Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Archer77 on July 16, 2013, 08:41:33 AM
-
"Following former Gov. Brian Schweitzer's decision not to run for Montana’s open U.S. Senate seat this weekend, New York Times polling guru Nate Silver predicted Monday that Republicans will hold 50 to 51 seats in the upper chamber after all ballots are counted in the 2014 Congressional mid-term elections."
It's going to be a while before demographic changes start changing state and local election results. As I've said, gerrymandering will keep the republicans in their seats.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/nate-silver-predicts-gop-holding-50-51-senate?ref=fpb
-
nate silver was right in 2012 when the dumbfvck rasmussen was wrong as shit.
he's probbaly right about this one - I am sure repubs are suddenly going to fight for a chance to kneepad the guy.
-
nate silver was right in 2012 when the dumbfvck rasmussen was wrong as shit.
he's probbaly right about this one - I am sure repubs are suddenly going to fight for a chance to kneepad the guy.
It's not like it wasn't easy to predict. Dems overstated the demo shift either through delusion or wishful thinking, possibly both.
-
It's not like it wasn't easy to predict. Dems overstated the demo shift either through delusion or wishful thinking, possibly both.
Agreed. Trying to scare the opposition shitless thus causing them to overreact.
My hope or self-delusion is that the GOP wins both houses with the right candidates (in my opinion) and this causes them to shift internally and adapt.
If the GOP runs beltway Republican RINO's they will not see the gains they think.
-
;D
-
nate silver was right in 2012 when the dumbfvck rasmussen was wrong as shit.
he's probbaly right about this one - I am sure repubs are suddenly going to fight for a chance to kneepad the guy.
When did Rasmussen predict a Romney win? The last time he was on TV, he made NO prediction, said it was too close to call, and presented the possibility of Romney winning the popular vote but losing the election.
-
When did Rasmussen predict a Romney win? The last time he was on TV, he made NO prediction, said it was too close to call, and presented the possibility of Romney winning the popular vote but losing the election.
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Rasmussen was kneepadding romney for months before that election. The 'official' feel-good poll of FOX news. After the election, everyone was so quiet as nate silver took his victory lap and karl rove stood there speechless because his polling data failed him.
Now, 2014 and 2016 roll around, and repubs are going to play dumb about 2012 hahaha. Come on man, we all get shit wrong. Rass took it on the chin in 2012. Admit it, and move on do the next election :)
-
"Following former Gov. Brian Schweitzer's decision not to run for Montana’s open U.S. Senate seat this weekend, New York Times polling guru Nate Silver predicted Monday that Republicans will hold 50 to 51 seats in the upper chamber after all ballots are counted in the 2014 Congressional mid-term elections."
It's going to be a while before demographic changes start changing state and local election results. As I've said, gerrymandering will keep the republicans in their seats.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/nate-silver-predicts-gop-holding-50-51-senate?ref=fpb
How can this be? The Republican Party is dead. I read it right here on getbig.com.
Lurker what do you think about this?
-
My hope or self-delusion is that the GOP wins both houses with the right candidates (in my opinion) and this causes them to shift internally and adapt.
Fuck, as if this country needs more trouble. I'm perfectly happy with a divided Congress. As much as I hate the polarization and the stalemate that results, it's about the only way to limit the damage these fucking idiots can do.
Secondly, I don't know who the "right candidates" are according to you, but I hope they don't include people like Mike Rogers and Peter King to name two.
-
nate was very accurate in 2012. Rassmussen and others thought romney had it - but nate silver was crazy accurate.
Dems should be very nervous this time. Maybe rassmussen will tell the dems what they want to hear ;)
-
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Rasmussen was kneepadding romney for months before that election. The 'official' feel-good poll of FOX news. After the election, everyone was so quiet as nate silver took his victory lap and karl rove stood there speechless because his polling data failed him.
Now, 2014 and 2016 roll around, and repubs are going to play dumb about 2012 hahaha. Come on man, we all get shit wrong. Rass took it on the chin in 2012. Admit it, and move on do the next election :)
Rasmussen did no such thing. Again, I asked WHERE Rasmussen ever predicted a Romney win. On TV? NOPE! On his site? NOPE!!
-
Rasmussen did no such thing. Again, I asked WHERE Rasmussen ever predicted a Romney win. On TV? NOPE! On his site? NOPE!!
which polls was karl rove citing all the while melting over 2012 results?
Maybe I can phrase it better "Rassmussen was a mile off and Nate silver nailed it"? better?
-
which polls was karl rove citing all the while melting over 2012 results?
Maybe I can phrase it better "Rassmussen was a mile off and Nate silver nailed it"? better?
so you are lying again then, yes?
-
which polls was karl rove citing all the while melting over 2012 results?
Maybe I can phrase it better "Rassmussen was a mile off and Nate silver nailed it"? better?
Rove cited SEVERAL polls, not just Rasmussen (as in Gallup, Pew, Fox News, CNN, etc).
Again WHEN DID RASMUSSEN CLAIM ROMNEY WAS GOING TO WIN?
Even Rove picked that Romney would get no more than 295 EC votes (and that was stretch with Pennsylvania). He leaned toward Romney getting 275, as in Romney winning in a squeaker.
-
Rove cited SEVERAL polls, not just Rasmussen (as in Gallup, Pew, Fox News, CNN, etc).
Again WHEN DID RASMUSSEN CLAIM ROMNEY WAS GOING TO WIN?
Even Rove picked that Romney would get no more than 295 EC votes (and that was stretch with Pennsylvania). He leaned toward Romney getting 275, as in Romney winning in a squeaker.
Hey, you can revise history all ya want. If you're arguing landslide vs squeaker, when nate picked Obama when most others were not, I think the argument has already been decided as far as this one goes.
Nate silver nailed it in 2012 and everyone else was clueless. Fact.
Now that Nate says Repubs will win senate, ya should celebrate. He'll probably be right. it'll be interesting now - - - My theory is that Rass and other right-leaning polls care more about giving satisfacctory numbers to republican news outlets, than about being accurate. makes sense. They were cited and made a great living saying Romney was leading. People turn off fox news when they see a poll saying Obama by 3 points lol.
So I think in 2014, they will say what they've always said.... slight republican lead. No matter what the accurate Silver and others say. They're in the entertainment industry. Silver is going against his MSNBC lackeys here, interestingly enough.
-
Hey, you can revise history all ya want. If you're arguing landslide vs squeaker, when Nate picked Obama when most others were not, I think the argument has already been decided as far as this one goes.
Nate silver nailed it in 2012 and everyone else was clueless. Fact.
Now that Nate says Re pubs will win senate, ya should celebrate. He'll probably be right. it'll be interesting now - - - My theory is that Rads and other relearning polls care more about giving satisfactory numbers to republican news outlets, than about being accurate. makes sense. They were cited and made a great living saying Romney was leading. People turn off fox news when they see a poll saying Obama by 3 points Lola.
So I think in 2014, they will say what they've always said.... slight republican lead. No matter what the accurate Silver and others say. They're in the entertainment industry. Silver is going against his MSNBC lackeys here, interestingly enough.
The only one revising history is YOU. You claimed that Rasmussen called it for Romney. I've asked you THREE TIMES to show when and where he said that. And you have more excuses than a recidivist negro heading back to prison.
-
The only one revising history is YOU. You claimed that Rasmussen called it for Romney. I've asked you THREE TIMES to show when and where he said that. And you have more excuses than a recidivist negro heading back to prison
Look, I let it slide when you misquoted me. I said:
Rassmussen and others thought romney had it
dumbfvck rasmussen was wrong as shit.
And you somehow changed that to "called it for Romney". I didn't want to correct you there, but you harped on it over and over.
We have now reached the point in our debate where you start trying to explain the difference between what I said above, and what you read below.
This was Rass, the week before the election, being dumbfkck wrong as shit. As I said.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/29/Romney-Rasmussen-win-election
-
Predicting Romney will get 279+ electoral votes = thinking romney had it.
At this point, you can have all the little word games that you want. I know, we still believe hermann cain was framed because none of his 14 accusers this or that, or because his apology never specifically said this or that. I know, Bush never invaded for oil technically. I know, I know, Zimmerman did nothing stupid by running into an alley with a gun using profanity.
I know. Play the word games all day. Fact is, Rass was wrong as shit, Silver was right as shit. You can circle jerk with the dictionary but the bottom line is that the Dems are in trouble for 2014, whether you liek it or not. Silver = teh accuracy. rass = the sellout, ignorant of facts.
-
Predicting Romney will get 279+ electoral votes = thinking romney had it.
At this point, you can have all the little word games that you want. I know, we still believe hermann cain was framed because none of his 14 accusers this or that, or because his apology never specifically said this or that. I know, Bush never invaded for oil technically. I know, I know, Zimmerman did nothing stupid by running into an alley with a gun using profanity.
I know. Play the word games all day. Fact is, Rass was wrong as shit, Silver was right as shit. You can circle jerk with the dictionary but the bottom line is that the Dems are in trouble for 2014, whether you liek it or not. Silver = teh accuracy. rass = the sellout, ignorant of facts.
I'm not playing any word games. And, once again, when your stupid points get flattened, you bring up crap that has nothing to do with the topic (Cain, Bush, Zimmerman, etc.). In fact, Scott Rassmussen himself went on O'Reilly and Hannity and stated that he couldn't make a prediction. In fact, it was on one of those shows that he's stated the possibility of Romney winning the popular vote but losing the election.
And if you went onto Rasmussen's site without the toss-up state factor used, it leaned slightly toward Obama. Even one week out, it had Obama - 237, Romney - 206, Toss-Up - 95
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/2012_electoral_college_scoreboard
-
I'm not playing any word games. And, once again, when your stupid points get flattened, you bring up crap that has nothing to do with the topic (Cain, Bush, Zimmerman, etc.). In fact, Scott Rassmussen himself went on O'Reilly and Hannity and stated that he couldn't make a prediction. In fact, it was on one of those shows that he's stated the possibility of Romney winning the popular vote but losing the election.
And if you went onto Rasmussen's site without the toss-up state factor used, it leaned slightly toward Obama. Even one week out, it had Obama - 237, Romney - 206, Toss-Up - 95
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/2012_electoral_college_scoreboard
In that case, was Brietbart being misleading?
-
Nate Silver projected a win - he was right, down to the states, almost.
Rass, well, they projected a win - and they were wrong.
There's nothing wrong with that being the case. I think it looks GREAT for 2014 that Nate (the more accurate predictor) calls it for republicans. Rass will probably just say "me too!" after the way he cleaned their clocks in 2012.
-
Rove cited SEVERAL polls, not just Rasmussen (as in Gallup, Pew, Fox News, CNN, etc).
Again WHEN DID RASMUSSEN CLAIM ROMNEY WAS GOING TO WIN?
Even Rove picked that Romney would get no more than 295 EC votes (and that was stretch with Pennsylvania). He leaned toward Romney getting 275, as in Romney winning in a squeaker.
Ok so Rove was brutally wrong. It wasn't close and leaning toward 275 is bad enough, saying it would be 295 is delusion, dude didn't break 195 ECV's.
You are a delusional person, so because those exact words maybe were never uttered his poll showing Romney winning doesn't indicate who he thinks will win? isn't that implied?
-
I'm not playing any word games. And, once again, when your stupid points get flattened, you bring up crap that has nothing to do with the topic (Cain, Bush, Zimmerman, etc.). In fact, Scott Rassmussen himself went on O'Reilly and Hannity and stated that he couldn't make a prediction. In fact, it was on one of those shows that he's stated the possibility of Romney winning the popular vote but losing the election.
And if you went onto Rasmussen's site without the toss-up state factor used, it leaned slightly toward Obama. Even one week out, it had Obama - 237, Romney - 206, Toss-Up - 95
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/2012_electoral_college_scoreboard
Holy fuck!! lol, you are beyond help. You misquote, misdirect and argue peripheral points. Rass was wrong, his polls were wrong, rove was wrong.
-
Holy fuck!! lol, you are beyond help. You misquote, misdirect and argue peripheral points. Rass was wrong, his polls were wrong, rove was wrong.
MCWAY is awesome dude for arguments. He will defend the indefensible. Which is great for message board debates. I mean, who in the world believed Hermann cain with "I have never done ANYTHING inappropriate in 43 years"? I don't care who you are, 43 YEARS? Not cheat, dude said "NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE in 43 years". Total nonsense.
And then, suddenly, cain knew the woman after all. Suddenly the $ she claimed was true. His lawyer admits the affair. Cain admits hiding paid lez from his wife for 11 years.
Yet still, he'll argue it. Personally, I love it. Keeps things interesting. I smelled bullshit on Cain the moment he cracked a smile when asked about the polygraph. Knew right then, this dude is a liar. Some getbiggers still can't face it.
-
MCWAY is awesome dude for arguments. He will defend the indefensible. Which is great for message board debates. I mean, who in the world believed Hermann cain with "I have never done ANYTHING inappropriate in 43 years"? I don't care who you are, 43 YEARS? Not cheat, dude said "NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE in 43 years". Total nonsense.
And then, suddenly, cain knew the woman after all. Suddenly the $ she claimed was true. His lawyer admits the affair. Cain admits hiding paid lez from his wife for 11 years.
Yet still, he'll argue it. Personally, I love it. Keeps things interesting. I smelled bullshit on Cain the moment he cracked a smile when asked about the polygraph. Knew right then, this dude is a liar. Some getbiggers still can't face it.
it's not a good quality, what you have described is called delusion. He also believes in fairy tales written thousands of years ago yet would find scientology absurd, the irony.
-
it'll be funny how so many repubs that called nate silver stupid/wrong/liberal will suddenly proclaim his greatness - because they agree with what he says this week.
-
I hope he's right.
-
Bump. I've been calling him "Silverman," but it's "Silver."
-
CNN Poll: Huge Swing to GOP Puts Senate in Play
Tuesday, 26 Nov 2013
By Drew MacKenzie
Republicans have made a massive turnaround in the past month, boosting hopes that the GOP could be headed for victory in next year's congressional elections, a new poll shows.
The GOP has a real chance of taking control of both the House and the Senate, as rich, white, and rural voters move away from the Democrats, the CNN/ORC International survey shows.
Now the question remains: Can the party hold onto those new supporters in the 12 months running up to next year's crucial midterm vote?
A month ago the Republicans were reeling as the blame for the government shutdown in the bitter battle over the Affordable Care Act was laid at the GOP's door. In a generic ballot last month, asking voters to pick between Democrats and Republicans in their congressional district without naming candidates, Democrats were chosen, 50 percent to 42 percent.
But things have turned around in the past four weeks as the extent of the problems with Obamacare have become clear. The new poll shows a staggering 10 percent reversal for the Democrats, and Republicans now lead 49 percent to 47 percent.
"It looks like the biggest shifts toward the Republicans came among white voters, higher-income Americans, and people who live in rural areas," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
"If those patterns persist into 2014, it may indicate that Obamacare is popular among those who it was designed to help the most, but unpopular among the larger group of voters who are personally less concerned about health insurance and healthcare,"
He added, however, that Democrats have gained strength in the past month among some of their "natural constituencies," including non-white and lower-income voters.
As Newsmax revealed Monday, the national poll also showed that only four out of every 10 Americans believe Obama is managing the government "effectively" and that 53 percent of the nation does not believe that the president is "honest and trustworthy."
The 40 percent approval figure is a 12 percent freefall by Obama compared to a similar survey five months ago, while the 53 percent was the largest statistic in a CNN survey who said they thought that Obama was dishonest.
Republicans have a 17-seat advantage in the House while Democrats hold a 55-45 majority in the Senate. Thirty-five of the 100 Senate seats are up for election in the midterms — 33 scheduled along with special elections in South Carolina and Hawaii — giving Republicans another opportunity to wrest the upper chamber away from the Democrats for the first time since 2006.
Earlier this month a survey by Quinnipiac University showed that Obama's approval rating was at its lowest level, with just 39 percent, since he entered the White House in 2009. A majority also said he was not honest and trustworthy.
CNN says its generic polls are often used as an indication of whether Republicans or Democrats are likely to take control in Congress. But CNN polling chief Holland said results can also change dramatically in the next 12 months.
"A year before the 2010 midterms, for example, the Democrats held a 6-point lead on the generic ballot, but the GOP wound up regaining control of the House in that election cycle, thanks to a 63-seat pickup," he said.
The president, however, could take an been bigger hit in the next approval survey because he's now under fire from both parties for the controversial six-month deal with Iran to limit its nuclear capability in return for easing sanctions.
The phone poll was conducted Nov. 18-20, and has a 3.5-point margin or error.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/CNN-Republicans-Senate-turnaround/2013/11/26/id/538715#ixzz2lmEiKhMj !
-
It is still early. I hope the GOP increases their advantage but anything can happen from now until the midterm elections.
This from the article doesn't surprise me:
He added, however, that Democrats have gained strength in the past month among some of their "natural constituencies," including non-white and lower-income voters.
Hopefully they don't show up.
-
I generally like divided government, but after what Reid has done with the Senate, I'd rather see Republicans take the Senate. Don't really care about the House. Don't want to see any party in control of all three.
-
I generally like divided government, but after what Reid has done with the Senate, I'd rather see Republicans take the Senate. Don't really care about the House. Don't want to see any party in control of all three.
Harry Reid was and is an embarrassment, albeit a stain in the grand scheme of things.
As for going with the "nuclear option" I'm kind of split because I think was both a good and a bad idea; don't get me wrong, I think it was a short-sighted and politically stupid move that reeked of partisan politics. However, the fact is that the Senate is a dysfunctional bordello - regardless of which party is in control. And it's not just the filibuster that's at issue. Look at the practice on "secret holds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_hold)" on bills to see just how fucking bad it is. I mean, what the fuck is a "secret" hold? These people are up there to do the business of the people, in the best and most open way possible; they shouldn't be able to effectively take a bill into the basement and kill it with the proverbial bullet to the head.
Now, I agree that the Senate can decide its own rules and, in the absence of explicit instructions from the Constitution on how to approve nominees or rules on how to debate issues, they can say "well, filibustering is OK." And I'm fine with that. What I am not fine with is the dysfunction. It's gotten to the point where the Senate can't get any business done and a filibuster-proof majority is needed to conduct day-to-day business and to fulfill its Constitutionally-mandated role.
So I'm kind of split on the issue. On the one hand, the Senate rules should require that the Senate hold an up-or-down vote for all nominees within a reasonable amount of time, say... 30 days (if 30 days isn't enough debate time, the nominee isn't qualified and if a Senator can't decide which way to vote after 30 days of debate and discussions, then he shouldn't be a Senator). On the other hand, I don't like political power-grabs especially when a few years ago, when this move was contemplated, you were crying about it being a short-sighted power-grab and a powerplay.
I share your preference for a divided Government and cringe whenever all three branches are under the control of a single party; more specifically, I prefer a split Congress and a split between the White House and the Senate.
-
Harry Reid was and is an embarrassment, albeit a stain in the grand scheme of things.
As for going with the "nuclear option" I'm kind of split because I think was both a good and a bad idea; don't get me wrong, I think it was a short-sighted and politically stupid move that reeked of partisan politics. However, the fact is that the Senate is a dysfunctional bordello - regardless of which party is in control. And it's not just the filibuster that's at issue. Look at the practice on "secret holds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_hold)" on bills to see just how fucking bad it is. I mean, what the fuck is a "secret" hold? These people are up there to do the business of the people, in the best and most open way possible; they shouldn't be able to effectively take a bill into the basement and kill it with the proverbial bullet to the head.
Now, I agree that the Senate can decide its own rules and, in the absence of explicit instructions from the Constitution on how to approve nominees or rules on how to debate issues, they can say "well, filibustering is OK." And I'm fine with that. What I am not fine with is the dysfunction. It's gotten to the point where the Senate can't get any business done and a filibuster-proof majority is needed to conduct day-to-day business and to fulfill its Constitutionally-mandated role.
So I'm kind of split on the issue. On the one hand, the Senate rules should require that the Senate hold an up-or-down vote for all nominees within a reasonable amount of time, say... 30 days (if 30 days isn't enough debate time, the nominee isn't qualified and if a Senator can't decide which way to vote after 30 days of debate and discussions, then he shouldn't be a Senator). On the other hand, I don't like political power-grabs especially when a few years ago, when this move was contemplated, you were crying about it being a short-sighted power-grab and a powerplay.
I share your preference for a divided Government and cringe whenever all three branches are under the control of a single party; more specifically, I prefer a split Congress and a split between the White House and the Senate.
Well said. I agree with much of this.
I don't have a problem with the filibuster. It doesn't prevent the majority from getting things done, if the majority is willing to work with the minority.
-
RIP McWay.
-
I don't have a problem with the filibuster. It doesn't prevent the majority from getting things done, if the majority is willing to work with the minority.
I don't know that I like the concept of the filibuster in it's current form. As it stands, two people can hold off the business of the Senate indefinitely! And you know, if we actually had interesting and serious debates happening, that would be one thing. But when people read phone books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_D'Amato) and recite Dr. Seuss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz) on the floor on the Senate... you will forgive me if I don't consider that debate.
The Senate is a joke, and that is in large part because the current rules help the clowns make it into a joke. Instead of being a serious, somber institution where we send our best to carefully weigh things, we get the idiots we have up there now. Seriously, name 5 objectively good Senators serving right now...
As for majority and the minority working together, let's be realistic. Those idiots at the Senate can't agree that the sun rises in the East and you think they'll work together? They won't - they won't agree on anything of consequence. It's the era we live in - an era dominated by partisan rhetoric, extremist positions and obvious pandering?
The only things they will agree on are things that will either advance the status quo or improve their already great job security.
-
I generally like divided government, but after what Reid has done with the Senate, I'd rather see Republicans take the Senate. Don't really care about the House. Don't want to see any party in control of all three.
agree here. however, I'd prefer the dems not control the House and the white house.
Appropriations bills (the budget) must start in the House of Rep.
Would rather have the repubs locking that shit down.
-
I don't know that I like the concept of the filibuster in it's current form. As it stands, two people can hold off the business of the Senate indefinitely! And you know, if we actually had interesting and serious debates happening, that would be one thing. But when people read phone books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_D'Amato) and recite Dr. Seuss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz) on the floor on the Senate... you will forgive me if I don't consider that debate.
The Senate is a joke, and that is in large part because the current rules help the clowns make it into a joke. Instead of being a serious, somber institution where we send our best to carefully weigh things, we get the idiots we have up there now. Seriously, name 5 objectively good Senators serving right now...
As for majority and the minority working together, let's be realistic. Those idiots at the Senate can't agree that the sun rises in the East and you think they'll work together? They won't - they won't agree on anything of consequence. It's the era we live in - an era dominated by partisan rhetoric, extremist positions and obvious pandering?
The only things they will agree on are things that will either advance the status quo or improve their already great job security.
Individual filibusters don't stop legislation and they're not necessarily about debate. I have no problem with what Rand Paul or Cruz did. Reading a story to his kid was actually pretty creative.
The Senate has historically been much better at engaging in thoughtful debate and compromise. That is changing under Reid's tenure. He needs to go.
-
Individual filibusters don't stop legislation and they're not necessarily about debate. I have no problem with what Rand Paul or Cruz did. Reading a story to his kid was actually pretty creative.
The Senate has historically been much better at engaging in thoughtful debate and compromise. That is changing under Reid's tenure. He needs to go.
You're at best naive if you think this is changing under Reid and hasn't been happening in forever. And you're stupid if you find the reading Dr. Seuss or phone books is appropriate or qualifies as debate.
I don't mind the filibuster per se. I mind what it's been turned into: shitty theater.
-
You're at best naive if you this this is changing under Reid and hasn't been happening in forever. And you're stupid if you find the reading Dr. Seuss or phone books is appropriate or qualifies as debate.
I don't mind the filibuster per se. I mind what it's been turned into: shitty theater.
::)
-
::)
Careful. You're rolling too much.
-
Careful. You're rolling too much.
Reserved for dumb comments. :)
-
Impossible. The Republican Party is dead. Isn't that what I keep hearing?
Nate Silver: GOP Probably Wins Senate, Driven by Obama's Low Ratings
Monday, 24 Mar 2014
By Melanie Batley
The Republican Party will probably take back the Senate in November's midterm elections, election guru ESPN's Nate Silver says, helped by low approval ratings for President Barack Obama.
The former New York Times statistician, best known for accurately predicting the outcome of every state in the 2012 presidential election, gives the GOP a 60 percent chance of winning control of the chamber, and expects the party will pick up six seats, the exact number it needs to gain a one-vote majority.
What's more, Silver says the party has a 30 percent chance of winning big, possibly picking up as many as 11 seats.
"We think the Republicans are now slight favorites to win at least six seats and capture the chamber," Silver wrote on FiveThirtyEight.com, his website designed to aggregate and analyze data on a range of issues.
"The Democrats’ position has deteriorated somewhat since last summer, with President Obama’s approval ratings down to 42 or 43 percent from an average of about 45 percent before. Furthermore, as compared with 2010 or 2012, the GOP has done a better job of recruiting credible candidates, with some exceptions."
The forecast is a significant improvement from Silver's estimation in July that the race for control of the Senate was a toss-up.
Appearing Sunday on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Silver said the Democrat-held seats most likely to be picked up by Republicans this year are West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana, and Arkansas.
Silver predicted another four Democrat seats could be a toss-up: Louisiana, North Carolina, Alaska, and Michigan.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee released a rebuttal to Silver's findings in a memo Monday morning, according to The Washington Post.
"Nate Silver and the staff at FiveThirtyEight are doing groundbreaking work, but, as they have noted, they have to base their forecasts on a scarce supply of public polls. In some cases, more than half of these polls come from GOP polling outfits," DSCC Executive Director Guy Cecil wrote.
Cecil pointed to red states where Democrats exceeded expectations in 2012, such as North Dakota and Montana. He did acknowledge that Silver's predictions highlight the risks Democrats face.
"We don't minimize the challenges ahead. Rather, we view the latest projection as a reminder that we have a challenging map and important work still to do in order to preserve our majority," Cecil wrote, according to the Post.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Nate-Silver-FiveThirtyEight-Senate-2014-midterms/2014/03/24/id/561253#ixzz2wtuWud2P
-
More evidence the Republican Party is dead.
Larry Sabato: 'It's Going to Be a Good Republican Year'
Tuesday, 25 Mar 2014
By Bill Hoffmann
There's no question the Republican Party will prosper at the polls this year, according to Dr. Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.
"It’s going to be a good Republican year, the question is, is it going to be a great Republican year?" Sabato told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"There's no forecaster on earth who could tell you that precisely right now."
Among the states poised to see the GOP thrive during November's midterm elections to the Senate are Alaska, Louisiana, Michigan, Iowa and Colorado, according to Sabato.
"The Republicans are guaranteed to gain at least three or four seats. It seems to us that the number is increasing as time goes on," he said.
"The reason we don't issue a hard and fast number right now is because you can't predict the results of low-turnout primaries.
"That's the one place where people in my business, election forecasting, are particularly bad. You have to wait until the primaries are finished to put a number on it."
Sabato also has good news for Senate Minority Leader and Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who is being challenged from both sides.
"We have bet on McConnell to win the primary handily against [tea party favorite] Matt Bevin and we believe he will defeat the Democratic nominee [and Kentucky Secretary of State] Alison Lundergan Grimes," Sabato said.
"[It's] mainly because in the general, President [Barack] Obama is in the mid-30s in [the polls in] Kentucky.
"How do you get a Democrat elected against a Republican incumbent when the leader of the Democratic party is in the mid-30s?"
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/republicans-larry-sabato/2014/03/25/id/561682#ixzz2x1wBW81k
-
Impossible. The Republican Party is dead. Isn't that what I keep hearing?
Nope, they're good for congress. It's the white house they're gonna have a really hard time getting.
-
The evidence of the GOP's demise is just pouring in.
Poll: GOP has 2014 enthusiasm advantage
Posted by
CNN Political Editor Paul Steinhauser
Washington (CNN) – Republicans have an edge in enthusiasm over Democrats as the Midterm Election season begins to heat up, according to a new national survey.
Seventy percent of registered Republican voters questioned in a new CBS News poll say they are very or somewhat excited about voting in November, compared to 58% of Democrats. Only 47% of independent voters say they're very or somewhat excited to cast ballots in the midterms. And 81% of registered Republicans say they'll definitely vote in November, compared to 68% of registered Democrats.
Voter intensity is just one of a slew of indicators used to gauge what may actually happen come election day, and is not always accurate.
"These data are best read as a reflection of the enthusiasm difference as the campaign starts, rather than as predictive of turnout," adds the release from CBS News.
A vote for or against Obama?
President Obama's not on the ballot come November, but Republicans are framing the contests as a referendum on the President and his policies, especially the Affordable Care Act, which is commonly known as Obamacare. The poll indicates that 29% see the midterms as a chance to vote against Obama, with 19% seeing their vote as a move to support the President. Forty-six percent say the President's not a factor in their vote.
"Most Republican voters (52%) see the upcoming midterm elections as a chance to vote against the President. By contrast, fewer Democrats (43%) see 2014 as a chance to support President Obama. For most independents (55%) the President isn't a factor at all – but those who see a connection are breaking more than two-to-one against him," says the CBS release.
According to the poll, Republicans and Democrats are deadlocked at 39% in the generic ballot question. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey indicated the GOP holding an insignificant one-point margin (44%-43%) over the Democrats.
The generic ballot question, which asks to choose between a Democrat or Republican in respondents' congressional district without identifying the candidates, is one of the most commonly used indicators when it comes to the battle for Congress. But since the battle for the House of Representatives are 435 individual races rather than one national contest, the poll results are a long way from predicting what will happen in midterm elections.
State of Play
Democrats hold a 55-45 majority in the Senate (53 Democrats and two independents who caucus with the party), but are defending 21 of the 36 seats up in November, with half of those Democratic-held seats in red or purple states.
In the House, Democrats need to pick up 17 GOP-held seats to win back control of the Republican-led chamber, a feat political handicappers say is unlikely considering the shrinking number of competitive congressional districts.
When it comes to governors' races, the GOP's defending 22 of the 36 seats up for grabs in November. And some of them are in states that Obama carried in both 2008 and 2012, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Maine, Nevada and New Mexico.
The CBS News poll was conducted March 20-23, with 1,097 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/26/poll-gop-has-2014-enthusiasm-advantage/
-
Purple Strategies' Usher: GOP Poised for Midterm Election Gains
Wednesday, 09 Apr 2014
By Aaron Stern
As President Barack Obama's popularity goes, so will go the Democrats who face midterm elections this year -- and if Obama's approval ratings get much lower, those candidates will be in deep trouble.
Already things don't look great for them, Doug Usher, pollster and director of research for Purple Strategies, told J.D. Hayworth and John Bachman on "America's Forum" on Newsmax TV.
"It's pretty clear there's more enthusiasm among Republicans than there is among Democrats, which is noted in that cross-tab [poll]," Usher said. "Also, there's some other atmospheric issues that are problematic."
Among those atmospheric conditions are the widespread concerns over the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Republicans will look to seize upon discontent with Obamacare, while Democrats will look to minimize those concerns.
"What you're going to see is Democrats are going to say it's not that big a deal and Republicans are going to say it's a referendum on the president," Usher said.
Midterm elections are typically as much a referendum on the sitting president as anything else. Obama's approval ratings range between 45 and 50 percent – well above George W. Bush in his sixth year, and well below Bill Clinton's in his sixth year, when he was the only modern president to gain Senate seats in the midterm election of his second term in office, Usher said.
Five months out, a lot remains to be determined. But right now things don't look great for Democrats, Usher said.
"I also caution that it's a bit early to make predictions about what's going to happen in November, but if you were to make odds bets right now, it certainly would be on Republican advances both in the House and the Senate," he said.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/polls-popularity-ratings/2014/04/09/id/564646#ixzz2yQyv5UBP
-
Poll: 2014 looks worse for Dems than 2010
By Chris Stirewalt
Published April 29, 2014
FoxNews.com
POLL: 2014 LOOKS WORSE FOR DEMS THAN 2010
It’s never been worse for President Obama in the Washington Post/ABC News poll, which finds him at a 41 percent job approval rating, about 13 points below his standing in the poll at this time in 2010, the year when his party got creamed in midterm elections. We’ve talked about the tsunami alert for Democrats this fall, but the sirens are getting too loud even for partisans and wishful thinkers on the left to ignore. There is no common measure so predictive of a party’s performance in congressional races than the job approval rating of a president of the same party. And Obama is looking increasingly like a toxic asset for Democrats desperate to cling to a Senate majority.
[Matters foreign and domestic - WaPo: “Just 42 percent approve of [President Obama’s] handling of the economy, 37 percent approve of how he is handling the implementation of [ObamaCare] and 34 percent approve of his handling of the situation involving Ukraine and Russia.”]
Out of pocket - The Washington Post/ABC News poll was heralded by Democrats last month when it showed opposition to ObamaCare softening and the nation evenly divided on the law. That has evaporated. Support for the law dropped 5 points, while opposition remained firm. Why? Fifty-eight percent of respondents said ObamaCare is causing overall health costs in the country costs to rise, but a worse harbinger for Democrats this fall: 47 percent of respondents said the law will increase their own health costs, while just 8 percent said they would pay less because of the law. The Post has it right in describing last month’s results: “That finding was more positive for the administration than most other polls at the time. Democrats saw it as a possible leading indicator of a shift in public opinion, but that has not materialized.”
Any Questions? - Reuters: “Sylvia Mathews Burwell, President Barack Obama's nominee for U.S. health secretary, will appear before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee on May 8 for the first of two confirmation hearings, a committee official said on Monday.”
Killer stat - Even as the poll shows voters agreeing with Democrats on key issues like increasing the minimum wage and even the overall subject of health care, one statistic explains why the majority party may be in even worse trouble than 2010, and it’s all about Obama: “Registered voters by 53-39% say they’d rather see the Republicans in control of Congress as a counterbalance to Obama’s policies than a Democratic-led Congress to help support him.” The main aim of voters would appear to be to block the president’s agenda, which is kind of the GOP’s whole jam these days.
[‘Not working as planned’ - In a new poll from the pro-ObamaCare Kaiser Family Foundation, 43 percent of respondents were able to correctly identify, when prompted, that “about 8 million” people signed up for ObamaCare. But when asked how the implementation of the law, 57 percent of voters said “it’s clear the law is not working as planned,” while 38 percent said “now the law is basically working as intended.”]
Predictive elements - Polls like this matter because they may be predictive, but are also just as important for how they can sap political parties of the ability to raise money and organize. If Democrats believe that the Senate is a lost cause, it would be much more appealing to focus on moving Hillary Clinton farther left ahead of 2016 or even funding a liberal mayor’s campaign than it would be to shove money at a red-state Democrat whose race may be a lost cause. Or consider this from the Harvard Institute of Politics survey of Millennial voters out this morning: “…less than one-in-four (23%) young Americans say they will ‘definitely be voting’ in November, a sharp drop of 11 percentage points from five months ago (34%). Among the most likely voters, the poll also finds traditional Republican constituencies showing more enthusiasm than Democratic ones for participating in the upcoming midterms, with 44 percent of 2012 Mitt Romney voters saying they will definitely be voting - a statistically significant difference compared to the 35 percent of 2012 Barack Obama voters saying the same.”
Baier Tracks: Pressure’s on… - “This far out from an election there is a tendency to over read the importance of one poll or another in the grand political mosaic that we all try to decipher every week. But… A recent spate of polls culminating with the Washington Post/ABC News poll out this morning suggests Democrats have a lot to fear in six months. As President Obama's approval hits a new low for the poll, 53 percent of the registered voters polled thought it would be a good thing if Republicans controlled all of Congress to counterbalance the administration. Only 37 percent approved of his handling of the health law and even fewer (34 percent) approve of his handle of the Ukraine crisis. As more polls show similar bad news for Democrats, we may soon see what Fox News First has been telegraphing for some time: more and more vulnerable red-state Democrats will feel compelled to make a louder stand against the administration on one thing or another. Reporters should get ready for a boatload of press releases from Democrats looking to change the subject. That’s what voters are already getting every day in the form of campaign ads.” – Bret Baier.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/29/poll-2014-looks-worse-for-dems-than-2010/
-
it's starting to be the pattern now. Repubs will do great in the off-years, and dems will keep on wrecking them in the presidential races.
nobody expects or wants the dems to win the house.
-
it's starting to be the pattern now. Repubs will do great in the off-years, and dems will keep on wrecking them in the presidential races.
nobody expects or wants the dems to win the house.
Its local and state elections versus national elections. Demographic changes and the minority and youth votes matter more in national elections.
-
It's the norm for the opposite party to win the mid term elections. With a few minor exceptions, history has shown that. It is to be expected.
-
It's the norm for the opposite party to win the mid term elections. With a few minor exceptions, history has shown that. It is to be expected.
in 2010, everyone said it was a sign of things to come, that the tide had turned.
Then, 2 years later, the tea party influence was gone. They couldn't even get a conservative on the national ticket.
Today? Today it seems the GOP has gotten the tea party back under control. Rand is putting on his John Boehnner mask every day, Rubio wears a McCain t-shirt everywhere. Palin can't get a word in. Cruz is about the ONLY tea party voice getting any mileage, and he's being minimized by his own party and FOX now.
-
It's the norm for the opposite party to win the mid term elections. With a few minor exceptions, history has shown that. It is to be expected.
It's not the norm for a party that is dead to keep winning elections.
-
It's not the norm for a party that is dead to keep winning elections.
Seems to me that they lost the last big one. Twice.
-
Seems to me that they lost the last big one. Twice.
Yeah - cause all the emotion driven single issue idiots came out of the woodwork lined up for free stuff
-
Seems to me that they lost the last big one. Twice.
Yes, and won the House, made gains in the Senate, hold most of the governorships, and a majority of the state legislatures. And poised to retake the Senate.
Doesn't sound like a party that is dead to me.
-
Yes, and won the House, made gains in the Senate, hold most of the governorships, and a majority of the state legislatures. And poised to retake the Senate.
Doesn't sound like a party that is dead to me.
true. the white house doesn't matter. Obama hasn't been able to cripple economy, install universal healthcare, or do any other kind of 'real' damage. I'd say having the white house is pretty meaningless, actually.
-
::)
-
::)
Hard to argue w the point that o-fag has crippled the nation, healthcare sucks, etc.
-
Hard to argue w the point that o-fag has crippled the nation, healthcare sucks, etc.
He did, it does, etc., but that has nothing to do with whether the Republican party is dead That was the point. But people like 240 are too busy worshiping Obama to deal with that issue.
-
He did, it does, etc., but that has nothing to do with whether the Republican party is dead That was the point. But people like 240 are too busy worshiping Obama to deal with that issue.
No doubt
-
He did, it does, etc., but that has nothing to do with whether the Republican party is dead That was the point. But people like 240 are too busy worshiping Obama to deal with that issue.
I keep hearing how the repub party has so much power. but I keep hearing about how much damage that Obama is doing to america.
I'm pretty sure BOTH can't be true. And since I can SEE the damage obama is doing...
-
I keep hearing how the repub party has so much power. but I keep hearing about how much damage that Obama is doing to america.
I'm pretty sure BOTH can't be true. And since I can SEE the damage obama is doing...
The damage Obama s doing does not impact his core base of fanatics
-
I keep hearing how the repub party has so much power. but I keep hearing about how much damage that Obama is doing to america.
I'm pretty sure BOTH can't be true. And since I can SEE the damage obama is doing...
What you keep hearing from some is that the Republican party is dead. That isn't supported by the facts.
Nobody is talking about how much power they have. But you're so enamored by the president that you cannot focus on that issue (the fact the Republican party is not dead or dying).
-
What you keep hearing from some is that the Republican party is dead. That isn't supported by the facts.
Nobody is talking about how much power they have. But you're so enamored by the president that you cannot focus on that issue (the fact the Republican party is not dead or dying).
maybe they're not dead. But they lack the ability to
1) stop a dem from being elected prez
2) stop that dem from implementing a hugely damaging policy.
so maybe they're alive, but they sure aren't effective.
-
maybe they're not dead. But they lack the ability to
1) stop a dem from being elected prez
2) stop that dem from implementing a hugely damaging policy.
so maybe they're alive, but they sure aren't effective.
Ah, how could they stop #2 when Democrats controlled both houses?
How effective are the Dems when having control of every branch the only thing they could come up with was the most ineffective and destructive legislation ever?
You really have a hard time with history, legislative process and the inability to distinguish between doing victory laps for passing a law and its effect on society. Anyone can pass a law. But, what good does it come from that law? I think the latter should be of highest importance.
But, hey, I am sure this time around you will have time to vote for Paul. Rand Paul.
Uninformed, lazy voters like you is why they can't achieve #1.
-
Ah, how could they stop #2 when Democrats controlled both houses?
That changed in January 2010 when Repubs took over the house.
Scoot Brown 41 was supposed to stop obamacare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#House
And you're saying obama hasn't damaged America since January 2011?
it's easy to claim repubs are effective, and it's easy to claim obama is destorying america with his legislation. It's difficult to combine the 2.
-
Ah, how could they stop #2 when Democrats controlled both houses?
How effective are the Dems when having control of every branch the only thing they could come up with was the most ineffective and destructive legislation ever?
You really have a hard time with history, legislative process and the inability to distinguish between doing victory laps for passing a law and its effect on society. Anyone can pass a law. But, what good does it come from that law? I think the latter should be of highest importance.
But, hey, I am sure this time around you will have time to vote for Paul. Rand Paul.
Uninformed, lazy voters like you is why they can't achieve #1.
Yep. I agree with this.
-
This Just Might Be The Worst Poll Yet For Democrats
BRETT LOGIURATO
MAY 5, 2014
The Republican Party is at its strongest point in two decades heading into midterm elections, according to a new Pew Research-USA Today poll, the latest daunting sign for Democrats ahead of campaign season.
The GOP is at an even stronger point than in previous "wave" elections in 1994 and 2010 and looks poised to make major gains — and possibly take control of the U.S. Senate.
According to the poll, out Monday, Republicans have a 47-43 lead on the generic congressional ballot. That's a 10-point swing from October, when Democrats, boosted by GOP blame for the federal government shutdown, held a 6-point lead in the Pew poll.
Overall, Democrats are plagued by the still-sluggish economy, the unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act, and the undesirable views of President Obama. More voters (26%) say their vote will be "against" the president. Only 16% say their vote will be "for" Obama. And by more than a 2-to-1 margin, voters say they want the next president to pursue policies different from the Obama administration's priorities.
As has been seen in other polls showing trouble for Democrats this year, the party is hampered by a lack of enthusiasm. For example, only 31% of Democratic voters say their vote is "for" Obama. In 2010, that number was 47%.
Some of the other troubling signs for Democrats:
Obama's approval rating sits at 44%, compared with 50% who disapprove.
Although last Friday's jobs report showed the unemployment rate dropping to its lowest level since 2008, most people (65%) say jobs are still difficult to find. And while 25% of voters think the economy will get better next year, about an equal number think it'll get worse.
The percentage of voters who disapprove of the Affordable Care Act (55%) is still tied for the highest in the law's history.
Below is a good chart from Pew that sums up the state of play this election season. Overall, it looks as if Republicans are poised for a stronger campaign than their gains in 2010. But it does not appear that they will have gains on par with the Democratic Party in 2006, when Democrats gained six seats in the Senate and 31 in the House amid the peak of President George W. Bush's unpopularity.
http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-elections-republicans-democrats-obama-2014-5#ixzz30xZg74ne
-
Larry Sabato: Conditions Not Good for Democrats in November
Tuesday, 13 May 2014
By Melissa Clyne
Adopting meteorological metaphors, Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia Center for Politics predicts a Republican wave — possibly a tidal wave — in November’s midterm elections, Politico reports.
While Democrats "can hope for fearsome-sounding waves that crash loudly but do little structural damage, Republicans … are rooting for an impressive tidal wave, if not a full-fledged historic tsunami," he said.
There’s an expectation that the GOP has at least a 50 percent or better likelihood of winning the needed six seats to regain control of the Senate and "dethrone Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid," he said.
"We know that the president is unpopular, the president’s party typically performs poorly in midterms, and the Democrats are overextended on this year’s Senate map," according to Sabato. "One of the ways the Republicans could hurt their chances is by running bad candidates in some of these races."
Under a forecast most favorable to Democrats, they would add a seat – either in Georgia or Kentucky – or at worst, limit the GOP’s pickups to five (Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia). But according to Sabato, the chances of the former occurring is "a miniscule notch above zero," while the latter is probable only if President Barack Obama stabilizes, and Republicans make a gaffe or two.
Under current conditions, he writes, the forecast calls for the GOP to add the needed six seats (he predicts Alaska, Arkansas, Montana, Louisiana, South Dakota, and West Virginia), with a "likely best plausible Republican result" if there’s a GOP surge and an Obama fail. Under those elements, Colorado, Iowa, and North Carolina would also move to the right.
A Republican tidal wave – a gain of 11 seats – stands just an "outside chance," according to Sabato, while a tsunami – a gain of 14 seats – is unlikely unless Obama has a "near-total collapse" and Democrats run subpar campaigns.
Sabato fingers 14 Democratic seats as "marginally practical targets" for the GOP. In order of vulnerability, they are South Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alaska, North Carolina, Iowa, Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Virginia, and Oregon.
Democrats should prepare to let go of the Mount Rushmore State and the Mountain State, according to Sabato, since both have put up strong Republican candidates and in the case of South Dakota, national Democrats have done little to help likely nominee Rick Weiland.
"Put it all together, and the current forecast calls for a wave that’s more than a ripple but less than a tsunami – a four- to eight-seat addition for the Republicans, with the higher end of the range being a shade likelier than the lower," Sabato writes. "For Harry Reid, that would be a big-enough splash."
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Larry-Sabato-Senate-midterm-elections/2014/05/13/id/571041#ixzz31ccWWC5U
-
Fox News Poll: Republicans have edge in 2014 midterm ballot test
By Dana Blanton
Published June 05, 2014
FoxNews.com
The latest Fox News poll finds that if the 2014 midterm elections were held today, 43 percent of voters would back the Republican candidate in their House district, while 39 percent would vote for the Democrat.
Of course the election isn’t today. It’s five months away. And for the fifth straight time this year, the results on this congressional generic ballot question have reversed in our Fox News poll.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLL RESULTS
Last month, the Democratic candidate had the edge by three percentage points. In April, the Republican was up by three. In March, it was Democrats +2 and before that it was GOP +2.
Democratic pollster Chris Anderson says this indicates an unsettled environment among voters.
“That said,” Anderson adds, “most other findings in the poll suggest an increasingly favorable environment for the Republicans heading toward the midterms.”
Anderson conducts the Fox News poll with Republican pollster Daron Shaw. Shaw notes his party’s advantage grows when looking only at those voters who are “extremely” or “very” interested in the election: 48 percent would back the GOP candidate, while 37 percent would support the Democrat. That’s almost unchanged from last month when the Republican candidate was favored 46-39 percent.
“What drives the difference between the overall results and the subgroup of interested voters is that 61 percent of Republicans are interested in the upcoming election, while just 55 percent of Democrats are,” Shaw says. “What might concern Republicans is that interest in the election among their party faithful is down five points from last month, while interest is up five points among Democrats.”
Even so, by an 11-point margin, voters think the Republican Party is better on foreign policy, and by a 10-point margin it is seen as the party that would work harder to reduce taxes. The GOP also has a slim four-point edge on being seen as the party that would do more to improve the economy. Republicans are seen as more “pro-business” by a whopping 44-point margin.
To varying degrees, independents favor the Republican Party on each issue tested, and prefer the GOP candidate on the generic vote by 14-points.
Poll pourri
By a five-point margin, voters think a Republican politician is more likely to lie to them than a Democrat. Still, the largest number -- 46 percent -- says both politicians are equally likely to lie to the public.
Among independents, 10 percent say a Democratic politician is more likely to lie to them, 12 percent say a Republican and 69 percent say “both.”
Overall, first-time candidates (37 percent) and incumbents (36 percent) are seen as equally likely to lie. Another 22 percent says “both.”
Speaking of incumbents, 78 percent of voters disapprove of the job Congress is doing. Just 13 percent approve.
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,006 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from June 1-3, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/05/fox-news-poll-republicans-have-edge-in-2014-midterm-ballot-test/?intcmp=latestnews
-
Gallup: Midterms Look Grim for Democrats
Friday, 01 Aug 2014
By Sandy Fitzgerald
Slightly more Americans identify politically as being Democrats than Republicans, but that isn't enough to overcome voters' major dissatisfaction with President Barack Obama, the economy, and other factors — and could spell a tough time for Democrats at the polls this year, a new Gallup Poll concludes.
According to the poll, released Thursday, 42 percent of Americans say they are Democrats or they are Democratic-leaning independents, and 40 percent say they are Republicans or lean right.
But that advantage doesn't bode well when compared to historical patterns. The numbers parallel what Gallup found at the same point during similar midterm years of 1994, 2002, and 2010 that went strongly Republican at the polls, not was measured when Democrats went strong in 1998 and 2006.
When paired with a June Gallup Poll that revealed that just one in four Americans are satisfied with the direction in which the country is heading, and showing that Obama's popularity is at the same low point as in 2010, the pollster said that the indicators are pointing to many difficulties for Democrats once again.
In 2010, when the president's job approval rating hovered around the 40-percent mark, Democrats ended up losing more than 60 House seats.
"Only two presidents have had lower job approval ratings in recent midterm elections — George W. Bush in 2006 and Ronald Reagan in 1982," Gallup pointed out in June.
"In those years, the president's party lost more than 20 seats, suggesting seat loss is not always proportional to presidential job approval, but underscoring the peril the president's party faces when his approval rating is below 50%."
In the more recent poll, Gallup noted that the indicators will not likely change by November, so the Democratic Party will have to "match or exceed Republican turnout this fall if they hope to keep control of the Senate and minimize the size of the Republican majority in the House."
Another issue is that more Republicans tend to vote than Democrats in midterm elections, and the advantage "leaves the Democratic Party politically vulnerable in midterm election years when they do not have a significant cushion in partisanship," said Gallup.
In fact, in years like this one, when Democrats have a slightly higher percentage, Republican turnout advantages have led to GOP victories for House seats in 1994, 2002, and 2010, the report said.
In addition, the seats gained could be determined by structural factors, the report said, including how parties performed in the last election. Republicans gained seats in 1994 and 2010 after the executive and legislative branches of government were controlled by Democrats, and after former President Barack Obama's approval ratings were in the mid-40s in 1994, much like Obama's were in 2010.
But as Republicans already control the House of Representatives, the GOP is more likely to make its big gains in the Senate, replacing many incumbents who were elected in 2008.
The new poll was conducted from July 1-30 with a random sample of 14,718 adults aged 18 and older. Results based on the full sample have a margin of error of plus or minus 1 percentage point.
Meanwhile, The New York Times, which conducts a daily computerized analysis of the upcoming election, Friday said Republicans have a 54 percent likelihood of wresting control of the Senate away from Democrats. But the newspaper is still declaring the November election to be "essentially the same as a coin flip.
The newspaper ranks six Democratic incumbents in the most danger of losing their seats to Republicans: John Walsh of Montana, with a 96 percent likelihood; Mark Pryor, Arkansas, 74 percent; Mary Landrieu, Louisiana, 60 percent; Mark Udall, Colorado, 40 percent; Kay Hagan, North Carolina, 39 percent; and Mark Begich, Alaska, at 38 percent.
Also on Thursday, Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said at a luncheon with reporters that he considers the likelihood that Republicans will retake the Senate higher today than when he took control of the group in 2012, reports The Daily Caller.
He said Republicans are expected to pick up seats from Democrats in 12 to 14 states, but Republicans only need to turn six states to win back the Senate.
The most likely seats to be taken, said Moran, are in West Virginia, Montana, and South Dakota, which he described as "solidly red states, and they have good candidates, excellent candidates, and Democrat opposition is not at that caliber."
Other key target states, Moran said, are Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Alaska, where Democratic incumbents are seeking reelection in red states.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gallup-midterms-democrats-difficult/2014/08/01/id/586311#ixzz39A74cZ00
-
The latest Fox News poll finds that if the 2014 midterm elections were held today, 43 percent of voters would back the Republican candidate in their House district, while 39 percent would vote for the Democrat.
I cannot believe... after Dems have stood by obama thru so much crap, that only 43% of voters aren't sure they'd vote republican.
I expected the Repubs number to be much higher, to be honest. I think once they find some sort of unifying message, their numbers will rise. There are a lot of far-right voters who voted/supported Bush - but didn't do the same for Mccain or Romney (both rinos).
Once the repubs wise up and add a true far-right conservative to some tickets, that 43% number will rise. But right now, why would any repub wake up and go knock on doors to tell his neighbors why Boehnner's "act now on immigration!" policy is superior to Obama's "do nothing" policy.
Reagan said it is better to do nothing, than to do the wrong thing. Thank goodness for Cruz, stopping RINO boehnner.
yeah, you put ted cruz on a ticket, watch that 43% number become 53%.
-
Dumbass...4% on a generic ballot in house races is considered a pretty healthy margin.
-
Dumbass...4% on a generic ballot in house races is considered a pretty healthy margin.
but it's not 52 to 48... we're talking a 4% lead with EIGHTEEN percent still undecided. That's massive. The lead is 4, and 18% still don't know either way.
Look, if you've been eating obama shit sandwiches for 6 years... and you STILL don't know if you're going to vote against him this time? lol... um, sorry, but that's not a vote I'd count on, as a republican.
Toss in the fact that many will say yes on the phone but won't bother to show up to vote for a RINO/amnesty supporter...
i'd say 4% is a great lead... but 18% undecided is pretty scary for the party claiming to be the alternative to a highly unpopular president.
-
James Carville: Are we facing a GOP takeover in 2014?
By James Carville - 08/05/14
Democrats, myself included, tend to respect and value expertise, and find that people who have established a record of accuracy and developed a model that’s proven to be beneficial over time should be people accorded great deference when they opine on a topic that they have demonstrated past mastery over.
You don’t hear complaints about skewered polls, global cooling, tax cuts paying for themselves, people riding dinosaurs and other silly crap like that from Democrats. So that is why it’s disturbing news that David Wasserman, from The Cook Political Report, who is a smart person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like, recently changed his House rating’s model toward favoring Republicans. 538.com’s Nate Silver’s recent commentary that Republicans have a 60 percent chance of a Senate takeover is similarly disconcerting. The reasons are plentiful and valid; the obvious ones are that we’re in the sixth year of the presidential term, there’s a tepid presidential approval rating, we’re seeing high wrong-track numbers, and we’re facing an unfavorable map. In the past these numbers have proven to have a great deal of validity.
There are a couple of things that I think should give Republicans a dash of caution and the Democrats a teaspoon of hope. Looking at the just released ABC/Washington Post poll, which also has a solid reputation, we find that the Democratic Party is viewed favorably by 49 percent and the Republican Party at — hold your breath — 35 percent. Now ponder this for a second: in essence, in what other endeavor would you be selling something attached to a brand so unpopular and expect success? And yet so many people conclude that how people view a political party has nothing to do with their vote. By the way, these have to be among historically high numbers for party favorability differential.
The favorable differential is reflected in self-described party ID. Remember, pollsters said long ago not to pay as much attention to how a voter is registered as how a voter identifies him or herself. According to the ABC/Washington Post poll, 32 percent of Americans identify themselves as Democrats versus only 22 percent who claim to be Republicans. Other polls, including from Democracy Corps, have shown similar gaps in both party image and self-described political identification. I do not doubt that Wasserman and Silver have arrived at their consensus out of anything other than a high degree of professionalism. I just wonder why they are placing such a large bet on a party that so few people like and even less want to identify with.
http://thehill.com/opinion/james-carville/214414-james-carville-are-we-facing-a-gop-takeover-in-2014#ixzz39djj3GF3
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/out-of-touch-gop-rapidly_b_5650490.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
The Republican Leadership may be doing just fine with the Wall Street crowd and extremists who oppose birth control, but for the majority of ordinary Americans its actions over the last several weeks have rapidly begun to seal its fate as a minority party.
First, let's start with the fact that the Republican Party is -- at this very moment -- a distinctly minority party in American politics.
The Gallup poll reports that the number of Americans identifying as Republicans has fallen to its lowest level in the quarter century it has been tracking the number: 25 percent.
Republicans lost the last presidential popular election by almost five million votes.
The FEC reports that combining the total number of votes cast by Americans for president, House and Senate in 2012, Americans voted for the GOP 158,605,000 times and for the Democrats 176,167,000 times. In other words they cast over 17 million more Democratic votes than Republican votes in 2012.
And even though Republican gerrymandering allowed the party to maintain control of the House by a slim margin, 1.17 million more votes were cast for Democratic House candidates than for Republicans.
Right now, GOP hopes for victories do not rest on their ability to appeal democratically to the majority of voters. They hinge entirely on successful gerrymandering and voter suppression policies that reduce the turnout of ordinary Americans. That means their hopes for political success in the future rest on very, very thin ice. And -- amazingly -- they seem to be doing everything they can to make the ice that separates them from complete political marginality thinner and thinner.
-
honestly, the power of the executive order is so obvious now...
Repubs can win both houses... can they really stop obama?
in 2010, it was all "Scott brown41, we can finally stop obama!" and voila, he and john roberts found a way to get obamacare's jizz all over our collective faces.
Obama does what he wants. Some can complain and try to take high moral ground, but at this point, it's been 6 years of Repubs whining to their base on FOX news, and even though they cleaned his clock in 2010... they weren't really able to STOP anything.
So will the Repubs owning the Senate change anything meaningful, or stand in obama's path, in any way?
-
honestly, the power of the executive order is so obvious now...
Repubs can win both houses... can they really stop obama?
in 2010, it was all "Scott brown41, we can finally stop obama!" and voila, he and john roberts found a way to get obamacare's jizz all over our collective faces.
Obama does what he wants. Some can complain and try to take high moral ground, but at this point, it's been 6 years of Repubs whining to their base on FOX news, and even though they cleaned his clock in 2010... they weren't really able to STOP anything.
So will the Repubs owning the Senate change anything meaningful, or stand in obama's path, in any way?
Taking the Senate isn't going to change anything. Obama might not get anything else done, but it's only two years. ::) Duh!!! The most radical pieces of his administration have already gone through. GOP = day late, dollar short.
-
CNN Poll: Mitch McConnell Has Narrow Lead on Democrat Grimes
Wednesday, 03 Sep 2014
By Greg Richter
Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has a 4 point lead over Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes in his re-election bid for his Kentucky Senate seat, according to a new CNN/ ORC International Poll.
The poll shows McConnell with 50 percent support to Grimes' 46 percent. The difference falls exactly within the poll's 4 point margin of error.
Kentucky is a rare instance where Democrats believe they have a chance at taking a Republican-held seat this year. It also would be symbolic for them to defeat McConnell, who is set to become majority leader if the GOP takes control of the Senate.
Vote Now: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance?
But the poll also showed President Barack Obama's approval rating in the state at 33 percent, attributable partly to his position against coal. Kentucky is a major coal-producing state.
That has forced Grimes to distance herself from Obama and run on a pro-coal platform.
The poll was conducted by telephone between Aug. 28 and Sept. 1, with a sampling of 11,037 adults, including 671 likely voters.
http://www.Newsmax.com/Politics/Mitch-McConnell-Grimes-Kentucky-poll/2014/09/03/id/592466/#ixzz3CNb0WuSL
-
Fox News poll: GOP has advantage in upcoming midterm election
By Dana Blanton
Published September 11, 2014
FoxNews.com
American voters disagree with President Obama that the economy is in better shape today than in 2008. Most are unhappy with ObamaCare. And optimism about the future of the country is down. With only 54 days until Election Day, these sentiments are pretty well baked into the cake -- boosting Republican candidates in a new Fox News poll.
The poll, released Thursday, also shows that nearly as many people say their household income has gone down as say it has gone up during Obama’s presidency (36 percent gone down vs. 42 percent gone up).
CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLL RESULTS
By a 14 percentage-point margin, those in homes with annual income less than $50,000 are more likely to say their income has gone down. Those in higher-income households say, by a 23-point margin, their income has gone up.
More voters are optimistic (57 percent) than pessimistic (38 percent) about the future of the country. Yet that’s a sharp decline from the 40-point optimism edge in 2012 (66-26 percent).
Sentiment today looks a lot like four years ago, before the 2010 midterms, when voters were more optimistic by 27 points (61-34 percent). When Obama took office in January 2009, 77 percent felt optimistic about the country’s future and 20 percent pessimistic.
The president recently claimed that “by almost every measure” the nation’s economy and American workers are better off now than when he took office. Voters dismiss his boast as “mostly false” by a 58-36 percent margin. That includes 37 percent of Democrats who think it doesn’t ring true.
More than twice as many voters think the new health care law “went too far” (48 percent) as think it “didn’t go far enough” (21 percent). About a quarter thinks ObamaCare is “about right” (24 percent).
Men, women, those under age 45 and over age 45, voters from higher and lower income households -- all are more likely to say ObamaCare went too far.
Most voters who think the new health care law went too far plan to support the Republican candidate in their House district this fall, while most of those who think it didn’t go far enough or it’s about right plan to vote for the Democrat.
Overall, when asked who they would back if the Congressional election were today, 47 percent of likely voters say the Republican candidate in their district and 40 percent the Democrat. Recent Fox News polls of registered voters have shown a narrow Democratic advantage, although the lead bounced back and forth between the two parties for most of the spring and summer.
Almost all Republicans and Democrats plan to vote for their party’s candidate. Independents are twice as likely to say they would back the Republican over the Democrat, yet the largest number say they would vote for a third-party candidate or are still undecided.
In states with active U.S. Senate races, likely voters would back the Republican candidate in that race by a 48-39 percent margin. And when looking at the results in just the 14 Fox News battleground states, that GOP edge widens to 53-35 percent among likely voters.
Call it the ISIS effect: equal numbers of voters now say terrorism is the most important issue to their vote as say the economy: 41 percent say each will be “extremely” important in their decision. Four years ago, 57 percent said the economy would be “extremely” important, while 41 percent said terrorism (September 2010).
Today 36 percent say government spending and 35 percent say health care will be “extremely” important to their vote for Congress, followed by immigration (32 percent), foreign policy (29 percent) and abortion (23 percent).
Pollpourri
Most voters continue to think Congress stinks at its job: 78 percent disapprove of the job lawmakers are doing. Just 13 percent approve. Moreover, approval of Congress has been below 20 percent since August 2011.
Voters say Obama’s recent push to increase the minimum wage is more about trying to win votes in the midterm elections (48 percent) than about helping working people (40 percent).
Still, 52 percent favor increasing the minimum wage, while 26 percent oppose it and another 20 percent say there shouldn’t even be a minimum wage in the first place.
Eighty percent of Democrats think the federal government should increase the rate. That’s almost twice the number of independents (44 percent) and more than three times the number of Republicans who feel that way (26 percent).
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,000 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from September 7-9, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. For the subgroup of 883 likely voters, the margin of sampling error is also plus or minus three points.
The Fox News battleground states in this poll were: Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, New Hampshire, South Dakota and West Virginia.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/11/fox-news-poll-gop-has-advantage-in-upcoming-midterm-election/?intcmp=latestnews
-
Nate Silver: Odds of GOP Senate Takeover Significantly Down
Tuesday, 16 Sep 2014
By Melanie Batley
The Republican Party's chances of taking control of the Senate have decreased significantly as the fortunes of Democrats in key states have surged, says Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com.
According to the former New York Times statistician, Republican odds stand at 55 percent, a drop from 64 percent just two weeks ago.
"We've never quite settled on the semantics of when to call an election a 'tossup.' A sports bettor or poker player would grimace and probably take a 55-45 edge. But this Senate race is pretty darned close," Silver said on an article on his website.
Silver's detailed statistical model indicates that Democrats now have a stronger possibility of winning due to changes in the Senate races in Colorado and North Carolina which are currently giving the party an advantage when previously Republicans held the edge.
Silver categorizes the two states as "highly competitive purple states," among which are also Iowa, Michigan, and New Hampshire. All five seats are currently held by Democrats and, with the exception of New Hampshire, it has been in these areas where Democrats have gained ground.
He cited numerous recent polls that have shown a surge for North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan and Colorado Sen. Mark Udall.
"What's perplexing is that [the Democrat surge in purple states] has happened right as Democrats' position on the generic congressional ballot — probably the best indicator of the nation mood — has deteriorated," he said.
He added that unlike the most recent figures, average historical data from the generic ballot tended to directly correlate to performance of candidates in state-by-state Senate polls.
Silver said the influence of money in those races could be one explanation, citing massive financial advantages for the Democrats in North Carolina and Colorado, along with higher outside spending by Democratic-leaning super PACs.
"Whatever the reason, the GOP's path to a Senate majority is less robust than before."
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/nate-silver-odds-republicans-senate/2014/09/16/id/594983/#ixzz3E55qmDmt
-
Nate Silver: Odds of GOP Senate Takeover Significantly Down
But I thought bypassing the impeachment option would INCREASE the GOP's chances of taking over the Senate?
Oh no, Rush Limbaugh, please tell me what's going on, you said impeaching obama would help the Dems somehow...
-
Fight for Senate Control Down to Five States
By Stuart Rothenberg
Sept. 23, 2014
With six weeks to go, the fight for control of the Senate is down to five states, four of them currently held by Democrats.
Republicans must win only two of those contests to guarantee the 51 seats they need to control the Senate for the last two years of Barack Obama’s presidency. And they need to win only one of the Democratic states if they hold the only GOP seat at serious risk.
While things could still change — and national polls continue to show an environment that may produce a substantial GOP wave in the House and Senate — the Senate battle has boiled down to two reliably red states and three swing states.
While you can find Democrats spinning a yarn about how their party could pull off an upset in a multi-candidate race in South Dakota, that state, plus West Virginia and Montana, look poised to flip to the GOP in November.
Two Southern Democrats, Arkansas’ Mark Pryor and Louisiana’s Mary L. Landrieu, have run aggressive races as they try to survive the Republican wave that has swept over their states during the past four years. But Arkansas Republican Rep. Tom Cotton has finally opened up a small but decisive lead in his race, a lead likely to grow in the coming weeks.
Fight for Senate Control Down to Five States
Cassidy, seen here campaigning over the weekend, has a strong chance to unseat Landrieu in Louisiana. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)
The Louisiana contest will probably go to a December runoff, and while runoffs are unpredictable, the almost certain GOP alternative to Landrieu in that race, Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy, has the advantage.
If they win both races, Republicans need to net only one more seat to win Senate control, with the focus, at least right now, on Alaska, North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa and Kansas.
Mark Begich is widely credited with running the best Democratic race in the country, and he may be ahead of challenger Dan Sullivan by a couple of points. But Begich remains well under the 50 percent mark, and Alaska’s strongly Republican bent means the senator has no room for error.
Local observers are wondering whether a controversial TV spot aired by Begich’s campaign may have backfired, and the closer Election Day gets, the more difficult it may be for Begich to keep voters’ focus on the state rather than on Obama or the stakes for control of the Senate.
North Carolina is proving to be a major headache for the GOP. Not nearly as red as Alaska — Obama carried it narrowly in 2008 before losing it narrowly in 2012 — Republican challenger Thom Tillis appears to be trailing Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan by more than a couple of points.
Democrats have poured resources into this race, and by November they are likely to have out-spent Tillis, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and GOP-allied groups by $7 million.
Democratic attacks definitely hurt the challenger, particularly on education, and many Republicans are growing skeptical that Tillis can overtake the incumbent. At some point, the NRSC may have to decide whether to stay in the race or pull out. But for now, Hagan’s weakness, the state’s competitiveness and the president’s unpopularity keep this contest in play.
Colorado remains extremely competitive, and Democrats must be concerned their attacks on Gardner on cultural issues did not destroy his campaign. But Gardner’s positive personality and more moderate message, combined with a Udall fumble here and there, has clearly made this a key contest.
You don’t have to believe the recent Quinnipiac University Poll that showed the Republican nominee with a double-digit lead in the state’s gubernatorial race and Gardner ahead by 8 points (I certainly don’t) to believe Udall is in great danger.
Some observers seem to think Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley has grabbed the momentum in Iowa. But while Democrats obviously have stopped the bleeding in the Hawkeye State, the contest certainly looks like a tossup. That may be different from six weeks ago, when Republican Joni Ernst appeared to have the momentum, but it’s also very different than a year ago, when Democrats were oozing confidence in Braley.
The fifth decisive race looks to be Kansas, where Republican Sen. Pat Roberts appears to be trailing independent Greg Orman by anywhere from a couple of points to a half-dozen.
Roberts has not run a good race, and his lack of a residence in the state is a dumb mistake. But questions about Orman’s relationship with a jailed businessman could help Roberts alter the contest’s trajectory. More importantly, given the state’s strong GOP bent and Obama’s unpopularity, all Roberts must do is nationalize the Senate race. That shouldn’t be impossible.
Still, if Orman wins (and caucuses with Democrats, as almost everyone seems to expect), that result in itself could cause Republicans to fall short in their bid to win back the Senate.
There are other contests, of course.
Two Democratic women hoping to pick off GOP seats, Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky and Michelle Nunn in Georgia, look to be in roughly the same place. Neither of those contests is over now, but both Democrats continue to face uphill fights.
In Kentucky, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has opened up a small but clear lead over Grimes, and the state’s strongly anti-Obama bent makes things harder for her with so little time left.
Georgia Republican David Perdue has a small lead over Nunn, and unlike McConnell, Perdue has never been tested, so he could make a mistake in the final furious weeks of the campaign. But he will win if he is error-free.
New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen has seen her advantage shrink but continues to hold a narrow lead over challenger Scott P. Brown. The former Massachusetts senator still needs a big Republican wave to be swept to victory. Michigan GOP nominee Terri Lynn Land looks to be in even worse shape.
Republican nominees in Minnesota, Oregon and Virginia probably need divine intervention to have any chance of winning.
My ratings continue to reflect Republican Senate gains most likely in the five to eight seat range, with the eventual outcomes in the five most crucial contests likely to determine Senate control in 2015.
http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/senate-races-2014-five-states/
-
Somebody let the New York Times know the Republican Party is dead.
"The Senate?
According to our statistical election-forecasting machine, the Republicans have a moderate edge, with about a 67% chance of gaining a majority."
http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/
-
As Iowa Goes, So Goes Senate Control
BY CHUCK TODD, MARK MURRAY AND CARRIE DANN
Our newest round of NBC/Marist polls makes one thing abundantly clear: It’s increasingly likely that the uber-competitive Senate race in Iowa will determine control of the U.S. Senate. Why? Needing to pick up a net of six Senate seats, Republicans are now favored to win five of them (Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota, Arkansas, and Louisiana). Meanwhile, Democrats have the narrow edge in North Carolina (our NBC/Marist poll has Sen. Kay Hagan ahead by four points among likely voters), and Alaska is considered a jump ball, especially given the uncertain polling in that state. But if the new Senate math is that Republicans need to find seven Democrat seats -- with Greg Orman leading Pat Roberts in Kansas by 10 points in our new poll, and with no one certain with whom Orman will caucus -- then Republicans get to seven by winning Iowa and Alaska. (You can throw Colorado into this mix, too, but our belief is that if Democrats are going to win in Iowa, they’re probably going to win Colorado.) Bottom line: If you tell us who wins Iowa come Election Night, we’ll have a VERY GOOD idea of which party is going to win the Senate, even after the runoffs in December and January.
Ernst has the enthusiasm edge in neck-and-neck Iowa
So what does our NBC/Marist Iowa poll show? Republican Joni Ernst has a two-point advantage over Democrat Bruce Braley among likely voters, 46%-44%, which is within the survey’s margin of error. But as one of put it over the weekend, Ernst has the enthusiasm advantage. More than six in 10 Ernst supporters said they chose her because they actively support her candidacy, while 34% said their backing of Ernst was a protest against Braley. But those numbers were flipped for the Democratic candidate. About six in 10 Braley backers said their vote was mostly due to opposition to Ernst. And 62% of Ernst supporters were firm in their decision between the candidates, compared to 51% for Braley. “It’s all much more about Ernst than it is about Braley,” said Marist pollster Lee Miringoff. These numbers also are an indication of just how negative the race has become. Braley and the Dem Super PACs are almost entirely anti-Ernst now.
. . . .
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/iowa-goes-so-goes-senate-control-n219211
-
Republicans Maintain Edge in Senate Races, Poll Finds
OCT. 5, 2014
Nate Cohn
@Nate_Cohn
The fight for control of the Senate is stable and tight, with Republicans maintaining the inside track to a majority in the latest round of data from the New York Times/CBS News/YouGov online panel of more than 100,000 respondents.
The Republicans lead by at least four percentage points in enough races to finish with 50 seats — just one short of the 51 seats they need to overcome Joe Biden’s tiebreaking vote and take the Senate. The Republicans’ likely gains include six seats currently held by the Democrats: in South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana and Alaska. If those leads hold up, Republicans have four opportunities to capture the 51st seat they need in Colorado, North Carolina, Iowa and Kansas.
Nonetheless, the data suggests that the Democrats retain a clear, if difficult, path to victory. Perhaps most notable, the data offers reason to question the conventional wisdom that Republicans have recently made substantial gains in Colorado and Iowa.
The Democrats maintain a lead of at least four points in only enough races to hold 46 seats, but they hold a nominal edge in three more states: North Carolina, Colorado and Iowa. If the Democrats sweep all three — an outcome by no means assured with such tenuous leads — Senate control could be decided by Kansas, where the Republican senator Pat Roberts is tied with the independent candidate Greg Orman. If Mr. Orman won and caucused with the Democrats, then they would hold the Senate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/upshot/republicans-maintain-edge-in-senate-races-poll-finds.html?ref=politics&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1
-
Senate math seems impossible to some Democrats
By Jake Tapper, Chief Washington Correspondent
Thu October 9, 2014
Washington (CNN) -- Four weeks away from the 2014 midterm elections and even some Democratic operatives struggle to imagine a scenario where they retain control of the U.S. Senate. The terrain and current momentum seem all but overwhelming and against them.
A new CNN/ORC poll out Thursday morning suggests a Republican lead over a Democratic incumbent, this time in Alaska, and does nothing to calm Democrats' nerves.
"If you put a gun to my head, I guess I'd say that we're going to lose the Senate," one Democratic consultant told me in a moment of anonymous candor.
It's not even so much that President Obama is an Ancient Mariner-esque Albatross around their necks, though he is.
"I love the guy and I don't think there's anything he could do to fix it," the Democratic operative says, "but he's a real drag. But the bigger drag is the economy overall -- even though the economy is getting better, people aren't feeling it because wages are stagnant."
The other issue is that many of the Democrats defending their seats in GOP-leaning states had a fresh new Obama in 2008 helping to sweep them into office -- and often then, just barely. The class of 2008 were a bunch of Obama babies -- and now that's working against them.
If you put a gun to my head, I guess I'd say that we're going to lose the Senate
Democratic consultant
It's hard to explain to youngsters, but in 2008 then-Sen. Obama won Indiana and North Carolina and almost even won Montana and Missouri. Millions of Americans turned out to vote for him and in doing so in red states boosted Democrats like Sen. Mark Begich in Alaska.
Begich only beat then-Sen. Ted Stevens, 47.9% to 46.7% six years ago. Begich has hovered in the low 40s in recent polling; he trails his GOP opponent Dan Sullivan by six percentage points among likely voters in the CNN / ORC poll out Thursday morning.
Senate math is hard for Democrats
The basic math, for those of you not as fixated as the rest of us, is the following: The GOP needs to win at least six seats (though the number may end up being seven given the weirdness in Kansas -- more on that later.)
Republicans start off basically half way there. Montana, West Virginia and South Dakota -- where three incumbent Democrats have said farewell -- are considered easy GOP pickups, with the GOP candidates ahead in polls by double digits.
That leaves seven competitive Senate races where Democrats are playing defense: solid red states Alaska, Arkansas, and Louisiana; and blue-ish Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, and purple-ish North Carolina. Democrats are feeling cautiously bullish about exactly two of these races, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, and Sen. Kay Hagan, D-NC.
Hagan is instructive in this way, she currently polls at 44% against her GOP opponent Thom Tillis, with 40%. As Obama squeaked in a 49.9%-49.5% victory against Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for North Carolina in 2008, Hagan defeated then-Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-NC, 52.7% to 44.2%, and North Carolina elected a Democratic governor and handed Democrats victories in eight out of 13 House races.
Four years later, North Carolinians opted for Mitt Romney, a GOP governor, and Democrats were down to four out of 13 U.S. House seats. Hagan could certainly pull out a win this November, but it won't be because she's riding a wave -- it will be because she successfully fought against it.
Here is the obligatory "to be sure" paragraph: each race is its own individual microcosm, incumbents have advantages challengers do not, four weeks is a lifetime in politics, Dewey Defeats Truman, insert cliché here. The Senate GOP Leader, Mitch McConnell, has a competitive race in Kentucky , though I know few Democrats who think he won't eke it out at the end of the day. And Kansas is a weird one, with the Democratic candidate having withdrawn, and Republican Sen. Pat Roberts facing an independent challenger who hasn't said with which party he'll caucus. Democrats are hoping if the final vote comes down to Independent Greg Orman, he'll remember that Democrats cleared the field for him. A CNN/ORC poll out Wednesday showed the race in a virtual tie with Roberts just one percentage point ahead.
The Democratic operative noted that his party was benefiting from some GOP struggles, namely the Republican party's inability to raise as much money as it had wanted to, infighting among GOP Super-PACs, and general infighting among conservatives."
But midterm elections are generally more difficult for the party that holds the White House. And opposition to Washington appears to be a motivating factor for a lot of voters.
"A lot of these races are tight right now, but this isn't the sort of environment where late-deciding voters are going to break for Democrats," the Democratic consultant said, adding that with Democrats in tight races but under 50% right now, it's tough to imagine all of them breaking in favor of the party that holds the White House.
Those Democrats include the ones fighting for their jobs in all seven of these toss-ups. Remember that the GOP only need win three of these and the most recent polling, which could clearly change between now and election day, suggests extremely close margins or a Republican advantage in all of them:
· Alaska (Republican up 50-44 in CNN / ORC poll)
· Arkansas (Republican up 45-41 in CBS / NYT / YouGov poll)
· Louisiana (Republican up 47-41 in CBS / NYT YouGov poll)
· Colorado (Democrat up 48-45 in CBS / NYT / YouGov poll)
· Iowa (42-42 draw in Loras College poll)
· New Hampshire (Democrat up 48-41 in CBS / NYT / YouGov poll)
· North Carolina (Democrat up 47-45 in USA Today / Suffolk poll)
"It's going to be bad," the consultant said. "Not 2010 bad, but bad." Even hapless House GOP candidates running against popular incumbents are proving competitive, the consultant reports. "You can see why Eric Cantor went down -- people are just so anti-Washington, and that's particularly a problem with Democrats because of ties" to the president. "People feel hopeless and think that Washington isn't doing anything."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/09/politics/senate-democrats-math-control/index.html?hpt=po_c1
-
WSJ: Midterms May Bring a GOP 'Wave' of Victories
Tuesday, 21 Oct 2014
By Melanie Batley
Most pundits have written off predictions that the midterms would be a "wave election" for Republicans, but The Wall Street Journal says there is evidence to suggest it could turn out to be one after all.
Special: 18.79% Annual Returns . . . for Life?
The Journal points to its most recent poll that shows that those most interested in the election favor the Republicans, while a greater number of Republicans identify themselves as likely voters compared to Democrats.
"People turn out to vote for two reasons: They care, or they are organized to go to the polls," the Journal said. "The challenge for Democrats was to make their voters care and to recognize the stakes. That has not happened so far."
The Journal highlighted evidence it found about voters' feelings toward the election. According to the research, Republicans, by and large, are charged up and care about the election while Democrats are fearful and indifferent.
Latest: Do You Support a Travel Ban on West Africa Nations? Vote Here.
"This clearly will have an effect on turnout," the Journal said. "Democrats have failed so far to provide the reason their voters should care."
One Republican strategist predicted this week that the Republicans will have a "tidal wave" because Democratic candidates, in comparison, are strapped with having to defend unpopular policies.
"They have the burden of defending these bad policies; we don't have to. We don't have to rise as much because we don't have any bad policies in place ... What's happening is you've got a GOP tidal wave," Noelle Nikpour told Newsmax TV.
Meanwhile, the Journal reported Monday that Democrats are beginning to shift resources into long-shot races as the prospects of some of their vulnerable incumbents continue to decline.
With just two weeks left until the election, the party is pouring money into Georgia, South Dakota and Iowa, all of which have candidates polling very closely.
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/midterms-GOP-Senate-races-wave-election/2014/10/21/id/602068/#ixzz3GnHh1KnE
-
State by Key Race State, Polls Give GOP Odds of Winning Senate
Monday, 27 Oct 2014
By Melanie Batley
With just eight days left until the midterm elections, two major polls released Sunday indicate that Republicans are holding the advantage in key Senate races across the country, putting them on par to take control of the upper chamber next Tuesday.
Numerous races, however, remain statistically tied as candidates enter their final week of campaigning, according to the polls.
The NBC News/ Marist Poll surveyed all of the major battleground races. It was conducted Oct. 19-23 of 540 likely voters. The New York Times/CBS News/YouGov survey polled 98,411 voters from Oct.16-23.
Republicans currently have a slight lead in three Democratic seats: Arkansas, Colorado and Iowa. In North Carolina, the candidates are in a dead heat. But in Kansas, Republicans are in danger of losing the seat. Observers are also keeping a close eye on Georgia, where polling figures have been flip-flopping.
Vote: GOP in 2016 – Who Should Run for President? Vote in National Poll.
"Senate contests are coming down to the wire," said pollster Barbara Carvalho of Marist College's Institute for Public Opinion, according to NBC News. "In a reversal from 2012, when there were multiple paths for [President Barack] Obama, now the Democrats are struggling to protect their firewall in Iowa, North Carolina and Colorado."
Newsmax takes a look at the polling results for each of the major races below.
Arkansas
The NBC News/ Marist poll shows that GOP Rep. Tom Cotton has a two-point lead over Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor. Forty-five percent of likely voters say they are supporting Cotton compared to 43 percent who are backing Pryor. Another 7 percent continue to be undecided.
The NYT/CBS News/YouGov survey gives Cotton an even larger lead of five points, with 47 percent supporting Cotton compared to 42 percent for Pryor.
Cotton was leading Pryor by eight points in a poll out in the middle of October.
Pryor is suffering from low favorability ratings, with 41 percent viewing him favorably compared to 49 percent who view him unfavorably in the NBC News/ Marist poll. His support could be lagging due to the effect of President Obama's low job approval rating in the state of just 34 percent among likely voters.
Colorado
GOP Rep. Cory Gardner and Democratic Sen. Mark Udall are within one point of each other in the NBC News/Marist poll at 46 percent for Gardner and 45 percent for Udall. Five percent of likely voters continue to be undecided.
In the NYT/CBS News/YouGov survey, Udall has a one-point lead over Gardner at 47 percent compared to 46 percent. Four percent of voters in the survey are undecided.
Every other poll in October has had Gardner in the lead by at least two points. In September's NBC/Marist poll, however, Udall was ahead by six points at 48 percent to 42 percent.
Special: The One Thing You Should Do for Your Prostate Every Morning
"To seal up the potential crack in the Democratic firewall for the U.S. Senate, Udall needs a big ground game," said Lee Miringoff, director of The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. "He trails among those who have already voted by 12 points."
Iowa
Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst has a three-point lead over Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley in the NBC News/ Marist poll. Ernst has 49 percent support compared to 46 percent for Braley. Just 5 percent of likely voters either prefer another candidate or remain undecided.
The results are identical in the NYT/CBS News/YouGov survey.
"The campaigns have taken a toll on both senate candidates who have unusually high negatives for non-incumbents," said Miringoff. "The GOP is chomping at the bit over the prospect of picking up a Senate seat the Democrats have held for 30 years in a state President Obama carried twice."
Since the beginning of October, Ernst has had a lead by at least one point in every poll.
Kansas
Republicans are bracing themselves for the possible defeat of incumbent Sen. Pat Roberts, though he has managed to close a double-digit gap with his opponent, independent Greg Orman.
In the NBC News/Marist poll, Orman leads by one point at 45 percent to 44 percent. Earlier this month he had a 10-point lead in the poll.
"There's nothing like the possibility of a U.S. Senator from Kansas caucusing with the Democrats to make some voters rethink their choice for Senate," said Miringoff. "Orman's initial double-digit lead over Roberts has evaporated, and the contest is now a tossup."
Special: Does Obama Belong to This Secret Society? (Shocking)
The NYT/CBS News/YouGov survey puts Roberts in the lead at 42 percent compared to 38 percent for Orman among likely voters.
North Carolina
In North Carolina, Democratic incumbent Sen. Kay Hagan is tied with GOP challenger Thom Tillis at 43 percent in the NBC News/Marist poll. Earlier this month, Hagan had a four-point lead.
The NYT/CBS News/YouGov poll has Hagan ahead with 44 percent support compared to 41 percent for Tillis.
"Up until this point, incumbent Hagan has been considered the strongest Democrat among the so-called Democratic firewall states in this election cycle," said Miringoff. "Now, this is a contest that could go either way, and the outcome may determine control of the Senate."
Georgia
The NBC News/Marist poll did not test the Georgia Senate race, but the NYT/CBS News/YouGov survey found that Republican David Perdue had a three-point lead over Democrat Michelle Nunn at 47 percent compared to 44 percent.
Last week, however, several polls put Nunn in the lead, albeit within the polls' margins of error.
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/midterms-Senate-GOP-polls/2014/10/27/id/603349/#ixzz3HNzmbOqf
-
They have nothing to worry about. The Republican Party is dead.
House Dems fret debilitating losses
By ALEX ISENSTADT | 10/28/14 5:06 AM EDT Updated: 10/28/14
The political environment continues to deteriorate for House Democrats ahead of a midterm election that’s certain to diminish their ranks.
With President Barack Obama’s unpopularity hindering their candidates and Republican cash flooding into races across the country, Democrats are increasingly worried that the election will push them deep into the minority and diminish their hopes of winning back the majority in 2016 or beyond.
Looking to contain the damage, Democrats are pumping money into liberal congressional districts that were long thought to be safely in their column. Over the last several days, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has directed resources to maintain seats in Hawaii and Nevada, both of which broke sharply for the president in 2012 — an indication of just how much the terrain has shifted against the party over the past two years.
(POLITICO's polling center)
Other unexpected races are suddenly in play. Some Democrats, for example, have begun to worry about the prospects of California Rep. Lois Capps, an eight-term congresswoman who is typically a lock for reelection but who now finds herself in a competitive race against Republican Chris Mitchum, a perennial candidate and the son of the late actor Robert Mitchum. In a sign of how seriously national Democrats are taking the threat, the DCCC is making a last-minute purchase of $99,000 worth of radio advertising in the Santa Barbara area to boost Capps, according to a committee aide.
Operatives from both parties expect Republicans to net five to 10 seats, which would give them some cushion heading into what’s expected to be a much more challenging 2016. Some Republicans, trying to tamp down rising expectations of even bigger gains, point out that a recently-redistricted congressional map has dramatically narrowed the playing field of competitive districts and limited potential pick-ups.
They also caution that they have yet to put away Democrats in many races that remain close.
Still, as the election heads into the final week, it’s clear that the landscape is tilting against Democrats. Of the 30 House races seen as most likely to change hands, 23 are held by Democrats.
(Full 2014 election results)
Capps isn’t the only incumbent Democratic officials are scrambling at the last minute to defend. DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) recently coordinated a fundraising event for Rep. Dave Loebsack, a fourth-term Iowa incumbent who has recently come under barrage from GOP groups, and reached out to donors on his behalf.
On Tuesday afternoon, Israel and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will hold a hastily-planned conference call for members to provide them with an update on the political terrain and to press them to contribute to the party’s coffers.
“There’s no question it’s a tough climate for Democrats right now but it certainly doesn’t come as a surprise,” said Emily Bittner, a DCCC spokeswoman. “Heading into the final week of the election every single Democratic incumbent is still competitive, which is drastically different from the situation in 2010.”
Party operatives say Obama is weighting down House candidates across the country. In the districts of 24 of the 30 most vulnerable Democratic incumbents, more voters say they view the president unfavorably than favorably, according to polling data conducted over the last month for party strategists and provided to POLITICO. In 10 of those 24 races, Democratic lawmakers have recently lost ground along with the president.
(POLITICO's 2014 race ratings)
The effect is particularly acute in culturally conservative bastions like West Virginia and downstate Illinois, where Democratic strategists say Reps. Nick Rahall and Bill Enyart are watching their reelection hopes fade due in large measure to Obama’s diminished standing. Republicans have tethered both incumbents to the president: One new TV ad against Enyart imagines him and Obama together on posters made famous during the president’s 2008 campaign.
“Make no mistake,” the commercial says. “The Obama-Enyart agenda is devastating to our families and bankrupting southern Illinois.”
Other House Democrats have been encumbered by subpar performances of their party’s statewide candidates. Leading that list is Iowa Senate hopeful Bruce Braley, who party operatives say is dragging down three of their congressional contenders in the state.
Money is another worry. Republican groups have poured cash into House races in the final weeks, erasing a once formidable Democratic financial advantage. Since July 1, GOP outfits have spent $99.4 million, while Democrats have invested $81.9 million, according to campaign filings.
In many instances, Republicans are spending money to put races in play that had long been considered safe for Democrats. American Action Network, a national group with ties to House Speaker John Boehner, has begun airing TV commercials in blue districts in Hawaii and eastern Iowa.
The maneuvering has prompted Democratic groups to yank money from districts they’re trying to seize from Republicans in order to protect seats they already control. Over the past several weeks, the DCCC has pulled funds from top recruits in Colorado and Virginia and begun running TV ads in two eastern Iowa districts, both of which Obama won in 2012.
On Monday, House Speaker John Boehner visited the Iowa districts to campaign for GOP hopefuls Rod Blum, a software company owner seeking the seat Braley is vacating to run for Senate, and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, an opthamologist waging a campaign for the seat Loebsack occupies. A poll released on Monday showed Blum climbing to a narrow 43 percent to 42 percent lead over his Democratic opponent, state Rep. Pat Murphy.
“All year,” said Cory Fritz, a Boehner spokesman, “the speaker has been emphasizing the importance of making the most of every opportunity.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/house-dems-fret-debilitating-losses-112248.html#ixzz3HStNOB6a
-
Good article by Silver. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-2014-a-republican-wave/
-
Silver is pretty darn good. I'll be following his predictions heading into 2016.