• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who wins the senate?

Who wins the Senate next week?

  • Im a right leaning American, the Republicans win.

    Votes: 18 52.9%

  • Im a left leaning American, the Republicans win.

    Votes: 11 32.4%

  • Im not American, the Republicans win.

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Im a right leaning American, the Democrats win.

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Im a left leaning American, the Democrats win.

    Votes: 3 8.8%

  • Im not American, the Democrats win.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    34
Anagram said:
In Iowa, polls are close to a tie and early voting numbers look pretty good for Braley. Democratic support has slightly overperformed polls here in the past so I think that might push him ahead as well as the blowback Ernst is receiving in the local press for not responding to their requests for interviews.
Click to expand...
Ernst is indeed catching crap for not working with the local press, but in a way I don't blame her. It's not like she's going to get their nomination anyway, and she can better control her message if she does it herself. Newspapers and such have become so yesterday that I wonder how much effect that really has anymore.

Braley's biggest failure, in my estimation, is that he has run an almost 100% negative campaign against Ernst, and almost nothing positive about himself. Negative ads work (regardless what most people say), but I think the depth of his negativity might have a negative effect on him.

Ernst has run negative ads as well, but not nearly as much.

Even with all that, I am still predicting a Braley win, albeit close.
 
vesper said:
It wouldn't surprise me to see Manchin switch parties before 2016. West Virginia is looking pretty red about now. I think we all know why. The coal industry has been devastated by Obama's EPA on steroids.
Click to expand...

Manchin's definitely one to keep an eye on. If he switches I don't think it'll be before 2016 though. He's spent a lot of time this election still campaigning for Democrats like Begich, Landrieu, Pryor, and Nunn. I'm sure he's noticed that even if Republicans take the senate this year, there's a good chance Democrats win it back in 2016 where only 2 Democratic seats really even have a chance of being competitive compared to potentially 10 of Republicans. No point switching to the majority and losing committee positions if there's a good chance they're just going to lose it in 2 years.

In 2018 though, with his seat up and an even better field for Republicans than this year it wouldn't surprise me at all if he switches. Especially if that looks like another Republican midterm year.
 
The Mark said:
Doesn't matter what happens - someone will always be whining...
Click to expand...

Lame attempt to ignore substance when you can't trump it--for a woman, the Senate is most certainly about whether we get another Alito or a Sotomayor--knowing Ginsburg's days are numbered--another deadlock with McConnell giving us a 5-3 court .
 
Anagram said:
Manchin's definitely one to keep an eye on. If he switches I don't think it'll be before 2016 though. He's spent a lot of time this election still campaigning for Democrats like Begich, Landrieu, Pryor, and Nunn. I'm sure he's noticed that even if Republicans take the senate this year, there's a good chance Democrats win it back in 2016 where only 2 Democratic seats really even have a chance of being competitive compared to potentially 10 of Republicans. No point switching to the majority and losing committee positions if there's a good chance they're just going to lose it in 2 years.

In 2018 though, with his seat up and an even better field for Republicans than this year it wouldn't surprise me at all if he switches. Especially if that looks like another Republican midterm year.
Click to expand...
Anagram, for someone so young, you really impress me with your insight. Cheers!
 
There should be a few close races but once this is all settled with a few run-off elections odds are Republicans will control the Senate, thus control the 114th Congress. Obama's last two years will be reduced to futher rhetoric, executive action, and fighting with Congress at every step.
 
The environment of the world has been devastated by coal, has gotten better and is now doomed forever for the next few centuries until fossil fuels finish us off. Let's go back to when Lake Erie's pH was so low due to high-sulfur coal killing all fish. And coal miners lived to only 40--easier to replace them. Then there's acid snow but heh--back to the 80s and the material age and the beginning of the 2nd Gilded age that will destroy the world economy next decade .
 
NIMBY said:
Lame attempt to ignore substance when you can't trump it--for a woman, the Senate is most certainly about whether we get another Alito or a Sotomayor--knowing Ginsburg's days are numbered--another deadlock with McConnell giving us a 5-3 court .
Click to expand...
Uh...what?

I'm saying that someone is always going to whine, no matter what happens. I was not talking about any specific person.
 
I say 70% chance GOP takes it and 30% change the Dems take it.
 
iguanaman said:
The NY Times says the GOP has a 68% CHANCE of taking the Senate so they are saying it could go either way but it is more likely that the GOP wins. You can't say they lied if the Dems win either though.
Click to expand...

I so mistrust the media that this occurred to me. By ceding the elections to the Republicans prior to the election, the media could be complicit in an attempt to excite the Democrat base. I don't know what's going to happen Tuesday but nothing will surprise me.
 
vesper said:
It wouldn't surprise me to see Manchin switch parties before 2016. West Virginia is looking pretty red about now. I think we all know why. The coal industry has been devastated by Obama's EPA on steroids.
I just hit Drudge and they have a story developing. Seems the AP is claiming early voting is favoring Republicans by 10%. There is also another story where there seems to be some Democratic Governors in New England states finding themselves in competitive races. Man this is getting better by the hour.

News from The Associated Press
Click to expand...

This has been a unique year where the odds on the Republicans taking the senate has stayed about the same and hasn't moved much. Usually a few month before an election we see a trend start which seems to spread as time goes by and by election time, we can be pretty sure of the results.

But every time the Republicans seems to pick up a state, another goes the other way. The Republicans started moving in Colorado, then Kansas happened. Iowa begins to go the Republican way, North Carolina the opposite. The GOP has been stuck on picking up 5 or 6 seats, just when it looks like that will increase to 7 or 8, another state or two will go the other way. It has been interesting, but as I said, rather unique.
 
sawdust said:
If we are to believe the media, Republicans take the Senate. The media is untrustworthy however so who knows.
Click to expand...

The media is untrustworthy biased scum. Remember the 2000 election when the media stated Gore won Florida before the polls in the central time zone of Florida closed.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063932342 said:
The media is untrustworthy biased scum. Remember the 2000 election when the media stated Gore won Florida before the polls in the central time zone of Florida closed.
Click to expand...
I think the media outlets reporting that should have lost their licenses.

It's impossible to estimate how many last minute voters may have decided not to vote. My understanding is the panhandle is more red than the rest of the state, and I cant help but think it was intentional.
 
I just visited Drudge, Real Clear Politics and the news is looking pretty good for Republicans. Colorado is reporting Republicans ahead in early voting. There's a report that Democrats are worried that Iowa is slipping away. Republicans seem to be more energized and have more momentum. The latest poll out of KS has Roberts up by 1 which may be the result of Wolf coming out and endorsing him. It's going to be an interesting one to watch unfold. And a poll between Ms. Mary Landrieu and Cassidy without Maness is up to +8 Cassidy.
 
Last edited:
BrewerBob said:
I think the Republicans will win but not by as much as they should be able to given the President's low approval rating. I further predict nothing will change.
Click to expand...

At least little dictator tyrant Harry Reid will not be able to table legislation he does not agree with.
 
ObamacareFail said:
At least little dictator tyrant Harry Reid will not be able to table legislation he does not agree with.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that tactic regardless of which side is doing it. That is too much power for one person to have.
 
Conservative media outlets skew Republican to provide the sense of crushing, overwhelming victory that the cage fighting addicts crave, liberal media outlets skew Republican to terrify Democrats to the voting booths, and mainstream media outlets swing against the party in power.

Still, I expect things to go well for Republicans.

Not that it really matters. I don't see that Republicans have a sustainable route to power other than more gerrymandering because the constitution of their entire party is organized around causing as much damage to ordinary people as they humanly and possibly can.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
Conservative media outlets skew Republican to provide the sense of crushing, overwhelming victory that the cage fighting addicts crave, liberal media outlets skew Republican to terrify Democrats to the voting booths, and mainstream media outlets swing against the party in power.

Still, I expect things to go well for Republicans.

Not that it really matters. I don't see that Republicans have a sustainable route to power other than more gerrymandering because the constitution of their entire party is organized around causing as much damage to ordinary people as they humanly and possibly can.
Click to expand...

Both parties utilize gerrymandering to the max, you can blame the Republican for Texas but in the same breath you must blame the Democrats for Illinois. As for this election, I think it is more of righting ideological differences of the states. Louisiana, Arkansas, South Dakota, West Virginia, Montana all should have had Republicans for quite awhile. The fact they didn't reflects back to the old south being solid Democratic, i.e. Arkansas and Louisiana. In South Dakota and Montana it is more a yen to be free of Washington's interference. West Virginia is all about coal.
 
Perotista said:
Both parties utilize gerrymandering to the max, you can blame the Republican for Texas but in the same breath you must blame the Democrats for Illinois. As for this election, I think it is more of righting ideological differences of the states. Louisiana, Arkansas, South Dakota, West Virginia, Montana all should have had Republicans for quite awhile. The fact they didn't reflects back to the old south being solid Democratic, i.e. Arkansas and Louisiana. In South Dakota and Montana it is more a yen to be free of Washington's interference. West Virginia is all about coal.
Click to expand...

I blame Republicans more because they're nearly always (1) the first ones to do it or (2) the first ones to escalate it to a whole new, previously unimagined level of viciousness (3) the Democrats redeem their scumminess through other virtues that the Republicans totally lack. Modern gerrymandering as we understand wasn't possible in the past and was invented by the Republican Party from the 70s onward (to correct the ideological influence of the Civil Rights reforms) in a steady stream of innovations in order to compensate for the fact they weren't getting any votes from people who weren't glib enough to fall for their aggressive nonsense. Democrats already had the votes, so they had no need to make such innovations.

On the surface, gerrymandering is gerrymandering and all parties are equal in their scumminess. Beneath the surface, drama is afoot.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
I blame Republicans more because they're nearly always (1) the first ones to do it or (2) the first ones to escalate it to a whole new, previously unimagined level of viciousness (3) the Democrats redeem their scumminess through other virtues that the Republicans totally lack. Modern gerrymandering as we understand wasn't possible in the past and was invented by the Republican Party from the 70s onward (to correct the ideological influence of the Civil Rights reforms) in a steady stream of innovations in order to compensate for the fact they weren't getting any votes from people who weren't glib enough to fall for their aggressive nonsense. Democrats already had the votes, so they had no need to make such innovations.

On the surface, gerrymandering is gerrymandering and all parties are equal in their scumminess. Beneath the surface, drama is afoot.
Click to expand...

That's quite a partisan take, which is fine. I have no desire to defend Republicans or any gerrymandering. But whenever I read something like this, I always get the feeling or think if I do the same wrong things my opponents does, that is okay. My goals are more righteous, correct or better off for the masses. but in the end it all boils down to using the same evil tricks and devices the other sides uses which makes you no better or worse than the other side.
 
Morality Games said:
I blame Republicans more because they're nearly always (1) the first ones to do it or (2) the first ones to escalate it to a whole new, previously unimagined level of viciousness (3) the Democrats redeem their scumminess through other virtues that the Republicans totally lack. Modern gerrymandering as we understand wasn't possible in the past and was invented by the Republican Party from the 70s onward (to correct the ideological influence of the Civil Rights reforms) in a steady stream of innovations in order to compensate for the fact they weren't getting any votes from people who weren't glib enough to fall for their aggressive nonsense. Democrats already had the votes, so they had no need to make such innovations.

On the surface, gerrymandering is gerrymandering and all parties are equal in their scumminess. Beneath the surface, drama is afoot.
Click to expand...

Gerrymandering can (and does) take two forms: 1) it can be used to artificially dilute the vote of a given block by carefully spreading them among many districts or 2) it can be used to create artificially concentrated districts to award a given voting block a virtually guaranteed seat.
 
I just got a call from some unknown actor that said if I didn't vote for Thom Tillis he was going to stop telling people that he was from North Carolina. He was going to start telling people that he was from Tennessee. :shock: I don't know what that's supposed to mean.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Gerrymandering can (and does) take two forms: 1) it can be used to artificially dilute the vote of a given block by carefully spreading them among many districts or 2) it can be used to create artificially concentrated districts to award a given voting block a virtually guaranteed seat.
Click to expand...

I am still amused by the lefts sudden distaste for gerrymandering. They were happy to use it when they held the advantage. It's only been an advantage to republicans since the 2010 midterms when republicans won over 600 state legislative seats.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I am still amused by the lefts sudden distaste for gerrymandering. They were happy to use it when they held the advantage. It's only been an advantage to republicans since the 2010 midterms when republicans won over 600 state legislative seats.
Click to expand...

Complaining about Gerrymandering is kind of like complaining about gravity. Gravity sucks for fat people but gravity will always exist. Gerrymandering sucks for people who lose elections but Gerrymandering will always exist. A human being has to draw lines for congressional districts. It can't be done by a robot. You can redraw lines 10 billion different ways but all 10 billion outcomes will benefit one party or the other.

Gerrymandering is a non-issue. It's a great distraction or a great excuse for losing. Nothing more.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom