worked.
The next 2 years will be very interesting.
Everything on that list
could just as easily be blamed on the dramatic increase in funds available from special interests as they could on anything related to voter turnout.
Also, not sure what changes you're referring to. What have we done in recent years that has made it easier to vote, which you find fault with?
Suppressing voter turnout isn't a big structural change the GOP is engaged in. It's simply a way to slightly tilt the playing field their way which might help in very close races.
goat
could just as easily be blamed on the dramatic increase in funds available from special interests as they could on anything related to voter turnout.
Also, not sure what changes you're referring to. What have we done in recent years that has made it easier to vote, which you find fault with?
Suppressing voter turnout isn't a big structural change the GOP is engaged in. It's simply a way to slightly tilt the playing field their way which might help in very close races.
goat
Goat...
Isn't refusing to do anything about illegal immigration the same thing on the Dems part? Like building a wall and military on the border. The only reason for refusing to do so is that they're afraid of losing votes IMO.
Isn't refusing to do anything about illegal immigration the same thing on the Dems part? Like building a wall and military on the border. The only reason for refusing to do so is that they're afraid of losing votes IMO.
There are plenty of reasons why, but...
...in terms of electoral mechanics, yes. Repubs generally prefer lower turnout, Dems generally prefer higher turnout. Each party supports and opposes a number of policies solely based on those fundamentals. My point to COH is that these are things which slightly (very slightly) skew the results, and might matter in very close races, but don't cause the broad structural changes he'd attribute to them.
goat
...in terms of electoral mechanics, yes. Repubs generally prefer lower turnout, Dems generally prefer higher turnout. Each party supports and opposes a number of policies solely based on those fundamentals. My point to COH is that these are things which slightly (very slightly) skew the results, and might matter in very close races, but don't cause the broad structural changes he'd attribute to them.
goat
Bingo!
Special interest money is directly related to . . .well . . . .special interests..Speical interests are related to mobalizing voters to accumulate and preserve political power. This is why if we are serous about taking the influence of money and special interests out of politics we need to repeal the 17th amendment and stop dead the movement towards popular election of POTUS. We also need to prohibit all the electoral votes of a state to track the popular vote. I'd say maybe the electoral votes related to the house of representative numbers go by popular vote and the other votes return to the discretion of the members of the college.
In addition, the idea that voter ID suppresses votes is a crock. That has never been confirmed. The recent significant ease in voting, like motor voter and same day registration, demands more control to preserve integrity. Nelson Mandella was never seen as one who would suppress the vote.
Special interest money is directly related to . . .well . . . .special interests..Speical interests are related to mobalizing voters to accumulate and preserve political power. This is why if we are serous about taking the influence of money and special interests out of politics we need to repeal the 17th amendment and stop dead the movement towards popular election of POTUS. We also need to prohibit all the electoral votes of a state to track the popular vote. I'd say maybe the electoral votes related to the house of representative numbers go by popular vote and the other votes return to the discretion of the members of the college.
In addition, the idea that voter ID suppresses votes is a crock. That has never been confirmed. The recent significant ease in voting, like motor voter and same day registration, demands more control to preserve integrity. Nelson Mandella was never seen as one who would suppress the vote.
Well, I don't accept the notion that making it "harder" to vote
supresses turnout. In many places in the world, voters literally put their lives at risk by voting and turnout there is often higher.
I don't think the GOP has any problem with turnout. But I do want people to take the vote seriously and I think more ought to be required for voting than is required for entering the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes. Effort will incrase the serousness of the process.
supresses turnout. In many places in the world, voters literally put their lives at risk by voting and turnout there is often higher.
I don't think the GOP has any problem with turnout. But I do want people to take the vote seriously and I think more ought to be required for voting than is required for entering the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes. Effort will incrase the serousness of the process.
Sigh...
...we've been over this.
Democratic attempts to make it easier to vote are all about increasing turnout.
Republican attempts to make it more difficult are all about decreasing turnout.
It's a game played by two sides who both know damn well which side their bread is buttered on.
Sorry if you take offense to the word "suppress." I used it because I was specifically referring to what people are fond of calling "suppression." My point is that none of it has to do with voting rights or electoral integrity. It has to do with the fact that one party prefers small turnouts and the other prefers larger turnouts.
goat
...we've been over this.
Democratic attempts to make it easier to vote are all about increasing turnout.
Republican attempts to make it more difficult are all about decreasing turnout.
It's a game played by two sides who both know damn well which side their bread is buttered on.
Sorry if you take offense to the word "suppress." I used it because I was specifically referring to what people are fond of calling "suppression." My point is that none of it has to do with voting rights or electoral integrity. It has to do with the fact that one party prefers small turnouts and the other prefers larger turnouts.
goat
You're confusing oppression and suppression
Suppression is simply the tendency to lower or reduce something. It doesn't need to carry the connotation of anything nefarious.
goat
Suppression is simply the tendency to lower or reduce something. It doesn't need to carry the connotation of anything nefarious.
goat
I don't think there's the slightest chance Orman sides with GOP.
I think that's another campaign lie by a politician. The guy is a Democrat and the Democrats are helping him in his campaign because they know he's a Democrat.
I think that's another campaign lie by a politician. The guy is a Democrat and the Democrats are helping him in his campaign because they know he's a Democrat.
That's what you've said.
And many of us disagree with your assertions regarding voter ID and the motives of those that support it. Like me and Jimmy Carter - and the majority of Americans, including Democrats, too.
This post was edited on 10/31 8:08 PM by Aloha Hoosier
And many of us disagree with your assertions regarding voter ID and the motives of those that support it. Like me and Jimmy Carter - and the majority of Americans, including Democrats, too.
This post was edited on 10/31 8:08 PM by Aloha Hoosier
same group that's in charge now.
big oil
big health care and big pharma
big finance
big telecom
defense contractors
we have only one major party in the US, the "Wall Street Party".
a vast majority of the senate will be beholden to Wall Street, regardless of who is elected.
said party has two branches, the Dems and GOP.
the two branches act as one on all things of relevance to Wall St.
they differ mostly only on social matters like guns, gay marriage, abortion, etc, which Wall Street feels they have no major economic interest in, thus let the little people fight it out on those.
big oil
big health care and big pharma
big finance
big telecom
defense contractors
we have only one major party in the US, the "Wall Street Party".
a vast majority of the senate will be beholden to Wall Street, regardless of who is elected.
said party has two branches, the Dems and GOP.
the two branches act as one on all things of relevance to Wall St.
they differ mostly only on social matters like guns, gay marriage, abortion, etc, which Wall Street feels they have no major economic interest in, thus let the little people fight it out on those.
Then the majority of Americans are naive.
If those demographics of people who are least likely to have a proper ID - and least motivated to get one - tended to vote Republican, both parties would be on the exact opposite side of this issue.
If those demographics of people who are least likely to have a proper ID - and least motivated to get one - tended to vote Republican, both parties would be on the exact opposite side of this issue.
In this case they're right.
The integrity of elections is very important. We need to tighten up on what's required for voting absentee too. They have in Ohio and it's a good thing. I'd guess you wouldn't want non-citizens and other ineligible voters deciding who runs our cities, states and country either, right?
This post was edited on 10/31 8:23 PM by Aloha Hoosier
The integrity of elections is very important. We need to tighten up on what's required for voting absentee too. They have in Ohio and it's a good thing. I'd guess you wouldn't want non-citizens and other ineligible voters deciding who runs our cities, states and country either, right?
This post was edited on 10/31 8:23 PM by Aloha Hoosier
"least motive to get one"
I don't understand worring about people who are unmotivated to get an ID if they need one to vote. What is the point of yealding to that kind of apathy?
I don't understand worring about people who are unmotivated to get an ID if they need one to vote. What is the point of yealding to that kind of apathy?
*Shrug*
It has a minor effect, in the long run. The whole voter ID fight is unlikely to change the results in most elections. What little voter fraud does occur likely also has a negligible effect.
My point is that Dems have taken up the mantle of opening up voting and Repubs have taken up the mantle of tightening restrictions, simply because those positions favor their electoral outcomes.
It's all politics on this issue. If Hispanics tended to vote strongly for the GOP, the Republicans would be repealing voter ID laws all over the country and the Democrats would be calling for the borders to be shut.
goat
It has a minor effect, in the long run. The whole voter ID fight is unlikely to change the results in most elections. What little voter fraud does occur likely also has a negligible effect.
My point is that Dems have taken up the mantle of opening up voting and Repubs have taken up the mantle of tightening restrictions, simply because those positions favor their electoral outcomes.
It's all politics on this issue. If Hispanics tended to vote strongly for the GOP, the Republicans would be repealing voter ID laws all over the country and the Democrats would be calling for the borders to be shut.
goat
Am I being unclear?
Because they vote for my guy. People who don't have IDs tend to vote Democrat. We want them to vote. If they tended to vote Republican, you'd want them to vote, and I'd be talking about how getting an ID isn't really that big of an inconvenience, after all.
This is all about politics. All of it. I don't think I can be any clearer.
goat
Because they vote for my guy. People who don't have IDs tend to vote Democrat. We want them to vote. If they tended to vote Republican, you'd want them to vote, and I'd be talking about how getting an ID isn't really that big of an inconvenience, after all.
This is all about politics. All of it. I don't think I can be any clearer.
goat
So you think you get a lot of votes from ineligible voters?
I'm pretty sure that I'd never support that even if they tended to favor my party.
I'm pretty sure that I'd never support that even if they tended to favor my party.
Heh . . . .okay
another water is wet argument. I tried to read some substance into your position. Sorry about that.
another water is wet argument. I tried to read some substance into your position. Sorry about that.
I really doubt it.
I'm sure there are a few, but not enough to swing anything. And I'm damn sure voter ID laws do nothing to prevent it. All voter ID laws prevent is someone pretending to be another person, and there isn't any evidence whatsoever that particular problem is something that happens with even the remotest regularity.
My point is that it isn't even ultimately about ineligible votes. It's about the fact that whatever effective disenfranchisement occurs because of voter ID laws is likely to hit Democrats hardest. Therefore, Democrats have decided they are an affront to democracy, while Republicans have decided they are necessary to protect the integrity of our elections.
It is not a coincidence that the two parties came to these two positions.
goat
I'm sure there are a few, but not enough to swing anything. And I'm damn sure voter ID laws do nothing to prevent it. All voter ID laws prevent is someone pretending to be another person, and there isn't any evidence whatsoever that particular problem is something that happens with even the remotest regularity.
My point is that it isn't even ultimately about ineligible votes. It's about the fact that whatever effective disenfranchisement occurs because of voter ID laws is likely to hit Democrats hardest. Therefore, Democrats have decided they are an affront to democracy, while Republicans have decided they are necessary to protect the integrity of our elections.
It is not a coincidence that the two parties came to these two positions.
goat
There is substance.
The substance is I'm sick and tired of people on the right saying, "Democrats want illegals to vote because they are Democratic votes. We don't want them to vote, but not because they vote Democrat, only because we actually care about American democracy."
The substance of my point is that these arguments are just more complete bullshit.
And, originally, the substance of my argument was that, in the long run, the effects of how this battle over electoral access plays out will be relatively minor, and I certainly don't think you can draw the broad connection you did between ballot access and that long list of evils.
You mentioned same day registration, I think, as an example of how we've made voting easier. Do you really think that's a bad thing? And, do you really think it's that big of a thing? I'd love to see some numbers on same-day registration. I bet it's a pretty minor phenomenon.
goat
The substance is I'm sick and tired of people on the right saying, "Democrats want illegals to vote because they are Democratic votes. We don't want them to vote, but not because they vote Democrat, only because we actually care about American democracy."
The substance of my point is that these arguments are just more complete bullshit.
And, originally, the substance of my argument was that, in the long run, the effects of how this battle over electoral access plays out will be relatively minor, and I certainly don't think you can draw the broad connection you did between ballot access and that long list of evils.
You mentioned same day registration, I think, as an example of how we've made voting easier. Do you really think that's a bad thing? And, do you really think it's that big of a thing? I'd love to see some numbers on same-day registration. I bet it's a pretty minor phenomenon.
goat
Okay, Doug, I've got more detail here for you...
I'm not quite as well-versed with the polling process in a personal way as Iron is, but I do know my numbers, and I've been crunching some tonight (what a Friday night!), so I have some more thoughts.
First, let me start with this. There are 64 seats not up for election. 30 GOP, 32 Dem, and 2 Indies who always caucus as Dems. So 34-30, essentially.
Of the 36 seats up for election, I've got 26 of them as clear no-contests. Although I came to that conclusion differently, they are the same 26 races that Nate Silver has below the 90% threshold. They include Minnesota, West Virginia, and every other state below them on the list sorted by contestability. Those states shake out to 15 GOP, 11 Dem. So now we are at 45 GOP and 45 Dem, with 10 races to decide the whole thing: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina and New Hampshire. GOP needs 6 of 10 to win the Senate.
I base my analysis of these states below only on poll results released since October 1, weighted by date. I'll update with November polls between now and Tuesday. I ran three sets of numbers. One in which the undecideds/third party candidates don't break for either major party, one in which they break 2-1 Dem, and one in which they break 2-1 GOP*. This is a pretty simplistic look at the numbers compared to the complicated simulations run by Silver, et al., but, hey, I'm still running Windows 7. Also, I firmly believe that sometimes it's helpful to step back and just take a simple glance at things instead of getting bogged down in minutiae that ultimately don't amount to anything. Anyway:
Alaska - Impossible to predict because of lower number of polls and high variability. Raw contest virtually tied (GOP + 0.05), state breaks with wherever the national party trend goes.
Arkansas - Not all that competitive. Even with a Dem break, over 50% go to GOP.
Colorado - Although a Dem break keeps it close - and both candidates under 50%, this is a GOP seat in each scenario.
Georgia - Slight GOP lead, but goes with the national trend. In no scenario does either candidate get 50%. So this is going to a runoff.
Iowa - Goes GOP all three ways.
Kansas - Needs a GOP break to swing their way. Orman looking better than I thought.
Kentucky - GOP no doubt.
Louisiana - Not only GOP all three ways, but assuming at least some break away from undecideds to major party candidates, probably avoid a runoff.
North Carolina - Repubs need to cool their jets. Hagan isn't done by a long shot. Raw numbers have her up by a little less than a point.
New Hampshire - Sorry, Brown isn't winning this. Even with a GOP break, this stays Democratic.
Long story short? Best case scenario for Dems at this point is 46 seats + all 3 indies, + a chance to compete for that Georgia seat in a runoff. That's not ideal.
I'm sticking with 52 outright seats for the Repubs at the moment (everything above except for Kansas, North Carolina and New Hampshire), with Orman as #53 if he decides to caucus with them.
goat
* Actually, for the sake of Georgia and Louisiana, they actually break 2-2-1, with the other 40% staying with the third party candidate.
This post was edited on 10/31 10:28 PM by TheOriginalHappyGoat
I'm not quite as well-versed with the polling process in a personal way as Iron is, but I do know my numbers, and I've been crunching some tonight (what a Friday night!), so I have some more thoughts.
First, let me start with this. There are 64 seats not up for election. 30 GOP, 32 Dem, and 2 Indies who always caucus as Dems. So 34-30, essentially.
Of the 36 seats up for election, I've got 26 of them as clear no-contests. Although I came to that conclusion differently, they are the same 26 races that Nate Silver has below the 90% threshold. They include Minnesota, West Virginia, and every other state below them on the list sorted by contestability. Those states shake out to 15 GOP, 11 Dem. So now we are at 45 GOP and 45 Dem, with 10 races to decide the whole thing: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina and New Hampshire. GOP needs 6 of 10 to win the Senate.
I base my analysis of these states below only on poll results released since October 1, weighted by date. I'll update with November polls between now and Tuesday. I ran three sets of numbers. One in which the undecideds/third party candidates don't break for either major party, one in which they break 2-1 Dem, and one in which they break 2-1 GOP*. This is a pretty simplistic look at the numbers compared to the complicated simulations run by Silver, et al., but, hey, I'm still running Windows 7. Also, I firmly believe that sometimes it's helpful to step back and just take a simple glance at things instead of getting bogged down in minutiae that ultimately don't amount to anything. Anyway:
Alaska - Impossible to predict because of lower number of polls and high variability. Raw contest virtually tied (GOP + 0.05), state breaks with wherever the national party trend goes.
Arkansas - Not all that competitive. Even with a Dem break, over 50% go to GOP.
Colorado - Although a Dem break keeps it close - and both candidates under 50%, this is a GOP seat in each scenario.
Georgia - Slight GOP lead, but goes with the national trend. In no scenario does either candidate get 50%. So this is going to a runoff.
Iowa - Goes GOP all three ways.
Kansas - Needs a GOP break to swing their way. Orman looking better than I thought.
Kentucky - GOP no doubt.
Louisiana - Not only GOP all three ways, but assuming at least some break away from undecideds to major party candidates, probably avoid a runoff.
North Carolina - Repubs need to cool their jets. Hagan isn't done by a long shot. Raw numbers have her up by a little less than a point.
New Hampshire - Sorry, Brown isn't winning this. Even with a GOP break, this stays Democratic.
Long story short? Best case scenario for Dems at this point is 46 seats + all 3 indies, + a chance to compete for that Georgia seat in a runoff. That's not ideal.
I'm sticking with 52 outright seats for the Repubs at the moment (everything above except for Kansas, North Carolina and New Hampshire), with Orman as #53 if he decides to caucus with them.
goat
* Actually, for the sake of Georgia and Louisiana, they actually break 2-2-1, with the other 40% staying with the third party candidate.
This post was edited on 10/31 10:28 PM by TheOriginalHappyGoat
I am very concerned the polls in Ky are wrong.
Almost every female I hear express an opinion is voting for Grimes. When I suggest that it would be stupid for Kentucky politicly to give up the power that comes with the speaker of the Senate if the Republicans win the majority, it usually starts a large vocal debate. The democrats get mad and raise their voices expouting the dogma from the commercials. I calmly return to the patronage that a speaker can deliver. Giving up that power for a back seat freshman,southern yellow dog dosn't make political sense regardless of your politics. If I am right and the polls are wrong due to the high demographic vote of women don't be shocked. Kentucky politics has a tendency to do stupid well.
Almost every female I hear express an opinion is voting for Grimes. When I suggest that it would be stupid for Kentucky politicly to give up the power that comes with the speaker of the Senate if the Republicans win the majority, it usually starts a large vocal debate. The democrats get mad and raise their voices expouting the dogma from the commercials. I calmly return to the patronage that a speaker can deliver. Giving up that power for a back seat freshman,southern yellow dog dosn't make political sense regardless of your politics. If I am right and the polls are wrong due to the high demographic vote of women don't be shocked. Kentucky politics has a tendency to do stupid well.
I appreciate the work
you've done and respect it.
I would quibble ONLY with going back to October 1. The voter who isn't firmly committed decides late in elections such as these - no national top of the ticket - and including polls over about 2 weeks back now isn't very instructive unless the study is purely on trend.
But, that's good stuff. I didn't do that last night and had you been with me, we'd have been tossing back a couple and you wouldn't have been crunching anything but ice.
Nice work.
If its easy to do, run your calculation using only stuff after October 20.
you've done and respect it.
I would quibble ONLY with going back to October 1. The voter who isn't firmly committed decides late in elections such as these - no national top of the ticket - and including polls over about 2 weeks back now isn't very instructive unless the study is purely on trend.
But, that's good stuff. I didn't do that last night and had you been with me, we'd have been tossing back a couple and you wouldn't have been crunching anything but ice.
Nice work.
If its easy to do, run your calculation using only stuff after October 20.
I believe Ormin
caucuses with the Dems no matter what. His entire campaign is staffed by loyal Dem operatives. His money is Dem money. He's no more an independent than I am. However, you can't run as a Dem in Kansas. It's +29 Republican. So, he makes like an independent, but he's a liberal Dem and he'll line up with them.
I'd be ASTONISHED is he doesn't.
caucuses with the Dems no matter what. His entire campaign is staffed by loyal Dem operatives. His money is Dem money. He's no more an independent than I am. However, you can't run as a Dem in Kansas. It's +29 Republican. So, he makes like an independent, but he's a liberal Dem and he'll line up with them.
I'd be ASTONISHED is he doesn't.
So we're sort of even. I really doubt that . . .
photo ID will "suppress" minority votes. I don't believe it will suppress it at all because all the real-world evidence so far is that it has resulted in the opposite (possibly/probably due to Democratic politician and activist fear-mongering on the issue) and minority voting has increased. You should be happy. You doubt that there are significant numbers of non-citizen voters and they don't concern you. I think we probably have more than a few non-citizen voters voting in our elections and I think it's a significant number, and I think photo IDs and proper review of them at the polling stations (i.e. non-citizen ID means the person does not get to vote) will prevent a good deal of that voting. What we consider "significant" is very likely not the same.
photo ID will "suppress" minority votes. I don't believe it will suppress it at all because all the real-world evidence so far is that it has resulted in the opposite (possibly/probably due to Democratic politician and activist fear-mongering on the issue) and minority voting has increased. You should be happy. You doubt that there are significant numbers of non-citizen voters and they don't concern you. I think we probably have more than a few non-citizen voters voting in our elections and I think it's a significant number, and I think photo IDs and proper review of them at the polling stations (i.e. non-citizen ID means the person does not get to vote) will prevent a good deal of that voting. What we consider "significant" is very likely not the same.
Which is worse?
Not wanting ineligible voters to vote because they tend to vote for Democrats or wanting ineligible voters to vote because they tend to vote for Democrats? No matter which motive a person has only one of them advocates complying with the law.
Not wanting ineligible voters to vote because they tend to vote for Democrats or wanting ineligible voters to vote because they tend to vote for Democrats? No matter which motive a person has only one of them advocates complying with the law.
That's not relevant on its own.
What matters is the substance of the Executive Orders. Many Executive Orders are for routine and mundane things, like changing the name of an advisory council, clarifying or amending previous mundane EOs, cancelling previous EOs and even establishing a transition team for the next President. The controversial ones are those that have the effect of creating law or significantly altering existing laws without legislative actions. President Obama has a fair number of those, but I don't know if they're more than previous Presidents or not. Even his most controversial ones are mundane in comparison to many by FDR and some by Truman. For example, he's not issued any creating concentration camps for US persons of Japanese ancestry or nationalizing the steel industry and he's not had any overturned by the USSC (as FDR, Truman and other Presidents have), but his EOs on the ACA and immigration can at least be considered significant changes to existing US law. I don't know if he has more of those types of EOs than recent Presidents or not. I don't have the time and it's not my job. Those with the time who are supposed to analyze this sort of thing are not bothering to do it. They take 5 minutes to look at numbers and see that he has a few less than recent Presidents and that's the extent of their analysis. Then people that don't know anything more about EOs than that say, "previous Presidents have issued MORE, so there!" And they think that's a slick rebuttal.
What matters is the substance of the Executive Orders. Many Executive Orders are for routine and mundane things, like changing the name of an advisory council, clarifying or amending previous mundane EOs, cancelling previous EOs and even establishing a transition team for the next President. The controversial ones are those that have the effect of creating law or significantly altering existing laws without legislative actions. President Obama has a fair number of those, but I don't know if they're more than previous Presidents or not. Even his most controversial ones are mundane in comparison to many by FDR and some by Truman. For example, he's not issued any creating concentration camps for US persons of Japanese ancestry or nationalizing the steel industry and he's not had any overturned by the USSC (as FDR, Truman and other Presidents have), but his EOs on the ACA and immigration can at least be considered significant changes to existing US law. I don't know if he has more of those types of EOs than recent Presidents or not. I don't have the time and it's not my job. Those with the time who are supposed to analyze this sort of thing are not bothering to do it. They take 5 minutes to look at numbers and see that he has a few less than recent Presidents and that's the extent of their analysis. Then people that don't know anything more about EOs than that say, "previous Presidents have issued MORE, so there!" And they think that's a slick rebuttal.
Bush was no conservative . . . .
not fiscally, not in domestic policy, not in foreign policy, and not in immigration. I have no idea why you and others think he is and was a conservative.
More about Bush.
He designed and implimented the most significant federal intrusion into K-12 education in history. Using Bush's "reforms" as a platform, Obama changed the scope and nature of federal intrusion into K-12 education through various exectuvie orders and without legisative authority.
Bush signed pork ladened energy and transportaion bills filled earmarks. Bush also spearheaded the 2008 stimulus and TARP spending increases. (Despite these massive spending programs, the economy collapsed anyway which foreshadowed the failure of the 2009 stimulus).
Bush's best ideas were about reforming Social Security, and he got hammered for that. The demorats and their media sycophants defeated Bush's proposals, and in doing so, poisoned the waters about moving SS to an individual money purchase program so that we might never recover in a manner necessary to save the system.
This post was edited on 11/1 1:37 PM by CO. Hoosier
not fiscally, not in domestic policy, not in foreign policy, and not in immigration. I have no idea why you and others think he is and was a conservative.
More about Bush.
He designed and implimented the most significant federal intrusion into K-12 education in history. Using Bush's "reforms" as a platform, Obama changed the scope and nature of federal intrusion into K-12 education through various exectuvie orders and without legisative authority.
Bush signed pork ladened energy and transportaion bills filled earmarks. Bush also spearheaded the 2008 stimulus and TARP spending increases. (Despite these massive spending programs, the economy collapsed anyway which foreshadowed the failure of the 2009 stimulus).
Bush's best ideas were about reforming Social Security, and he got hammered for that. The demorats and their media sycophants defeated Bush's proposals, and in doing so, poisoned the waters about moving SS to an individual money purchase program so that we might never recover in a manner necessary to save the system.
This post was edited on 11/1 1:37 PM by CO. Hoosier
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Zeke, the President has said that he is doing it after the election. If
Obama had no EOs at all, but then threw in this huge one with amnesty, would you agree with him, or would you call it a travesty of our political and governmental system?
Obama had no EOs at all, but then threw in this huge one with amnesty, would you agree with him, or would you call it a travesty of our political and governmental system?
Similar threads
