Poll re Midterm Election

HornHuskerDad

HornHuskerDad

5,000+ Posts
Sounds like (potentially) great news - The Link.

Of course, one would have to wonder if the correlation is a real reflection of the electorate as a whole - but we'll find out on Tuesday. If it comes to pass that the GOP takes control of both houses of Congress, it would put a serious damper on the Obama agenda. One of the most important aspects would be the ability to block an Obama liberal appointment to SCOTUS if a vacancy occurs during his last two years in office.

I don't for one minute believe that a big GOP win would solve every problem we face, but I do believe that it is critical that we see a stop sign erected to put a halt to the leftward trend. Sure hope the poll is accurate and the GOP wins big on Tuesday.

HHD
hookem.gif
texasflag.gif
coolnana.gif
ousucksnana.gif
 
Rasmussen also said that Romney would win by 3 percent in the popular vote, but you're right that the trend is definitely in favor of the GOP.

Nate Silver has the Senate as 51 or 52 GOP members, depending on whether the guy from Kansas caucauses with red or blue. Either way, the simple majority in the upper chamber doesn't really accomplish anything, much like it hasn't done anything for the Democrats since the short-lived supermajority.
 
His last two appointees were confirmed with over 60 votes, meaning that moderates would cross the aisle anyhow to get it done. Neither Sotomayor nor Kagan made crazy, revisionist judgments in circuit courts (or went after crazy right-wing nutjobs as solicitor general).

And if anyone retired, it would be RBG, and there would be no "net policy change" if he appointed another liberal because it would be just taking a prior liberal's seat. Lord knows that Scalia won't retire as long as there's a Democrat president.

On top of that, I'm not exactly sure what policy issues you're worried about the SC deciding. They already tackled the gay marriage question and that's not going back any time soon. Roberts went for the individual mandate. Immigration maybe?
 
HHD,

The President determines the political leanings of a Supreme Court justice, because he makes the appointment. Regardless of who's in control of the Senate, Obama will appoint a Left-leaning justice. The big difference is that it will probably be a more business-friendly justice (Think Stephen Breyer rather than Ruth Bader Ginsburg.), but on social issues, he or she will certainly be a solid liberal.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
the biggest enemy right now for the elections will be turnout either way. It is like the press is trying to sandbag R's not to show up since they got this even though it is close enough in many races that turnout will be the most important thing.

no big deal. The R's won't be able to do much more than the D's except actually bring some things to the floor unlike Reid's do nothing agenda for the past 4 years.
 
The Dem leadership and the media keep repeating that if the black population turns out, the democrats will hold the senate. I am amazed that blacks continued to be blatantly taken for granted and keep voting the same way. With the highest unemployment, it seems they would want change even if it was just independents.

Hopefully, the senate goes republican to at least halt some of the idiotic policies of Harry Reid. However, without enough votes to override a veto, not much will get done still.
 
the numbers on white males are close enough to the black vote to make the case that white Texas males bloc vote in the same fashion but for the other party.

And there are a lot more white males than black males here and a much lower percentage have criminal records which prevent them voting.

If the dems could get white guys to vote for them they would win every election in a walk. Used to be that way.

I am only half joking when I tell people my goal is to be the last white male democrat in Nueces County. I know of two guys younger than me that are way to my left so I guess my goal will die with me.
 
"However, without enough votes to override a veto, not much will get done still."

Clinton got the vast majority of his "good" legislation done when the GOP controlled both chambers, and he vetoed some stuff but probably not as much as Obama would. Bush/Gore 2000 basically ruined any future chances at bipartisanship.

I think the "not getting stuff done" recent phenomenon is more because of the Senate's own rules than anything else. You could get plenty done if a simple majority meant anything. And that's how they used to see it up until the crazy hyperpartisanship that developed from the Clinton impeachment hearings and the clusterfuck of the 2000 election.
 
Good point re:Clinton, but I think he is a toatally different personality. I think Obama's belief that he is the chosen one will prohibit him from any compromise. I expect a whole lot of the democrats calling every piece of legislation racist to explain the need to veto everything. I bet we get some kind of walk out by the democrats as a form of protest. I think their games since they controlled the senate are going to haunt them big time...
 
To state that Obama is responsible for being the only one not wanting to compromise is ridiculous. Neither side does. He will not have to compromise anyway, just veto anything until Hilary takes over. By then the pendulum will have swung back the other way and Republicans will not control both houses. Bottom line is more gridlock for the next decade
 
Early in his term, Obama seemed to test the waters of compromise. Two examples:

1. He and Boehner were close to a deal on budget and tax issues. Unfortunately, Boehner failed to stand up to the far right, and Obama failed to stand up to the far left. The extremists from both sides killed the deal, but my sense at the time was that Obama favored a left-leaning approach, not a radical-left approach.

2. Initially, the House and Senate passed different versions of the ACA. In early 2010, the president was calling for a conference to resolve discrepancies, and he seemed to be willing to compromise if necessary to get something passed. But then, the special election in Massachusetts gave the Republicans a 40th senator, depriving Democrats of their filibuster-proof margin. The 40 Republicans made it clear they would scuttle anything that came before them. Thus, the House and Obama had only two choices -- pass the House bill verbatim, or get nothing at all. Many commentators at the time thought Obama would've been willing to make some compromises to gain further support for the bill, but he didn't have that choice.

More recently, Obama has become extremely liberal. But I don't think this is his personal preference. Rather, I think it is because he lacks the political skill or experience necessary to keep his party in line.

So does this mean he would be a willing participant in bipartisan compromise if the mood in the Congress were to change? Who knows, but I wouldn't rule it out.
 
With both the Senate and House, compromise will indeed be Obama's choice. The Republicans will now be on offense and Obama will be the only defense. Does he call them in and compromise or does he just veto everything?
 
bow.gif
bounce.gif
yippee.gif
bounce2.gif
hookem.gif


Joyous Night!! I'm as happy as I've been in years!

One of the problems (as pointed on tonight) regards legislation is the way Reid blocked bills from the House from even getting a vote. Part of that was to not put Democratic Senators on the spot for their vote. The rest just pure power politics. For me, it was not about the House or about Republicans not doing anything. The Reid-dominated Senate leadership stonewalled the whole time.

Or now I can be proven wrong. But that's the way I see it. The problem has been Reid, in addition to the rest of Obama's style of holding an executive office.

I could not be more pleased. About all the elections nationwide. It is on the order of 20 college football games on a Saturday all going my way. I call it a knockout. Governors. Senators. Win, win, win. What a night.

And three cheers for Abbott!!! He beat Wendy by a margin going on 60-40 with the late evening results. A map of Texas is almost solid red. Just a few blue counties in a few patches.

texasflag.gif
flag.gif
hookem.gif
 
The Rejection Election.

I'd call it a mandate for conservative government and a rejection of BO's big brother movement.

I'm fascinated by how the media chooses to spin it.

Fox says; "Republicans given mandate to chart new course"
Yahoo says; "Hillary is the real winner".
CNN says: "Thumping win"
MSNBC says: "Gridllock grows. GOP win will create even more obstacles".
 
I actually tuned to MSNBC late last night just to see how bad their meltdown really was. And I'm anxious to see what Huffpo has to say today!

HHD
hookem.gif
texasflag.gif
coolnana.gif
ousucksnana.gif
 
"The Reid-dominated Senate leadership stonewalled the whole time."

If you didn't like the way Reid led things, watch McConnell for the next two years. Reid blocked votes because of the Senate's own rules. Is McConnell, with roughly the same number of party members that Reid had in the 113th Congress, going to do things any differently? My guess is no. And instead of catching the blame, he'll just put it on the minority party. "Those durn democrats and their filibuster threat!"
 
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