How Many House Seats will The Republicans win

JONJO THE MISER

How many seats do ye guys think they will win, i have a feeling they will win between 240-250 seats, what do others think?

kaiser sauze

...as long as they don't win enough between The House and The Senate for a Presidential veto override, I could care less.

Stinicker

kaiser sauze wrote: »

...as long as they don't win enough between The House and The Senate for a Presidential veto override, I could care less.

Heres hoping they do just that

kaiser sauze

Stinicker wrote: »

Heres hoping they do just that

Are you living in The US?

Why would you want that?

Manic Moran

Maybe he's looking to repeal Obamacare? That would need an override.

I think the comparison will have to be made with 1994. Clinton and the Democrats pushed the odd piece of legislation of questionable national popularity and paid for it heavily at the polls. People with short memories seem to think that 2006 was a major swing, not compared with 94. If tomorrow proves as large, we'll see. I doubt it, but we'll see.

I'll be most satisfied if the Reps can gain one of the houses. On principle, I'm not so keen on one party holding all three houses, I like a moderating effect. (Plus, I really dislike Pelosi, and wouldn't mind seeing her demoted)

I think the various propositions and lower elections are more interesting. Will Rhode Island change its name? Will Boxer lose her most exhaulted title?

I have to figure out if I'm going to vote for CA Governor. I'm leaning Brown, but I'm not happy about it. But then, I'm no fan of Whitman either. Maybe I'll write in the Governator for a third term.

NTM

kaiser sauze

Manic Moran wrote: »

Maybe he's looking to repeal Obamacare? That would need an override.

Yup, it sure would, but I dislike it being called Obamacare. Republicans voted for it, too.

That is interesting about the ballot measure for Rhode Island, I did not know about that one.

mgmt

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Yup, it sure would, but I dislike it being called Obamacare. Republicans voted for it, too.

That is interesting about the ballot measure for Rhode Island, I did not know about that one.

No GOP voted for the bill.

kaiser sauze

mgmt wrote: »

No GOP voted for the bill.

Then you do not know your GOP very well.

Try harder.

Much, much harder.

mgmt

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Then you do not know your GOP very well.

Try harder.

Much, much harder.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396#position

Point them out.

Black Swan

It's early morning on national election day. When all the votes have been tallied, the Republicans will win a majority in the US House and replace the Speaker in January, but will not win a majority in the US Senate.

In a 2-party system like the US, it's never healthy for one party to control both House and Senate, so this should slightly improve US government to where the art of compromise will have to occur if any legislation is to pass both houses of Congress.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

I have to figure out if I'm going to vote for CA Governor. I'm leaning Brown, but I'm not happy about it. But then, I'm no fan of Whitman either. Maybe I'll write in the Governator for a third term.

If the polls are predictive, Brown will win, and Whitman will have blown $160 million, most of it her own money, in her attempt to buy the governorship.

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/governor/ca/california_governor_whitman_vs_brown-1113.html

kaiser sauze

mgmt wrote: »

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396#position

Point them out.

Hmm

I was under the impression that Snowe had crossed aisle...will have to check out her record later.

In any case, it shows what a bigoted, self-serving bunch of corporate whores the GOP are.

Lockstep

What will be the result if one party controls the House but another controls the Senate? Is one more powerful than the other?

I don't know much about the bicameral US legislatures so any help would be appreciated.

mgmt

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Hmm

I was under the impression that Snowe had crossed aisle...will have to check out her record later.

In any case, it shows what a bigoted, self-serving bunch of corporate whores the GOP are.

Hmm whats that word for someone who is intolerant of other peoples opinion and has to resort to cheap insults???

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

liberal?

FatherTed

I voted this morning here in CT, Malloy for Gov, Blumenthal for Senate, Himes for the House(all Dems) and mostly Green the rest of the way for local stuff like Attorney General, Comptroller etc.

Stinicker

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Are you living in The US?

Why would you want that?

I don't want to see one of the few countries in the world with a small bit of freedom become a socialist mess like Europe which Obama is trying to create off the backs of the white middle classes, in an attempt to deliver more wealth to the underclass in american society.

He should be impeached and I have about as much claim to being born in America as that guy. You know where you stand with republicans unlike those democrat snakes.

Lockstep

Stinicker wrote: »

Obama is trying to create off the backs of the white middle classes, in an attempt to deliver more wealth to the underclass in american society.

Dude, what?

kaiser sauze

Stinicker wrote: »

I don't want to see one of the few countries in the world with a small bit of freedom become a socialist mess like Europe which Obama is trying to create off the backs of the white middle classes, in an attempt to deliver more wealth to the underclass in american society.

He should be impeached and I have about as much claim to being born in America as that guy. You know where you stand with republicans unlike those democrat snakes.

Oh the hilarity...

What freedoms have you got in The US that other advanced democracies do not share?

As regards your racist remarks, I'm not even going to answer such bigotry.

I will ask a tangential point...what is wrong with wanting to close the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest? What is wrong with stopping the inexorable widening of that gap?

The nutty flavour of this post just hit the crunchy time when you revealed yourself as a birther. Even your favourite channel, Fox News, calls those people 'clowns'.

Thankfully, in Europe, 101,000 people do not die each year due to lack of access to healthcare, so if that is a "socialist mess", I'll take it.

kaiser sauze

mgmt wrote: »

Hmm whats that word for someone who is intolerant of other peoples opinion and has to resort to cheap insults???

Intolerant?

I'm just stating The Republican Party for what it is, Baby!

Lockstep

Friend of mine was born in the US, sent his vote off already.

He voted for "The Rent is Too Damn High" Party

Manic Moran

What really pisses me off about this whole thing is that the turnout is expected to be higher than normal for a mid-term. They're thinking maybe 35%.

A little over a year ago, I was in Afghanistan for their elections. People walked over mountains, sometimes for miles, to get to a polling site, defying Taliban threats of reprisals. In Iraq, I saw people lining up at polling stations, dispersing when an explosion happened within earshot, and then within five minutes, all lining up to vote again. Here? Not so much. If it rains, some people won't show up, even if they're driving.

I fully support an American's right to not vote. But the levels of apathy shown by the average American is, well, pathetic. They have the privilige of the opportunity to vote in a pretty much free and fair election, and choose not to. And then go about telling people how great a Democracy* we are.

I've decided I'll vote Libertarian for Governor. Give the little guys a morale boost.

Democrats are in for nearly a clean sweep of all the Statewide positions in CA this year. Only question mark is for Attorney General, it's a fight between San Francisco's, well, unorthodox DA, and a chap from Los Angeles who come from a cop's family. If it were up to the police associations, it would be an easy answer, Harris is not appreciated by them. However, she does have the advantage of a 'D' behind her name, so a lot of party-line voters are likely voting for her anyway. In this case, I care a lot more about the AG outcome than the Governor outcome. In fairness, I've not had any great complaints about Jerry Brown's tenure as AG either.

As far as the props are concerned, a couple are easy ones for me. The prohibition on the State taking local finances, for example. The Congressional re-districting. (And, of course, the counter proposal to reverse the State redistricting from last election is an easy 'against'.) Though I won't be using the State parks enough to offset the $60 or so in car fees, the car regstration hike seems worth it as well, the parks are a little underfunded. The other environmental related one (suspends some of CA's laws until unemployment drops to more normal levels) doesn't appeal to me, that's another easy one.

Tempting though the '50%+1' budget proposal is (No pay for the legislature if they don't pass a budget? There's an incentive!), I like the 2/3 requirement, it forces some form of negotiation. The tax offset proposition seems appealing to me (a business that loses money one year can offset its loss against profits for the following year for tax purposes). And the "classify 'fees' as 'taxes'" prop also holds great appeal to me. Not least because the best argument against it is 'Big Oil, Tobacco and Alcohol companies are in favour of it'. I don't respond well to the Boogie Man school of politics, even if it's true.

At the county level, it's simple stuff. $30 a year parcel tax to aid healthcare (OK), additional $10 a year on motor registration for roads (not so much), term limits for the Water Board (I've never thought about it), a 10% tax on marijuana (If Prop 19 fails, isn't this irrelevant?), and a couple of other minor items.

I'll swing by and drop off my ballot tonight. Apparently over half the votes in CA are expected to be mail-in ballots, so some of the tighter races may not be known for a few days. Though I'm in a mandatory mail-in district, I still enjoy swining by the station and hand-delivering it. I'm told that in Oakland, they're using something akin to a single transferrable vote for Mayor, the voters are being asked to rank the candidates.

NTM

[ETA: It seems that as of last poll, 71% of voters in R.I. oppose the name change]
*Usual caveats about representative republics apply

PeakOutput

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Oh the hilarity...

What freedoms have you got in The US that other advanced democracies do not share?

As regards your racist remarks, I'm not even going to answer such bigotry.

I will ask a tangential point...what is wrong with wanting to close the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest? What is wrong with stopping the inexorable widening of that gap?

The nutty flavour of this post just hit the crunchy time when you revealed yourself as a birther. Even your favourite channel, Fox News, calls those people 'clowns'.

Thankfully, in Europe, 101,000 people do not die each year due to lack of access to healthcare, so if that is a "socialist mess", I'll take it.

while i similarly find the post you quoted hilarious i do think your wrong about 'closing the gap'

the idea of closing the gap is laughable. the idea of a gap is laughable after the last twenty years of boom we have the largest population of middle class ever. we have a pyramid system there will always be a wealthy few at the top and a very poor few at the bottom. it is inevitable. were things can improve is in the middle. the bigger the middle class the better society is.

the idea that europe is a socialist mess is just as laughable as is the idea that obama wants to create some sort of communist empire in the states but your never ever going to change the minds of people with such extreme views anyway

southsiderosie

kickoutthejams wrote: »

What will be the result if one party controls the House but another controls the Senate? Is one more powerful than the other?

I don't know much about the bicameral US legislatures so any help would be appreciated.

The Senate is more powerful than the House in that they have more tools at their disposal to put the brakes on legislation. It was meant to be a "cooling off" body as opposed to the "hot" lower house, whose members were more likely to follow the whims of the hoi polloi. Perhaps this is why the mad populism of people like Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle seems so strange; their modus operandi is totally at odds with the role that Senators are meant to play within the US political system.

Manic Moran

Another possible write-in.



NTM

kaiser sauze

PeakOutput wrote: »

while i similarly find the post you quoted hilarious i do think your wrong about 'closing the gap'

the idea of closing the gap is laughable. the idea of a gap is laughable after the last twenty years of boom we have the largest population of middle class ever. we have a pyramid system there will always be a wealthy few at the top and a very poor few at the bottom. it is inevitable. were things can improve is in the middle. the bigger the middle class the better society is.

the idea that europe is a socialist mess is just as laughable as is the idea that obama wants to create some sort of communist empire in the states but your never ever going to change the minds of people with such extreme views anyway

I agree that we need more in the middle-class, but you will never hear the middle-class agreeing that they should pay more tax. The main issue is that too many middle-class people are paying little-to-no taxes, the base is too narrow and you can only tax those at the highest levels so much.

I heard that The White House was going to be demolished and a replica of The Soviet White House was going to be erected in its place. There is no confirmation yet on who the builder is, but they are likely to be Irish. There is also no confirmation that the Duma will be placed in The Rose Garden. Diarmuid Gavin is said to not be amused.

snow scorpion

55 in the House & 7 in the Senate.

But I'm hearing rumors that both Republicans and Democrats have internal polling saying both numbers will be higher than that.

Cockeyed optimistic prediction: 74 in the House and 10 in the Senate.

Overheal

I didnt bother with write-ins. Abstains will do.

Not that Chuck Norris and Richard Dean Anderson wouldn't have been prime candidates for the SC Department of Soil and Water Conservation.

Here's a good one from Daily Show: Obama says of Republicans quote "'Excuse me, we want the keys back'.. We don't mind the republicans joining us for the ride, but they're gonna have to sit in the back". Cue FOX news completely spinning it out of proportion by misconstruing the quote as "Back of the Bus" And pulling out the Rosa Parks trap-card. Jon finishes with a lovely clip of Michael Steel at a rally in August saying verbatim "We're gonna win in November, and Pelosi will be in the Back of the Bus."

That of course being after Sean Hannity accused Obama of being racist with his metaphor during a recent interview with said Michael Steele.

Comedy and Politics: the gay marriage we all love and support.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-1-2010/indecision-2010---republicans-can-go-to-the-back-of-the-car?xrs=eml_tds

Stinicker

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Oh the hilarity...

What freedoms have you got in The US that other advanced democracies do not share?

As regards your racist remarks, I'm not even going to answer such bigotry.

I will ask a tangential point...what is wrong with wanting to close the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest? What is wrong with stopping the inexorable widening of that gap?

The nutty flavour of this post just hit the crunchy time when you revealed yourself as a birther. Even your favourite channel, Fox News, calls those people 'clowns'.

Thankfully, in Europe, 101,000 people do not die each year due to lack of access to healthcare, so if that is a "socialist mess", I'll take it.

Well in the United States you will not be crippled by taxation to the same extent that we are in Ireland and the rest of Europe. You can walk into a store and buy a gun for self defense.

I made absolutely no racist remarks in that post and you jumping on that indicated the sort of blind sighted pinko liberal you are.

The vast majority of the middle classes in America are white and they are being taxed heavily to pay for Obama's wealth distribution agenda to funnel wealth to Ethnic minorities; it is he who is the racist in America. Barack Obama has not provided clear evidence of his birth and is the most dangerous thing to happen to the United States in decades.

The American people will give their opinion on Obama today and they have seen his lies to their detriment.

southsiderosie

Stinicker wrote: »

Well in the United States you will not be crippled by taxation to the same extent that we are in Ireland and the rest of Europe. You can walk into a store and buy a gun for self defense.

I made absolutely no racist remarks in that post and you jumping on that indicated the sort of blind sighted pinko liberal you are.

The vast majority of the middle classes in America are white and they are being taxed heavily to pay for Obama's wealth distribution agenda to funnel wealth to Ethnic minorities; it is he who is the racist in America. Barack Obama has not provided clear evidence of his birth and is the most dangerous thing to happen to the United States in decades.

The American people will give their opinion on Obama today and they have seen his lies to their detriment.

Your posts on this thread have been absurd.

The top 10% of earners pay over 70% of tax in the US.

Not all middle class people are white.

Please identify where and how Obama is funneling wealth to "ethnic minorities".

Please explain how Obama is racist.

Overheal

Kaiser wrote:

What freedoms have you got in The US that other advanced democracies do not share?

Well if you wish to compare it to Ireland, our gun/self-defence laws, and our freedoms of speech, are far more liberal.

The Social Entitlements of Europe are not equivalent to freedoms. While the programs of places like Sweden and France, Germany are impressive, it's not exactly the same principle as the right to wear a Burka.

Stinicker wrote:

I made absolutely no racist remarks in that post and you jumping on that indicated the sort of blind sighted pinko liberal you are.

"White Middle Class"

Also "Pinko Liberal"

Both remarks are indicative of bigotry

The vast majority of the middle classes in America are white and they are being taxed heavily to pay for Obama's wealth distribution agenda to funnel wealth to Ethnic minorities; it is he who is the racist in America. Barack Obama has not provided clear evidence of his birth and is the most dangerous thing to happen to the United States in decades.

Interesting. Where is the piece of legislation that says "Take money from the whities and give it to all our muchachos down by the border and all our brothers in the hood"?

mgmt

The BBC are predicting a Democrate majority of 2 in the senate. I wonder if Joe Lieberman might be persuaded to switch sides?

Stinicker

I get infracted "for insulting other members" when the person who called me a racist gets no infraction. (despite I making no racial comment in that post!)

It is obvious who would have got infracted were they arguing the liberal view point.

Scofflaw if you are unable to moderate without letting your own viewpoints get in the way then you are clearly unsuitable.

Stinicker

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Oh the hilarity...

What freedoms have you got in The US that other advanced democracies do not share?

As regards your racist remarks, I'm not even going to answer such bigotry.

I will ask a tangential point...what is wrong with wanting to close the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest? What is wrong with stopping the inexorable widening of that gap?

The nutty flavour of this post just hit the crunchy time when you revealed yourself as a birther. Even your favourite channel, Fox News, calls those people 'clowns'.

Thankfully, in Europe, 101,000 people do not die each year due to lack of access to healthcare, so if that is a "socialist mess", I'll take it.

Yet this post remains un fracted, when I was insulted and kaiser sauze threw the race card in out of nowhere. What is your problem Scofflaw; he broke the charter yet you refuse to infract him!

Consistency please

Scofflaw

Stinicker wrote: »

I get infracted "for insulting other members" when the person who called me a racist gets no infraction. (despite I making no racial comment in that post!)

It is obvious who would have got infracted were they arguing the liberal view point.

Scofflaw if you are unable to moderate without letting your own viewpoints get in the way then you are clearly unsuitable.

If you believe you have an issue with the moderation of this forum, there's a process for that - and accusing the mod of bias along with everyone else who disagrees with you isn't that process. Arguing with moderation on thread is similarly not acceptable.

You haven't been called a racist - your remarks were described as racist. You, on the other hand, described another poster as a "blindsighted pinko liberal". As to whether your remarks were racist - well, why "white middle class"? What's so important about the "white" there that you felt you had to include it?

moderately,
Scofflaw

Stinicker

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you believe you have an issue with the moderation of this forum, there's a process for that - and accusing the mod of bias along with everyone else who disagrees with you isn't that process.

You haven't been called a racist - your remarks were described as racist. You, on the other hand, described another poster as a "blindsighted pinko liberal". As to whether your remarks were racist - well, why "white middle class"?

moderately,
Scofflaw

Well when I was insulted and nothing done about, if he was throwing mud then so can I, however he gets away it and I am infracted, either infract both parties or none.

Stinicker

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you believe you have an issue with the moderation of this forum, there's a process for that - and accusing the mod of bias along with everyone else who disagrees with you isn't that process. Arguing with moderation on thread is similarly not acceptable.

You haven't been called a racist - your remarks were described as racist. You, on the other hand, described another poster as a "blindsighted pinko liberal". As to whether your remarks were racist - well, why "white middle class"? What's so important about the "white" there that you felt you had to include it?

moderately,
Scofflaw

In responce to your ninja edit, White Middle Classes are one large Demographic that is likely to feel the pain of increased taxes under the Democrats. To be accused of racism based on this is a massive insult to me and this person broke the charter yet is allowed to get away with it.

Scofflaw

Stinicker wrote: »

Well when I was insulted and nothing done about, if he was throwing mud then so can I, however he gets away it and I am infracted, either infract both parties or none.

Your post reporting his was filed at 21.46. First, you didn't bother reporting his post until yours had received an infraction, and second, within four minutes of reporting his post you started complaining on this thread that nothing had been done about it.

The result, then, is that I hadn't had time to respond to the report before you decided to start complaining on thread, which makes the question of what response I should make to the report rather moot, since you've decided to pre-empt the response in any case. If you really want consistency, then what happens now is that I write a post requesting people stop personalising the debate, and you get a ban for arguing moderation on thread.

Here's the first bit - can people leave down the handbags, please. The second bit will involve 48 hours of your time. You continue to have access to the Dispute Resolution forum, or you may PM nesf directly.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Mr.Micro

The problem that the Republicans have with Obama is that he has not started any new war, only trying to extract the US from those started by Bush. He is trying to help the under privileged and make the US a more even society. He inherited an economy in a shambles and a banking disaster....that has led to unemployment and foreclosures. The rotten Republicans have done enough damage but unfortunately many in the US have very short sight and putting the same ie Republicans back in is not going to solve the problem. One would think that they would have learned that?

kev9100

Dems will have 53 in the Senate and as for the House, The GOP will have a very small magority.

Overheal

White Middle Classes are one large Demographic that is likely to feel the pain of increased taxes under the Democrats.

And are not the Hispanic, African-American, European, Asian, Oceanic Middle Classes magically not also likely to feel the pain of increased taxes, in your claim? I fail to see what the White sub-demographic of the Middle-class demographic has to do with your argument.

Thats not forgetting that the Democrat party campaigned on a platform that only those americans making $250k per annum or more would see an increase in their tax costs.

Overheal

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The problem that the Republicans have with Obama is that he has not started any new war,

I think conservatives would find that view insulting, by in large. And I don't think that's why they are upset with him. Of conservatives and republicans I have spoken with, none have cited foreign wars as an important issue with this president. Taxation, Immigration and Healthcare reform are on their minds. Not the Middle East.

He is trying to help the under privileged and make the US a more even society.

And unfortunately Pres. Obama made a sound point early in his presidency: that these changes are highly unfavorable during a recession, and yet, Executive, Senate and house did not make these changes during economic stability that would have in fact had the positive impacts that the Obama Administration is looking for today.

While I agree with President Obama's assertions, the poor time to make these changes was in economic crisis. It seems that conservatism has more place during a recession. He could have passes Healthcare reform at the outset of such a recession, not in the rut of it. Similarly, it's difficult to vote for Democrats that want to expand social entitlements while we are still recessionary and while we have a growing national debt.

Thats a frustrating Ultimatum for President Obama, but I think he may have made the wrong choice in hindsight. The Reform he did pass will not take effect in time to make too much impact on this recession. And in the short term it was deemed largely unpopular in the state that it was passed. The chances that the Reform will be repealled or rolled-back feels ever-likely, with many states filing suit against the government for a piece of legislation which mandates that Americans forcibly buy a product, outside of the 16th Amendment, for the first time in history.

He inherited an economy in a shambles and a banking disaster....that has led to unemployment and foreclosures. The rotten Republicans have done enough damage but unfortunately many in the US have very short sight and putting the same ie Republicans back in is not going to solve the problem. One would think that they would have learned that?

Maybe I'm recalling incorrectly: while it is true that the Republicans had every chance to halt the economic crisis in its infancy, that it was democrats that actually introduced the policies, such as sub-prime mortgage lending, that actually instigated the problem in the first place?

whynotdo

Sky News(UK) reporting a tsunami rather than a tidal wave looking likely for the Republicans.
Early days and Sky does not have to worry about getting it right,but.......

Black Swan

Well at least Republican Tea Party (so called witch) O'Donnell lost the Senate race in Delaware... So the voters have not gone completely mad. Then again we have the 2012 presidential elections to look forward to, with a very unqualified but vocal (Governor quitter) Sarah Palin running, which should entertain us all. Can't wait until the Tina Fey impersonations of Palin air again on SNL.

amacachi

Overheal wrote: »

And are not the Hispanic, African-American, European, Asian, Oceanic Middle Classes magically not also likely to feel the pain of increased taxes, in your claim? I fail to see what the White sub-demographic of the Middle-class demographic has to do with your argument.

Maybe because the white middle class is bigger?


One house apiece so.

amacachi

That Rubio lad is one to watch.

K-9

55% of Independents voted Republican as against 40% Democrat, from CNN.

whynotdo

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Well at least Republican Tea Party (so called witch) O'Donnell lost the Senate race in Delaware... So the voters have not gone completely mad.

I cried at her concession speech!:(

Then again we have the 2012 presidential elections to look forward to, with a very unqualified but vocal (Governor quitter) Sarah Palin running, which should entertain us all.

entertain us. How did American TV get so bad!:)
Now as Tony Soprano's Wife She would have fitted in there!!!!

amacachi

Ted Koppel is excellent.

Black Swan

whynotdo wrote: »

How did American TV get so bad!:)
Now as Tony Soprano's Wife She would have fitted in there!!!!

Palin can't speak without writing cheat notes on her hand or flipping index cards during a debate, so how do you expect her to remember her lines on a crime soap?

whynotdo

amacachi wrote: »

Ted Koppel is excellent.

He is!
I get a kick from Wolf Blitzer too " The best Fu*king Political team on Television"

Obviously it is all very serious,but We would lie if We did not admit that Politics is at times a form of sport also!:)