Currently the Republicans have the edge, 65.0% of a Republican majority.
Iowa, North Carolina, Colorado, and Alaska are the only possible swing states.[/quote]
The forecast update as of yesterday:
Now there’s a 56.4% chance of a Republican majority, down from the previous 65 percent.
Colorado, Kansas (ind.), Iowa, Alaska, Arkansas are the more likely to be swing states.
Analyst Harry Enten wrote:
[quote]The polls look like a disaster for Democrats.
They’re not.
FiveThirtyEight’s Senate forecast has Republican chances of taking back the Senate at 56.4 percent — basically unchanged from the 56.5 percent we showed Tuesday.[/quote]
Sam Wang’s model better predicted the 2012 election, all the way down to a more accurate popular vote prediction than Nate’s. Wang’s model also picked the winner in every single Senate race in 2012. So it’d be interesting to see what happens.
Sam Wang’s model also now predicts the GOP will take the Senate. He now predicts the GOP will end up with 52 seats. The Huffington Post estimates the GOP has a 65% chance of winning the Senate. Their model also sees a 52/48 split as the most likely. The Democrats will probably hold on to North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Michigan, but that’s it. The rest of the competitive races will go to the GOP. They’re poised to expand their majority in the House as well. 2014 will be a good year for the Grand Ole Party.
Sad but probably true.
One bad effect will be the (possible) gutting of the CBO, reducing any chance of bad but realistic predictions of the results of GOP policy (hello, Kansas)
For what it’s worth, I’m just thrilled the Senate is still in play. Actually, I’m happy the Senate was ever in play. We all know that 2008 was a stellar year for Democrats, with lots of Democrats winning in red states. Combine that with historic losses that any party faces in the middle of a second presidential term, and you’ve got a recipe for a real disaster. George Will predicted that Republicans would win 2/3 of both houses and be able to “neuter this presidency”. They won’t have anywhere close to those numbers in either chamber. Their gerrymandering (and Democrats self-gerrymandering into urban areas) guarantees them the House, but the polls indicate their hold on the Senate will be weak. 52 GOP seats seems a pretty safe bet, immediately placing the chamber in play in 2016.
What stands out to me is that the Democrats have run against Citizens United/Koch Brothers and voter ID, then they raised and spent more money than the Republicans and got most of the voter ID laws thrown out in court, but are still on course to lose. Ouch?
Current “no toss-ups” map for the Senate from RealClearPolitics.com is GOP +8 and 53 seats. Even Scott Brown may be returning to the Senate after blatantly moving to New Hampshire so that he could have an easier opponent.
Why is it that Republican arguments are always based on false premises? Republicans have raised more money than Democrats in the most competitive races. From 538:
[quote]Among the most hopeful signs for Democrats this year have been the strong fundraising totals for their Senate candidates. Through June 30, the Democratic incumbent Mark Udall of Colorado had raised $7.9 million in individual contributions to $3.2 million for his Republican opponent, Cory Gardner. In Iowa through the same date, Democrat Bruce Braley had raised almost three times as much ($5.6 million) as his opponent, Republican Joni Ernst ($2.1 million).
But the latest numbers show Republican fundraising catching up with, and sometimes surpassing, Democratic totals in Iowa, Colorado and other key states.
The Federal Election Commission’s deadline to report third-quarter fundraising totals passed on Wednesday, covering money raised from July 1 through Sept. 30. Comprehensive fundraising totals are not yet available on the FEC’s website, but I was able to find data on most Senate races through local media accounts.
In Iowa, for example, Ernst raised $4.5 million in the third quarter, according to the Des Moines Register, considerably surpassing Braley’s total of $2.8 million. The third-quarter numbers were more even in Colorado — Gardner $4.3 million, Udall $4.0 million, according to the Denver Post — but a big improvement for Gardner over the lopsided numbers we’d seen previously. (Gardner began his campaign only in March of this year, which accounts for his slow start.)
In Arkansas, Republican Tom Cotton outraised Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Pryor $3.9 million to $2.2 million in the third quarter. Republican David Perdue slightly outraised Michelle Nunn in Georgia, offsetting what had been an advantage for Nunn. In New Hampshire, the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, has been closing in the polls of late, and he also raised a pinch more ($3.6 millon) than Democratic incumbent Sen. Jeanne Shaheen ($3.5 million) in the third quarter.[/quote]
To be fair, I agree with you about the Koch Brothers thing. What an utterly stupid campaign tactic on the part of Harry Reid. I’ve gotten to the point where I just avoid articles about the Koch Brothers, and there have been approximately 1 zillion of them this election cycle. Nobody gives a monkey’s who donates to campaigns. Sure, it’s important that campaign funding is transparent. And like everybody else I wish there was less money in politics (campaigns, lobbying, etc.). But it’s not my top priority. The reality is that the Supreme Court basically considers money and free speech interchangeable, and that’s the playing field we’ve been given. The GOP is often viewed as the “big money” party, with pride by the party faithful and with derision from opponents. But Democrats are generally able to raise money on par with GOP, maybe a little less (like this election cycle). But Obama raised a billion before Romney did. Plus, there’s plenty of billionaire liberals supporting liberal causes and candidates. I am so sick of hearing about the Koch Brothers. I don’t care, and neither does anybody else, aside from (apparently) Huffington Post reporters.
If I were in charge of the Democratic Party’s campaign strategy, both House and Senate, this entire campaign would have been about Republicans trying to pull out the rug from the millions of Americans benefiting from Obamacare. I was greatly heartened to see Kay Hagan, Alison Lundergran Grimes, Mark Pryor, and other Democrats in tight races stand up for Obamacare. Hagan particularly came out swinging, and berated her opponent for opposing the Medicaid expansion. She is the only embattled Democrat in a red state to be ahead in the polls. Pryor defended Obamacare and said he would absolutely vote for it again, and yet he hasn’t taken real advantage of the fact that Arkansas, among all the states, is the biggest winner in the Obamacare game. The uninsured rate of that state has fallen from 20% to 10%, the biggest drop anywhere. The entire campaign should be about Cotton’s promise to repeal Obamacare and take it all away. Not just from those currently benefiting but from the millions who will benefit in the future. But instead of making this election about the health care of millions, the Democratic Party made it about a couple of old guys nobody cares about. The height of stupidity.
Why is it that Republican arguments are always based on false premises? Republicans have raised more money than Democrats in the most competitive races[/quote]
Please don’t accuse me of things, last I had read, the Democrats had significantly outraised and outspent the Republicans across the board. If the Republicans have spent more in certain races it wouldn’t necessarily make what I said a “false premise.”
Significantly, eh? Did you last read the news in 2008? [/quote]
Well, the first news story on Google (admittedly from mid-September) puts the Democrats ahead by $75 million. Maybe the Republicans have caught up by now or just spent their money more wisely, who knows. If the Democrats didn’t spend in the more “competitive” races that’s their problem…
As for Obamacare, it’s toxic no matter what because a health plan being cancelled means more to midterm voters than people being put onto Medicaid and so-on will. They need to rush the remaining cancellations after the midterms or just delay them until 2017 like the individual mandate.
True, and I find that disgustingly disloyal. I felt the same way in 2006 and 2008, when virtually every Republican in a remotely competitive district or state wanted nothing to do with President Bush. Of course I didn’t care for President Bush’s policies, but I was disgusted with Republicans who avoided him. For me, it’s not a partisan issue. I find disloyalty an inherently repulsive and unbecoming quality. Alison Grimes recently refused to say whether she voted for Obama. I’ll be almost happy to see McConnell trounce her in November.
I would make a terrible politician. What I believe in, and who my friends are, do not change because of public opinion polls.
The individual mandate is currently in force. It was never delayed. I disagree that Obamacare is toxic “no matter what”. Senator Hagan is the lead advocate for Obamacare among Democratic Senators in tight races, and she is the ONLY one of them ahead in the polls. That would have been unthinkable in 2010, when Obamacare was still mostly theoretical. The sole reason Hagan can defend it so forcefully and come out ahead in a red state is because Obamacare has dramatically lowered the uninsured rate. If Obamacare had failed, she’d be tanking in the polls and Republicans would have a wave year, easily winning 60 seats or more. That’s a simple fact.
Having said that, Democrats as a whole are massively failing to take credit for Obamacare’s stellar results. And why? Because a few million people had their crappy, catastrophic plans cancelled. And what did those people do? They turned right around and bought comprehensive coverage. If they hadn’t, there’s no way the net gain would be 10 million (as reported by multiple non-partisan, scientifically valid surveys).
The individual mandate is currently in force. It was never delayed. I disagree that Obamacare is toxic “no matter what”. Senator Hagan is the lead advocate for Obamacare among Democratic Senators in tight races, and she is the ONLY one of them ahead in the polls. That would have been unthinkable in 2010, when Obamacare was still mostly theoretical. The sole reason Hagan can defend it so forcefully and come out ahead in a red state is because Obamacare has dramatically lowered the uninsured rate. If Obamacare had failed, she’d be tanking in the polls and Republicans would have a wave year, easily winning 60 seats or more. That’s a simple fact.
Having said that, Democrats as a whole are massively failing to take credit for Obamacare’s stellar results. And why? Because a few million people had their crappy, catastrophic plans cancelled. And what did those people do? They turned right around and bought comprehensive coverage. If they hadn’t, there’s no way the net gain would be 10 million (as reported by multiple non-partisan, scientifically valid surveys).[/quote]
Okay you’re going to force me to post a link… online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 … 2607325596
[quote]To wit, last week the Administration quietly excused millions of people from the requirement to purchase health insurance or else pay a tax penalty.
This latest political reconstruction has received zero media notice, and the Health and Human Services Department didn’t think the details were worth discussing in a conference call, press materials or fact sheet. Instead, the mandate suspension was buried in an unrelated rule that was meant to preserve some health plans that don’t comply with ObamaCare benefit and redistribution mandates. Our sources only noticed the change this week.
That seven-page technical bulletin includes a paragraph and footnote that casually mention that a rule in a separate December 2013 bulletin would be extended for two more years, until 2016. Lo and behold, it turns out this second rule, which was supposed to last for only a year, allows Americans whose coverage was cancelled to opt out of the mandate altogether.[/quote]
I guess the mandate isn’t delayed for everyone but they’ve taken steps to delay it for people who are actually going to lack plans and thus have it applied to them.
Your link isn’t available to non-members, so I can’t get any details on those “millions”. But we do know that the law was written to provide exemptions to certain classes of people, such as those with religious beliefs against health care, or those so poor they can’t afford health insurance even with subsidies. There are more than 300 million Americans. The vast majority of us are obliged to carry health insurance per the individual mandate which is currently in force. That’s a fact, not altered by your “link”.
That’s weird cause I’m not a subscriber, maybe it is limited by country.
I think what happened here is they delayed it for some people until 2016 and then I presumed this was just a lead-up to them delaying it again until 2017. The employer mandate has also been delayed. While it’s true that the individual mandate applies to some, it’s people who don’t have insurance who are effected by it. Like, if you pass a law saying no killing pigeons, most people weren’t killing pigeons anyway…
The interesting thing about this is that if it exempts people who have canceled plans and they are also trying to push back the cancellations, the two can potentially compound each other. I will be really surprised if they get either mandate running in full before 2017.
And yet, in a six month period, millions of Americans complied with the new law by purchasing health insurance. The uninsured rate is the lowest it’s been since polling companies like Gallup first starting asking the question in the 1990s.
I think that’s attributable to the medicaid expansion, which covered huge numbers of uninsured, then the changes regarding insurance for preexisting conditions covered another part of it. I personally doubt that the partially enacted individual mandate had much to do with it.
I’m not strictly opposed to Obamacare, America will probably have a public option alongside private health insurance like Canada, Taiwan and some of the Scandinavian countries do at some point in the future. There is little point in trying to force personal responsibility onto people when the least responsible ones can already get medicaid anyway. I’m not sure that whether the government has to compete with the private sector in taking care of people who could afford private insurance anyway is really that big of a deal, the personal responsibility fight was lost quite awhile ago as it is.
I guess there is always the danger of rising costs or the BRICs taking the public option off the table as western economies decline but in the end I don’t see it making a huge difference in anything since even though government is typically inefficient, doctors are necessarily paid huge wages anyway, so in a way it’s easier to be cost efficient when it comes to health care than it is in other areas where it’s easier to overpay people.
True, and I find that disgustingly disloyal. I felt the same way in 2006 and 2008, when virtually every Republican in a remotely competitive district or state wanted nothing to do with President Bush. Of course I didn’t care for President Bush’s policies, but I was disgusted with Republicans who avoided him. For me, it’s not a partisan issue. I find disloyalty an inherently repulsive and unbecoming quality.
[/quote]
Well, that’s an interesting way of looking at it.
I certainly don’t see personal loyalty as an end in itself. It’s a grace to be extended only to the worthy, otherwise loyalty itself is cheapened. To be loyal to the unworthy is the ethic of the toady. Also, it’s enabling behavior. The very worst tyrants make a big deal of personal loyalty to the guy on top. Loyalty is big in North Korea, for example.
By the way, He Who Shall Not Be Blamed has a history of throwing his friends under the bus to save himself. So much for loyalty. They eat their own.
Some of my friends are Republicans who turned on Bush, instead of throwing out their own principles. I think they made the better choice. They stand for something higher and more worthy than mindless loyalty.
I could also talk about conversations I’ve had with Taiwanese from old school Confucian families, about the dark places that family loyalty can take you to. Or I can recommend you watch The Godfather.
I think people cling to the idea of loyalty because they crave a moral center to hold their personalities together, and they can’t tell the difference between morality and loyalty. They make great cult members, but very bad citizens.
Obviously I’m not advocating an extreme form of loyalty to dictators.
Did the views of President Bush change significantly between 2004 and 2006? Of course not. Quite the opposite, he never really changed. From 2000-2004, he was politically popular and all Republicans wanted to be associated with him. By 2006, the curse of the second presidential term was upon him, and nobody wanted to know him. By 2008 the situation was even worse. But he was the same man elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004. Confusingly, many Republicans now claim that Bush wasn’t really a conservative at all. :eh:
Obama is facing the same situation now with his own party. Democrats who couldn’t get enough photo ops with him in 2008 and 2012 suddenly can’t remember if they voted for him. But he’s the same man with the same policies and beliefs, for the most part.
Of course loyalty shouldn’t be blind. But it shouldn’t be based on public opinion polls either.
Republicans have raised more money than Democrats in the most competitive races. From 538:
