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)

timschochet

timschochet

Footballguy
So here's the ballgame: in order to take the Senate, the GOP needs to flip 6 seats. They have 3 in the bag: Montana, West Virginia, and South Dakota. They need to get 3 more from these 5:

1. Iowa where Tom Harkin is retiring. Bruce Braley, the Dem, was well ahead until he called Chuck Grassley, the GOP senator, a "farmer who never want to college." Since Iowa is made up of a lot of farmers, some of whom never went to college, that didn't set well. Now the race is neck and neck.

2. Louisana. SaintsInDome can fill us in on this one. Landrieu is popular, especially in New Orleans, but it's a red state.

3. Arkansas. Mark Pryor is the incumbent, but another red state.

4. North Carolina. Kay Hagan is the incumbent.

6. Alaska. Yet another red state, and Mark Begich has long been targeted.


All of these races are very tight.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know, but how much does it matter? Obama still has veto power and there is that 60 super-majority thing.

 
Juxtatarot said:
I don't know, but how much does it matter? Obama still has veto power and there is that 60 super-majority thing.
Click to expand...
It matters a great deal.

Obama has never had to veto anything. That's because Harry Reid has tabled any bill the House has passed. Granted, most of these bills have been for partisan purposes only, like repealing Obamacare 50 times.

But that won't be the case if the GOP gets control of both Houses. They will pass bills that are popular with the public and force Obama to veto them. For the past 4 years, Obama has successfully portrayed the House Republicans as extremist. By forcing Obama to veto, the shoe will be on the other foot, painting Obama as the extremist. And that in turn will favor Republicans in 2016, including for the White House.

 
So what if the Republicans take over both houses and the the presidency? Nothing really changes. Maybe taxes would be lowered, maybe the ACA gets repealed, but otherwise nothing. The rich and influential are in charge no matter the party that's actually in office.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This post is long overdue, thanks for adding.

As for LA & Landrieu her demise has been predicted before. The Landrieus have a hand in the old Orleans machine where those NO East precincts come in late and just in the amount needed. I wouldn't bet against her (ie them).

 
in order to take the Senate, the GOP needs to flip 6 seats. They have 3 in the bag: Montana, West Virginia, and South Dakota. They need to get 3 more from these 5:
Click to expand...
http://cookpolitical.com/senate/charts/race-ratings

I always like the Cook report.

There are 9 seats rated as Toss Up and one more in NH that is pretty close, so call it 10. 8 are Demo. GOP has to win 6 seats so they need to go 6-2 in those 8 races and go 2-0 in theirs.

Even if you give the GOP AR, LA, NC and AK, they still need two more.

MI actually is very close.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2014/Mitchell_MISen_Gov_080614.pdf

And Iowa would likely have to be the other one, GOP had a slight lead end of July.

Iowa Democrat's "chick" ad draws cries of sexism
Click to expand...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iowa-democrat-bruce-braleys-chick-ad-draws-cries-of-sexism/

There may be some surprise in the Iowa and Michigan findings, where we estimate slight Republican wins in these open seats being vacated by Democratic senators. Republicans have labored to expand the playing field beyond their southern base, and the results from Iowa and Michigan provide some indication they can do that. But those races remain very tight.
Click to expand...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2014-midterms-republicans-narrowly-favored-to-capture-senate-in-november/

Will Iowa be Dems’ Waterloo?
Click to expand...
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/215833-will-iowa-be-senate-democrats-waterloo

“In one swoop, he made a mistake that changes the direction of the race,” said Yepsen. “This was going to be a race that Democrats initially thought would be pretty easy to hold onto and it's turned into a far different game.”
Click to expand...
Weird thing is ages ago it seems now the GOP used to do this 'regular voter' shtick far better than the Demos.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Juxtatarot said:
I don't know, but how much does it matter? Obama still has veto power and there is that 60 super-majority thing.
Click to expand...
It matters a great deal.

Obama has never had to veto anything. That's because Harry Reid has tabled any bill the House has passed. Granted, most of these bills have been for partisan purposes only, like repealing Obamacare 50 times.

But that won't be the case if the GOP gets control of both Houses. They will pass bills that are popular with the public and force Obama to veto them. For the past 4 years, Obama has successfully portrayed the House Republicans as extremist. By forcing Obama to veto, the shoe will be on the other foot, painting Obama as the extremist. And that in turn will favor Republicans in 2016, including for the White House.
Click to expand...
Get me up to speed, can't whoever is the minority just filibuster everything since neither party will have 60?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They can filibuster, but it will be harder for the Dems to do so in the Senate. Too many centrist Dem senators don't want to be under that constant spotlight. Reid was a shield for them.

 
timschochet said:
They can filibuster, but it will be harder for the Dems to do so in the Senate. Too many centrist Dem senators don't want to be under that constant spotlight. Reid was a shield for them.
Click to expand...
How many centrist Dems are there? Let's say GOP takes back Senate with 51-49 majority. The GOP would need 9 Dems to give them 60. The Dems could allow the 8 most centrist to vote for cloture thus maintaining their moderate appearance and the filibuster could still survive

ETA, looking at the map, most of the Dems in traditional red states aren't up for election until 2018 which gives them plenty of time to work with.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NutterButter said:
timschochet said:
Juxtatarot said:
I don't know, but how much does it matter? Obama still has veto power and there is that 60 super-majority thing.
Click to expand...
It matters a great deal.

Obama has never had to veto anything. That's because Harry Reid has tabled any bill the House has passed. Granted, most of these bills have been for partisan purposes only, like repealing Obamacare 50 times.

But that won't be the case if the GOP gets control of both Houses. They will pass bills that are popular with the public and force Obama to veto them. For the past 4 years, Obama has successfully portrayed the House Republicans as extremist. By forcing Obama to veto, the shoe will be on the other foot, painting Obama as the extremist. And that in turn will favor Republicans in 2016, including for the White House.
Click to expand...
Get me up to speed, can't whoever is the minority just filibuster everything since neither party will have 60?
Click to expand...
The majority party in the Senate also chairs all the committees. Senate committee hearings will be organized and run by republicans instead of democrats. Republicans hold hearings not so much on corrupt businesses but on the UN (2004 - Norm Coleman - Oil for Food program) or the media (2006 - James Inhofe - the media making exaggerated claims about global warming)

I can just see Inhofe firing up the media hearings again the second they get the gavel back in the Senate. His hands have been tied since 2007 on the issue.

 
Braley has the Eagles support:

The Eagles support Bruce Braley's bid for the U.S. Senate, and they want their fans to chip in as well.

Joe Walsh, the guitarist for the '70s rockers who unleashed "Hotel California" on the world, sent out a fundraising email Thursday on Braley's behalf.

The Democratic congressman is running a close race against Republican Joni Ernst for Iowa's open seat in the Senate.

"Bruce and his wife first met at an Eagles concert back when they were both students at Iowa State -- and while I didn't know him then, I'm proud to say I know him now and that I support Bruce in his campaign to become the next U.S. Senator of Iowa," Walsh said in the email pitch.

In exchange for a contribution of at least $5, Braley's supporters have a chance to win tickets to the Eagles' Sept. 6 concert in Des Moines and passes for a "private meet and greet" with Braley and the band.
Click to expand...
 
I think if the Republicans can get more votes in November than the Democrats... I think they can have the majority in the Senate.

 
All that really matters in politics now is who becomes President and gets to nominate the next Supreme Court Justices.

Nothing is getting done in Washington without one party controlling the Presidency and both the Senate and House.

 
cstu said:
All that really matters in politics now is who becomes President and gets to nominate the next Supreme Court Justices.

Nothing is getting done in Washington without one party controlling the Presidency and both the Senate and House.
Click to expand...
And then they #### it up when they have control and the cycle continues.

 
timschochet said:
Juxtatarot said:
I don't know, but how much does it matter? Obama still has veto power and there is that 60 super-majority thing.
Click to expand...
It matters a great deal.

Obama has never had to veto anything. That's because Harry Reid has tabled any bill the House has passed. Granted, most of these bills have been for partisan purposes only, like repealing Obamacare 50 times.

But that won't be the case if the GOP gets control of both Houses. They will pass bills that are popular with the public and force Obama to veto them. For the past 4 years, Obama has successfully portrayed the House Republicans as extremist. By forcing Obama to veto, the shoe will be on the other foot, painting Obama as the extremist. And that in turn will favor Republicans in 2016, including for the White House.
Click to expand...
Can I get a list of these "popular" bills that are going to magically appear? There is a fringe contingent in this country that wants to see a full repeal of Obamacare, but "popular with the public" is a pretty disingenuous way to describe it. I'm with Jux on this one...it doesn't matter in any sort of practical terms. It might "matter" to the political honks, but the real world effects will not net any significant change.

 
Hagan is ahead in NC. Begich looks to be doing what he needs to in Alaska. Mitch is in a race in Tenn. Landrieu looks to be leading in La. I don't think the Senate is going to the GOP. I think they have a hard time winning outside gerrymandered districts and I think we will see several GOP governors lose. But then my political acumen is nothing compared to Tim's so whatever he says I guess.

 
NCCommish said:
Hagan is ahead in NC. Begich looks to be doing what he needs to in Alaska. Mitch is in a race in Tenn. Landrieu looks to be leading in La. I don't think the Senate is going to the GOP. I think they have a hard time winning outside gerrymandered districts and I think we will see several GOP governors lose. But then my political acumen is nothing compared to Tim's so whatever he says I guess.
Click to expand...
LOL I haven't made any prediction here one way or the other. Actually I'm hoping you're right because I've got $500 bet with Tommyboy on an issue that directly relates to this. But I have no idea if you're right on not. And FTR, I have very little political acumen, especially before an election. After the fact I can play Monday Morning QB with the best of them. But in rarely make predictions beforehand and I won't this time. I don't know.

 
Riversco said:
NutterButter said:
timschochet said:
Juxtatarot said:
I don't know, but how much does it matter? Obama still has veto power and there is that 60 super-majority thing.
Click to expand...
It matters a great deal.

Obama has never had to veto anything. That's because Harry Reid has tabled any bill the House has passed. Granted, most of these bills have been for partisan purposes only, like repealing Obamacare 50 times.

But that won't be the case if the GOP gets control of both Houses. They will pass bills that are popular with the public and force Obama to veto them. For the past 4 years, Obama has successfully portrayed the House Republicans as extremist. By forcing Obama to veto, the shoe will be on the other foot, painting Obama as the extremist. And that in turn will favor Republicans in 2016, including for the White House.
Click to expand...
Get me up to speed, can't whoever is the minority just filibuster everything since neither party will have 60?
Click to expand...
The majority party in the Senate also chairs all the committees. Senate committee hearings will be organized and run by republicans instead of democrats. Republicans hold hearings not so much on corrupt businesses but on the UN (2004 - Norm Coleman - Oil for Food program) or the media (2006 - James Inhofe - the media making exaggerated claims about global warming)

I can just see Inhofe firing up the media hearings again the second they get the gavel back in the Senate. His hands have been tied since 2007 on the issue.
Click to expand...
Fill me in again. What relevance do these hearings have other than making for some good theater for the far right base?

 
Juxtatarot said:
I don't know, but how much does it matter? Obama still has veto power and there is that 60 super-majority thing.
Click to expand...
Didn't the Democrats get rid of the requirement that 60 votes are needed to call for a vote? Reid supposedly exercised the "nuclear option".

 
dhockster said:
Juxtatarot said:
I don't know, but how much does it matter? Obama still has veto power and there is that 60 super-majority thing.
Click to expand...
Didn't the Democrats get rid of the requirement that 60 votes are needed to call for a vote? Reid supposedly exercised the "nuclear option".
Click to expand...
Only for judicial appointments. For now, the filibuster still exists for legislation. Of course, it's always possible the next Congress could get rid of it there too.

 
James Daulton said:
So what if the Republicans take over both houses and the the presidency? Nothing really changes. Maybe taxes would be lowered, maybe the ACA gets repealed, but otherwise nothing. The rich and influential are in charge no matter the party that's actually in office.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Notice how most big companies donate nearly equally to both parties? It's essentially legal bribery.

 
Walking Boot said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
There are 9 seats rated as Toss Up and one more in NH that is pretty close, so call it 10. 8 are Demo. GOP has to win 6 seats so they need to go 6-2 in those 8 races and go 2-0 in theirs.
Click to expand...
Another way of looking at it, if the GOP beats the Democrat in a senate race in every state where Romney beat Obama two years ago, they win the senate
Click to expand...
How many states are so solidly either red or blue that both senators are always from the same party?

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
dhockster said:
Juxtatarot said:
I don't know, but how much does it matter? Obama still has veto power and there is that 60 super-majority thing.
Click to expand...
Didn't the Democrats get rid of the requirement that 60 votes are needed to call for a vote? Reid supposedly exercised the "nuclear option".
Click to expand...
Only for judicial appointments. For now, the filibuster still exists for legislation. Of course, it's always possible the next Congress could get rid of it there too.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification.

 
i think GOP wins: NC, Iowa, and Arkansas

too early on Alaska (just had their primary a few days ago)

never try to predict Louisiana. that's a weird place for politics.

also keep an eye on New Hampshire

 
This .... might be a problem for the Landrieus:

Landrieu’s Residency Raises Questions in Louisiana Senate RaceWASHINGTON — The embattled re-election campaign of Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana was damaged further on Friday by the revelation that she uses her parents’ home address to establish her residency in the state.

Ms. Landrieu, a Democrat whose campaign is one of a handful that could determine control of the Senate, is registered to vote at a home in New Orleans that is owned by her parents but lists her Capitol Hill home as her address in regulatory documents, The Washington Post reported based on the senator’s filings.

On Friday, the senator’s main opponent pounced. “Senator Landrieu belongs in Washington, D.C. She just chooses Louisiana to get reelected,” the challenger, Representative Bill Cassidy, a Republican, posted on Twitter.

Ms. Landrieu’s campaign defended the senator’s living arrangements, noting that she and her family own the New Orleans home together and that Ms. Landrieu and her husband pay taxes and vote in the state.

In a written statement, Ms. Landrieu said: “I have lived at my home on Prieur Street most of my life and I live there now, when not fulfilling my duties in Washington or serving constituents across the state.”

The Post quoted a memo from her lawyers stating that the senator was “not disqualified simply because she maintains a residence in the District of Columbia in order to serve Louisiana.”

It is unclear how the question of Ms. Landrieu’s residency might affect her standing with voters. In 2012, Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, a Republican who had been in office for three decades, lost his re-election bid after reports that he stayed in hotels when he visited his district.

The Landrieu family has deep roots in Louisiana. The senator’s brother, Mitch Landrieu, is the mayor of New Orleans.

Bernie Pinsonat, a Louisiana pollster, said the question of Ms. Landrieu’s residency reminded him of a similar episode involving another Louisiana Democrat, former Senator John B. Breaux. Mr. Breaux had prepared to run for governor in 2007 but then abandoned the effort after the state attorney general refused to declare him a Louisiana “citizen” under the state’s Constitution.

“I don’t need a poll to tell that it doesn’t sit well with voters when public officials vacate Louisiana and don’t really live here anymore,” said Mr. Pinsonat, who works for both Democrats and Republicans. “I don’t know what will happen, but I don’t think it’s a positive revelation for her.”

In an interview in January, Ms. Landrieu’s father, Moon Landrieu, a former mayor of New Orleans, said that when his daughter visited New Orleans, “She still has her bedroom. She slept there last night and will sleep there again tonight.”

Ms. Landrieu, in a separate interview at the time, described her quarters as a “little apartment,” adding that she “had to go back to my old bedroom and my old single bed.”

...
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/us/landrieus-residency-raises-questions-in-louisiana-senate-race.html?_r=0

I'm surprised the Times didn't mention that this has been the hot topic here lately - a judge just got charged criminally for lying on her qualification forms about her address. It seems she has lived far outside her Parish for some time. Another judge stepped down when it was determined she lived outside LA.

The idea that Mary lives with Moon on Prieur Street is pretty absurd.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis said:
election Lab says Republicans are favored to control the Senate.

50.1% chance as of today.

538 puts it at 53.3%

Fennis puts it at 61%
Click to expand...
If those numbers are right, they're down some for Rs over the last couple weeks. But, yeah. Basically close to a coin flip right now.

As a partisan anti-Republican I think Repubicans controlling both houses would be the best thing that could happen for Dems. Let's see them actually pass a law repealing Obamacare. And the Ryan Budget gutting social services. And impeaching Obama. And national anti-voting measures. And federal law chipping away at reproductive rights.

Or have to explain to the base why they aren't doing those things.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the republicans get both houses, the smartest thing they could do start pushing lots of pro-business legislation onto Obama's desk for veto. When he fails to sign it, attack him for not doing enough to bring jobs back. They'll want to make sure he vetoes it to set up this line of attack, so they'll probably have to tie the legislation to social issues he opposes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Riversco said:
If the republicans get both houses, the smartest thing they could do start pushing lots of pro-business legislation onto Obama's desk for veto. When he fails to sign it, attack him for not doing enough to bring jobs back. They'll want to make sure he vetoes it to set up this line of attack, so they'll probably have to tie the legislation to social issues he opposes.
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me.

 
wdcrob said:
Fennis said:
election Lab says Republicans are favored to control the Senate.

50.1% chance as of today.

538 puts it at 53.3%

Fennis puts it at 61%
Click to expand...
If those numbers are right, they're down some for Rs over the last couple weeks. But, yeah. Basically close to a coin flip right now.

As a partisan anti-Republican I think Repubicans controlling both houses would be the best thing that could happen for Dems. Let's see them actually pass a law repealing Obamacare. And the Ryan Budget gutting social services. And impeaching Obama. And national anti-voting measures. And federal law chipping away at reproductive rights.

Or have to explain to the base why they aren't doing those things.
Click to expand...
Yup. It'll either be a freak show, or the inmates asking "Where's my freak show?"

 
wdcrob said:
Fennis said:
election Lab says Republicans are favored to control the Senate.

50.1% chance as of today.

538 puts it at 53.3%

Fennis puts it at 61%
Click to expand...
If those numbers are right, they're down some for Rs over the last couple weeks. But, yeah. Basically close to a coin flip right now.As a partisan anti-Republican I think Repubicans controlling both houses would be the best thing that could happen for Dems. Let's see them actually pass a law repealing Obamacare. And the Ryan Budget gutting social services. And impeaching Obama. And national anti-voting measures. And federal law chipping away at reproductive rights.

Or have to explain to the base why they aren't doing those things.
Click to expand...
99% sure it will be the latter. But so what? The liberal base is unhappy that Obama is a centrist- look what NC Commish has posted about this. Neither base is ever pleased because once in office most politicians govern from the center. No offense to NC or anyone else here, but I think this is a good thing. We don't need radical change.

 
timschochet said:
wdcrob said:
Fennis said:
election Lab says Republicans are favored to control the Senate.

50.1% chance as of today.

538 puts it at 53.3%

Fennis puts it at 61%
Click to expand...
If those numbers are right, they're down some for Rs over the last couple weeks. But, yeah. Basically close to a coin flip right now.As a partisan anti-Republican I think Repubicans controlling both houses would be the best thing that could happen for Dems. Let's see them actually pass a law repealing Obamacare. And the Ryan Budget gutting social services. And impeaching Obama. And national anti-voting measures. And federal law chipping away at reproductive rights.

Or have to explain to the base why they aren't doing those things.
Click to expand...
99% sure it will be the latter.But so what? The liberal base is unhappy that Obama is a centrist- look what NC Commish has posted about this. Neither base is ever pleased because once in office most politicians govern from the center. No offense to NC or anyone else here, but I think this is a good thing. We don't need radical change.
Click to expand...
The "so what" in this case is that GOP House members are living in terror of being primaried by Tea Party candidates, and even incumbent Senators have been knocked off by (two cycles ago) or had to fight for their lives to survive Tea Party challenges (this cycle).

But at the same time they definitely don't want to encourage crazy in a year when there's a Presidential election and the Senate map goes from being very unfavorable (weak Dem incumbents and mostly red/purple states in 2014) to fantastic (strong incumbent Dems and lots of blue states in 2016).

Based on the last six+ months, Rs will manage it pretty well IMO, but it's a tough line to walk and any wild-eyed antics will help Hillary.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wdcrob said:
timschochet said:
wdcrob said:
Fennis said:
election Lab says Republicans are favored to control the Senate.

50.1% chance as of today.

538 puts it at 53.3%

Fennis puts it at 61%
Click to expand...
If those numbers are right, they're down some for Rs over the last couple weeks. But, yeah. Basically close to a coin flip right now.As a partisan anti-Republican I think Repubicans controlling both houses would be the best thing that could happen for Dems. Let's see them actually pass a law repealing Obamacare. And the Ryan Budget gutting social services. And impeaching Obama. And national anti-voting measures. And federal law chipping away at reproductive rights.

Or have to explain to the base why they aren't doing those things.
Click to expand...
99% sure it will be the latter.But so what? The liberal base is unhappy that Obama is a centrist- look what NC Commish has posted about this. Neither base is ever pleased because once in office most politicians govern from the center. No offense to NC or anyone else here, but I think this is a good thing. We don't need radical change.
Click to expand...
The "so what" in this case is that GOP House members are living in terror of being primaried by Tea Party candidates, and even incumbent Senators have been knocked off by (two cycles ago) or had to fight for their lives to survive Tea Party challenges (this cycle).

And they definitely don't want to encourage crazy in a year when there's a Presidential election and the Senate map goes from being very unfavorable (weak Dem incumbents and mostly red/purple states in 2014) to fantastic (strong incumbent Dems and lots of blue states in 2016).

Based on the last six+ months, Rs will manage it pretty well IMO, but it's a tough line to walk and any wild-eyed antics will help Hillary.
Click to expand...
Good points. Though if Hillary is the nominee, I don't think any Republican can beat her anyhow.
 
Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?

 
tom22406 said:
humpback said:
Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?
Click to expand...
What if both teams suck?
Click to expand...
Been hearing that for my entire life. It gets tiresome. IMO: 1. Neither party sucks.

2. Both parties govern from the center, which is a good thing.

3. Both parties support the "Establishment" which is generally a good thing.

4. The base on both sides is never going to be happy which is a good thing.

 
timschochet said:
wdcrob said:
timschochet said:
wdcrob said:
Fennis said:
election Lab says Republicans are favored to control the Senate.

50.1% chance as of today.

538 puts it at 53.3%

Fennis puts it at 61%
Click to expand...
If those numbers are right, they're down some for Rs over the last couple weeks. But, yeah. Basically close to a coin flip right now.As a partisan anti-Republican I think Repubicans controlling both houses would be the best thing that could happen for Dems. Let's see them actually pass a law repealing Obamacare. And the Ryan Budget gutting social services. And impeaching Obama. And national anti-voting measures. And federal law chipping away at reproductive rights.

Or have to explain to the base why they aren't doing those things.
Click to expand...
99% sure it will be the latter.But so what? The liberal base is unhappy that Obama is a centrist- look what NC Commish has posted about this. Neither base is ever pleased because once in office most politicians govern from the center. No offense to NC or anyone else here, but I think this is a good thing. We don't need radical change.
Click to expand...
The "so what" in this case is that GOP House members are living in terror of being primaried by Tea Party candidates, and even incumbent Senators have been knocked off by (two cycles ago) or had to fight for their lives to survive Tea Party challenges (this cycle).

And they definitely don't want to encourage crazy in a year when there's a Presidential election and the Senate map goes from being very unfavorable (weak Dem incumbents and mostly red/purple states in 2014) to fantastic (strong incumbent Dems and lots of blue states in 2016).

Based on the last six+ months, Rs will manage it pretty well IMO, but it's a tough line to walk and any wild-eyed antics will help Hillary.
Click to expand...
Good points. Though if Hillary is the nominee, I don't think any Republican can beat her anyhow.
Click to expand...
I think you underestimate how poorly Hillary comes across as a candidate. I think a lot of people who might eventually vote for her if she is the nominee, will be looking for someone better to nominate. This is what happened in 2008 when she was the frontrunner. I think a Republican could come across as much more likeable/competent than her and beat her in the general election.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
tom22406 said:
humpback said:
Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?
Click to expand...
What if both teams suck?
Click to expand...
Been hearing that for my entire life. It gets tiresome. IMO:1. Neither party sucks.

2. Both parties govern from the center, which is a good thing.

3. Both parties support the "Establishment" which is generally a good thing.

4. The base on both sides is never going to be happy which is a good thing.
Click to expand...
Both parties do suck because most of the members of both parties prioritize their own reelection and the power of their party over what's actually good for the country.

 
humpback said:
Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?
Click to expand...
Unicorns would be great too!

Here on Earth we're stuck with the fact that people are fallible -- and that their elected representatives and government are going to be fallible too.

IMO (seriously, it's an opinion) all you can do is fully support the "less bad" option from your own perspective.

And if you sit out the fight or support the Unicorn Party because "both sides suck" you're implicitly supporting whichever side is winning at that moment.

 
Just as in 2008, if Hillary struggles it will be in terms of getting the nomination. But if she is successful at that, it would take an extraordinary Republican to defeat her. If that person exists I'm not aware of it.

 
timschochet said:
tom22406 said:
humpback said:
Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?
Click to expand...
What if both teams suck?
Click to expand...
Been hearing that for my entire life. It gets tiresome. IMO:1. Neither party sucks.

2. Both parties govern from the center, which is a good thing.

3. Both parties support the "Establishment" which is generally a good thing.

4. The base on both sides is never going to be happy which is a good thing.
Click to expand...
You're going to have to show your math on this assertion. If things are "good" as you suggest, I assume you are ok with the state of politics in this country, yes? Our government is the largest company in the world and it's run by lawyers and idealists (when it suits them). So, I'd like to understand why you believe things are "good"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Obama will leave his party in its worst shape since Great Depression
2 3
Replies
102
Views
3K
JaxBill
JaxBill
cstu
How Donald Trump Exploited the Media's Greed to Win the Nomination
Replies
17
Views
454
The General
The General
(HULK)
Dave Berry's Year in Review
Replies
2
Views
774
Joe Summer
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top