boneyard bill predicts 2014 elections.

[Jimmy Higgins]

They are about to possibly elect the Republicans back into charge of the Senate, despite everything the Republicans said and did in the last six years. So yes... they could. Because this Bush is the "Better Bush". "He should have run in 2000."

I'll take your word for it as I'm not that familiar with this Bush. I do know the First Bush senior wasn't a bad president. I'm also aware that Obama is pro Arab and anti Israel. The relationship between the Israeli PM and Obama administration has never been as low as it is at present. If Clinton were to run and win the Whitehouse this state of affairs will only get worst. It would be a case of sacrificing the Jewish state just to appease the Arab world.

Eh???

 

[angelo]

Nothing!

 

[boneyard bill]

After the primaries Alaska was rated a toss-up. So was Arkansas, and Louisiana, which has a top-two system, was as well. Iowa and Colorado were thought to be leaning Democrat. Now Republicans are leading in all of those states. That's why I say that I see a shift in momentum towards the Republicans. Part of this is to be expected. An incumbent who hasn't won over undecided voters by the end of September can expect to find it more difficult in October. Poorly-funded opponents have saved their money for the final push. That's why now it appears that even Kay Hagan in North Carolina and Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire might be in trouble.

While I generally agree, I find Hagan and Shaheen in a bit better position that the others. Hagan's campaign has done reasonably well manipulating tribalism and blood loyalties, running spots trying to connect North Carolina's Thom Tillis politics to Trayvon Martin's death. The point is to inflame racial anger and fear, and do a little race baiting. And unusually high early turnout among blacks suggest it is working.

And then it didn't hurt when some unknown group of Hagan operatives or supporters who, one Sunday, stuck flyers under the car wipers Cumberland County's black churchgoers - with a grainy old photo of a lynching on the cover, and the scaremongering that Obama (a black man) will be impeached if blacks don't vote. The front of the flier blared: “Kay Hagan doesn’t win! Obama’s impeachment will begin! Vote in 2014.”

Besides, there are plenty of women voting for Hagan's genetalia, so much so there is a significant gender gap in her favor.

I don't know the details of the campaign going on there. Democrats always use racism and sexism to exploit voters. It's nothing new. All I am pointing out is that Hagan has gone from a fairly consistent 4 point lead to a toss-up so the momentum seems to be in Tillis' favor, but that doesn't mean he will win, of course, a lot depends on turn-out and even last minute ads or breaking news stories.

 

[boneyard bill]

A lot of people did lose health care or are forced to pay a whole lot more for it. Many young people who wanted health care can no longer afford it. Those who have gotten lower costs are largely subsidized by Medicaid. We could have done that without all the problems that have been created by Obamacare.

We have contracted ebola. Only a few people have it so far, but Obama let them in the country. Meanwhile, countries bordering Liberia and Sierra Leone are largely ebola free because the quaranteened people arriving from those countries.

0 American stateside deaths.

We have lost tons of full-time jobs. Yes, we've gained part-time jobs but that doesn't add up to more employment overall. The way they count these things if you lose a full-time job and take two part-time jobs to make up for, it is counted as a net gain of one job.

You know what I keep thinking of? All of those unions offering early retirement. Doctors being offered early retirement. Cops and firemen being offered early retirement. A significant number of people in the public sector retiring early because of cutbacks. Add to that... the Baby Boomers are retiring... you think all of this cutting wouldn't have a large effect on the job market?

Yes. The labor force is also shrinking which accounts for part of the reason for the decline in unemployment, but from what I have read, retirements only account for about half of that shrinkage. The rest is people simply dropping out. Some get disability (disability recipients are way up). Some may be housewives deciding to stay home since jobs are scarce and it saves money to just tend the kids. Some get student loans and go back to college. There are lots of reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

They are about to possibly elect the Republicans back into charge of the Senate, despite everything the Republicans said and did in the last six years. So yes... they could. Because this Bush is the "Better Bush". "He should have run in 2000."

I'll take your word for it as I'm not that familiar with this Bush. I do know the First Bush senior wasn't a bad president. I'm also aware that Obama is pro Arab and anti Israel. The relationship between the Israeli PM and Obama administration has never been as low as it is at present. If Clinton were to run and win the Whitehouse this state of affairs will only get worst. It would be a case of sacrificing the Jewish state just to appease the Arab world.

US relations with Israel were probably at their worst under the first Bush.

 

[maxparrish]

Here is why the Republicans will not win the Senate, and may be embarrassed:

More Likely than Not Wins (Party Changes in Senate)

Montana
Iowa
Colorado
Arkansas
West Virginia
South Dakota*
Louisiana (after runoff)

Slightly More Likely than Not GOP losses

Kansas
Georgia (after runoff)

Other More Likely than Not Outcomes:

NH - Stays Dem
NC - Stays Dem (heavy black turnout being noted)

Hence, it would seem the GOP will win 7 extra seats, and lose two. Net gain of 5 seats.

Talking heads and pollsters will be "shocked" at GOP failure.

* SD Election could be won by an independent, thought to be a Republican anyway.

 

[Derec]

Here is why the Republicans will not win the Senate, and may be embarrassed:

More Likely than Not Wins (Party Changes in Senate)

Montana
Iowa
Colorado
Arkansas
West Virginia
South Dakota*
Louisiana (after runoff)

Slightly More Likely than Not GOP losses

Kansas
Georgia (after runoff)

Other More Likely than Not Outcomes:

NH - Stays Dem
NC - Stays Dem (heavy black turnout being noted)

Hence, it would seem the GOP will win 7 extra seats, and lose two. Net gain of 5 seats.

Talking heads and pollsters will be "shocked" at GOP failure.

* SD Election could be won by an independent, thought to be a Republican anyway.

If you predict a 5 net gain for GOP and they need 6 to gain majority then that's a hair-thin margin as only an error of one seat in GOP direction means GOP majority.
So your categorical declaration that "Republicans will not win the Senate" is grossly premature, even if your analysis of likely outcomes is correct.
It will be an exciting night, no doubt about it.

 

[maxparrish]

Here is why the Republicans will not win the Senate, and may be embarrassed:

More Likely than Not Wins (Party Changes in Senate)

Montana
Iowa
Colorado
Arkansas
West Virginia
South Dakota*
Louisiana (after runoff)

Slightly More Likely than Not GOP losses

Kansas
Georgia (after runoff)

Other More Likely than Not Outcomes:

NH - Stays Dem
NC - Stays Dem (heavy black turnout being noted)

Hence, it would seem the GOP will win 7 extra seats, and lose two. Net gain of 5 seats.

Talking heads and pollsters will be "shocked" at GOP failure.

* SD Election could be won by an independent, thought to be a Republican anyway.

If you predict a 5 net gain for GOP and they need 6 to gain majority then that's a hair-thin margin as only an error of one seat in GOP direction means GOP majority.
So your categorical declaration that "Republicans will not win the Senate" is grossly premature, even if your analysis of likely outcomes is correct.
It will be an exciting night, no doubt about it.

My analysis was based on a simple assumption, that even a one percent advantage is a win. (Ties go to momentum candidates). HOWEVER, now that I look at it I badly blundered. I forgot to include Alaska AND I may have over-estimated Ernst in Iowa (a recent poll shows her tied, not ahead).

SO it is back to 50-50. On election night the GOP looks to win 7 seats, with a possible (probable?) 8th in the Louisiana runoff. On the other hand, Iowa may be a true tossup. Hence, we are a back to 5 or 6 seat gain for GOP.

I do not believe election night will settle it. The Louisiana and Georgia run-offs will likely determine Senate control.

 

[boneyard bill]

Here is why the Republicans will not win the Senate, and may be embarrassed:

More Likely than Not Wins (Party Changes in Senate)

Montana
Iowa
Colorado
Arkansas
West Virginia
South Dakota*
Louisiana (after runoff)

Slightly More Likely than Not GOP losses

Kansas
Georgia (after runoff)

Other More Likely than Not Outcomes:

NH - Stays Dem
NC - Stays Dem (heavy black turnout being noted)

Hence, it would seem the GOP will win 7 extra seats, and lose two. Net gain of 5 seats.

Talking heads and pollsters will be "shocked" at GOP failure.

* SD Election could be won by an independent, thought to be a Republican anyway.

You left out Alaska where the Republican is leading in the polls in a heavily Republican state. Admittedly Alaska is notoriously unpredictable, but Republican have a slight edge. Republicans will likely hold Kansas. Even if Roberts loses, Orman says he will caucus with the majority and has also said he will not vote for Harry Reid.

Larry Pressler is a former GOP Senator from South Dakota, but it does not appear that he will win.

If Georgia goes to a run-off Perdue will immediately become the favorite to win in a low turn out election as Republicans are more loyal voters.

Republicans should win control even if they lose NH and NC which is by no means a foregone conclusion.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is why the Republicans will not win the Senate, and may be embarrassed:

More Likely than Not Wins (Party Changes in Senate)

Montana
Iowa
Colorado
Arkansas
West Virginia
South Dakota*
Louisiana (after runoff)

Slightly More Likely than Not GOP losses

Kansas
Georgia (after runoff)

Other More Likely than Not Outcomes:

NH - Stays Dem
NC - Stays Dem (heavy black turnout being noted)

Hence, it would seem the GOP will win 7 extra seats, and lose two. Net gain of 5 seats.

Talking heads and pollsters will be "shocked" at GOP failure.

* SD Election could be won by an independent, thought to be a Republican anyway.

If you predict a 5 net gain for GOP and they need 6 to gain majority then that's a hair-thin margin as only an error of one seat in GOP direction means GOP majority.
So your categorical declaration that "Republicans will not win the Senate" is grossly premature, even if your analysis of likely outcomes is correct.
It will be an exciting night, no doubt about it.

Not to mention that Angus King, (I. Me.) could very well caucus with Republicans if they offer him a chairmanship.

 

[maxparrish]

Hmmmmm...you made some persuasive points. And if this mornings poll results in Iowa are accurate, it looks like Ernst will win (a 7 point lead in a late poll).

As to the willingness of Orman or King to caucus with the Republicans - I dunno. I am, by nature, distrusting of "independents". As for Georgia, if it goes to a runoff that will determine Senate control it will become a national election - hundreds of millions of dollars and massive get out the vote efforts. Besides race baiting always works with black demographics.

 

[boneyard bill]

Hmmmmm...you made some persuasive points. And if this mornings poll results in Iowa are accurate, it looks like Ernst will win (a 7 point lead in a late poll).

As to the willingness of Orman or King to caucus with the Republicans - I dunno. I am, by nature, distrusting of "independents". As for Georgia, if it goes to a runoff that will determine Senate control it will become a national election - hundreds of millions of dollars and massive get out the vote efforts. Besides race baiting always works with black demographics.

I think you're right about Georgia if it would make the difference in control of the Senate. In that case, you couldn't compare it to a normal special election run-off with typically low turn-out. I don't expect that it will make the difference, however. Of course, I'm already on record since early this month that the GOP will win 8 seats.

It seems likely that Orman would caucus with Republicans given what he has said but also given his chances for re-election. If he has plans for a second term, he would be much better off running as a Republican. King has said he would consider caucusing with Republicans. That's all I've heard. He may merely be trying to increase his leverage with the Democrats.