Any Predictions For November's Elections?

Here are the general possibilities...

1. Democrats gain seats in one or both houses

2. Democrats hold on to what they have in both houses

3. Democrats lose seats in one or both houses, but not more than what would be expected in an average mid-term election, and they maintain control of both houses.

4. Democrats lose control of one house, but keep the other one. They will now have to work in a bi-partisan manner to get things done.

5. Republicans sweep both houses, and we get a new speaker of the house and a new majority leader, and Obama becomes a lame duck in his first term.

Any predictions?

The party who spends the most will win. In most countries with the archaic first past the post system only about a third of the votes matter. They are the people who think before they vote. The rest are dogmatic and vote for the party they or their fathers have always voted for. Concentrate on the undecided third, at any cost, and you have won the election.:)

A politician is someone elected by the people to represent themselves.:whistling

There are definitely those who will vote a "straight ticket"-- either all Democrat or all Republican, and the money spent on advertisement is really wasted on them. The ones who seem to be swinging the elections over here are the ones who are registering as "Independents" rather than Democrts and Republicans.

In the last election they tended to swing left, but I think they will swing to the right this time around.

But will it be enough for Republicans to take back both houses? I doubt it. I think they will be lucky to get the House of Representatives back. But if they do get it back, they will be able to block most of the President's agenda by cutting off funding for his programs. Of course, that might come back to bite them in the ass at the next election after that.

Yep, I was right. Republicans took back the House, but not the Senate.

Hopefully, 2 years from now, we can kick Obama's communist ass out of the White House.

"Obama's communist ass", eh?

You are a moron.
Pure and simple (emphasis on "simple").

In two years the class of incoherent losers that you helped propel to power will have revealed themselves to be the inept idiots that I know them to be now.

You see, even in our imperfect world, it would have been prudent for the Rethugs to at least make an effort to help lead our country out of the present morass (mostly caused by them in the first place) but no, what we hear instead is that the right has no intention of governing at all, the goal is to gridlock the country as they continue to bully the President.
Well done, prepare to reap what ye have sown.

They are all crooks, or 99% is. Now the other crooks are in charge of the House. People want change but they keep voting these morons into office. Until the sheep wake up and realize that they are being spoon fed BS, there isn't any hope for the USA as it degrades further due to corruption and greed.

I would prefer gridlock to the far left commie agenda of Obama being rammed down our throats.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/meet...od-communists/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

The party who spends the most will win.

---

The dems spent a shit-ton more than the republicans, Bob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

The party who spends the most will win.

---

The dems spent a shit-ton more than the republicans, Bob.

---

It is more likely that their declaration was the more honest. Not taking sides, just know how politicians work.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

The party who spends the most will win.

---

The dems spent a shit-ton more than the republicans, Bob.

---

Oh, I think not.
Especially when the anonymous corporate money is considered.
In fact, even throwing out batshit crazy/rich outliers like Meg Whitman, conservatives out spent liberals by over two to one.

I know it's easier to just make shit up Kevin, but really, you can do better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The dems spent a shit-ton more than the republicans, Bob.

---

Oh, I think not.
Especially when the anonymous corporate money is considered.
In fact, even throwing out batshit crazy/rich outliers like Meg Whitman, conservatives out spent liberals by over two to one.

I know it's easier to just make shit up Kevin, but really, you can do better.

---

Figures, please.

You first, being the initial claimant and all.

Whoa, I guess I'll have to admit there's been a huge swing in the past few weeks as massively accelerated Republican spending nudged us out in front by a hair:


$1.64 billion
Projected amount spent on Republican candidates and concerns in 2010.*

$1.59 billion
Project amount spent on Democratic candidates and concerns in 2010.*

Looks like the money spent, considering the results, puts the conservative/Tea Party Movement agenda foremost in American minds; that is to say, had George Soros (the owner of the democrat party) opened his purse a bit - or a lot - wider, the result would have been the same.:naughty:


*from The Week

If the Tea Party/conservatives actually had a coherent agenda, it still wouldn't be foremost in my mind.

Stupidity is boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

If the Tea Party/conservatives actually had a coherent agenda, it still wouldn't be foremost in my mind.

Stupidity is boring.

---

Just the same, they pretty much all won, didn't they?

Boring stupidity can be pretty effective, apparently.

No, they didn't pretty much "all" win.
Admittedly, many did but no one should underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

No, they didn't pretty much "all" win.
Admittedly, many did but no one should underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate.

---

Ah, whining.

The "stupids" kicked your butts.

True story.

Not here in Colorado they didn't.
Buck and Tancredo both lost.
So did the three "tax-cutting" propositions, by 2 to 1 margins, in fact.

Ha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Not here in Colorado they didn't.
Buck and Tancredo both lost.
So did the three "tax-cutting" propositions, by 2 to 1 margins, in fact.

Ha.

---

I was hoping Tancredo would win, but it was a long shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Not here in Colorado they didn't.
Buck and Tancredo both lost.
So did the three "tax-cutting" propositions, by 2 to 1 margins, in fact.

Ha.

---

That's a shame; Colorado is such a lovely state, too.

$3.23 billion dollars spent on election campaigning. How is that not wasteful spending? What does the constant (literally!) media bombardment contribute? How (Does) anything get accomplished, the rule of good government? There are far better uses for that amount of money.

Last year, there seemed to be a push for an overhaul of the campaign rules. Did that spirit fall by the wayside?

:shuriken:

Well, if by "fell by the wayside" you mean "the Republicans presented a united front and filibustered campaign reform to death", then yes, that spirit is dead.
Ironically, the party that brays the loudest about wasteful government spending seems willing to spend unlimited amounts to become government employees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagicNakor

$3.23 billion dollars spent on election campaigning. How is that not wasteful spending? What does the constant (literally!) media bombardment contribute? How (Does) anything get accomplished, the rule of good government? There are far better uses for that amount of money.

Last year, there seemed to be a push for an overhaul of the campaign rules. Did that spirit fall by the wayside?

:shuriken:

---

Pshaw.

The issue of "campaign finance" reform was dealt with most comprehensively by that sterling example of bipartisan bullshit known as the McCain-Feingold Act, several plus several years ago.

It is a settled matter thus.

Ask anyone.

If he asks me, he'll get a different answer.
Campaign finance reform is the skid mark on America's dirty laundry, Republicans absolutely hate the idea of complicating the trip to the trough promised them by their corporate overlords.


Here are my predictions for the upcoming two years:
-Having run on a promise of fiscal restraint, budget cutting and deficit reduction, Republicans will unleash a slash and burn war on cultural issues, leaving the Federal deficit higher than before.
-There will be no meaningful legislation passed through the House
-There will be a concerted effort from the right to make sure that the economy does NOT improve because that would hurt their chances in 2012.
-The rich will get richer aided and abetted by Republican tax breaks and subsidies- none of this new "wealth" will filter into the economy but Lamborghini sales will increase.
-Corporate spending on lobbying will skyrocket as all the little Tea Party noobies discover that K Street steak tastes better than the grits at home.
-No matter what happens, it will be Obama's fault.

I heard quite a lot of noise from tea party campaigns suggesting their opponents were trying to steal elections. So imagine my surprise when I read about the ballot challenges from Joe Miller's poll watchers. They challenged one ballot because Lisa was written with the "L" in cursive handwriting.

Some other examples

Apparently the rules for write in vote are a little silly in Alaska.

The Murkowski/Miller show will drag on, fueled by SarahPAC money, because Palin will refuse to accept that her hand-picked boy, in her own private fiefdom, could possibly lose to a write in candidate.
He'll lose eventually, Sarah will be distracted by the newest shiny thing and it'll all be over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

The Murkowski/Miller show will drag on, fueled by SarahPAC money, because Palin will refuse to accept that her hand-picked boy, in her own private fiefdom, could possibly lose to a write in candidate.
He'll lose eventually, Sarah will be distracted by the newest shiny thing and it'll all be over.

---

Not sure about the suggested role you think Palin plays, but it does look right now that you're pretty spot on about the rest. Miller doesn't seem to be letting it go.

Tomorrow is another day so who knows.

I now think I was being too generous with my predictions.
Facing all the crisis in America today, the FIRST thing Republicans decided to act upon was trying to defund NPR.

Yes, millions of unemployed are of less interest than National Public Radio.
But only slightly...Republicans are also blocking any attempts to extend benefits for the very people who misguidedly voted them into office.
Also on the agenda, try to dismantle ethics oversight and any attempts at campaign funding transparency legislation.
Don't forget the unified Republican opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act.

I hope we are all familiar with The Position and brought our own lube because the Rethugs certainly won't be providing any (socialized medicine, doncha know!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

The Murkowski/Miller show will drag on, fueled by SarahPAC money, because Palin will refuse to accept that her hand-picked boy, in her own private fiefdom, could possibly lose to a write in candidate.
He'll lose eventually, Sarah will be distracted by the newest shiny thing and it'll all be over.

---

Not sure about the suggested role you think Palin plays, but it does look right now that you're pretty spot on about the rest. Miller doesn't seem to be letting it go.

Tomorrow is another day so who knows.

---

Well, six weeks and three court rulings later, Miller finally concedes.
Miller still thinks he has the law on his side but is bowing to "practical concerns"...meaning he doesn't think he can be any douchier than he already has been.
Sarah has indeed moved on, apparently the government takeover of dessert requires her personal attention.

Next week all the new little Tealings get sworn in and the collective IQ of the House and Senate drops even lower.
Should be a fun new year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

[
Well, six weeks and three court rulings later, Miller finally concedes.
Miller still thinks he has the law on his side but is bowing to "practical concerns"...meaning he doesn't think he can be any douchier than he already has been.

---

I would have tended to agree that Miller made a valid point about if you are going to have rules you should stick to them if the rules he was trying to enforce very literally weren't so incredibly silly. I bet he is the most annoying trivial pursuit player ever. All answers must have correct pronunciation, accents are forbidden.

Even if every vote he contested was discounted he still lost.

Just think, if Scott McAdams had won There would be another 6 months of court battles and threats from GOP senators if he was seated.

Given that Miller's loss was a given, the classy move would have been to concede and then work towards amending the election laws/procedures.
Naturally, that was never going to happen...Miller has no class and forcing the state to squander money on useless recounts, enriching more lawyers and tying up the courts was his choice instead.

Funny how t-baggers like to crow about "the will of the people" until the will goes against them, then it becomes government intrusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Given that Miller's loss was a given, the classy move would have been to concede and then work towards amending the election laws/procedures.
Naturally, that was never going to happen...Miller has no class and forcing the state to squander money on useless recounts, enriching more lawyers and tying up the courts was his choice instead.

Funny how t-baggers like to crow about "the will of the people" until the will goes against them, then it becomes government intrusion.

---

First, t-baggers is quite insulting when you realize what it means.

It's a grass-roots movement and as long as it never has any real leadership-- thus it can never be bought off or threatened off-- it remains a very serious threat to the left-wing agenda. And that is why it is hated so much.

Second, I could say the same thing about the liberal media. Watching the nightly news it is quite obvious they are outraged that the election swept their beloved democrats out of power in the House. They only care about the "will of the people" when the elections go their way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

First, t-baggers is quite insulting when you realize what it means.
You're getting this just now?

It's a grass-roots movement and as long as it never has any real leadership-- thus it can never be bought off or threatened off-- it remains a very serious threat to the left-wing agenda. And that is why it is hated so much.
The "movement" is not now, nor has it ever been, a "grassroots" organization.
It was completely astroturfed by corporate and oldboy operatives.

Second, I could say the same thing about the liberal media. Watching the nightly news it is quite obvious they are outraged that the election swept their beloved democrats out of power in the House. They only care about the "will of the people" when the elections go their way.

---

Ah, the old "liberal media" canard again.
Don't you have any new lies to propagate?
Let's see some examples of the "outrage" by mainstream media you find so obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

First, t-baggers is quite insulting when you realize what it means.
You're getting this just now?

It's a grass-roots movement and as long as it never has any real leadership-- thus it can never be bought off or threatened off-- it remains a very serious threat to the left-wing agenda. And that is why it is hated so much.
The "movement" is not now, nor has it ever been, a "grassroots" organization.
It was completely astroturfed by corporate and oldboy operatives.

Ah yes, that's why the r.i.n.o. Republicans are so upset by the tea party movement, huh? Or is it because this is a grass roots movement over which they have no control, and if they don't go along with the tea party, they too will eventually be swept out of power?


Second, I could say the same thing about the liberal media. Watching the nightly news it is quite obvious they are outraged that the election swept their beloved democrats out of power in the House. They only care about the "will of the people" when the elections go their way.

---

Ah, the old "liberal media" canard again.
Don't you have any new lies to propagate?
Let's see some examples of the "outrage" by mainstream media you find so obvious.

---

Your thinking has become so clouded and foggy that you can't see the obvious bias against conservatives in the media. And talk about lies and propaganda! That's all the left side has.

So, no examples of this "obvious" bias against conservatives, eh?
The most watched cable network is FOX, which is nothing more than the propaganda wing of the Republican party and several studies have shown that conservatives are actually overrepresented on talk shows (mainly because they're so colorfully stupid that they make for interesting viewing).

On a different note...
Now that you got your tax cuts, how many new employees has your company hired?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

So, no examples of this "obvious" bias against conservatives, eh? Try turning on the t.v. and watching the nightly news on NBC, CBS, or ABC. They have been doing very biased reports against the newly elected tea party representatives, including an interview with the new representative for the Eagar / Flagstaff area: Paul Gosar.


The most watched cable network is FOX, Hmmm... I wonder why? Maybe because it is one of the few remaining balanced networks where the conservative point of view can still be seen?


which is nothing more than the propaganda wing of the Republican party and several studies have shown that conservatives are actually overrepresented on talk shows (mainly because they're so colorfully stupid that they make for interesting viewing). Or could it be that the majority of Americans are still center-right, and not lefties like you?

On a different note...
Now that you got your tax cuts, how many new employees has your company hired?

---

Not a single one so far this year. What you don't understand is that they weren't tax cuts. They merely kept the taxes from going back up higher. If they had, we would have had to let go of a few employees in Alpine, Arizona and Luna, New Mexico.

No child, they were tax cuts.
So, all that bull about "uncertainty" troubling business owners was just that...bull.
You get the cuts and still nothing.

Pretty much as expected, trickle down economics was a lie when Reagan made it up and it's never proven true since.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

I wonder why? Maybe because it is one of the few remaining balanced networks where the conservative point of view can still be seen?

---

This is the trouble. You're listening to/looking for a point of view when you should be looking for facts.

Bias on any side isn't the problem. Dishonest nonfactual reporting is