The GOP will win the Senate and Keep the House

[Dragomerian Islands]

That part is unreliable. I actually checked the site out and the statistics can get very irregular and skewed. Also, the event of a Republican takeover in the current political climate would be impossible and would require nothing greater than an act of God and the Apocalypse.

What political climate is preventing the GOP from winning senate seats in Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, and West Virginia?

1. The GOP hates minorities and minorities are becoming a larger percent of the population.
2. Unless there is no Democratic candidate, the chances of the republicans winning there is maybe 30% and 5% for them to win all 4 of those mentioned by you.
3. Their policies do not stick well with non-rich, non-big business types of people.

[Conserative Morality]

Love, we were either in the middle of a revolution, ruled by an emperor, or a king for fifty of those sixty years.

Your power struggles and lack of mass politics are a step up from what we were in.

Yeah, but at least the Revolution was beautiful in a horrible, bloody sort of way. Liberté, égalité, fraternité, non?

[Olerand]

I don't blame them.
I'm considering abstention too, and our political choices are much more numerous and vibrant than those offered to an average American voter.

I respect that, as I do with all decisions to participate or not to participate in politics.

However, do note that the people you disagree with (or ever the greater of two evils so to speak) have a greater chance of winning due to a lack of participation. I know, you may disagree and lack faith in all of the above. But imagine if Democrats took both houses in the United States (as may very well happen in the next decade, but certainly not in 2014-16). Imagine if Republicans took the Senate next election. That would make a difference, big or small.

I am aware of the consequences of electoral neglect. But voting legitimizes the current political parties, and makes them think they are something that they are not, namely supported and liked. It supports the status quo, and change is not going to be delivered in return for our participation.
To me, it is supporting short-term change over truer, long-term change.
Short of voting for the nationalists, which has recently become an available option for me with the upcoming free trade agreement between the EU and US, there seem to be no alternatives to abstention.

[Arlenton]

What political climate is preventing the GOP from winning senate seats in Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, and West Virginia?

1. The GOP hates minorities and minorities are becoming a larger percent of the population.
2. Unless there is no Democratic candidate, the chances of the republicans winning there is maybe 30% and 5% for them to win all 4 of those mentioned by you.
3. Their policies do not stick well with non-rich, non-big business types of people.

You do realize that those places are trending Republican right? And that they were already heavily Republican to begin with? Only a 5%-30% chance of a GOP victory in south dakota for Gods sake? No offense but can I have what you are you smoking?

[Olerand]

Love, we were either in the middle of a revolution, ruled by an emperor, or a king for fifty of those sixty years.

Your power struggles and lack of mass politics are a step up from what we were in.

Yeah, but at least the Revolution was beautiful in a horrible, bloody sort of way. Liberté, égalité, fraternité, non?

It certainly was. I actually like that era, I have an odd fascination with and love for turbulence and the feeling of radical change in society.

It was also a defining time for world history, the rise of the modern nation-state, the spread of republican and egalitarian ideology throughout Europe etc.
It was pretty great.

And you know bad because of all the people that died. That was bad too.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm voting this midterm for the people who are the best choices for the government and if what they support aligns with my interests.

People all too often forget that it is not about the party, but about the goals and whether those goals are in our own self-interest or the interest of the nation to follow through.

In whether the GOP will win the Senate and Keep the House? I don't think so.

They will keep the house, no doubt about that and the worst case scenario for the GOP in the Senate is a net gain of 0 seats.

I'm not sure people want a gridlock congress anymore, but you're right, there is a chance it might happen that way and nothing gets solved.

[Lalaki]

I respect that, as I do with all decisions to participate or not to participate in politics.

However, do note that the people you disagree with (or ever the greater of two evils so to speak) have a greater chance of winning due to a lack of participation. I know, you may disagree and lack faith in all of the above. But imagine if Democrats took both houses in the United States (as may very well happen in the next decade, but certainly not in 2014-16). Imagine if Republicans took the Senate next election. That would make a difference, big or small.

I am aware of the consequences of electoral neglect. But voting legitimizes the current political parties, and makes them think they are something that they are not, namely supported and liked. It supports the status quo, and change is not going to be delivered in return for our participation.
To me, it is supporting short-term change over truer, long-term change.
Short of voting for the nationalists, which has recently become an available option for me with the upcoming free trade agreement between the EU and US, there seem to be no alternatives to abstention.

Usually I would agree with long-term change over short-term. But the nature of politics is short-term. It's about helping the greatest amount of people at any given moment.

Let's say Party A wants to end universal health care and Party B wants to increase funding. While they may both be unpopular and disliked, voting for Party B protects the medical care of citizens in need.

The words of Keynes really fit well here. "In the long run, we will all be dead."

[Arlenton]

What political climate is preventing the GOP from winning senate seats in Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, and West Virginia?

1. The GOP hates minorities and minorities are becoming a larger percent of the population.
2. Unless there is no Democratic candidate, the chances of the republicans winning there is maybe 30% and 5% for them to win all 4 of those mentioned by you.
3. Their policies do not stick well with non-rich, non-big business types of people.

>5% GOP victory in solid red states trending more red
>5%
>5%
>5%
btw where are you getting your information? I need to see this lmao

[Dragomerian Islands]

1. The GOP hates minorities and minorities are becoming a larger percent of the population.
2. Unless there is no Democratic candidate, the chances of the republicans winning there is maybe 30% and 5% for them to win all 4 of those mentioned by you.
3. Their policies do not stick well with non-rich, non-big business types of people.

You do realize that those places are trending Republican right? And that they were already heavily Republican to begin with? Only a 5%-30% chance of a GOP victory in south dakota for Gods sake? No offense but can I have what you are you smoking?

You are putting your faith in a poll that has shown in the past to be very inaccurate. The results are sporadic at best. There is logically, statistically, or otherwise that a state(s) that has/have curtain values to vote for a party that is so vehemently against those values.

[Arlenton]

They will keep the house, no doubt about that and the worst case scenario for the GOP in the Senate is a net gain of 0 seats.

I'm not sure people want a gridlock congress anymore, but you're right, there is a chance it might happen that way and nothing gets solved.

Nobody wants a gridlock,we all want progress, though we all want our own sides version of progress. Which kinda creates gridlock.

[Lalaki]

I'm not sure people want a gridlock congress anymore, but you're right, there is a chance it might happen that way and nothing gets solved.

Nobody wants a gridlock,we all want progress, though we all want our own sides version of progress. Which kinda creates gridlock.

It perplexes me.

Why don't Democrats sit down and negotiate economic policy with Republicans?

Why don't Republicans sit down, and instead of leading countless attempts to repeal the PPACA, works with Democrats to make it better?

It's all about cooperation, not competition. Politics isn't the economy.

[Dragomerian Islands]

1. The GOP hates minorities and minorities are becoming a larger percent of the population.
2. Unless there is no Democratic candidate, the chances of the republicans winning there is maybe 30% and 5% for them to win all 4 of those mentioned by you.
3. Their policies do not stick well with non-rich, non-big business types of people.

>5% GOP victory in solid red states trending more red
>5%
>5%
>5%
btw where are you getting your information? I need to see this lmao

Solid Red? Those states were in the blue.

[Conserative Morality]

It certainly was. I actually like that era, I have an odd fascination with and love for turbulence and the feeling of radical change in society.

It was also a defining time for world history, the rise of the modern nation-state, the spread of republican and egalitarian ideology throughout Europe etc.
It was pretty great.

And you know bad because of all the people that died. That was bad too.

Don't worry, I'm a dirty revolutionary as well.

[Olerand]

I am aware of the consequences of electoral neglect. But voting legitimizes the current political parties, and makes them think they are something that they are not, namely supported and liked. It supports the status quo, and change is not going to be delivered in return for our participation.
To me, it is supporting short-term change over truer, long-term change.
Short of voting for the nationalists, which has recently become an available option for me with the upcoming free trade agreement between the EU and US, there seem to be no alternatives to abstention.

Usually I would agree with long-term change over short-term. But the nature of politics is short-term. It's about helping the greatest amount of people at any given moment.

Let's say Party A wants to end universal health care and Party B wants to increase funding. While they may both be unpopular and disliked, voting for Party B protects the medical care of citizens in need.

The words of Keynes really fit well here. "In the long run, we will all be dead."

America's massive size and its electoral history make electoral abstention less damaging than in France.
The turnout rate for presidential elections in America is around 60%, and that would be considered great.
It is around 80% here in France.

Abstention frightens our politicians and makes our displeasure abundantly clear. They were all feigning shock when only 45% of the electorate turned out for the EU parliament elections.
If we can reduce the turnout rate for normal elections, and reach American level turnout rates, our politicians wouldn't dare to do shit because they know they have no legitimacy.

And we are rarely left with a void in France. We always have that one party that is an alternative to abstention. And right now, it happens to be the nationalists.

[Arlenton]

You do realize that those places are trending Republican right? And that they were already heavily Republican to begin with? Only a 5%-30% chance of a GOP victory in south dakota for Gods sake? No offense but can I have what you are you smoking?

You are putting your faith in a poll that has shown in the past to be very inaccurate. The results are sporadic at best. There is logically, statistically, or otherwise that a state(s) that has/have curtain values to vote for a party that is so vehemently against those values.

Alright, take Arkansas results by year in presidential elections, 2000 51%-45% GOP win, 2004 54%-44% GOP win, 2008 58%-38% GOP win , 2012 60%-36% GOP win. The state is obviously shifting right more and more. You said that there is at most a 30% chance for a GOP win there. Where do you get this info from???? Why is this sight so wrong?

[Wisconsin9]

Usually I would agree with long-term change over short-term. But the nature of politics is short-term. It's about helping the greatest amount of people at any given moment.

Let's say Party A wants to end universal health care and Party B wants to increase funding. While they may both be unpopular and disliked, voting for Party B protects the medical care of citizens in need.

The words of Keynes really fit well here. "In the long run, we will all be dead."

America's massive size and its electoral history make electoral abstention less damaging than in France.
The turnout rate for presidential elections in America is around 60%, and that would be considered great.
It is around 80% here in France.

Abstention frightens our politicians and makes our displeasure abundantly clear. They were all feigning shock when only 45% of the electorate turned out for the EU parliament elections.
If we can reduce the turnout rate for normal elections, and reach American level turnout rates, our politicians wouldn't dare to do shit because they know they have no legitimacy.

And we are rarely left with a void in France. We always have that one party that is an alternative to abstention. And right now, it happens to be the nationalists.

Man, I wish our politicians had the same ideas on voter turnout as yours did.

[Mesrane]

Nobody wants a gridlock,we all want progress, though we all want our own sides version of progress. Which kinda creates gridlock.

It perplexes me.

Why don't Democrats sit down and negotiate economic policy with Republicans?

Why don't Republicans sit down, and instead of leading countless attempts to repeal the PPACA, works with Democrats to make it better?

It's all about cooperation, not competition. Politics isn't the economy.

This. The endless gridlock is making Canada more attractive every year.

[Dragomerian Islands]

You are putting your faith in a poll that has shown in the past to be very inaccurate. The results are sporadic at best. There is logically, statistically, or otherwise that a state(s) that has/have curtain values to vote for a party that is so vehemently against those values.

Alright, take Arkansas results by year in presidential elections, 2000 51%-45% GOP win, 2004 54%-44% GOP win, 2008 58%-38% GOP win , 2012 60%-36% GOP win. The state is obviously shifting right more and more. You said that there is at most a 30% chance for a GOP win there. Where do you get this info from???? Why is this sight so wrong?

Well, as for your sight, I am not an eye-doctor, so you may want to get your eyes checked at a certified one.

As for Arkansas, it is in Blue and judging by the policies of the population that lives there vs. the policies of the Republicans, well, they do not match. For Arkansas, 25% win for republicans, and that is being generous.

[Tecomaia]

Republican's can go fuck themselves. Democrat's all the way!

[Arlenton]

>5% GOP victory in solid red states trending more red
>5%
>5%
>5%
btw where are you getting your information? I need to see this lmao

Solid Red? Those states were in the blue.

You can have Democrats in solide red states, and vice versa, for democrats they could be elected in a presidential election year when democratic voter turnout is much higher, they also tend to be much more moderate than other democrats, and some were from the Obama/anti-bush waves or from back in the 80s and 90s when those states were much more Democratic/

[Wisconsin9]

It perplexes me.

Why don't Democrats sit down and negotiate economic policy with Republicans?

Why don't Republicans sit down, and instead of leading countless attempts to repeal the PPACA, works with Democrats to make it better?

It's all about cooperation, not competition. Politics isn't the economy.

This. The endless gridlock is making Canada more attractive every year.

Dunno, this past year it's seemed like we're actually one of the least fucked-up countries in the Anglosphere. If there's one good thing about living in a system where either party can block everything with barely any effort, it's that it'll always be immensely difficult for things to get completely and totally fucked.

[Olerand]

America's massive size and its electoral history make electoral abstention less damaging than in France.
The turnout rate for presidential elections in America is around 60%, and that would be considered great.
It is around 80% here in France.

Abstention frightens our politicians and makes our displeasure abundantly clear. They were all feigning shock when only 45% of the electorate turned out for the EU parliament elections.
If we can reduce the turnout rate for normal elections, and reach American level turnout rates, our politicians wouldn't dare to do shit because they know they have no legitimacy.

And we are rarely left with a void in France. We always have that one party that is an alternative to abstention. And right now, it happens to be the nationalists.

Man, I wish our politicians had the same ideas on voter turnout as yours did.

Our politicians care about remaining in office, as all others do. They feign their interest in democratic participation and whatever, but that's bullshit.
What really keeps our politicians in check, and would do so even more if they are "illegitimate", is our willingness to protest, massively, and for a lot of things.
We've got a lot of neo-liberal crap pulled back after mobilizing a million or so citizens to protest in Paris.

If you want your politicians to care, scare them. We learned that the hard way.

[Arlenton]

Alright, take Arkansas results by year in presidential elections, 2000 51%-45% GOP win, 2004 54%-44% GOP win, 2008 58%-38% GOP win , 2012 60%-36% GOP win. The state is obviously shifting right more and more. You said that there is at most a 30% chance for a GOP win there. Where do you get this info from???? Why is this sight so wrong?

Well, as for your sight, I am not an eye-doctor, so you may want to get your eyes checked at a certified one.

As for Arkansas, it is in Blue and judging by the policies of the population that lives there vs. the policies of the Republicans, well, they do not match. For Arkansas, 25% win for republicans, and that is being generous.

Ok, what do you mean it is "in the blue?"

[Mesrane]

Republican's can go fuck themselves. Democrat's all the way!

I wouldn't get your hopes up.

[Exxosia]

The republocrats will win, the world will lose. This is the way things are.