Democrats Now Favored to Win Senate

archives said:
I am going to venture Truman, who at the time didn’t enjoy great public ratings but the Democrats won back and controlled a majority in the Senate. But that was a different time, Americans weren’t as heavily partisan and cross ticket voting was common, the good ole days
Click to expand...

Looking it up it said in 1946 the Republicans picked up 12 seats and took control of the Senate. I guess that's a unique circumstance considering he took office only the year before but it was the first Congressional election while he was President. (I guess I should have prefaced my prior comment with the first Congressional election for the President, not the first of of their second term.)
 
floridafan said:
And you were just boasting not so long ago about Republican dominance in the mid terms. My how circumstances change.
Click to expand...

I was? I think you have me confused with someone else.

The Senate has always been pretty much a toss up this year. The hope is that the GOP candidates are so ridiculous that even in a 'wave' election people can't vote for them. There are basically 4 states that matter. Dems holding onto AZ and GA and the GOP holding onto PA and WI.

Walker and Oz give the Dems a good chance in GA and PA. AZ is kind of an unknown at this point. And I am hoping the people of WI come to their senses and get rid of Johnson.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I was? I think you have me confused with someone else.

The Senate has always been pretty much a toss up this year. The hope is that the GOP candidates are so ridiculous that even in a 'wave' election people can't vote for them. There are basically 4 states that matter. Dems holding onto AZ and GA and the GOP holding onto PA and WI.

Walker and Oz give the Dems a good chance in GA and PA. AZ is kind of an unknown at this point. And I am hoping the people of WI come to their senses.
Click to expand...

Check the other names you post under, you'll find it.
 
Both sides would do well to remember that eggs are not chickens...and counting chickens while they are still eggs often works out badly.

We have an election coming up. That will tell us the true national mood.

No matter what, though, the Republicans will either win big...or claim the election was fixed.

They suck big time.
 
floridafan said:
Check the other names you post under, you'll find it.
Click to expand...

Wow. You really don't have a clue about me if you think I am on the right or that I use socks.

I prefer to stick to facts. 538 is not predicting it is likely there will be 56 Dem Senate seats. (They say there is a 1% chance of 56 Dem seats which is about the same probability as 56 GOP seats.)They are calculating the odds of one party taking each house if Congress based on current polling. They are also working with minimal polling at this point and are more than happy to say that.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I hope you don't mind if I correct this. I believe what he is saying is that the (D)s' odds of winning the Senate (having a majority) are 56%, not that they will have 56 seats.

ZCbyNLe.jpg
Click to expand...

You're right, my error.
 
archives said:
I am going to venture Truman, who at the time didn’t enjoy great public ratings but the Democrats won back and controlled a majority in the Senate. But that was a different time, Americans weren’t as heavily partisan and cross ticket voting was common, the good ole days
Click to expand...

The WSJ has an article today on how previous generations have dealt with inflation. Here was the first paragraph. (Truman in 1946.) They must follow JPP.


"Inflation is soaring, Wall Street is bearish, the supply chain is clogged. Empty store shelves dominate dinner table conversations. The new president is in hot water, his approval rating at just 30%. A recession seems likely. The year is…1946."


https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-pr...nflation-crises-11659106869?mod=hp_listc_pos1
 
cawacko said:
Looking it up it said in 1946 the Republicans picked up 12 seats and took control of the Senate. I guess that's a unique circumstance considering he took office only the year before but it was the first Congressional election while he was President. (I guess I should have prefaced my prior comment with the first Congressional election for the President, not the first of of their second term.)
Click to expand...

The 80th Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses), but a rarity, especially as I said, these days with a partisan citizenry, the historical trend is against the Democrats. However, as the topic post implies, the GOP has saddled itself with some poor candidates, so it is a possibility

But as I noted, the House is a done deal, for a number of reasons one being that Congressional districts have been gerrymandered to such an extent that some representatives have life time positions. Until the Democrats can win State legislatures the GOP has the upper hand
 
archives said:
The 80th Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses), but a rarity, especially as I said, these days with a partisan citizenry, the historical trend is against the Democrats. However, as the topic post implies, the GOP has saddled itself with some poor candidates, so it is a possibility

But as I noted, the House is a done deal, for a number of reasons one being that Congressional districts have been gerrymandered to such an extent that some representatives have life time positions. Until the Democrats can win State legislatures the GOP has the upper hand
Click to expand...

Republicans in the Senate are running a couple of horrible candidates but for the Democrats to win six seats would definitely not be the norm. (nor have I heard anyone else make such a prediction)
 
Cypress said:
I'll believe it when I see it but outlawing a woman's right to reproductive choice can't be helping.
Click to expand...

Those who are pro-choice were already voting Democratic. Democrats will lose the House. They might keep control of the Senate but they will not have 56 seats.

It's not like Republicans could really do anything if they control both houses with a Democratic president. They could block some Democratic initiatives, but they are doing that now.
 
Flash said:
Those who are pro-choice were already voting Democratic. Democrats will lose the House. They might keep control of the Senate but they will not have 56 seats.

It's not like Republicans could really do anything if they control both houses with a Democratic president. They could block some Democratic initiatives, but they are doing that now.
Click to expand...

Control of the Senate is far more important than the House. Dont be so anxious to hand it to the Democrats.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I hope you don't mind if I correct this. I believe what he is saying is that the (D)s' odds of winning the Senate (having a majority) are 56%, not that they will have 56 seats.

ZCbyNLe.jpg
Click to expand...
Right now, Dems have 46 seats plus 2 Indies who caucus with them. They're going to need to hold Leahy's seat, and pick up at least two more in order to have 50.

The more this rogue Supreme Court oversteps, the better the chances of Dems holding a very slim majority are.

Which still makes for gridlock most of the time.
 
Any 5th grader could have predicted that Dr. Oz and Hershall Walker, and all of the other candidates that make up Donald Trump's Goon Squad, were going to be a drag on the Republican Party's chances on winning the Mid-Terms.

202721886_4289908271061120_2003684356626435939_n.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top