2014 Battle for the Senate

Exceedingly droll.

Yes, you wouldn't know any better.

The reality is that, whilst his approval is hardly impressive, it's far ahead of that of Congressional Republicans.

He's a mediocre president, good enough to be re-elected thanks to the votes of the better-educated states. He's superior to the last one and not as good as the one before.

Angry white guys have been in a tizzy about their foreign-born, socialist, muslim bête noire for years, but they're just nuts.

 

I predict Republicans will only pick up Montana and South Dakota. North Carolina looks close but Kay Hagen will eek out a win. West Virginia looks good for Capito but the state hasn't elected a Republican senator in nearly 50 years and RCP called it wrong in both 2010 and 2012. The rest are no contests.

 

The average American paid only 17.4% while the top 1 percent paid 28.9%. Looks like everyone is already under 30%.

 

Then if the taxes were under 30% they would have paid less which is a
good thing.

 

Irrelevant.

As I said, being better educated doesn't make anyone smarter. That's a ruse.
This president isn't mediocre, he's awful in every single category. The economy,
diplomacy, believability, in touch, you name it. And no, he's not better than the
last one and the last one was bad.

 

I hope you are right, but of those seven, only Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia look to be likely Republican pick-ups.

The other four; Alaska, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Louisiana appear to be toss-ups at this point in time. So I see it as likely that they get only two of those, as they do the three needed to get to 51.

 

As I said, taxes were at historical lows in 2009, so cutting them even lower would not have helped.

 

While I love Brown, I seriously doubt that he will win that race. The two point difference seems to be an outlier anyway.

 

Do tell.

 

One of my favorite videos, filmed right outside a voting place.

About the only name they could identify was Palin. No clue who Reid, Pelosi, Frank are. Some said they've never even heard of them. Very sad that such people are allowed to vote. I can understand not being able to identify bit players, but at least have a clue who the big names are.

 

Yes, it's very similar to low information idiots who go to Palin rallies and ramble on about this country being "a Christian nation", and how "da blacks are taking over".

It's very sad that those idiots are able to vote, but without the votes of idiots, the GOP would have been extinct years ago.

 

The rabid rightists love their media entertainers, to be sure, but Republican moderates are beginning to fight back against the TP berserkers.

America is not about to devolve into the dystopian Aynrandistan that festers in the minds of perverse fantasists.

There may have been more "blue" states than "red" states in 2013, but a clear majority of Americans are ideologically at the center or right of center. How do Democrats continue to win elections if so few Americans identify themselves as liberal? The answer may lie with moderates, which, as a voting bloc, are solidly Democratic. If moderates begin voting with Republicans in the near or long-term future, there may indeed be a Republican revival on the national level.​

 

No it isn't. At least GOP voter would know who pelosi, reid and franks are.

I guess it's hard on people like you when the true low information voters are
confronted with softball questions at a voting place and have trouble with
knowing who anybody is.

 

At least with Democrats, it's only the voters who are low information.

[video=youtube;XGVaEGgSNV8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGVaEGgSNV8[/video]

 

That was hilarious.

1. How does that relieve the fact that the typical Democrat doesn't have a clue
about any of the candidates?

2.. Talk show hosts? Are you kidding? Who honestly listens to them? I don't
know anyone who does

3. His love for that "religion of peace" has an impact on what he believes.
Didn't he say the muslim call to prayer was the most beautiful sound?

4. This doesn't compare to those who were in the video.

5. What do talk show hosts have to do with how people vote? Are
you serious?

6. How about some questions at a voting poll instead of some talk
show host rambling ad infinitum? Like the ones asked by typical
voters who elected this president.

You didn't provide anything that was relevant to the post I made. At
least the post I listed was honest.

 

Did you even read my comment?

Since when are Michele Bachmann, Jan Brewer, Phil Gingrey, Michael Steele, and Phil Davidson talk show hosts?

I find some Christian music to be pleasing to the ear too, but that doesn't mean I'm not an atheist.

Again, I refer you to my original comment.

See #2 above.

How about some legitimate polling instead of cherry-picked videos.

If you didn't think it was relevant, then you didn't understand it.

 

Yes, I did.

Maybe you were expecting something enormous or outreaching.

I didn't find your post that interesting. I really didn't. In fact I found it
quite less than droll.

 

I'm sorry if find the idea that we live in a republic, not a democracy, uninteresting and droll.

 

` Backward Ignorance of Liberalism will always remain a caner of Lies..."twist"...deceit and spin..There`s no changing that...Cause it so easy to sell... to its foundation of dead...Illegal...racist and low info voters....

 

I'm thrilled that we live in a representative republic and not a democracy.
Our founding fathers knew the difference.

“Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no
hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
(Benjamin Franklin)

 

BACK on topic, It looks like Pat Roberts in Kansas may lose to an independent, One Mr. Gregg Orman, who ran last time as a democrat.

Brownbacks failed policies may get us the first non-republican senator from Kansas in more than 70 years!

 

Looks like Orman picked up most of the Democrats when Taylor dropped out last week. That still leave a tight race between him and Roberts though. Voters in Kansas may express their disapproval of Brownback in the polls, but when it comes to actually voting they'll probably stick with the Republican.

 

A recent Rasmussen poll has Orman up by 5 points over Roberts in Kansas. That makes it improbable, in my opinion, that the Republicans can gain more than 4 seats in the Senate, maybe as few as 3. Even if they win a close state like Iowa, it would only give them a 5 seat gain.

 

Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » 2014 Senate: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/category/2014-senate/

 

Looking pretty good for Orman in Kansas

Fox news poll:

Greg Orman 48%

Pat Roberts 42%

Don't know/ refused 8%

wouldn't vote 3%