What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Official FFA 2014 Midterms- GOP wins Senate, victories everywhere (1 Viewer)

Yeah Gopher State, I think so. I could be wrong- I know the odds right now are only around 55% or so and most of these races are close, but this just has the feel of 2006 to me. There were all these close races then too, and on Election Day they ALL went Democrat. Everything I know about politics tells me this should be a Republican year: Obama 6 years in, his popularity at 40%, the public disgruntled about Obamacare and jobs, most of the key elections in red states which are polarized to a high degree. All of that should spell a wave election for the GOP.

 
I hope they do. It would be nice to see Republicans actually attempt to govern. They've done nothing but throw molotav cocktails on democracy for years. Plus the things they actually stand for are pretty unpopular politically. They can eat that veto for a couple of years while the public see's what they actually stand for. Sets up a good contrast for the public to see going into 2016.

Plus we'll get a lot of good "investigations". We'll finally get to know what REALLY happened in Benghazi/IRS/fast and furious. If there's a bigger douchecanoe than Darrell Issa I don't know who it is.

They will completely stymie any of the president's judicial nominations. So they got that going for them.

 
What difference does it make?

The "Dear Leader" himself has already informed us that he has a pen....oh....AND A PHONE!!!

The opposition (if you want to call it that) doesn't have the balls to do anything about it if they DO win.

It's a single party system..

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What difference does it make?

The "Dear Leader" himself has already informed us that he has a pen....oh....AND A PHONE!!!

The opposition (if you want to call it that) doesn't have the balls to do anything about it if they DO win.

It's a single party system..
:own3d:

 
What difference does it make?

The "Dear Leader" himself has already informed us that he has a pen....oh....AND A PHONE!!!

The opposition (if you want to call it that) doesn't have the balls to do anything about it if they DO win.

It's a single party system..
It's amusing to me that the extreme right and the extreme left in this country both believe this. Neither really understand how American politics truly work. For one thing, the House and Senate chairmanships hold much more power than the President in terms of domestic politics. The Republican agenda is much better served by controlling the Senate than by controlling the White House.

But that won't make you very happy, Varmint, because the Republican agenda is not YOUR conservative Tea Party agenda, and never will be. It is moderate, pro-business, pro-Chamber of Commerce, center right. They will never do what you want it to do. And your anger about this (and threats of revolt) are meaningless.

 
What difference does it make?

The "Dear Leader" himself has already informed us that he has a pen....oh....AND A PHONE!!!

The opposition (if you want to call it that) doesn't have the balls to do anything about it if they DO win.

It's a single party system..
It's amusing to me that the extreme right and the extreme left in this country both believe this. Neither really understand how American politics truly work. For one thing, the House and Senate chairmanships hold much more power than the President in terms of domestic politics. The Republican agenda is much better served by controlling the Senate than by controlling the White House.

But that won't make you very happy, Varmint, because the Republican agenda is not YOUR conservative Tea Party agenda, and never will be. It is moderate, pro-business, pro-Chamber of Commerce, center right. They will never do what you want it to do. And your anger about this (and threats of revolt) are meaningless.
Be as smug as you want and remember this feeling when the GOP has control in 2016 and they start cramming their agenda down our throats using the same methods that the Dems are using now.

Politicians on BOTH sides are putting their party ahead of the country...and we let them do it.

You just might see this if you took your blinders off and stopped defending one party over the other regardless of what crap they're pulling.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Varmint said:
What difference does it make?

The "Dear Leader" himself has already informed us that he has a pen....oh....AND A PHONE!!!

The opposition (if you want to call it that) doesn't have the balls to do anything about it if they DO win.

Varmint said:
timschochet said:
Varmint said:
What difference does it make?

The "Dear Leader" himself has already informed us that he has a pen....oh....AND A PHONE!!!

The opposition (if you want to call it that) doesn't have the balls to do anything about it if they DO win.

It's a single party system..
It's amusing to me that the extreme right and the extreme left in this country both believe this. Neither really understand how American politics truly work. For one thing, the House and Senate chairmanships hold much more power than the President in terms of domestic politics. The Republican agenda is much better served by controlling the Senate than by controlling the White House.

But that won't make you very happy, Varmint, because the Republican agenda is not YOUR conservative Tea Party agenda, and never will be. It is moderate, pro-business, pro-Chamber of Commerce, center right. They will never do what you want it to do. And your anger about this (and threats of revolt) are meaningless.
Be as smug as you want and remember this feeling when the GOP has control in 2016 and they start cramming their agenda down our throats using the same methods that the Dems are using now.

Politicians on BOTH sides are putting their party ahead of the country...and we let them do it.

You just might see this if you took your blinders off and stopped defending one party over the other regardless of what crap they're pulling.
And you don't think the politicians you support would shove their agendas down our throats?

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
The Louisiana run-off seems pretty likely. Can you imagine the money that will be spent on that election if we end up at 50 GOP and 49 Democrat for the other 99 seats?
If Orman wins and there's a 50-49 split without him, that would also be some crazy s.
What's the procedure for assigning committee chairmanships? Do they vote on them each individually, or does the majority leader just assign all of them?

Would be interesting if Orman ended up in a position to pick which party got which committee on a case by case basis.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
The Louisiana run-off seems pretty likely. Can you imagine the money that will be spent on that election if we end up at 50 GOP and 49 Democrat for the other 99 seats?
If Orman wins and there's a 50-49 split without him, that would also be some crazy s.
What's the procedure for assigning committee chairmanships? Do they vote on them each individually, or does the majority leader just assign all of them?

Would be interesting if Orman ended up in a position to pick which party got which committee on a case by case basis.
I don't think these things are voted on individually. The caucus elects party leaders, those leaders are in charge of doing the assignments.

 
I hope they do. It would be nice to see Republicans actually attempt to govern. They've done nothing but throw molotav cocktails on democracy for years. Plus the things they actually stand for are pretty unpopular politically. They can eat that veto for a couple of years while the public see's what they actually stand for. Sets up a good contrast for the public to see going into 2016.

Plus we'll get a lot of good "investigations". We'll finally get to know what REALLY happened in Benghazi/IRS/fast and furious. If there's a bigger douchecanoe than Darrell Issa I don't know who it is.

They will completely stymie any of the president's judicial nominations. So they got that going for them.
Outside of the rabid talk radio crowd of the GOP, the public gives no f**** at all about either of these. If the Republicans go there, they're slitting their own throats for a chance in 2016.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
538/Silver has it 58/42 for Republicans right now.

Average of six high-profile projections has it 60/40.

So something right around that is probably right.

 
timschochet said:
Latest poll from Kentucky has Mitch McConnell losing by 1 point. That would be a stunning result.
I odn't think 46% will cut it for Grimes, she needs to get to 50% in the GE to win. If there's a runoff (there's a Libertarian in there) she won't make it IMO.

 
timschochet said:
Latest poll from Kentucky has Mitch McConnell losing by 1 point. That would be a stunning result.
I odn't think 46% will cut it for Grimes, she needs to get to 50% in the GE to win. If there's a runoff (there's a Libertarian in there) she won't make it IMO.
Are you sure that Kentucky does a runoff? Most states just count the candidate with a plurality as the winner. I know there are possible runoffs in Louisiana and Georgia this cycle but I hadn't heard that about Kentucky.

 
timschochet said:
Latest poll from Kentucky has Mitch McConnell losing by 1 point. That would be a stunning result.
I odn't think 46% will cut it for Grimes, she needs to get to 50% in the GE to win. If there's a runoff (there's a Libertarian in there) she won't make it IMO.
Are you sure that Kentucky does a runoff? Most states just count the candidate with a plurality as the winner. I know there are possible runoffs in Louisiana and Georgia this cycle but I hadn't heard that about Kentucky.
Oh that's possible, I hadn't thought of that. LA does the runoff thing so I figured how that's what we were dealing with here. Well then obviously it's very winnable if that's the case.

 
I just don't buy a Dem winning Kentucky. What I suspect is happening is all the Tea Party types expressing their bitterness against McConnell and refusing to support him in the polling. But on election day, if they think that a Dem might win, they'll vote for McConnell.

 
McConnell is up by about four points if you take the average of a lot of polls. Beatable, but a fairly solid favorite.

 
timschochet said:
Latest poll from Kentucky has Mitch McConnell losing by 1 point. That would be a stunning result.
Yeah, that's the Bluegrass poll...others still show McConnell leading, albeit by a small margin.

 
Holy ####. Sitting in a hotel in NC and just saw my 7th Tillis/Hagan commercial in 30 minutes. Five for Tillis, Two for Hagan. All negative. Guess I didn't realize how relatively civilized the Texas senate race has been.

 
I just don't buy a Dem winning Kentucky. What I suspect is happening is all the Tea Party types expressing their bitterness against McConnell and refusing to support him in the polling. But on election day, if they think that a Dem might win, they'll vote for McConnell.
Grimes couldn't admit that she voted for Obama, and the DNC isn't putting anymore money into that race.

McConnell is going to win there although he was clearly beatable.

 
Republican chances in the Senate into the 60s, on average -- maybe more, depending on whose model you believe.

Bizarrely, Dem chances of retaining are heavily tied to... Georgia?! Michelle Nunn is actually leading by a very small margin in the average of polls, but the likely runoff election (probably) favors her opponent.

 
So, still a chance the GOP could end up with a 50-49 lead and Georgia going into the runoff? That could turn into the most expensive and nasty Senate election in history.

 
R chances still rising.

The Cook Political Report had a good piece up yesterday showing that over the last eight midterm election cycles the races labeled "tossups" in the Senate (generally the races we're interested in here) have broken 80/20 for one party or the other. They don't split 50/50.

If you're a Dem you might be able to hope that there's a tendency for Dems to be the ones to overperform (six of the eight, including the last four), but I suspect that's just random noise.

I'll go with Republicans to control 53 or 54 seats depending on what happens in KS.

 
None of the tensions within the Republican Party, specifically between the establishment leadership and the Tea Party base, have been solved. Even more problematic, for the future of the GOP, is it's increasing status as a party of white middle class males in rural America, and it's continued alienation of Latinos, the largest growing demographic.

These flaws, which will eventually be fatal to the GOP unless they're resolved, are going to be covered up and allowed to be ignored by this coming victory. For now.

 
It seemed unfathomable that this country would ever decide to put the GOP back in control of a lemonade stand much less the Senate. Unreal.

 
Look I don't think the GOP will get there, I could see 49-50, but not 53-54. But if they do get there MSNBC will be required viewing on election night. It would be like a funeral. On the other hand, I would love to see if Tim is right on the GOP not trying to repeal the ACA. That will be high drama if they do pass repeal and force a veto. It will be barbarians at the gate time.

 
The Repubs will get in, things will get messed up, the Dems will take it back, mess things up, rinse and repeat.

The current state of politics is sickening.

 
The Commish said:
It seemed unfathomable that this country would ever decide to put the GOP back in control of a lemonade stand much less the Senate. Unreal.
It's more unfathomable than leaving the current incompetent group in control?

The Repubs will get in, things will get messed up, the Dems will take it back, mess things up, rinse and repeat.

The current state of politics is sickening.
Bingo.

 
The Commish said:
It seemed unfathomable that this country would ever decide to put the GOP back in control of a lemonade stand much less the Senate. Unreal.
Harry Reid is in charge right now. Nuff said.

 
The Commish said:
It seemed unfathomable that this country would ever decide to put the GOP back in control of a lemonade stand much less the Senate. Unreal.
Harry Reid is in charge right now. Nuff said.
Mitch McConnell would take his place.
We had a Senate "debate" recently, it was pathetic, the GOP candidate did not show and Mary Landrieu would not commit to voting for Reid or McConnell as Senate leader. The most disgusting thing is that she dissembled (she would vote for Reid, please) and would not even say.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top