2018 Senate (& House)

Did you notice the weirdest part about this Alabama run off?
The polling was correct
What?
Yes, it's true. The pre-vote polling was mostly accurate and came very close to actual results
Which makes the polling for this race something of an outlier in current American politics.
How to we account for this?
Need a hint?


There were no Dems in the polling to overweight
 
Joe Fan said:
Got another one. Put a forker in Corker. BTW, Corker was instrumental in getting Trump to support Strange in Alabama. So the timing is probably not coincidental
Click to expand...



Some names floated on the R-side for the Corker seat in Tennessee --

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (the likely choice of conservatives)
Gov. Bill Haslam (anti-Trump billionaire of Pilot Flying J Truck Stop fame)
former Rep. Stephen Fincher (started out as Tea Party but became part of the
Swamp, loves subsidies and the Export-Import Bank)​
 
Seattle Husker said:
They've worked hard to cultivate an image where their players are allowed to be active in the community.
Click to expand...

But this isn't an example of 2-3 players helping kids at an exercise program while wearing their NFL-provided jersey, or the marginally legitimate United Way. The players/staff are at work and disrespecting the very nation which gave them the opportunity to be paid GOBS of money for ... playing a game.

I was disappointed in Jerrah's answer ... I didn't see it live, only the news reports as I, too, have been wholly OUT on the NFL with all this nonsense. Disappointed because to the extent there's a legitimate grievance regarding the treatment of blacks by LEOs ... it's not without just cause, either.

@Monahorns had a good reply above (couple pages back) regarding the balance between feeling put-upon ... and the basis for being "put upon." IOW ... "you brought it on yourself." But our victim society ... and failure to accept personal responsibility prevents us from REALLY having this conversation. The idiotic daytime shows like "the view" or "voice" or whatever ... bunch of ninnies spouting more the same: you're a victim of (probably a Republican/Conservative Baptist Caucasian male) and deserve to be compensated.

There's a comment on the thread about oU game time this year ... and some seeking a 1900 kickoff ... then the ensuing commentary about being in Fair Park at that time of day.

Wait a second? The profile actually fits? So, perhaps the stereotype isn't invalid if spectators are concerned for their safety regarding the potential of being in a particular place at a particular time.

Past performance IS an indicator of future results.
 
And so it begins
Is this the start of something big?



"It seems like McConnell's star is fading and Bannon's is rising. I wanted to break bread with the guy and figure out his thinking," said Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor from Phoenix who was scheduled to meet with Bannon on Wednesday.

Republican donors are furious with Senate Republicans — many with McConnell specifically. They're disappointed with the outcome in Alabama and angry that the Senate hasn't passed legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare.

That has some donors, who usually circulate in establishment circles, taking the measure of Bannon to prepare for upheaval that many inside the party believe is on tap for next year's primaries — especially if Republicans fumble tax reform.

* * *

"I have had a lot of donors not wanting to give to national party," a Republican fundraising consultant said, on condition of anonymity in order to speak candidly. "They are very upset that nothing is getting done in D.C. It goes both ways with that though. Some are mad at the far right Senators/Freedom caucus. Others are mad at McConnell. Overall, no donors are happy. If they are giving, they are giving to help the specific person calling, not the party."​
 
(1) If the Dems were the side befitting the most from this, we wouldnt be hearing about this, and
(2) If they are going to get rid of gerrymandering, they must also give some finality on the pre-clearance requirements (Section 5 of the VRA) which are still somewhat up in the air even post Shelby. Gerrymandered districts are what give us people like Sheila Jackson Lee. I wouldnt mind seeing that die.

 
Joe Fan said:
(1) If the Dems were the side befitting the most from this, we wouldnt be hearing about this, and
(2) If they are going to get rid of gerrymandering, they must also give some finality on the pre-clearance requirements (Section 5 of the VRA) which are still somewhat up in the air even post Shelby. Gerrymandered districts are what give us people like Sheila Jackson Lee. I wouldnt mind seeing that die.

Click to expand...


Democrats were the primary winners in the gerrymandering game until 2001 (and really 2010), and for the most part we didn't hear about it. The issue existed, but redistricting in general was something that was really only discussed by political insiders. It was over the heads of lay political observers, not because it was complicated but because the media virtually never discussed it.

I'm not a fan of gerrymandering and think it's terrible for politics and for the country in general. However, so long as nobody's vote counts more than anyone else's, I don't see any constitutional reason to strike down a district just because it favors a political party. If the Court decides to go down this road, it's going to have to pull some legal "doctrine" out of thin air (which it certainly has done before) to do it. Furthermore, it's going to invite litigation like crazy. There is no measurable, objective standard for what constitutes a gerrymandered district. We "know it when we see it." That means pretty much every congressional district in the country will be a possible litigation target.

One little known fact is that though the judiciary has no authority to stop gerrymandering, Congress can. But if course, other than the 10 or 11 percent of Congress that comes from competitive districts, they're the last people who would try to stop it. And even those 10 or 11 percent would only want to get rid of gerrymandering because they know it would likely make their own districts less competitive.
 
Mr. Deez said:
....I'm not a fan of gerrymandering and think it's terrible for politics and for the country in general. However, so long as nobody's vote counts more than anyone else's, I don't see any constitutional reason to strike down a district just because it favors a political party. .....
Click to expand...

And that's the rule, I think, although I concede I cant remember voting cases very well. Gerrymandering "for political reasons" meets Constitutional standards. Gerrymandering for racial reasons does not.

OK, so now guess what Dems see now in every R-majority state?
But not in any Dem-maj state?

And , btw, Dem gerrymandering looks just as retarded as any other ....

here is the 4th district of Obama's purported home state
fourth-district-of-illinois-map1.jpg


Maryland
gerrymandereddistrictMD500w.jpg


Calif
CA-38_108_clip.png
 
The MSM only brings up gerrymandering when the Reps are in power. The party in power gets to make up the districts, so they don't mind it so much when the Dems are doing it. It's as simple as that.
 
New rules could be easy: district lines have to follow county lines with an exception of one county. In other words no more than one county can be split up.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Unless we're trying to create an affirmative action policy for the US House. See Sheila Jackson-Lee's district.
Click to expand...

Sort of. The make-up of the Jackson-Lee district is an intentional act by the state legis to meet VRA Section 4 and federal court review. This district is a pawn, or sacrifice. They would not do it if they did not feel like they had to. I have personally confronted two of my state senators about this, to no avail (other than a wry, wincing nod of sympathy)
 
Last edited:
mchammer said:
New rules could be easy: district lines have to follow county lines with an exception of one county. In other words no more than one county can be split up.
Click to expand...

or zip code. Doesnt matter to me.

The biggest single issue is the way the Const leaves it to the states.
 
Joe Fan said:
or zip code. Doesnt matter to me.

The biggest single issue is the way the Const leaves it to the states.
Click to expand...

The practical issue, as we have already seen in SW Texas, is that if you make it even and simply leave it up to the people, they will often vote for Rs in what are supposed to be Dem-safe areas. Nothing gets Dems into Court faster than this.
 
I am good with this
Two-faced politicians are a scourge upon the land
So sick of them
This guy did it to himself


 
Foster Friess, a "wealthy GOP donor from Wyoming", says he may make a primary run against John Barrasso who is the fourth-ranking Senate Republican
 
Media doesnt really cover this case
How come?
This means all 18 counts will go to the jury

NEWARK — After raising Sen. Robert Menendez’s hopes last week, a federal judge crushed them on Monday morning.

U.S. District Court Judge William Walls refused to toss any of the 18 charges in the corruption case against Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, despite last week casting doubt on a legal theory that’s at the heart of the prosecution’s case.​

http://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2017/10/16/judge-deals-blow-to-menendez-115068
 
Last edited:
You have to wonder how long Dems will hang in there with having an impaired person as their leader

Maybe she wields Bob-Weinstein-like power where the younger people are afraid of what she might mean to their careers?


 
Anyone surprised?
Dems unwilling to say Menendez should resign even if convicted

"An overwhelming majority of Sen. Bob Menendez’s constituents (84 percent) want the Democratic senator to resign from office if he’s convicted of the federal bribery and corruption charges he’s currently facing in court alongside his deep-pocketed benefactor. Democratic senators, however, aren’t willing to say whether their colleague should go if convicted...."​

http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/20...ndez-should-resign-not-a-single-one-said-yes/
 
Joe Fan said:
Anyone surprised?
Dems unwilling to say Menendez should resign even if convicted

"An overwhelming majority of Sen. Bob Menendez’s constituents (84 percent) want the Democratic senator to resign from office if he’s convicted of the federal bribery and corruption charges he’s currently facing in court alongside his deep-pocketed benefactor. Democratic senators, however, aren’t willing to say whether their colleague should go if convicted...."​

http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/20...ndez-should-resign-not-a-single-one-said-yes/
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm not a fan of this sort of thing - ripping a politician for not judging a situation he can't be adequately informed about. There's nothing wrong with not commenting about a pending case. Suppose Menendez gets convicted but has the conviction overturned on appeal? It's not always a simple yes or no.
 
I agree with Dems refusing to comment on the hypothetical outcome of an ongoing trial.

Especially in the political sphere, it's far more worthwhile to judge actions instead of communicated intentions before the fact. This becomes even more imperative when dealing with hypotheticals.

I don't blame them for withholding comment before the fact, just as I'd support Reps for not doing so if the roles were reversed.

Of course if it was a Rep he'd have already resigned and wilted from constant Dem leader demands for resignation and unrelenting MSM shaming.

That being said, if Menendez stays in his position after a felony conviction it's a serious problem regardless of plans to appeal.

It would be another unacceptable case of having two sets of rules...one for the protected class and another for the rest of us.

How many of his constituents in positions with "clear and justifiable conflict between job function and the nature of the offense" would retain their employment if convicted of such a felony?

The vast majority of employers wouldn't wait to terminate the employee while they exercise the appeal process.

Bribery and corruption meets the quoted conflict above about as dead on as possible for a Senator.
 
Brad Austin said:
I agree with Dems refusing to comment on the hypothetical outcome of an ongoing trial.

Especially in the political sphere, it's far more worthwhile to judge actions instead of communicated intentions before the fact. This becomes even more imperative when dealing with hypotheticals.

I don't blame them for withholding comment before the fact, just as I'd support Reps for not doing so if the roles were reversed.

Of course if it was a Rep he'd have already resigned and wilted from constant Dem leader demands for resignation and unrelenting MSM shaming.

That being said, if Menendez stays in his position after a felony conviction it's a serious problem regardless of plans to appeal.

It would be another unacceptable case of having two sets of rules...one for the protected class and another for the rest of us.

How many of his constituents in positions with "clear and justifiable conflict between job function and the nature of the offense" would retain their employment if convicted of such a felony?

The vast majority of employers wouldn't wait to terminate the employee while they exercise the appeal process.

Bribery and corruption meets the quoted conflict above about as dead on as possible for a Senator.
Click to expand...

Pretty much true. If this was a GOP senator, the story would be much bigger, and the pressure to call for his resignation would be relentless. Hell, Trent Lott was forced to resign for a joke at a 100 year old birthday party. That's not even a crime (yet).
 
Would be a big get by Rs



"A new poll finds that Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) would be in a close race with Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) if he decides to mount a bid for Senate in 2018.

According to a poll from University of North Florida, Nelson is narrowly leading by 37 percent, compared to Scott, who garnered 36 percent, which is within the poll's margin of error. Twenty percent of registered voters are undecided.

“Like most statewide races in Florida, the Senate race between Nelson and Scott is going to be too close to call all the way until Election Day,” said Michael Binder, faculty director of the Public Opinion Research Lab at UNF.

The survey finds that Scott has a job approval rating of 59 percent, who either strongly or somewhat approve of his gubernatorial tenure. But Scott, who’s been publicly encouraged to run for Senate by President Trump, has been under fire from Democrats over his response to the 14 people who died at a Florida nursing home amid Hurricane Irma...."​
 
Kid Rock bursts the bubble of those that value politicians to be less than collegiate.

Kid Rock is ending months of speculation about a possible Senate bid, saying, “F--- no, I’m not running for Senate.”

“Are you f---ing kidding me? Who couldn’t figure that out?” the “All Summer Long” singer said on Howard Stern’s SiriusXM radio show on Tuesday.

“I’m releasing a new album. I’m going on tour, too. Are you f---ing shitting me?” he asked Stern.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top