Jimmy Higgins Calls Senate Race for Democrats in November

[Jimmy Higgins]

FYI, capitalists destroyed capitalism between 1998 and 2008.

- other than the fact that the IWW did not follow Moscow's orders to the letter its beliefs are hardly exculpatory.

The IWW is and was hardly in the pocket of the Soviet Union.

No, they were not in their pocket, but they were militant and radical socialists who were unwitting fellow-travelers and stooges of that stew of revolutionary nonsense, starting just before the 20th century (and throughout its decline into an anachronism).

I'd bet you a Reagan Nickel that the IWW didn't do shit before the 1900.

Back to point, there is that word again... radical. How many people were killed due to these radicals back around the turn of the century, post 1900?

And keep in mind, how many people were maimed, killed, injured on the job (ignoring long work hours, placed into indentured servancy with company housing, stores, etc...) back around the turn of the century.

How do the numbers compare out? What was it, something like 0 for the first and much higher than 0 for the other?

Sanitized and romanticized by the contemporary left, it seems that at least one poster considers them "a thingy", a chic identity of the wing roots left.

Odd that you are the one that is broadbrushing a not so honest history of the IWW, yet complaining about people misremembering their history. We call that irony.

 

[maxparrish]

Back to the op...

Perhaps Mr. Higgins and I are wrong. The latest batch of new polls show Republicans leading in eight of the Democratic held seats, with Iowa a toss-up. And the generic polling shows a 4 point lead for Congressional Republicans.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/...n-eight-races-for-democrat-held-senate-seats/

The recent Politico/GWU Battleground poll as well shows very large margin advantage is likely Republican voters.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/...4-on-congressional-ballot-wide-intensity-gap/

Too bad Obama is delaying his royal proclamation of the suspension of US immigration law, just to avoid being held accountable by the voters; otherwise I suspect the GOP would take even more.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Back to the op...

Perhaps Mr. Higgins and I are wrong. The latest batch of new polls show Republicans leading in eight of the Democratic held seats, with Iowa a toss-up. And the generic polling shows a 4 point lead for Congressional Republicans.

The election is in November. These polls don't tell me anything except Rasmussen continues to poll to the right. I think the incumbents in LA, CO, KY will survive. Iowa will not go red. Georgia and Alaska to me are the unknowns.

Republicans are polling well in the House, mainly because of how well the system has been Gerrymandered in their favor in states like Ohio.

What I find odd is that Americans probably don't think Obama has done enough... yet are voting in the party that are the direct reason for it.

 

[dismal]

Back to the op...

Perhaps Mr. Higgins and I are wrong. The latest batch of new polls show Republicans leading in eight of the Democratic held seats, with Iowa a toss-up. And the generic polling shows a 4 point lead for Congressional Republicans.

The election is in November. These polls don't tell me anything except Rasmussen continues to poll to the right. I think the incumbents in LA, CO, KY will survive. Iowa will not go red. Georgia and Alaska to me are the unknowns.

Republicans are polling well in the House, mainly because of how well the system has been Gerrymandered in their favor in states like Ohio.

What I find odd is that Americans probably don't think Obama has done enough... yet are voting in the party that are the direct reason for it.

I thought you guys liked Nate Silver. He says 65% republicans now. Going up.

The bottom line is not much has changed. The FiveThirtyEight forecast model gives Republicans a 65.1 percent chance of winning the Senate with the new polling added, similar to the 63.5 percent chance that our previous forecast gave them on Friday.

But the path to a Republican majority is becoming a little clearer — and the problem for Democrats is that it runs through six deeply red states.

...

But we shouldn’t lose sight of the big picture. Republicans can win the Senate solely by winning Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia, states which voted for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama by an average of 19 percentage points in 2012.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/polls-show-path-of-least-resistance-to-gop-majority/

 

[maxparrish]

Back to the op...

Perhaps Mr. Higgins and I are wrong. The latest batch of new polls show Republicans leading in eight of the Democratic held seats, with Iowa a toss-up. And the generic polling shows a 4 point lead for Congressional Republicans.

The election is in November. These polls don't tell me anything except Rasmussen continues to poll to the right. I think the incumbents in LA, CO, KY will survive. Iowa will not go red. Georgia and Alaska to me are the unknowns.

Did you check the survey links in the article? I did not check for every state but of the four I checked were the results were from CBS/NewYork Times or NBC...not Rasmussen.

I have no idea if LA or Iowa will go red; but LA just might. So far the fate of Democrats in these races depend on pretending they are not "real" Democrats - in delaying his usurpation of Constitutional power Obama wisely decided not to remind voters of such.

Republicans are polling well in the House, mainly because of how well the system has been Gerrymandered in their favor in states like Ohio.

That has been a major factor, especially so in Presidential election years. That is one reason I am pretty sure the GOP will hold the House in 2016.

What I find odd is that Americans probably don't think Obama has done enough... yet are voting in the party that are the direct reason for it

Hmmmm, what I find is odd is that some Americans don't think that compromise, as Bill Clinton demonstrated, can get something done.

 

[ksen]

Kinda hard to compromise with a party whose main platform has been, "oppose anything the kenyan, muslim, pretender wants."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The election is in November. These polls don't tell me anything except Rasmussen continues to poll to the right. I think the incumbents in LA, CO, KY will survive. Iowa will not go red. Georgia and Alaska to me are the unknowns.

Did you check the survey links in the article? I did not check for every state but of the four I checked were the results were from CBS/NewYork Times or NBC...not Rasmussen.

I have no idea if LA or Iowa will go red; but LA just might. So far the fate of Democrats in these races depend on pretending they are not "real" Democrats - in delaying his usurpation of Constitutional power Obama wisely decided not to remind voters of such.

Republicans are polling well in the House, mainly because of how well the system has been Gerrymandered in their favor in states like Ohio.

That has been a major factor, especially so in Presidential election years. That is one reason I am pretty sure the GOP will hold the House in 2016.

What I find odd is that Americans probably don't think Obama has done enough... yet are voting in the party that are the direct reason for it

Hmmmm, what I find is odd is that some Americans don't think that compromise, as Bill Clinton demonstrated, can get something done.

Some on the right side of the aisle have a rather perverted idea as to the concept of compromise.

 

[Toni]

The election is in November. These polls don't tell me anything except Rasmussen continues to poll to the right. I think the incumbents in LA, CO, KY will survive. Iowa will not go red. Georgia and Alaska to me are the unknowns.

Did you check the survey links in the article? I did not check for every state but of the four I checked were the results were from CBS/NewYork Times or NBC...not Rasmussen.

I have no idea if LA or Iowa will go red; but LA just might. So far the fate of Democrats in these races depend on pretending they are not "real" Democrats - in delaying his usurpation of Constitutional power Obama wisely decided not to remind voters of such.

Republicans are polling well in the House, mainly because of how well the system has been Gerrymandered in their favor in states like Ohio.

That has been a major factor, especially so in Presidential election years. That is one reason I am pretty sure the GOP will hold the House in 2016.

What I find odd is that Americans probably don't think Obama has done enough... yet are voting in the party that are the direct reason for it

Hmmmm, what I find is odd is that some Americans don't think that compromise, as Bill Clinton demonstrated, can get something done.

Oh, I think that some members of Congress are quite well aware that if there is compromise, something will get done. Which is why they are so against it. They are more interested in their own side's victory than in doing what is right, which often means finding some middle ground or some third way.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Latest Five Thirty-Eight odds.

GOP 62.2%

 

[maxparrish]

Well, I got burned again. Every once in awhile I concede some liberal meme as a 'common sense truth' and invariably I've been far too charitable. It turns out that the GOP advantage in House seats is primarily due to other factors than Republican gerrymandering. The most important factor seems to be the concentration of overwhelming democratic voters in concentrated urban enclaves...i.e. wasted votes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/u...s-pennsylvania-shows.html?abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0

Another crash and burn truthie.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, I got burned again. Every once in awhile I concede some liberal meme as a 'common sense truth' and invariably I've been far too charitable. It turns out that the GOP advantage in House seats is primarily due to other factors than Republican gerrymandering. The most important factor seems to be the concentration of overwhelming democratic voters in concentrated urban enclaves...i.e. wasted votes.

And umm... gerrymandering has no affect on that? In Ohio, a state Obama won twice, Democrats have 1/4 of the House seats. Lumping as many democrats as possible into fewer districts is one way minimize their influence in the elections as a whole. In Ohio, there are districts that represents both Toledo and Cleveland, Cleveland and Akron, Akron/Canton/Youngstown. IE, the Republicans have managed to tie all of these areas up, instead of letting each general region have its own representative.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Latest Five Thirty-Eight odds.

GOP 62.2%

I don't trust 538 since it's become a business. Silver incorporates "fundamentals" into his calculations.

The Princeton Election Consortium run by Sam Wang uses only poll data and his algorithms are transparent:

Probability of Democratic+Independent control: 85% in an election today, 70% on Election Day

 

[maxparrish]

Well, I got burned again. Every once in awhile I concede some liberal meme as a 'common sense truth' and invariably I've been far too charitable. It turns out that the GOP advantage in House seats is primarily due to other factors than Republican gerrymandering. The most important factor seems to be the concentration of overwhelming democratic voters in concentrated urban enclaves...i.e. wasted votes.

And umm... gerrymandering has no affect on that? In Ohio, a state Obama won twice, Democrats have 1/4 of the House seats. Lumping as many democrats as possible into fewer districts is one way minimize their influence in the elections as a whole. In Ohio, there are districts that represents both Toledo and Cleveland, Cleveland and Akron, Akron/Canton/Youngstown. IE, the Republicans have managed to tie all of these areas up, instead of letting each general region have its own representative.

As I said, it's not that is has "no effect" but gerrymandering is a secondary factor, not the primary factor. The article I linked to also had a link to the same author's earlier essay that provided a convincing explanation, maps, and data:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/u...src=twr&abt=0002&abg=0&smid=tw-upshotnyt&_r=0

In other words, even in a non-partisan effort to redraw district boundaries (which group communities of interest) the result would still be a substantial Republican advantage.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I don't trust 538 since it's become a business. Silver incorporates "fundamentals" into his calculations.

The Princeton Election Consortium run by Sam Wang uses only poll data and his algorithms are transparent:

Probability of Democratic+Independent control: 85% in an election today, 70% on Election Day

Kansas in play for Independent does tip the scale.

 

[Derec]

I have no idea if LA or Iowa will go red; but LA just might.

I think it is very likely Landrieu will lose and if she does a big part of it will be the way she has been treated by the Senate leadership (i.e. Harry Reid) regarding the Keystone XL pipeline.
The LA voters must think that a Republican senator would have no less influence (aka close to zero) with Reid but with a Republican leader could get much more influence for the state.

In the end the Senate might have been lost for Democrats because their leadership valued Tom Steyer's millions (while hypocritically attacking Koch brothers) and fringe radical environmentalists over embattled Democrats, jobs, energy security and even true environmental protection (because pipeline transport is preferable to rail transport and oil sands from Canada are preferable to oil sands from Venezuela).

 

[dismal]

I don't trust 538 since it's become a business. Silver incorporates "fundamentals" into his calculations.

The Princeton Election Consortium run by Sam Wang uses only poll data and his algorithms are transparent:

Probability of Democratic+Independent control: 85% in an election today, 70% on Election Day

Are you willing to take cash bets giving 2.3-to-1 odds?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And umm... gerrymandering has no affect on that? In Ohio, a state Obama won twice, Democrats have 1/4 of the House seats. Lumping as many democrats as possible into fewer districts is one way minimize their influence in the elections as a whole. In Ohio, there are districts that represents both Toledo and Cleveland, Cleveland and Akron, Akron/Canton/Youngstown. IE, the Republicans have managed to tie all of these areas up, instead of letting each general region have its own representative.

As I said, it's not that is has "no effect" but gerrymandering is a secondary factor, not the primary factor. The article I linked to also had a link to the same author's earlier essay that provided a convincing explanation, maps, and data:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/u...src=twr&abt=0002&abg=0&smid=tw-upshotnyt&_r=0

In other words, even in a non-partisan effort to redraw district boundaries (which group communities of interest) the result would still be a substantial Republican advantage.

He seems to draw a different conclusion than I do on what I would say seems to be quite obvious from those Ohio numbers. The Republicans, who haven't taken Ohio's Electoral votes since '04, do not have a single candidate with a margin of victory larger than the smallest margin of victory for the Democrats.

The author seems to take from this that the pro-Democrat areas are simply congested with Democrats. And yes, that would be what happens when you draw districts that connect Toledo with Cleveland, Youngstown and Akron, Cleveland and Canton. Of course it would appear that the liberals live in tight quarters when a noncontiguous district which also gets as narrow as 1/4 miles spans across to capture multiple municipalities and suburbs, to help eliminate the liberal population around Toledo, in order to have red districts out west.

By drawing them up as the Republicans did, that saturated the liberal districts, which then waters down the other districts of Democrat voter influence in the remaining districts.