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 (40 - 59)
Belshazzar
post Oct 18 2010, 01:18 AM
Post #41


*******
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(Curmudgeon @ Oct 17 2010, 01:12 AM) *
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.


That's a good point. I'm also going by the enthusiasm I see around campus this year as opposed to 2008, and it is obviously significantly less. It was hard to walk outside without tripping over an Obama poster in 2008. Now there is much less enthusiasm. That could also just be a by-product of my state's politics, as it's so heavily Democratic that many people don't bother to vote as they assume their candidate will win anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 18 2010, 06:12 AM
Post #42


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

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,346
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

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



QUOTE(Belshazzar @ Oct 17 2010, 09:18 PM) *
QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Oct 17 2010, 01:12 AM) *
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.


That's a good point. I'm also going by the enthusiasm I see around campus this year as opposed to 2008, and it is obviously significantly less. It was hard to walk outside without tripping over an Obama poster in 2008. Now there is much less enthusiasm. That could also just be a by-product of my state's politics, as it's so heavily Democratic that many people don't bother to vote as they assume their candidate will win anyway.


That's not much of an observation. I can say the same thing about Republicans in my neck of the woods. However, yesterday I did hang up on a robocall soliciting my opinion on a wide variety of things. Just what they were I don't know and don't care.

I have also stopped responding to live calls soliciting opinion. Nevertheless, I have voted already using the mail-in ballot system we have here.

We did have a tea-party type rally this summer attended by a hundred or so people. Not much of a turnout compared to the farmers' market.

For the Senate seat that's up, Bennet and Buck are neck-neck according to the polls, which I don't trust at all this season due to robocalls. Not only do people hang up on computers, the computers can't call cell phones. Even if they could, how would you feel about it? I'd hang up right away.

Enthusiasm is likely down for both sides. It will likely be a matter of trust. Who do people trust more to actually fix our problems?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 28 2010, 03:48 AM
Post #43


*********
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



Nate Silver just moved up his House numbers to 232 Reps, 203 Dems.

"Amlord", you wily so and so!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Oct 28 2010, 11:16 AM
Post #44


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



Just a few days out, I believe the GOP will take the House, but the Democrats will hold the Senate. This is a good thing. Gridlock is about the best condition I can hope for.

The interesting part of the election will be November 3rd. All the freshman candidates will essentially have to start their next election campaign, and that may be something they didn't factor in. It will be interesting to see how long it takes the 'mavericky' types to succumb to the game.

And I think some will find also that too much tea can produce a hangover....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TedN5
post Oct 28 2010, 04:21 PM
Post #45


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



I don't believe much in crystal ball gazing but will engage in it a bit this once.

I think the Dems will hold the Senate and the Repubs will take the House but by a smaller margin than polling indicates.

Prediction on close Senate elections:

Miller will win in Alaska. I just can't believe enough people will write in a complicated name for the incumbent to win and too many Dems will do just that out of fear of Millers extreme positions making it unlikely for the Democratic candidate to win the 3 way race.

Harry Reed will hold his seat in Nevada in a close contest despite recent polls. Latinos will vote in larger numbers than anticipated because of Angle's
racist adds.

Bennett will best Buck in Colorado. The Dems nominated the wrong candidate but I just can't believe my native state will elect an extremist like Buck.

Rand Paul will squeak by in the conservative state of Kentucky. The negative ads by the Democrat were a mistake but partially offset by the head stomping event by a Paul key supporter.

Feingold will pull it out in Wisconsin with a good ground game.

I rate both Illinois and Pennsylvania as toss ups.

The really bad news is that, no matter how big or small the dimensions of Republican gains are, the federal government will be paralyzed in the face of a continuing economic crisis and climate crisis that is just becoming obvious in weather events.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Oct 28 2010, 04:28 PM
Post #46


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(TedN5 @ Oct 28 2010, 12:21 PM) *
Miller will win in Alaska. I just can't believe enough people will write in a complicated name for the incumbent to win and too many Dems will do just that out of fear of Millers extreme positions making it unlikely for the Democratic candidate to win the 3 way race.


Are you sure about this one? The latest polling I saw had Miller's support eroding.....and this was prior to the admission of his campaign shenanigans and and lying about it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TedN5
post Oct 28 2010, 05:39 PM
Post #47


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Oct 28 2010, 09:28 AM) *
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Oct 28 2010, 12:21 PM) *
Miller will win in Alaska. I just can't believe enough people will write in a complicated name for the incumbent to win and too many Dems will do just that out of fear of Millers extreme positions making it unlikely for the Democratic candidate to win the 3 way race.


Are you sure about this one? The latest polling I saw had Miller's support eroding.....and this was prior to the admission of his campaign shenanigans and and lying about it.


No, I'm not sure about any of the close contests! Miller was undoubtedly hurt by the ethics revelations. How much is the question and who will benefit? Most of his supporters are dyed in the wool right wingers, however, and I think few of them will desert him.

This post has been edited by TedN5: Oct 28 2010, 05:40 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Oct 28 2010, 05:57 PM
Post #48


*********
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



QUOTE(TedN5 @ Oct 28 2010, 12:39 PM) *
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Oct 28 2010, 09:28 AM) *
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Oct 28 2010, 12:21 PM) *
Miller will win in Alaska. I just can't believe enough people will write in a complicated name for the incumbent to win and too many Dems will do just that out of fear of Millers extreme positions making it unlikely for the Democratic candidate to win the 3 way race.


Are you sure about this one? The latest polling I saw had Miller's support eroding.....and this was prior to the admission of his campaign shenanigans and and lying about it.


No, I'm not sure about any of the close contests! Miller was undoubtedly hurt by the ethics revelations. How much is the question and who will benefit? Most of his supporters are dyed in the wool right wingers, however, and I think few of them will desert him.


Polls indicate he's currently running third.

Here's my reason why I'm more optimistic about the Dems holding the House than Nate Silver:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1761/cell-phon...dterm-elections

There are two very important things here.

First, most polls DO NOT include cell-phone only households, like myself. Cellphone only households are A) younger, and cool.gif lean more heavily Dem. Meaning that there is, in most polls, a built-in Republican bias.

Second is the registered vs. likely voter gap.

This reflects the "enthusiasm gap" which is continuing to close. Also, election results most often fall between the RV and LV numbers.

What happens when you take a RV poll and include cell phones?

This. An Obama 54% approval rating and a six point Democratic advantage in the generic ballot. Amongst likely voters including a cell phone sample, a three point Dem edge.

Even noting that Newsweek polls tend to carry a slight house advantage towards the Democrats (much like Rasmussen consistently gives a strong house advantage to the Republicans), it's showing much more encouraging signs. Something, I think, some leading GOP people realize as they're already laying the groundwork to scream voter fraud should they fail to recapture either house.

For this and other reasons (example, in the 1994 sweep Republican approval was near 67% while today it's in the toilet), I think the Dems have a strong (but by no means certain) chance of holding both Houses. I think it's safe money that the Dems will hold the Senate (despite my earlier prediction about Kentucky starting to look bad, the Dem is looking much stronger in PA, WI and AK), though.

Either way, the next two years should be interesting.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 29 2010, 02:35 AM
Post #49


*********
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 28 2010, 01:57 PM) *
...
Here's my reason why I'm more optimistic about the Dems holding the House than Nate Silver:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1761/cell-phon...dterm-elections

There are two very important things here.

First, most polls DO NOT include cell-phone only households, like myself. Cellphone only households are A) younger, and cool.gif lean more heavily Dem. Meaning that there is, in most polls, a built-in Republican bias.

Second is the registered vs. likely voter gap.

This reflects the "enthusiasm gap" which is continuing to close. Also, election results most often fall between the RV and LV numbers.

What happens when you take a RV poll and include cell phones?

This. An Obama 54% approval rating and a six point Democratic advantage in the generic ballot. Amongst likely voters including a cell phone sample, a three point Dem edge.
...

A note of caution regarding the above theory is sounded by ...(bolding mine):
QUOTE
...
by kos
Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:01:09 PM PDT

...

Before you get too excited, dismissing all landline-only polling as biased against the Dems, note that Gallup calls cell phones, and they pain [ed.note: Freudian slip?] the direst picture for Democrats this cycle. ...
...

Link: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/...day-open-thread

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TedN5
post Oct 29 2010, 03:34 AM
Post #50


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Boy was my crystal ball cloudy! It looks like Miller supporters in Alaska have reacted negatively to his attempt to hide his misuse of public computers. Hand cuffing the reporter may have played a part too! As others have mentioned, he is now trailing in the 3 way race. Given the complexities of write in voting, I now give McAdams a real chance to win. Can 34% of the voters spell Murkowski and will some Dems take note of the change in the political landscape and abandon Murkowski for a real Democrat?

This post has been edited by TedN5: Oct 29 2010, 03:39 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Oct 29 2010, 02:43 PM
Post #51


*********
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



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 28 2010, 09:35 PM) *
A note of caution regarding the above theory is sounded by ...(bolding mine):
QUOTE
...
by kos
Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:01:09 PM PDT

...

Before you get too excited, dismissing all landline-only polling as biased against the Dems, note that Gallup calls cell phones, and they pain [ed.note: Freudian slip?] the direst picture for Democrats this cycle. ...
...

Link: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/...day-open-thread


And Kos is right; the GOP has a four-point margin in the generic ballot in the latest (Oct 14-24) Gallup poll, so it's hard to say. But Gallup also shows a proportion of R/leaning R voters that is well above the margins other pollsters have found, so that may skew their samples as well -- or, they may be right, as they aren't excluding cell phone users from their samples.

Either way, this election is going to be very hard to predict based on the polling, and I'd wager that whatever happens, it's not going to map closely to the predominant polls. Rasmussen's strong R bias may prove prescient; Newsweek's D lean may also.

I've kind of taken a larger perspective on the whole thing; regardless of what happens, the best-case scenario is that the Democrats will have much smaller majorities than they do now, and worst likely case is that the Dems will hold the Senate by a razor-thin majority while the GOP will take the House. Either way, it means that for the next two years we will see at minimum redoubled obstructionism and gridlock from the GOP and at worst, endless bogus "investigations" by House committees of the President. It's going to be an annoying two years. The only avenue out of the mess -- the Democratic Senate leadership changing the rules so that it's not so stupidly easy for a single Senator to gum up the works -- simply isn't going to happen.

Silver lining: It's looking like the Blue Dogs will take the brunt of the Democratic losses, and will likely form the bulk of the attrition on Tuesday.

Here's another complicating factor:

Disinformation has won the day in the minds of a majority of voters.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-29/p...h-tax-cuts.html

Most voters believe the economy shrunk, their taxes increased and we will never recover most of the the TARP funds - when all three are false (we've already recovered most of the TARP funds).

That's truly troubling, for reasons that extend well beyond this election.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Oct 29 2010, 03:36 PM
Post #52


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 29 2010, 10:43 AM) *
Either way, this election is going to be very hard to predict based on the polling, and I'd wager that whatever happens, it's not going to map closely to the predominant polls. Rasmussen's strong R bias may prove prescient; Newsweek's D lean may also.


Will this be grounds for crying foul, akin to the John Kerry loss in 2004 when exit polling didn't match actual voting results?

QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 29 2010, 10:43 AM) *
Silver lining: It's looking like the Blue Dogs will take the brunt of the Democratic losses, and will likely form the bulk of the attrition on Tuesday.


Time to shrink the Democrat "big tent"?? That's a silver lining that the people getting bounced are the fiscally conservative Democrats?


QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 29 2010, 10:43 AM) *
Most voters believe the economy shrunk, their taxes increased and we will never recover most of the the TARP funds - when all three are false (we've already recovered most of the TARP funds).


The economic is anemic. Thinking otherwise (I'm talking to you, Mr. President) flies in the face of the reality that 18% of Americans face (the under/un employed).

Tax rates for next year are set to sky rocket, thanks to the "do nothing before November" cowards in Congress. There is no budget and the Bush tax cuts are set to expire and represent the largest tax increase in American history.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Oct 29 2010, 06:38 PM
Post #53


*********
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



QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 29 2010, 10:36 AM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 29 2010, 10:43 AM) *
Either way, this election is going to be very hard to predict based on the polling, and I'd wager that whatever happens, it's not going to map closely to the predominant polls. Rasmussen's strong R bias may prove prescient; Newsweek's D lean may also.


Will this be grounds for crying foul, akin to the John Kerry loss in 2004 when exit polling didn't match actual voting results?


Inevitably. Talking heads like Michelle Malkin and others have already started laying the groundwork should they fail to reclaim either house.

QUOTE
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 29 2010, 10:43 AM) *
Silver lining: It's looking like the Blue Dogs will take the brunt of the Democratic losses, and will likely form the bulk of the attrition on Tuesday.


Time to shrink the Democrat "big tent"?? That's a silver lining that the people getting bounced are the fiscally conservative Democrats?


Yes. In an era where opposition is completely unified and the only way to break the opposition is to be similarly unified, yes.

QUOTE
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 29 2010, 10:43 AM) *
Most voters believe the economy shrunk, their taxes increased and we will never recover most of the the TARP funds - when all three are false (we've already recovered most of the TARP funds).


The economic is anemic. Thinking otherwise (I'm talking to you, Mr. President) flies in the face of the reality that 18% of Americans face (the under/un employed).


And it was that anemic from the time the President took office. Employment-wise, we've taken our worst hit since the Great Depression (yes, that's actually true, akaCG), and it remains anemic. But it is not shrinking. And taxes have gone down. And most of TARP has been repaid.

QUOTE
Tax rates for next year are set to sky rocket, thanks to the "do nothing before November" cowards in Congress. There is no budget and the Bush tax cuts are set to expire and represent the largest tax increase in American history.

Skyrocket? *cough* *cough* Hyperbole much?
Tax cuts for the middle class will be restored, one way or the other. The idiots trying to block the same if the rich don't get their cut too will succeed, or fail, but the rest of the tax cuts will be restored.

And that doesn't make what the majority of voters believed any less untrue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 29 2010, 08:52 PM
Post #54


*********
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 29 2010, 02:38 PM) *
... Employment-wise, we've taken our worst hit since the Great Depression (yes, that's actually true, akaCG), and it remains anemic. ...
...

No, we haven't.

Compare Period A ...

2009-02 8.20
2009-03 8.60
2009-04 8.90
2009-05 9.40
2009-06 9.50
2009-07 9.40
2009-08 9.70
2009-09 9.80
2009-10 10.10
2009-11 10.00
2009-12 10.00
2010-01 9.70
2010-02 9.70
2010-03 9.70
2010-04 9.90
2010-05 9.70
2010-06 9.50
2010-07 9.50
2010-08 9.60
2010-09 9.60

... to Period B:

1981-11 8.30
1981-12 8.50
1982-01 8.60
1982-02 8.90
1982-03 9.00
1982-04 9.30
1982-05 9.40
1982-06 9.60
1982-07 9.80
1982-08 9.80
1982-09 10.10
1982-10 10.40
1982-11 10.80
1982-12 10.80
1983-01 10.40
1983-02 10.40
1983-03 10.30
1983-04 10.20
1983-05 10.10
1983-06 10.10

Source: http://www.miseryindex.us/URbymonth.asp

Summarized:

Ave. unempl. during Period A: 9.5%
Ave. unempl. during Period B: 9.7%

Number of months with unemployment over 10% during Period A: 3.
Number of months with unemployment over 10% during Period B: 10.

Which 20 month period would YOU rather be living through, employment-wise?

And then, there's this comparison:

Average Misery Index (lower is better):

James E. Carter: 16.26
Gerald R. Ford: 16.00
Ronald W. Reagan: 12.19
George H.W. Bush: 10.68
Richard M. Nixon: 10.57
Barack H. Obama: 10.00
George W. Bush: 8.11
Harry S. Truman: 7.88
William J. Clinton: 7.80
John F. Kennedy: 7.14
Lyndon B. Johnson: 6.77
Dwight D. Eisenhower: 6.26

Source: http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbypresident.asp
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Oct 29 2010, 10:07 PM
Post #55


*********
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



akaCG, you're not doing your homework.

Our peak was in 2007, when unemployment in the US was 4.4 percent.

This recession has shed more jobs than any since the Great Depression. By a factor of two, in fact:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/were-number-one/

And notice when we started to pull out.

Krugman also explains why the "full employment" level was higher in the early 1980s so the baseline was not as bad in the above link.

Also note the median duration of unemployment from the same link.

No, this is worse. Much worse, in fact, than the early 1980s.

Yet unemployment has, since Obama took office, improved, however slowly, but because Republicans have been far more effective in messaging than Democrats have been, and therefore the voters by and large are misinformed about the economy, their taxes, and TARP. And this misinformation will impact the elections.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 30 2010, 04:35 PM
Post #56


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

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,346
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

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



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 29 2010, 06:07 PM) *
Unemployment has, since Obama took office, improved, however slowly, but because Republicans have been far more effective in messaging than Democrats have been, and therefore the voters by and large are misinformed about the economy, their taxes, and TARP. And this misinformation will impact the elections.


I'm not seeing it that way. The misinformation is out there, but so is false associations with crazy tea party types across the Republican landscape. Misinformation works both ways, and the Democrats have been using the Republican tactics against them this season.

So if a voter thinks unemployment is worse, then the voter might also think that Republicans would throw salt in the wound by disallowing unemployment comp. After all, we are talking about an easily manipulated voter who lacks critical thinking skills.

That is a difference that will get a lot of talk over the months after Election Day. Huh, those lousy Democrats stole our Republican campaigning ideas! Boo-hoo.

There is evidence mounting that what the Republicans have been praying for all along isn't going to happen. This may turn out to be less of a Democratic majority in the House but more of it in the Senate, which would be perfect. Then we liberals can really hatch out our hidden agendas <Halloween howling>.

Prediction: Buck will lose to Bennet in Colorado. We don't want Colorado to be Bucked.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aquilla
post Oct 30 2010, 07:45 PM
Post #57


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

Group: Members
Posts: 3,148
Member No.: 421
Joined: February-3-03

From: Missouri
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 30 2010, 11:35 AM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 29 2010, 06:07 PM) *
Unemployment has, since Obama took office, improved, however slowly, but because Republicans have been far more effective in messaging than Democrats have been, and therefore the voters by and large are misinformed about the economy, their taxes, and TARP. And this misinformation will impact the elections.


I'm not seeing it that way. The misinformation is out there, but so is false associations with crazy tea party types across the Republican landscape. Misinformation works both ways, and the Democrats have been using the Republican tactics against them this season.

So if a voter thinks unemployment is worse, then the voter might also think that Republicans would throw salt in the wound by disallowing unemployment comp. After all, we are talking about an easily manipulated voter who lacks critical thinking skills.

That is a difference that will get a lot of talk over the months after Election Day. Huh, those lousy Democrats stole our Republican campaigning ideas! Boo-hoo.

There is evidence mounting that what the Republicans have been praying for all along isn't going to happen. This may turn out to be less of a Democratic majority in the House but more of it in the Senate, which would be perfect. Then we liberals can really hatch out our hidden agendas <Halloween howling>.

Prediction: Buck will lose to Bennet in Colorado. We don't want Colorado to be Bucked.



You two have got to be kidding. The unemployment rate since Obama was enshrined has risen over 2 percent. This to you folks is getting better? Wow! I bet y'all were dancing for joy when it reached 10%. Now I realize liberals think the American people are stupid, but do you really think they are too stupid to know when they don't have a job? rolleyes.gif

Let's stay on that message guys. It's gonna go over really well next Tuesday. laugh.gif


Aquilla
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Oct 31 2010, 12:22 AM
Post #58


*********
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



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Oct 30 2010, 02:45 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 30 2010, 11:35 AM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 29 2010, 06:07 PM) *
Unemployment has, since Obama took office, improved, however slowly, but because Republicans have been far more effective in messaging than Democrats have been, and therefore the voters by and large are misinformed about the economy, their taxes, and TARP. And this misinformation will impact the elections.


I'm not seeing it that way. The misinformation is out there, but so is false associations with crazy tea party types across the Republican landscape. Misinformation works both ways, and the Democrats have been using the Republican tactics against them this season.

So if a voter thinks unemployment is worse, then the voter might also think that Republicans would throw salt in the wound by disallowing unemployment comp. After all, we are talking about an easily manipulated voter who lacks critical thinking skills.

That is a difference that will get a lot of talk over the months after Election Day. Huh, those lousy Democrats stole our Republican campaigning ideas! Boo-hoo.

There is evidence mounting that what the Republicans have been praying for all along isn't going to happen. This may turn out to be less of a Democratic majority in the House but more of it in the Senate, which would be perfect. Then we liberals can really hatch out our hidden agendas <Halloween howling>.

Prediction: Buck will lose to Bennet in Colorado. We don't want Colorado to be Bucked.



You two have got to be kidding. The unemployment rate since Obama was enshrined has risen over 2 percent. This to you folks is getting better? Wow! I bet y'all were dancing for joy when it reached 10%. Now I realize liberals think the American people are stupid, but do you really think they are too stupid to know when they don't have a job? rolleyes.gif

Let's stay on that message guys. It's gonna go over really well next Tuesday. laugh.gif


Aquilla


Achieving your usual levels of constructive debate, I see.

Unemployment peaked in October 2009 at 10.1 percent. It has since fallen 0.5 percent as of last month. It is far from where we'd like it to be, but it is, at least, moving in the right direction, rather than the rapid climb it was doing when Bush left office in January 2009, when it had climbed four percent under Bush's diligent watch.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 31 2010, 01:18 AM
Post #59


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

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,346
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

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



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Oct 30 2010, 03:45 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 30 2010, 11:35 AM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 29 2010, 06:07 PM) *
Unemployment has, since Obama took office, improved, however slowly, but because Republicans have been far more effective in messaging than Democrats have been, and therefore the voters by and large are misinformed about the economy, their taxes, and TARP. And this misinformation will impact the elections.


I'm not seeing it that way. The misinformation is out there, but so is false associations with crazy tea party types across the Republican landscape. Misinformation works both ways, and the Democrats have been using the Republican tactics against them this season.

So if a voter thinks unemployment is worse, then the voter might also think that Republicans would throw salt in the wound by disallowing unemployment comp. After all, we are talking about an easily manipulated voter who lacks critical thinking skills.

That is a difference that will get a lot of talk over the months after Election Day. Huh, those lousy Democrats stole our Republican campaigning ideas! Boo-hoo.

There is evidence mounting that what the Republicans have been praying for all along isn't going to happen. This may turn out to be less of a Democratic majority in the House but more of it in the Senate, which would be perfect. Then we liberals can really hatch out our hidden agendas <Halloween howling>.

Prediction: Buck will lose to Bennet in Colorado. We don't want Colorado to be Bucked.



You two have got to be kidding. The unemployment rate since Obama was enshrined has risen over 2 percent. This to you folks is getting better? Wow! I bet y'all were dancing for joy when it reached 10%. Now I realize liberals think the American people are stupid, but do you really think they are too stupid to know when they don't have a job? rolleyes.gif

Let's stay on that message guys. It's gonna go over really well next Tuesday. laugh.gif


Aquilla


Gee, and I get dinked for pulling a thread off subject. All right, you are nothing but a hound dog, just-ah crying all the time.

You guys are losing big time, and you ain't no fren o' mine.

Ain't nothin but a hown dawg . . . etc. and so forth.

Unemployment is an issue. Republicans hate the unemployed. It's an issue.

You guys are gonna lose. Get accustomed to shriveling.

*

Further prediction: Small gain in House, big loss in Senate (talking Republicans here if it's not clear). Obama gets to get things done.

Fox 'n frens go off the air. Nobody cares.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aquilla
post Oct 31 2010, 04:58 AM
Post #60


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

Group: Members
Posts: 3,148
Member No.: 421
Joined: February-3-03

From: Missouri
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 30 2010, 07:22 PM) *
Achieving your usual levels of constructive debate, I see.

Unemployment peaked in October 2009 at 10.1 percent. It has since fallen 0.5 percent as of last month. It is far from where we'd like it to be, but it is, at least, moving in the right direction, rather than the rapid climb it was doing when Bush left office in January 2009, when it had climbed four percent under Bush's diligent watch.



Up to your usual spinning in defense of the Messiah I see. The FACT of the matter is that the unemployment rate in Jan 2009 was 7.6%. It has gone up during the reign of Obama, Pelosi, Reid to 10% and is still in the mid to high 9% range. This despite massive federal borrowing and spending on "shovel ready" projects that the Flim-Flander in Chief now claims never existed in the first place. Where did all that money go? Union buddies and other Obama special interests? Into Michelle's White House garden? Where did that money go, Rap? People want an answer, not some bunch of cow excrement like your argument concerning the employment situation. I would nominate it as one of the most idiotic comments of the year except for another liberal's (Phil Hare (D)-Ill) dumb comment claiming that the national debt is a "myth".

In any case, I think the Republicans are going to take control of the House and may have a bigger majority on some issues by enlisting the support of any Blue Dog Democrats that survive. Doubtful on the Senate side, that would take the perfect storm, but the GOP will make some gains there. I'm hoping that the Tea Party folks stay true to the course and remember why they were elected and keep the GOP leadership on the straight and narrow. As far as sitting at the back in concerned. With all due respect Barack.... elections have consequences. In the case of 2008 they were bad, very bad. 2010 should be much, much better.


Aquilla
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: June 21st, 2018 - 12:43 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.