The GOP will win the Senate and Keep the House

[Grenartia]

Universal healthcare for universal firearm ownership requirements.
We shall have the most healthy militia in the modern world! *nod*

Congratulations, Congress, NSG is doing a better job than you. That's honestly just pathetic.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the NSG Senate has done infinitely more in the year, year and a half that its been around, than in the 4 years Congress has been filled with obstructionist asshats.

[Myrensis]

How is the centralization of power and the burning of the southland ever an American Value? How is a war that killed anywhere from 600,000 to 1 Million people ever an American Value? The 1860s and 1870s were terrible decades that saw the destruction of states rights and the American South (thanks Sherman).

I guess the American South shouldn't have started a bloody unwinnable war over the state's rights to slavery then, eh?

People who champion states rights shouldn't be waving Confederate flags, they should be cursing them for forever associating "States Rights" primarily with the right of states to treat undesirables as subhuman cattle. And then continuing to treat those undesirables as second class citizens for another century after they lost.

I'd bet my entire net worth on it. They may not be able to convict, but they will impeach.

There will be more noise about it certainly, but barring some sudden complete Tea Party coup I don't see it happening. The sane, or at least marginally self-aware, Republicans realize that not only would impeachment fail, it would almost certainly guarantee the White House and the Senate going right back to the Democrats in 2016, a year they're likely to have enough difficulty with all ready.

[Dragomerian Islands]

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.

Are you also saying Arkansas is a Democratic state? What?
And what do you mean by "its in the blue"? where are you seeing this?

On the site that I was directed to.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Whot.

How is the centralization of power and the burning of the southland ever an American Value? How is a war that killed anywhere from 600,000 to 1 Million people ever an American Value? The 1860s and 1870s were terrible decades that saw the destruction of states rights and the American South (thanks Sherman).

States' rights is a concept that needed (and still needs) destruction. All it has ever been used for is "justifying" the oppression of basic human rights. Speaking as a Southerner, the Civil War was basically a parent giving their asshole kid the spanking they deserved. If the South didn't want its ass kicked, it should've thought about that before it decided to throw a temper tantrum over the fact that people were beginning to recognize that people shouldn't be able to own people.

So we should have policies that suit some states and punish others? The point of states rights was to give local governments who might have different needs some jurisdiction to sign in laws that can ensure that the needs of the people in each state can be served.

The "Civil War" (the War Between the States) was a war to stop the north from unfairly bullying the agrarian south via tariffs, which helped textile mills yet hurt the south which imported machinery from both the north and Europe. The Secession Crisis began around 1859, when Buchanan was still in office, and when the end of slavery didn't seem near, and note that Lincoln never supported the abolition of slavery until the war for the sake of politics.

[Grenartia]

States' rights is a concept that needed (and still needs) destruction. All it has ever been used for is "justifying" the oppression of basic human rights. Speaking as a Southerner, the Civil War was basically a parent giving their asshole kid the spanking they deserved. If the South didn't want its ass kicked, it should've thought about that before it decided to throw a temper tantrum over the fact that people were beginning to recognize that people shouldn't be able to own people.

1. So we should have policies that suit some states and punish others? The point of states rights was to give local governments who might have different needs some jurisdiction to sign in laws that can ensure that the needs of the people in each state can be served.

2. The "Civil War" (the War Between the States) was a war to stop the north from unfairly bullying the agrarian south via tariffs, which helped textile mills yet hurt the south which imported machinery from both the north and Europe. 3. The Secession Crisis began around 1859, when Buchanan was still in office, and when the end of slavery didn't seem near, and note that Lincoln never supported the abolition of slavery until the war for the sake of politics.

1. I honestly doubt there's that many policies that a one-size fits all approach doesn't work for (I will admit agricultural regulations being one), but human rights are NOT one of those policies. And yet, the overwhelming majority of "B-bu-but STATES RIGHTS" is used to "justify" oppression of human rights (slavery, segregation, sodomy laws, and SSM bans being just a few cases).

2. No, the Civil War was a temper tantrum thrown by the oppressive Southern States, which were unjustifiably (at the time) paranoid that "LINCOLN'S COMIN' TUH GET YER SLAVES!!!eleven1", and so seceded as soon as he got elected, and then promptly decided to knock off a federally-owned military installation. At which point, Lincoln's hand was forced.

3. Note that this doesn't inherently contradict what I said above. In fact, my account and that statement practically back each other up.

[West Aurelia]

As a libertarian, I would prefer a Libertarian Senate and House. But obviously, that's not going to happen.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Hopefully the Democrat's win both, the Republican's are far too backwards and batshit for me.

[Republic of Coldwater]

1. So we should have policies that suit some states and punish others? The point of states rights was to give local governments who might have different needs some jurisdiction to sign in laws that can ensure that the needs of the people in each state can be served.

2. The "Civil War" (the War Between the States) was a war to stop the north from unfairly bullying the agrarian south via tariffs, which helped textile mills yet hurt the south which imported machinery from both the north and Europe. 3. The Secession Crisis began around 1859, when Buchanan was still in office, and when the end of slavery didn't seem near, and note that Lincoln never supported the abolition of slavery until the war for the sake of politics.

1. I honestly doubt there's that many policies that a one-size fits all approach doesn't work for (I will admit agricultural regulations being one), but human rights are NOT one of those policies. And yet, the overwhelming majority of "B-bu-but STATES RIGHTS" is used to "justify" oppression of human rights (slavery, segregation, sodomy laws, and SSM bans being just a few cases).

2. No, the Civil War was a temper tantrum thrown by the oppressive Southern States, which were unjustifiably (at the time) paranoid that "LINCOLN'S COMIN' TUH GET YER SLAVES!!!eleven1", and so seceded as soon as he got elected, and then promptly decided to knock off a federally-owned military installation. At which point, Lincoln's hand was forced.

3. Note that this doesn't inherently contradict what I said above. In fact, my account and that statement practically back each other up.

1. Yes I agree that human rights need to be upholded, and no man should be denied basic freedoms, especially when they lack freedom with their most natural of property: their own body, but the Confederacy didn't fight for slavery, they fought against an ultra pro-tariff Lincoln who used high tariffs as one of his largest points on his platform, and 90% of his campaign in the north was about raising tariffs, and of course the Morill Tariff would already be bad enough, and Lincoln would probably raise tariffs again, and the south would suffer due to their agrarian economy and thus suffer, resulting in the secession. I understand that there were those who seceded that loved the dying institution of slavery, but most knew that slavery was dying, especially in the upper south a gradual and natural death, and the amount of slaveholders were less than any time in history, while the Union states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri didn't secede yet still had slavery, whilst West Virginia seceded from Virginia to join the Union despite having slavery and supporting it.

Overall, I don't believe that the south fought for slavery, but for numerous reasons, as the War of Northern Aggression was far more complicated then a pro-equality Lincoln who wanted to liberate the slaves and some ultra reactionary guys in the south who wanted to make it the law of the land.

I will not continue this War of Secession Debate to avoid Threadjacking, but feel free to TG me as I do enjoy debating about the deadly war that claimed up to 1,000,000 lives.

[Republic of Coldwater]

As a libertarian, I would prefer a Libertarian Senate and House. But obviously, that's not going to happen.

Would a Tea Party Senate and House be fine?

[West Aurelia]

As a libertarian, I would prefer a Libertarian Senate and House. But obviously, that's not going to happen.

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.

[Argentarino]

As a libertarian, I would prefer a Libertarian Senate and House. But obviously, that's not going to happen.

Would a Tea Party Senate and House be fine?

No, it wouldn't. I'm from Kansas, which is run by a Tea Party governor and a GOP+Tea Party majority legislature. Let me tell you how well the Tea Party experiment has worked on a state level: our credit rating went down, businesses didn't come into Kansas like Governor Brownback's hoped, and while taxes were decreased, the state had to struggle to pay for all sorts of programs. Did I mention that Brownback cuts in education spending didn't turn out as well as he thought?

So no, I'd rather not leave the country to men and women like Brownback. The great Tea Party experiment has failed.

EDIT: Here's a link for info:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

[The Sotoan Union]

To be fair, a lot more legislation would be passed in any one party own control of the senate and the house. That's not unique to the GOP.

[Arlenton]

Are you also saying Arkansas is a Democratic state? What?
And what do you mean by "its in the blue"? where are you seeing this?

On the site that I was directed to.

The site I directed you too says Arkansas is lean Republican...

[Republic of Coldwater]

Would a Tea Party Senate and House be fine?

No, it wouldn't. I'm from Kansas, which is run by a Tea Party governor and a GOP+Tea Party majority legislature. Let me tell you how well the Tea Party experiment has worked on a state level: our credit rating went down, businesses didn't come into Kansas like Governor Brownback's hoped, and while taxes were decreased, the state had to struggle to pay for all sorts of programs. Did I mention that Brownback cuts in education spending didn't turn out as well as he thought?

So no, I'd rather not leave the country to men and women like Brownback. The great Tea Party experiment has failed.

EDIT: Here's a link for info:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

It seems like Kansas has had a recent GDP Growth, under TEA PARTY tax cuts and deregulation, the same can be said about Louisiana, where governor Jindal's cuts in spending and taxes along with deregulation has spurred economic growth along with a faster growing economy than the national average

[Gigaverse]

Syria is next. Assad, President Chris Christie is coming for ya. *nod*

/sarcasm

[Argentarino]

No, it wouldn't. I'm from Kansas, which is run by a Tea Party governor and a GOP+Tea Party majority legislature. Let me tell you how well the Tea Party experiment has worked on a state level: our credit rating went down, businesses didn't come into Kansas like Governor Brownback's hoped, and while taxes were decreased, the state had to struggle to pay for all sorts of programs. Did I mention that Brownback cuts in education spending didn't turn out as well as he thought?

So no, I'd rather not leave the country to men and women like Brownback. The great Tea Party experiment has failed.

EDIT: Here's a link for info:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

It seems like Kansas has had a recent GDP Growth, under TEA PARTY tax cuts and deregulation, the same can be said about Louisiana, where governor Jindal's cuts in spending and taxes along with deregulation has spurred economic growth along with a faster growing economy than the national average

Let me ask you something: if they were working, if it was all about GDP...how is it that the Democratic challenger Paul Davis looks like he is going to win? I mean, CLEARLY something is wrong with your policies if 100 members of your party endorse your Democratic opponent. CLEARLY something is wrong when a Republican incumbent is going to lose in one of the most GOP friendly states in the Union. Hon, you don't live in Kansas, so you don't know what its like. My dad - a Republican - even agrees that Brownback's "experiment" is failing. We need businesses, not some chart that says our GDP increased. We need more responsible spending, not some dipshit who cuts an already meager education budget just for GOP points. You can wave around your graph, but you can't tell me there is nothing wrong with Brownback's policies.

[Kelinfort]

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.

Not how debt works, but even so, that would be a terrible idea.

[Republic of Coldwater]

It seems like Kansas has had a recent GDP Growth, under TEA PARTY tax cuts and deregulation, the same can be said about Louisiana, where governor Jindal's cuts in spending and taxes along with deregulation has spurred economic growth along with a faster growing economy than the national average

Let me ask you something: if they were working, if it was all about GDP...how is it that the Democratic challenger Paul Davis looks like he is going to win? I mean, CLEARLY something is wrong with your policies if 100 members of your party endorse your Democratic opponent. CLEARLY something is wrong when a Republican incumbent is going to lose in one of the most GOP friendly states in the Union. Hon, you don't live in Kansas, so you don't know what its like. My dad - a Republican - even agrees that Brownback's "experiment" is failing. We need businesses, not some chart that says our GDP increased. We need more responsible spending, not some dipshit who cuts an already meager education budget just for GOP points. You can wave around your graph, but you can't tell me there is nothing wrong with Brownback's policies.

Yeah, they are running huge deficits and he now wants to raise spending, which is why people are opposing him and why the Democratic Challenger, who is basically running off being not Brownback is winning in polls. Brownback's tax cuts were fine, but he could've just moved towards vouchers and made more cuts to things like police to avoid this budget shortfall.

Also note that Jindal is creating a stronger Louisiana economy using Fiscally Conservative legislation.

[Dragomerian Islands]

On the site that I was directed to.

The site I directed you too says Arkansas is lean Republican...

What the poll says they are leaning is not reliable. I am talking about the current political opinion and previous seat holder.

[Arlenton]

The site I directed you too says Arkansas is lean Republican...

What the poll says they are leaning is not reliable. I am talking about the current political opinion and previous seat holder.

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.

[Farnhamia]

What the poll says they are leaning is not reliable. I am talking about the current political opinion and previous seat holder.

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.

I wouldn't count my South Dakota chickens quite yet.

[Dragomerian Islands]

What the poll says they are leaning is not reliable. I am talking about the current political opinion and previous seat holder.

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.

[Arlenton]

The site I directed you too says Arkansas is lean Republican...

What the poll says they are leaning is not reliable. I am talking about the current political opinion and previous seat holder.

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?

[Farnhamia]

What the poll says they are leaning is not reliable. I am talking about the current political opinion and previous seat holder.

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.

[Dragomerian Islands]

What the poll says they are leaning is not reliable. I am talking about the current political opinion and previous seat holder.

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?

Considering that it would be more likely for the sun to go supernova than those areas would vote republican, yes, those results are skewed with a 90% chance that eligible voters in those areas did not participate in the polls.