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.

Senate Majority, 2021 (1 Viewer)

rickroll said:
can’t see the Ds picking up either.  They won’t get the “voting against Trump” turnout in a runoff.
Click to expand...
Knowing what's at stake and seeing the state go blue for President makes it possible, I think. At least for one. The special run off that was already scheduled favors Democrats, I think. But I just don't see getting both.

 
gianmarco said:
Knowing what's at stake and seeing the state go blue for President makes it possible, I think. At least for one. The special run off that was already scheduled favors Democrats, I think. But I just don't see getting both.
Click to expand...
My guess is that the same party will win both seats.  I don't see a lot of split votes happening here.  

I have no idea how this plays out if Trump has lost the election but I'm assuming a comfortable GOP win just because it's Georgia.

 
I would expect a higher Republican-Democrat turnout ratio in a special election than in the presidential election. Turnout is based more on fear and loathing of the other side than anything else. With Trump off the ticket, Democrats won't be quite as fearful or loathing. But with Democrats threatening to control the Senate, Republicans still will be. They didn't really fear or loathe Biden in the first place, so their turnout may hold up better when Trump-Biden is no longer a factor.

But I'm just guessing.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I would expect a higher Republican-Democrat turnout ratio in a special election than in the presidential election. Turnout is based more on fear and loathing of the other side than anything else. With Trump off the ticket, Democrats won't be quite as fearful or loathing. But with Democrats threatening to control the Senate, Republicans still will be. They didn't really fear or loathe Biden in the first place, so their turnout may hold up better when Trump-Biden is no longer a factor.

But I'm just guessing.
Click to expand...
This is possible.  However, it is Loeffler, who is a Trump clone.  There's a slim chance the Dems can motivate enough turnout against her, and once you're there, you might as well vote in the other race too.

 
Speaking to the GA Senate situation, it now appears Perdue is unlikely to stay north of 50%.  It's interesting I think that they chose Perdue to pair Ossoff with as I think Ossoff was the stronger challenger and Perdue the less vulnerable of he and Loeffler.  Given that and how stirred up the red areas are going to be if Biden does indeed carry GA as it now appears likely he will, the fact that R's usually have better turnout for off cycle elections as well, it's hard to see either seat flipping.

 
jm192 said:
Looks like Peters will narrowly hold off John James in Michigan.
Click to expand...
John James is refusing to concede, citing vague claims of cheating.

It's a pretty poor look, in my opinion. I mean, there's nothing wrong with saying "Let's wait until all the votes are certified," but to cry "CHEATING!" (without evidence) just makes you look crazy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Summer said:
John James is refusing to concede, citing vague claims of cheating.

It's a pretty poor look, in my opinion. I mean, there's nothing wrong with saying "Let's wait until all the votes are certified," but to cry "CHEATING!" (without evidence) just makes you look crazy.
Click to expand...
Gee whiz I wonder where he got that idea from?

 
Rich Conway said:
This is possible.  However, it is Loeffler, who is a Trump clone.  There's a slim chance the Dems can motivate enough turnout against her, and once you're there, you might as well vote in the other race too.
Click to expand...
No one is a Trump clone. 

 
Juxtatarot said:
Conservative groups will run a lots of effective ads in Georgia.  It will be a battle against socialism.
Click to expand...
Biden appears to be on track to win GA by a razor thin margin at the very back end of the mail in votes.  The zeal with which the rural GA vote is going to turn out for the special election is probably going to be off the charts after this.  Keep in mind that Perdue outperformed Trump in the state.  There's no reason to think he or Loeffler would have any trouble in heads up races where turnout is going to be less and therefore more reliant on high intensity voters.

 
Shula-holic said:
Biden appears to be on track to win GA by a razor thin margin at the very back end of the mail in votes.  The zeal with which the rural GA vote is going to turn out for the special election is probably going to be off the charts after this.  Keep in mind that Perdue outperformed Trump in the state.  There's no reason to think he or Loeffler would have any trouble in heads up races where turnout is going to be less and therefore more reliant on high intensity voters.
Click to expand...
Dems winning both is as likely as coming back down 28-3 in the second half of the super bowl. 

 
Put me in the very unlikely column.  

I echo the sentiment that Trump's removal was such a strong stimulus to get out and vote.  And that gave a lot of down ballot votes to the D candidates.  

With that stimulus gone, we won't see the Democrat turnout.  

Additionally, as others have said--the GOP will continue to push the narrative that a Democrat run Senate means socialism, stacked courts and the end of freedom as we know it.  And I know you all feel none of those things will ever happen.  

But Dems in Congress keep saying all options are on the table.  They don't come out and say these things aren't concerns.  And so American voters are left contemplating how likely these things are.  And it'll help the GOP in the run offs.  

 
jm192 said:
Put me in the very unlikely column.  

I echo the sentiment that Trump's removal was such a strong stimulus to get out and vote.  And that gave a lot of down ballot votes to the D candidates.  

With that stimulus gone, we won't see the Democrat turnout.  

Additionally, as others have said--the GOP will continue to push the narrative that a Democrat run Senate means socialism, stacked courts and the end of freedom as we know it.  And I know you all feel none of those things will ever happen.  

But Dems in Congress keep saying all options are on the table.  They don't come out and say these things aren't concerns.  And so American voters are left contemplating how likely these things are.  And it'll help the GOP in the run offs.  
Click to expand...
Not only that, but there's a non-insignificant number of Republicans that voted against Trump.

In this scenario, they won't vote Dem in a Senate run off.

 
Georgia will likely come down to which group gets more complacent pro-Trump or anti-Trump. There’s no doubt that Trump was the driving force for the record turnout. 

For the Pro-Trump voters, will they even care if Trump isn’t the White House. There’s probably more chance to sell them on an anti-Democrat than pro-Republican message.

For the Anti-Trump voters, do they say mission accomplished and stay home? Or can they be motivated to come out on the belief that Democrats need a majority to reverse some of the things Trump did.

It’s tough to gage who will continue to motivated but is lean towards the Anti-Trump vote. I just think that Trump motivated a lot of voters who will not be out to vote if he’s not on the ballot.

 
jm192 said:
Put me in the very unlikely column.  

I echo the sentiment that Trump's removal was such a strong stimulus to get out and vote.  And that gave a lot of down ballot votes to the D candidates.  

With that stimulus gone, we won't see the Democrat turnout.  

Additionally, as others have said--the GOP will continue to push the narrative that a Democrat run Senate means socialism, stacked courts and the end of freedom as we know it.  And I know you all feel none of those things will ever happen.  

But Dems in Congress keep saying all options are on the table.  They don't come out and say these things aren't concerns.  And so American voters are left contemplating how likely these things are.  And it'll help the GOP in the run offs.  
Click to expand...
To be fair, though, it's possible the bolded occurred to drive progressive turnout nationally in order to defeat Trump.  With Trump losing, maybe that messaging changes in December.

 
Rich Conway said:
To be fair, though, it's possible the bolded occurred to drive progressive turnout nationally in order to defeat Trump.  With Trump losing, maybe that messaging changes in December.
Click to expand...
I think Biden's silence has been driven more by using those subjects as bargaining chips with an uncooperative senate than to appease progressives. I'll be surprised if that message changes before the runoffs.

 
jm192 said:
Put me in the very unlikely column.  

I echo the sentiment that Trump's removal was such a strong stimulus to get out and vote.  And that gave a lot of down ballot votes to the D candidates.  

With that stimulus gone, we won't see the Democrat turnout.  

Additionally, as others have said--the GOP will continue to push the narrative that a Democrat run Senate means socialism, stacked courts and the end of freedom as we know it.  And I know you all feel none of those things will ever happen.  

But Dems in Congress keep saying all options are on the table.  They don't come out and say these things aren't concerns.  And so American voters are left contemplating how likely these things are.  And it'll help the GOP in the run offs.  
Click to expand...
Interesting that you use the word “stimulus” because while I tend to agree with you, the stimulus is one thing that could change things: specifically if Senate Republicans continue to block the stimulus during the next month or so. 

 
Could Biden get a Supreme Court justice through a 52-48 Republican Senate? Collins should be a yes.

Sotomayor had had a few health scares.

 
SoBeDad said:
Could Biden get a Supreme Court justice through a 52-48 Republican Senate? Collins should be a yes.

Sotomayor had had a few health scares.
Click to expand...
Typically (but Garland...ok that is one example but not what I will be pointing out) when a democrat nominates a justice they get thru pretty easily because there usually isn't mudslinging like there has been with Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh and to a lesser extent ACB...I think most on the right understand that they will be getting a liberal that will usually remain liberal during their time on the court unlike many GOP nominees who will break rank at times and disappoint conservatives...if Biden nominates a Judge there is no doubt they will be very liberal and I hope they are given a fair and decent hearing without personal attacks and are judged solely by their work...from a pure political standpoint the more mature the GOP acts the next four years the better off they are.

 
timschochet said:
Interesting that you use the word “stimulus” because while I tend to agree with you, the stimulus is one thing that could change things: specifically if Senate Republicans continue to block the stimulus during the next month or so. 
Click to expand...
Again man,

Every individual thing is going to be the one thing.  

Maybe it will.  But Impeachment as going to be and it wasn't the death sentence for the GOP Senators.  ACB being forced through was going to end badly for the GOP Senate, and their demise seems exaggerated now.  

Both sides are at fault.  Pelosi is fighting for certain things.  The Senate is fighting for certain things.  I don't understand why we can't pass a stimulus that gives people money and then go back and fight out the details on the rest.

But both sides will accuse the other of not wanting to get it done.  

McConnell has said that they want to get it done.  I hope they get it done.  

 
jm192 said:
Both sides are at fault.  Pelosi is fighting for certain things.  The Senate is fighting for certain things.  I don't understand why we can't pass a stimulus that gives people money and then go back and fight out the details on the rest.
Click to expand...
I don't quite understand this one.  If I say "10" and you say "20", I don't understand why you would ever agree to my suggestion of "how about 10 now, and we can discuss the other 10 later".  What would my incentive be to budge once we've done the 10 that I wanted in the first place?

 
Rich Conway said:
I don't quite understand this one.  If I say "10" and you say "20", I don't understand why you would ever agree to my suggestion of "how about 10 now, and we can discuss the other 10 later".  What would my incentive be to budge once we've done the 10 that I wanted in the first place?
Click to expand...
I feel like we're fighting over money for schools, students, child care, businesses, etc.  

Why not give families spending money now so they can eat and pay bills and keep working to sort out the parts they can't agree on?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192 said:
I feel like we're fighting over money for schools, students, child care, businesses, etc.  

Why not give families spending money now so they can eat and pay bills and keep working to sort out the parts they can't agree on?
Click to expand...
Which party do you perceive would be against doing this?

 
jm192 said:
I feel like we're fighting over money for schools, students, child care, businesses, etc.  

Why not give families spending money now so they can eat and pay bills and keep working to sort out the parts they can't agree on?
Click to expand...
Same question, though.

You:  How about we give $5 to these guys and $20 to these other causes?
Me:  $5 to the first causes and nothing else.
You:  All those other causes are necessary, though.
Me:  Let's agree to the $5 now, then we can discuss the other causes later.

Where's my incentive to discuss the other stuff?

 
Rich Conway said:
Same question, though.

You:  How about we give $5 to these guys and $20 to these other causes?
Me:  $5 to the first causes and nothing else.
You:  All those other causes are necessary, though.
Me:  Let's agree to the $5 now, then we can discuss the other causes later.

Where's my incentive to discuss the other stuff?
Click to expand...
Because, the one thing they're not disagreeing over is the American families need money.  Agree on that amount.

One side is worried about the amount to cause A.  One is worried about the amount to cause B.  If Republicans want side B, then they work with the Dems on Side A.  But the middle issue--the American families---that they can agree on now, why use that as a bargaining chip?

 
jm192 said:
Again man,

Every individual thing is going to be the one thing.  

Maybe it will.  But Impeachment as going to be and it wasn't the death sentence for the GOP Senators.  ACB being forced through was going to end badly for the GOP Senate, and their demise seems exaggerated now.  

Both sides are at fault.  Pelosi is fighting for certain things.  The Senate is fighting for certain things.  I don't understand why we can't pass a stimulus that gives people money and then go back and fight out the details on the rest.

But both sides will accuse the other of not wanting to get it done.  

McConnell has said that they want to get it done.  I hope they get it done.  
Click to expand...
I would like to believe this consistent miscalculation will be corrected at some point, but actions lead me to believe otherwise. Democrats need to understand that the GOP does not care about the means; only the ends. 

 
Rich Conway said:
Same question, though.

You:  How about we give $5 to these guys and $20 to these other causes?
Me:  $5 to the first causes and nothing else.
You:  All those other causes are necessary, though.
Me:  Let's agree to the $5 now, then we can discuss the other causes later.

Where's my incentive to discuss the other stuff?
Click to expand...
Yours is a very simplified example that doesn't capture one of the primary disagreements that's preventing a deal.

The Republicans insist that any deal contain liability protections for businesses so they can't get sued if their neglect causes someone to get coronavirus.  The Democrats insist that such a provision should not be in any deal.  

In your hypo, if the first $5 did not address liability protection there would still be a potential for negotiation. But McConnell has said he would not even bring such a bill to the floor.

In any case, there's also an issue now due to the (unlikely?) chance that the Senate could flip.  Why would Dems agree to compromise if there's a chance that in a couple months no compromise is necessary?

I really have no idea how this all shakes out but it sucks that the American people are the victim. 

 
House losses bother Spanberger.

Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., a former CIA officer who narrowly defeated her opponent in a moderate suburban district around Richmond, was blunt with her colleagues about the results.

"From a congressional standpoint, it was a failure. It was not a success," she said. "We lost members we shouldn't have lost."

She said Democrats should watch GOP ads and the attacks leveled against members before deciding how to talk about the issues.

"We have to commit to not saying the words "defund the police" ever again," she said. "We have to never use the words 'socialist' or 'socialism' ever again."

MORE: Democrats keep House majority but 'Republicans defied the odds'

"If we are classifying Tuesday as a success and we run this way again, we will get f------ torn apart in 2022," she said flatly.

 
jm192 said:
Because, the one thing they're not disagreeing over is the American families need money.  Agree on that amount.

One side is worried about the amount to cause A.  One is worried about the amount to cause B.  If Republicans want side B, then they work with the Dems on Side A.  But the middle issue--the American families---that they can agree on now, why use that as a bargaining chip?
Click to expand...


fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Yours is a very simplified example that doesn't capture one of the primary disagreements that's preventing a deal.

The Republicans insist that any deal contain liability protections for businesses so they can't get sued if their neglect causes someone to get coronavirus.  The Democrats insist that such a provision should not be in any deal.  

In your hypo, if the first $5 did not address liability protection there would still be a potential for negotiation. But McConnell has said he would not even bring such a bill to the floor.

In any case, there's also an issue now due to the (unlikely?) chance that the Senate could flip.  Why would Dems agree to compromise if there's a chance that in a couple months no compromise is necessary?

I really have no idea how this all shakes out but it sucks that the American people are the victim. 
Click to expand...


Maybe this is the piece I'm missing.  My point was, and perhaps I stated it poorly, if an initial deal gives one side everything it wanted, there won't be further negotiations.

Personally, I think the liability protection blanket is beyond insane, so if that's the only bargaining chip left, I'd consider that equal to "one side got everything it wanted" as there is nothing the GOP could offer to make it worthwhile to include the blanket.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Yours is a very simplified example that doesn't capture one of the primary disagreements that's preventing a deal.

The Republicans insist that any deal contain liability protections for businesses so they can't get sued if their neglect causes someone to get coronavirus.  The Democrats insist that such a provision should not be in any deal.  

In your hypo, if the first $5 did not address liability protection there would still be a potential for negotiation. But McConnell has said he would not even bring such a bill to the floor.

In any case, there's also an issue now due to the (unlikely?) chance that the Senate could flip.  Why would Dems agree to compromise if there's a chance that in a couple months no compromise is necessary?

I really have no idea how this all shakes out but it sucks that the American people are the victim. 
Click to expand...
I thought another major issue was the amount of the stimulus bill that was going to corporations and the wealthy.  I could be mistaken.

 
Rich Conway said:
Maybe this is the piece I'm missing.  My point was, and perhaps I stated it poorly, if an initial deal gives one side everything it wanted, there won't be further negotiations.

Personally, I think the liability protection blanket is beyond insane, so if that's the only bargaining chip left, I'd consider that equal to "one side got everything it wanted" as there is nothing the GOP could offer to make it worthwhile to include the blanket.
Click to expand...
I'm not advocating either side give anything to the other side.  

If Pelosi wants money for child care--sorry, we'll sort that next week.  If Mitch wants business protections, school money, etc--sorry--sort it next week.  

Let's agree to cut checks for Americans for 1200$ (or whatever the amount is) and nothing else.  And that doesn't have to be the only money.  But get something done to help the people now, and this obviously won't be the end of negotiations for helping the American citiziens through this pandemic.  

 
I think it will be as close as the election, quite frankly, and the money about to be spent in Ga is going to be astronomical.  Trump will still be in office for the runoff so his anger/craziness will help/hurt as much as it did in the general.

Now, can Stacey Abrams get those who turned out and turned Ga. Blue today back in a month or so?  That will be the big question.  The fact that Ga. is Blue today makes a big differnce

 
jm192 said:
I'm not advocating either side give anything to the other side.  

If Pelosi wants money for child care--sorry, we'll sort that next week.  If Mitch wants business protections, school money, etc--sorry--sort it next week.  

Let's agree to cut checks for Americans for 1200$ (or whatever the amount is) and nothing else.  And that doesn't have to be the only money.  But get something done to help the people now, and this obviously won't be the end of negotiations for helping the American citiziens through this pandemic.  
Click to expand...
I think I'm still articulating poorly.  Let me rephrase in the form of a question.

Beyond a pure $N check to individuals, what else does the GOP want?

 
Btw, maybe this is better placed in another thread, but I think the power the Senate Majority Leader wields in certain instances is excessive.  I don't know how we fix it.  But, prime example is McConnell deciding to not even consider Garland 4 years ago.  Another is the ability to not even bring items up for consideration and essentially doing nothing when the House has spent time and energy on legislature.  One person shouldn't have that kind of power as part of a large BODY of elected officials. 

I don't say that as an attack on Republicans.  I'm sure Democrats have probably done the same in the past. 

I think that should go for any party that is in power.  It's an abuse of power, IMO.

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

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Schumer's Radical Abortion Gamble Of "Up To The Moment Of Birth" Will Backfire (5/11/22 00:52 PST)
Replies
19
Views
713
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
OP/ED: Biden Will Be Impeached After The Mid Terms & WWYD (5/17/22 19:42 PST)
2 3
Replies
128
Views
3K
quick-hands
quick-hands
GordonGekko
Will The GOP Push For A Nation Wide Federal Abortion Ban When It Attains Needed Majorities? (7/2/22 12:11 PST)
Replies
0
Views
239
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top