logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Election Predictions, One Month Out
Raptavio
post Oct 5 2010, 02:15 AM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



All right. Simple questions for debate.

What do you predict the Democrat-to-Republican ratio in the House after the midterm elections will be?

What do you predict the Democrat-to-Republican ratio in the Senate after the midterm elections will be?

I'm leaving gubernatorial and state legislature questions off this topic deliberately; if you want to discuss those, start a new topic.

What reasons factor into your predictions?

Here are my answers to the first two questions. I'm leaving the third for later.

I'm predicting (counting Lieberman and Sanders) 53 Democrats, (counting possibly Crist and Murkowski) 47 Republicans in the Senate.

I'm predicting a net loss of 24 Democratic seats in the House, and a net gain of 26 seats by Republicans, leaving a balance of 231-204. (There are currently two vacancies.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
BecomingHuman
post Oct 6 2010, 04:36 AM
Post #21


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 870
Member No.: 948
Joined: July-30-03

From: San Francisco
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Natural Law Party



QUOTE
One wildcard in this race is the influx of soft money due to the Citizens United ruling.

QUOTE
$80 million has flooded the race on the Republican side, half of this from donors that are completely anonymous. (Karl Rove's PAC, for example, has 90% of its funding from three donors.)

More disturbing is that as the $40 million is anonymous, it could be coming from foreign corporations influencing our politics without any way for us to know it.

Those donations were all perfectly legal before Citizens United.

Some, however, are most likely funneling more money into campaigns through some of these independent groups, said Lawrence M. Noble, a lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and a former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission. They had the right to make such contributions before the ruling, he said, but Citizens United made it more straightforward.

“There’s a greater comfort level,” Mr. Noble said.

NYT

QUOTE
This influx of money could have an impact on our elections that is, currently, unknown. But mitigating that is Democratic money, not quite matching it but coming mostly from small individual contributions.

I doubt the spending will make much of a difference. The weight of empirical evidence shows that campaign spending, contrary to the conventional wisdom, has only a marginal effect on elections.

Levitt:
Previous studies of congressional spending have typically found a large positive effect of challenger spending but little evidence for effects of incumbent spending. Those studies, however, do not adequately control for inherent differences in vote-getting ability across candidates. This paper examines elections in which the same two candidates face one another on more than one occasion; differencing eliminates the influence of any fixed candidate or district attributes. Estimates of the effects of challenger spending are an order of magnitude below those of previous studies. Campaign spending has an extremely small impact on election outcomes, regardless of who does the spending.

Levitt

This post has been edited by BecomingHuman: Oct 6 2010, 04:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 6 2010, 12:09 PM
Post #22


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



O'Donnell: By the way, what is the minimum wage?

Steele: ... Whether the minimum wage is $7 or $10 or whatever it happens to be in whatever part of the country you live in, ...

From Wiki (bolding mine):
QUOTE
...
Alaska $7.75 In 2009, a state law was passed to keep the state minimum wage 50 cents above the federal level.[4]
...
California $8.00[8] San Francisco $9.79.[9] The Minimum Wage Ordinance states that exempt employees must make twice the state minimum wage.
...
Connecticut $8.25 This rate was increased by 25 cents to $8.25 on January 1, 2010. Tipped employees earn $5.69 per hour, which is a tipped rate that is 69% of the state minimum wage.[13]
...
Illinois $8.25 Employers may pay anyone under the age of 18 fifty cents less. Tipped employees earn $4.95 (employers may claim credit for tips, up to 40% of wage[16]).
...
Iowa $7.25[17] Most small retail and service establishments grossing less than 300,000 annually are not required to pay the minimum wage. Tipped employees can be paid 60% of the minimum wage, which is currently $4.35.
...
Maine $7.50 Tipped employees earn $3.75 (one-half of the current state minimum wage).[19]
...
Massachusetts $8.00[21] $2.63 for service (tipped) employees, $1.60 for agricultural employees.
...
Michigan $7.40. $2.65 for service (tipped) employees. Minors 16–17 years of age may be paid 85% of the minimum hourly wage rate (currently a rate of $6.29 per hour). Training wage for new employees ages 16 to 19 of $4.25 per hour for first 90 days of employment.[22]
...
Nevada $8.25 Rises with inflation.[25]
...
New Mexico $7.50 $9.85 in Santa Fe[27]
...
Ohio $7.30
...
Oregon $8.40
...
Rhode Island $7.40 $2.89 for employees receiving tips.
...
Vermont $8.06
...
Washington $8.55
...
West Virginia $7.25 Applicable to employers of 6 or more employees at one location not involved in interstate commerce.[5]
...

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages

Lots of variations and exceptions based on age of employees, number of employees, whether the employees are tipped, rural vs. urban, intra-state vs. inter-state, etc. But hey, what are such pesky details when what you're after is a "gotcha" question that sets up the juicy headline you were hoping for in the first place, eh?

EDITED for a bit of re-formatting

This post has been edited by akaCG: Oct 6 2010, 12:14 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Oct 6 2010, 02:21 PM
Post #23


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



It's a gotcha question he asked NYC mayor Bloomberg, who nailed it, breaking it down to annual, monthly, and hourly wages. Bloomberg was, by the way, the first person he asked that question, so had no way to be prepared for it. He also stated he'd ask every millionaire who appeared on his show that question at the time, so Steele did have the ability to know it was coming.

The fact is the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. It's a very simple question and it has a very simple answer, and the fact that state laws may raise that minimum wage does not alter the fact that Michael Steele was unable to answer that basic question, akaCG's bluster aside.

And it is the fact that Republican leaders (excepting Bloomberg) have such a profound ignorance of a piece of information that is critically important to millions of working Americans that gives the Democrats an opportunity to cushion their losses.

As to Citizens United, I'm curious if the ruling doesn't open the floodgates as BecomingHuman claims, then why the massive flooding of anonymous corporate (possibly foreign) money into Republican campaign efforts?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Oct 6 2010, 02:40 PM
Post #24


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 5 2010, 10:34 PM) *
One wildcard in this race is the influx of soft money due to the Citizens United ruling.

More disturbing is that as the $40 million is anonymous, it could be coming from foreign corporations influencing our politics without any way for us to know it.

And you know this is illegal. Do you have any proof that this is even possible? Or are you just seconding Obama?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive...lie_moment.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 6 2010, 04:23 PM
Post #25


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 6 2010, 10:21 AM) *
It's a gotcha question he asked NYC mayor Bloomberg, who nailed it, breaking it down to annual, monthly, and hourly wages. Bloomberg was, by the way, the first person he asked that question, so had no way to be prepared for it. He also stated he'd ask every millionaire who appeared on his show that question at the time, ...
...

Let me, briefly, just for kicks, channel O'Donnell, and say ...

Aha! Wrong! What O'Donnell actually stated (repeatedly) is that he'd ask every BILLIONAIRE that question (bolding mine):
QUOTE
...
O`DONNELL: Mayor Mike Bloomberg, thank you very much for being here.

BLOOMBERG: Thank you for having me.

O`DONNELL: Now, I got to do a first question which -- this is the first question for all the billionaires on the show.

BLOOMBERG: OK.

O`DONNELL: OK? And the question is, I`m going to let the audience know the answer -- so the pressure is on.

BLOOMBERG: OK. It doesn`t seem fair.

O`DONNELL: No, no, no. Come on, this is something actually you`re supposed to know.

BLOOMBERG: OK.

O`DONNELL: Really, any kind of decent billionaire would know this. But the mayor should really know this. The audience knows the answer already --

BLOOMBERG: OK.

O`DONNELL: -- but they don`t know the question. And the question is -- what is the minimum wage?

BLOOMBERG: U.S. minimum wage is about $15,000 a year, about $300 a week. That`s $7.25 an hour.

O`DONNELL: Jeez.

All right. You got it. See?

BLOOMBERG: But everybody would know that.

O`DONNELL: No. This is why you`re my favorite billionaire. I`m telling you right now, you`re the only billionaire in politics who knows this.

And Connecticut --

BLOOMBERG: Well, not after this because everybody is watching.

O`DONNELL: -- the problem for the day for Linda McMahon in Connecticut is she doesn`t know the minimum wage.

BLOOMBERG: OK.

O`DONNELL: She`s asked in some reporter asked her today about minimum wage, what does she want to do with it -- and she doesn`t even know what it is. That would be kind of --
...

And THAT's what the whole thing was about: an opportunity for O'Donnell to whack a Republican candidate with the Lefty/Lib/Dem/Trumka/Etc. "The Rethuglicans are gonna lower your minimum wage!" talking point du jour.

Bloomberg, who quickly recognized the ideological hackery game that O'Donnell was playing, came right back at him, with amusingly predictable results:
QUOTE
...
BLOOMBERG: Did her opponent know it?

O`DONNELL: I`m sure he did.

BLOOMBERG: Right now, he certainly does.

O`DONNELL: And I`m sure he knows it now. I`m sure he knows it now.
...

Gotta love it!

QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 6 2010, 10:21 AM) *
...
... so Steele did have the ability to know it was coming.
...

Only the members of O'Donnells minuscule TV audience could be reasonably expected to have said ability. The rest of us (millionaires, billionaires, or just reg'lar folks) ... well, we have more important things to do with our precious time. In Steele's case, it's helping elect Republicans.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 6 2010, 10:21 AM) *
...
The fact is the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. It's a very simple question and it has a very simple answer, and the fact that state laws may raise that minimum wage does not alter the fact that Michael Steele was unable to answer that basic question, akaCG's bluster aside.
...

It seems you have missed the bits in the Wikipedia article that point to sundry instances where state laws may LOWER the minimum wage. Seems to me that Steele's answer reflected the complexity of the situation regarding the topic of minimum wage a heck of a lot better than O'Donnell's facile question.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 6 2010, 10:21 AM) *
...
And it is the fact that Republican leaders (excepting Bloomberg) have such a profound ignorance of a piece of information that is critically important to millions of working Americans that gives the Democrats an opportunity to cushion their losses.
...

LOL! Yeah, it's such a "critically important" piece of information that millions of working Americans wouldn't be able to answer O'Donnell's "gotcha" question any more than they would be able to identify the Vice President.

But hey, you go right ahead and hang your hopes of a Dem comeback on such trivia. Far be it from me to stop you.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Oct 6 2010, 07:47 PM
Post #26


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Oh, I'm so very sorry I misheard O'Donnell say (B)illionaire instead of (M)illionaire. That totally makes the ignorance of Michael Steele less inexcusable.

And by the by, the millions of American workers who care very much about the minimum wage are those whose wages are at or near it.

And GOP candidates pledging to lower or eliminate said wage are giving Democrats a chance to have political avenues of attack to cushion their losses, by closing that 'enthusiasm gap.'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BecomingHuman
post Oct 6 2010, 10:08 PM
Post #27


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 870
Member No.: 948
Joined: July-30-03

From: San Francisco
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Natural Law Party



QUOTE
As to Citizens United, I'm curious if the ruling doesn't open the floodgates as BecomingHuman claims, then why the massive flooding of anonymous corporate (possibly foreign) money into Republican campaign efforts?

I think most stories of a "massive flooding" of campaign donations are exaggerating somewhat. For the last 20 years political spending has been trending upwards, it probably would have continued to do so without CU.

As I mentioned before, anonymous donating to 501© non-profit corporations was perfectly legal before the Citizens United ruling. The (not so) big difference now is that those non-profits can create messages that are explicitly for or against a candidate, as opposed to making "issue" ads like they did before, and they can air those ads on TV closer to an election.

The difference between then and now is mostly immaterial. For instance, here is an "issue" ad created by the US Chamber of Commerce (a 501 non-profit) with anonymous money during the 2008 Minnesota senate race. The ad is ostensibly about taxes, but really its about slamming Al Franken. As you can see, the line was already so thin that its a little silly to think that CU made things much worse.

Edit: Additionally, I should point out that it is not clear that the new cash has corporate origins. From my NYT article above:

It is not clear, however, whether it is actually an influx of new corporate money unleashed by the Citizens United decision that is driving the spending chasm, or other factors, notably, a political environment that favors Republicans.


This post has been edited by BecomingHuman: Oct 6 2010, 10:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 7 2010, 04:52 AM
Post #28


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,332
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 6 2010, 09:21 AM) *
And it is the fact that Republican leaders (excepting Bloomberg) have such a profound ignorance of a piece of information that is critically important to millions of working Americans that gives the Democrats an opportunity to cushion their losses.


Is that what the Dems are going to hang their hat on...that Michael Steele didn't know, to the penny, what the minimum wage was? If so, then that ship was going down regardless of what Republicans did or didn't do. If the election comes down to that, then it is going to be a Republican landslide.

I am curious...how many Democratic leaders do you think know how much has been contributed to our national debt since Obama took office? That's a far more pertinent piece of information, and one which certainly has a significant impact on those millions of working Americans, as that debt contributes significantly to our economic malaise, and hence their ability to even have a job. From a political point of view, the side that's talking about that is going to trump the side that's talking about who knew what the minimum wage was, hands down.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Oct 7 2010, 04:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 7 2010, 12:06 PM
Post #29


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,377
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 6 2010, 10:40 AM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 5 2010, 10:34 PM) *
One wildcard in this race is the influx of soft money due to the Citizens United ruling.

More disturbing is that as the $40 million is anonymous, it could be coming from foreign corporations influencing our politics without any way for us to know it.

And you know this is illegal. Do you have any proof that this is even possible? Or are you just seconding Obama?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive...lie_moment.html


Yep, very illegal, and it is highly likely that illegal stuff is going on. At least that's what I assume, since I'm being asked to trust Republicans during a very important midterm election season. Under the current IRS rules, the 501-C4 outfits don't have to report their donation sources until next year, long after the election.

Undecided voters might be tempted to think that without full disclosure, the worse must be happening. To avoid this, the GOP should insist on full disclosure, or else people like Rachel Maddow will be rubbing Republican faces in the dog dirt.

Oh, I know conservatives don't watch her show. That doesn't matter. It's the swing vote that counts, plus she has found her voice for exciting the Democratic base. Ha-ha, it works both ways.

And Democrats are 97% fully disclosed. Who will get the trust vote? Not Republicans.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jobius
post Oct 7 2010, 09:54 PM
Post #30


*******
Five Hundred Club

Sponsor
September 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 521
Member No.: 5,538
Joined: October-13-05

From: California
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 5 2010, 01:25 PM) *
Perhaps you didn't notice, but this site is called America's Debate. We do dispute one another; that's how the game is played. Just like Jobius disagrees with my call on the Kentucky Senate race, I didn't roll my eyes at him.

I'd expect nothing less, but I do have to thank you for not rolling your eyes at my prediction that the election will bring 435 Senators and 100 House members.

As for Michael Steele and the minimum wage... eh. I think most voters' reaction will be "Michael who?" and that those who do know him will think "classic Steele, remember when he launched a blog called 'What Up'?" He's like Biden without the power and the name recognition.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 7 2010, 05:06 AM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 6 2010, 10:40 AM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 5 2010, 10:34 PM) *
One wildcard in this race is the influx of soft money due to the Citizens United ruling.

More disturbing is that as the $40 million is anonymous, it could be coming from foreign corporations influencing our politics without any way for us to know it.

And you know this is illegal. Do you have any proof that this is even possible? Or are you just seconding Obama?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive...lie_moment.html


Yep, very illegal, and it is highly likely that illegal stuff is going on. At least that's what I assume, since I'm being asked to trust Republicans during a very important midterm election season. Under the current IRS rules, the 501-C4 outfits don't have to report their donation sources until next year, long after the election.

Undecided voters might be tempted to think that without full disclosure, the worse must be happening. To avoid this, the GOP should insist on full disclosure, or else people like Rachel Maddow will be rubbing Republican faces in the dog dirt.

Oh, I know conservatives don't watch her show. That doesn't matter. It's the swing vote that counts, plus she has found her voice for exciting the Democratic base. Ha-ha, it works both ways.

Swing voters don't watch Maddow either. But yeah, Rove's 501-c dodge is pretty shady, and a good issue for the Democratic base. Is it big enough to get the Democrats to match the unusually high Republican enthusiasm?

QUOTE(Nate Silver @ NYT's FiveThirtyEight blog)
The enthusiasm gap could mean one of two things:

* It could mean that Democrats were particularly unenthusiastic, relative to a typical midterm election year --ť whereas Republican enthusiasm was about average. That would produce an enthusiasm gap, and would tell us a story about a depressed (or dissatisfied, or complacent) Democratic base.
* Or, it could mean that Republicans were unusually excited about the elections, while Democratic enthusiasm was just at par. That would also produce an enthusiasm gap. But it would be much more a story about Republican excitement than one about disarray in the Democratic base.

In fact, it's the latter explanation that seems to hold this year. The enthusiasm gap has more to do with abnormally high levels of Republican interest in the election than with despondent Democrats.


This post has been edited by Jobius: Oct 7 2010, 10:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Oct 8 2010, 11:49 AM
Post #31


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,197
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



What reasons factor into your predictions?

I have cited in the past the maxim that all politics are local, but the past few days have seen a sudden shift in the campaign we have been working on.

We have been doing doing work for a woman who was term limited as our Representative in the State Legislature. This year, she is running for the State Senate. State Law requires that all campaign signs be taken down after Election Day, so accurate records are maintained as to where they are placed. Being an environmentally rsponsible candidate, she has stored and re-used the signs from one campaign to the next. This year, she placed "Elect" stickers over the "Re-elect" n her old signs, and "Senator" stickers over the word "Representative" on her old signs. She felt that it was fiscally and environmentally responsible. One sign was accidentally erected that said, "Re-elect" and "Senator." Her opponent notified her campaign manager, provided a photograph, and it was located and corrected within ten minutes. Before and after photographs were taken to show that it had been corrected.

On Tuesday, we learned that was not enough, as the campaign manager and the candidate were both served by professional process servers and sheriff's deputies in the office and at home with a long, complex suit, charging a vast conspiracy to defraud, etc.

They appeared at the "emergency hearing" before a judge on Wednesday with campaign signs, a list of all the locations we had placed signs, etc. They were able to demonstrate to the judge how the signs were constructed, and that it was an oversight that one sign had not been properly prepared. The complainant's argument that, "We don't have time to seek out every sign she has placed and examine it." was answered with the argument that from the original photo we had been provided; our campaign had located and corrected the sign within 10 minutes of notification, and photographed both sides of every sign we had out.

Her opponent had been so confident of our inability to respond to a 16 page suit with less than 24 hours notice, that he invited the local newspaper to send a reporter and a photographer to court. The newspaper covered the fact that the suit, by a Republican candidate, was dismissed in less than ten minutes, as a frivolous suit over what appeared to be a clerical error. The paper also covered the fact that her opponent was so confident that he sent his attorney to court to testify, but failed to appear himself. It was a s-l-o-w news day... The story was placed top center on page 1 with photographs in Thursday's newspaper.

We showed up Thursday morning because they had called us on Friday and asked for some extra time from us because of a lack of volunteers. Within 10 minutes of our showing up on Thursday, we were asked to come back later. There were more volunteers than they had work for. (It's an evening paper. In the morning, the story was only available on-line.)

We came back at noon. As I was entering data, a woman I had not met before was sitting behind me waiting for an assignment. She got bored. She got out her cell phone. She called the NAACP state office to see if they still had a get out the vote campaign. She learned that they did. She asked why they had not been active in our area. She called her church, spoke to the Secretary, got the NAACP back on the line and scheduled when they would be here in Muskegon. Then she got her minister on the phone...
QUOTE
On whose authority? On my authority! I used to work for the NAACP and I'm a lifetime member. I'm a long time member of the church. If you're not willing to get the area's black ministers together for a meeting on why they need to tell their parishioners that it is important that they vote; I'll call them, I'll run the meeting, and I'll be certain to explain why you are not officiating!

Growing up, I used to hear frequently, "If mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy." Our phones weren't tied up placing calls, they were tied up answering calls. Republicans who were angry that she had filed a frivolous lawsuit were asked to reread the story. Swing voters called to say that her opponent's failure to appear in court had swayed their vote. Democrats were showing up to lend support. People were using their cell phones to call friends...

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Oct 8 2010, 11:51 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 12 2010, 01:49 PM
Post #32


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
...
George Soros, the billionaire financier who was an energetic Democratic donor in the last several election cycles but is sitting this one out, is not feeling optimistic about Democratic prospects.
...
"... I don’t believe in standing in the way of an avalanche.”
...

Link: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10...n-avalanche/?hp

He didn't quantify "avalanche", alas.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sleeper
post Oct 12 2010, 04:42 PM
Post #33


********
Who dat!

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,692
Member No.: 386
Joined: January-17-03

From: Florida
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 12 2010, 07:49 AM) *
QUOTE
...
George Soros, the billionaire financier who was an energetic Democratic donor in the last several election cycles but is sitting this one out, is not feeling optimistic about Democratic prospects.
...
"... I don’t believe in standing in the way of an avalanche.”
...

Link: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10...n-avalanche/?hp

He didn't quantify "avalanche", alas.



You stole my thunder... I was coming here to post the very same story.

Democratic spin: Soros means the avalanche of illegal overseas money coming into Republican campaigns... He is not talking about republican wins at all... god do I have to spell out everything for you silly tea partiers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Oct 12 2010, 07:21 PM
Post #34


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
AM
Yep, very illegal, and it is highly likely that illegal stuff is going on. At least that's what I assume, since I'm being asked to trust Republicans during a very important midterm election season. Under the current IRS rules, the 501-C4 outfits don't have to report their donation sources until next year, long after the election.


Is that right. So you can give examples and proof that this piece of crap lie is true?

You do know that groups like AFL-CIO and the Sierra club do exactly the same thing don’t you?

You do know that to this day we don’t have a list of all who gave money to Obama?

So enjoy. The current consensus is that this makes Obama looks like a grasping partisan trying to save people destined to get crushed in the election – and doing it with stupid lies at that.

You know when even the liberal NYT slaps you in the face that you are dead wrong….

QUOTE
In two campaign stops Thursday, Mr. Obama invoked what he portrayed as a specific new example, citing a blog posting from a liberal advocacy group as he teed off on a longtime adversary, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, over its political spending.

Organizations from both ends of the political spectrum, from liberal ones like the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Sierra Club to conservative groups like the National Rifle Association, have international affiliations and get money from foreign entities while at the same time pushing political causes in the United States.

Such groups, which collectively have spent hundreds of millions dollars on political causes to advance their agenda, are required by law to ensure that any foreign money they receive is isolated and not used to finance political activities, which would violate a longstanding federal ban. The Chamber of Commerce says it has a vigorous process for ensuring that does not happen, and no evidence has emerged to suggest that is untrue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09donate.html

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Oct 17 2010, 03:21 AM
Post #35


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 5 2010, 01:25 PM) *
Seems that these predictions are based on old polling data, while more recent polls are showing a far closer situation.

Oh well, the only poll that will count is the one on Election Day. Dewey Wins!

There's another new thing about these midterms, and that has to do with the SCOTUS ruling that is allowing less than a handful of billionaires to bankroll Republicans. Meanwhile, the Democrats are getting their donations from hundreds of thousands of sources. Let's see, who has more votes based on the number of donations? Why, that would be the Democrats, wouldn't it.

In any case, I base my predictions on psychic vibes and what side of the aquarium the hermit crabs happen to be, from their perspective. So sorry if anyone needs more evidence than that. We aren't trying to solve a murder mystery here, and I'm not trying to sway opinion.

In the end it will come down to who was right and who was wrong. That will be very easy to demonstrate. What's the count now, 27 days? So many opportunities to blunder or nail it. Also many facts rolling in are contradicting Republican assertions, such as TARP being paid back regularly (possibility of making profit too) and the stimulus having saved/created the predicted number of jobs.

The big crowd in Madison, Wisconsin cheered health care reform. Huh. It's as if the Republicans have just been making stuff up. I'll be generous and say they have been misinterpreting things, such as the size of crowd turnouts to tea party rallies.

Maybe the wrongfully destroyed ACORN will work to Republican advantage. Maybe not . . . being that there's been this habit of doctoring videos in ways that are easily identified as dishonest. That comes back to the trust issue.

I predict the trust issue will be popular among 20-20 hindsighted political wonks after the election. You know, like the change issue? Seems to me that I did predict that one right on. I also got the stock market low down to within a week. Those hermit crabs . . . better than an octopus. Should have trusted them to sell at 120% profit instead of the 80% I finally settled on, mainly due to needing the bucks.

Supporting evidence is highly unreliable when it comes to predictions. Ask any weather forecaster.



As much as I wish you are correct my brutha in motorcycles- thumbsup.gif - I have to say, I believe this will be very similar to the '94 election- probably worse. IIRC, 'Pubs were leading at the polls by only 2% across the board,

You are a few years older than me, and perhaps, a bit less cynical and a bit more hopefull, but I believe the Tea party and dumbing down of the electorate is pushing us more and more to a Palin dream-fascist state.

I was so very, very wrong about "Bailin' Palin" - I had such high hopes for her, and she turned out to be the very worst sort of sub-human media whore.

My prediction- I believe Ried will win- I am here in Nevada now, and Angle is a total whack job, but I believe Ried will win in a squeeker. Otherwise, other than Delaware, a republican sweep. Sad but true. blush.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Belshazzar
post Oct 17 2010, 04:12 AM
Post #36


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 634
Member No.: 11,406
Joined: October-14-10

From: New Yawwwk
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Sleeper @ Oct 4 2010, 10:44 PM) *
I'm predicting business as usual no matter who wins and the citizens of the United States get screwed in the process.


If I ran for office, I'd use "Whoever wins, we all lose" as my campaign slogan. thumbsup.gif

QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 6 2010, 10:21 AM) *
And it is the fact that Republican leaders (excepting Bloomberg)

Bloomberg hasn't been a Republican since 2007.

I can't give exact numbers, but I think there will be a slight majority of Republicans in the House and a slight majority of Democrats in the Senate. It seems like the Republicans could have been more competitive in blue states but blew their chances on Tea Party candidates and they really look like they're just spinning their wheels with the Pledge to America (it was unveiled at a hardware store, after all, much less glamorous than the Contract with America). The Democrats seem pretty uninspired, though. The young vote stopped caring once Obama got in.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Oct 17 2010, 04:44 AM
Post #37


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 4 2010, 10:15 PM) *
What do you predict the Democrat-to-Republican ratio in the House after the midterm elections will be?

What do you predict the Democrat-to-Republican ratio in the Senate after the midterm elections will be?

What reasons factor into your predictions?

Here are my answers to the first two questions. I'm leaving the third for later.

I'm predicting (counting Lieberman and Sanders) 53 Democrats, (counting possibly Crist and Murkowski) 47 Republicans in the Senate.

I'm predicting a net loss of 24 Democratic seats in the House, and a net gain of 26 seats by Republicans, leaving a balance of 231-204. (There are currently two vacancies.)


I'm going with 52 Democrats (and more than likely Hopeless Harry Reid won't be one of them) and 48 Republicans in the Senate. I don't think Crist is going to win Florida and Murkowski has already said if she wins her write-in campaign she's going to remain a Republican which doesn't surprise me in the least.

As for the House, I don't have a clue. The Wall Street Journal reports the Dems will not put any more money into 14 races where they no longer believe they can hold those seats and are essentially pulling the plug. The GOP grabbing 50 seats or more in the House doesn't seem implausible. Black and Latino voter turnout in some urban areas could make the difference between how big of a cushion Speaker Boehner will have, but the House isn't like the Senate where a single senator can effectively block legislation almost indefinitely.

I predict Nancy Pelosi will not be the Minority Leader of the defeated Democrats. She's going to get a lot of the blame for the Democratic losses and her caucus will want someone less polarizing leading them into battle with the Republicans. I'm also curious to see if the GOP wave actually brings a few Black Republicans into the House this time (it didn't in 1996).

Barack and Michelle are coming to C-bus tomorrow for a big rally at Ohio State (home of the very short-lived Number One ranked Buckeyes) and while that will doubtlessly boost the interest of young Democrats and Black voters, it won't be enough to save the Democratic governor and the U.S. Senate "race" has never been one. I think the idea is to avoid a Republican sweep of the other statewide offices such as Secretary of State and Attorney General. The Democrats need to control a few state offices to have some say in the next statewide redrawing on voting districts and they care a lot more about that than losing control of the governor's office. Whomever wins the job is going to have make painful and deep cuts to the Ohio budget to close a multi-billion dollar deficit and that's not going to go over well with the citizens.

QUOTE(Sleeper @ Oct 4 2010, 10:44 PM) *
I'm predicting business as usual no matter who wins and the citizens of the United States get screwed in the process.

Seriously, what does it really matter anymore. If anything this "going to drain the swamp" congress has only showed us each side is equally corrupt no matter the parry moniker.

Who ever can fool the public the best is who will get elected. That or comes up with a nifty sound bite.


This is to be expected when money and powerful interests are permitted to open up their checkbooks and spend unchecked amounts to elect their favorites and defeat their opponents. Say "Thank You" to the U.S. Supreme Court for that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Oct 17 2010, 05:12 AM
Post #38


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,197
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Belshazzar @ Oct 17 2010, 12:12 AM) *
The young vote stopped caring once Obama got in.

That's going to be a wait and see... Too much polling is done by robocalls. I usually respond to computer polls by indicating that I am a Republican and that I am unlikely to vote. When I am asked to by a computer to press 1 if I am male, press 2 if I am female; I usually keep my finger on the three button until I hang up.

As I'm entering data, I notice that perhaps half of registered voters no longer have land lines. Among the volunteers that we have been working with, I have heard a lot of young voices in the background. If they're willing to walk door to door or sit for hours reading a script on a phone, they're going to leave and encourage their friends to vote. I can't get my daughter and her husband to write a letter or place a phone call to a politician; one of their good friends however greeted us by name before sitting down to place phone calls for two hours. There is an excitment in those young voices that I don't hear in a robotic, "Am I speaking to Mr. or Mrs. Cur Mud Jun?"

We have a local candidate who is running ads claiming that he is a small businessman who has run a small grocery store for years. "I've created real jobs." has been countered by bitter ex-employees who have been displaced by automated check out equipment; coming in to our campaign office to comment that the ad he is running is the first time they have known who owned the store or seen him in the aisle. "What can we do to help?"

The young, unemployed people are not sitting at home answering phone calls from unknown callers. They are out looking for a way to make a living, and when they get discouraged; they are volunteering in political offices. They may be doing volunteer work at Republican offices; but with the money they have to work with and the certainty they are ahead, the local Republican Headquarters has yet to turn the lights on, open the doors, and post current campaign posters on the windows. They are dismissing anyone who is out of work as being lazy, blaming unemployment on Democrats, shipping entire factories overseas, and replacing clerks with self checkout machines.

A manufacturer in South Africa purchased a local factory, laid everyone off, sold all of the equipment, and they are leaving a decaying building in a brownfield...

The first lesson that I ever heard in any business class that I ever took is that no business can survive without customers. Modern managers are saying that it makes good financial sense to outsource all of the labor. If we reach a point where two percent of the population has control of the money supply, they will not be spending enough to keep the restaurants and gas stations open.

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Oct 17 2010, 05:20 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 17 2010, 05:01 PM
Post #39


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,377
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 12 2010, 03:21 PM) *
QUOTE
AM
Yep, very illegal, and it is highly likely that illegal stuff is going on. At least that's what I assume, since I'm being asked to trust Republicans during a very important midterm election season. Under the current IRS rules, the 501-C4 outfits don't have to report their donation sources until next year, long after the election.


Is that right. So you can give examples and proof that this piece of crap lie is true?

You do know that groups like AFL-CIO and the Sierra club do exactly the same thing don’t you?

You do know that to this day we don’t have a list of all who gave money to Obama?

So enjoy. The current consensus is that this makes Obama looks like a grasping partisan trying to save people destined to get crushed in the election – and doing it with stupid lies at that.

You know when even the liberal NYT slaps you in the face that you are dead wrong….

QUOTE
In two campaign stops Thursday, Mr. Obama invoked what he portrayed as a specific new example, citing a blog posting from a liberal advocacy group as he teed off on a longtime adversary, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, over its political spending.

Organizations from both ends of the political spectrum, from liberal ones like the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Sierra Club to conservative groups like the National Rifle Association, have international affiliations and get money from foreign entities while at the same time pushing political causes in the United States.

Such groups, which collectively have spent hundreds of millions dollars on political causes to advance their agenda, are required by law to ensure that any foreign money they receive is isolated and not used to finance political activities, which would violate a longstanding federal ban. The Chamber of Commerce says it has a vigorous process for ensuring that does not happen, and no evidence has emerged to suggest that is untrue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09donate.html



Looks like the telling difference is the directness of the finances. Foreign money might be being used to finance campaign ads to benefit Republicans, but until the IRS gets its report, nobody outside the US Chamber of Commerce knows for sure.

It is quite interesting how Republicans have become so defensive on this issue, citing affiliation of the US Chamber of Commerce with local Chambers, which is not true.

There is no evidence that what the US Chamber claims is false, nor is there any evidence that it is true. The doubt hangs out there meanwhile, and that will impact the elections. Another contributing factor is the US Chamber's stance regarding the outsourcing of US jobs overseas. Not a good track record on that from the viewpoint of the unemployed.

*

CR, I'm hopeful because this election season is like no other. Communications are better and true grass roots support is stronger via Internet donations. I've also noticed that Republicans have gone from screaming and shouting to fluttering and muttering. The bluster isn't working this time around.

Finally, all this Republican money being spent on television ads may be going to waste. People may not be exposed to the ads due to dropping cable and taking up Internet entertainment, since they need the laptop to job hunt but not the TV. This trend may be like election season 2004 and online donations -- too new to have a significant impact. However, by 2012 I do think it will.

Bottom line is that our politics is changing rapidly. All the old rules don't count any longer. Nobody really understands what the new strategies ought to be.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Oct 17 2010, 05:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jobius
post Oct 17 2010, 08:03 PM
Post #40


*******
Five Hundred Club

Sponsor
September 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 521
Member No.: 5,538
Joined: October-13-05

From: California
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 16 2010, 09:44 PM) *
I'm also curious to see if the GOP wave actually brings a few Black Republicans into the House this time (it didn't in 1996).

Me too. There's likely to be at least one black Republican elected, Tim Scott from South Carolina, who defeated Strom Thurmond's son for the nomination:
QUOTE
Scott is running against Democrat Ben Frasier, a perennial candidate who has never won or held elective office but has tried repeatedly since 1972. One pundit called him the most defeated candidate in America.

Allen West is in a tight race in Florida against Ron Klein. I don't know how many of the other twelve black Republicans running are competitive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: November 20th, 2018 - 10:07 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.