• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Midterm Elections

Jay59 said:
What say you?
Click to expand...
First, Biden has barely been in office for one year. If Approval ratings can drop they can go back up.
As the pandemic continues to fall into the background, the economy continues to improve and inflation stabilizes things will likely improve.
The War in Ukraine is a serious problem, and if that doesn't come to some type of reasonable resolution soon it could hurt, but we'll see.

Overall the redistricting fight in the house actually seems to be working out fairly well in the Democrat's favor. Holding the house could be a challenge, but if they do lose it might not be as horrible as some expect, and there's a decent chance we could get it back in 2024 and hold it stronger.
The Senate is also interesting. Georgia is the only Senate seat I think Republicans are likely to take away from the Democrats and even that is not a guarantee. It will depend heavily on how effective their voter impression laws a blocking African American votes.
But even if we do lose Georgia, I think it is more likely than not that Democrats will win either Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, maybe even both, and if they do we could retain and maybe even expand control of the Senate so Joe Manchin can go **** himself.

Another thing to understand is that while Biden's approval rating may be low that doesn't necessarily mean anybody likes Republicans. Much of those who aren't happy are actually those on the left who want him to do more. They aren't likely to vote Republican just because Biden isn't accomplishing everything they want.

All in all I think it will be closer than many think and that Republicans are a bit overconfident. Trump is still an albatross and the crazy extremist candidates he's backing aren't helping.
 
Chomsky said:
While I have no idea here . . .



. . . I agree here!
Click to expand...
At this point, I think the Senate could hold at 50 / 50 but until the GOP primaries are over I really am not ready to say. The House is a lost cause but I am not convinced it will be a bloodbath.....it could be though. As long as the Trumpers lose primaries and/or races that is the most I can hope for.
 
gbg3 said:
I disagree. My guess is 53-47.
Click to expand...

Whoa!

Possible, I suppose. But, I don't see it likely.

However, we're so polarized, along with living in a time with unique events, that's it's really hard to leave anything out.
 
Callen said:
At this point, I think the Senate could hold at 50 / 50 but until the GOP primaries are over I really am not ready to say. The House is a lost cause but I am not convinced it will be a bloodbath.....it could be though. As long as the Trumpers lose primaries and/or races that is the most I can hope for.
Click to expand...

50-50 would be my most optimistic guess, but I must admit the Dems surprised me with the '20 GA pick-ups to gain control of the Senate.
 
Chomsky said:
While I have no idea here . . .



. . . I agree here!
Click to expand...
This far out, it's a crap shoot. Even redistricting isn’t complete which could change the whole numbers. Then there are always unforeseen events which may turn this whole thing upside down. So, SWAG is exactly what it is. This far out, anyone’s guess or opinion is as good as anyone else’s. The only difference is I go by the numbers available today, not my heart or who I want to win. But those numbers change constantly, no one knows what they’ll be come November.
 
Perotista said:
This far out, it's a crap shoot. Even redistricting isn’t complete which could change the whole numbers. Then there are always unforeseen events which may turn this whole thing upside down. So, SWAG is exactly what it is. This far out, anyone’s guess or opinion is as good as anyone else’s. The only difference is I go by the numbers available today, not my heart or who I want to win. But those numbers change constantly, no one knows what they’ll be come November.
Click to expand...

AKA 'Black Swan' Event.
 
NatMorton said:
It does if you read post #10. A statement does not have to be false to be misleading.
Click to expand...
You read more into the post than was actually there.

Next, you’ll claim to be a mind reader.
 
gbg3 said:
Yeah, if it ends up being a major loss, will the Dems do as Obama did and call it a shellacking? Or will they just decide on the "damage control" narrative of losses are just expected, like they are on this thread.
But frankly, I don't care how they respond as long as we flip (hopefully) both chambers.
Click to expand...

Another one who didn't read the OP. Here is the question the OP posed, since you didn't understand it the first time.
Is a Congressional change of parties already inevitable?

It's a question I answered. He didn't ask about damage control, or shellacking, or anyone's predictions.

Next time don't post stupid things because someone else did too.

The answer to his question is "no, because..." or "yes, because....". So try answering and stop with the predictions and your idiocy about damage control.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
You read more into the post than was actually there.

Next, you’ll claim to be a mind reader.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't. It was an attempt to say a loss of seats, per se, would be no big deal; i.e. an attempt at damage control.

You're gainsaying nonsense will not change my opinion, buy by all means, keep it up if you must.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
He can’t help himself.
Click to expand...

That's because he, like another poster, didn't understand the very simple question in the op, which was:

Is a Congressional change of parties already inevitable?

I answered the question, which is yes, it's inevitable because with two exceptions, it's what always happens.

The cluelessness of some posters annoys me on most days.
 
Jay59 said:
It's a little over six months to the midterm elections. Is a Congressional change of parties already inevitable?

The New Republic says no.
newrepublic.com

The Democrats Are Not Dead Yet

Despite conventional wisdom, the party is not doomed in November’s midterm elections. The economy, Covid-19, the invasion of Ukraine, and the January 6 insurrection are all wild cards.
newrepublic.com newrepublic.com

Dynamic inaction captures the current mood on Capitol Hill—and the safe bet is that this paralysis will continue until November. Almost certainly, the confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court pretty much exhausts what Biden and the Democrats can expect from an evenly divided Congress. But scenarios of a Democratic rebound do not require Joe Manchin suddenly to decide—like Scrooge after seeing the ghosts of Christmas—that he wants to spend trillions on social programs and battling climate change out of a newfound spirit of generosity. ...​
​
The underappreciated truth is that this is an off-year election without historical parallels. A Supreme Court decision eviscerating or overturning Roe v. Wade could galvanize Democratic turnout. In the midst of the global crisis in Ukraine—with Americans again worrying about the specter of nuclear war—it is impossible to predict the role that Biden’s foreign policy leadership might play in November.​
​
The Hill disagrees
thehill.com

The Memo: Bad economic news haunts Democrats ahead of midterms

President Biden and other Democrats are confronting a stark truth — they’re getting blamed for what’s bad in the economy and getting no credit for what’s good. The dynamic could spell electoral doo…
thehill.com thehill.com
​
Democrats insist that the coronavirus relief bill that Biden passed more than a year ago still does not get due credit for having ameliorated the effects of the pandemic. But they also know voters’ memories are short, and that the legislation in question, the American Rescue Plan, is a long way in the rearview mirror. As if all that were not enough, the war in Ukraine is now commanding the lion’s share of public attention and exacerbating the very inflationary pressures that are causing Democrats such problems.​
​
It’s a grim scenario for the president and his party. Democrats still hold out hope that things can turn around, but the chances of rebuffing a GOP wave in November seem to be getting smaller and smaller.​
​
The fact remains that it is a long way to November. The slow summer months are looming and attention will turn elsewhere.

What say you?
Click to expand...
The economy is going balls out. Unemployment it tiny, wages are up, everything is rosey. People need to open their eyes and look around.
 
NatMorton said:
And BTW, if you read what I wrote you'll see I didn't call it a lie. I said it was "almost a lie by omission."
Click to expand...
Yes, of course I read what you actually wrote but you did use the words mislead or providing misinformation. Those are not lies by omission.

And it's merely a presumption on your part that the real motivation for the response was to downplay any losses.
The premise of the thread was:
  • many seem to assume the dems will lose in the midterms, but some republicans are saying "not so fast" they still have a chance.
  • So the OP asked, what do you think?
  • At that point, there was no issue about how bad the dems may lose, but if you expect them to lose.
  • It is entirely logical to reference that in virtually all past midterm elections, particularly during a president's first term, their party loses in the midterms. So another reason to think they will lose here.
You then made the leap to claim that stating those undeniable facts in support of the suggestion that the dems would lose in the midterms was trying to downplay the degree to which they may lose. That's on you.
 
Last edited:
Buckeyes85 said:
Yes, of course I read what you actually wrote but you did use the words mislead or providing misinformation. Those are not lies by omission.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no. Omission of a relevant fact is exactly how one misleads and misinforms without technically telling a lie. It's basically a kind of straw-man argument.

I mention this only because it came up in a thread recently, but a classic example would be saying "Bill Clinton should not have been impeached for having an affair with an intern." The statement is correct; having an extramarital affair is neither a high crime nor a misdemeanor. But the statement is a kind of lie since Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for ruining Ms. Lewinsky's blue dress; he was impeached for lying under oath, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice which easily could be considered as Constitutionally defined high crimes since, in the real world, they're also felonies.

Tres was attempting to say any loss of ground in Congress by the Democrats would be normal and expected, and thus not a reflection on how they've governed. It was a lame attempt at damage control, and it was also nonsense.
 
tres borrachos said:
Just like almost every other midterm of our lifetimes, our parents' lifetimes, and our grandparents' lifetimes, the party in power will lose seat. You have to be an idiot to not know why it didn't happen to FDR and GWB.
Click to expand...

Because Americans hate it when you're doing such a great job!
 
Buckeyes85 said:
Yes, of course I read what you actually wrote but you did use the words mislead or providing misinformation. Those are not lies by omission.

And it's merely a presumption on your part that the real motivation for the response was to downplay any losses.
The premise of the thread was:
  • many seem to assume the dems will lose in the midterms, but some republicans are saying "not so fast" they still have a chance.
  • So the OP asked, what do you think?
  • At that point, there was no issue about how bad the dems may lose, but if you expect them to lose.
  • It is entirely logical to reference that in virtually all past midterm elections, particularly during a president's first term, their party loses in the midterms. So another reason to think they will lose here.
You then made the leap to claim that stating those undeniable facts in support of the suggestion that the dems would lose in the midterms was trying to downplay the degree to which they may lose. That's on you.
Click to expand...

Let it go, but thank you. He wants to wallow in ignorance and lies. Let him. He doesn't even understand what this thread is about. As usual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom