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 66
    More: Unlikely, White House, Democrats, Tammy Duckworth, Hispanic voters, Mike Coffman, Nancy Pelosi  
•       •       •

1170 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»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
2012-10-01 01:42:31 PM

NeoCortex42: 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.


50+1 gives them control of the agenda, and key chairs.
 
2012-10-01 01:54:25 PM

Name_Omitted: NeoCortex42: 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.

50+1 gives them control of the agenda, and key chairs.


That's true. It's still a shame that they effectively need 60 to reliably get anything done at this point. But yes, it is still a big deal to get that 50+1.
 
2012-10-01 01:54:32 PM

Name_Omitted: NeoCortex42: 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.

50+1 gives them control of the agenda, and key chairs.


which is pointless if the GOP continues to drag the senate to a standstill.
 
2012-10-01 01:58:11 PM

friday13: Name_Omitted: NeoCortex42: 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.

50+1 gives them control of the agenda, and key chairs.

which is pointless if the GOP continues to drag the senate to a standstill.


Unless Reid finds a way to revise the filibuster rules without cutting out their own legs when they later lose control of the Senate. He's said it'll get reform if they maintain the Senate, which seems likely. Hell, 538 has INDIANA potentially going blue thanks to the primarying of Lugar, who would likely have been a lock for reelection.
 
2012-10-01 02:29:20 PM
thank god we have the Senate--the most undemocratic "democratic" body in history. Hooray for pandering to slave owners 200+ years ago.
 
2012-10-01 05:22:48 PM

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.


Five months ago I would have called you a fool for thinking the Democrats could pull the House back. It really shows just how unpopular the Republican brand is right now.

I just saw that Donnelly (IN-D) has tied the Senate seat race again Mourdock (IN-R). Republicans gave up one of the most powerful Senators in Congress for a guy that may not even win. farking Tea Party assholes.
 
2012-10-01 05:40:55 PM

HellRaisingHoosier: 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.

Five months ago I would have called you a fool for thinking the Democrats could pull the House back. It really shows just how unpopular the Republican brand is right now.

I just saw that Donnelly (IN-D) has tied the Senate seat race again Mourdock (IN-R). Republicans gave up one of the most powerful Senators in Congress for a guy that may not even win. farking Tea Party assholes.


If the GOP bigwigs don't find some way to get the Teabaggers back in line before 2016, they may very well kill the GOP as a major political party.

/Not that it'd be a bad thing. The GOP is antiquated, it needs to go away with all the other has-been parties, so we can get a major liberal party into power.
 
2012-10-01 05:45:37 PM

LordJiro: HellRaisingHoosier: 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.

Five months ago I would have called you a fool for thinking the Democrats could pull the House back. It really shows just how unpopular the Republican brand is right now.

I just saw that Donnelly (IN-D) has tied the Senate seat race again Mourdock (IN-R). Republicans gave up one of the most powerful Senators in Congress for a guy that may not even win. farking Tea Party assholes.

If the GOP bigwigs don't find some way to get the Teabaggers back in line before 2016, they may very well kill the GOP as a major political party.

/Not that it'd be a bad thing. The GOP is antiquated, it needs to go away with all the other has-been parties, so we can get a major liberal party into power.


There is going to have to be a split between the old-guard GOP and the tea partiers. The real question is who gets custody of the Republican Party? Do the moderate Republicans bail and become Libertarians? Or are the tea partiers somehow excommunicated and end up as their own separate party?
 
2012-10-01 07:15:22 PM

pacified: thank god we have the Senate--the most undemocratic "democratic" body in history. Hooray for pandering to slave owners 200+ years ago.



What? The Senate was created to balance out the House of Representatives so that larger States wouldn't always be favored over smaller States. Do you favor some sort of Parliamentary form of government?
 
2012-10-01 07:27:47 PM

pacified: thank god we have the Senate--the most undemocratic "democratic" body in history. Hooray for pandering to slave owners 200+ years ago.


If you're going to comment, learn something about history. The biggest issue in setting up a bicameral legislature was Big State vs. Small State. The Big States wanted proportional representation while the small states wanted state representation. Moreover, the southwest (Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee region) was the fastest growing region at the time and many of the northern states opposed proportional representation because they were worried that the south would eventually swamp the north population wise. That was the rationale behind the 3/5ths rule. As the the issue of the Senate being "undemocratic", that's by design. We're a republic, not a direct democracy, and the Founders set it up that way because they feared the mob rule that came from direct democracy. The Senate was intended as a buffer between the people and the levers of power that would allow for the passions generated in the House to cool before legislation was enacted.
 
2012-10-01 07:52:32 PM

HellRaisingHoosier: pacified: thank god we have the Senate--the most undemocratic "democratic" body in history. Hooray for pandering to slave owners 200+ years ago.


What? The Senate was created to balance out the House of Representatives so that larger States wouldn't always be favored over smaller States. Do you favor some sort of Parliamentary form of government?


Wyoming, population 568,168 gets the same exact representation as California, population 37,691,913.

Meaning a citizen of Wyoming has over 66x the power of a citizen of California in the senate.

How the hell can anyone feel good about that?
 
2012-10-01 10:35:32 PM

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.


A. You'd better take a closer look at the numbers. Incomes are down. Durable goods are down. Confidence is down. Gas prices are up. Food prices are up. Energy prices are skyrocketing. Your argument against trickle down...those who make the most money are holding on to it because Obama the Clueless doesn't have a plan and hasn't been able to submit a comprehensible budget that can get any votes. Once Bammy is gone and a sane fiscal policy is in place, you'll see the incomes of the middle class go up. The lower class will then follow.

B. Ever heard of DoddFrank? That is the law that did more to damage the economy than anything else you can point to. SarbanesOxley also needs to go.

Voting Republican because that's what I was paid to do.
 
2012-10-01 10:38:15 PM

organizmx: HellRaisingHoosier: pacified: thank god we have the Senate--the most undemocratic "democratic" body in history. Hooray for pandering to slave owners 200+ years ago.


What? The Senate was created to balance out the House of Representatives so that larger States wouldn't always be favored over smaller States. Do you favor some sort of Parliamentary form of government?

Wyoming, population 568,168 gets the same exact representation as California, population 37,691,913.

Meaning a citizen of Wyoming has over 66x the power of a citizen of California in the senate.

How the hell can anyone feel good about that?


Did you not take Civics in high school? They explain the difference between the House and Senate there.
 
2012-10-02 12:29:16 AM

organizmx: Wyoming, population 568,168 gets the same exact representation as California, population 37,691,913.

Meaning a citizen of Wyoming has over 66x the power of a citizen of California in the senate.

How the hell can anyone feel good about that?


How the hell can anyone feel good about the citizens of Wyoming being shut out of their government by populous states like California? Because that's what direct democracy gives you.

Seriously, the Founders were pretty smart guys.
 
2012-10-02 01:18:48 AM
I'm willing to compromise on Senate reform if the Dems keep that chamber. Filibuster rules are left as is, but anyone who does filibuster gets a cockpunch. Either the crap stops or CSPAN becomes even funnier than it already is.
 
Displayed 16 of 66 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report