The GOP will win the Senate and Keep the House

[Arlenton]

Why is it not reliable? I've seen tons of other polls and sources, Arkansas in anywhere ranging from tossup to likely GOP. And what is this current political opinion your talking about?

Arkansas polls:
Sabato- lean GOP
Rothenberg- lean GOP
Cook- tossup

And even if Arkansas is won by the Democrat, the GOP will still have a net gain because of Montana, South Dakota, and West Virgina.

You have no grasp on RL politics or statistics. In all reality, a poll like that can be inaccurate to 20% or higher in error.

>being told I have no grasp of politics or statistics by someone thoroughly convinced that Republicans have at most a 25% chance of victory in places like Montana, SD, & Arkansas

Even with a 20% margin of error the particular state of Arkansas is leaning GOP. And Montana and West Virigina are safe GOP (though the senators are currently Democrats who are retiring), a 20% margin of error won't count for much. And hypothetically if the GOP loses all the tossups AND leaning GOP states, the wins in these two states would give them a net gain of 0. Which means the senate composition would stay the same. A Democratic net gain will not happen.

[Arlenton]

And then there is this..

Likelihood of a 2014 Republican senate takeover in percenbtages:

1 FiveThirtyEight- 59.5% as of 10/14
2 Princeton Election Consortium (Sam Wang)-60% as of 10/14
3 Huffington Post-62% 10/14
4 The Upshot (New York Times)-68% as of 10/13
5 Washington Post-95% as of 10/14
6 Daily Kos- 66% as of 10/13

1 http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives ... -forecast/
2 http://election.princeton.edu/
3 http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2014/senate-outlook
4 http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/
5 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dre/po ... n-lab-2014
6 http://dailykos.com/poll-explorer/2014-senate

Im guessing that all of these are completely unreliable and the Democrats will defy all current polls/current statistics/patterns in American political history and take the Senate & House in massive landslides during a midterm where their party is in control of the Presidency... Right?

The House is a lost cause for the Democrats until redistricting happens after the 2020 census. The Senate, well, I'm hopeful but I admit that a GOP majority looks likely. It will be thin, however, and nowhere near veto-proof (2/3 of both houses, remember). Probably not even filibuster-proof.

Exactly, and by the looks of it (patterns, trends and 2010-elect tea party senators) the GOP will lose the Senate in 2016 and the Democrats will keep the presidency & make decent gains in the House. Unless of course the Republicans have a candidate who is very capable and those 2010 elect tea party members manage to hold on to their seats by the incoming GOP President coattails, but im gunna say the first scenario is more likely.

[Dragomerian Islands]

You have no grasp on RL politics or statistics. In all reality, a poll like that can be inaccurate to 20% or higher in error.

>being told I have no grasp of politics or statistics by someone thoroughly convinced that Republicans have at most a 25% chance of victory in places like Montana, SD, & Arkansas

Even with a 20% margin of error the particular state of Arkansas is leaning GOP. And Montana and West Virigina are safe GOP (though the senators are currently Democrats who are retiring), a 20% margin of error won't count for much. And hypothetically if the GOP loses all the tossups AND leaning GOP states, the wins in these two states would give them a net gain of 0. Which means the senate composition would stay the same. A Democratic net gain will not happen.

Actually those polls are not even accurate. Going purely by past results and voter preferences, the Democrats will have a net gain. Any other prediction is nothing more than a fantasy.

[Arlenton]

>being told I have no grasp of politics or statistics by someone thoroughly convinced that Republicans have at most a 25% chance of victory in places like Montana, SD, & Arkansas

Even with a 20% margin of error the particular state of Arkansas is leaning GOP. And Montana and West Virigina are safe GOP (though the senators are currently Democrats who are retiring), a 20% margin of error won't count for much. And hypothetically if the GOP loses all the tossups AND leaning GOP states, the wins in these two states would give them a net gain of 0. Which means the senate composition would stay the same. A Democratic net gain will not happen.

Actually those polls are not even accurate. Going purely by past results and voter preferences, the Democrats will have a net gain. Any other prediction is nothing more than a fantasy.

Past results show that the incumbent Presidents part almost always loses seats in the midterms, and the GOP tends to do better due to low Dem voter turnout. Major foreign policy actions/world events have shown to be the only things that can save a Presidents party during a midterm (Cuban missile crisis, Vietnamization, 9/11)

Senate midterm results

Ford (R):
1974- Dems gain 4 seast

Carter (D):
1978- GOP gains 3 seats

Reagan (R):
1982- Dems gain 1 seat
1986- Dems gain 8 seats

Bush (R):
1990- Dems gain 1 seat

Clinton (D):
1994- GOP gains 8 seats
1998- Both 0 net gain

Bush (R):
2002- GOP gains 2 seats (an exception, mostly due to Bushes 9/11 90% approval ratings)
2006- Dems gain 5 seats

Obama (D):
2010- GOP gains 6 seats
2014- GOP gains are expected to be extremely likely

These are past midterm results... what kind of results are you looking at?

[Dragomerian Islands]

Actually those polls are not even accurate. Going purely by past results and voter preferences, the Democrats will have a net gain. Any other prediction is nothing more than a fantasy.

Past results show that the incumbent Presidents part almost always loses seats in the midterms, and the GOP tends to do better due to low Dem voter turnout. Major foreign policy actions/world events have shown to be the only things that can save a Presidents party during a midterm (Cuban missile crisis, Vietnamization, 9/11)

Senate midterm results

Ford (R):
1974- Dems gain 4 seast

Carter (D):
1978- GOP gains 3 seats

Reagan (R):
1982- Dems gain 1 seat
1986- Dems gain 8 seats

Bush (R):
1990- Dems gain 1 seat

Clinton (D):
1994- GOP gains 8 seats
1998- Both 0 net gain

Bush (R):
2002- GOP gains 2 seats (an exception, mostly due to Bushes 9/11 90% approval ratings)
2006- Dems gain 5 seats

Obama (D):
2010- GOP gains 6 seats
2014- GOP gains are expected to be extremely likely

These are past midterm results... what kind of results are you looking at?

Overall political results based on policies vs. several different factors.

Factor	Democrats	Republicans
Minority Votes	73.75%	26.25%
Low Income Earners	60%	40%
Party	92%	93%
Moderates Votes	56%	41%
Support for Health Care Plan By Party	75%	24%

According to these factors based on the 2012 Presidential Race, the Democratic Party will win the most seats.

[Othelos]

Would a Tea Party Senate and House be fine?

Yes. The US national debt is ridiculous, and the Tea Party's spending-reduction policies would reduce it.

A balanced budget amendment would be a nightmare to deal with whenever the economy slumps.

[Arlenton]

Past results show that the incumbent Presidents part almost always loses seats in the midterms, and the GOP tends to do better due to low Dem voter turnout. Major foreign policy actions/world events have shown to be the only things that can save a Presidents party during a midterm (Cuban missile crisis, Vietnamization, 9/11)

Senate midterm results

Ford (R):
1974- Dems gain 4 seast

Carter (D):
1978- GOP gains 3 seats

Reagan (R):
1982- Dems gain 1 seat
1986- Dems gain 8 seats

Bush (R):
1990- Dems gain 1 seat

Clinton (D):
1994- GOP gains 8 seats
1998- Both 0 net gain

Bush (R):
2002- GOP gains 2 seats (an exception, mostly due to Bushes 9/11 90% approval ratings)
2006- Dems gain 5 seats

Obama (D):
2010- GOP gains 6 seats
2014- GOP gains are expected to be extremely likely

These are past midterm results... what kind of results are you looking at?

Overall political results based on policies vs. several different factors.

Factor	Democrats	Republicans
Minority Votes	73.75%	26.25%
Low Income Earners	60%	40%
Party	92%	93%
Moderates Votes	56%	41%
Support for Health Care Plan By Party	75%	24%

According to these factors based on the 2012 Presidential Race, the Democratic Party will win the most seats.

That doesn't prove anything, or have anything to do with this fall's election.
Midterm elections are completely different, Democratic voters do not turn out nearly as much in midterms, and many of the races are taking place in conservative states. In Republican states, like Arkansas, white low income voters are extremely republican and obamacare supporters are nearly absent, why do you think that the democrats in these areas are desperately trying to distance themselves from obama? That charts shows nation wide results from an election year when the Democrats won, it has nothing to do with midterms.And not to mention Obamas popularity has been tanking since his re-election. The whole "Democrats are gunna be winning all the time now cuz minorities" hype is not something you should use to predict winners, especially during midterms. The fact that you are using it to try and disprove every single poll and electoral history of the US just shows how uninformed you are in American politics.
And that chart is nation wide. You need to focus in individual states. In all of the states where the GOP is predicted to win this fall low income voters are heavily republican, except for Iowa. Even though low income voters as a whole in the nation are more Democratic.

[Dragomerian Islands]

Overall political results based on policies vs. several different factors.

Factor	Democrats	Republicans
Minority Votes	73.75%	26.25%
Low Income Earners	60%	40%
Party	92%	93%
Moderates Votes	56%	41%
Support for Health Care Plan By Party	75%	24%

According to these factors based on the 2012 Presidential Race, the Democratic Party will win the most seats.

That doesn't prove anything, or have anything to do with this fall's election.
Midterm elections are completely different, Democratic voters do not turn out nearly as much in midterms, and many of the races are taking place in conservative states. In Republican states, like Arkansas, white low income voters are extremely republican and obamacare supporters are nearly absent, why do you think that the democrats in these areas are desperately trying to distance themselves from obama? That charts shows nation wide results from an election year when the Democrats won, it has nothing to do with midterms.And not to mention Obamas popularity has been tanking since his re-election. The whole "Democrats are gunna be winning all the time now cuz minorities" hype is not something you should use to predict winners, especially during midterms. The fact that you are using it to try and disprove every single poll and electoral history of the US just shows how uninformed you are in American politics.
And that chart is nation wide. You need to focus in individual states. In all of the states where the GOP is predicted to win this fall low income voters are heavily republican, except for Iowa. Even though low income voters as a whole in the nation are more Democratic.

So, what you are saying is:

Low income earners will willingly support candidates that have policies that would ultimately hurt them.

That makes no sense. The Republican Party has always been a "rich man's" party. They have actually been losing massive numbers of supporters in recent years. They keep distancing themselves from the poor. Less and less poor and minorities will be voting Republican. There is no doubt that current 'red' states will be voting Republican, but no Red states were on the list being discussed. The Democratic Party will make large gains this election.

I will note that there is some degree of error due to the fact that it was based on an election time 2 years ago during Presidential Elections; however, that error still allows (some) gains to be indicated for the Democratic Party.

[Arlenton]

That doesn't prove anything, or have anything to do with this fall's election.
Midterm elections are completely different, Democratic voters do not turn out nearly as much in midterms, and many of the races are taking place in conservative states. In Republican states, like Arkansas, white low income voters are extremely republican and obamacare supporters are nearly absent, why do you think that the democrats in these areas are desperately trying to distance themselves from obama? That charts shows nation wide results from an election year when the Democrats won, it has nothing to do with midterms.And not to mention Obamas popularity has been tanking since his re-election. The whole "Democrats are gunna be winning all the time now cuz minorities" hype is not something you should use to predict winners, especially during midterms. The fact that you are using it to try and disprove every single poll and electoral history of the US just shows how uninformed you are in American politics.
And that chart is nation wide. You need to focus in individual states. In all of the states where the GOP is predicted to win this fall low income voters are heavily republican, except for Iowa. Even though low income voters as a whole in the nation are more Democratic.

So, what you are saying is:

Low income earners will willingly support candidates that have policies that would ultimately hurt them.

That makes no sense. The Republican Party has always been a "rich man's" party. They have actually been losing massive numbers of supporters in recent years. They keep distancing themselves from the poor. Less and less poor and minorities will be voting Republican. There is no doubt that current 'red' states will be voting Republican, but no Red states were on the list being discussed. The Democratic Party will make large gains this election.

I will note that there is some degree of error due to the fact that it was based on an election time 2 years ago during Presidential Elections; however, that error still allows (some) gains to be indicated for the Democratic Party.

Poor southern/western Christian whites are Republican party's base, regardless of their policies that you say harm them. And what do you mean no red states are being discussed? Arkansas, West Virgina, Alaska, Louisiana, and South Dakota are all red states...

[Arlenton]

So, what you are saying is:

That makes no sense. The Republican Party has always been a "rich man's" party. They have actually been losing massive numbers of supporters in recent years. They keep distancing themselves from the poor. Less and less poor and minorities will be voting Republican. There is no doubt that current 'red' states will be voting Republican, but no Red states were on the list being discussed. The Democratic Party will make large gains this election.

I will note that there is some degree of error due to the fact that it was based on an election time 2 years ago during Presidential Elections; however, that error still allows (some) gains to be indicated for the Democratic Party.

Poor southern/western Christian whites are Republican party's base, regardless of their policies that you say harm them. And what do you mean no red states are being discussed? Arkansas, West Virgina, Alaska, Louisiana, and South Dakota are all red states...

Some of which are red states trending more red in the case of Arkansas, Louisiana, and WV.

[Dragomerian Islands]

So, what you are saying is:

That makes no sense. The Republican Party has always been a "rich man's" party. They have actually been losing massive numbers of supporters in recent years. They keep distancing themselves from the poor. Less and less poor and minorities will be voting Republican. There is no doubt that current 'red' states will be voting Republican, but no Red states were on the list being discussed. The Democratic Party will make large gains this election.

I will note that there is some degree of error due to the fact that it was based on an election time 2 years ago during Presidential Elections; however, that error still allows (some) gains to be indicated for the Democratic Party.

Poor southern/western Christian whites are Republican party's base, regardless of their policies that you say harm them. And what do you mean no red states are being discussed? Arkansas, West Virgina, Alaska, Louisiana, and South Dakota are all red states...

Yeah right, they are not red just because a poll says they may become one!

As for the harmful policies:

1. The Republican Party wants to cut/eliminate public school funding.
2. They want to cut/eliminate public healthcare and welfare programs.
3. They want to establish a tax policy that benefits their rich friends, which placing the tax burden on those that can least afford it.
4. They try to enforce the completely unsupported 'trickle down' economic approach that has never worked.

[Arlenton]

Poor southern/western Christian whites are Republican party's base, regardless of their policies that you say harm them. And what do you mean no red states are being discussed? Arkansas, West Virgina, Alaska, Louisiana, and South Dakota are all red states...

Yeah right, they are not red just because a poll says they may become one!

As for the harmful policies:

1. The Republican Party wants to cut/eliminate public school funding.
2. They want to cut/eliminate public healthcare and welfare programs.
3. They want to establish a tax policy that benefits their rich friends, which placing the tax burden on those that can least afford it.
4. They try to enforce the completely unsupported 'trickle down' economic approach that has never worked.

May become one? Each one of those states are about as red as you can get. Two of them are going republican by over 60% in presidential elections. And In the south, with the exception of the eastern seaboard southern states, Republicans have been gaining more and more power, white southerners and Appalachian mountain southerners are trending more and more Republican, the only reason there are incumbent Democrats in their senate seats are because they were elected in the 80s,90s,and early 2000s, and managed to hang on during the obama wave in 2008.
If you reply something along the lines of "that doesn't make sense, people have been trending democrat cuz their poor" then you clearly have no knowledge of American political trends. I suggest browsing the Election Atlas forum & other resources, http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/ , they have records and knowledge of legitimate trends, not that "republicans r guna b gone by 2015 cuz poor nd minorities & oklahoma will b blu by 2016!" nonsense.

EDIT: BTW they switch the colors for this site, GOP is blue & Dems are red there.

[Kelinfort]

Dems should roll over and let them have a majority. Let them be as unmoderate as possible so that they may destroy themselves with their own power. Then in 2016 and 2020, reap the rewards.

[Dragomerian Islands]

Yeah right, they are not red just because a poll says they may become one!

As for the harmful policies:

1. The Republican Party wants to cut/eliminate public school funding.
2. They want to cut/eliminate public healthcare and welfare programs.
3. They want to establish a tax policy that benefits their rich friends, which placing the tax burden on those that can least afford it.
4. They try to enforce the completely unsupported 'trickle down' economic approach that has never worked.

May become one? Each one of those states are about as red as you can get. Two of them are going republican by over 60% in presidential elections. And In the south, with the exception of the eastern seaboard southern states, Republicans have been gaining more and more power, white southerners and Appalachian mountain southerners are trending more and more Republican, the only reason there are incumbent Democrats in their senate seats are because they were elected in the 80s,90s,and early 2000s, and managed to hang on during the obama wave in 2008.
If you reply something along the lines of "that doesn't make sense, people have been trending democrat cuz their poor" then you clearly have no knowledge of American political trends. I suggest browsing the Election Atlas forum & other resources, http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/ , they have records and knowledge of legitimate trends, not that "republicans r guna b gone by 2015 cuz poor nd minorities & oklahoma will b blu by 2016!" nonsense.

EDIT: BTW they switch the colors for this site, GOP is blue & Dems are red there.

Ok, know I see what you are doing. You are now throwing a fit because I provided evidence that could not be refuted by you and your only response is by quoting polls that are inaccurate to begin with.

Also, your link goes to a forum. No actual trends could be found.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Poor southern/western Christian whites are Republican party's base, regardless of their policies that you say harm them. And what do you mean no red states are being discussed? Arkansas, West Virgina, Alaska, Louisiana, and South Dakota are all red states...

Some of which are red states trending more red in the case of Arkansas, Louisiana, and WV.

We also have a race coming up, both for governor and the replacement of Cornyn.

Paddock seems meh. David Alameel seems like a good replacement for Cornyn.

[Arlenton]

May become one? Each one of those states are about as red as you can get. Two of them are going republican by over 60% in presidential elections. And In the south, with the exception of the eastern seaboard southern states, Republicans have been gaining more and more power, white southerners and Appalachian mountain southerners are trending more and more Republican, the only reason there are incumbent Democrats in their senate seats are because they were elected in the 80s,90s,and early 2000s, and managed to hang on during the obama wave in 2008.
If you reply something along the lines of "that doesn't make sense, people have been trending democrat cuz their poor" then you clearly have no knowledge of American political trends. I suggest browsing the Election Atlas forum & other resources, http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/ , they have records and knowledge of legitimate trends, not that "republicans r guna b gone by 2015 cuz poor nd minorities & oklahoma will b blu by 2016!" nonsense.

EDIT: BTW they switch the colors for this site, GOP is blue & Dems are red there.

Ok, know I see what you are doing. You are now throwing a fit because I provided evidence that could not be refuted by you and your only response is by quoting polls that are inaccurate to begin with.


Also, your link goes to a forum. No actual trends could be found.

You know what, I give up. Ive tried to show you the polls, ive tried explaining the current electoral trends in the southern Appalachian region, I backed everything I said up with sources & stats and I can't even convince you that the most Republican states are red states!

But when results of this election come in, matching the nearly universally accepted polls, trends and statistics, and the Republicans make gains, don't take it too hard, understanding American electoral politics is very difficult. If you really want to make a difference and prove me wrong, go out and vote, donate money to the Democratic candidates, or even go campaign for them in the competitive states (though i notice you don't know which states are and are not competitive)

And if you want to make a bet on this election's results im all in

[Murkwood]

Democrats win the House. The Republican Party is batshit insane and people are realizing it.

You willing to bet on that?

[Atlanticatia]

Dems should roll over and let them have a majority. Let them be as unmoderate as possible so that they may destroy themselves with their own power. Then in 2016 and 2020, reap the rewards.

That could be true. Obama will have the Whitehouse, obviously, so nothing will get through. But the GOP will be able to pass whatever they want in the House and Senate.

Once Americans see the true agenda of privatisation of Social Security, Medicare, and the defunding of Obamacare(which, by the way, will be hard to do because now that Americans have received subsidies and increased Medicaid coverage it'll be hard politically to take that away.)

Once the Ryan Budget or some form of it is passed, and Obama vetoes it, it'll play right into the hands of whoever is running in 2016 for the Democrats. It'll be hard to politically recover - in 2 years - from trying to do something like eliminating Social Security or Medicare, which has high public support and many Americans like. (And, many older Americans who may vote for the GOP b/c of social conservatism might come back to the Dems if Democrats promise to protect social programs.)

Now, if the Democrats had passed universal single payer health care, that'd be even more of a win for Democrats. The more universal benefit programs we have, the more votes for the Democrats. Things like SS, Medicare, and possibly UHC, are largely 'untouchable' things once they exist. The pundits on TV might be able to talk them down, but the fact that the majority of Americans receive a direct net benefit from them, mean that the party that supports and expands them will always have support.

If the GOP gets the House+Senate and tries to dismantle Medicare and SS, it'll be hard to recover from that. Those socially conservative working-class whites that the GOP has been able to attract will leave once they see the true slash-and-burn agenda actually being enacted.

[The Rich Port]

Democrats win the House. The Republican Party is batshit insane and people are realizing it.

You willing to bet on that?

On the American public's self-realization and intelligent stride, or on their ignorance?

... Yeah, I would put money on the Republicans too. Americans are quick to forget how awful they can be.

[Murkwood]

You willing to bet on that?

On the American public's self-realization and intelligent stride, or on their ignorance?

... Yeah, I would put money on the Republicans too. Americans are quick to forget how awful they can be.

The only reason Republicans win is because Americans are ignorant.

Elitism, much?

[Arlenton]

Democrats win the House. The Republican Party is batshit insane and people are realizing it.

You willing to bet on that?

lmao, that's like taking candy from a baby!
Or should I say, taking money from a very overconfident liberal!

[The Rich Port]

On the American public's self-realization and intelligent stride, or on their ignorance?

... Yeah, I would put money on the Republicans too. Americans are quick to forget how awful they can be.

The only reason Republicans win is because Americans are ignorant.

Elitism, much?

They're ignorant for many reasons, mainly their own stupidity and misinformation on the part of Republicans.

[Murkwood]

The only reason Republicans win is because Americans are ignorant.

Elitism, much?

They're ignorant for many reasons, mainly their own stupidity and misinformation on the part of Republicans.

Or, you know, it's possible for people to not be ignorant and still come to different political conclusions.

[Kelinfort]

You willing to bet on that?

lmao, that's like taking candy from a baby!
Or should I say, taking money from a very overconfident liberal!

You've never talked to Blazed, have you?

[Arlenton]

But seriously, does anyone want to bet on the Democrats taking the house?