And they should be.

Quote:What if the Republicans Win Everything Again?

The end of Robert Mueller’s investigation. The loss of health insurance for several million people. New laws that make it harder to vote. More tax cuts for the rich. More damage to the environment. A Republican Party molded even more in the image of President Trump.

These are among the plausible consequences if the Republicans sweep the midterm elections and keep control of both the House and Senate. And don’t fool yourself. That outcome, although not the most likely one, remains possible. The last couple of weeks of polling have shown how it could happen.

Voters who lean Republican — including whites across the South — could set aside their disappointment with Trump and vote for Republican congressional candidates. Voters who lean left — including Latinos and younger adults — could turn out in low numbers, as they usually do in midterm elections. The Republicans’ continuing efforts to suppress turnout could also swing a few close elections.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/opini...%2Fopinion

I'm not one to make bold predictions, and won't this time. But as I watch the congressional races around the country, it sure seems to me that the pubs have a shot at keeping the House. Trump's job approval is peaking at the right time, seems pub voters were energized by the Kavanaugh lynching, and dims don't offer anything other than, "we're not Trump and elect us and we'll impeach him". That's a pretty weak sauce if you ask me, especially when Americans have never been more optimistic about the economy, which as the Martian half-breed said, "it's the economy, stupid".

Oh, and one final note. Has anyone noticed that nothing about the declassification of the Page FISA warrant and the text messages of the head honchos at the FBI has been in the news for a couple of weeks or more? I can't believe the Magnificent Orange Bastard will wait patiently for the mid terms to pass before making sure that stuff is exposed.

Buckle up.

(10-20-2018 10:18 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  And they should be.

Quote:What if the Republicans Win Everything Again?

The end of Robert Mueller’s investigation. The loss of health insurance for several million people. New laws that make it harder to vote. More tax cuts for the rich. More damage to the environment. A Republican Party molded even more in the image of President Trump.

These are among the plausible consequences if the Republicans sweep the midterm elections and keep control of both the House and Senate. And don’t fool yourself. That outcome, although not the most likely one, remains possible. The last couple of weeks of polling have shown how it could happen.

Voters who lean Republican — including whites across the South — could set aside their disappointment with Trump and vote for Republican congressional candidates. Voters who lean left — including Latinos and younger adults — could turn out in low numbers, as they usually do in midterm elections. The Republicans’ continuing efforts to suppress turnout could also swing a few close elections.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/opini...%2Fopinion

I'm not one to make bold predictions, and won't this time. But as I watch the congressional races around the country, it sure seems to me that the pubs have a shot at keeping the House. Trump's job approval is peaking at the right time, seems pub voters were energized by the Kavanaugh lynching, and dims don't offer anything other than, "we're not Trump and elect us and we'll impeach him". That's a pretty weak sauce if you ask me, especially when Americans have never been more optimistic about the economy, which as the Martian half-breed said, "it's the economy, stupid".

Oh, and one final note. Has anyone noticed that nothing about the declassification of the Page FISA warrant and the text messages of the head honchos at the FBI has been in the news for a couple of weeks or more? I can't believe the Magnificent Orange Bastard will wait patiently for the mid terms to pass before making sure that stuff is exposed.

Buckle up.

Its pretty clear the Republicans have a good chance of keeping the house. It all depends on how the late breaking vote goes. The toss-ups are largely Republican seats. They could go in a wave either way. Republicans have the advantage of incumbency and Republican leaning districts. Democrats have the advantage of the situation where incumbents haven't sealed the deal yet. Cook is a Democratic report. It says the floor is 20 lost seats. I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans lost less than 10. At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if they lost 30. RCP has it 205-198 D right now so if they split the rest, it would be a drop from 241 down to 215, if the Republican tossups broke all Republican, it would be a drop from 241 to 229 and there are 10 Republican seats in the "lean D" category which could bring it up to 239.

I'm beginning to think the Republicans pick up 5 or more Senate seats. Before I figured more like 2 or 3.

(10-20-2018 10:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  Its pretty clear the Republicans have a good chance of keeping the house. It all depends on how the late breaking vote goes. The toss-ups are largely Republican seats. They could go in a wave either way. Republicans have the advantage of incumbency and Republican leaning districts. Democrats have the advantage of the situation where incumbents haven't sealed the deal yet. Cook is a Democratic report. It says the floor is 20 lost seats. I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans lost less than 10. At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if they lost 30. RCP has it 205-198 D right now so if they split the rest, it would be a drop from 241 down to 215, if the Republican tossups broke all Republican, it would be a drop from 241 to 229 and there are 10 Republican seats in the "lean D" category which could bring it up to 239.

I'm beginning to think the Republicans pick up 5 or more Senate seats. Before I figured more like 2 or 3.

As the article I linked states, if pubs keep the house:

Quote:It would mean he had outperformed Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman, all of whom suffered drubbings in the first midterm election of their presidency.

Haven't done the research, but when was the last time a first term prez managed to keep the house? Had to have been back before the days when dims controlled the house for something like 40 years.

(10-20-2018 11:03 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(10-20-2018 10:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  Its pretty clear the Republicans have a good chance of keeping the house. It all depends on how the late breaking vote goes. The toss-ups are largely Republican seats. They could go in a wave either way. Republicans have the advantage of incumbency and Republican leaning districts. Democrats have the advantage of the situation where incumbents haven't sealed the deal yet. Cook is a Democratic report. It says the floor is 20 lost seats. I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans lost less than 10. At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if they lost 30. RCP has it 205-198 D right now so if they split the rest, it would be a drop from 241 down to 215, if the Republican tossups broke all Republican, it would be a drop from 241 to 229 and there are 10 Republican seats in the "lean D" category which could bring it up to 239.

I'm beginning to think the Republicans pick up 5 or more Senate seats. Before I figured more like 2 or 3.

As the article I linked states, if pubs keep the house:

Quote:It would mean he had outperformed Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman, all of whom suffered drubbings in the first midterm election of their presidency.

Haven't done the research, but when was the last time a first term prez managed to keep the house? Had to have been back in the days when dims controlled the house for something like 40 years.

I think W did in 2002.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(10-20-2018 11:04 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-20-2018 11:03 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  when was the last time a first term prez managed to keep the house? Had to have been back in the days when dims controlled the house for something like 40 years.

I think W did in 2002.

Yes on W, also Jimmy Carter in 1978

(10-20-2018 11:04 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-20-2018 11:03 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(10-20-2018 10:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  Its pretty clear the Republicans have a good chance of keeping the house. It all depends on how the late breaking vote goes. The toss-ups are largely Republican seats. They could go in a wave either way. Republicans have the advantage of incumbency and Republican leaning districts. Democrats have the advantage of the situation where incumbents haven't sealed the deal yet. Cook is a Democratic report. It says the floor is 20 lost seats. I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans lost less than 10. At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if they lost 30. RCP has it 205-198 D right now so if they split the rest, it would be a drop from 241 down to 215, if the Republican tossups broke all Republican, it would be a drop from 241 to 229 and there are 10 Republican seats in the "lean D" category which could bring it up to 239.

I'm beginning to think the Republicans pick up 5 or more Senate seats. Before I figured more like 2 or 3.

As the article I linked states, if pubs keep the house:

Quote:It would mean he had outperformed Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman, all of whom suffered drubbings in the first midterm election of their presidency.

Haven't done the research, but when was the last time a first term prez managed to keep the house? Had to have been back in the days when dims controlled the house for something like 40 years.

I think W did in 2002.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Good call. My memory is slipping, but then, I'm a few days older than water.

Quote:The 2002 United States elections were held on November 5, in the middle of Republican President George W. Bush's first term. Unusual in midterm elections, the incumbent president's party gained seats in both chambers of the United States Congress. The Republicans picked up net gains of 2 Senate seats and 8 House seats.[1]

These elections were held just a little under fourteen months after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Thus the elections were heavily overshadowed by the war on terror, the impending war with Iraq, the Early 2000s recession, and the sudden death of Democratic Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone about one week before the election.

Since 1900 only Teddy Roosevelt (+2,+9/+3,-28), FDR in 1934 (+10,+9), Nixon in the Senate only in 70 (+2), Clinton in the House only in 98 (+4) and W in 2002 (+1,+8) are the only ones to gain seats in off-years.

I like gridlock. Let the democrats win the house. Wgaf. Everything that goes wrong for the next 2 years, blame it on the resist house.
Trump in a landslide 2020.

Bwahahaha

(10-20-2018 11:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  Since 1900 only Teddy Roosevelt (+2,+9/+3,-28), FDR in 1934 (+10,+9), Nixon in the Senate only in 70 (+2), Clinton in the House only in 98 (+4) and W in 2002 (+1,+8) are the only ones to gain seats in off-years.

Some curious parallels between the Senate elections of that year and this year.

In both 1970 and 2018, you had a deeply polarizing GOP president (Nixon, Trump) finishing Year Two in the White House. And in both elections you had the Democrats defending 26 of their Senate seats and the Republicans defending only 9 of theirs — the result of an extremely lopsided electoral cycle six years earlier (1964, 2012).

In 1970, the GOP candidate officially won 11 of the 35 Senate seats at play (for a net gain of +2, as bullet correctly pointed out), but this is deceptive. In Texas, a left-wing incumbent Democrat-Senator (yeah, it happened!) was beaten in the primary by a centrist/conservative Democrat-challenger (Lloyd Bentsen). In New York, the most liberal Republican member of the Senate was beaten by the nominee of the Conservative Party (James Buckley). And in Virginia, a conservative incumbent-Democrat ran for re-election as a non-partisan Independent with overwhelming support from Republican voters.

So, it was in effect like gaining 4 seats, or even 5 on some issues. And don’t forget in that time you still had some other conservative Democrats like Stennis of Mississippi who openly supported Nixon on virtually everything, and Nixon likewise supported him. Nothing like that nowadays!

(10-21-2018 01:38 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

They probably read the methodology on the polls and are starting to crap their pants at how slanted some of them are.