Author Topic: The US Congress; Congressional races  (Read 377098 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72240
    • View Profile
Strategy: Horowitz; WSJ
« Reply #250 on: September 15, 2014, 08:23:54 AM »
The GOP’s Missing Electoral Link


Posted By David Horowitz On September 15, 2014
To order David Horowitz’s new book, Take No Prisoners, click here.

This article is reprinted from Redstate.com.

Paul Ryan is a smart man, and probably represents the mainstream thinking of the Republican Party, though like every ambitious politician he likes to position himself as a critic of the crowd. But in a recent interview with Matthew Continetti, Ryan started out well by complaining about the GOP consultant class. “The consultant class always says play it safe, choose a risk-averse strategy. I don’t think we have the luxury of doing that.” But then when called on to provide a non-risk averse strategy, he comes up with this: “We need to treat people like adults by offering them alternatives.” But what Republican consultant would tell his candidate not to offer alternative policies and ideas? There is none.

Every Republican thinks that offering a positive vision and new policies is the key to winning elections. Of course sometimes, as in the midterms this fall, the Democrats have screwed up so big that they are practically handing Republicans a victory. Just don’t count on it for 2016. In fact, Ryan embraces the conventional GOP wisdom:

“The only way we beat an Obama third term is to offer a spirited alternative and bring it up to a crescendo where we’re really giving the country a very clear choice of policies and ideas.”

I wouldn’t bet on it. You can’t give the country a clear choice of policies and ideas when the Democrats are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to label you racists, sexists, homophobes enemies of the poor, selfish and uncaring. If Republicans are to win national elections they have to come up with an answer to these attacks. And the only answer is a counter-attack. I’ve laid out the basis for an effective counter-attack in my new book Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan For Defeating the Left (Regnery 2014). But I’m not holding my breath that Republicans will embrace the strategy I recommend. More likely they will go into the next national election like crash-dummies as they usually do.

When you examine the Democrat attacks they are all moral indictments: racist, uncaring, anti-woman, selfish. In contrast, Republicans criticize Democrats for having unworkable policies. Who do you think is going to win this debate? If a voter thinks someone is a racist, how seriously are they going to take his policy ideas? The same reaction awaits candidates who are seen as selfish defenders of the greedy rich, namely, Republicans.

What’s the Republican counter-attack? There is none. But here’s how to think of one: Democrat policies are not merely wrong-headed, they’re destructive. Democrats control every major city in America – Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, New York, Minneapolis, Milwaukee – and I could go on and on. They’ve controlled these cities for 50 to 100 years. Everything that is wrong with the inner cities of America, every policy that adversely affects the impoverished minorities who live there, Democrats are responsible for.

Democrat policies, for example, have trapped millions of poor African American and Hispanic children in schools that don’t teach them, year in and year out, because they’re run for the benefit of the leftwing teacher unions and the Democratic Party. Democrats will fight to the death to keep these children from getting scholarships known as “vouchers” that would allow them to find private schools that would teach them. Yet Democrats, including the president himself, send their own children to private schools. How racist is that? Yet when did you ever hear a Republican call a Democrat a racist over this atrocity?

Consider the consequences of Democratic misrule: millions of poor African American and Hispanic children who will never be educated and never get a shot at the American dream. Instead they will be condemned to lives of poverty and crime. The Democratic colony of Chicago is a war zone. Who is responsible for all the lost young African American lives in Chicago? But Republicans are too polite to mention it.
In Ferguson, Missouri we have witnessed the month long spectacle of a Democratic lynch mob led by one of the nation’s leading racists, Al Sharpton, who just happens to be the President’s adviser on race. Rev. Sharpton has been mightily abetted by the Democratic Attorney General of the United States, who is conducting a witch-hunt against the Ferguson police force. The Democratic Party isthe party of racism, but Republicans are too timid to mention it.

As ever on national security, Democrats have disarmed us in the face of the Islamic crusade against the West, the greatest threat we have ever faced as a nation; they have attacked our borders so that we can’t prevent terrorists and criminals from crossing them; they have forced our retreat from Iraq and the Middle East creating a vacuum that has been filled by the armies of ISIS and other well-armed barbarians who have sworn to kill us. Democrats have betrayed our country and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Syrians and Libyans slaughtered by the terrorist armies their policies have unleashed. Yet where is the Republican voice using the language appropriate to these betrayals?

Yet it is precisely this moral language that Republicans must use to push back the Democrat slanderers who have been so effective in winning elections. Barack Obama is the most incompetent, anti-American, leftwing radical ever nominated by a major political party. Democrats did that. Hold them responsible.

Whatever words Republicans finally use, they have to 1) Get used to the fact that politics is a no-holds-barred street fight and nice guys finish last; 2) Get used to the fact that they are going to have to actually attack Democrats and make it hurt: and 3) Frame their attacks as a moral indictment – or else they will be pulverized by the moral indictments framed by their opponents.

This is my advice. My bet: Paul Ryan and the Republican Party will ignore it.
===============================


Email
Print
29 Comments
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn

    smaller
    Larger

By
Jason L. Riley
Sept. 12, 2014 5:02 p.m. ET

There's a rift in the Republican Party, and I'm not referring to the one between Rand Paul isolationists and John McCain hawks.

The split is between those who think the GOP can rely on President's Obama unpopularity to win a Senate majority in November and those who think the party would do better to push a positive agenda. Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio is in the latter camp. In an interview this week, he told the Christian Science Monitor that if the GOP nets the six seat it needs to win control of the upper chamber, it would focus on four things: corporate tax reform, regulatory reform, giving Mr. Obama authority to fast-track trade deals and approving the final leg of a Keystone XL pipeline that would increase domestic energy production.

"By getting a Republican majority, I do believe it would get the president to the table on some of these issues," Mr. Portman told the paper. "I know I may sound naive, since everyone has decided that the next two years are going to be all about 2016," he added. "But I look at what's happened over the years. When we have divided government, that's when we've done tax reform, that's when we've done entitlement reform, that's when we've helped to move the economy forward when we take on these big issues."


The president has been very specific about his agenda, repeatedly calling for a minimum-wage increase and legislation aimed at closing a gender gap in pay that liberals believe is a reflection of employer discrimination. Republicans have made clear that they oppose such measures, but the party has failed to unite around a coherent agenda of its own.

Given the president's low approval rating, the sluggish economy and the fact that ObamaCare continues to poll poorly, many Republicans believe that a message of opposition will suffice in the fall. Politicians aren't the bravest bunch, and talking about what you're against is easier that explaining what you're for. If Republicans want a mandate from voters, they ought to follow Mr. Portman's lead and explain what they'd do with it.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
Why are independents always really full blown liberals in disguise
« Reply #251 on: September 16, 2014, 09:17:52 AM »
Meet Greg Orman, the man who could decide the Senate majority

By Sean Sullivan September 4 
 
Independent Senate candidate Greg Orman speaks with reporters Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2014. (AP Photo, Topeka Capital-Journal/Thad Allton)
The question of which political party will control the Senate could come down to a man who says parties are "part of the problem."

That man is Greg Orman, the independent candidate for Senate in Kansas who finds himself at the center of the political universe today. Democratic nominee Chad Taylor abruptly ended his campaign on Wednesday, clearing the way for Orman to have a clean shot at Sen. Pat Roberts (R) -- who, polls suggest, could be unexpectedly vulnerable this fall.

Orman, 45, is a political enigma. Over the years, he's donated money to both liberal Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and the National Republican Congressional Committee. He says he voted for President Obama in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012. And he won't reveal which side he would choose in the Senate.

But national Democrats have been mum about Taylor's sudden departure, fueling speculation the party believes there is a very good chance Orman would side with them. Running in a deeply conservative state, Orman is carefully avoiding any move that would link him too closely with Democrats. At the same time, he's casting himself as a much more moderate alternative to Roberts, who he says has adopted "Ted Cruz's voting patterns."

In a telephone interview with The Washington Post last week, Orman decried the partisan gridlock that has seized Congress. He said that he would likely side with whichever party is in the majority and talk to both sides if he ends up the deciding vote. With a competitive battle for the majority underway, that's a possibility.

"I hold both sides equally accountable," he said.

Orman presented himself as a moderate in the mold of Bob Dole, the former Senate majority leader from Kansas. He took aim at Roberts for voting against the farm bill, and lambasted him for not voting on the VA reform bill.


On immigration, he emphasized the importance of securing the border -- but also said supports a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and that he would have supported the comprehensive reform bill that passed the Senate last year.

"I think if you're undocumented and you are here, you should have to register with [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement], you should have to pay a small fine or perform community service as an acknowledgement that you've broken the law," he explained. "Then you should have to hold down a job, pay taxes, obey our laws. And if you do all those things, I think you should be able to continue to live here and work here."

Orman was one of five children of a nurse and a furniture store owner in Stanley, Kan. He graduated from Princeton University, where he was a member of the College Republicans, in 1991 with an degree in economics. Not long after, he founded a company that installed energy efficient lighting systems. In 2004, he co-founded Denali Partners, LLC, an investment firm.

Disillusioned by the George W. Bush administration, according to lengthy explanation of his political history posted on his campaign Web site, Orman decided to become a Democrat. His first foray into elected office was in 2007, when he briefly explored a run against Roberts as a Democrat before pulling the plug on that idea.

He's parked himself firmly in the middle in the years since that short-lived bid. Orman founded the centrist the Common Sense Coalition in 2010. He told The Post -- after initially balking -- that he voted for Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Obama's "very, very partisan approach to health-care," Orman said, led him to opposing a second term.


Campaign finance records reveal that Orman has given to both Democrats and Republicans over the years. About two years after giving money to Obama, have wrote a check to a political action committee founded by Republican Scott Brown.

Orman, for his part, is not taking money from political action committees in his campaign. Through mid-July he had more than $362,000 in his campaign account -- a fairly impressive sum for an inexpensive state like Kansas. And he's left the door open to dipping into his own pockets for more.

Roberts, who is still recovering from a bruising primary campaign in which he was sharply criticized for staying with supporters when he is in Kansas instead of his own home, has signaled that he will try to portray Orman as far too liberal for Kansas.

"We are confident that Kansas voters will quickly see through this charade foisted on Kansas by Orman and his Democrat allies," said Leroy Towns, Roberts's campaign manager, in a statement.

Amid his political shifts over the years, did Orman ever vote for Roberts in a primary or general election?

"Not that I recall," he said. "But I don't remember everybody I voted for over the last 25 years."


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
Just a poll but...
« Reply #252 on: September 17, 2014, 07:18:39 AM »
If this happens how does Republicans rid themselves of Rove?

*****By Chris Cillizza September 16 at 12:23 PM 
 
Democrats are now (very slightly) favored to hold the Senate majority on Nov. 4, according to Election Lab, The Post's statistical model of the 2014 midterm elections.

Election Lab puts Democrats' chances of retaining their majority at 51 percent — a huge change from even a few months ago, when the model predicted that Republicans had a better than 80 percent chance of winning the six seats they need to take control. (Worth noting: When the model showed Republicans as overwhelming favorites, our model builders — led by George Washington University's John Sides — warned that the model could and would change as more actual polling — as opposed to historical projections — played a larger and larger role in the calculations. And, in Republicans' defense, no one I talked to ever thought they had an 80 percent chance of winning the majority.)

So, what exactly has changed to move the Election Lab projection? Three big things:

* Colorado: On Aug. 27 — the last time I wrote a big piece on the model — Election Lab said Sen. Mark Udall (D) had a 64 percent chance of winning. Today he has a 94 percent chance.

* Iowa: Two weeks ago, the model gave state Sen. Joni Ernst (R) a 72 percent chance of winning. Today she has a 59 percent chance.

* Kansas: Republican Sen. Pat Roberts's reelection race wasn't even on the radar on Aug. 27. Today, Election Lab predicts that he has just a 68 percent chance of winning.

In addition to that trio of moves in Democrats' direction, Louisiana has moved slightly in Democrats' favor (from a 57 percent chance of losing to a 53 percent chance), as has North Carolina (a 97 percent chance of winning now as opposed to a 92 percent chance on Aug. 27).


By contrast, Alaska has moved in Republicans' direction (Democratic Sen. Mark Begich's chances of winning are down from 66 percent to 53 percent), and Georgia has become more of a sure-thing hold (a 91 percent GOP win vs. an 84 percent hold).

The movement toward Democrats in the Election Lab model isn't unique. LEO, the New York Times' Upshot model, gives Republicans a 51 percent chance of winning the Senate — but that is down significantly over the past few weeks.

 
Image courtesy of The Upshot
Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight model now has Republican chances of winning the Senate at 55 percent, down from 64 percent 12 days ago. "The two states with the largest shifts have been Colorado and North Carolina — in both cases, the movement has been in Democrats’ direction," Silver writes. "That accounts for most of the difference in the forecast."

It's important to note that these models change daily as new polling is released and factored in.  So, tomorrow it's possible that Election Lab will show Republicans with a very narrow edge in the battle for the Senate. What you should take away from the models then is a) all three have moved toward Democrats of late and b) all three show the battle for the Senate majority to be the truest of tossups at the moment.

What's interesting about the election models is that they are moving in the opposite direction of political handicappers. In recent days, Stu Rothenberg and Charlie Cook, the two best-known, nonpartisan prognosticators in Washington, have each written that the possibility of large-scale Republicans gains is increasing, not decreasing. Wrote Stu last week:

After looking at recent national, state and congressional survey data and comparing this election cycle to previous ones, I am currently expecting a sizable Republican Senate wave. The combination of an unpopular president and a midterm election (indeed, a second midterm) can produce disastrous results for the president’s party. President Barack Obama’s numbers could rally, of course, and that would change my expectations in the blink of an eye. But as long as his approval sits in the 40-percent range (the August NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll), the signs are ominous for Democrats.

These two sets of predictions are not mutually exclusive. Charlie and Stu are trying to look ahead seven weeks to predict the outcome; the election models are measuring the chances as of today. Still, it's a fascinating split — and one to watch over the final seven weeks of the 2014 election.


Chris Cillizza writes “The Fix,” a politics blog for the Washington Post. He also covers the White House.
  SHARE ON FACEBOOK

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: Just a poll but...
« Reply #253 on: September 17, 2014, 08:26:42 AM »
If this happens how does Republicans rid themselves of Rove?  ...

Rove was caught running amnesty ads against Grimes in the Senate race in Kentucky, when Rove and same group, Crossroads, supported the same legislation at the time.

Overall, I don't share your view that Rove is the problem, but he also isn't the solution.  Groups like his rise in importance when millions and millions and millions of conservatives don't rise up at all and do or say anything about what is happening.

I see polls moving again after Nate Silver's last report and as poll companies move from registered voters to likely voters.  GOP Ernst now leading in Tom Harkins' Iowa seat, +6.  Dem Gov Hickenlooper way down in swing state Colo. down, -10. Fla Gov GOP +5.

Of course R's could still blow this.  The bigger problem I see is if R's win too small this year to hold the Senate majority in 2016.  Eking out a win without bringing voters over to a positive agenda going forward is a tremendous and historic loss.  Failure to nationalize this race and win with purpose just sets us up for failure in the next cycle.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2014, 08:40:57 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« Reply #254 on: September 17, 2014, 09:41:14 AM »
"Eking out a win without bringing voters over to a positive agenda going forward is a tremendous and historic loss."

"positive agenda"

We can be sure the Clinton mob is furiously working to come up positive agendas for their voting blocks.

And they will have ones for the middle class which is key.   That is the ones who want to work.

For the benefits crowd there is little hope it seems they will ever vote ideology over cash handouts.

How do Republicans win over single mothers?   

How do they win over American workers?

How do they win over blue collars?

How do they win over other ethnic groups?

Blacks?

(Forget liberal Jews - no hope)

Spanish Speaking groups?


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« Reply #255 on: September 17, 2014, 10:50:21 AM »
...How do Republicans win over single mothers?   
How do they win over American workers?
How do they win over blue collars?
How do they win over other ethnic groups?
Blacks?
(Forget liberal Jews - no hope)
Spanish Speaking groups?

More specifics as we go.  In short, Obama won by less than 3points in the last Presidential election and Republicans are already competitive in mid-terms.  We need to make a loud and clear and persuasive message to all of the members of these groups and get 1.5% of them to switch sides.  In addition to taking a small bite out of these groups, 4 million Republican voters stayed home instead of voting for Romney.  A flawed candidate (Romneycare?) ran a weak campaign and left votes on the table.  For example, where was his response to Candy Crowley when she butted in, what does self deportation mean, why are we conceding 47% of the vote if the argument is that the President is failing for all of us?

My thoughts to a gay person: in spite of (previous) opposition to gay marriage, conservatives offer you more liberty overall.

To Hispanics:conservatives offer you more opportunity to get ahead. 

To blacks:   a conservative agenda offers you more opportunity going forward, a move toward color blindness and will not remove the safety net for those trying to catch up.

To most Jews: conservatives support what you support.

To blue collar workers:  Conservatives respect the fruits of your labor, and your hard work is worth more in a healthy economy with a secure border.

To single moms:  Do you want your wonderful kids growing up in a failed state owing more than he/she will ever earn, or in a great country with a vibrant economy.

Asian Americans as a group hate us too.  Yet they tend to be hard working producers and strong parents, strong families.  We can do better with them.

To Americans:  Conservative offer you a better agenda for national security.

Single moms and other groups mentioned, may largely see government as their economic security.  But it is actually those who grow the economy that funds the government that provide the security.  Failure to move the economy forward hurts everyone in every economic situation.  We need to move a very small portion of each of these groups to win.

One point from Obama, stop doing stupid things.  Paul Ryan called himself out on one of those.  We aren't just makers and takers.  You aren't a taker if you are a retiree is receiving an earned benefit from the government or a disabled veteran or and entitlement recipient truly unable to work.  Broad sweeping statements are unhelpful especially when you are willing to fund almost all of the federal government anyway.  To focus and the agenda needs to much more clear and realistic if we want to take power away from the scare mongers.

If we can't make an economic or freedom argument after 8 years of Obama, ...

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« Reply #256 on: September 17, 2014, 11:36:39 AM »
Doug,

Great start.  More specifics in the future hopefully.  Too vague but a more thorough message is more difficult.  I think the Republicans should address these divergent groups.  They should target on a national bully pulpit agenda.

Not just hire a few from each group, a gay, a black, a latin, a women and call them chairman of the gay, black, latin, women Republican "outreach" or committee of some other vague platform that no one ever sees.   They should seriously look at reaching out to these groups on the national stage and in a big way.  Explain to them whey their lives are not and will likely not get better under Crats. 

As for the perception the rich are getting richer and everyone else not the evidence suggests that is truer today than since the Gilded Age.  Hillary will have arguments for all these things.  The Cans have historically not addressed them.

"If we can't make an economic or freedom argument after 8 years of Obama, ..."

On a national level, apparently not.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72240
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
US Senate: Meet Mike McFadden R-MN - challenging Al Franken
« Reply #259 on: October 02, 2014, 12:06:44 PM »
This could easily be put under "The Way Forward", what I would call common-sense-conservatism.  
Click on the 30 minute audio podcast at the link, interviewed by John Hinderacker at Powerline.
McFadden is supposedly losing by double digits while Franken has a 100% name recognition.  Watch this race close to within the margin of error by election day.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/meet-mike-mcfadden.php
mikemcfadden.com
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 04:19:44 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: Congressional races, rare bipartisan agreement
« Reply #260 on: October 03, 2014, 09:14:11 PM »
The President has announced that he would like the current mid-terms to be a referendum on his Presidency.  So be it.

Pres. Obama:  "... make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot — every single one of them.”

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races, Senate, A Wave Election?
« Reply #261 on: October 23, 2014, 07:24:40 AM »
I sense a lot of pessimism on our side.  The polls look pretty good but we have had this football pulled away from us so many times we don't know whether to try kicking it one more time.

No matter what, one of these three scenarios is going to happen this Nov 4:

1. Republicans under-perform (again) and get beat(again) by the Dem get out the vote, fear, envy and cheat operations.  Republicans pick up 0-5 seats resulting best case in a 50-50 tie that goes to the Dems for control with their sitting Vice President.  Then R's lose more in 2016 so that even if they win back the White House they can't effectively govern or reform or dismantle government program.

2.  Republican barely take the Senate with 51 or 52 seats.  (Most likely scenario)  Then we will have evenly divided government for the end the Obama years and have two years of competing views aired into the next Presidential election where both parties have to pick new leaders, and hopefully new directions.

3.  Republican wave election.  I'm not predicting this, but why not!  The Pres and Dems are weak on foreign policy, weak on security issues, have a horrible track record on economic issues, are completely deaf to the electorate and have been caught governing recklessly.  Republicans OTOH have pretty good candidates running nationwide and are running with pretty good messages.  No child molesters and no one leading with a rape abortion platform this time.

A wave election is when nearly all of the tossups fall in one direction, instead of falling randomly or on local personalities and issues.  Real Clear Politics shows 9 tossups right now.  That is  a lot!  Nearly all are losable for the R's, but all 9 and perhaps two more are winnable in a wave.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/2014_elections_senate_map.html

It is a two step process (again) to save the republic.  Separate some of these faithful Dem groups from their misguided loyalties this year, then win a few of them over to a message of economic freedom and growth in the next cycle.  If Republicans win a majority or 53, 54 or 55 Senate seats this year and if a true leader with a compelling message emerges next year, this country hase a fighting chance of turning things around!

-----------------------------------------------------
One possible indicator of a problem in the polls is the left has sent all their heaviest hitters to Minnesota to defend a Governor and Senator (Al Franken) who are both not considered by anyone to be in contested races.  They have sent President Obama, Michelle Obama, former President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, Bill Maher and Elizabeth Warren - twice.  All for uncontested races.  Maybe they see something we don't or maybe it just means they are not welcome anywhere else...
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 07:45:25 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« Reply #262 on: October 23, 2014, 09:08:03 AM »
" They have sent President Obama, Michelle Obama, former President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, Bill Maher and Elizabeth Warren - twice.  All for uncontested races.  Maybe they see something we don't or maybe it just means they are not welcome anywhere else..."

Bill Maher?  Heavy hitter?

12 days for Obama to get Jihadi John for his November/October surprise.

By the way, will Romney listen to Trump?  Perhaps if Trump promises HIMSELF not to run again Romney would listen.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« Reply #263 on: October 23, 2014, 10:28:32 AM »
"Bill Maher?  Heavy hitter?"

   LOL!

For that matter, Joe Biden?  And the school lunch lady??   :-)

I wonder what would be an example of someone important and credible on the far left?
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 10:31:22 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« Reply #264 on: November 03, 2014, 09:58:06 PM »
Predictions before the polls open/close?

In the House, people say double digit (barely) gains for Republicans.  (Hard to track 435 of these.)

In the Senate, as it sits now with polling, R's hold two close ones,Kentucky and Georgia,  lose Kansas (?)  and pick up 7, West Virginia, South Dakota. Montana, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa and eventually Louisiana IF this really is a so-called national wave election, that number needs to jump to 9, possibly 10.  So add to that: Kansas and New Hampshire for nine, and then one of the following:  North Carolina, New Mexico, Virginia or Minnesota to make ten. (It is also possible that the Dem ground game combining smart strategies with hard work and cheating again bursts the Republican bubble.) 

R's need a pickup of 8 or more IMO to have a decent chance of holding the Senate in 2016 when they have to defend something like 23 seats to their opponents 9.

Go vote, everybody.  Margin of victory matters.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« Reply #265 on: November 03, 2014, 11:37:49 PM »
Repubiclicans have to win beyond the margin of fraud and litigation.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races. ELECTION DAY TODAY
« Reply #266 on: November 04, 2014, 05:50:22 AM »
Republicans have to win beyond the margin of fraud and litigation.

Sad but true and so many of these races look to be extremely close.

It will be interesting to see how well the pollsters got it this year.  They have been all over the map but only get judged for accuracy by their final tally.

VOTE.

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1058
    • View Profile
Byron York - Results of Election Repudiate Democrat Myths...
« Reply #267 on: November 05, 2014, 08:59:12 AM »
Voters' verdict explodes Democratic myths

BY BYRON YORK | NOVEMBER 5, 2014 | 8:30 AM

As Democratic losses mounted in Senate races across the country on election night, some liberal commentators clung to the idea that dissatisfied voters were sending a generally anti-incumbent message, and not specifically repudiating Democratic officeholders. But the facts of the election just don't support that story.

Voters replaced Democratic senators with Republicans in Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia and likely in Alaska, and appear on track to do so in a runoff next month in Louisiana. At the same time, voters kept Republicans in GOP seats in heavily contested races in Georgia, Kansas and Kentucky. That is at least 10, and as many as a dozen, tough races, without a single Republican seat changing hands. Tuesday's voting was a wave alright — a very anti-Democratic wave.

In addition to demolishing the claim of bipartisan anti-incumbent sentiment, voters also exposed as myths five other ideas dear to the hearts of Democrats in the last few months:

1) The election wouldn't be a referendum on President Obama. "Barack Obama was on the ballot in 2012 and in 2008," Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in late October. "The candidates that are on the ballot are Democratic and Republican candidates for Congress." Of course, that was true, but Republicans from New Hampshire to Alaska worked tirelessly to put the president figuratively on the ballot. And they succeeded.

Every day on the stump, Republican candidates pressed the point that their Democratic opponents voted for the Obama agenda nearly all the time. "Kay Hagan has voted for President Obama's failed partisan agenda 95 percent of the time," said Thom Tillis, who defeated the incumbent Democrat in North Carolina. Mark Pryor "votes with Barack Obama 93 percent of the time," said Tom Cotton, who defeated the incumbent Democrat in Arkansas. "Mark Udall has voted with [Obama] 99 percent of the time," said Cory Gardner, who defeated the incumbent Democrat in Colorado.

On Election Day, nearly 60 percent of voters told exit pollsters they were dissatisfied or angry with the Obama administration. In retrospect, there was no more effective campaign strategy for Republicans running in 2014 than to tie an opponent to the president.

2) Obamacare wouldn't matter. Many Democrats and their liberal supporters in the press believed that the president's healthcare plan, a year into implementation, would not be a major factor in the midterms. But Republican candidates ignored the liberal pundits and pounded away on Obamacare anyway — and it contributed to their success.

"In our polling, [Obamacare] continues to be just as hot as it's been all year long," said a source in the campaign of Tom Cotton, who won a Senate seat handily in Arkansas, in an interview about ten days before the election. "If you look at a word cloud of voters' biggest hesitation in voting for Mark Pryor, the two biggest words are 'Obama' and 'Obamacare.' Everything after that is almost an afterthought." Other winning GOP candidates pushed hard on Obamacare, too. Tillis in North Carolina, Gardner in Colorado, Joni Ernst in Iowa, and several others made opposition to Obamacare a central part of their campaigns.

3) An improving economy would limit Democrats' losses. In the few places he felt confident and welcome enough to campaign, Obama devoted much of his appeal to citing the economic progress his administration has made: jobs created, growth, healthcare costs, corporate regulation.

The election results were pretty definitive proof that voters are not feeling the progress Obama feels has been made. Most importantly, it is an unhappy fact that a significant part of the decline in the unemployment rate under Obama has been the result of discouraged workers giving up the search for employment altogether. Indeed, in exit polls, nearly 70 percent of voters expressed negative feelings about the economy, many years into the Obama recovery.

4) Women would save Democrats. There were times when the midterm Senate campaigns seemed entirely devoted to seeking the approval of women voters. The Udall campaign in Colorado was almost a parody of such an appeal to women, focusing so extensively on contraception and abortion that the Denver Post called it an "obnoxious one-issue campaign."

Beyond Udall, most Democrats hoped a gender gap would boost them to victory. As it turned out, there was a gender gap in Tuesday's voting, but it favored Republicans. Exit polls showed that Democrats won women by seven points, while Republicans won men by 13 points. The numbers are definitive proof that, contrary to much conventional wisdom, Democrats have a bigger gender gap problem than the GOP. The elections showed precisely the opposite of what Democrats hoped they would.

5) The ground game would power Democrats to victory. When all else failed — and all else seemed to fail in the campaign's final days — Democrats believed that a superior ability to get voters to the polls would be their margin of victory, or at the very least would limit Democratic losses. After all, the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012 had run rings around Republicans in voter contact and get-out-the-vote technology.

It didn't turn out that way. Republicans had upped their game; the party invested millions in an improved turnout machine, and it appears to have passed its first test. At the same time, Democrats failed to conjure that 2008 and 2012 turnout magic in 2014. "The Obama coalition that propelled the president to two victories remained cohesive, drawing on minorities, younger voters as well as women," the Wall Street Journal reported. "But Democratic efforts to boost turnout among younger and minority voters fell short."

Perhaps most importantly, Democrats learned that a solid turnout effort could not overcome the drag of Obama, Obamacare, the economy, and a generalized unhappiness with the state of the country under the Obama administration.

In the end, Tuesday's vote represented a repudiation of virtually every notion Democrats embraced in recent weeks as they tried to disregard the growing evidence that they were headed for a historic defeat. Now, the vote is in, and the voters' message can no longer be discounted.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« Reply #268 on: November 05, 2014, 09:07:01 AM »
Nice to see such an epic asskicking!

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« Reply #269 on: November 05, 2014, 12:14:18 PM »
"Nice to see such an epic asskicking"

God, yeah!  :-D

If Brown won in NH and REpubs won governorship in Pa it would have been perfect.

But Repubs have massive work to do to save this country as we all know.

Unfortunately, the last person who will "get it" is the one with the massive personality DISORDER.  He is incapable of comprehending that it is HIM that has caused all this.  It is his pathologic nature to blame everyone else.  Not just political gamesmanship but a true disorder personality.  And the Dem party will do the opposite - blame him the messenger and guard the liberalism message with their own flesh, blood, and everyone's else's tax money.

1) I would be surprised if we don't get unilateral amnesty - unless (and quite possible) the Cans are stupid enough to make an appeasement deal with him on immigration reform that basically grants amnesty anyway.

2) The Dems are already all over the map blaming the "messenger" Obama but not the message as we knew would happen. 

3) It will be all Hillary now.  Did anyone see the breakdown of babe votes for Democrats/Repubs vs guy votes by party.

    There will be a war on babes onslaught.  Repubs will have to have a good female candidate IMHO.  Minority ones too. They are making some headway it seems.



 

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1058
    • View Profile
100% of Elected GOP Senators Campaigned on Repeal of Obamacare...
« Reply #270 on: November 05, 2014, 12:18:40 PM »
100% of Newly Elected GOP Senators Campaigned on Repealing Obamacare

November 5, 2014 - 11:43 AM
By Ali Meyer
(CNSNews.com) - Every new GOP senator who won in last night’s election campaigned on repealing Obamacare.

Senators Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), David Perdue (R-Ga.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) all ran on a platform of repealing Obamacare.

Gardner touted patient-centered care and a full repeal and replacement of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise known as Obamacare.

“Small businesses and the American people cannot afford President Obama’s countless new regulations and tax increases. There is a right way and a wrong to improve our country’s healthcare system, and the President’s healthcare law just isn’t working. We need patient-centered care and lower costs. It is not too late to start over with a full repeal and replacement of the President’s healthcare law,” Gardner said in a statement.

Daines echoed those statements, also calling to repeal and replace Obamacare.

“Every American wants healthcare at a reasonable cost. No American wants a complicated plan full of false promises, special political favors, and costs we cannot afford. We should repeal Obamacare and implement an affordable health care system that actually improves the quality of health care,” he said.

Perdue noted on his campaign page that he was one of the millions who had their personal health care policy cancelled and would support free market solutions to replace Obamacare.
“Obamacare is an overreaching federal program that will actually reduce the quality of health care and increase costs. I am one of the millions of Americans that had my personal policy cancelled after being told I could keep it. To make matters worse, Obamacare is discouraging full-time job creation. The consequences of politicians passing a massive bill without reading it continue to emerge. We need to repeal Obamacare and replace it with more affordable free market solutions,” Perdue said on his campaign page.

Cotton signed the Club for Growth’s “Repeal-It!” pledge which states, “I hereby pledge to the people of my district/state upon my election to the U.S. House of Representatives/U.S. Senate to sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government.”

Ernst and Tillis have said they would repeal Obamacare.

“Joni is staunchly opposed to the Obamacare law. Joni supports immediate action to repeal Obamacare and replace it with common sense, free-market alternatives that put patients first, and health care   decisions back in the hands of each of us rather than Washington bureaucrats,” Ernst said on her campaign page.
“As North Carolina’s U.S. Senator, Tillis will push for repeal of Obamacare, a balanced budget, and conservative economic policy,” Tillis’ campaign page stated.

Lankford, a former congressman, has previously vowed to repeal Obamacare.

“I vowed to repeal this vastly unpopular law and today I joined more than 240 members of the House of Representatives to honor that commitment,” Lankford said. “Americans were rightly outraged by its passage and have continued to resist the job-destroying, government takeover of health care. Those voices have not been ignored and the pledge to make government smaller and less intrusive is well underway.”

Rounds campaigned on a platform of repealing Obamacare saying, “Republicans don’t have the votes right now to repeal Obamacare. We must take over control of the Senate which will require Republicans to pick up six seats this cycle. That is why this U.S. Senate race is so important. Please join me in the fight to repeal Obamacare. Our families deserve better.”

Former congresswoman Capito voted for a full repeal of Obamacare, highlighting the massive tax increases that the law would impose on Americans.
“Americans of all ages and income brackets, and businesses across the country are learning the disturbing truth about the partisan legislation that was rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote. With the law’s full implementation looming, Americans are bracing for massive tax increases and daunting uncertainty. As health care costs soar, families’ access to care is limited and businesses contemplate closing their doors, it is time to fully repeal Obamacare,” Capito said.

Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska also stated that part of his health care agenda would be to "lower costs and increase access to healthcare" with repealing Obamacare as the first bullet point to achieve that goal.

In Alaska and Louisiana where the Senate races have not been called yet, both GOP candidates have expressed that they would fight for a repeal of Obamacare.

Candidate Dan Sullivan of Alaska has said he would repeal and replace Obamacare as his campaign page reads, “As Alaska’s Attorney General, Dan sued to stop Obamacare. He will continue that fight as your U.S. Senator. It is time to repeal and replace Obamacare and empower Alaskans to make their own healthcare decisions not the federal government.

Louisiana’s Senate GOP candidate, Bill Cassidy, has also voiced support for the repeal of Obamacare, listing 10 reasons why it should be replaced. As a practicing physician, Cassidy has said that the ACA would drive up costs, endangers access to care, destroys jobs and increases taxes just to name a few.

“By definition, a law that creates over 150 boards, bureaucracies, and commissions does not empower patients. Repealing this law is the first step to enacting real health care reform that lowers costs and expands access to quality health care for all Americans,” Cassidy said.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« Reply #271 on: November 05, 2014, 10:05:00 PM »
Nice to see such an epic asskicking!

Yes it is.  It was hard for me to realize this is a win because of the bad outcomes we had in my home state.  A very good Senate challenger in MN lost by 10 points to a very mediocre incumbent, Al Franken.  An even worse Dem Governor was re-elected.  You could write it off to it being a leftist state, but the state House did flip to Republican so being across the board Dem doesn't explain the poor choices.  Prosperous suburbs that went for Obama reelected Dems this year while the inner cities voted nearly 100% Dem.  When will they learn? 

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« Reply #272 on: November 05, 2014, 11:47:30 PM »
HERE'S WHAT A REPUBLICAN TAKEOVER LOOKS LIKE

114th Congress, House of Representatives map

http://cdn-media.nationaljournal.com/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=42726

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72240
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile


objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1058
    • View Profile
Thomas Sowell: Obama Isn't Incompetent. He's Achieving His Goals.
« Reply #276 on: November 12, 2014, 06:00:48 AM »
What Happened?

By Thomas Sowell - November 12, 2014 - washingtonexaminer.com

Just what happened last week on election day? And what is going to happen in the years ahead?

The most important thing that happened last week was that the country dodged a bullet. Had the Democrats retained control of the Senate, President Obama could have spent his last two years in office loading the federal judiciary with judges who share his contempt for the Constitution of the United States.

Such judges — perhaps including Supreme Court justices — would have been confirmed by Senate Democrats, and could spend the rest of their lifetime appointments ruling in favor of expansions of federal government power that would make the freedom of "we the people" only a distant memory and a painful mockery.

We dodged that bullet. But what about the rest of Barack Obama's term?

Pundits who depict Obama as a weak, lame duck president may be greatly misjudging him, as they have so often in the past. Despite the Republican sweep of elections across the country last week, President Obama has issued an ultimatum to Congress, to either pass the kind of immigration law he wants before the end of this year or he will issue executive orders changing the country's immigration laws unilaterally.

Does that sound like a lame duck president?

On the contrary, it sounds more like some banana republic's dictator. Nor is Obama making an idle bluff. He has already changed other laws unilaterally, including the work requirement in welfare reform laws passed during the Clinton administration.

The very idea of Congress rushing a bill into law in less than two months, on a subject as complex, and with such irreversible long-run consequences as immigration, is staggering. But there is already a precedent for such hasty action, without Congressional hearings to bring out facts or air different views. That is how Obamacare was passed. And we see how that has turned out.

People who are increasingly questioning Barack Obama's competence are continuing to ignore the alternative possibility that his fundamental values and imperatives are different from theirs. You cannot tell whether someone is failing or succeeding without knowing what they are trying to do.

When Obama made a brief public statement about Americans being beheaded by terrorists, and then went on out to play golf, that was seen as a sign of political ineptness, rather than a stark revelation of what kind of man he is, underneath the smooth image and lofty rhetoric.

The president's refusal to protect the American people by quarantining people coming from Ebola-infected areas — as was done by Britain and a number of African nations — is by no means a sign of incompetence. It is a sacrifice of Americans' interests for the sake of other people's interests, as is an assisted invasion of illegal immigrants across our southern borders.

Such actions are perfectly consistent with Obama's citizen of the world vision that has led to such statements of his in 2008: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that every other country's going to say 'okay.' "

In a similar vein, Obama said, "we consume more than 20 percent of the world's oil but have less than 2 percent of the world's oil reserves." In short, Americans are undeservedly prosperous and selfishly consuming a disproportionate share of "the world's output" — at least in the vision of Barack Obama.

That Americans are producing a disproportionate share of what is called "the world's output" and consuming what we produce — while paying for our imports — is not allowed to disturb Obama's vision.

Resentment of the prosperous — whether at home or on the world stage — runs through virtually everything Barack Obama has said and done throughout his life. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to find the clues. You have to shut your eyes tightly to keep from seeing them everywhere, in every period of his life.

The big question is whether the other branches of government — Congress and the Supreme Court — can stop him from doing irreparable damage to America in his last two years. Seeing Obama as an incompetent and weak lame duck president only makes that task harder.

Thomas Sowell, a Washington Examiner columnist, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate.

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« Reply #277 on: November 13, 2014, 05:34:40 PM »
"banana republic dictator"

I have no doubt whatsoever if Obama was from another era and from another country he would have been a very intolerant dictator and all his enemies would be summarily disposed of.

 


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional Budget Office fell for Gruber's diversions
« Reply #278 on: November 17, 2014, 08:56:44 AM »
Is there going to be hearings and reform of this perverted, taxpayer funded, office of stooges and puppets?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-effectively-used-gruber-s-model-score-obamacare_819105.html?nopager=1

"Two well-placed sources on Capitol Hill say that the Congressional Budget Office effectively used Jonathan Gruber’s model to score Obamacare. "


Yes they did.  And the Supreme Court did not.  It was a budget buster if scored honestly and unconstitutional as it was sold.  Odd that it is those of us who saw through the deception who are most upset about it.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races, Keystone XL Pipeline, Mary Lanrdieu
« Reply #279 on: November 19, 2014, 07:55:09 AM »
+9!

The pipeline has no environmental impact and is the safest way to transport a fuel we need for transportation and her state needs economically. The House again passed it.  The Dem Senate just voted it down; got 59 votes instead of the needed 60. http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/keystone-vote-fails-in-senate-despite-major-push-by-landrieu-20141118

 Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) needed a win on this for her Dec 6 runoff.  Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and the rest could care less (because she was going to lose anyway).  The Republican Senate coming in will pass it.  Goodbye Mary Landrieu.  The Republican takeover will now jump to +9.  Dem losses are -9.  Net shift in votes is 18.  And the margin is high enough for Republicans to have a good shot of retaining control in the next, much harder cycle.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72240
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« Reply #280 on: November 19, 2014, 09:30:36 AM »
Sen. Joe Mancin of WV may be tempted to flip to the Reps.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: US Congressional races - Mary Landrieu, Under the Bus
« Reply #281 on: December 02, 2014, 05:51:42 PM »
Chris Cillizza, Washington Post today,  "You'd be hard-pressed to find a single Democrat in Washington not named "Landrieu" even talking about the race and even fewer (if that's possible) who think she has any chance at winning."

Longtime aide to former Louisiana Sen. John Breaux (D),  "I don’t know anyone outside of her staff who thinks she has a chance to win next Saturday".

This lost dog has only the Humane Society backing her now.  (Not joking.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/01/what-the-heck-happened-to-mary-landrieu/

Previously, in this thread:  "Goodbye Mary Landrieu.  The Republican takeover will now jump to +9.  Dem losses are -9.  Net shift in votes is 18.  And the margin is high enough for Republicans to have a good shot of retaining control in the next, much harder cycle."
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1273.msg84642#msg84642


I don't get how you quit.  How does Obama give up? Ok, she doesn't want him there, but why don't they send money?  (The answer is because they all know she can't win.)  Why do they say this is about money?  She is a 12 year incumbent!  She can get a message out - if she had one.  Elect me and I will ... what?  Lol.  People already heard her message and saw her results of their policies.  Why doesn't Hillary care?  (No pun intended.)  http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clintons-awkward-keystone-day  Aren't they the crowned royalty of fundraising?  They can't find a couple mil?  Or they won't?!  Has Hillary conceded the Senate for the next 6 years?  How do you govern without the Senate, get everyone from cabinet to Supreme Court appointments confirmed, treaties ratified, budgets passed?  Ask Barack Obama about the fun of divided government.  There is nothing Hillary can or will do right now to win these key seat in this key state.  Or is this her best?  She is just too boxed in with failure.  Maybe Hillary isn't running either!  Maybe this was her last stand:



I'll bet you Hillary is not booked to go down for the 'victory' party.  Mary will enjoy that one without the Obama, Clinton machines.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2014, 07:04:29 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« Reply #282 on: December 02, 2014, 07:17:07 PM »
Sen. Joe Mancin of WV may be tempted to flip to the Reps.

I hope you are right.  If it was only personal Washington power at stake, or if you are looking from anywhere except WV it makes perfect sense, he ran against Obama and the Dem party agenda, but according to this Redstate piece, Joe Manchim IS the Democratic party of West Virginia.
http://www.redstate.com/diary/unsilentmajority/2014/11/07/joe-manchin-will-flip-republican/

When he looks at Mary Landrieu abandoned to obscurity in Louisiana, among other things. conservative Dems in WV should see that all need to flip.

It would be a BIG deal, making the Republicans +10 for the year, Democrats -10! (By my count.)   If they aren't offering him committee assignments and prime offices, they should be.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
US Congressional races: Early look at the 2016 Senate races
« Reply #283 on: December 03, 2014, 08:45:56 PM »
Yes, this matters now.

Democratic Takeover of Senate in 2016 Possible but Not a Slam Dunk
Michael Barone | Dec 01, 2014
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/2014/12/01/democratic-takeover-of-senate-in-2016-possible-but-not-a-slam-dunk-n1925769/page/full

...six of the seven seats Republicans will be defending in 2016 are in states that Obama carried with between 50 and 52 percent of the vote.  In three of these Obama states, Republican incumbents have shown a capacity to run well ahead of their party -- Charles Grassley in Iowa (52 percent Obama), Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire (52 percent) and Rob Portman in Ohio (51 percent). They may well do so again.  Three others would not have to run much ahead of party lines to prevail -- Marco Rubio in Florida (where Obama got 50 percent), Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania (52 percent) and Ron Johnson in Wisconsin (52 percent).  ...it is conceivable that Republicans could lose Richard Burr's seat in North Carolina (48 percent Obama).

Eight of the 10 seats Democrats are defending are in states Obama carried with at least 54 percent of the vote, and they don't look vulnerable. Michael Bennet in Colorado (51 percent for Obama) has been forewarned by his colleague Mark Udall's defeat. Harry Reid in Nevada (52 percent Obama) looks beatable

Democrats do look well-positioned to gain Senate seats, but not necessarily the number needed to overturn what looks to be a 54-46 Republican majority.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Half of the Senators who voted for Obamacare won't be part of new Senate!
« Reply #284 on: December 10, 2014, 08:33:21 PM »
Where is Ben Nelson with his Cornhusker kickback, anyway?  (Head of lobby group.)

They used to talk about incumbents having a 98% reelection rate.  Incumbency is quite powerful; even Obama won reelection.

Yet 30 of the 60 Senators who voted for Obamacare are now gone from or leaving the Senate in just 5 years, with Mary Landrieu being the latest.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/half-of-the-senators-who-voted-for-obamacare-wont-be-part-of-new-senate/article/2555721

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72240
    • View Profile
WSJ: STrassel: Restoring Regular Ordere
« Reply #285 on: January 09, 2015, 07:51:44 AM »
Closing Down the Harry Reid Circus
Show that a GOP-controlled Senate can get things done, despite Democratic stonewalling.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Jan. 8, 2015 7:04 p.m. ET
201 COMMENTS

Were anyone wondering how Sen. Harry Reid intended to manage life in the minority, it took one day of the 114th Congress to get the answer: Exactly as he did in the majority. Republicans would be wise to understand what he’s up to.

The Senate these past four years has been a supermassive black hole—a place where everything good went to die. The chamber was designed as a forum for debate, amendments, deliberation and coalition-building. Mr. Reid instead wielded it as a means of party protection—using its many procedural tools to block every bill, and to shield his members and the Obama White House from tough issues.

And while he isn’t officially running the Senate anymore, he’s still running on a Senate dysfunction agenda. New Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed to restore the place to “regular order,” though he recently got a taste of how hard that might prove. Mr. Reid this week again accused the former Republican minority of “gratuitous obstruction and wanton filibustering,” and vowed such tactics would not “be a hallmark of a Democratic minority.” He then proceeded to unleash all the obstruction and filibustering in Christendom to slow Mr. McConnell ’s first priority: authorization of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Tuesday morning—the first day of session—assistant Democratic leader Sen. Dick Durbin took to the floor to formally object to the Senate Energy Committee even holding a hearing on the pipeline, despite Republicans having charitably arranged for even opponents of the project to testify. Having tanked that hearing, Mr. Reid’s office turned around and publicly complained Mr. McConnell wasn’t sticking to his promise to hold a hearing and report the bill out of committee. This was doubly rich, coming from a former Senate leader who barely acknowledged committees existed.

Democrats have meanwhile indicated they intend to filibuster the Keystone bill at every turn. They’ll demand 30 hours of debate here, 30 hours there. And nearly every Democratic office is already busy writing dozens of amendments to the bill—a few designed to embarrass Republicans, though plenty aimed at wasting time. “Republicans have promised an open amendment process, and that is exactly what they’re going to get,” crowed Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who voted on only about 20 amendments over the past 20 months. That was all Mr. Reid allowed.

The obvious explanation for all this stonewalling is that the vast majority of a liberal Democratic caucus doesn’t agree with GOP priorities and doesn’t want to see Republican legislation pass. Then again, most of the bills Republicans are starting with have bipartisan support and are destined for the president’s desk. So why all the Democratic rigmarole?

The reality is that Mr. Reid has a compelling interest in ordering his members to keep the Senate looking like a circus. He spent the past four years telling the American public that nothing got done under him because Republicans were obstructionist and because the Senate was “broken.” The “broken” point he even used as an excuse to blow up the filibuster for presidential nominations.

If Mr. McConnell is successful in using regular order (including debate, amendments, conference work, the filibuster) to begin methodically moving bills to Mr. Obama’s desk, that blows up the Reid story line. It exposes Democrats as the real obstructionists of the past years, even as it proves the GOP is able to get things done. Mr. Reid can’t let that happen.

The minority leader also has a more personal interest in keeping the Senate balled up: his own credibility within his party. Mr. Reid spent the past years assuring his members his Senate shutdown was protecting them from tough votes—a strategy that backfired phenomenally in the recent midterm election. Vulnerable Senate Democrats had nothing positive to show for their time in the chamber, and were instead tagged with the label of Obama lackeys.

Mr. McConnell is betting an honest committee process and a freewheeling amendment system will induce some Democrats to buy-in to legislation—allowing them to take credit back home for getting something done and for crafting bills in ways that benefit their states. Mr. Reid, who already came under fire from some of his members for his lockdown approach, would rather those members not realize there is a better way. Could be they might just want a different, more productive, leader going forward.

These Reid motivations, however, only underline how wise Mr. McConnell was to promise to return to regular order, and how important it is that Senate Republicans soldier on with it. The process will be frustrating, slow and at times risky. But done right, this will be more than just an opportunity for Republicans to outline a vision. It will be their opportunity to show that the Senate as an institution can work—at least under GOP care. That, too, will be crucial if they want to keep it in 2016.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
pelosi
« Reply #286 on: February 14, 2015, 07:42:38 AM »
Publically she sounds so flippant and irrationally partisan I wonder how she can produce Democrats who vote in lock step "90%" of the time no matter what.

Some how she must have tremendous skills behind the scenes and certainly no ethics or morals when it comes to shoving the liberal agenda down everyone's throat:

htttp://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704534904575132032344361588

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
2nd post on pelosi
« Reply #287 on: February 14, 2015, 07:51:15 AM »
One web site claims she is worth 100 million but I am not sure it's reliability.   I have a feeling she is worth a lot more than 35 million.   With her husbands companies etc..  I am not clear how much of this wealth was made during her tenure in office or as speaker.   Her father and brother were mayors of Baltimore and father also a Congressman:

http://forbesnetworth.com/2014/02/20/nancy-pelosi-net-worth/


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72240
    • View Profile
WSJ: Lessons from the Lynch Hold
« Reply #289 on: April 23, 2015, 09:31:15 AM »
Democrats on Tuesday agreed to end their choke hold on Senate business in return for a vote to confirm President Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch. There’s a lesson here for the GOP in dealing with a President who consistently exceeds his executive power.

The agreement liberated a bipartisan anti-human trafficking bill that Minority Leader Harry Reid had locked up since early March. Democrats had unanimously passed the bill out of committee, only then to “discover” language they had previously approved that reaffirmed a longstanding federal ban against public funding of abortions. They filibustered the bill five times to replay the “war on women” box-CD set.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell then rallied Republicans to deny Ms. Lynch a vote until the trafficking bill was allowed a vote too. Mr. Reid accused Republicans of racism and sexism, as he always does, and Al Sharpton’s activist group vowed a hunger strike until Ms. Lynch received a vote. (Al, please go through with it.) When the public yawned, Mr. Reid blew a gasket and threatened a Senate coup. President Obama said Republicans were (place demeaning adjective here).

Republicans didn’t yield, and on Tuesday Democrats capitulated. The parties negotiated a cosmetic change that keeps the abortion language essentially intact. Ms. Lynch will now get a vote, and she is expected to be confirmed.

The episode illustrates that the Senate’s advice and consent power offers political leverage that government shutdowns and impeachment do not. Jeb Bush is right that the Senate should in most cases defer to a President’s choices to run the executive branch. But as long as Messrs. Reid and Obama show willful disregard for Congress and the law, Republicans must use their legal powers to fight back.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« Reply #290 on: April 25, 2015, 06:22:56 AM »
"The episode illustrates that the Senate’s advice and consent power offers political leverage that government shutdowns and impeachment do not. Jeb Bush is right that the Senate should in most cases defer to a President’s choices to run the executive branch. But as long as Messrs. Reid and Obama show willful disregard for Congress and the law, Republicans must use their legal powers to fight back."

I disagree.  My response is  names:

Meese  nominated atty gen

Bork  Supreme Court

I just don't get that Bush is who the Wash Repubs want.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72240
    • View Profile
Needs to assert itself as a co-equal branch
« Reply #291 on: May 15, 2015, 10:09:17 AM »
y
Cleta Mitchell
May 14, 2015 7:12 p.m. ET
251 COMMENTS

Two years ago this week, a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Information confirmed what hundreds of tea party, conservative, pro-life and pro-Israel organizations had long known: The Internal Revenue Service had stopped processing their applications for exempt status and subjected them to onerous, intrusive and discriminatory practices because of their political views.

Since the report, additional congressional investigations have revealed a lot about IRS dysfunction—and worse. But they’ve also revealed Congress’s inability to exercise its constitutional oversight responsibilities of this and other executive agencies.

Consider the repeated testimony and other statements to Congress subsequently shown to be false. The report issued in December by Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.)—then chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform—details numerous instances in which senior IRS officials, including former Commissioner Doug Shulman, Acting Commissioner Steven Miller and Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner lied to Congress, denying and covering up the targeting of tea party and conservative groups before the inspector general’s May 2013 report.

Mr. Shulman told the Ways and Means Committee in March 2012 that there was no targeting of conservative groups. Congressional investigations, the Issa committee report notes, established that at the time of his denial Mr. Schulman knew there was “a backlog of applications, delays in processing, and the use of inappropriate development questions.”

In the early months of 2012, Ms. Lerner made multiple false statements to Congress. In personal meetings, telephone interviews and written communications with congressional investigators, Ms. Lerner denied there were any changes in the criteria for evaluating applications for exempt status. She stated, falsely, that the intrusive demands from her agency for proprietary information from grass-roots organizations were “ordinary”—a characterization the inspector general’s report specifically rebutted.

Ms. Lerner also told Congress that “nothing had changed” about the way her unit handled such applications. But at the very time she said that, the IRS, including Ms. Lerner, had already identified seven types of information that it had inappropriately demanded from conservative groups between 2010 and 2013. These included donor lists, transcripts of speeches by public officials to meetings, and lists of groups to whom leaders made presentations.

Between May 2012 and May 2013, Mr. Miller testified before Congress on at least six occasions, first as deputy IRS commissioner, then as acting commissioner. He withheld information from Congress each time about the targeting. In a November 2013 interview with congressional investigators—well after the targeting had been documented in the inspector general’s report—Mr. Miller admitted that he became aware of possible IRS misconduct in February 2012.

In the 15 months since he became the IRS commissioner, John Koskinen has testified repeatedly, sparring with members of Congress on a variety of subjects. In June 2014, after the IRS informed the Senate Finance Committee of the “missing Lois Lerner emails,” he told the Ways and Means Committee of the yeoman, but unsuccessful, efforts by various people within the agency to recover the Lerner emails. He claimed that it would cost “$10 million to upgrade the IRS’s technology infrastructure to begin saving and storing emails sent or received by” agency employees.

All the while the emails were sitting on an off-site server in West Virginia. And Timothy Camus, the deputy inspector general for tax information, testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee earlier this year that the IRS does save and store all IRS employees’ emails.

Lying to Congress is a felony. But the Obama Justice Department has not lifted a finger to prosecute anyone responsible for the IRS scandal, including top brass who repeatedly gave false testimony to Congress.

Neither has Congress done much about being lied to by the IRS. Mr. Issa’s oversight committee first subpoenaed Lois Lerner’s emails in August 2013, then issued another subpoena in February 2014. The committee conducted a hearing on the subject in March 2014, during which Mr. Koskinen testified that, finally, the IRS would produce the Lerner emails. However, as he testified in June 2014, the agency didn’t even begin to look for her emails until February 2014. Why didn’t the House seek to enforce its first subpoena when the IRS failed to respond in the fall of 2013?

Congressional oversight has devolved into a series of show hearings after which nothing happens. No one gets fired for lying. No changes are made in the functioning of the agencies. No programs are defunded. Congress issues subpoenas that are ignored, contempt citations that aren't enforced, criminal referrals that go into Justice Department wastebaskets.

If it is to function as a coequal branch of government, Congress should establish—either through the rules of each House, or by legislation, that it has standing to independently enforce a congressional subpoena through the federal courts. Congress also should use its purse strings to change specific behavior in federal agencies. Rather than across-the-board reductions, Congress should zero out specific departments and programs as agency misconduct is uncovered. It is the only way to stop the executive branch from running roughshod over the American people.

This will be a difficult challenge as long as partisans in both houses of Congress see their role as political gatekeepers who must protect executive agencies when a president of their own party is in the White House. Congressional Democrats have done all in their power to thwart the IRS investigation, arguing with Republicans at hearings and engaging behind-the-scenes with the IRS to undermine the inquiry.

Yet it is a challenge that cannot be shirked. Congress needs to relearn how to flex serious legislative muscle to guard against future executive abuses like those from the IRS.

Ms. Mitchell is a partner in the Washington office of Foley & Lardner. She represents many conservative and tea party organizations targeted by the IRS.
Popular on WSJ


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72240
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« Reply #294 on: September 25, 2015, 07:50:24 AM »
Ditto.

He looked absurd crying behind the Pope in contrast to Biden who looked uplifted.

McConnell next hopefully.


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« Reply #295 on: September 25, 2015, 08:37:38 AM »
Kevin McCarthy is expected to replace Bonehead. McCarthy is another Amnesty supporting RINO.

By the way, the excuse that Bonehead had accomplished everything that he wanted to do and that he had planned on leaving earlier, I don't buy it. He would stay except that he had to rely upon the Dems to keep him in power. That would really tarnish his reputation, so he decided to go.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
The Speaker doesn't have to be a member of the House? A dissenting view
« Reply #296 on: October 12, 2015, 07:51:00 AM »
http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/10/09/dysfunction-is-no-excuse-for-misreading-the-constitution/

"...OCTOBER 9, 2015|
Congress, Connor Ewing, James Madison, Presidential Succession Act of 1947, Speaker of the House, U.S. Constitution
Dysfunction Is No Excuse for Misreading the Constitution
by DIANA SCHAUB|3 Comments
Can the U.S. House of Representatives elect a non-member to the Speakership? Disgusted by the dysfunction in Congress, some are suggesting this is constitutionally possible. Connor Ewing, in this space yesterday, asserted the only thing standing in the way is “over two centuries of legislative practice to the contrary.” 

He and a handful of others now claim that nothing in the text of the Constitution would prevent the members from electing an outsider. They cite Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5: “The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker,” arguing that this leaves the choice entirely free (or at least free enough that a private citizen could be tapped for the post).

However, this construction of the passage ignores a number of other textual elements in the Constitution, as well as other relevant texts. There is an inescapable logic to the setting forth of the Constitution’s sections which should guide interpretation. In Article 1, Section 1, we learn that Congress is vested with specified legislative powers and that Congress “shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” In Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1, we learn that “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.”

These definitions govern the meaning of subsequent clauses..."

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72240
    • View Profile
WSJ: Congress's Submission Hold
« Reply #297 on: November 29, 2015, 05:53:07 AM »
More than a Rep-Dem issue, it makes sense to me to cast this as a matter of CONGRESS reclaiming its power.
============
When Chuck Schumer feels compelled to dial up a grouchy conference call with the press, it usually means Republicans are doing something right.

In this case what’s right is a strategy by the Republican Senate, which is refusing to confirm a slew of President Obama’s nominees to key posts. GOP senators are issuing “holds” on appointees and explaining that they will continue until the administration accedes to specific demands. Judging by the number, volume and bitterness of Democrats’ howls, this is getting the White House’s attention.

“We should be fighting ISIS with all hands on deck, not with one hand tied behind our back,” complained Mr. Schumer on his recent call, suggesting that the fight against terrorism might improve if the State and Defense departments simply had more people to not implement Mr. Obama’s non-policy in Syria and Iraq.

“Why are nonpartisan public-service positions being used as political pawns?” grumped Harry Reid, from his usual grumping ground on the Senate floor.

The answer, as Mr. Reid well knows, is that the holds are proving to be one of the Republican Senate majority’s best means of negotiating with this intransigent White House. Barack Obama isn’t willing to sign bills to improve ObamaCare or rein in spending or even tighten vetting for refugees. The administration continues to block basic congressional oversight. And the president still shows withering contempt for Congress and the law, threatening to go around both whenever he doesn’t get his way. The holds are a small, sometimes effective way to extract concessions.

The best holds are those that come with specific demands—and most of these do. Iowa’s Chuck Grassley placed a hold on three senior State Department officials, which he says will continue until the department delivers documents related to Hillary Clinton’s email and staff—requests it has stonewalled since 2013.

Nebraska’s Ben Sasse is holding all nominees to the Health and Human Services Department until the administration coughs up answers to specific questions about ObamaCare’s failed co-ops. Tom Cotton of Arkansas is holding three would-be ambassadors until the administration investigates the Secret Service’s ugly leak of unflattering information about a GOP congressman. Kansas’ Pat Roberts is holding Mr. Obama’s nominee for secretary of the Army until the White House rules out using executive action to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

All told, more than 100 nominees are awaiting either committee or floor action—and they aren’t likely to get it until the administration accedes to these simple requests. Since this White House would prefer to have its own way, it has instead deputized Democrats and administration officials to complain that this partisan “hostage”-taking by Republicans is detrimental to smooth functioning of the federal government. As if there were such a concept.

State Department officials have moaned that Mr. Grassley’s requests for documents are too onerous. Mr. Reid has suggested that the Iowan is simply out to get Hillary Clinton. (Because for what other reason might a senator be interested in investigating the mishandling of classified information?) Mr. Schumer and others argue that the Obama administration’s failings with ISIS, refugee policy and ObamaCare can be blamed on GOP holds that have left departments lacking staff or stuck with “acting” leaders.

But Democrats did plenty of their own holding in their day. And the other complaints are downright funny. The press is documenting the many ways Mr. Obama has ignored the advice that his State Department advisers and military brass have given him to improve the fight against ISIS. This is a one-man administration. It’s a wonder Mr. Obama nominates any officials, ever.

Mr. Obama is happy to leave positions unfilled if it allows him to avoid unpleasant questions. When Arne Duncan stepped down as education secretary, Mr. Obama chose to designate his successor, John King, as acting head for the rest of the president’s term—to avoid a Senate grilling over education policies. The administration has left vacant the top job at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—to circumvent queries about the scandal-plagued body.

For now, Democrats are fighting this strategy, trying to make the holds a liability for Republicans. But recent history suggests that a committed GOP can wring results from the process. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell held up Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s vote for months, until Democrats finally agreed to a human-trafficking bill. Other senators over the past 10 months have used holds to successfully extract at least some concessions.

This may not be as dramatic as repealing ObamaCare, but it does matter. One of Congress’s basic jobs is oversight, and the GOP has a particular interest in and duty to inform the electorate about Mr. Obama’s policy failings. The holds are a good sign this Republican majority knows that, and is using one of the only available tools.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« Reply #298 on: December 19, 2015, 10:30:17 AM »
"Why didn't Reps ever use the filibuster when the Dems controlled everything?"

I'm under they impression they did e.g. on Obamacare but the Dems did an evasionary end run via budget reconciliation.

The implicit threat of the filibuster had some effect.  You rarely see an actual filibuster.  The Dems also had 60 votes in the Senate for a moment.

The question was also thrown at them, if such and such is so important, why didn't you address when you had majorities in both chambers, the Presidency and 60 votes in the Senate.  While they were f...'ing around with the American economy and healthcare, they could have passed 'climate change', immigration, wealth redistribution, family leave and a host of other things.  The fact that they didn't means they would rather have it as an issue than have their way on another failed policy.