Place Your Midterm Election Bets.

You should read Nate Silver's analysis of the 2008 and 2012 elections if you don't think the GOP needs to field a moderate. People get the impression that the political spectrum is representative of the actual public's spectrum, which just isn't so. The disconnect results from the vocal minority. The only real advantage the GOP has in this election is that midterms tend to pull less minority and young voters, who almost exclusively vote Democrat. I don't doubt that Republicans could take a majority in the Senate, but they would need a supermajority to overrule a presidential veto, so it wouldn't even require him to make executive orders to block just about anything they try to do. And the last 3 budget deals have hurt the Republican base, let alone how much it's soured moderates and independents.

You probably should, even if it takes a few tries, even if it injures the ego a bit.

Some consider SSD a form of welfare, in the lose definition, but hey.

It's funny though, most of the people I know of who get those programs don't vote democrat.

are we going to place bets for the senate race? or just keep biting nausi on the ankles and calling kingnoobie names?

Oh don't think that. I expect there to be a ton of legislature, some of it will be posturing to satisfy various voter bases with zero chance of passing but there will also be serious legislation. The problem is that there are several moderate Democrats who would vote with the Republicans if the issue benefited their own states. It's looking more and more like that Republicans finally learned the lesson that the votes you need to win are from the moderates who tend to take a broader view of the issues. If they run on a pure financial platform and leave the religious and social issues alone then they have a very real chance at getting things done.

Don't expect there to be enough (if any) Democrat votes to break a filibuster.

Anyone seen those College students for republican commercials attempting to mirror Shark Tank? They're pretty humorous...

Sure, but will they legislate that way? Don't think the voters are stupid enough to believe a short term campaign line when the last 20 years of GOP in Congress has been lowering taxes on the rich/corporations, attempts to repeal ACA, attempts to legislate sexuality, and attempts to kick out Mexicans. The social issues aren't something that goes away just because you don't talk about them, and it's become a large enough issue with the public that I just don't see the GOP turning purple states. The last 6 elections have shown the purple states becoming blue due to demographic changes and the red states just getting more red. As it sits, the GOP has a pretty unfavorable reputation in the swing states and they are only getting more blue as minority populations grow.

Look to 2020 for possible demographic changes to have a real impact on legislative power after the next census comes in and districts get a rework. Until then, the GOP will have a hard time picking up or holding a majority of any amount without seriously distancing themselves from the Tea Party.

Right the fact that the public disapproves of Obama so much will have nothing to do with the seemingly uninterested participation rates of general liberal voters. You could work at CNN man, you're in lock step with their spin machine.

Democrat Obstructionists!

What kind of gibberish is this? The conservative base shows up to midterms, the liberal base doesn't, it's just a fact. What does Obama's approval ratings have to do with voter turnout among his base? The GOP basically cannot get a supermajority in either house of congress, so until 2016, it doesn't really matter who controls the house or senate unless they're both democrat.

Do you even read things before disagreeing with people or do you just see someone post and automatically hit reply?

And this is why the Democrats are losing the swing voters. You just painted yourself as a extreme liberal by refusing to acknowledge that the other side might have valid points while simultaneously demonizing them as the scourge of humanity. This is simply not true, the Republican platform has valid points just as the the Democrat platform does. Both sides need to be acknowledged and a compromise needs to be worked that attempts to address as much as possible. By going with an extreme interpretation of your favorite political party you have alienated yourself from anyone not as devoted to the faith as yourself. It's the same tragic mistake the Republicans made after Clinton when they decided everyone not Republican was a socialist commie terrorist supporting traitor who wanted to steal hard earned money and give it to those lazy bums. The more extreme you paint yourself, the more you demonize the opposition, the worse you look in the eyes of anyone who isn't part of your particular political religion.

Take immigration for example. According to you they want to "kick Mexicans out of the country" which is untrue. Their particular point is they don't want tax dollars, which mostly come from middle class working americans, to be spent supporting those who immigrated illegally. They also view illegal immigrants with suspicion as they are more likely to commit crimes (this is true for all poor demographics). The instant reaction is to "build a fence / deport / blah blah" which is extremely impractical but appeals to people's emotions and thus is a tool for politicians. The fear and suspicion doesn't remove the fact that their concerns are valid and should be addressed. This is why I've always been in favor of immigration reform, removing the colossal amounts of expensive bureaucratic procedures while simultaneously getting a bit harsher on border crossers. Those already in the country should go through a quick process of registration and attaining citizenship so they at least get on the books. Anyhow it's a complex issue, especially as the democrats as seeing it a source of new voters and are pandering to that crowd with the ultimately goal of taking seats from the Republicans in the southern states. The Republicans seeing that power play are blocking any attempt at the Democrats acquiring new majority's via instant citizenship.

Anyhow virtually every issue not only has two sides with equally important points, they also have deeper political power implications and tertiary effects. Politics is a grand game of chess that is often invisible to the population at large.

Except in the last two Presidential elections, Democrats overwhelmingly won swing voters, so I have no idea where you get the idea that they are losing those votes.

I bet everyone 2 beers mike rounds wins the SD senate seat. not that the 10 people who figured out I don't mean san diego care.

No, there is no citation needed. Better luck next time.

I'll bet everyone 3 beers and a whiskey that Wendy Davis loses next week.

With such a broad statement that you are so certain of, why not show it?

Unless, like everything else you say, you pulled it out of your ***.

Umm you realize us swing voters are called swing voters because we don't have a political allegiance right. That means you need to re-earn the votes every election, past performance has zero impact on future results. Democrats have made the exact same mistake the Republicans did during the Bush years, they assumed that since they won their entire platform was unquestionably accepted by everyone. They focused only on their hardcore base and alienated the politically unaligned which the Democrats took advantage of in 2008 to field a moderate candidate who spoke moderately and didn't use politically charged language. They rode that wave for many years as the Republicans got more and more extreme until about two years ago when the Republicans started turning around. Now we have an opposite scenario forming where Democrats feel they are unquestioningly accepted / correct by independent voters and are alienating folks.

I voted for Obama in the last two elections and for Angus King (I) in my last state election. Prior to that I voted for Bush. This time around I'm highly unlikely to vote for a Democrat President unless they are extremely moderate and actually recognize that they need to work with the other side. Obama got a bad deal in the congress he inherited, but that doesn't excuse him from some of his more extreme actions in the past few years, though I can understand him wanting to get something/anything done.

Anyhow your about to get a Republican majority in both the Senate and House and highly likely to have a Republican President in 2016. You might want to take a step back and realize that the problem isn't the voters, its your own platform and zealous devotion to it. The Democrats are now making the same mistakes the Republicans made in 04 and 08 which hurt them greatly.

Not a broad statement at all, better off asking Saeval to post the evidence that he is using to base his assumption on. Good luck to him.

More assumptions. I like the "highly likely" bit.

To those of you who are politically affiliated let me inform you how swing voters work. We aren't attached to any particular party and don't have a political ideology. This means that appealing to your ideology or thinking we are "in your camp" is a very bad idea. Swing voters vote for whomever they think is the candidate that represents them the best. This means they tend to vote for moderate candidates or candidates that speak reasonably and don't jump on political ideology. Essentially swing voters are political mercenaries who's support needs to be bought every election.

No one needs to be told what swing voters are. I'm still interested in the "highly likely to win the WH in 2016" bit. If its such a sure thing, mind telling us who exactly is going to be the next President?

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuubbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I'm not willing to take that bet. [+] because, deep down, I know you're right with your prediction. Not a fan of Abbott, but it looks like we're in for more of the same.

You honestly do not think your statement is broad?

Define the following:

Overwhelmingly.
Swing Voters.

Make sure to post your sources on this.

Otherwise, you are full of *** Jet Vic.

You are correct in more of the same.

However, I would shutter to think what would happen if Davis were to be elected. Social issues aside, she doesn't know what she is talking about and all she does is go attack dog mode on the social issues. Not exactly a good leader, especially in a state that doesn't fully agree with her.

2012 election

that statement is incorrect. obama won because more democrats than republicans voted in 2012, but mittens won the greater percentage of swing voters.

Obama's crushing defeat of McCain and Mittens.

Mmmm...For the sake of not turning this into a Texas thread, I'll just shut up about Abbott and his seedy base. I think we've already gone in circles about both enough.

Ever looked at exit polls KN? Try it someday. The last election is the only evidence we have right now, the one where Obama destroyed Mittens and the Dems won over a million more votes than the GOP in Congress. Saevel is talking as if he already knows how people are going to vote in 2014, but in reality, he only knows how he is going to vote. And losing one vote is not enough to say Dems are losing swing voters. Again, better luck next time.