Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 27, 2014, 12:48:14 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83446 Posts in 2260 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The US Congress; Congressional races
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Print
Author Topic: The US Congress; Congressional races  (Read 24204 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31693


« Reply #250 on: September 15, 2014, 10:23:54 AM »

The GOP’s Missing Electoral Link


Posted By David Horowitz On September 15, 2014
To order David Horowitz’s new book, Take No Prisoners, click here.

This article is reprinted from Redstate.com.

Paul Ryan is a smart man, and probably represents the mainstream thinking of the Republican Party, though like every ambitious politician he likes to position himself as a critic of the crowd. But in a recent interview with Matthew Continetti, Ryan started out well by complaining about the GOP consultant class. “The consultant class always says play it safe, choose a risk-averse strategy. I don’t think we have the luxury of doing that.” But then when called on to provide a non-risk averse strategy, he comes up with this: “We need to treat people like adults by offering them alternatives.” But what Republican consultant would tell his candidate not to offer alternative policies and ideas? There is none.

Every Republican thinks that offering a positive vision and new policies is the key to winning elections. Of course sometimes, as in the midterms this fall, the Democrats have screwed up so big that they are practically handing Republicans a victory. Just don’t count on it for 2016. In fact, Ryan embraces the conventional GOP wisdom:

“The only way we beat an Obama third term is to offer a spirited alternative and bring it up to a crescendo where we’re really giving the country a very clear choice of policies and ideas.”

I wouldn’t bet on it. You can’t give the country a clear choice of policies and ideas when the Democrats are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to label you racists, sexists, homophobes enemies of the poor, selfish and uncaring. If Republicans are to win national elections they have to come up with an answer to these attacks. And the only answer is a counter-attack. I’ve laid out the basis for an effective counter-attack in my new book Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan For Defeating the Left (Regnery 2014). But I’m not holding my breath that Republicans will embrace the strategy I recommend. More likely they will go into the next national election like crash-dummies as they usually do.

When you examine the Democrat attacks they are all moral indictments: racist, uncaring, anti-woman, selfish. In contrast, Republicans criticize Democrats for having unworkable policies. Who do you think is going to win this debate? If a voter thinks someone is a racist, how seriously are they going to take his policy ideas? The same reaction awaits candidates who are seen as selfish defenders of the greedy rich, namely, Republicans.

What’s the Republican counter-attack? There is none. But here’s how to think of one: Democrat policies are not merely wrong-headed, they’re destructive. Democrats control every major city in America – Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, New York, Minneapolis, Milwaukee – and I could go on and on. They’ve controlled these cities for 50 to 100 years. Everything that is wrong with the inner cities of America, every policy that adversely affects the impoverished minorities who live there, Democrats are responsible for.

Democrat policies, for example, have trapped millions of poor African American and Hispanic children in schools that don’t teach them, year in and year out, because they’re run for the benefit of the leftwing teacher unions and the Democratic Party. Democrats will fight to the death to keep these children from getting scholarships known as “vouchers” that would allow them to find private schools that would teach them. Yet Democrats, including the president himself, send their own children to private schools. How racist is that? Yet when did you ever hear a Republican call a Democrat a racist over this atrocity?

Consider the consequences of Democratic misrule: millions of poor African American and Hispanic children who will never be educated and never get a shot at the American dream. Instead they will be condemned to lives of poverty and crime. The Democratic colony of Chicago is a war zone. Who is responsible for all the lost young African American lives in Chicago? But Republicans are too polite to mention it.
In Ferguson, Missouri we have witnessed the month long spectacle of a Democratic lynch mob led by one of the nation’s leading racists, Al Sharpton, who just happens to be the President’s adviser on race. Rev. Sharpton has been mightily abetted by the Democratic Attorney General of the United States, who is conducting a witch-hunt against the Ferguson police force. The Democratic Party isthe party of racism, but Republicans are too timid to mention it.

As ever on national security, Democrats have disarmed us in the face of the Islamic crusade against the West, the greatest threat we have ever faced as a nation; they have attacked our borders so that we can’t prevent terrorists and criminals from crossing them; they have forced our retreat from Iraq and the Middle East creating a vacuum that has been filled by the armies of ISIS and other well-armed barbarians who have sworn to kill us. Democrats have betrayed our country and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Syrians and Libyans slaughtered by the terrorist armies their policies have unleashed. Yet where is the Republican voice using the language appropriate to these betrayals?

Yet it is precisely this moral language that Republicans must use to push back the Democrat slanderers who have been so effective in winning elections. Barack Obama is the most incompetent, anti-American, leftwing radical ever nominated by a major political party. Democrats did that. Hold them responsible.

Whatever words Republicans finally use, they have to 1) Get used to the fact that politics is a no-holds-barred street fight and nice guys finish last; 2) Get used to the fact that they are going to have to actually attack Democrats and make it hurt: and 3) Frame their attacks as a moral indictment – or else they will be pulverized by the moral indictments framed by their opponents.

This is my advice. My bet: Paul Ryan and the Republican Party will ignore it.
===============================


Email
Print
29 Comments
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn

    smaller
    Larger

By
Jason L. Riley
Sept. 12, 2014 5:02 p.m. ET

There's a rift in the Republican Party, and I'm not referring to the one between Rand Paul isolationists and John McCain hawks.

The split is between those who think the GOP can rely on President's Obama unpopularity to win a Senate majority in November and those who think the party would do better to push a positive agenda. Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio is in the latter camp. In an interview this week, he told the Christian Science Monitor that if the GOP nets the six seat it needs to win control of the upper chamber, it would focus on four things: corporate tax reform, regulatory reform, giving Mr. Obama authority to fast-track trade deals and approving the final leg of a Keystone XL pipeline that would increase domestic energy production.

"By getting a Republican majority, I do believe it would get the president to the table on some of these issues," Mr. Portman told the paper. "I know I may sound naive, since everyone has decided that the next two years are going to be all about 2016," he added. "But I look at what's happened over the years. When we have divided government, that's when we've done tax reform, that's when we've done entitlement reform, that's when we've helped to move the economy forward when we take on these big issues."


The president has been very specific about his agenda, repeatedly calling for a minimum-wage increase and legislation aimed at closing a gender gap in pay that liberals believe is a reflection of employer discrimination. Republicans have made clear that they oppose such measures, but the party has failed to unite around a coherent agenda of its own.

Given the president's low approval rating, the sluggish economy and the fact that ObamaCare continues to poll poorly, many Republicans believe that a message of opposition will suffice in the fall. Politicians aren't the bravest bunch, and talking about what you're against is easier that explaining what you're for. If Republicans want a mandate from voters, they ought to follow Mr. Portman's lead and explain what they'd do with it.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4202


« Reply #251 on: September 16, 2014, 11:17:52 AM »

Meet Greg Orman, the man who could decide the Senate majority

By Sean Sullivan September 4 
 
Independent Senate candidate Greg Orman speaks with reporters Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2014. (AP Photo, Topeka Capital-Journal/Thad Allton)
The question of which political party will control the Senate could come down to a man who says parties are "part of the problem."

That man is Greg Orman, the independent candidate for Senate in Kansas who finds himself at the center of the political universe today. Democratic nominee Chad Taylor abruptly ended his campaign on Wednesday, clearing the way for Orman to have a clean shot at Sen. Pat Roberts (R) -- who, polls suggest, could be unexpectedly vulnerable this fall.

Orman, 45, is a political enigma. Over the years, he's donated money to both liberal Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and the National Republican Congressional Committee. He says he voted for President Obama in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012. And he won't reveal which side he would choose in the Senate.

But national Democrats have been mum about Taylor's sudden departure, fueling speculation the party believes there is a very good chance Orman would side with them. Running in a deeply conservative state, Orman is carefully avoiding any move that would link him too closely with Democrats. At the same time, he's casting himself as a much more moderate alternative to Roberts, who he says has adopted "Ted Cruz's voting patterns."

In a telephone interview with The Washington Post last week, Orman decried the partisan gridlock that has seized Congress. He said that he would likely side with whichever party is in the majority and talk to both sides if he ends up the deciding vote. With a competitive battle for the majority underway, that's a possibility.

"I hold both sides equally accountable," he said.

Orman presented himself as a moderate in the mold of Bob Dole, the former Senate majority leader from Kansas. He took aim at Roberts for voting against the farm bill, and lambasted him for not voting on the VA reform bill.


On immigration, he emphasized the importance of securing the border -- but also said supports a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and that he would have supported the comprehensive reform bill that passed the Senate last year.

"I think if you're undocumented and you are here, you should have to register with [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement], you should have to pay a small fine or perform community service as an acknowledgement that you've broken the law," he explained. "Then you should have to hold down a job, pay taxes, obey our laws. And if you do all those things, I think you should be able to continue to live here and work here."

Orman was one of five children of a nurse and a furniture store owner in Stanley, Kan. He graduated from Princeton University, where he was a member of the College Republicans, in 1991 with an degree in economics. Not long after, he founded a company that installed energy efficient lighting systems. In 2004, he co-founded Denali Partners, LLC, an investment firm.

Disillusioned by the George W. Bush administration, according to lengthy explanation of his political history posted on his campaign Web site, Orman decided to become a Democrat. His first foray into elected office was in 2007, when he briefly explored a run against Roberts as a Democrat before pulling the plug on that idea.

He's parked himself firmly in the middle in the years since that short-lived bid. Orman founded the centrist the Common Sense Coalition in 2010. He told The Post -- after initially balking -- that he voted for Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Obama's "very, very partisan approach to health-care," Orman said, led him to opposing a second term.


Campaign finance records reveal that Orman has given to both Democrats and Republicans over the years. About two years after giving money to Obama, have wrote a check to a political action committee founded by Republican Scott Brown.

Orman, for his part, is not taking money from political action committees in his campaign. Through mid-July he had more than $362,000 in his campaign account -- a fairly impressive sum for an inexpensive state like Kansas. And he's left the door open to dipping into his own pockets for more.

Roberts, who is still recovering from a bruising primary campaign in which he was sharply criticized for staying with supporters when he is in Kansas instead of his own home, has signaled that he will try to portray Orman as far too liberal for Kansas.

"We are confident that Kansas voters will quickly see through this charade foisted on Kansas by Orman and his Democrat allies," said Leroy Towns, Roberts's campaign manager, in a statement.

Amid his political shifts over the years, did Orman ever vote for Roberts in a primary or general election?

"Not that I recall," he said. "But I don't remember everybody I voted for over the last 25 years."

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4202


« Reply #252 on: September 17, 2014, 09:18:39 AM »

If this happens how does Republicans rid themselves of Rove?

*****By Chris Cillizza September 16 at 12:23 PM 
 
Democrats are now (very slightly) favored to hold the Senate majority on Nov. 4, according to Election Lab, The Post's statistical model of the 2014 midterm elections.

Election Lab puts Democrats' chances of retaining their majority at 51 percent — a huge change from even a few months ago, when the model predicted that Republicans had a better than 80 percent chance of winning the six seats they need to take control. (Worth noting: When the model showed Republicans as overwhelming favorites, our model builders — led by George Washington University's John Sides — warned that the model could and would change as more actual polling — as opposed to historical projections — played a larger and larger role in the calculations. And, in Republicans' defense, no one I talked to ever thought they had an 80 percent chance of winning the majority.)

So, what exactly has changed to move the Election Lab projection? Three big things:

* Colorado: On Aug. 27 — the last time I wrote a big piece on the model — Election Lab said Sen. Mark Udall (D) had a 64 percent chance of winning. Today he has a 94 percent chance.

* Iowa: Two weeks ago, the model gave state Sen. Joni Ernst (R) a 72 percent chance of winning. Today she has a 59 percent chance.

* Kansas: Republican Sen. Pat Roberts's reelection race wasn't even on the radar on Aug. 27. Today, Election Lab predicts that he has just a 68 percent chance of winning.

In addition to that trio of moves in Democrats' direction, Louisiana has moved slightly in Democrats' favor (from a 57 percent chance of losing to a 53 percent chance), as has North Carolina (a 97 percent chance of winning now as opposed to a 92 percent chance on Aug. 27).


By contrast, Alaska has moved in Republicans' direction (Democratic Sen. Mark Begich's chances of winning are down from 66 percent to 53 percent), and Georgia has become more of a sure-thing hold (a 91 percent GOP win vs. an 84 percent hold).

The movement toward Democrats in the Election Lab model isn't unique. LEO, the New York Times' Upshot model, gives Republicans a 51 percent chance of winning the Senate — but that is down significantly over the past few weeks.

 
Image courtesy of The Upshot
Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight model now has Republican chances of winning the Senate at 55 percent, down from 64 percent 12 days ago. "The two states with the largest shifts have been Colorado and North Carolina — in both cases, the movement has been in Democrats’ direction," Silver writes. "That accounts for most of the difference in the forecast."

It's important to note that these models change daily as new polling is released and factored in.  So, tomorrow it's possible that Election Lab will show Republicans with a very narrow edge in the battle for the Senate. What you should take away from the models then is a) all three have moved toward Democrats of late and b) all three show the battle for the Senate majority to be the truest of tossups at the moment.

What's interesting about the election models is that they are moving in the opposite direction of political handicappers. In recent days, Stu Rothenberg and Charlie Cook, the two best-known, nonpartisan prognosticators in Washington, have each written that the possibility of large-scale Republicans gains is increasing, not decreasing. Wrote Stu last week:

After looking at recent national, state and congressional survey data and comparing this election cycle to previous ones, I am currently expecting a sizable Republican Senate wave. The combination of an unpopular president and a midterm election (indeed, a second midterm) can produce disastrous results for the president’s party. President Barack Obama’s numbers could rally, of course, and that would change my expectations in the blink of an eye. But as long as his approval sits in the 40-percent range (the August NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll), the signs are ominous for Democrats.

These two sets of predictions are not mutually exclusive. Charlie and Stu are trying to look ahead seven weeks to predict the outcome; the election models are measuring the chances as of today. Still, it's a fascinating split — and one to watch over the final seven weeks of the 2014 election.


Chris Cillizza writes “The Fix,” a politics blog for the Washington Post. He also covers the White House.
  SHARE ON FACEBOOK
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6098


« Reply #253 on: September 17, 2014, 10:26:42 AM »

If this happens how does Republicans rid themselves of Rove?  ...

Rove was caught running amnesty ads against Grimes in the Senate race in Kentucky, when Rove and same group, Crossroads, supported the same legislation at the time.

Overall, I don't share your view that Rove is the problem, but he also isn't the solution.  Groups like his rise in importance when millions and millions and millions of conservatives don't rise up at all and do or say anything about what is happening.

I see polls moving again after Nate Silver's last report and as poll companies move from registered voters to likely voters.  GOP Ernst now leading in Tom Harkins' Iowa seat, +6.  Dem Gov Hickenlooper way down in swing state Colo. down, -10. Fla Gov GOP +5.

Of course R's could still blow this.  The bigger problem I see is if R's win too small this year to hold the Senate majority in 2016.  Eking out a win without bringing voters over to a positive agenda going forward is a tremendous and historic loss.  Failure to nationalize this race and win with purpose just sets us up for failure in the next cycle.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2014, 10:40:57 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4202


« Reply #254 on: September 17, 2014, 11:41:14 AM »

"Eking out a win without bringing voters over to a positive agenda going forward is a tremendous and historic loss."

"positive agenda"

We can be sure the Clinton mob is furiously working to come up positive agendas for their voting blocks.

And they will have ones for the middle class which is key.   That is the ones who want to work.

For the benefits crowd there is little hope it seems they will ever vote ideology over cash handouts.

How do Republicans win over single mothers?   

How do they win over American workers?

How do they win over blue collars?

How do they win over other ethnic groups?

Blacks?

(Forget liberal Jews - no hope)

Spanish Speaking groups?

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6098


« Reply #255 on: September 17, 2014, 12:50:21 PM »

...How do Republicans win over single mothers?   
How do they win over American workers?
How do they win over blue collars?
How do they win over other ethnic groups?
Blacks?
(Forget liberal Jews - no hope)
Spanish Speaking groups?

More specifics as we go.  In short, Obama won by less than 3points in the last Presidential election and Republicans are already competitive in mid-terms.  We need to make a loud and clear and persuasive message to all of the members of these groups and get 1.5% of them to switch sides.  In addition to taking a small bite out of these groups, 4 million Republican voters stayed home instead of voting for Romney.  A flawed candidate (Romneycare?) ran a weak campaign and left votes on the table.  For example, where was his response to Candy Crowley when she butted in, what does self deportation mean, why are we conceding 47% of the vote if the argument is that the President is failing for all of us?

My thoughts to a gay person: in spite of (previous) opposition to gay marriage, conservatives offer you more liberty overall.

To Hispanics:conservatives offer you more opportunity to get ahead. 

To blacks:   a conservative agenda offers you more opportunity going forward, a move toward color blindness and will not remove the safety net for those trying to catch up.

To most Jews: conservatives support what you support.

To blue collar workers:  Conservatives respect the fruits of your labor, and your hard work is worth more in a healthy economy with a secure border.

To single moms:  Do you want your wonderful kids growing up in a failed state owing more than he/she will ever earn, or in a great country with a vibrant economy.

Asian Americans as a group hate us too.  Yet they tend to be hard working producers and strong parents, strong families.  We can do better with them.

To Americans:  Conservative offer you a better agenda for national security.

Single moms and other groups mentioned, may largely see government as their economic security.  But it is actually those who grow the economy that funds the government that provide the security.  Failure to move the economy forward hurts everyone in every economic situation.  We need to move a very small portion of each of these groups to win.

One point from Obama, stop doing stupid things.  Paul Ryan called himself out on one of those.  We aren't just makers and takers.  You aren't a taker if you are a retiree is receiving an earned benefit from the government or a disabled veteran or and entitlement recipient truly unable to work.  Broad sweeping statements are unhelpful especially when you are willing to fund almost all of the federal government anyway.  To focus and the agenda needs to much more clear and realistic if we want to take power away from the scare mongers.

If we can't make an economic or freedom argument after 8 years of Obama, ...
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4202


« Reply #256 on: September 17, 2014, 01:36:39 PM »

Doug,

Great start.  More specifics in the future hopefully.  Too vague but a more thorough message is more difficult.  I think the Republicans should address these divergent groups.  They should target on a national bully pulpit agenda.

Not just hire a few from each group, a gay, a black, a latin, a women and call them chairman of the gay, black, latin, women Republican "outreach" or committee of some other vague platform that no one ever sees.   They should seriously look at reaching out to these groups on the national stage and in a big way.  Explain to them whey their lives are not and will likely not get better under Crats. 

As for the perception the rich are getting richer and everyone else not the evidence suggests that is truer today than since the Gilded Age.  Hillary will have arguments for all these things.  The Cans have historically not addressed them.

"If we can't make an economic or freedom argument after 8 years of Obama, ..."

On a national level, apparently not.



Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31693


« Reply #257 on: September 18, 2014, 07:41:03 AM »


http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/17/national-campaign-launched-in-support-of-trey-gowdy-for-speaker/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6098


« Reply #258 on: October 02, 2014, 01:57:42 PM »


Agree!  Wouldn't that be a nice change.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6098


« Reply #259 on: October 02, 2014, 02:06:44 PM »

This could easily be put under "The Way Forward", what I would call common-sense-conservatism.  
Click on the 30 minute audio podcast at the link, interviewed by John Hinderacker at Powerline.
McFadden is supposedly losing by double digits while Franken has a 100% name recognition.  Watch this race close to within the margin of error by election day.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/meet-mike-mcfadden.php
mikemcfadden.com
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 06:19:44 PM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6098


« Reply #260 on: October 03, 2014, 11:14:11 PM »

The President has announced that he would like the current mid-terms to be a referendum on his Presidency.  So be it.

Pres. Obama:  "... make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot — every single one of them.”
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6098


« Reply #261 on: October 23, 2014, 09:24:40 AM »

I sense a lot of pessimism on our side.  The polls look pretty good but we have had this football pulled away from us so many times we don't know whether to try kicking it one more time.

No matter what, one of these three scenarios is going to happen this Nov 4:

1. Republicans under-perform (again) and get beat(again) by the Dem get out the vote, fear, envy and cheat operations.  Republicans pick up 0-5 seats resulting best case in a 50-50 tie that goes to the Dems for control with their sitting Vice President.  Then R's lose more in 2016 so that even if they win back the White House they can't effectively govern or reform or dismantle government program.

2.  Republican barely take the Senate with 51 or 52 seats.  (Most likely scenario)  Then we will have evenly divided government for the end the Obama years and have two years of competing views aired into the next Presidential election where both parties have to pick new leaders, and hopefully new directions.

3.  Republican wave election.  I'm not predicting this, but why not!  The Pres and Dems are weak on foreign policy, weak on security issues, have a horrible track record on economic issues, are completely deaf to the electorate and have been caught governing recklessly.  Republicans OTOH have pretty good candidates running nationwide and are running with pretty good messages.  No child molesters and no one leading with a rape abortion platform this time.

A wave election is when nearly all of the tossups fall in one direction, instead of falling randomly or on local personalities and issues.  Real Clear Politics shows 9 tossups right now.  That is  a lot!  Nearly all are losable for the R's, but all 9 and perhaps two more are winnable in a wave.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/2014_elections_senate_map.html

It is a two step process (again) to save the republic.  Separate some of these faithful Dem groups from their misguided loyalties this year, then win a few of them over to a message of economic freedom and growth in the next cycle.  If Republicans win a majority or 53, 54 or 55 Senate seats this year and if a true leader with a compelling message emerges next year, this country hase a fighting chance of turning things around!

-----------------------------------------------------
One possible indicator of a problem in the polls is the left has sent all their heaviest hitters to Minnesota to defend a Governor and Senator (Al Franken) who are both not considered by anyone to be in contested races.  They have sent President Obama, Michelle Obama, former President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, Bill Maher and Elizabeth Warren - twice.  All for uncontested races.  Maybe they see something we don't or maybe it just means they are not welcome anywhere else...
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 09:45:25 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4202


« Reply #262 on: October 23, 2014, 11:08:03 AM »

" They have sent President Obama, Michelle Obama, former President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, Bill Maher and Elizabeth Warren - twice.  All for uncontested races.  Maybe they see something we don't or maybe it just means they are not welcome anywhere else..."

Bill Maher?  Heavy hitter?

12 days for Obama to get Jihadi John for his November/October surprise.

By the way, will Romney listen to Trump?  Perhaps if Trump promises HIMSELF not to run again Romney would listen.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6098


« Reply #263 on: October 23, 2014, 12:28:32 PM »

"Bill Maher?  Heavy hitter?"

   LOL!

For that matter, Joe Biden?  And the school lunch lady??   smiley

I wonder what would be an example of someone important and credible on the far left?
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 12:31:22 PM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6098


« Reply #264 on: November 03, 2014, 11:58:06 PM »

Predictions before the polls open/close?

In the House, people say double digit (barely) gains for Republicans.  (Hard to track 435 of these.)

In the Senate, as it sits now with polling, R's hold two close ones,Kentucky and Georgia,  lose Kansas (?)  and pick up 7, West Virginia, South Dakota. Montana, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa and eventually Louisiana IF this really is a so-called national wave election, that number needs to jump to 9, possibly 10.  So add to that: Kansas and New Hampshire for nine, and then one of the following:  North Carolina, New Mexico, Virginia or Minnesota to make ten. (It is also possible that the Dem ground game combining smart strategies with hard work and cheating again bursts the Republican bubble.) 

R's need a pickup of 8 or more IMO to have a decent chance of holding the Senate in 2016 when they have to defend something like 23 seats to their opponents 9.

Go vote, everybody.  Margin of victory matters.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12136


« Reply #265 on: November 04, 2014, 01:37:49 AM »

Repubiclicans have to win beyond the margin of fraud and litigation.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6098


« Reply #266 on: November 04, 2014, 07:50:22 AM »

Republicans have to win beyond the margin of fraud and litigation.

Sad but true and so many of these races look to be extremely close.

It will be interesting to see how well the pollsters got it this year.  They have been all over the map but only get judged for accuracy by their final tally.

VOTE.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 599


« Reply #267 on: November 05, 2014, 10:59:12 AM »

Voters' verdict explodes Democratic myths

BY BYRON YORK | NOVEMBER 5, 2014 | 8:30 AM

As Democratic losses mounted in Senate races across the country on election night, some liberal commentators clung to the idea that dissatisfied voters were sending a generally anti-incumbent message, and not specifically repudiating Democratic officeholders. But the facts of the election just don't support that story.

Voters replaced Democratic senators with Republicans in Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia and likely in Alaska, and appear on track to do so in a runoff next month in Louisiana. At the same time, voters kept Republicans in GOP seats in heavily contested races in Georgia, Kansas and Kentucky. That is at least 10, and as many as a dozen, tough races, without a single Republican seat changing hands. Tuesday's voting was a wave alright — a very anti-Democratic wave.

In addition to demolishing the claim of bipartisan anti-incumbent sentiment, voters also exposed as myths five other ideas dear to the hearts of Democrats in the last few months:

1) The election wouldn't be a referendum on President Obama. "Barack Obama was on the ballot in 2012 and in 2008," Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in late October. "The candidates that are on the ballot are Democratic and Republican candidates for Congress." Of course, that was true, but Republicans from New Hampshire to Alaska worked tirelessly to put the president figuratively on the ballot. And they succeeded.

Every day on the stump, Republican candidates pressed the point that their Democratic opponents voted for the Obama agenda nearly all the time. "Kay Hagan has voted for President Obama's failed partisan agenda 95 percent of the time," said Thom Tillis, who defeated the incumbent Democrat in North Carolina. Mark Pryor "votes with Barack Obama 93 percent of the time," said Tom Cotton, who defeated the incumbent Democrat in Arkansas. "Mark Udall has voted with [Obama] 99 percent of the time," said Cory Gardner, who defeated the incumbent Democrat in Colorado.

On Election Day, nearly 60 percent of voters told exit pollsters they were dissatisfied or angry with the Obama administration. In retrospect, there was no more effective campaign strategy for Republicans running in 2014 than to tie an opponent to the president.

2) Obamacare wouldn't matter. Many Democrats and their liberal supporters in the press believed that the president's healthcare plan, a year into implementation, would not be a major factor in the midterms. But Republican candidates ignored the liberal pundits and pounded away on Obamacare anyway — and it contributed to their success.

"In our polling, [Obamacare] continues to be just as hot as it's been all year long," said a source in the campaign of Tom Cotton, who won a Senate seat handily in Arkansas, in an interview about ten days before the election. "If you look at a word cloud of voters' biggest hesitation in voting for Mark Pryor, the two biggest words are 'Obama' and 'Obamacare.' Everything after that is almost an afterthought." Other winning GOP candidates pushed hard on Obamacare, too. Tillis in North Carolina, Gardner in Colorado, Joni Ernst in Iowa, and several others made opposition to Obamacare a central part of their campaigns.

3) An improving economy would limit Democrats' losses. In the few places he felt confident and welcome enough to campaign, Obama devoted much of his appeal to citing the economic progress his administration has made: jobs created, growth, healthcare costs, corporate regulation.

The election results were pretty definitive proof that voters are not feeling the progress Obama feels has been made. Most importantly, it is an unhappy fact that a significant part of the decline in the unemployment rate under Obama has been the result of discouraged workers giving up the search for employment altogether. Indeed, in exit polls, nearly 70 percent of voters expressed negative feelings about the economy, many years into the Obama recovery.

4) Women would save Democrats. There were times when the midterm Senate campaigns seemed entirely devoted to seeking the approval of women voters. The Udall campaign in Colorado was almost a parody of such an appeal to women, focusing so extensively on contraception and abortion that the Denver Post called it an "obnoxious one-issue campaign."

Beyond Udall, most Democrats hoped a gender gap would boost them to victory. As it turned out, there was a gender gap in Tuesday's voting, but it favored Republicans. Exit polls showed that Democrats won women by seven points, while Republicans won men by 13 points. The numbers are definitive proof that, contrary to much conventional wisdom, Democrats have a bigger gender gap problem than the GOP. The elections showed precisely the opposite of what Democrats hoped they would.

5) The ground game would power Democrats to victory. When all else failed — and all else seemed to fail in the campaign's final days — Democrats believed that a superior ability to get voters to the polls would be their margin of victory, or at the very least would limit Democratic losses. After all, the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012 had run rings around Republicans in voter contact and get-out-the-vote technology.

It didn't turn out that way. Republicans had upped their game; the party invested millions in an improved turnout machine, and it appears to have passed its first test. At the same time, Democrats failed to conjure that 2008 and 2012 turnout magic in 2014. "The Obama coalition that propelled the president to two victories remained cohesive, drawing on minorities, younger voters as well as women," the Wall Street Journal reported. "But Democratic efforts to boost turnout among younger and minority voters fell short."

Perhaps most importantly, Democrats learned that a solid turnout effort could not overcome the drag of Obama, Obamacare, the economy, and a generalized unhappiness with the state of the country under the Obama administration.

In the end, Tuesday's vote represented a repudiation of virtually every notion Democrats embraced in recent weeks as they tried to disregard the growing evidence that they were headed for a historic defeat. Now, the vote is in, and the voters' message can no longer be discounted.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12136


« Reply #268 on: November 05, 2014, 11:07:01 AM »

Nice to see such an epic asskicking!
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4202


« Reply #269 on: November 05, 2014, 02:14:18 PM »

"Nice to see such an epic asskicking"

God, yeah!  grin

If Brown won in NH and REpubs won governorship in Pa it would have been perfect.

But Repubs have massive work to do to save this country as we all know.

Unfortunately, the last person who will "get it" is the one with the massive personality DISORDER.  He is incapable of comprehending that it is HIM that has caused all this.  It is his pathologic nature to blame everyone else.  Not just political gamesmanship but a true disorder personality.  And the Dem party will do the opposite - blame him the messenger and guard the liberalism message with their own flesh, blood, and everyone's else's tax money.

1) I would be surprised if we don't get unilateral amnesty - unless (and quite possible) the Cans are stupid enough to make an appeasement deal with him on immigration reform that basically grants amnesty anyway.

2) The Dems are already all over the map blaming the "messenger" Obama but not the message as we knew would happen. 

3) It will be all Hillary now.  Did anyone see the breakdown of babe votes for Democrats/Repubs vs guy votes by party.

    There will be a war on babes onslaught.  Repubs will have to have a good female candidate IMHO.  Minority ones too. They are making some headway it seems.



 
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 599


« Reply #270 on: November 05, 2014, 02:18:40 PM »

100% of Newly Elected GOP Senators Campaigned on Repealing Obamacare

November 5, 2014 - 11:43 AM
By Ali Meyer
(CNSNews.com) - Every new GOP senator who won in last night’s election campaigned on repealing Obamacare.

Senators Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), David Perdue (R-Ga.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) all ran on a platform of repealing Obamacare.

Gardner touted patient-centered care and a full repeal and replacement of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise known as Obamacare.

“Small businesses and the American people cannot afford President Obama’s countless new regulations and tax increases. There is a right way and a wrong to improve our country’s healthcare system, and the President’s healthcare law just isn’t working. We need patient-centered care and lower costs. It is not too late to start over with a full repeal and replacement of the President’s healthcare law,” Gardner said in a statement.

Daines echoed those statements, also calling to repeal and replace Obamacare.

“Every American wants healthcare at a reasonable cost. No American wants a complicated plan full of false promises, special political favors, and costs we cannot afford. We should repeal Obamacare and implement an affordable health care system that actually improves the quality of health care,” he said.

Perdue noted on his campaign page that he was one of the millions who had their personal health care policy cancelled and would support free market solutions to replace Obamacare.
“Obamacare is an overreaching federal program that will actually reduce the quality of health care and increase costs. I am one of the millions of Americans that had my personal policy cancelled after being told I could keep it. To make matters worse, Obamacare is discouraging full-time job creation. The consequences of politicians passing a massive bill without reading it continue to emerge. We need to repeal Obamacare and replace it with more affordable free market solutions,” Perdue said on his campaign page.

Cotton signed the Club for Growth’s “Repeal-It!” pledge which states, “I hereby pledge to the people of my district/state upon my election to the U.S. House of Representatives/U.S. Senate to sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government.”

Ernst and Tillis have said they would repeal Obamacare.

“Joni is staunchly opposed to the Obamacare law. Joni supports immediate action to repeal Obamacare and replace it with common sense, free-market alternatives that put patients first, and health care   decisions back in the hands of each of us rather than Washington bureaucrats,” Ernst said on her campaign page.
“As North Carolina’s U.S. Senator, Tillis will push for repeal of Obamacare, a balanced budget, and conservative economic policy,” Tillis’ campaign page stated.

Lankford, a former congressman, has previously vowed to repeal Obamacare.

“I vowed to repeal this vastly unpopular law and today I joined more than 240 members of the House of Representatives to honor that commitment,” Lankford said. “Americans were rightly outraged by its passage and have continued to resist the job-destroying, government takeover of health care. Those voices have not been ignored and the pledge to make government smaller and less intrusive is well underway.”

Rounds campaigned on a platform of repealing Obamacare saying, “Republicans don’t have the votes right now to repeal Obamacare. We must take over control of the Senate which will require Republicans to pick up six seats this cycle. That is why this U.S. Senate race is so important. Please join me in the fight to repeal Obamacare. Our families deserve better.”

Former congresswoman Capito voted for a full repeal of Obamacare, highlighting the massive tax increases that the law would impose on Americans.
“Americans of all ages and income brackets, and businesses across the country are learning the disturbing truth about the partisan legislation that was rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote. With the law’s full implementation looming, Americans are bracing for massive tax increases and daunting uncertainty. As health care costs soar, families’ access to care is limited and businesses contemplate closing their doors, it is time to fully repeal Obamacare,” Capito said.

Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska also stated that part of his health care agenda would be to "lower costs and increase access to healthcare" with repealing Obamacare as the first bullet point to achieve that goal.

In Alaska and Louisiana where the Senate races have not been called yet, both GOP candidates have expressed that they would fight for a repeal of Obamacare.

Candidate Dan Sullivan of Alaska has said he would repeal and replace Obamacare as his campaign page reads, “As Alaska’s Attorney General, Dan sued to stop Obamacare. He will continue that fight as your U.S. Senator. It is time to repeal and replace Obamacare and empower Alaskans to make their own healthcare decisions not the federal government.

Louisiana’s Senate GOP candidate, Bill Cassidy, has also voiced support for the repeal of Obamacare, listing 10 reasons why it should be replaced. As a practicing physician, Cassidy has said that the ACA would drive up costs, endangers access to care, destroys jobs and increases taxes just to name a few.

“By definition, a law that creates over 150 boards, bureaucracies, and commissions does not empower patients. Repealing this law is the first step to enacting real health care reform that lowers costs and expands access to quality health care for all Americans,” Cassidy said.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6098


« Reply #271 on: November 06, 2014, 12:05:00 AM »

Nice to see such an epic asskicking!

Yes it is.  It was hard for me to realize this is a win because of the bad outcomes we had in my home state.  A very good Senate challenger in MN lost by 10 points to a very mediocre incumbent, Al Franken.  An even worse Dem Governor was re-elected.  You could write it off to it being a leftist state, but the state House did flip to Republican so being across the board Dem doesn't explain the poor choices.  Prosperous suburbs that went for Obama reelected Dems this year while the inner cities voted nearly 100% Dem.  When will they learn? 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6098


« Reply #272 on: November 06, 2014, 01:47:30 AM »

HERE'S WHAT A REPUBLICAN TAKEOVER LOOKS LIKE

114th Congress, House of Representatives map

http://cdn-media.nationaljournal.com/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=42726
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31693


« Reply #273 on: November 09, 2014, 02:40:33 PM »



http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/07/landrieu-attack-on-cassidy-backfires-horribly-video/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12136


« Reply #274 on: November 10, 2014, 12:50:59 AM »


She needs to fire whomever thought up that line of attack.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31693


« Reply #275 on: November 10, 2014, 10:51:27 AM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/politics/gops-path-to-presidency-tight-but-real.html?emc=edit_th_20141110&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 599


« Reply #276 on: November 12, 2014, 08:00:48 AM »

What Happened?

By Thomas Sowell - November 12, 2014 - washingtonexaminer.com

Just what happened last week on election day? And what is going to happen in the years ahead?

The most important thing that happened last week was that the country dodged a bullet. Had the Democrats retained control of the Senate, President Obama could have spent his last two years in office loading the federal judiciary with judges who share his contempt for the Constitution of the United States.

Such judges — perhaps including Supreme Court justices — would have been confirmed by Senate Democrats, and could spend the rest of their lifetime appointments ruling in favor of expansions of federal government power that would make the freedom of "we the people" only a distant memory and a painful mockery.

We dodged that bullet. But what about the rest of Barack Obama's term?

Pundits who depict Obama as a weak, lame duck president may be greatly misjudging him, as they have so often in the past. Despite the Republican sweep of elections across the country last week, President Obama has issued an ultimatum to Congress, to either pass the kind of immigration law he wants before the end of this year or he will issue executive orders changing the country's immigration laws unilaterally.

Does that sound like a lame duck president?

On the contrary, it sounds more like some banana republic's dictator. Nor is Obama making an idle bluff. He has already changed other laws unilaterally, including the work requirement in welfare reform laws passed during the Clinton administration.

The very idea of Congress rushing a bill into law in less than two months, on a subject as complex, and with such irreversible long-run consequences as immigration, is staggering. But there is already a precedent for such hasty action, without Congressional hearings to bring out facts or air different views. That is how Obamacare was passed. And we see how that has turned out.

People who are increasingly questioning Barack Obama's competence are continuing to ignore the alternative possibility that his fundamental values and imperatives are different from theirs. You cannot tell whether someone is failing or succeeding without knowing what they are trying to do.

When Obama made a brief public statement about Americans being beheaded by terrorists, and then went on out to play golf, that was seen as a sign of political ineptness, rather than a stark revelation of what kind of man he is, underneath the smooth image and lofty rhetoric.

The president's refusal to protect the American people by quarantining people coming from Ebola-infected areas — as was done by Britain and a number of African nations — is by no means a sign of incompetence. It is a sacrifice of Americans' interests for the sake of other people's interests, as is an assisted invasion of illegal immigrants across our southern borders.

Such actions are perfectly consistent with Obama's citizen of the world vision that has led to such statements of his in 2008: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that every other country's going to say 'okay.' "

In a similar vein, Obama said, "we consume more than 20 percent of the world's oil but have less than 2 percent of the world's oil reserves." In short, Americans are undeservedly prosperous and selfishly consuming a disproportionate share of "the world's output" — at least in the vision of Barack Obama.

That Americans are producing a disproportionate share of what is called "the world's output" and consuming what we produce — while paying for our imports — is not allowed to disturb Obama's vision.

Resentment of the prosperous — whether at home or on the world stage — runs through virtually everything Barack Obama has said and done throughout his life. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to find the clues. You have to shut your eyes tightly to keep from seeing them everywhere, in every period of his life.

The big question is whether the other branches of government — Congress and the Supreme Court — can stop him from doing irreparable damage to America in his last two years. Seeing Obama as an incompetent and weak lame duck president only makes that task harder.

Thomas Sowell, a Washington Examiner columnist, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate.

Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4202


« Reply #277 on: November 13, 2014, 07:34:40 PM »

"banana republic dictator"

I have no doubt whatsoever if Obama was from another era and from another country he would have been a very intolerant dictator and all his enemies would be summarily disposed of.

 

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6098


« Reply #278 on: November 17, 2014, 10:56:44 AM »

Is there going to be hearings and reform of this perverted, taxpayer funded, office of stooges and puppets?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-effectively-used-gruber-s-model-score-obamacare_819105.html?nopager=1

"Two well-placed sources on Capitol Hill say that the Congressional Budget Office effectively used Jonathan Gruber’s model to score Obamacare. "


Yes they did.  And the Supreme Court did not.  It was a budget buster if scored honestly and unconstitutional as it was sold.  Odd that it is those of us who saw through the deception who are most upset about it.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6098


« Reply #279 on: November 19, 2014, 09:55:09 AM »

+9!

The pipeline has no environmental impact and is the safest way to transport a fuel we need for transportation and her state needs economically. The House again passed it.  The Dem Senate just voted it down; got 59 votes instead of the needed 60. http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/keystone-vote-fails-in-senate-despite-major-push-by-landrieu-20141118

 Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) needed a win on this for her Dec 6 runoff.  Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and the rest could care less (because she was going to lose anyway).  The Republican Senate coming in will pass it.  Goodbye Mary Landrieu.  The Republican takeover will now jump to +9.  Dem losses are -9.  Net shift in votes is 18.  And the margin is high enough for Republicans to have a good shot of retaining control in the next, much harder cycle.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31693


« Reply #280 on: November 19, 2014, 11:30:36 AM »

Sen. Joe Mancin of WV may be tempted to flip to the Reps.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!