|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Also, Arizona, Arkansas, and Alaska are long-shot, but possible pickups for the Dems depending on circumstances. While the Republicans only long-shot, but possible, is Nevada. Only if Reid retires. I firmly believe that Reid is unbeatable in NV. Dude survived a car bomb and gave Sinatra his gambling license, you can't beat that.
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Edible Hat posted:Looking at Class 3 seats, I'm not sure why there is a general consensus that Republicans will have a bad year. Many of the freshman Tea Party types who might be theoretically vulnerable in a presidential year that should favor the Democratic Party are in red states (Arkansas, North Dakota, Indiana) and the ones who are in blue states are relative moderates (Illinois, Pennsylvania).
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:In 2016 the Dems have a good shot (depending on retirements / primaries) of taking Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Despite popular belief, 2016 IL is a tossup for both Senate and potentially President, depending upon a few factors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Only if Reid retires. I firmly believe that Reid is unbeatable in NV. Dude survived a car bomb and gave Sinatra his gambling license, you can't beat that. And yet nearly lost to Angle, who is arguably commitably insane. Granted it was a wave election but still--nailbiter for Reid. Had they put up a sane candidate we'd have Majority Leader Leahy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:And yet nearly lost to Angle, who is arguably commitably insane. Granted it was a wave election but still--nailbiter for Reid. Had they put up a sane candidate we'd have Majority Leader Leahy. Durbin's Majority Whip, so I don't see Leahy getting the nod.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Despite popular belief, 2016 IL is a tossup for both Senate and potentially President, depending upon a few factors. For President? No way. Last time Illinois voted for a Republican president was 1988, and demographic shifts in Illinois favour the Democrats. It may be closer because they're not voting for a home-state candidate, but I don't see what factors outside of "massive scandal" could tip Illinois. I will go against the general current of optimism and say that depending what happens this year, it may be difficult for the Democrats to flip enough seats to regain the Senate in 2016. But it's harder to prognosticate something that's more than one election away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Wyden D-OR isn't losing. Don't know enough about WA to judge that race, but the Republicans haven't come as close to winning a state-wide race since Gregoire's first election.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:but I don't see what factors outside of "massive scandal" could tip Illinois. Have they written the governor->prison pipeline into the state constitution yet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Despite popular belief, 2016 IL is a tossup for both Senate and potentially President, depending upon a few factors. Senate yes, President no. There is no way IL is a tossup on a national scale unless everyone in Chicago dies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
CaptainCarrot posted:Ahahaha, you're calling Pat Toomey a moderate? The former head of the Club for Growth, who primaried Arlen Specter in 2004, is something other than an arch-conservative? Don't get me wrong, I think he's poo poo, but according to the National Journal algorithm he is solidly in the ideological center of the Republican caucus and his most famous initiative was co-sponsoring a gun control bill (that went nowhere). Remember, this is a state that voted for Santorum twice. On the other hand, Sestak almost beat him in 2010, so anything can happen two years from now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:For President? No way. Last time Illinois voted for a Republican president was 1988, and demographic shifts in Illinois favour the Democrats. It may be closer because they're not voting for a home-state candidate, but I don't see what factors outside of "massive scandal" could tip Illinois. You don't toss a B into building a machine and not expect that to turn out come '16. Choice is more who wants what then who'll vote for what. States coming dangerously close to passing strict voter restrictive measures. If you're optimistic for Hillary carrying the state, you underestimate how much downstate hates Chicago and how much white is willing to gently caress over black. And yes, "massive scandal" is all but assured in Illinois. Only question is who takes the blame for what more than the other. We're likely to elect a Nixon-like governor who owns his own intelligence subsidiaries. If you don't think that means some bodies gonna get unburied and blamed on the D's, I dunno what to tell ya. E: Alter Ego posted:Senate yes, President no. There is no way IL is a tossup on a national scale unless everyone in Chicago dies. *unless Chicago purges the black wards' voter rolls, state implements strict voter supression measures, and a hometowner runs for President in '16.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:And yet nearly lost to Angle, who is arguably commitably insane. Granted it was a wave election but still--nailbiter for Reid. Had they put up a sane candidate we'd have Majority Leader Leahy. There were Reid machinations that helped Angle become the nominee too. Lets all be glad the mob has limited political interests.....
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Reid seems like the single most real-life national-level politician most like Frank Underwood in the post-LBJ era. VVVVVVV I was speaking more about being Machiavellian to a degree that encroaches on parody, but you're right on the marriage, let's just call him Mormon Frank Underwood. Shear Modulus fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Aug 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:Reid seems like the single most real-life national-level politician most like Frank Underwood in the post-LBJ era. Except, you know, without the violent tendencies and creepy open marriage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Except, you know, without the violent tendencies and creepy open marriage. Piss Reid off in Vegas and see about that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Piss Reid off in Vegas and see about that. Oh, I'm sure Harry Reid would never do anything like that. He'd hire some guys to do it for him. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Oh, I'm sure Harry Reid would never do anything like that. He prefers the hands-on touch you only get with hired goons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Oh, I'm sure Harry Reid would never do anything like that. Maybe only because he's older now 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Despite popular belief, 2016 IL is a tossup for both Senate and potentially President, depending upon a few factors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Except, you know, without the violent tendencies and creepy open marriage. Did you miss the story where the FBI had to pull him off a dude he was choking for trying to bribe him during a sting operation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Did you miss the story where the FBI had to pull him off a dude he was choking for trying to bribe him during a sting operation? quote:Reid served as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission from 1977 to 1981. When Jack Gordon, La Toya Jackson's future agent and husband, offered Reid a $12,000 bribe to get approval of new games for casinos, Reid brought in the FBI to tape Gordon's bribery attempt and arrest him. After FBI agents interrupted the transaction, as prearranged, Reid lost his temper and began choking Gordon, saying "You son of a bitch, you tried to bribe me!" Gordon was convicted in 1979 and sentenced to six months in prison. In 1981, Reid's wife found a bomb attached to the family station wagon; Reid suspected it was placed by Gordon. Edit: There's an interesting book waiting to be written about Mormon involvement in gambling and prostitution along the old Mormon trail stretching from Nevada to Chihuahua (if it hasn't been written yet)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:Here's my list of seats that might be possible to flip in 2016 if things break correctly (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2016#Race_summary ) WA is not a pickup opportunity for the GOP. The Republican Party here has made a clever legislative coup, but they're morons, and they don't have any likable prominent politicians. Plus, Murray is Senate leadership at this point, with her key issue being veteran's affairs. She can talk about how Republicans have utterly screwed veterans. Plus, 2016's a presidential election year, so Democratic turnout will be much higher. Nobody's unseating Murray. Probably not Wyden or Reid either. Colorado might be tough, but again, presidential election year. The state's been trending blue. So I don't see Republicans making up for any losses. and they will lose. They will lose Johnson, Toomey, Kirk for sure. If Rubio runs for president and the Democrats don't run Alex Sink, they have a shot at Florida. But realistically, they will run Alex Sink. :facepalm: Ayotte and Portman are vulnerable too, but not as much. Clinton would need to have major coattails, or the GOP would have to majorly gently caress up, to lose Coats or Blunt. and I couldn't possibly speculate about Louisiana. If Landrieu loses this November, it will be pretty clear, though, that Democrats shouldn't even bother with Louisiana. Oh, you forgot Iowa, though. It's trending blue, election year, and Grassley is ancient. If he dies or retires, Democrats will probably take it in a cakewalk, but even if he's still running, he's vulnerable. North Carolina is also within the remote realm of possibility, just because the Republicans there have done a great job alienating everyone. I feel like Hagan's going to pull it out there, and if she does, Burr should be terrified for 2016.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Toomey still stands a shot at 2016, though I'd rate his race a tossup at this point. I don't see why people think Johnson is so vulnerable, though I haven't been looking at his poll numbers. Wisconsin isn't as blue as people make it out to be and as far as I can tell Johnson hasn't been going out and alienating people. Kirk, on the other hand, is probably screwed. He needed to be out there building his moderate cred but had to spend a lot of that time recovering from a stroke instead and, while said stroke did not directly alienate anyone, it did eat up a lot of time. Illinois doesn't seem to split ticket much in national races and in a presidential year I have a hard time believing Kirk can win.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Whatever the numbers may be, it puts a big time smile on my face to imagine McConnell finally getting his coveted Senate Majority seat, only to lose it in literally one year. In that case, who would take up the Majority Leader for the Dems? Could they just re-elect Harry Reid? Holy poo poo I would die laughing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:
Lol nope. Have you seen our loving gubernatorial race right now? The best Ohio dems could do was Ed loving Fitzgerald. Portman is only vulnerable if he's running against a blue dog without Cuyahoga county machine connections...which consists of like no one since the blue dog state seats pretty much all got turned into Rs last redistricting and election, and the only blue dogs left are Cuyahoga county guys who are toxic as poo poo, Columbus guys who can't run a campaign to save their lives, or Dayton/Cincinnati guys who have zero name recognition to the state at large. As long as Portman is seen as "moderate"/"An adult in the room", no one is coming within 4 points of him. gently caress, John Kasich is still beating fast Eddie by 6 points right now and he might be the most hated dude in the state since Traficant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:What factors did you have in mind, the sky turning into blood and hamburgers eating people? State economy/government collapsing with a concerted and hundreds-million PR campaign to blame dems. Or, same things which turned Michigan and Wisconsin to R. How many on this forum would've predicted Wisconsin going hard-R in 2006? E: Yeah, they went D in 2012. Maybe MO from '96 to '00 is the better comparison. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Yeah, they went D in 2012. Maybe MO from '96 to '00 is the better comparison. Me? Well, not "hard" R but they were the closest state in the nation in the 04 presidential campaign and weren't as blue as everyone had thought they were prior to that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:WA is not a pickup opportunity for the GOP. The Republican Party here has made a clever legislative coup, but they're morons, and they don't have any likable prominent politicians. Plus, Murray is Senate leadership at this point, with her key issue being veteran's affairs. She can talk about how Republicans have utterly screwed veterans. Plus, 2016's a presidential election year, so Democratic turnout will be much higher. Nobody's unseating Murray. Louisiana is a no hope state. Landrieu only has a chance because she's an incumbent, no Democrat is going to win there without that. Grassley will get re-elected until he dies. Toomey will probably lose, but Pennsylvania is more than capable of re-electing a Republican senator, even a fairly neutral national environment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Rand Paul, August 27, 2014quote:Those wanting a U.S. war in Syria could not clearly show a U.S. national interest then, and they have been proven foolish now. A more realistic foreign policy would recognize that there are evil people and tyrannical regimes in this world, but also that America cannot police or solve every problem across the globe. Only after recognizing the practical limits of our foreign policy can we pursue policies that are in the best interest of the U.S. Rand Paul, August 29, 2014 quote:In an emailed comment, however, Paul elaborated by saying: “If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
I eagerly await Day's rendering of Kentucky-shaped flipflops. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Outside of Jeb running, I'm not seeing any Republican that'll take Florida from her. Virginia just proved they can stomach McAuliffe, so I see no reason why they'd be against Clinton. Both of those require a strong highly organized GOTV campaign. I'm betting on an idiotic election strategy that doesn't focus on GOTV from Clinton based upon her history. She's going to pick friends and loyalist to run her campaign, not the most qualified. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:In 2016 the Dems have a good shot (depending on retirements / primaries) of taking Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Obama barely won Florida with a great campaign and highly organized campaign. What makes it safe dem in 2016 with what is guaranteed to be a shittier campaign and candidate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:
Rubio will be up, and he's not well liked. That said, the florida democratic party is an anemic rear end on life support, unable to avoid making GBS threads the bed at the smallest provocation. Anyone thinking Florida is a safe dem (or even leans dem) is lying to themselves. The only reason Rubio has to fear losing is that it's a presidential election year, which might edge out the inevitable drooling incompetent trotted forth--and outside of winners like Alex Sink or Nan Rich, there's no obvious candidate to make that run.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
We have no candidates in FL on the Dem side. I believe some other Republican (if it's not Rubio) would still beat whatever Dem they put up for Senate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Perfectly consistent. He just wants Obama to call a joint session of Congress so he can say, "No." to his face.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Lote posted:Perfectly consistent. He just wants Obama to call a joint session of Congress so he can say, "No." to his face. He specifically says "If I were president." So President Rand Paul would call a joint session of Congress so that Senator Rand Paul could have a dramatic speech against warmongering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
The past and present wilt--I have fill'd them, emptied them. And proceed to fill my next fold of the future. Listener up there! what have you to confide to me? Look in my face while I snuff the sidle of evening, (Talk honestly, no one else hears you, and I stay only a minute longer.) Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.) I, Rand Paul, am not an isolationist!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
He is not an isolationist, nor an interventionist. He is neither the alpha or the omega. He is the Aqua Buddha.Rand Paul posted:This administration’s dereliction of duty has both sins of action and inaction, which is what happens when you are flailing around wildly, without careful strategic thinking. Pretty much sums up Rand Paul's media appearances in the last two weeks. Rand Paul posted:Once we have decided that we have an enemy that requires destruction, we must have a comprehensive strategy—a realistic policy applying military power and skillful diplomacy to protect our national interests. "Attention enemy: We are now required to destroy you." Rand Paul posted:ISIS is a global threat; we should treat it accordingly and build a coalition of nations who are also threatened by the rise of the Islamic State. Something like a global war on terror?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Yeah it's been like 11 years since someone talked about putting together a coalition of the willing, why not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
I'm not sure we can count on Thailand, Denmark and Poland this time - though Poland, maybe, with Putin looking over the horizon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
You can't forget Poland.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 20:21
|
|