November 2014 Electin

Amerika

With less than two weeks to go until the 2014 election, it now looks favorable for the GOP to take over the US Senate, and retain control of the House.

Crazy season is in full swing. The one thing that has me laughing is the cry from the Left now about “reconciliation.” Something the Democrats enacted last year to skirt the 60-vote Senate obstacle and render the filibuster a useless tactic by the minority. It’s the process that now allows any sort of fiscal legislation preferred by the majority to be passed with just 51 votes.

But with it looking like the GOP gaining control of the Senate, the Left is now sounding the alarms that the GOP will utilize the tactic to the detriment of the country – (the change Democrat’s instituted in order to get through their legislation). So I guess reconciliation is good for the country when Democrats are in control, but deemed de facto cheating if the Republicans gain control.

Somehow I think if the GOP gains control of the Senate with the November election, we will see the Senate void reconciliation before the swearing in ceremonies of new Senators.

And if the GOP takes control of Congress, I think we'll be looking at the premiere of “Executive Orders Gone Wild.” The opening will be in December 2014, with a guaranteed two year run. Then the Republicans will refuse to fund the executive orders, hoping for a GOP win in the 2016 Presidential election, and voiding all of Obama's executive orders. Gotta love US Politics.

Black Swan

2 Independents, 45 Republicans, and 53 Democrats comprise today's Senate. The 4 November 2014 mid-terms have 36 races, with 33 on the 6-year cycle and 3 special elections. There are 21 Democrat and 15 Republican incumbents. Of these 5 Democrats and 2 Republicans are retiring, leaving an open field for the contenders. The Republicans need a net gain of 6 seats for a total of 51 Republicans to control the Senate, as the Independents tend to vote with the Democrats.

If you eyeball the historic table for mid-term election results, generally speaking it appears that the incumbant president's party more often than not loses seats in the Senate and House during midterms. So if this trend continues, it would appear that the Republicans have a very good chance to gain control of the Senate and retain control in the House.

Brian?

I've looked over the polls several times and IMO, it's too close to call for the Senate. It could well swing to the GOP but it could just as easily stay Dem.

Amerika, you may be looking at things through red tinted glasses again. Romney to beat Obama easily in 2012?


Nate Silver has been consistently reliable over the last few elections and he is currently calling the Senate for the GOP:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/senate-forecast/

Brian?

To muddy the waters a little from my last post, RCP has 9 states as "toss-up". 6 of which are currently Dem.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/2014_elections_senate_map.html

Udall in CO may no longer be a toss up and leaning GOP by next week.

Black Swan

Brian? wrote: »

To muddy the waters a little from my last post, RCP has 9 states as "toss-up". 6 of which are currently Dem.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/2014_elections_senate_map.html

Udall in CO may no longer be a toss up and leaning GOP by next week.

RCP is a good source for raw data (poll numbers, etc.), but I find that they lean towards the Republican side when they express an opinion or make a judgment call on a map. In any case, I think it will be a close call in this election, not a landslide either way. If there is a 50-50 Senate split (Dems 48 plus 2 Independents), I believe VP Joe Biden can break the tie.

Brian?

Black Swan wrote: »

RCP is a good source for raw data (poll numbers, etc.), but I find that they lean towards the Republican side when they express an opinion or make a judgment call on a map. In any case, I think it will be a close call in this election, not a landslide either way. If there is a 50-50 Senate split (Dems 48 plus 2 Independents), I believe VP Joe Biden can break the tie.

A tie is indeed a win for the Dems, Diamond Joe holding the controlling vote. At least until 2016.

Amerika

Right now, RCP has it 45 seats for the Democrats and 46 seats for the Republicans, with 9 toss-up Senate seats. But of those toss-ups, Cotton (R) is up by over 5 in Arkansas, Gardner (R) is up over 4 in Colorado, Nunn (D) is up by about 1 in Georgia, Earnst (R) is up by about two in Iowa, Orman (I) is up by 1 in Kansas (and would caucus with the Democrats if won), McConnell (R) is up by 4 in Kentucky, Cassidy (R) is up by 5 in Louisiana, Shahenn (D) is up by 2 in New Hampshire, and Hagan (D) is up by 2 in North Carolina.

Going just with the RCP poll information as it stands, that would give Democrats 49 (including the Independent), and Republicans 51 Senate seats.

But polls aren't always correct, so we can't do the happy dance... yet.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Going just with the RCP poll information as it stands, that would give Democrats 49 (including the Independent), and Republicans 51 Senate seats.

I believe that it will be a very close race to control the Senate, and no landslide for either side. Methinks that your guess of 51 GOP seats after all is said and done is a possible outcome. If this occurs, then I would predict that after the late January 2015 swear-in, the Republicans will no longer be the "Party of No," and the Democrats will assume that role. This occurred during the 2nd Clinton term if I recall correctly what I had read.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

I believe that it will be a very close race to control the Senate, and no landslide for either side. Methinks that your guess of 51 GOP seats after all is said and done is a possible outcome. If this occurs, then I would predict that after the late January 2015 swear-in, the Republicans will no longer be the "Party of No," and the Democrats will assume that role. This occurred during the 2nd Clinton term if I recall correctly what I had read.

Unfortunately, unlike the Clinton area when the GOP took control of Congress... where Clinton had the foresight and capacity to negotiate and compromise with the opposition to get things done for the betterment of the country (which made him one of our better presidents in modern times IMO), I think Obama will remain steadfast in his resolve and ideology to the detriment of the people, and will rely on suspect uses of Executive Order to advance his agenda.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Unfortunately, unlike the Clinton area when the GOP took control of Congress... where Clinton had the foresight and capacity to negotiate and compromise with the opposition to get things done for the betterment of the country (which made him one of our better presidents in modern times IMO), I think Obama will remain steadfast in his resolve and ideology to the detriment of the people, and will rely on suspect uses of Executive Order to advance his agenda.

I would predict that the GOP maintains control of the House, and by perhaps one vote wins control of the Senate next month (effective late January 2015 when they are sworn in). For the Senate something like 51 Republicans vs 47 Democrats and 2 Independents that vote with the Dems). Of course, if there is a tie after January 2015, Biden breaks it.

Amerika

In a New England College poll just published, Scott Brown (R) 48.3%, just pulled ahead of incumbent Jeanne Shaheen (D) 46.8% in the New Hampshire US Senate race. Brown has been consistently behind, but has been moving up steadily in the polls. With less than one week to go until Election Day, this Senate seat that has been considered a safe and solidly Democrat spot could now fall into the hands of the Republicans.

52?

http://www.nec.edu/nec-poll-guinta-builds-lead-cd-1-race-governor-tightens/

Black Swan

It's going to be close in the Senate next week. The next 2 years would be really interesting if the GOP ended up with 50 seats, and the Democrats 48 plus 2 Independents. The seats may be more often filled by Senators, rather than largely empty, when you go to visit.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

It's going to be close in the Senate next week. The next 2 years would be really interesting if the GOP ended up with 50 seats, and the Democrats 48 plus 2 Independents. The seats may be more often filled by Senators, rather than largely empty, when you go to visit.

If that happens the two Independent Senators might just become the most powerful people in Congress, if not the country.

Manach

From the legal perspective in terms of filling any Supreme court vacancies, would a Republican majority in the senate mean that any future vacancies be more delayed or blocked? Given the historical events from the Bork nomination, it would seem that the more liberal judges retirement might be put in abeyance.

Amerika

Manach wrote: »

From the legal perspective in terms of filling any Supreme court vacancies, would a Republican majority in the senate mean that any future vacancies be more delayed or blocked? Given the historical events from the Bork nomination, it would seem that the more liberal judges retirement might be put in abeyance.

Yeah, the possibility of a liberal judge nominee getting Borked is there. But indications are the only potential vacancy in the next two years is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And a liberal for a liberal keeps the balance of “justice” at a status quo.

But revenge is a dish best served cold....And with some of the changes Democrats made recently regarding nominations put to a simple 51 majority, who knows? Perhaps payback’s a bitch.

Black Swan

If the Republicans win a simple majority in the Senate next week, and given that they will retain control of the House, the Democrats will become the "Party of No," taking it back from the GOP.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

If the Republicans win a simple majority in the Senate next week, and given that they will retain control of the House, the Democrats will become the "Party of No," taking it back from the GOP.

Hopefully not. And hopefully the GOP won't do as the Democrats did, letting it go to their heads that they received a mandate from the people ("We Won!" " Elections have consequences"). If the GOP follows what the Dem's did, and not work together across the aisle in Congress to get important stuff done, it will just flip control again next election.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Hopefully not. And hopefully the GOP won't do as the Democrats did, letting it go to their heads that they received a mandate from the people ("We Won!" " Elections have consequences"). If the GOP follows what the Dem's did, and not work together across the aisle in Congress to get important stuff done, it will just flip control again next election.

The art of politics is compromise, and this and past congresses since Clinton seem to be the worst for compromise between Democrats and Republicans. I doubt that will change should the GOP gain control of both houses.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

The art of politics is compromise, and this and past congresses since Clinton seem to be the worst for compromise between Democrats and Republicans. I doubt that will change should the GOP gain control of both houses.

I think if the GOP gains control of both houses you will see a greater level of compromise if the GOP wants to also take the White House in 2016. And the Democrats always have President Obama's veto pen to make sure a GOP agenda doesn't happen, even with some minimal support from Democrats in Republican controlled areas.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

I think if the GOP gains control of both houses you will see a greater level of compromise if the GOP wants to also take the White House in 2016. And the Democrats always have President Obama's veto pen to make sure a GOP agenda doesn't happen, even with some minimal support from Democrats in Republican controlled areas.

Control of both houses by one party removes one of the checks-and-balances needed in the US form of government, and huge errors result that adversely impact on the US American people; e.g., 2004 election resulting in Republican control, SEC chairman Cox appointment, deregulation, and under staffing that contributed to investment bank failure and the 2008 Great Recession; Democrat control of both houses and the passage of ObamaCare. Such one-party congressional control/power corrupts, regardless if the Democrats or Republicans are the party in control.

Brian?

D-Day!

I've a bad feeling about it.

Black Swan

Brian? wrote: »

D-Day!

I've a bad feeling about it.

Yes mid-term election day USA. Results should be coming in throughout the night and into the wee hours of the morning tomorrow. Once again, I would predict that the GOP continues to control the House, and will gain control of the Senate by 1-seat (51 Republicans once all is said and done). And regardless of all the political spin, one-party rule of Congress will not be a good thing, losing a check-and-balance in the US form of government.

Brian?

Black Swan wrote: »

Yes mid-term election day USA. Results should be coming in throughout the night and into the wee hours of the morning tomorrow. Once again, I would predict that the GOP continues to control the House, and will gain control of the Senate by 1-seat (51 Republicans once all is said and done). And regardless of all the political spin, one-party rule of Congress will not be a good thing, losing a check-and-balance in the US form of government.

I agree.

It amazes me that the approval rate for congress is consistently in the 20% range and there's no chance of the house changing.

Black Swan

Brian? wrote: »

I agree.

It amazes me that the approval rate for congress is consistently in the 20% range and there's no chance of the house changing.

Ironically, they accuse president Obama of low 40s ratings, when Congress is lucky to get one-third that job approval rating (today at 13%).

And guess what? Most incumbents will be reelected with those low congressional ratings.

PopePalpatine

Black Swan wrote: »

Ironically, they accuse president Obama of low 40s ratings, when Congress is lucky to get one-third that job approval rating (today at 13%).

And guess what? Most incumbents will be reelected with those low congressional ratings.

Have the challengers of those incumbents (either in the primaries or the Congressional elections) actually used Congress's abysmal approval record as part of their campaigns? I'm shocked that they haven't.

Black Swan

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Have the challengers of those incumbents (either in the primaries or the Congressional elections) actually used Congress's abysmal approval record as part of their campaigns? I'm shocked that they haven't.

Individual congresspersons search for polls that show them to be individually higher ranked than their peers, then claim that it's unfair to include them in the congress group ranking. Typical dodgy act.

Amazingfun

Watch Mitch McConnell's victory blah blah blah here:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2553565094001/sen-mitch-mcconnell-election-night-event/#sp=watch-live

Manach

Gerrymandering is not unique to the U.S. but both parties make excellent use of it.

MightyMandarin

Amazingfun wrote: »

Watch Mitch McConnell's victory blah blah blah here:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2553565094001/sen-mitch-mcconnell-election-night-event/#sp=watch-live

If there's any consolation to be taken from this, it's that at least we get to see Jon Stewart take the absolute p*ss out of McConnell for the next 4 years.

jank

GOP making early gains, looks set to control both Houses. All eyes now on the 2016 presidential elections.

Amazingfun

MightyMandarin wrote: »

If there's any consolation to be taken from this, it's that at least we get to see Jon Stewart take the absolute p*ss out of McConnell for the next 4 years.

Nah...the fun for me is seeing how much money all these hollyweird types spent trying to get him out. And didn't

The biggest bundler for President Barack Obama’s campaigns and likely to be the same for a Hillary Clinton White House run in 2016, Katzenberg had made dethroning the longtime Kentucky incumbent his top priority this election. As well as giving big bucks to anti-McConnell PACs and raising millions in LA and NYC fundraisers, Katzenberg personally donated the maximum contribution of $5,200 to Grimes’ campaign. Other A-listers including Harvey Weinstein, Steven Spielberg, Barbra Streisand, Leonardo DiCaprio, J.J. Abrams, Eddie Murphy and James Cameron also gave that much. That Hollywood support was used against Grimes in a TV ad that ran during the campaign

Amerika

Republicans just took the US Senate and therefore control of Congress. My faith in America is restored. What a lovely evening.

vetinari

Ultimately republican control won't change much.
No legislation was getting passed anyways.
The biggest change will be on executive appointments (judges and heads of agencies)

In terms of 2016, this might not work out well for Republicans.
There'll be two years where they control both houses and nothing will happen.
Easier to be the party of no when in opposition.

jank

Majority in the Senate now stands at 52 and will rise once Alaska polls close.
Bit of a drubbing for the Dems.

I notice too a few more libertarian candidates out there

jank

So the GOP vote has come in much much stronger than anticipated. It is clear that they are going to dictate the last two years of Obamas administration, which by all intents and purposes was a disappointment.

Amazingfun

Amerika wrote: »

Republicans just took the US Senate and therefore control of Congress. My faith in America is restored. What a lovely evening.

I wouldn't be that excited about them....but yes it's lovely to see the Dems walloped

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, he's not officially a lame duck until 2016, when his successor is elected. People love to throw that saying around.

He still has executive orders and veto power. Powers he'll have to be very careful about using.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

Brian? wrote: »

No, he's not officially a lame duck until 2016, when his successor is elected. People love to throw that saying around.

He still has executive orders and veto power. Powers he'll have to be very careful about using.

Didn't realise he was a dictator all of a sudden.

It is clear from the mid term election that the shift in power is firmly outside the executive and Obama will not be able to get anything done unless he works with the legislative branch. The agenda for the next two years will come from the latter not the former.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Didn't realise he was a dictator all of a sudden.

It is clear from the mid term election that the shift in power is firmly outside the executive and Obama will not be able to get anything done unless he works with the legislative branch. The agenda for the next two years will come from the latter not the former.

Talk about taking my comments out of context. He has executive orders, that's all I said. He's not a dictator.

There's huge limitations on what he can do with the powers he has and rightly so.

I said he needs to be careful using them, if he isn't the dems can wave the white house goodbye in 2016.

vetinari

I don't know.

I fancy Obama to pass a few things using executive orders.
Some immigration reform via executive orders will be needed to placate Latino democrats.
Addition climate related executive orders will be needed to placate the democratic base as a whole.
US elections these days are more about getting your own base out than winning over voters.
Democrats will need to be on the front foot on some issues to create some enthusiasm.

Regards Congress, I agree there will be no significant legalization of any note in the next 2 years.
It's as much a lame duck Congress as a lame duck president.

Manic Moran

vetinari wrote: »

I don't know.

I fancy Obama to pass a few things using executive orders.
Some immigration reform via executive orders will be needed to placate Latino democrats.
Addition climate related executive orders will be needed to placate the democratic base as a whole.
US elections these days are more about getting your own base out than winning over voters.
Democrats will need to be on the front foot on some issues to create some enthusiasm.

Regards Congress, I agree there will be no significant legalization of any note in the next 2 years.
It's as much a lame duck Congress as a lame duck president.

Obama can't pass anything by executive order. EOs are administrative in nature, they don't change laws or add/reduce funding. Certainly they have some effect, but generally quite limited.

vetinari

They're limited but not powerless.

For instance
He can expand the DREAM order to the parents I believe.
He can impost tougher regulations on polluters.

20Cent

So basically gridlock for two years. Nice one republicans. :mad:

Fr Tod Umptious

20Cent wrote: »

So basically gridlock for two years. Nice one republicans. :mad:

Don't you mean "nice one Obama".?
For being so pathetic that Dem. candidates did not want him within a million miles of their campaign

The Black Oil

Predictable results. Bit odd to hear Rand Paul pat Mitch McConnell on the back, constituency buddies aside.

20Cent

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Don't you mean "nice one Obama".?
For being so pathetic that Dem. candidates did not want him within a million miles of their campaign

The Koch brothers bought this election, careful what you wish for. Kind of want a republican government next see the tea bag brigade lose their environment, healthcare and working rights.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

20Cent wrote: »

The Koch brothers bought this election, careful what you wish for. Kind of want a republican government next see the tea bag brigade lose their environment, healthcare and working rights.

Ah the predictable response of the loony left.

An election doesn't go your way..."Some evil corporation bought it, not fair, boo hoo..."
An election goes your way..."Da people have spoken, we have a mandate and listen to us roar! Raaawwrrr"

Utterly predicable and pathetic.

Hold the Cheez Whiz

20Cent wrote: »

So basically gridlock for two years. Nice one republicans. :mad:

We've had gridlock for the last several years.

20Cent wrote: »

The Koch brothers bought this election, careful what you wish for. Kind of want a republican government next see the tea bag brigade lose their environment, healthcare and working rights.

I've traditionally voted Democrat, but this is not an election that can be blamed on the Koch brothers. Turnout was extremely low (under 50% in most areas), and the groups that turned out in record numbers in 2008 for Obama did not come out in 2014 to re-elect those members of Congress. The Democrats put up a lot of bad candidates, and Obama's unpopularity (and notoriously bad relationship with the party) didn't help. The GOP & RNC were also very careful to make sure that no Todd Akin-types made it into the general election.

TBH I think the bigger story here isn't the Senate, but the Governor's races. The fact that Dems lost in Maryland, Wisconsin, and Illinois points to their lack of depth even in blue-leaning states - particularly troubling given that Governorships have long served as a prelude to the White House.