This compilation, simply adding up existing polls, has D chances over 50%, including an Orman win in Kansas.
Your linky no worky.
Orman sounds like he’d be a blue-dog Democrat at best, just like the guy in Alaska. Blue-dog Democrats are little better than Republicans when it comes to supporting progressive legislation. Our choices continue to be one of actual Republicans vs. Republican-lite, with no representation in Congress for progressive ideas.
Orman isn’t a blue dog, he’s a true independent and no ordinary politician. How many guys say directly they’ll side with whoever is in the majority? Although saying the current leadership has to go to get him on a side is a pretty popular position given the deep unpopularity of both Reid and McConnell.
I actively support Orman regardless of what Republicans might need to win the Senate. Roberts has been there too long and has like a 25% approval rating in Kansas. He shouldn’t have even run for reelection in the first place.
Saying he will side with whoever is the majority means little more than he will side with whichever party can offer him the most influential committee assignments, hence, whichever group can offer him the most reassurance as to his incumbency. Traditionally and in practice, the more junior Senators get the least important assignments. There is a certain flexibility in this practice.
The size of the majority matters as well - just one more seat means the difference between oblivion and Lieberman.
Exactly. And a difference which makes no difference, is no difference.
Well, that’s very different. Never mind.
Well, it’s possible that while any single poll is noisy, that collectively they give a reliable signal. (Consider the sample sizes of one poll vs all polls.) It’s also possible that the quality of pollsters is lower in off year elections --or even lower in 2014 than it was in 2010-- and Sam isn’t taking that into account properly. What’s cool is that a lot of this will be resolved in 45 days.
And this discussion is far less inane than those of the pre-modeling era.
False. Our choices are between pointless wars and strategic sanity. Health care for millions -fully financed- or holding the government and economy hostage. These are progressive victories because they are American victories. The representation that is sorely lacking in Congress however is that of progressive poseurs and phonies. Liberals self-police, so their whack fringe doesn’t make the cut.
I don’t agree that there is no difference between the two parties, but on foreign policy I don’t think there actually is. The Bush Presidency saw the GOP experiment with the idea of preemptive war and it went so badly that it caused the isolationist wing to have a resurgence. at this point, a President Rubio would be unlikely to do anything different on the war front than President Obama has, and if anything Clinton is probably the most hawkish candidate with a shot at being President.
On domestic politics, of course, the differences have grown vast, although for left-wingers who want to see the Democrats be more like Social Democratic European parties, there really isn’t much in the way of representation and probably never will be.
No for another 20 years or so. Then things are going to start changing fast. Though it might well be the Republicans that go all social democratic, given that they are so tied to business interests.
News from Kansas: Democrat Chad Taylor has dropped out of the Senate race, leaving incumbent Sen. Pat Roberts to face a remarkably well-organized independent challenge by Greg Orman.
But, the Secretary of State won’t take Taylor off the ballot.
I wouldn’t bet on it. We aren’t importing Social Democrats. The assumption that Democrats will be boosted by demographic changes is supported by data(although I think it’s exactly that: an assumption). There is no evidence that the Democrats will be moved to the left because of it. Quite the contrary, actually. A Democratic Party base that is overwhelmingly Catholic and Latino won’t look like any Social Democratic Party you’ve ever seen. Plus there’s still the reality of Congress, where rural states and districts have always had outsized power. You can elect a liberal President based on your assumptions, but he’ll be stymied. Hopefully he doesn’t respond the way his base is used to seeing such Presidents respond. That’ll drive even you in to the GOP.
Nominees that are appointed for life are somewhat anti-Democratic to begin with, it seems to me that a countervailing requirement that they be approved by a supermajority is not inappropriate. But they should definitely make you stand up tehre and talk so taht the whole world can see you filibustering.
I seem to recall Reagan attacking Democrats pretty overtly and they weren’t nearly as obstructionist as this current crop of Republicans.
Here is why Democrats AND Republicans are going to be getting on the social welfar bandwagon real hard in a decade or two:
50 percent unemployment is going to be a total game changer.
Evil Captor, that I agree with, although I think that if that comes to pass it’s going to end up being something totally different.
In a future where technology makes most people unemployable, we’re probably going to be filthy rich as a society. In that type of world, you can have the minority working and pulling down huge bucks, while the majority just enjoys leisure and a much lower, but still high, standard of living. Perhaps 10% of the population will be billionaires and everyone else will get by on “only” $100,000 a year. And you wouldn’t even have to tax the working population much to pay for that either. They’d probably have lower taxes than they do today.
I guess it’s socialism of a sort but nothing like what socialists envision. It would be an even more unequal society yet a very comfortable one.
Reagan destroyed Democrats with wit, not anger. And GWB rarely mentioned Democrats by name. A President has to get all Americans to at least hear him out, and i believe that Obama’s excessive partisanship has caused all but Democrats to just not pay attention.
I agree, it will ultimately be a much more unequal society barring major social changes in the US, and ultimately will be a much more comfortable society for the poor and the middle class, as they will be very affluent and will not have to work, IF … IF … the social changes that are necessary to make that happen are not fought tooth and nail by conservatives and libertarians. The rich will be ultra wealthy, but most folks won’t care.
And, of course, the necessary changes WILL be fought toot and nail, because giving money to citizens just because they’re citizens goes directly against conservative and libertarian ideology. It will be called “socialism” and “communism” because that’s what conservatives and libertarians call any sort of wealth transfer to the poor and the middle class.
I think the only reason such changes will be adopted is that early on the collapse of the job market will also create a collapse in the consumer economy … people won’t have jobs, won’t have money to buy stuff, so a lot of businesses will see their bottom lines collapse. And about the only way to fix that will beBasic Income or something like it. So big corporations will be totally behind Basic Income. Well most of them. Some will fight it to the bitter end. Their bitter end, hopefully.