Originally Posted By RoadTrip Yes, they more than likely will according to the most recent state by state polls. And yes, it will be interpreted as a repudiation of Obama. I think it is a demonstration of a piss-poor strategy by the Democrats. They seem to have implemented a strategy put together by the "liberal elite" wing of the party. But by concentrating on things like gay marriage, abortion and the "war on women" they have been doing nothing other than preaching to the choir. When those are a person's dominant issues, they will NEVER vote for a Republican anyway. In the meantime they pretty much conceded the middle class voter of the heartland to the Republicans. That in my opinion was a major mistake. The middle class in this country is in serious trouble, yet the Republicans have done nothing to help them while continuing huge tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations. When the Democrats did talk about jobs it was largely centered on increasing the minimum wage. Again, that captures people who are unlikely to vote Republican anyway... the young, the poor, and minorities. The middle class voters make considerably more than minimum wage... that effort does NOTHING for them. If the Democrats are ever to recapture the House and Senate they must once again be seen as the "voice of the working man". They were seen that way for many years, but seem to have moved away from that. THOSE are the votes that Democrats need that they currently concede to the Republicans.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Yes, the Senate will fall to the Republicans by a slim majority. And I hope and pray that it does actually happen. That way, we'll have voting records on the Republican Senators that they won't be able to falsify nor refute come re-election time. The Dems should have kicked Harry Reid out of the Speaker's chair in 2009 for refusal to eliminate the filibuster. We had control of both chambers after Obama's win. We could have passed legislation aimed at lowering the unemployment rate with an infrastructure repair program that would have created hundreds of thousands of jobs nationwide, thereby juicing the consumer economy in the process. We still desperately need an infrastructure bill as century-old bridges and roads and waterways continue to deteriorate, but the Republicans will have none of it. They want the infrastructure to crumble, just as they want the government to crumble so it can be "saved" by privatization via Big For-Profit Corporate America. Why should anyone care if the Republicans get control of the Senate? It will be the same gridlock we've come to know for the past eight years. Obama still has the power of the veto pen for any bill a Republican-controlled Congress puts in front of him. Just like W. did in 2007 and 2008 when the Dems controlled Congress. And just like for the Dems, the Republicans won't have enough votes in either chamber to override Obama's vetoes. So what will change? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Gridlock. Gridlock. And. More. Gridlock. Just like Mitt Romney's turn as Massachusetts Governor. He still holds the record for the most vetoes cast in his state in a single four-year term: 844 vetoes. Over 700 of which were overridden by the Democratic majority in the Massachusetts legislature. Which the Republicans in Congress won't be able to do with Obama. Go ahead, Republicans, and enjoy your two-year victory lap. There are 20 Republican Senators in blue and purple leaning states up for re-election in 2016. Anything they do as a collective legislative body to try and eliminate or restrict popular programs such as the ACA, Medicare, Social Security, the Federal minimum wage, or reduce taxes further for the 1% will be used against them in 2016 by their opponents. Much of the conservative agenda is NOT what the vast majority of the country wants. Not by a long shot. So go ahead and attempt your worst, Republicans. Try to push through your billionaire benefactors' wish list. It will be used against you when Hilary and her fellow Dems run against you and win in two years.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The party in the White House almost always loses big in the 6th year midterm. FDR did. Eisenhower did. Reagan did. Bush II did. Clinton didn't, but that was very unusual. And the map is very favorable for Republicans this year. The Democrats' hopes lie in doing a better job turning out their base than they did in 2010 (and they could hardly do a worse one). They know this and are devoting a lot to GOTV efforts. "Likely voter" models are an inexact science, and it's POSSIBLE (though hardly a slam dunk) that the Democrats can upset some of the close polls by doing a better job at GOTV than the pollsters are assuming they will when they create their likely voter models. Both parties are remarkably unpopular right now - the GOP polls even lower than the Democrats. The map, and being the 6th year of the President's term, mean there will be some pickup for the GOP; maybe enough to flip the senate, maybe not. In 2016, though, everything is turned on its head. Then you have a). A map favoring the Democrats, with more Republicans having to defend their seats, many of them in blue or purple states; b). the larger electorate that always comes out in Presidential years, which is bad for Republicans. If the Republicans win big-ish this year and decide it's because people actually like them and their policies, they will be in for a nasty surprise in 2016.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip This year there were also five retiring Democratic Senators, and only three retiring Republicans.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ Oops... only two retiring Republicans. They pick up an advantage of three of three on retirements.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ Oops... only two retiring Republicans. They pick up an advantage of three of three on retirements.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Damn. Double post again, and they both duplicated "of three". I was trying to correct it when it posted. Probably hit the darn touch pad at the wrong time. I hate those things!
Originally Posted By skinnerbox OMG! He never alters his soapbox rhetoric! Even four years later! Check out the comments section from this Daily Kos article: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/08/908152/-Speculation-on-what-happens-if-GOP-comes-up-short">http://www.dailykos.com/story/...up-short</a> Speculation on what happens if GOP comes up short by David Waldman for Daily Kos Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 08:00 AM PDT <> Like local newspapers and CNN and MSNBC. The Republican/tea party rank and file are practically salivating at taking over Congress. Take this one, for example, from supposedly liberal Oregon, in the comments to an article about Michael Steele predicting Republican wins in Oregon's 1st and 5th House Districts. "beaumandy October 07, 2010 at 5:15PM Why would anyone vote Democrat anymore? What does Oregon have to show for 30 years of liberal rule? We have been leading the nation in unemployment for 14 years, our taxes are out of control, PERS is banktruping Oregon, and our Democrat run schools were awarded the grade F. It's all changing libs... you are outnumbered and you are surrounded. Only the idiots want socialism in America..... and those idiots are in for a serious as$ kicking come Nov 2nd." Recognizing that this individual is either misinformed or a liar about unemployment in Oregon, taxes in Oregon, or the quality of our schools, or the role a formerly Republican legislature had in creating our current condition, focus on his last paragraph. I've seen similar predictions in many, many newspaper comment sections around the country. They're counting on it. I think a lot of the angrier people on the right will be very disappointed if the Republican party doesn't take over at least the House, if not the Senate too. by Ernest T Bass on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 09:41:55 AM PDT <> Yup. It's the same dumb broken record over and over and over again. He can change his screen names and return to LP but he cannot hide who he truly is or how pathetic his life has become.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Will Republicans win the Senate in 2914?<< Almost certainly. Bummer, but like Dabob2 points out, it's extremely common in the 6th year of a Presidency for the opposing party to pick up seats. It's a reflection of American's misplaced understanding of how the Presidency works. Most of the focus is on the President, but he has to deal with the Congress. Getting stuff done in the U.S. system of government is difficult. Obama has managed to do nearly everything he promised. History will be very good to him, but it's not uncommon for Presidents to have lower approval at this point in their presidencies.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Getting stuff done in the U.S. system of government is difficult. Obama has managed to do nearly everything he promised." As flawed as Obanacare is, it's still a huge step forward. It's a pretty huge accomplishment.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip It was a necessary first step, but it is extremely flawed and has to be heavily modified. At this point it has harmed far more people than it helps, and policy like that just isn't going to last long. Obviously, single payer is the solution. We just need to get there.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>At this point it has harmed far more people than it helps<< On what planet? Evidence? Links? Because here in reality, the exact opposite has happened: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/6108493/obamacare-premiums-lower-2015">http://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/61...wer-2015</a> <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/6107003/obamacare-premiums-falling">http://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/61...-falling</a> <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html">http://www.nytimes.com/interac...ing.html</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Obviously, single payer is the solution. We just need to get there.<< With a GOP controlled house and senate? No way. Some Republicans are still angry about the Social Security program. I can't see them going for single payer in three lifetimes.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By andyll Republican Agenda if they win: 1) Repeal ACA. 2) Investigate/Impeach Obama 3) Cut taxes on the rich. 4) Raise Taxes on poor/Middle class (Flat tax kills 2 birds with 1 stone 5) Kill Financial reform. All to appease the base for 2016. It might actually be fun to watch.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>It might actually be fun to watch.<< Oh they're going to cannibalize themselves, alright. It's going to be hilarious. Not so good for the country for a couple of years, but hilarious. In this corner: saner Republicans who are tired of losing because they're party's crazy. In that corner: Crazy Ted Cruz! <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/11/03/morning-plum-ted-cruzs-gop-will-fight-obamacare-until-the-end-of-time/">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...of-time/</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<>>At this point it has harmed far more people than it helps<< On what planet? Evidence? Links? Because here in reality, the exact opposite has happened: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/61...wer-2015">http://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/61...wer-2015</a> <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/61...-falling">http://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/61...-falling</a> <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nytimes.com/interac...ing.html">http://www.nytimes.com/interac...ing.html</a> >> Yes, for those who were previously uninsured it works VERY WELL. But that was a relatively small percentage of the American population. For the majority of us who had insurance we were happy with, it has taken away from what we had. Some lost their policies completely because they did not meet ACA minimum requirements. They may have been "garbage policies", but they met their needs. Some offered low cost or no cost "wellness care", but very little in the way of hospitalization coverage. But for many young, healthy people that was what they wanted and needed. Other policies were the exact opposite. They offered nothing in the way of wellness care and had extremely high deductibles. But people holding them generally had substantial resources and weren't that worried about the cost of doctor and ER visits, or even the thousands you have to spend on a CT or MRI. They were guarding against a hospital bill of $50,000+. Again, their needs were served by what they had. But those policies were no longer available. It even impacted people like me who had very good insurance provided by an employer. The University had to increase our costs so that they would not be impacted by the employer tax on "Cadillac Plans". Our co-pays went up by 50% and there are now co-pays on CT's and MRI's. Previously they were covered 100%... same as routine lab work. We also now have an annual deductible for the first time. Yes it is low compared to the ACA deductibles... only $200 per person per year. But before we had no deductible. My premiums have remained about the same... $700 per month for single coverage since the Univ makes no contribution towards retired employee insurance. But my other expenses have increased... because of the ACA. I am not saying having people unable to obtain insurance is an acceptable situation. But why change EVERYONE'S coverage and expense just to account for relatively few uninsured? Make the Federal government the "insurer of last resort" for those people refused coverage. Many states already did that. When my mother lived in Minnesota she had "Minnesota Care" until she was old enough to collect Medicare. Offer tax credits to people who can obtain insurance but are low income and can't afford it... much the same as the ACA does. The total expense of this program would have likely been less than that of the ACA... especially when you consider the increased expense of people who previously had coverage they were happy with. Could this have been sold to Congress? I think it could have. It gets the Federal government out of insurance decisions for the great majority of people. The Republicans NEVER saw a Tax Credit they didn't like, so that portion would have been no problem. They would have balked at creating another entitlement program for the uninsurable, but I think they could have been sold the total package as the best option available to them.
Originally Posted By TeaPartyWave If you think Obamacare has HELPED the country, you are a full blown moron. If Obamacare is so great why is it polling at 35%? Why are Democrats not bragging they voted for it? The reason Obama and the Democrats are hated and the main reason they will get blown out tomorrow is because MILLIONS have had their premiums double, triple or quadruple. Millions have lost their doctor, or they have lost their coverage all together...exactly as I predicted on here years ago by the way. Throw in the countless millions that have either lost their jobs or been moved to part time thanks to Obamacare and you have your answer to why liberal Democrat socialist types are hated all over the country.
