Voting day in US, will Dems lose the Senate?

[Kellhound]

Well I did my part and voted against anyone Republican.

After seeing what that party's done since Bush, I've had enough of them.

I voted straight I or L.

[Reeve]

Which Republicans can change just like HArry Reid did for confirmations. Fillibusters arent even mentioned in the constitution. They are just a senate rule which can be changed

Changing the Senate rules requires a 2/3 majority, so good luck with that.

[theostrichsays]

Grimes or McConnell... almost makes Jeb vs Hillary appealing.

[arandomuser]

Changing the Senate rules requires a 2/3 majority, so good luck with that.

Harry reid could of changed the rule when he had a close to filibuster proof majority, but it would of just backfired eventually if republicans took control, and plus it was pointless since the gerrymandered house would never put any of his bills on the floor since they were all bought and paid for by the tea party.

[Lenonis]

This is just a correction of the 2008 Democratic sweep. You know what's 2016? 6 years after the Republican sweep. Just sayin.

There are quite a few factors in the Dem's favor in 2016.

1) Potentially a very popular candidate running. People can bash Hillary all they want but the polls have her pretty much decimating any GOP potential.
2) Presidential elections favor Dem turnout historically.
3) The every creeping tide of demographics favoring democratic voters
4) The re-election of the 2010 GOP sweep -- many of whom are in real trouble of keeping their seats according to polls.

A lot can happen between now and then however. But any rational GOP supporter should be very worried about 2016.

- - - Updated - - -

Most of those models are based off of polling numbers though.

True -- and I think it's worth noting that most polling is still done via land line which is going to skew demographic representation, most likely in the GOP's favor.

However I still think it's not a great plan to dismiss the polling entirely.

[theostrichsays]

There are quite a few factors in the Dem's favor in 2016.

1) Potentially a very popular candidate running. People can bash Hillary all they want but the polls have her pretty much decimating any GOP potential.
2) Presidential elections favor Dem turnout historically.
3) The every creeping tide of demographics favoring democratic voters
4) The re-election of the 2010 GOP sweep -- many of whom are in real trouble of keeping their seats according to polls.

A lot can happen between now and then however. But any rational GOP supporter should be very worried about 2016.

So what your really saying is 2016 will be the next time we hear Texans scream about seceding?

[Lenonis]

Which Republicans can change just like Harry Reid did for confirmations. Fillibusters arent even mentioned in the constitution. They are just a senate rule which can be changed

Neither side is going to do away with the filibuster entirely because they always want that option when they aren't in power.

[Xargoth6634]

If you're like me and believe the next president will be Republican

Have you been huffing paint thinner or something? The republicans have zero viable candidates.

[Calfredd]

So what your really saying is 2016 will be the next time we hear Texans scream about seceding?

Thankfully, we never do. Also anyone remember American Spring?

[Lenonis]

So what your really saying is 2016 will be the next time we hear Texans scream about seceding?

I want to hear a state like...Idaho or Kansas start screaming about seceding. That would be fun!

[Orlong]

Kind of, David koch once ran for the libertarian party and this was his platform

Ablish medicare
Abolish social security
Abolish ALL forms of welfare
Abolish all state infrastructure spending
Ablish ALL environmental regulations
Abolish the minimum wage
Abolish all worker rights regulations
Repeal the civil rights act

And now david koch runs the republican party, you've seen their platform slooowly shift to his radical viewpoints.

That all sounds good to me except the last 2

[grimsanta]

Most of those models are based off of polling numbers though. We've seen how unreliable polling numbers can be in recent elections. Most polls predict a Romney win by a landslide and... well, he lost by a landslide.

Not trying to be a dick, but they did not predict a romney win at all. With the exception of right after the first debate, Obama was ahead in polling averages the entire time. In addition to that, the state-by-state polls, which are what really matter, Obama was predicted to win by a landslide the entire time. Belive me when I say this, I followed extremely closely.

The only people who were reporting that it was a close race were news networks who cherry picked polls and conservative sites that ignored reputable pollsters like PPP because they were being commisioned by democrats.

It was the same thing when people said that the Obama vs Clinton primary was close. It wasn't after super tuesday. It became apparent to everyone who wasn't invested in either ratings of Clinton that after Super Tuesday, even though Clinton was ahead, that Obama was going to win it because of superdelegate support and caucus states that the Obama campaign cleaned up in.

Poll predictions have been historically very accurate when looked at in aggregate. People like Nate Silver are really talented at this by examining a pollster's history and methodoligy, and giving them a weight to how important they are to the aggregate model.

[arandomuser]

That all sounds good to me except the last 2

I dont...understand....how ANY of those would benefit you in any way possible..

[Lenonis]

I dont...understand....how ANY of those would benefit you in any way possible..

Orlong has established he has an uber right view. He thinks the tea party is a left wing party.

[Orlong]

Changing the Senate rules requires a 2/3 majority, so good luck with that.

It didnt seem to need a 2/3 majority when the Dems changed the filibuster rules for executive nominees a few months ago

[Lenonis]

You can't blame anyone when you have a majority in the house and the senate besides yourselves.

Well...that's not really true at all. You can't really blame anyone when you have a majority in the house, senate and the presidency. But if you lose any one of those three you can always point to the other side for holding up the works.

You'll hear all about how Obama is abusing the veto and refusing to let "the will of the people" be done. Even though what they send will be completely unreasonable.

EDIT -- and that's assuming the Dems don't filibuster everything like the GOP did.

[Orlong]

I dont...understand....how ANY of those would benefit you in any way possible..

They promote individual responsibility and save tax dollars. Especially with Social Security. I shouldnt be FORCED to contribute to a retirement program. I should be able to use my money to invest in my own retirement investments. I can do a better job than the government anyway

[arandomuser]

They promote individual responsibility and save tax dollars. Especially with Social Security. I shouldnt be FORCED to contribute to a retirement program. I should be able to use my money to invest in my own retirement investments. I can do a better job than the government anyway

Whos gonna pay for the military? you think david koch is gonna pay for it? AHHAHA Sorry taxes for working people wont go down, in fact they will raise taxes on working people to pay for the military since they wont be paying any.

[Stormspellz]

How so? Republicans are generally pro trade.

pro trade for fat cats.

[Lenonis]

Obama can't Veto every bill

Sure he can. And if the GOP sends him nothing but "repeal Obamacare" "outlaw gay marriage" "privatize social security" you can be he'll veto each and every one of those.

Now if they send through some "rename this bridge to blah blah" yeah, he's not going to veto that.

- - - Updated - - -

They promote individual responsibility when it's convenient.

Remember you are talking to someone who has no qualms about people starving to death if they have a string of unfortunate circumstances. Because they should have planned better. Regardless of what happened.