Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-09-2014, 05:14 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,772 posts, read 104,291,838 times
Reputation: 49248

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Regardless, while the Reps may not gain control of the Senate they are still going to gain A LOT of seats.

If Obama goes from 2008 full control to losing the house and senate by 2014.....that's a huge blow.
We pretty much see this the same way. it will be a blow and show the country how unhappy the people are with the current president. I would love to think the senate will go R. but I am not about to put my money on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-09-2014, 09:34 AM
 
77,899 posts, read 60,048,025 times
Reputation: 49251
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
So your argument is that its a huge blow because over 8 years the party of the president lost seats in mid terms ?

You do realize that has happened to every since president since the 1940's except GWB in 2002 ?
You've confused losing seats with losing control.

So I guess your saying that losing control of the house and Senate would be no big deal because it happens all the time? WTH?

I personally don't care if the dems lose control of the senate or not....meet the new boss....same as the old boss....

As such, I have a pretty impartial view and don't get drunk on koolaid and stagger in here predicting huge (unrealistic) republicans gains based upon a single polling outfit or how losing control of the Senate wouldn't be a big deal. lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 09:57 AM
 
12,638 posts, read 8,913,646 times
Reputation: 7458
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenejen View Post
Some people never learn:
Yep, they were dumb enough to vote for Obama a second time. Morons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
3,840 posts, read 4,494,761 times
Reputation: 3088
The initials after the names might change but that's it. It's just a matter of which corporation is in charge of the puppet in the chair.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 11:37 AM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,912,852 times
Reputation: 7313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace21230 View Post
Yep, they were dumb enough to vote for Obama a second time. Morons.
Dumber still was reporting polls that had no basis in reality. Romney's polls were bogus, as they were using demographic data that was a decade out of date. They might as well have just polled family members, and waited for the radical right to proclaim "victory is near".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 11:41 AM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,912,852 times
Reputation: 7313
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenejen View Post
Some people never learn:
Her's a better one : Romney in Best Position a Challenger has been in Since 1936

PS: You are correct!
10-26-2012, 11:19 PM
[SIZE=5]Trace21230[/SIZE][SIZE=5][/SIZE]
Evil GOPer - Kicks Puppies and Makes Kids Cry
befriend
Join Date: Jul 2011
5,723 posts, read 1,522,055 times
Reputation: 2578




Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
Keep dreaming Trace.

Polls don't win elections. Electoral votes do. Romney has a very steep path to 270, and the momentum has topped out. Unless he can somehow run the table, it ain't happening.


Like I said, Obama is toast.

Keep whistling by the graveyard Fid
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 02:09 PM
 
77,899 posts, read 60,048,025 times
Reputation: 49251
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
Dumber still was reporting polls that had no basis in reality. Romney's polls were bogus, as they were using demographic data that was a decade out of date. They might as well have just polled family members, and waited for the radical right to proclaim "victory is near".
Actually, it's not dumb at all....it's intentional spin. So dishonest politicians yes....but not dumb.

Just like when Obama aides went on the offensive against the Clinton camp during the primary as being "racist". They didn't actually believe it, but what's that got to do with politics?

Republicans do it too, that's how Bush 2.0 torpedoed McCain in 2000 with some sort of gay smear campaign.

Now the rabid kool-aid drinkers that believed those polls because they REALLY REALLY wanted them to be true? Yeah, they are dumb. However, they were no dumber than the people that couldn't reconcile that Gore lost and blamed diebold machines in Ohio for cheating etc.

Seems like every lost election anymore was cheating by the same machines that they won the election on a few years before. Wierd huh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 02:17 PM
 
77,899 posts, read 60,048,025 times
Reputation: 49251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wynternight View Post
The initials after the names might change but that's it. It's just a matter of which corporation is in charge of the puppet in the chair.
Lies, all lies.

Just look how Obama has shown how "green" and non-republican he is. He tricked Monsanto by making their former CEO the head of the FDA.

I mean, that's sheer brilliance! Who better to police those industries than a guy that knows all the inner workings.

Same tactic he used by making the GE CEO the head of the jobs council. I mean, who better than a guy that has off-shored more jobs than pretty much any other US company?

GE responded brilliantly by pushing for legislation offering massive tax credits to bring jobs back to the US....while paying no corporate taxes because they exploit loopholes and report their profits in foreign countries. Huzzah! Another victory for the little guy!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 02:47 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 6,377,687 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace21230 View Post
RealClearPolitics - 2014 Election Maps - Senate No Toss Ups

GOP Pickups in:
Montana
South Dakota
Louisiana
Arkansas
West Virginia
Alaska

I believe the Republicans will also win at least two of the following, from most likely pickup to least likely:
North Carolina
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
New Hampshire
Virginia
Oregon

If Obama's approval rating remains as low as it is or continues to drop, we could very easily see a GOP pickup of ten Senate seats.
None of those states you listed have a chance in hell of going Republican.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 02:55 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,449 posts, read 16,363,003 times
Reputation: 5953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
You've confused losing seats with losing control.

So I guess your saying that losing control of the house and Senate would be no big deal because it happens all the time? WTH?

I personally don't care if the dems lose control of the senate or not....meet the new boss....same as the old boss....

As such, I have a pretty impartial view and don't get drunk on koolaid and stagger in here predicting huge (unrealistic) republicans gains based upon a single polling outfit or how losing control of the Senate wouldn't be a big deal. lol.
President Bush had both houses in 2001, and by 2008 he had neither.

President Clinton had control of both Houses in 1993 by 2000 he had lost both.

even in the 1990 mid term (Bush 1 midterm), The republicans lost 2 senate seats and 12 house seats.

in 1986 (regan second mid term) Democrats won 8 senate seats and 5 house seats. Meaning republicans lost the majority in the senate.

just to be clear, these are net gains.

Do i need to keep going or do you see my point ? Clinton and Bush both lost control of both chambers of congress. Reagan gained the senate and lost it. The only reason why Bush1 didnt is because he never had it to begin with.

Neither Bush1 or Reagan ever had control of the House

So to answer your question, yes it does happen all the time. mainly because senate seats are unbalanced.

We no longer have an odd, number of senators. I say we break them up 50/50 and chop their terms down to 4 years that way we have each state voting on 1 of their senators ever 2 years.

Last edited by dsjj251; 07-09-2014 at 03:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top