|
Lycus posted:So as Trump's fortunes go down, Senate Republicans' fortunes go up. Fitting. They probably vote to confirm him before Obama leaves office, in fears of what Clinton might do. Obama could always withdraw his nomination if a Clinton win looks likely and put up someone more partisan, too. The whole hold up is in hopes that a Republican wins the White House, if he doesn't there's nothing the Republicans really seem to have against Garland, personally. edit: Reading the Murphy stuff it doesn't seem campaign ending to me. The CPA stuff in particular is too weedy and long to really make a big deal out of. "He didn't register as a CPA" is a big deal, He didn't register as a CPA in our state, he did it in another one instead." is not. I said the race was a tossup/lean R with Rubio back in it and I still say that. Cliff Racer has issued a correction as of 01:37 on Jun 23, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
Lycus posted:So as Trump's fortunes go down, Senate Republicans' fortunes go up. Fitting. "The people have spoken and clearly want us as a check against Hilary Clinton's liberal disregard for America" or something to that effect. If they aren't punished for the SCOTUS poo poo in November they lose nothing by saying gently caress it and just leaving the court at 8 justices for another 4 years. I could see them easily refusing to process appointments for fear of being primaried and taken out like Cantor or forced out like Boehner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
thethreeman posted:https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/745757781039456256 Murphy worked for Deloitte for 2.5 years and never made it past first year? How is this guy even in congress? How is he beating Grayson in the polls? Obama and Biden are wasting their time campaigning for this moron?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
I don't know if you guys were paying attention or not, but one of the candidates who had not announced his opinion in regards to Rubio's primary was Ron DeSantis, a tea partyish rep. who was also running for the seat. He dropped down to run for his house seat today so it really does look like it will come down to Rubio versus Beruff. I honestly think Marco will wipe the floor with him in the primary. Having more candidates is usually good for the incumbent but in this case I think he's helped by having the reduced competition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I don't know if you guys were paying attention or not, but one of the candidates who had not announced his opinion in regards to Rubio's primary was Ron DeSantis, a tea partyish rep. who was also running for the seat. He dropped down to run for his house seat today so it really does look like it will come down to Rubio versus Beruff. I honestly think Marco will wipe the floor with him in the primary. Having more candidates is usually good for the incumbent but in this case I think he's helped by having the reduced competition. I find it ironic that the same primary voters that chose Trump over Rubio in every county except one are going to sweep him through the primary, unless of course they don't...which would no longer make it ironic but way funnier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
If you look at statewide elections(or even those of state house districts within state senate districts) that happens all the time. State-wide office holder runs in a primary and loses, even on his own turf? Its far from career over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:If you look at statewide elections(or even those of state house districts within state senate districts) that happens all the time. State-wide office holder runs in a primary and loses, even on his own turf? Its far from career over. True, but at the very least, a handful of lucky Floridians will be able to say "I voted against Marco Rubio 3 times this year!" VVV He will be Schumer's problem. The Nastier Nate has issued a correction as of 16:01 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
lmao if grayson gets back into the senate, reid will throw a piss fit
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
I know Grayson's history is sleezy but he'd be the best senator out of the options they have down there by far.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
It's not just that he has a sleezy history, he is a slimy loose canon, a giant liability. Is that better than any Republican Senator? Probably. But ugh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
I'm imagining Grayson to be somewhere between Anthony Weiner and Bill Jefferson on the scale of gross Democratic pols who got caught. His whole douchey firebrand schtick is a good enough ruse when he's just one of 435 small-time asshats in the House but he's probably getting busted for something within his first term or two in the Senate. If he even makes it, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
The Nastier Nate posted:I find it ironic that the same primary voters that chose Trump over Rubio in every county except one are going to sweep him through the primary, unless of course they don't...which would no longer make it ironic but way funnier. The big question is if Trump will continue to roast him while campaigning in Florida. Lil' Marco better start kissing some cheeto shaded rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Pretty sure Trump actually publicly asked him to run again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Pretty sure Trump actually publicly asked him to run again. The Trump giveth, and the Trump taketh away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Pretty sure Trump actually publicly asked him to run again. But what will he say tomorrow when he's reminded of the time Rubio said Trump had a small dick?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Gyges posted:But what will he say tomorrow when he's reminded of the time Rubio said Trump had a small dick? It was just bantz.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Patrick Murphy was just officially given the loss in the Congressional Baseball Game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Patrick Murphy was just officially given the loss in the Congressional Baseball Game. lol once i thought about going to that game but i decided it would be boring to go alone and i wasnt a congressional staffer or lobbyist so i didnt know anybody who wanted to go idk i kinda wish i'd gone, but not really
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Why is Alan Grayson sleazy??
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
proletarian_pixie posted:Why is Alan Grayson sleazy?? Grand-stands in order to deflect his many corruption problems. quote:Sen. Reid took the opportunity to express his low opinion of Congressman Grayson to his face and remind him that the reason Sen. Reid has said that Grayson is under ethics investigation and appears to be running a Cayman Islands hedge fund from his congressional office in order to line his own pockets is because these things are true, as established by 74 pages’ worth of evidence from the Congressional Ethics Committee.” http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/harry-reid-alan-grayson-fight-223081 There are probably also a few things posters here know about Grayson that are not part of the easily-searchable public record, but suffice it to say that he is brazenly corrupt, and other than that he is almost precisely the Democrat version of Ted Cruz.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Could Beshear have beaten Rand paul this year? Normally I would say no, but Matt Bevin has unveiled his proposal for Medicaid reform and outright said at the press conference that if Obama doesn't approve it by September, he'll reverse the Medicaid expansion. The plans best case scenario involves 80,000 people leaving the rolls and even good plans have taken years to wind their way through the bureaucracy so it's pretty obviously designed to minimize the political fallout from reversing the Medicaid expansion. Bevin's terrible about bungling PR stuff though and taking the insurance of 400,000 people a month before the election is such a staggeringly stupid self-inflicted wound, that Mitch McConnell would probably personally bust into the governor's mansion to strangle him if he went through with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Word out of Mark Kirk's camp is that things are looking pretty grim. Considering his immediate disavowal of Trump I'm sure hes worried about getting screwed down ticket in an already tough race
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
Kirk can't get help from Rauner and Griffin's billions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:Kirk can't get help from Rauner and Griffin's billions? Money can only go so far, after a certain point everyone in the state has heard your message and if they don't like it you lose, no matter how good your org is. Thats what happened to Linda McMahon, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Word out of Mark Kirk's camp is that things are looking pretty grim. Considering his immediate disavowal of Trump I'm sure hes worried about getting screwed down ticket in an already tough race Haven't things been looking pretty grim since the day after he was sworn in?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Is there a general consensus on the outlook of the senate post-November, or is it still waaay too early to call? I suppose Rubio's possible entry will be a difference maker, one way or another, but I haven't really kept up with all the seats up for grabs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
i think it's too early, polling in 2014 didnt swing toward the republicans until later i don't think just as one example, and this isn't the senate i know, but generic congressional polling ('will you vote for the republican, or the democrat, in your congressional election?') didn't swing to the republicans until september http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html a few 2014 polling averages: co-sen was less definitive, basically a solid republican lead with a random democratic spike in late september http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/co/colorado_senate_gardner_vs_udall-3845.html nc-sen never was reflected by the polling average but the republican made up a lot of ground in october http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/nc/north_carolina_senate_tillis_vs_hagan_vs_haugh-5136.html va-sen wasn't supposed to be close but it was; again, republican candidate picked up lots of ground in october http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/va/virginia_senate_gillespie_vs_warner-4255.html ia-sen saw the republican gain a bit in september-october too http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/ia/iowa_senate_ernst_vs_braley-3990.html so in short, i think 2014 is evidence enough that something could easily eventuate in the last month that really defines things. also note that the direction of the movement was more predictive than who was leading the polling averages in that election - pollsters had trouble predicting the universe of actual voters, who turned out to be more republican than anticipated, so predictions were biased toward democrats. but arguably you could predict that a more republican electorate - i.e. a republican wave election - was going to come by watching the direction in which the margin was changing in the polls if you were going to guess who'd have a wave in 2014 it would've been the gop but it wasn't a certainty until it happened. i'd say the shoe is on the other foot right now, but again it hasn't happened yet and generally it seems like one party wins most of the close races. that might be confirmation bias, but maybe it's a function of turnout dynamics - a wave election is made when one party's voters are energized and the other one's are demoralized
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Word out of Mark Kirk's camp is that things are looking pretty grim. Considering his immediate disavowal of Trump I'm sure hes worried about getting screwed down ticket in an already tough race The only reason Kirk isn't the most vulnerable Republican senator is because Ron Johnson is, by all accounts, incredibly incredibly dumb and republican donors have already written him off because he keeps doing stupid things. Kirk doesn't have a chance. oystertoadfish posted:i think it's too early, polling in 2014 didnt swing toward the republicans until later i don't think I would look at 2012 and 2008 instead - because midterms are lower turnout the 'likely voter' filters may be more important than in presidential years I expect polling farther out much less reliable in midterm years than presidential years. That could be wrong, of course, but it makes sense to me that midterm elections aren't the best comparison. oystertoadfish posted:and generally it seems like one party wins most of the close races. that might be confirmation bias, but maybe it's a function of turnout dynamics - a wave election is made when one party's voters are energized and the other one's are demoralized I think that's true, all the big wave elections I remember (since 2006) had the winning party win every close race. evilweasel has issued a correction as of 18:35 on Jun 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:and generally it seems like one party wins most of the close races. that might be confirmation bias, but maybe it's a function of turnout dynamics - a wave election is made when one party's voters are energized and the other one's are demoralized Team D really does have a strong (and growing!) advantage in Presidential years (matched by an equally strong disadvantage in midterm elections) so my expectation that most close senate races will break Democratic, giving them control of the chamber for two years (and then giving it right back in 2018). evilweasel posted:I think that's true, all the big wave elections I remember (since 2006) had the winning party win every close race.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I would look at 2012 and 2008 instead - because midterms are lower turnout the 'likely voter' filters may be more important than in presidential years I expect polling farther out much less reliable in midterm years than presidential years. That could be wrong, of course, but it makes sense to me that midterm elections aren't the best comparison. fair. on the generic congressional ballot front, 2010 looks a lot like 2014 except that the wave started building in early july (which supports your point that midterms have their own separate dynamic), while 2012 was kinda flip-floppy and democrats had a massive lead on 2008 polling basically the whole way http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2008_generic_congressional_vote-2173.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2010_generic_congressional_vote-2171.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2012_generic_congressional_vote-3525.html they don't have enough data for a graph on 2016 yet but apparently in may it was maybe a point or two in democrats' favor http://www2.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2016_generic_congressional_vote-5279.html that's just quinnipiac and rasmussen though, we just have to wait to see that indicator develop im having a hard time pulling any meaning out of the 2012 senate election stuff, seems like things stayed fairly constant in most of these races, much like the generic congressional polling http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/2012_elections_senate_map.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:im having a hard time pulling any meaning out of the 2012 senate election stuff, seems like things stayed fairly constant in most of these races, much like the generic congressional polling what about indiana and missouri
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:what about indiana and missouri missouri does show a pattern of increasing democratic margin, and indiana has barely any data points but kinda follows that pattern too. i think that's more to do with the candidate effect than the national partisan average, though, since i'm not seeing that pattern in races lacking those terrible candidates and their nationally mocked gaffes so far only a few establishment candidates have lost their primaries on either side, with the only republican incumbents losing because they got their seats redistricted out from under them. if the republicans are going to throw a few seats by nominating crazy people again it hasn't started yet (there's a house race in nevada that might be an exception, but democrats have blown it in a few districts too). there's a chance in arizona, off the top of my head
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think that's true, all the big wave elections I remember (since 2006) had the winning party win every close race.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think that's true, all the big wave elections I remember (since 2006) had the winning party win every close race. Well, sort of, but not in every case. Republicans managed to rescue the Tennessee senate race that almost sent a black Democrat to Washington in 2006. In 2010 they had a number of near misses, almost winning gubernatorial races in Oregon and Illinois while also managing to loose senate squeakers in Nevada, Washington and Colorado. West Virginia was also a disappointment for them that cycle. I think they lost competitive races for both senator and governor. Thats to say nothing of the blowout in Delaware that occurred due to a poor decision by the primary voters, McMahon's failure in Connecticut (which was briefly competitive until voters realized that the person with an R next to their name was a Republican so they had all better vote for the Democrat.) I don't actually consider 2012 to be a wave election (to be a wave, deserving candidates have to lose simply due to the tides of voting, while Democrats won a bunch of hard to defend seats they were all on the backs of candidate quality or lack thereof in their Republican opponents.) But if we were to count it as one, Democrats did not win the Maine senate race, instead losing to an independent in a race that was hard to predict due to its three-way nature. 2014 had the aforementioned New Hampshire race but it also had Republicans losing the governorship of Alaska in an oddball election against an incumbent. They also put up competitive gubernatorial fights in a number of odd-ball places like Rhode Island but only actually pulled out the wins in Maryland and Massachusetts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
so at the moment, here's what I think for Senate: Dems hold NV and CO Rs retain IN, GA, IA, FL Dems pick up WI, IL, NH, AZ, OH, NC, MO consider PA kind of a toss-up because Toomey seems a lot cannier than other vulnerable Republicans, and McGinty is at least a 0.5 on the Coakley Scale. so, +7 for the Dems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Are you assuming McCain gets Primaried and the Dem beats a Tea Party nut?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Are you assuming McCain gets Primaried and the Dem beats a Tea Party nut? McCain doesn't have to get primaried for the GOP to loze Arizona. McCain's not polling well at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Do the Dems have a candidate there yet?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Are you assuming McCain gets Primaried and the Dem beats a Tea Party nut? Whether due to Trump or people finally accepting he's an even worse person than pilot, McCain's doing badly and IIRC he's polling much worse than Toomey is. Toomey's probably going to manage to keep his seat because PA Dems, while not as bad as Florida Dems, can blow races they should be winning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
this game is always fun. here are guesses from my rear end, listed in decreasing order of confidence d hold: co, nv r hold: in, ga, ia, mo, az d pickup: wi, il, nh, oh, pa, nc, fl +7, which with bernie and angus in the d caucus makes it 53-47 with the dem vp as tiebreaker right? then in 2017 maybe vp kaine's seat gets lost cause democrats are Bad At This and the bare majority, which probably will have already accomplished nothing with heitkamp and some of the other 2018 incumbents in r seats voting like republicans, gets even barer until republicans inevitably flip it in 2018 i think r+5 in 2018 is a reasonable very early guess, so basically the blue wave would have to take down most of the r hold list, possibly with one of them replaced by a freak victory off the board, to have a chance of a senate majority surviving to the end of hillary's (first? only?) term (obviously if this becomes a trump win this whole prediction list changes) ----- fl: i think i read murphy had a strong response to the random expose, or at least that he muddied the waters, which is more important than the actual truth. i don't really think this is the kind of scandal that buries people anyway, really, and the fallout makes it look like we were right to think he's a quality campaigner. meanwhile, rubio has obvious weaknesses and i think the democratic trend of cubans, the increased presence of puerto ricans in central florida, and the overall up in d% and turnout we'll probably see in hispanics will make fl swing more than in past elections. obviously rubio coming in makes this a better shot at a hold, and i think most people have flipped it to a lean r/tossup sort of standing, so i guess im probably wrong mo: i don't know, i'm just pessimistic when it comes to this kind of territory, i think the republicans have a good enough candidate and the baseline advantage. i think trump will take this state by a close margin, amidst a nationwide message of 'keep the senate republican as a check on whichever rear end in a top hat wins the presidency', so i'm guessing r's won't need ticket-splitting to keep this seat and the nevertrumps who show up will be happy to vote r at the senate level az: maybe i'm giving mccain and old white people too much credit. more specifically, i guess i'm guessing on an increase in hispanic vote share for dems that's big enough to swing fl but not to swing az. i don't think that's an unreasonable spot to peg it, but admittedly it could really swing either way based on poo poo that hasn't shown up in any data points yet so i dont fuckin know. also i'm obviously guessing mccain wins his primary here nc: burr is about as anonymous as senators get so i'm guessing he'll be washed out, but maybe he's got the organizational, quiet sort of campaigning strength necessary to stick around, i don't know edit: i'm pretty sure the az dem candidate has won swing district house elections before, i think that's a reasonable candidacy. i think toomey, while he's quite talented, will need to find six figures of split-ticket/too-lazy-to-vote-for-anyone-but-president/never-trump votes to overcome hillary's margin of victory and i think that might be too much of an ask. wait a minute i forgot to include that one. edited putting pa in as a d flip makes the majority a little bit larger, but realistically not much is gonna get done and it's still not enough to overcome what i think is a very likely republican wave, even a small one, in 2018. they would have to really gently caress up their primary season to do that. which i suppose isn't the least likely thing, considering they did it on the congressional/senate level in 2010/2012 and on the presidential level this year. but i'm conservatively betting against it editedit: ohio isnt a foregone conclusion, i'd add, portman is way outraising strickland iirc, or whatever their names are, but i think toomey's problem with needing to find the non-straight-ticket voters is amplified here oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 00:42 on Jun 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 00:35
|
|