• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

US Senate: 70% chance it will be D in 2017

Unitedwestand13 said:
Let's see if the house follows suit.

I wonder how many people fear the words "house speaker nancy pelosi"
Click to expand...

Not going to happen. The closest forecast I've seen is the GOP having 222 seats.
 
azgreg said:
Not going to happen. The closest forecast I've seen is the GOP having 222 seats.
Click to expand...

It would take a huge shift to flip the House. Most districts are safe, D or R. But, if Trumpy types decide to vote for D's to send a message, that long fought battle they won re: gerrymandering will bite the R in the ass.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Turnout will determine who wins.

And democrats are highly motivated this year.
Click to expand...
Yes, somehow the GOP managed to find the one candidate of the batch that motivated an extremely indifferent HRC base! :doh

I was blown away to see her 'likely voter' supporter enthusiasm numbers (Dem vs GOP) eclipsing his. I was shocked, actually.
 
Chomsky said:
Yes, somehow the GOP managed to find the one candidate of the batch that motivated an extremely indifferent HRC base! :doh

I was blown away to see her 'likely voter' supporter enthusiasm numbers (Dem vs GOP) eclipsing his. I was shocked, actually.
Click to expand...

Trump has turned out to be the gift that keeps on giving.

182982.png
 
Chomsky said:
Yes, somehow the GOP managed to find the one candidate of the batch that motivated an extremely indifferent HRC base! :doh

I was blown away to see her 'likely voter' supporter enthusiasm numbers (Dem vs GOP) eclipsing his. I was shocked, actually.
Click to expand...

I am optimistic about our chances.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I am optimistic about our chances.
Click to expand...
How can anyone *not* be optimistic about her chances?

I don't think there's anything much left in these debates to make too big a swing. Her job is to get through it unscathed, and looking Presidential! I think optics & demeanor will count more than content, as long as the content is reasonably acceptable. This debate is the last major performance event for both them, barring any Black Swan event needing to be addressed.
 
Chomsky said:
How can anyone *not* be optimistic about her chances?

I don't think there's anything much left in these debates to make too big a swing. Her job is to get through it unscathed, and looking Presidential! I think optics & demeanor will count more than content, as long as the content is reasonably acceptable. This debate is the last major performance event for both them, barring any Black Swan event needing to be addressed.
Click to expand...

Not just her chances, I am optimistic of democratic chances in general.

Enough to think we might see the return of Speaker pelosi.
 
Won't Bernie be the budget committee chairman if this happens?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Not just her chances, I am optimistic of democratic chances in general.

Enough to think we might see the return of Speaker pelosi.
Click to expand...
Ah, well I think the Senate will likely go Dem.

But you have an interesting point with the House. My understanding is that GOP gerrymandering is generally done on a R 60/40 D basis (and then they stick the left-over D 20%'s in 100% all D districts).

This is done to maximize the R distribution, and is predicated upon the tenant that elections are relatively stable and only vary by single digit +/- differences (ex: 53-47, etc.).

However, once the difference heads into double digit leads it will approach the limits of some of the gerrymandered districts, and if substantial might cause an avalanche type failure. But no one knows the specific number it will take to go into avalanche. But if HRC continues growing her lead, we may test these heretofore never tested gerrymander limits.
 
Chomsky said:
Ah, well I think the Senate will likely go Dem.

But you have an interesting point with the House. My understanding is that GOP gerrymandering is generally done on a R 60/40 D basis (and then stick the left-over D 20%'s in an all D districts).

This is done to maximize the R distribution, and is predicated upon the tenant that elections are relatively stable and only vary by single digit +/- differences (ex: 53-47, etc.).

However, once the difference heads into double digit leads it will approach the limits of some of the gerrymandered districts, and if substantial might cause an avalanche type failure. But no one knows the specific number it will take to go into avalanche. But if HRC continues growing her lead, we may test these heretofore never tested gerrymander limits.
Click to expand...

Some people are panicking

Republican strategist Steve Schmidt sees a landslide victory for Hillary Clinton and possible Democratic majorities in both the U.S. Senate and House.

Schmidt told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday morning that Clinton was currently “trending over 400” electoral votes, based on recent polling, and he said Republicans are freaking out over the real possibility of losing their majorities in both houses of Congress.

“If this election was today, I think Republicans are down 25 seats (in the House), as of today — with the trend line going in the wrong direction,” Schmidt said.

He said the internal numbers of recent polls are not good for Republicans, and he predicted Democrats would retake the Senate and could possibly regain a majority in the House for the first time since 2009.
Click to expand...

‘The panic is beginning’: GOP strategist Steve Schmidt predicts Election Day disaster for Republicans
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Some people are panicking



‘The panic is beginning’: GOP strategist Steve Schmidt predicts Election Day disaster for Republicans
Click to expand...

I like what Schmidt usually has to say. He is a very insightful person who brings his experience in Republican politics to the table and uses it well.

I agree on the Clinton electoral landslide. I still cannot see more than eight points between her and Trump. The Senate will flip - although I see it as 51 -49. I think the Dems will fall short of the House control by about a dozen seats.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Some people are panicking



‘The panic is beginning’: GOP strategist Steve Schmidt predicts Election Day disaster for Republicans
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. Morning Joe's a great show! (except for Joe! ;))

But he said 400 EV "with the 'trendline'".

That's a very big "if". I find it hard to believe she can carry the slope of the previous three weeks momentum, into the next three weeks.

I do agree with his assessment of the Repubs being down 25 seats if the election occurred today. But that still leave the House R+5.

I personally expect HRC to recede slightly after this long run, but yeah - I can see their panic! I tend to believe in cyclical regression, but she is on a killer trendline here in an unusualyl odd year!
 
Chomsky said:
Thanks for that. Morning Joe's a great show! (except for Joe! ;))

But he said 400 EV "with the 'trendline'".

That's a very big "if". I find it hard to believe she can carry the slope of the previous three weeks momentum, into the next three weeks.

I do agree with his assessment of the Repubs being down 25 seats if the election occurred today. But that still leave the House R+5.

I personally expect HRC to recede slightly after this long run, but yeah - I can see their panic! I tend to believe in cyclical regression, but she is on a killer trendline here in an unusualyl odd year!
Click to expand...

I think trump will continue to implode.
 
It really doesn't matter if the Democrats get the majority in the Senate. There is no doubt that they cannot get a super majority and we've already seen that the Republicans are experts at shutting down the Democrats in the Senate. Can you say filibuster?
 
Southern Dad said:
It really doesn't matter if the Democrats get the majority in the Senate. There is no doubt that they cannot get a super majority and we've already seen that the Republicans are experts at shutting down the Democrats in the Senate. Can you say filibuster?
Click to expand...

I am sure filibuster reform is on the agenda
 
US Senate: 70% chance it will be D in 2017
Click to expand...

i'm skeptical. i'd put the chances slightly above 50 / 50, depending on turnout.
 
Jack Hays said:
Even if Democrats win the Senate, their majority is unlikely to endure
The big fight over the next 15 days is for control of the Senate, where Democrats need a net gain of four seats to retake the upper hand. But the 2018 field looks very tough for them.

Click to expand...

Midterms are always brutal for Dems. One big job facing Hillary will be two turn that tide. I suspect she is smart enough to know this, and she probably has a plan on how to address it.
 
calamity said:
Midterms are always brutal for Dems. One big job facing Hillary will be two turn that tide. I suspect she is smart enough to know this, and she probably has a plan on how to address it.
Click to expand...

Not sure. She and Bill were massacred in 1994.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom