If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Democrats pine for House majority, fjords   (thehill.com) divider line 65
    More: Unlikely, White House, Democrats, Tammy Duckworth, Hispanic voters, Mike Coffman, Nancy Pelosi  
•       •       •

1173 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Oct 2012 at 9:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-01 09:12:45 AM
Doesn't Nate Silver give dems a pretty decent chance of getting the House back? I know he's forecasting something like 51 or 52 dem senators.
 
2012-10-01 09:13:35 AM
Even with a House majority, nothing will get done in the Senate without disposing of the filibuster. Derp and gridlock for another 4 years.

/Vote Slartibartfast
 
2012-10-01 09:14:51 AM

HMS_Blinkin: Doesn't Nate Silver give dems a pretty decent chance of getting the House back? I know he's forecasting something like 51 or 52 dem senators.


What is this? I don't even...
 
2012-10-01 09:15:28 AM

HMS_Blinkin: Doesn't Nate Silver give dems a pretty decent chance of getting the House back? I know he's forecasting something like 51 or 52 dem senators.


His model doesn't work very well for House races, because there's too little polling data.
 
2012-10-01 09:22:21 AM
As someone who has (in the past) voted (R) I was very comfortable with the (D's) holding the senate - I've had it with the idiotic anti-intellectual, anti-everthing bullshiat that the republicans have become. When Pelosi talks tho I still cringe....
 
2012-10-01 09:22:51 AM

Klivian: HMS_Blinkin: Doesn't Nate Silver give dems a pretty decent chance of getting the House back? I know he's forecasting something like 51 or 52 dem senators.

What is this? I don't even...


I was asking for info regarding the House, and stating that I already knew Silver's forecast for the Senate.

imontheinternet: HMS_Blinkin: Doesn't Nate Silver give dems a pretty decent chance of getting the House back? I know he's forecasting something like 51 or 52 dem senators.

His model doesn't work very well for House races, because there's too little polling data.


That's true. I'm guessing a lot of it will have to do with voter turnout. Romney could really endanger the GOP in the house if his "stench"-y campaign keeps GOP voters at home.
 
2012-10-01 09:23:06 AM
ARE there any Democrats with fine plumage??
 
2012-10-01 09:23:32 AM
I wish to complain about this candidate that I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
What's wrong with it?
'What's wrong with it?' I'll tell you what's wrong with it my lad - he's unelectable, that's 'what's wrong with it'.
He's not unelectable, he's just confident in a silent majority, that's all.
'Confident in a silent majority'?!? What kind of talk is that? Why did he start sinking in the polls the moment he got nominated?
The Republican candidate prefers an underdog position. Remarkable party, isn't it? Beautiful donor lists...
Look, tosh - when I started reviewing the candidate's policy positions, I discovered that the only reason he has them is that the party nailed him to them (or them to him).
Nailed there? Of course they were nailed there. Look, if the party hadn't nailed those policy positions down, he could have muscled up to the White House, bent a Congressional majority to his will and then - LIBERALISM!
'Liberalism'? This candidate couldn't go liberal if you put 4 million Massachussettsers through him! He's a dyed-in-the-wool conservative! He's a 1%er! Rich, bereft of compassion, if you hadn't nailed him to the policies, he'd have none! This is an EX-politician!
 
2012-10-01 09:23:38 AM

Fizpez: As someone who has (in the past) voted (R) I was very comfortable with the (D's) holding the senate - I've had it with the idiotic anti-intellectual, anti-everthing bullshiat that the republicans have become. When Pelosi talks tho I still cringe....


She cringes too, you just can't tell

/hey-yoooo it's a botox joke
//I'll be here all week
 
2012-10-01 09:24:42 AM

Dr Dreidel: I wish to complain about this candidate that I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
What's wrong with it?
'What's wrong with it?' I'll tell you what's wrong with it my lad - he's unelectable, that's 'what's wrong with it'.
He's not unelectable, he's just confident in a silent majority, that's all.
'Confident in a silent majority'?!? What kind of talk is that? Why did he start sinking in the polls the moment he got nominated?
The Republican candidate prefers an underdog position. Remarkable party, isn't it? Beautiful donor lists...
Look, tosh - when I started reviewing the candidate's policy positions, I discovered that the only reason he has them is that the party nailed him to them (or them to him).
Nailed there? Of course they were nailed there. Look, if the party hadn't nailed those policy positions down, he could have muscled up to the White House, bent a Congressional majority to his will and then - LIBERALISM!
'Liberalism'? This candidate couldn't go liberal if you put 4 million Massachussettsers through him! He's a dyed-in-the-wool conservative! He's a 1%er! Rich, bereft of compassion, if you hadn't nailed him to the policies, he'd have none! This is an EX-politician!


WIN! +1 internets for you, sir
 
2012-10-01 09:26:08 AM

Klivian: Even with a House majority, nothing will get done in the Senate without disposing of the filibuster. Derp and gridlock for another 4 years.

/Vote Slartibartfast


A House majority would help a bit. At least it would stop the weekly voting to end ObamaCare or ban abortions. The obstructionism would become much more obvious to the general public if the House is passing bills and the senate is flat-out refusing to even vote on anything because of the filibuster.
 
2012-10-01 09:41:29 AM

Klivian: Even with a House majority, nothing will get done in the Senate without disposing of the filibuster. Derp and gridlock for another 4 years.

/Vote Slartibartfast


If the Dems win the Presidency, Senate, and House, the filibuster will be gone in a heartbeat.

They'll have to, with the fiscal cliff looming and all.
 
2012-10-01 09:42:23 AM
So, the big issue for Pelosi and Democrats in the House is Mediscare, Mediscare and Mediscare.

I guess they've given up on the economy. Seems wise.
 
2012-10-01 09:45:13 AM

Cletus C.: So, the big issue for Pelosi and Democrats in the House is Mediscare, Mediscare and Mediscare.

I guess they've given up on the economy. Seems wise.


static.ddmcdn.com

Tell us again how the Ryan coupon plan is the only hope of saving Medicare from certain doom.
 
2012-10-01 09:48:47 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Cletus C.: So, the big issue for Pelosi and Democrats in the House is Mediscare, Mediscare and Mediscare.

I guess they've given up on the economy. Seems wise.

[static.ddmcdn.com image 400x272]

Tell us again how the Ryan coupon plan is the only hope of saving Medicare from certain doom.


Yes, stick to Madame Pelosi's scrip. Do not have a plan, have an anti-plan. (Insert evil laugh)
 
2012-10-01 09:50:08 AM

Cletus C.: So, the big issue for Pelosi and Democrats in the House is Mediscare, Mediscare and Mediscare.

I guess they've given up on the economy. Seems wise.


A: The economy is doing better in every measurable manner. The poor and middle class are still hurting a bit, but much less than they were in '08. As for the wealthy, the stock market is nearly as high as it's ever been, corporations are making record profits, and the rich are just generally richer than ever before; the fact that the poor and middle class are still hurting is yet another nail in "trickle-down's" coffin.

B: Even if none of that were true, nobody with more than half a brain should vote for Republicans because, and listen closely now, THOSE FARKTARDS GOT US INTO THIS MESS IN THE FIRST GODDAMN PLACE.. And not only has Romney pledged to do the same shiat Bush did (Idiotic invasion in the Middle East, moar tax cuts), but he has the same people working for him.
 
2012-10-01 09:50:27 AM
Not to say you'll use scrip for your Medicare. Just a typo. I think.
 
2012-10-01 09:51:37 AM

Cletus C.: Philip Francis Queeg: Cletus C.: So, the big issue for Pelosi and Democrats in the House is Mediscare, Mediscare and Mediscare.

I guess they've given up on the economy. Seems wise.

[static.ddmcdn.com image 400x272]

Tell us again how the Ryan coupon plan is the only hope of saving Medicare from certain doom.

Yes, stick to Madame Pelosi's scrip. Do not have a plan, have an anti-plan. (Insert evil laugh)


Monsieur Ryan is the only man who can save Medicare .
 
2012-10-01 09:53:08 AM

LordJiro: Cletus C.: So, the big issue for Pelosi and Democrats in the House is Mediscare, Mediscare and Mediscare.

I guess they've given up on the economy. Seems wise.

A: The economy is doing better in every measurable manner. The poor and middle class are still hurting a bit, but much less than they were in '08. As for the wealthy, the stock market is nearly as high as it's ever been, corporations are making record profits, and the rich are just generally richer than ever before; the fact that the poor and middle class are still hurting is yet another nail in "trickle-down's" coffin.

B: Even if none of that were true, nobody with more than half a brain should vote for Republicans because, and listen closely now, THOSE FARKTARDS GOT US INTO THIS MESS IN THE FIRST GODDAMN PLACE.. And not only has Romney pledged to do the same shiat Bush did (Idiotic invasion in the Middle East, moar tax cuts), but he has the same people working for him.


I get it now.

Could be worse. Much worse.
Bush.
 
2012-10-01 09:56:14 AM

Cletus C.: Do not have a plan, have an anti-plan.


Isn't that Romney/Ryan (and the entire GOP) platform?
 
2012-10-01 09:56:34 AM
My personal speculation is that Dems will regain the House but lose the Senate, the end result being that not much is going to change.
 
2012-10-01 09:57:34 AM

NeoCortex42: Klivian: Even with a House majority, nothing will get done in the Senate without disposing of the filibuster. Derp and gridlock for another 4 years.

/Vote Slartibartfast

A House majority would help a bit. At least it would stop the weekly voting to end ObamaCare or ban abortions. The obstructionism would become much more obvious to the general public if the House is passing bills and the senate is flat-out refusing to even vote on anything because of the filibuster.


Oh right, that worked so well last time the GOP filibustered everything. It was so obvious to the general public that the GOP retook the House and nearly the Senate.
 
2012-10-01 09:58:41 AM

Cletus C.: LordJiro: Cletus C.: So, the big issue for Pelosi and Democrats in the House is Mediscare, Mediscare and Mediscare.

I guess they've given up on the economy. Seems wise.

A: The economy is doing better in every measurable manner. The poor and middle class are still hurting a bit, but much less than they were in '08. As for the wealthy, the stock market is nearly as high as it's ever been, corporations are making record profits, and the rich are just generally richer than ever before; the fact that the poor and middle class are still hurting is yet another nail in "trickle-down's" coffin.

B: Even if none of that were true, nobody with more than half a brain should vote for Republicans because, and listen closely now, THOSE FARKTARDS GOT US INTO THIS MESS IN THE FIRST GODDAMN PLACE.. And not only has Romney pledged to do the same shiat Bush did (Idiotic invasion in the Middle East, moar tax cuts), but he has the same people working for him.

I get it now.

Could be worse. Much worse.
Bush.


Yes, it could be much worse. It WAS much worse during the Bush administration, for that matter. And it would be better if we didn't have the scum in the GOP deliberately trying to hurt the country for political gain (See: the debt ceiling debacle, holding benefits hostage unless the Bush tax cuts for the rich were extended, watering down the stimulus and the ACA with disproven Republican bullshiat to 'compromise' and then STILL voting against it...Basically, every single thing Republicans in Congress have done since Obama's election, and especially since 2010.).

Obama isn't perfect, but Republicans are filth.
 
2012-10-01 09:59:40 AM

GarySZ: Cletus C.: Do not have a plan, have an anti-plan.

Isn't that Romney/Ryan (and the entire GOP) platform?


Absolutely. No argument there, though to be fair, Ryan did have a plan. Now he's part of the Romney anti-plan.
 
2012-10-01 10:04:03 AM
 
2012-10-01 10:04:12 AM

Cletus C.: GarySZ: Cletus C.: Do not have a plan, have an anti-plan.

Isn't that Romney/Ryan (and the entire GOP) platform?

Absolutely. No argument there, though to be fair, Ryan did have a plan. Now he's part of the Romney anti-plan.


His plan was what a stupid person would think a smart person would come up with.

Which I'm sure is why you like it.
 
2012-10-01 10:04:51 AM

Millennium: My personal speculation is that Dems will regain the House but lose the Senate, the end result being that not much is going to change.


Highly unlikely.

Polling points to hanging on to the Senate but not regaining the House. There simply aren't enough seats in play in the House. (partly because of our absolutely hilariously stupid system of letting the winning party gerrymander the seats.)
 
2012-10-01 10:05:21 AM

Millennium: My personal speculation is that Dems will regain the House but lose the Senate, the end result being that not much is going to change.


That makes no sense from an electoral standpoint. I don't think it's mathematically possible since for all practical purposes, the elections are not independent events.
 
2012-10-01 10:05:51 AM
Romney/Ryan 2012: Run on Fiscal Conservatism; Create a budget that rings up massive budget deficit.
 
2012-10-01 10:07:32 AM

TDWCom29: NeoCortex42: Klivian: Even with a House majority, nothing will get done in the Senate without disposing of the filibuster. Derp and gridlock for another 4 years.

/Vote Slartibartfast

A House majority would help a bit. At least it would stop the weekly voting to end ObamaCare or ban abortions. The obstructionism would become much more obvious to the general public if the House is passing bills and the senate is flat-out refusing to even vote on anything because of the filibuster.

Oh right, that worked so well last time the GOP filibustered everything. It was so obvious to the general public that the GOP retook the House and nearly the Senate.


I don't know. I think since 2010, more people are realizing what the GOP has been doing in Congress. We'll see from the Congressional elections how true that is, but I think if the Democrats were to manage to retake the House it would be a very good sign that the general public is waking up to the BS. Of course, the real challenge is to get Democratic voters to turn out in the mid-term elections and maintain a majority.
 
2012-10-01 10:12:15 AM

Fubar: Cletus C.: GarySZ: Cletus C.: Do not have a plan, have an anti-plan.

Isn't that Romney/Ryan (and the entire GOP) platform?

Absolutely. No argument there, though to be fair, Ryan did have a plan. Now he's part of the Romney anti-plan.

His plan was what a stupid person would think a smart person would come up with.

Which I'm sure is why you like it.


Sure. As soon as I heard the details I thought it was a realistic, somewhat painful way of addressing the fiscal mess the federal government is in. Then I figured rather than both parties working together on a more palatable solution the Democrats would pounce on it and say Republicans wanted to unhook granny's oxygen tank.

Predictable.
 
2012-10-01 10:14:01 AM
Democrats pine for House majority

Ash we all know, politics is no day at the beech. If Democrats spruce up their image, maple they will win some laurels this election and the voting public will cedar way at the polls to vote fir the Democrats. Yew never know, alder campaigning might bear fruit.
 
2012-10-01 10:17:12 AM

Dr Dreidel: I wish to complain about this candidate that I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
What's wrong with it?
'What's wrong with it?' I'll tell you what's wrong with it my lad - he's unelectable, that's 'what's wrong with it'.
He's not unelectable, he's just confident in a silent majority, that's all.
'Confident in a silent majority'?!? What kind of talk is that? Why did he start sinking in the polls the moment he got nominated?
The Republican candidate prefers an underdog position. Remarkable party, isn't it? Beautiful donor lists...
Look, tosh - when I started reviewing the candidate's policy positions, I discovered that the only reason he has them is that the party nailed him to them (or them to him).
Nailed there? Of course they were nailed there. Look, if the party hadn't nailed those policy positions down, he could have muscled up to the White House, bent a Congressional majority to his will and then - LIBERALISM!
'Liberalism'? This candidate couldn't go liberal if you put 4 million Massachussettsers through him! He's a dyed-in-the-wool conservative! He's a 1%er! Rich, bereft of compassion, if you hadn't nailed him to the policies, he'd have none! This is an EX-politician!


If only this politician was no more.
 
2012-10-01 10:19:38 AM
one of the seats that the Dems need to get a majority is in my district in NYC.

the incumbent republican, Michael Grimm, is mired in corruption scandals, including a major donor using embezzled money from Israel to attempt to "buy" himself citizenship.

he is up 10 points over the Democrat, Mike Muprhy. With just six weeks left in the race, 2/3 of voters don't know who he is.

great job DNC, great job....
 
2012-10-01 10:26:50 AM

dumbobruni: one of the seats that the Dems need to get a majority is in my district in NYC.

the incumbent republican, Michael Grimm, is mired in corruption scandals, including a major donor using embezzled money from Israel to attempt to "buy" himself citizenship.

he is up 10 points over the Democrat, Mike Muprhy. With just six weeks left in the race, 2/3 of voters don't know who he is.

great job DNC, great job....


Problem is, House races get less attention then National or Senate races. Hence you have crazies like Bachman getting elected over and over because nobody pays attention. Until her run in the Primary, I'm sure the crazy was under the radar.
 
2012-10-01 10:28:52 AM

Cletus C.: Sure. As soon as I heard the details I thought it was a realistic, somewhat painful way of addressing the fiscal mess the federal government is in.


This sentence?
This is where I knew you were stupid.
 
2012-10-01 10:30:20 AM

JokerMattly: Cletus C.: Sure. As soon as I heard the details I thought it was a realistic, somewhat painful way of addressing the fiscal mess the federal government is in.

This sentence?
This is where I knew you were stupid.


I know, right? The government's in a fiscal mess? Idiocy.
 
2012-10-01 10:40:54 AM
Obama will win, but forget about congress. The GOP doesn't fight for the undecided. They put their effort into turning out the vote. It means they're good at electing local kooks, but it forces their moderate presidential candidates to go radical right, and it doesn't work.
 
2012-10-01 10:41:39 AM

Cletus C.: I know, right? The government's in a fiscal mess? Idiocy.


No, the part where you thought the plan that digs us 3T in deeper was "a realistic ... way of addressing the fiscal mess"

Mind you, that 3T is based on the idea that we'll be at 2.8% unemployment by 2018 and that we see economic growth at the levels Bill Clinton seen - two statistics no economist believes exist outside of fairy tales. Realistically, the Deficit would be much higher.

All we have to do is massively slash social programs and all but eliminate Medicare. But for all that sacrifice, we will end up only 3T in the hole!
that, THAT is why I know you are stupid.
 
2012-10-01 10:44:23 AM

Cletus C.: JokerMattly: Cletus C.: Sure. As soon as I heard the details I thought it was a realistic, somewhat painful way of addressing the fiscal mess the federal government is in.

This sentence?
This is where I knew you were stupid.

I know, right? The government's in a fiscal mess? Idiocy.


And what do you do when you are in a fiscal mess? Present a plan which makes the deficit far worse by giving massive tax breaks to the wealthy.
 
2012-10-01 10:50:15 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Cletus C.: JokerMattly: Cletus C.: Sure. As soon as I heard the details I thought it was a realistic, somewhat painful way of addressing the fiscal mess the federal government is in.

This sentence?
This is where I knew you were stupid.

I know, right? The government's in a fiscal mess? Idiocy.

And what do you do when you are in a fiscal mess? Present a plan which makes the deficit far worse by giving massive tax breaks to the wealthy.


Same thing Republicans did when they were handed the closest thing to a balanced budget the United States has had in God knows how long. And same thing the corrupt scum will keep doing until their party is completely out of power.
 
2012-10-01 10:54:03 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Cletus C.: JokerMattly: Cletus C.: Sure. As soon as I heard the details I thought it was a realistic, somewhat painful way of addressing the fiscal mess the federal government is in.

This sentence?
This is where I knew you were stupid.

I know, right? The government's in a fiscal mess? Idiocy.

And what do you do when you are in a fiscal mess? Present a plan which makes the deficit far worse by giving massive tax breaks to the wealthy.


Did Ryan's budget do that?

JokerMattly: Cletus C.: I know, right? The government's in a fiscal mess? Idiocy.

No, the part where you thought the plan that digs us 3T in deeper was "a realistic ... way of addressing the fiscal mess"

Mind you, that 3T is based on the idea that we'll be at 2.8% unemployment by 2018 and that we see economic growth at the levels Bill Clinton seen - two statistics no economist believes exist outside of fairy tales. Realistically, the Deficit would be much higher.

All we have to do is massively slash social programs and all but eliminate Medicare. But for all that sacrifice, we will end up only 3T in the hole!
that, THAT is why I know you are stupid.


You forgot the "as we know it" part. Silly Democrat.
 
2012-10-01 11:04:15 AM

Cletus C.: Philip Francis Queeg: Cletus C.: JokerMattly: Cletus C.: Sure. As soon as I heard the details I thought it was a realistic, somewhat painful way of addressing the fiscal mess the federal government is in.

This sentence?
This is where I knew you were stupid.

I know, right? The government's in a fiscal mess? Idiocy.

And what do you do when you are in a fiscal mess? Present a plan which makes the deficit far worse by giving massive tax breaks to the wealthy.

Did Ryan's budget do that?


Why yes, yes it did.
 
2012-10-01 11:08:18 AM

Cletus C.: LordJiro: Cletus C.: So, the big issue for Pelosi and Democrats in the House is Mediscare, Mediscare and Mediscare.

I guess they've given up on the economy. Seems wise.

A: The economy is doing better in every measurable manner. The poor and middle class are still hurting a bit, but much less than they were in '08. As for the wealthy, the stock market is nearly as high as it's ever been, corporations are making record profits, and the rich are just generally richer than ever before; the fact that the poor and middle class are still hurting is yet another nail in "trickle-down's" coffin.

B: Even if none of that were true, nobody with more than half a brain should vote for Republicans because, and listen closely now, THOSE FARKTARDS GOT US INTO THIS MESS IN THE FIRST GODDAMN PLACE.. And not only has Romney pledged to do the same shiat Bush did (Idiotic invasion in the Middle East, moar tax cuts), but he has the same people working for him.

I get it now.

Could be worse. Much worse.
Bush.


I'm sorry. It's just that that aquatic bird makes the most duck-like sounds, has a very duck-like bill, a very duck-like coat of feathers, very duck-like limbs, and is of a similar size to a duck.
 
2012-10-01 11:37:53 AM

Cletus C.: Fubar: Cletus C.: GarySZ: Cletus C.: Do not have a plan, have an anti-plan.

Isn't that Romney/Ryan (and the entire GOP) platform?

Absolutely. No argument there, though to be fair, Ryan did have a plan. Now he's part of the Romney anti-plan.

His plan was what a stupid person would think a smart person would come up with.

Which I'm sure is why you like it.

Sure. As soon as I heard the details I thought it was a realistic, somewhat painful way of addressing the fiscal mess the federal government is in. Then I figured rather than both parties working together on a more palatable solution the Democrats would pounce on it and say Republicans wanted to unhook granny's oxygen tank.

Predictable.


I am glad to see more and more people who want those in Government to come together and work for a common good. Compromise can indeed be progress. Tip o the hat, sir.
 
2012-10-01 11:42:40 AM

HMS_Blinkin: Doesn't Nate Silver give dems a pretty decent chance of getting the House back? I know he's forecasting something like 51 or 52 dem senators.


He doesn't have a model for the House since there's not enough polling data. Based on other sources however, for the Dems to regain the House, it would require a landslide of epic magnitude that would make the GOP wave in 2010 look like a tide pool. They'd have to win every toss up seat, every leaning GOP seat, and several safe GOP seats to even come within a spitting distance, and that just isn't going to happen all at once this time around. Nate Silver does favor the Dems in the Senate, but I'd be willing to bet that Akin still eeks it out in Missouri, and we see at least one upset in either Connecticut or Virginia, but the Dems take back the seat in Massachusetts, leaving the GOP in control of the House and the Dems with either a 51-49 majority in the Senate or 50-50 Majority based on Biden getting the deciding vote.
 
2012-10-01 11:47:26 AM
i have seen them.
 
2012-10-01 11:52:37 AM

spman: HMS_Blinkin: Doesn't Nate Silver give dems a pretty decent chance of getting the House back? I know he's forecasting something like 51 or 52 dem senators.

He doesn't have a model for the House since there's not enough polling data. Based on other sources however, for the Dems to regain the House, it would require a landslide of epic magnitude that would make the GOP wave in 2010 look like a tide pool. They'd have to win every toss up seat, every leaning GOP seat, and several safe GOP seats to even come within a spitting distance, and that just isn't going to happen all at once this time around. Nate Silver does favor the Dems in the Senate, but I'd be willing to bet that Akin still eeks it out in Missouri, and we see at least one upset in either Connecticut or Virginia, but the Dems take back the seat in Massachusetts, leaving the GOP in control of the House and the Dems with either a 51-49 majority in the Senate or 50-50 Majority based on Biden getting the deciding vote.


It's not anywhere near that much of a landslide to win the House back.

They'd need to win all Safe Dem, Likely Dem, Leans Dem, Toss-Up, and half the Leans Republican to get to 218.

A tough scenario, certainly, but it's not as much of a landslide as you think.

Both RCP and Roll Call show roughly the same (with some slight fluctuations on which are "safe")
 
2012-10-01 11:52:58 AM

spman: HMS_Blinkin: Doesn't Nate Silver give dems a pretty decent chance of getting the House back? I know he's forecasting something like 51 or 52 dem senators.

He doesn't have a model for the House since there's not enough polling data. Based on other sources however, for the Dems to regain the House, it would require a landslide of epic magnitude that would make the GOP wave in 2010 look like a tide pool. They'd have to win every toss up seat, every leaning GOP seat, and several safe GOP seats to even come within a spitting distance, and that just isn't going to happen all at once this time around. Nate Silver does favor the Dems in the Senate, but I'd be willing to bet that Akin still eeks it out in Missouri, and we see at least one upset in either Connecticut or Virginia, but the Dems take back the seat in Massachusetts, leaving the GOP in control of the House and the Dems with either a 51-49 majority in the Senate or 50-50 Majority based on Biden getting the deciding vote.


Even then, two of the "Democrats" are Independents.
 
2012-10-01 12:42:36 PM

qorkfiend: spman: HMS_Blinkin: Doesn't Nate Silver give dems a pretty decent chance of getting the House back? I know he's forecasting something like 51 or 52 dem senators.

He doesn't have a model for the House since there's not enough polling data. Based on other sources however, for the Dems to regain the House, it would require a landslide of epic magnitude that would make the GOP wave in 2010 look like a tide pool. They'd have to win every toss up seat, every leaning GOP seat, and several safe GOP seats to even come within a spitting distance, and that just isn't going to happen all at once this time around. Nate Silver does favor the Dems in the Senate, but I'd be willing to bet that Akin still eeks it out in Missouri, and we see at least one upset in either Connecticut or Virginia, but the Dems take back the seat in Massachusetts, leaving the GOP in control of the House and the Dems with either a 51-49 majority in the Senate or 50-50 Majority based on Biden getting the deciding vote.

Even then, two of the "Democrats" are Independents.


And it still wouldn't make a huge difference, since a 51- or 52-person majority still doesn't help deal with the filibuster. Let's face it, they really need 60 votes to even have a "majority" at this point.
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report