A large number of states remain competitive, and Democrats could easily retain the Senate. It’s also possible that the landscape could shift further in Republicans’ direction. Our model regards a true Republican wave as possible: It gives the party almost a 25 percent chance of finishing with 54 or more Senate seats once all the votes are counted.
३ सप्टेंबर, २०१४
FiveThirtyEight gives the GOP a 64% likelihood of taking control of the Senate.
Details here.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७२ टिप्पण्या:
Only 54! I con't understand the American electorate. A veto-proof majority makes sense, no?
This is still early. Although This straw in the wind is interesting.
"this year, there were no sessions at all devoted to an assessment of the foreign policy of Barack Obama, and not one panel was dedicated to an examination of Obama’s domestic policy."
Hmmm.
Althouse:
The trend is the thing. And 538 is starting to move their position to fit reality. Expect those numbers to continue to move significantly in the direction of Republicans.
If I could buy stock in gnashing of teeth and rending of garments by the MSM, I would make a significant play.
My model (which is a complicated algorithm derived from the number of times my dog correctly performs a trick after having heard the names of each of the senate candidates in a given race) gives the GOP a 59.3572 percent chance of taking the Senate. The GOP may hold the chamber by just a few seats, or they may hold it by a significant margin. But I cannot rule out the good possibility that the Democrats may hold the Senate or even increase their current number of seats.
How is my model any less good than 538?
64% is nowhere near "beltway Republican" screw-up proof.
"64% is nowhere near "beltway Republican" screw-up proof."
No kidding. The Repubs should concede now and save everybody the bother.
predictions at this point don't matter. 538 will only talk about the one just before the election to justify their superiority. The fact that it's not 100% demonstrates there will be people who will vote for these democrat fools all over again, buying every something for nothing pitch they serve up.
Personally I think, and this is simply a gut feeling from the mountains with no numbers to back it up, the Republicans will fall short in an election where a 10 seat pickup could almost be phoned in.
And I think that at least 2 of the dem retentions will involve vote counting shenanigans via the George Soros funded "Secretary of State" initiative states.
No one tell Crack. He has predicted, on this blog, that the GOP will be defeated this November.
GOOD!
And if the GOP does finally control both houses,
FORWARD to reclaim the presidency.
We'll evaluate the field as we progress.
Apparently the Democrats cannot win in Kansas. But an "independent" who will likely caucus with Democrats might be able to win.
That's an interesting angle. I wonder how many Frank Lautenberg situations there will be these next two months.
When the Republicans held the majority in the house and the senate they didn't do a darn thing with it. What is the likelihood that they will accomplish anything when they get back the majority? Don't hold your breath. They will be as ineffective as they were before,except for the beating of their chests and the yammering they will do.
I suspect that they will lose in key states and be no more powerful than they are right now.
What do the french say, "Ca plus change".
Vicki from Pasadena
"Democrats could easily retain the Senate."
That's in the first sentence, and I see nothing to indicate different.
Like the sea of "phony scandals" y'all been swimming in, this is just more of the same to keep you hyped. You know the message from blacks:
"Don't believe the hype,..."
How will this effect that reparations you have been predicting will lift you out of your life of begging and poverty, Crack?
Please tell us more about how much of a Republican you are again.
"When the Republicans held the majority in the house and the senate they didn't do a darn thing with it."
Oh, I wish that were true.
The Free Stuff vote is so swollen I believe there's very little chance that Republicans can take control of the Senate. Everything the Democrats have done since 2006 has been done with the intent of creating as many dependents as possible. They've done a very good job.
I don't buy it. All the real polling shows the Democrats are going to wind a landslide this November.
Drago may be right, but on the other hand, the Democrats are just one wrong sentence in a presser, or one more beheading, away from lossing in a landslide.
Once dependents are created there is a new problem. They expect what they get but do not see the need to have to vote to keep it. Yet another unexpected consequence of the entitlement state. A plus for Republicans in this year of discontent.
54 seats means winning 12 out of 13 of the races rated "leans Democrat," "toss-up," and "leans Republican." That 538 gives odds only 3:1 against is damned good for Republicans.
"When the Republicans held the majority in the house and the senate they didn't do a darn thing with it."
Actually, they missed a big chance but may have learned from a few events, such as Cantor's loss.
Hastert was Speaker and that had a lot to do with it. Just as Gingrich's hubris and book deal had a lot to do with it. We can only hope for better but I may be subject to Samuel Johnson's "Triumph of hope over experience."
Some day these people may be hanging from lamp posts but I said that about Russia before Putin and was wrong.
Does this mean Nate Silver isn't SCIENCE!!! any more?
crack: "Like the sea of "phony scandals" y'all been swimming in..."
Democrat talking points 24/7.
broomhandle said...
The Free Stuff vote is so swollen I believe there's very little chance that Republicans can take control of the Senate
Agreed. I think we are on a pathway and our destination is now set. There may be a few instances where the tide is stemmed for a bit our future decline is already being fully baked in.
No inflection points for us from here on out.
President-Mom-Jeans,
"How will this effect that reparations you have been predicting will lift you out of your life of begging and poverty, Crack?"
Since the Republicans are allowing the Democrats to assume the GOP's historic mantle as the black man's friend, a Democrat win should work very well for our ambitions. I've seen nothing to indicate they'll renig where the GOP has.
"Please tell us more about how much of a Republican you are again."
You mean the party of "Lincoln and his black Republicans"? I fit right in there. A better question is what kind of Republican are you?
If accurately predicting elections is all it takes to change my party affiliation - in the minds of supposedly my fellow members - then (as someone said here once before) y'all don't need me - any more than I need you.
No party that votes against my interests deserves anyone as passionate as I,...
"Once dependents are created there is a new problem. They expect what they get but do not see the need to have to vote to keep it. Yet another unexpected consequence of the entitlement state. A plus for Republicans in this year of discontent."
The Democrats haven't been shy about using the resources of government for their GOTV efforts. You can bet that everyone who gets a handout will also get several reminders about which side their bread is buttered on. It's a formidable combination. The money will have to run out first, and when it does, the Democrat's Permanent Majority will crumble like a rotten stump. Ironically, the fracking boom may delay that day by many years.
Drago,
"Democrat talking points 24/7."
Except none of your scandals have panned out - meaning you're delusional and using the phrase "talking points" to hide your detachment from reality.
Make one - just one - come true and you're sane again,...
"No party that votes against my interests deserves anyone as passionate as I,..."
The towering irony of a Black man writing this tells you everything you need to know about the death spiral of Black American society.
Obama sure is high in his approval, these "fake scandals" are rolling off his back like water off a duck.
I guess if your measure is, he hasn't been imprisoned or removed from office, then sure, they are fake scandals.
They haven't managed to catch Obama with Secret Routers yet.
Thank God, or Barry Three Putt might have an approval rating of 39%.
Oh wait. Nevermind.
Without the President you cannot "do" much under the American system, but you can stop the President from "doing."
I think the most interesting thing last week was the Saudis and the UAE bombing the "extremists" in Tripoli without telling Washington they were going to do that.
And not only did they have to cross Egypt to get there, but no way could they do it without Israel knowing and cooperating.
And Israel did not tell Washington either.
They each have something the others need and want, and that makes for more reliable allies and better friends than some other far-away power with just sentimental ties.
Not that this President is intending to "do" anything.
I think Obama has an objective and a strategy and tactics all wrapped up. It just is not anything anyone else wants.
Even Chuck Hagel is not "onboard" with this, and that is saying something!
Crack: "Except none of your scandals have panned out...."
If no one "notices" black african girls being enslaved, I guess it's not a scandal.
Well played crack, well played.
Oh, and the "have not panned out" is a democrat talking point.
Thanks for playing.
Not being a conservative, disregarding facts, science, logic, and statistical analysis with a proven track record doesn’t come naturally to me, so thanks to Nate Silver and being a liberal, I’m basically this guy.
And to head off any snarky remarks like, "You're just worried Republicans will stop your food stamps," the real reason we should all be worried as hell is because
Conservatives can't govern.
Doing so would prove wrong their fundamental belief: "Government doesn't solve problems; it creates them." Conservatives, of course, are too blinkered to see this fatal flaw in their ideology.
Not holding conservatives to that temple-rubbingly clueless bromide of theirs, though, here's what I'm talking about. The Tea Party members of Congress represent conservatism in a more distilled, purer form -- i.e. “compromise” is a dirty word and adherence to conservative principles above all else is the way to govern, unlike what they claim the RINOs they replaced were practicing. And look how True Conservatism governed: by crazily pushing for the U.S. to default by refusing to raise the debt limit, because “conservative principles,” which fortunately the less conservative “RINOs” and Democrats managed to maturely and sensibly tamp down. And True Conservatism also threatened, but succeeded in this case, of shutting down the federal gov’t which they then simultaneously applauded and blamed Obama for, idiotic contradiction be damned. Thus, conservatives can’t govern. Only to the extent they’re less conservative and more centrist can Republicans govern. Two cases in point.
So yeah, with emboldened right-wingers taking over Congress, we're screwed unless Obama dare I say literally becomes the nation's savior and bitch-slaps their toxic noggins deservedly and repeatedly with his inky veto stamp.
Don't ever count the stupid party out, they'll find a way to eff this up.
Correction: "blinkered" isn't really right. Make it "knuckleheaded." Thanks.
Th left-wing will win. Libertinism and progressive corruption are a fait accompli. Too many people just don't care, are held hostage by the entitlement state, or otherwise profit from redistributive change. They will tolerate or support denigration of individual dignity. They will tolerate or support devaluation of human life. They will accept the doctrines of a degenerate religion and faith in exchange for promises of a material return. They will support formation of authoritarian monopolies if they believe they will be excluded from its censorship. This is why Democrats are capable of maintaining a diverse coalition with diametrically conflicting interests. They have been appeased with their single issue, and they just don't care about the rest.
""When the Republicans held the majority in the house and the senate they didn't do a darn thing with it."
In particular, they didn't address health care, and ObamaCare was the predictable result. It's really hard to support these guys, but you have to pick Team A or Team B, and Team B is worse.
Mikio said...
Not being a conservative, disregarding facts, science, logic, and statistical analysis with a proven track record doesn’t come naturally to me, so thanks to Nate Silver and being a liberal, I’m basically this guy.
And to head off any snarky remarks like, "You're just worried Republicans will stop your food stamps," the real reason we should all be worried as hell is because
Conservatives can't govern. "
You must be a comedy writer. Or delusional. Now put on your serious adult hat and tell us how we can tell the difference between the last five and half years of liberal whatever it is you call it and non-governance. As for default, really? As long as the government pays its contractual obligations and that doesn't include entitlement spending just bonds and signed contracts it isn't in default and the taxes collected exceed that amount by far. So shutting the government down and only paying contractual debt that is due for five years would be a wonderful thing. Why you might even have to support yourself.
Evil conservatives apparently aren't alone in their belief that compromise is a dirty word. (Or do pro-science, pro-logic liberals really believe that wielding an inky veto stamp is an example of it?)
Isn't 538 Nate Silvers baby? What were the left saying about Nate Silvers predictive ability? Do they now want to walk it back and call him a hack who doesn't know what he's talking about?
Unless you are literally gambling on the outcome of the election and have to know the odds in order to place your bets, I don't see why anyone would care about this estimate.
We'll find out one way or the other in a few months, and there's nothing to be done about it in the meantime.
@cubanbog
@Paul Zrimsek
Tell ya what, when either of you can show me your perception of reality isn’t so Foxed up you recognize these two facts…
1) Obama inherited “by far the worst recession since the Great Depression” (How’s that for a link, huh? Only conservative one of its kind I know of, so a precious jewel indeed. )
2) ObamaCare was/is a centrist compromise to Republicans (Dem base’s 1st choice: single-payer, 2nd choice: gov’t option, 3rd choice: ObamaCare) and not a Marxist jackboot on the throats of “real Americans”
…I’ll realize discussing politics with you might not be a total waste of my time and I’ll give it a shot, assuming the CPR on me has worked and I can return to this thread. Until then, I’m not biting.
ObamaCare was/is a centrist compromise to Republicans
Eh, as trolling attempts go I rate that 3 out of 10. Way too obvious.
@Revenant
Then where on the left-right spectrum do you place single-payer or the public option? You have no room left.
Nevermind, I can already anticipate your dumbass evasively juvenile answer. "Far-left, far-far-left, and far-far-far-left."
Crack said--"Like the sea of "phony scandals" y'all been swimming in, this is just more of the same to keep you hyped. You know the message from blacks:
"Don't believe the hype,...""
From Tawana Brawley to "Obama gonna pay my mortgage" blacks have constantly fallen for the hype. The majority are like kids wanting to eat at McDonalds for the toy in a happy meal.
And its easy to prove...who supports Obama more than any other demographic?
Who has been helped least if not hurt by Obama's policies?
But keep holding your breath about that mortgage payment.
So mikio, would you like to explain how single payer would be significantly different than the VA system I am currently stuck in? Other than being larger and even less efficient while merely maintaining a staggering level of corruption...
The rest of your echo chamber garbage has been dealt with. The recession Reagan inherited from Carter was worse. In any event the policies that actually led to the recession were from statist interference in the housing and derivatives markets.
Are you a moby trying to make libs look bad or just new here?
Mikio said...
"@Revenant
Then where on the left-right spectrum do you place single-payer or the public option? You have no room left. "
As I am personally subjected to single payer now I would put single payer somewhere between Obama and Mao. Or between statist tyrant thug and mass murdering sociopath.
Then where on the left-right spectrum do you place single-payer or the public option? You have no room left.
I'll upgrade you to a 4. That was a decent, if belated, attempt at moving the goalposts.
Achilles said...So mikio, would you like to explain how single payer would be significantly different than the VA system I am currently stuck in? Other than being larger and even less efficient while merely maintaining a staggering level of corruption…
False premise. Educate yourself -- “the VA is not a single-payer system” And this, I think, is the most salient point: “[A]ny health care program that benefits low-income individuals and families (including the VA, because today the poor are more likely to join the military) is politically vulnerable to budget cuts or calls for privatization, and is likely to suffer from more problems than a health system that benefits everyone -- rich and poor, young and old, soldiers and civilians, i.e. the entire population.”
Expected response: “That’s bullshit because unlike you commie Dems, Republicans love and support the troops and don't cut veterans' benefits.” Ahem…Paul Ryan & the GOP Must Own the Cuts to Veterans Benefits
As I am personally subjected to single payer now I would put single payer somewhere between Obama and Mao. Or between statist tyrant thug and mass murdering sociopath.
And that’s essentially the juvenile answer I predicted would happen; you just took the puck from Revenant and shot it into your own goal yourself. Way to go.
Revenant said...I'll upgrade you to a 4. That was a decent, if belated, attempt at moving the goalposts.
First of all, it's not trolling if it's true, especially if it has supportive argumentation, as I've done. So your accusation of "troll" is blatantly false and desperate.
Secondly, "moving the goalposts"? Really? This is the tack you're taking? This indicates you do recognize the public option is to the left of Obamacare and single-payer is further left still, but that you're insisting Obamacare was the Dem base's first choice and that I'm somehow making it up about Obamacare being a 3rd choice compromise. Is this what you're saying?
Correction: It's not trolling if it's true and following the topic, which my comments have done.
"Obamacare was the Dem base's first choice and that I'm somehow making it up about Obamacare being a 3rd choice compromise" to inject only the camel's nose under the tent instead of placing the camel directly into the tent.
There now. That little addition will clarify matters for the likes of Revenant and Achilles. See, Mikio is arguing that because the Left wanted even more centralized power and control than they got (in the short-run) that means you just need to lay back, think of your country and accept what Mikio and its ilk are going to do to you.
Helpful?
I'd be surprised if the GOP takes the Senate, let alone gets 54 seats. Last I heard Cotton was having a hard time in Arkansas, and Alaska and NC weren't looking too promising. But we'll see.
One thing that appears clear is the Dems have very weak motivation this year, even compared to 2010--it's more clear than ever that the best they can hope for is two more years of gridlock, and that has to be depressing for them. Their most vulnerable candidates (in red states) have to skirt the line between getting their base out and distancing themselves from a president who has become toxic among the general electorate in those states.
While winning the Senate would mean more gridlock for the GOP as well, I can see a few good reasons they should be more motivated--
1) Harry Reid proved he is willing to use the "nuclear option" (yes, same "nuclear option" he so eloquently argued against ten years ago when the GOP had the Senate majority) to get nominees through. Even if no Supreme Court vacancies open up in the next two years, a lot of other judgeships and agency nominations will be coming up and Reid could rubber stamp them if he's still majority leader. At least having the Senate would give the GOP some leverage.
2) Taking the Senate would give Congress a single voice on legislation or major issues where the President tries to act unilaterally. By making certain legislation actually reach his desk, it would put him in the position of having to actually veto certain things that may be otherwise popular with the public. It's not foolproof but it does mean more leverage.
3) Insurance seats, as 2016 a lot of possibly vulnerable GOP seats will be up (Rubio's, Toomey's, Ayotte's, Ron Johnson's).
Brando:
Republicans are polling ahead of incumbent Democrats in both North Carolina and Arkansas.
But more important than the horse race numbers right now is the inability of so many Democrat incumbents to break 50% in the polling. An incumbent who cannot break 50% two months before an election is likely to lose -- more likely than not as I understand it.
Pryor (AR) cannot get above 46% according to the polls. Hagan (NC) cannot clear 45%. Begich (AK) is supposedly ahead but hasn't cleared 46% in a month.
Until incumbent get to that 48-49% number they're vulnerable.
In this election, the party hat most depresses its voters will lose.
"Republicans are polling ahead of incumbent Democrats in both North Carolina and Arkansas."
I hope that's the case--particularly since both those Democrats are incumbents that voted for Obamacare. I haven't seen the most recent numbers so maybe there's been some movement.
As for breaking 50%, that's often the rule--but the right amount of negative ads can upend it (McConnell has pulled this off, and I think Bush did in '04). And the DNC and their outside groups have nothing but negative ads in their playbook--they certainly can't run on policies in those states.
First we will have to define "centrist."
To show that we conservatives can compromise too, at least as liberals understand the term, I suggest that we make this offer: They give us a 50% cut in the corporate income tax, and in return we'll ask for only a 50% cut, instead of abolishing it entirely as we'd prefer.
If we don't get any takers... well, compromise is just a dirty word to some people.
"To show that we conservatives can compromise too, at least as liberals understand the term, I suggest that we make this offer: They give us a 50% cut in the corporate income tax, and in return we'll ask for only a 50% cut, instead of abolishing it entirely as we'd prefer."
I'm always hearing about how much better things are in other countries (Canada having single payer health coverage, Britain banning private handgun ownership, France having greater worker protections) but the left seems to get quiet about the fact that Canadians have higher gun ownership rates, a lower (an less broadly applied) coprorate tax, and the British have loser-pays civil tort systems, and France has tougher immigration requirements...
The left have the cheat to win Al Franken vote count machine in place. Add to that the fear mongering desperation from people like DWS and a biased incurious corrupt in-the-tank for the D press, plus the dominate leftwing culture threaded thru everything by leftwing Hollywood - and it will be amazing to see the GOP win. The GOP has imperfect candidates who all are way behind in fund raising compared to the flush-with-money leftwing power machine.
Brando:
Don't forget that European countries are relatively poor. And the timeline for the decline in relative wealth between Europe and the U.S. shows a clear inflection point around the time European countries adopted their more socialist policies.
Canada has gone the other direction recently politically. And their economy has been robust during that time.
It's almost like socialism is bad for an economy and capitalism is not as bad.
JZ: Only 54! I con't understand the American electorate. A veto-proof majority makes sense, no?
Makes sense, but not possible. Even if the GOP runs the table this year, they'd end up one short of veto-proof (66 seats).
Big Mike: 54 seats means winning 12 out of 13 of the races rated "leans Democrat," "toss-up," and "leans Republican." That 538 gives odds only 3:1 against is damned good for Republicans.
I'm seeing 30 Reps not up for reelection, and 15 that are "safe" or "likely" GOP. That means they'd only need 9 more to get 54 seats, not 12.
Carnifex,
From Tawana Brawley to "Obama gonna pay my mortgage" blacks have constantly fallen for the hype. The majority are like kids wanting to eat at McDonalds for the toy in a happy meal.
BWAAAA-HAHAHA! God, you guys argue silly. You have to reach all the way back to Tawana - an episode Obama had nothing to do with - and a woman swept up in her own enthusiasm - again having nothing to do with Obama but his being elected - to try to diss blacks.
Unfortunately for you - and you ALWAYS seem to miss this - dissing blacks is all you speak up for, and what you and yours are being punished for, as well.
Who supports Obama more than any other demographic?
Those determined to crush racists.
Who has been helped least if not hurt by Obama's policies?
I like how whites have now hilariously (and racistly) elected themselves arbiters of our goals - in their own eyes and with no input from blacks - with themselves determining if we're successful.
What do whites know about the patience of a 400 year movement?
Your moans, and the sense of victimhood you portray (at the hands of those getting a hand-up) are more telling.
But keep holding your breath about that mortgage payment.
As long as you will,...for another winning election,...
When did the crazy train pull back into the station?
Leave this thread for a few hours and see that Crack is back, teaching us a new word: "racistly." I am absolutely going to use that word whenever I can.
I'm not sure if Nate Silver is still affiliated with 538, but he's also making the same prediction--Dems having 35% of keeping the Senate. And he's got more credibility than most pollsters, as he doesn't come across as having any game in the fight--he actually seems disinterested (though not uninterested) when it comes to politics. (In an interview he described his own politics as "libertarian" for what that's worth). But also he doesn't conduct the polls, but rather analyzes and weighs polls conducted by others, and has a pretty good track record for accuracy.
At this point I think enthusiasm is going to be the strongest tool the GOP has--the Democrats just don't have much reason to keep the Senate. (Ramming through a few more nominees for judgeships just isn't as compelling for your followers as preventing the other side from doing so) There's also a lot of Obama fatigue in this country--it might make a difference in 2016 as well (though Democrats tend to do better in presidential year elections).
A good tell that the Dems know they have an enthusiasm problem is the shameless desperation to rile up their base. It's nothing new to do this of course--and the GOP certainly is doing the same--but the silliness of some of these issues (e.g., saying the "Hobby Lobby" decision is a war on women) just shows what quality of arrows they have in the quiver.
The one thing the GOP should watch out for in these final two months is 11th hour dirty tricks, which the Dems have excelled at (classic example from 2000--release of Bush's old DUI records on the weekend before the election, possibly costing him a point or two). Their stunt in Kansas likely won't work, but I wouldn't be surprised if some bombshell news were released about Thom Tillis or Bill Cassidy just in time for a final boost.
Mikio: "Tell ya what, when either of you can show me your perception of reality isn’t so Foxed up -"
You just outed yourself as a partisan moonbat. No one metioned FOX, so why go there? All you've done is identified yourself as an idiot that deserves to be treated as such.
Brando,
"Leave this thread for a few hours and see that Crack is back, teaching us a new word: "racistly." I am absolutely going to use that word whenever I can."
Hey - you get new words, I get whites telling me how we've failed (again) in their eyes.
If only we had stayed slaves, so y'all could've finally been happy with our progress,...
There's that "y'all" again...apparently I'm not just white, but southern now...not just racisty but regionist.
@SeanF Last time I looked at RealClearPolitics they had 9 Senate races rated toss-ups, one "leans Democrat" (New Hampshire), and two "leans GOP" (West Virginia and Kansas). Checking in today I see West Virginia has moved to "likely GOP" so life gets easier for the Republicans.
So the lineup in November is 5 "safe Democrat," 5 "likely Democrat," 1 "leans Democrat," 9 tossups, 1 "leans GOP," 4 "likely GOP," and 11 "safe GOP." Republicans have 30 seats not contested this cycle and 11 rated "safe" for a total of 41. To get to 54 they need to win all four of the ones rated "likely GOP" and 9 out of the 11 that are rated "tossup" or "leans" one way or the other.
Is it that hard to say, "Whoops, I misspoke"?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा