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.
There is a very high chance that Republicans will lose the Senate, purely on the electoral structure for the Senate. 24 of the 34 seats coming up in 2016 are Republican seats, many of which are in Blue States. In fact, it's been said that 9 out of top 10 seats likely to flip are all Republican seats, with the other seat being Harry Reid's in NV.
But it doesn't matter, if you don't get 60 votes in the Senate, filibuster will always stop a cockamamie Republican bill. 0% chance of 60 votes for the Republicans.
Mick
That is a nonsense reason for making said prediction. Blue vs Red for the most part means splitting a very small percentage of votes for president. We are talking about Senate.
In 2014 - Mark Pryor, Mark Udall, & Kay Hagan lost their seats. All had extremely well financed campaigns. In fact Kay Hagan's race became the most expensive Senate race ever. All lost their seats for being pasted as an Obama lackey voting with him most of the time. GOP also gained 6 other open seats formerly held by DNC.
No GOP senator lost their seat.
No reason to believe this won't be repeated again in 2016.
In the latest polls Hilary is barely clinging to the the lead, but it's within the margin of error, meaning it's essentially a tie. It's important to remember polls this early don't mean that much. That said, there's no denying her campaign -thus far- has been listless and uninspired.
If she doesn't have any major mistakes I think she'll win, but right now she's not exactly filling me with confidence: RealClearPolitics - Latest Polls
That is a nonsense reason for making said prediction. Blue vs Red for the most part means splitting a very small percentage of votes for president. We are talking about Senate.
In 2014 - Mark Pryor, Mark Udall, & Kay Hagan lost their seats. All had extremely well financed campaigns. In fact Kay Hagan's race became the most expensive Senate race ever. All lost their seats for being pasted as an Obama lackey voting with him most of the time. GOP also gained 6 other open seats formerly held by DNC.
No GOP senator lost their seat.
No reason to believe this won't be repeated again in 2016.
Modesty prevents me from stating that you are wrong and I am right. So we'll just have to see.
In 2014, there were six more Democratic seats up for reelection. Compare that with the 24-10 Democratic advantage in 2016. No one, other than wacko birds, come out for mid-term elections, but it's different in Presidential election year.
Note that Mark Pryor and Kay Hagan are from Red States. And Mark Udall is from a swing state. Both POTUS and Senate elections are state-wide, and that's why the prevalent party affiliation state-wide is important.
Hillary Clinton is sinking like a lead balloon, and the alternatives, a socialist, and an ancient dude, are the only viable alternatives? Come on! The GOP clown car is overstuffed as expected, but the Democrats really look like they have painted themselves into a corner. WTF?
Can someone explain to me how this is good strategy?
The scene has been skewed this year by all the early activity in the GOP. Since the Democrats have an incumbent president, they don't have the GOP's need to get an earlier start, and there is still actually a lot of time for other Democrats to declare, if a person looks back on past elections.
And given that the earliest Democrats to declare have often failed after winning Iowa or New Hampshire, it can make sense for an aspirant to hold off until late, so they can be primaried in the states that have more electoral votes.
Remember that every state costs campaign money. 2012 had too many Republicans entering early too, and a lot of the contenders who won an early state or two ran out of money when it counts the most- in the late campaign, when interest is highest and the convention is not many months away.
Will Joe Biden enter? Maybe. If he does, he appeals to both the establishment and the more radical side of the Democratic party, and could draw votes away from Sanders and Clinton.
The Republicans aren't alone in their dissatisfaction with congressional gridlock and the over-reliance on big money contributors. Bernie is running a shoestring campaign, but he's getting more attention than Hillary. The comparisons to Jeb vs. Trump aren't exactly parallel, but it is another case of insider vs. outsider. Bernie has always gone his own way, and has never been in any big money contributor's pocket.
Even so, your point is well taken. Both sides could have painted themselves into corners. If so, then 2016 will be a very low turnout, but someone will win. Someone always does whether or not the turnout is low or high. The party that is best able to hold it's nose over the choices offered may be the winner if they can turn out their voters.
The scene has been skewed this year by all the early activity in the GOP. Since the Democrats have an incumbent president, they don't have the GOP's need to get an earlier start, and there is still actually a lot of time for other Democrats to declare, if a person looks back on past elections.
And given that the earliest Democrats to declare have often failed after winning Iowa or New Hampshire, it can make sense for an aspirant to hold off until late, so they can be primaried in the states that have more electoral votes.
Remember that every state costs campaign money. 2012 had too many Republicans entering early too, and a lot of the contenders who won an early state or two ran out of money when it counts the most- in the late campaign, when interest is highest and the convention is not many months away.
Will Joe Biden enter? Maybe. If he does, he appeals to both the establishment and the more radical side of the Democratic party, and could draw votes away from Sanders and Clinton.
The Republicans aren't alone in their dissatisfaction with congressional gridlock and the over-reliance on big money contributors. Bernie is running a shoestring campaign, but he's getting more attention than Hillary. The comparisons to Jeb vs. Trump aren't exactly parallel, but it is another case of insider vs. outsider. Bernie has always gone his own way, and has never been in any big money contributor's pocket.
Even so, your point is well taken. Both sides could have painted themselves into corners. If so, then 2016 will be a very low turnout, but someone will win. Someone always does whether or not the turnout is low or high. The party that is best able to hold it's nose over the choices offered may be the winner if they can turn out their voters.
Democrats have three really good candidates that are overshadowed by the big 3. Brian O'Malley and Jim Webb make excellent president's. Lincoln Chaffe make a great VP.
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.
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.
