Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
April 20, 2014, 05:30:45 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Nate Silver Predicts GOP Holding 50-51 Senate Seats After 2014 Election  (Read 948 times)
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 79910


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 20, 2013, 07:38:01 AM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged

JOHN MATRIX
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11564


the house is dividing once again


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2013, 08:02:32 AM »

I hope he's right.
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 39985


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: October 15, 2013, 10:48:33 AM »

Bump.  I've been calling him "Silverman," but it's "Silver." 
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 39985


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: November 26, 2013, 11:19:05 AM »

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 !
Report to moderator   Logged
dario73
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5717


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2013, 12:22:45 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 39985


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: November 26, 2013, 12:35:10 PM »

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. 
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3428


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: November 26, 2013, 03:14:22 PM »

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" 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 39985


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: November 26, 2013, 03:28:33 PM »

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" 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.   
Report to moderator   Logged
LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11636

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: November 26, 2013, 08:12:58 PM »

RIP McWay.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3428


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: November 26, 2013, 10:19:25 PM »

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 and recite Dr. Seuss 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 79910


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 26, 2013, 11:29:53 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged

Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 39985


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: November 27, 2013, 10:25:55 AM »

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 and recite Dr. Seuss 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. 
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3428


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: November 27, 2013, 12:14:37 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 39985


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: November 27, 2013, 12:19:32 PM »

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.

 Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3428


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: November 27, 2013, 03:45:35 PM »

Roll Eyes

Careful. You're rolling too much.
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 39985


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: November 27, 2013, 04:31:52 PM »

Careful. You're rolling too much.

Reserved for dumb comments.   Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 39985


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: March 24, 2014, 10:06:22 AM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 39985


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: March 25, 2014, 07:03:30 PM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 79910


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


View Profile WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 25, 2014, 09:07:17 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged

Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 39985


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: March 26, 2014, 11:33:59 AM »

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/
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 39985


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: April 09, 2014, 04:19:38 PM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!