Election Day

Update: New thread here.

I finally got my ballot to the Denver Election office today. I hope it helps Sen. Udall and Gov. Hickenlooper. The New York Times has a special page for following today's elections results.

Here's an open thread for all matters pertaining to today's elections.

< 4th Teen Dies From Washington H.S. Shooting | DA Appeals Oscar Pistorious Judgment >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    On my way (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 06:35:41 AM EST
    to vote for Charlie Crist.

    I know it is hard to do (none / 0) (#96)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:23:24 AM EST
    but it must be done!

    Should current Gov Scott lose... (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:40:32 AM EST
    I will thank him for dropping $13 million of his own into his campaign over the last week. It's good for the economy when a wealthy politican drops a boatload of cash and loses.

    Not sure... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 12:21:34 PM EST
    the best campaign money can buy benefits anybody outside the public relations industry, the newtworks, and printers of two-sided glossy bullsh*t.  

    But I suppose it's safer for all of us spent, instead of sitting in Scott's portfolio.


    Going to vote (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 07:24:56 AM EST
    later on today. Ready for Hillary has a neat tool on their website where you can check your polling place because believe it or not I have been sent links to the GA Secretary of State website to check and they want you to sign in???

    They have changed my polling place a number of times so that is the reason I checked. One time I went to vote and had to get in the car and drive somewhere else.

    You should also be able (none / 0) (#46)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:31:47 AM EST
    To go to the League of Women Voters voting website.
    I did that, you enter your address, they give you your polling place, and you can also find out about the candidates and the ballot initiatives.  You can read candidates' statements (those that have answered questions).
    Once you make your choices online, you can print it out and take that right into the voting booth with you.
    It worked well for me, although I would imagine that it depends upon how active the League is in your state, and whether they were able to submit questions to all the local candidates.

    Voting against Corbett (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 08:24:45 AM EST
    Gawd, Corbett has been a horrible governor. The most we have seen of him was photo bombing at the State Police barracks. Can't explain any other reason he was in all the pictures. Didn't see him out in the woods chasing down the sniper. Heh.

    So Tom Wolf better be an improvement. Really hoping so for Pennsylvania's sake.

    Corbett (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 08:34:19 AM EST
    is the perfect example of what you get with these disastrous tea party governors.

    Not TP so much exactly (none / 0) (#81)
    by smott on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:43:30 AM EST
    Just completely bought and sold by Range Resources.
    Here in the PIttsburgh area they're talking about drilling in public parks.

    Also, the biggest cuts to education funding in, I think, forever maybe for all of US?  I'll have to look it up. It was stunning what Corbett did to education...

    No fan of Ed Rendell but would pay to get him back....


    That's what I said when Corbett was elected. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:52:39 AM EST
    He was completely in the pocket of the gas drillers. His re-election campaign was sad. I can't remember seeing a single commercial that ever said anything as to what he's accomplished in office. Everything was negative or an attack on Wolf. Some of that just downright lies. I think the most telling was his own ad during the primary where he said "I didn't come to Harrisburg to make friends." True that.

    I'm not happy that I don't have anyone to vote for congress critter. I want Scott Perry gone, but the Dem in the race is completely incompetent. Linda Thompson was in over her head as a one term mayor Harrisburg and I can't bring myself to vote for her. My black lab is a good soul, maybe I'll write-in his name.


    If the GOP (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 08:39:13 AM EST
    takes the senate today the first order of business the tea party is going to demand is to start impeachment proceedings against Obama.

    OMG, I know (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:11:10 AM EST
    I got through the Bush years via wine.  My wine bill was sagging low.  It's about to be rejuvenated.  Can't I just need 2 root canals or grow a giant wart on my foot that requires three surgeries to get rid of or something else?  Not this

    Two years (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:05:17 AM EST
    of screaming GOP jihadists is enough to make you want to move to Napa so you can just drink the wine out of the oak barrels.

    The election season out here (none / 0) (#92)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:10:58 AM EST
    has been pretty mild. I mean we have a gov up for reelection who didn't run any reelection ads, lol!~ :) I've seen one by 'whatshisname', the opponent. A few ballot measures had huge money thrown at them, so it was easy to know which way to vote on those ;)

    Yup, good weather, wine and a yawn of an election season because the GOP in this state is dead . . .


    The GOP is alive and well in San Diego. (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:58:11 AM EST
    My first-term Congressman, Scott Peters, is in a very close race againsy Carl Demaio, a recent convert to TP ideals.

    TP ideals... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 12:01:53 PM EST
    The world is but toilet paper to wipe my arse with...those TP ideals?

    I was think more in terms of the state (none / 0) (#113)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 12:18:24 PM EST
    vs national, but I also tend to forget about those little red pockets and the folks that live there :) Noticeably absent this round was the big a$$ TP sign off the freeway against Obama/Obamacare/whatevertheyareonaboutatthemoment. GOP is down to 28% of registered voters in the state, apparently thanks to the TP. Indie's have either become the bigger 2nd party or will if the GOP keeps on going on . . . (wish I could remember where the article was)

    It's been all quite on the northern front aside from big soda, big insurance and those other annoying measure ads crock full of big money lies . . .


    Twigg from Orange posted (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:32:08 AM EST
    That at least after the polls close tonight, nobody will think Ebola is that much of a problem anymore.

    Wonder if they cleared that (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:43:26 AM EST
    With Chip

    Better that... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:10:45 AM EST
    than proposing legislation...no? ;)

    iow, if we must have a Republican Senate, I sure as hell don't want them, ya know...actually trying to govern. Let them have an Impeach the Kenyan circle-jerk for 2 years...we're safer that way!


    Well, (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:34:12 AM EST
    their legislation is just going to get vetoed and they know it. Of course passing crackpot legislation is probably going to hurt them as much as trying impeachment.

    Not necessarily... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:37:34 AM EST
    Presidents Clinton & Obama have and will sign Republican legislation into law, they just draw the line at uber-extreme Republican legislation.

    Ha (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 08:41:03 AM EST
    great minds

    I think people forget sometimes that (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:06:17 AM EST
    it isn't only the national races that matter; seats in your state's legislature or your county's council can have a direct and major impact on the quality of life you have where you actually live.  

    If your county or state has bond/borrowing issues on the ballot, passage or defeat of those initiatives can affect how money is spent on local education, transportation, infrastructure, etc.

    These are the two amendments to the MD Constitution
    that will be appearing on the ballot.

    In the county where I live, the ballot also reflects 9 County Ordinance questions and one Referendum question.  The ordinance questions concern borrowing for school infrastructure, maintenance and preservation of parks and greenways, public works projects (streets, highways, roads, bridges), community improvement projects, public facilities buildings, refuse disposal projects, community college projects, agricultural and rural land preservation, and waterway improvement programs.

    Preserving, maintaining and improving quality of life in the communities in which people live and work, where their kids go to school, either by electing those who have the local power to affect that quality, or by directly empowering local government to borrow and spend money where it counts, are good reasons to vote.

    There may be any number of reasons why you may be feeling indifferent to voting, but before you decide to skip it, please check the sample ballot where you live and make sure you aren't ignoring important ballot measures, the passage or defeat of which have the power to affect your life in a very direct way.

    Yep yep... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:22:10 AM EST
    I will be voting to eliminate the position of Treasurer for my county, as we already have a comptroller and don't need two grifters doing the job of one.

    And I'll be voting to restore diverted funds to the county Drinking Water Protection Program...they've been robbing from the fund to balance the budget, when there are much better ways to balance the budget in lieu of putting our most precious resource at risk.  Priorities people.

    As well as voting for the next Governor of the great State of New York...Mr. Howie Hawkins!!!  Stop laughing;)  


    Today (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by CST on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:27:12 AM EST
    I'm voting in favor of mandatory sick leave.

    Hoping to bring Massachusetts one step closer to being in a 1st world country...

    on facebook today (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CST on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:28:05 AM EST
    "I bet the people voting against paid sick leave are the same people who are scared of catching Ebola"

    I'd also take that bet...


    We passed that in the Lege (none / 0) (#70)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:14:57 AM EST
    and Gov Brown signed it into law last month here in Cali.

    It should pass (none / 0) (#78)
    by CST on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:39:43 AM EST
    Here today.  Now if we could just get reasonable maternity leave we'll really be on a roll...

    We had that on the ballot too (none / 0) (#97)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:25:15 AM EST
    Hope it wins...can't remember now if it was a local Orlando issue or a state resolution.

    I voted absentee a few weeks ago.


    Not election related (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:45:53 AM EST
    but just killed ANOTHER brown recluse spider in my kitchen.  
    Midwesterners, watch your butts.

    Keep your doggies away from those (none / 0) (#100)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:30:18 AM EST
    brown recluse spiders! Had a friend's dog that nearly died from a bite. Had to have a lot of skin abraded to stop the infection.

    I just got a call (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 03:24:11 PM EST
    from the GA GOP saying I must get to the poll because exit polls were saying that there was record Democratic turnout.

    Wouldn't that be great (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 03:55:46 PM EST
    if true.

    Well (none / 0) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 03:57:21 PM EST
    I figure there is probably some truth to it. I mean if they were coasting they sure wouldn't be wasting time and money calling I would imagine.

    We were in line at 6:05 am (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 07:13:30 AM EST
    And there were about 30 people ahead of us. Things went smoothly and we were out of there by 6:15.

    Cast my vote for Mark Warner, some local races, a constitutional amendment, and three proposals.

    Some of the elections aroud the country (none / 0) (#3)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 07:19:32 AM EST
    remind me of this scene from Moon Over Parador.

    Steady stream of people (none / 0) (#5)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 07:31:29 AM EST
    but in and out quickly.  Voted for Ed Gillespie.  

    Going to be pouring (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 07:35:15 AM EST
    rain here all day.  Pouring

    Fortunately I already voted (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 07:53:59 AM EST
    Democrats in Arkansas feel good about their early voting numbers. Republicans feel even better.

    Like lots of others


    The polls (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 08:03:33 AM EST
    aren't looking too good for Pryor last I saw.

    No (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 08:07:12 AM EST
    hes probably a goner.  And worse Asa Hutchinson will probably be the governor.  Bye bye Medicaid expansion.

    But it's looks like it could be a very good night for governors other places.  FL, WI, Kansas and more.

    I saw a piece that said 5 million people could end up getting healthcare as a result of this election.


    If Asa (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:10 AM EST
    Hutchinson does that he's a goner in four years. People right now have insurance and the free clinics have shut down. So he's essentially going to punish a lot of people in your state and make them suffer for four years.

    I guess he'll do a great job of getting Arkansas to vote for Hillary.


    So frustrating (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:05:51 AM EST
    That was how Wyoming voted.  It was clear damage would be done, but nobody would turn out until damage was done.  Is it a red state thing?

    Seeing my first push for Alabama to have the lottery now.  Those lobbying for it want to do what GA and FL have done with the funds, and the ads say Alabama money leaves the state and goes to GA, FL, and MS to give their kids scholarships and college educations.  Well duh!  Something has to be done.  It's insane expensive to go to the University of Alabama now, only someone crazy would.

    I wondered when Alabama would begin to stop associating the lack of lottery with being righteous and in line with God...and then manna would fall from heaven and rain down on them for that reason :)  I think they might be getting it now.


    Hard to be that upset about Pryor (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 08:09:29 AM EST
    but Cotton is Michelle Bachman with an Adam's apple

    Rained really hard this morning (none / 0) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 07:58:55 AM EST
    Light rain scheduled until about 1.

    Will vote late morning after my exercise class. My polling place is never busy so it should be in and out for me.


    Looks like an all day thing here (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 08:03:59 AM EST
    just hoping it's gone in time to get election returns.  Loolks like it will be barely.  Right now no signal.

    A number of amendments today (none / 0) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 07:52:53 AM EST
    Voting "no" but as usual many are drafted to confuse and I wouldn't be surprised to see them pass.

    The main push is to try and prevent the Republicans from having a super majority in Jefferson City?  Supporters of the Republican Senate candidate for my area sent out some really nasty accusations against her Democratic opponent. Nothing sent by the Dem came even close to being as vile.

    Also of interest locally, is the race for the position of County Executive for St. Louis County.


    The media (none / 0) (#16)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:16 AM EST
    are all predicting a big Republican win.

    8 years ago, the reverse happened. The Democrats took control during the waning days of the Bush administration.

    The defining issue in 2006 was the war in Iraq.
    This year, the war is back, but it has been generally kept out of sight and off the front pages.
    So I don't know if there is any defining issue in 2014 - or just a general malaise and sense of despair.

    In 2006, when Bush took what he picturesquely called a whuppin', it made no difference to him. The Dems leaned over and he continued to get his way - sending even more troops instead of ending the war.

    In 2014, the Democrats have not been getting their way since day one, so I don't foresee much change for the worse. How many more hot or cold wars can we get into? There aren't too many places left...

    In honor of Jeralyn, I will be rooting for Udall and Hickenlooper.

    But Cuomo... ick.

    One thing I've been reading a lot about (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 08:40:36 AM EST
    in the last few days is impeachment.  I really think if the republicans take the senate impeachment is coming.  The president has said he is going to take executive action on immigration after the election.  I believe he will.  That is all they will need.
    Honestly I wonder if Obama is not intentionally setting a trap for them.  Think about it.  If they impeach the first black president they will lose 99% do the AA vote for a least a generation.  If they do it for trying to do something about the terrible state of immigration laws they will massively lose the Latino vote for at least as long.
    It would virtually assure that in 2 years dems would not only take the White House and Senate which is already expected but very likely even the House as well.

    Mark my words.  If republicans take the senate impeachment is coming.


    Listening (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:31:40 AM EST
    to Tavis Smiley, AAs have gotten little or nothing from Mr. Obama. In fact, he says things are worse across the board.

    Symbolism is not enough.
    Reality is bound to set in, as Malcolm said long ago.

    I'd rather those bozos spend their time on impeachment rather than calculating more ways to pick our pockets and blow people up.


    I think Obama would agree with you (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:37:47 AM EST
    about spending time on impeachment.   Especially since there are not the votes to convict.  As our local expert has pointed out.

    You know (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 08:52:14 AM EST
    even if they don't take the senate they're certain to have the house. I wonder if they would do it even if they don't take the Senate?

    Chris Wallace (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 08:53:55 AM EST

    In addition to the other fallout I mentioned it would also consume them and keep them from doing any other damage.


    What is a "Senate impeachment"? (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:01:39 AM EST
    Impeachment proceedings must start in the House.  The Senate can only try to convict, with a 2/3 majority, which they won't have, even if they take the Senate.

    Didn't stop (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:03:45 AM EST
    them before did it? Back in 1998 they knew they didn't have the votes to convict but they went ahead with it.

    And they paid the price for it (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:06:47 AM EST
    at the ballot box. It would be a political nightmare for them in 2016.

    BTW - how's that lawsuit of theirs going?


    I feel like the Congress, as well as (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:53:19 AM EST
    newsrooms and newspapers all over the country, are nearly slick with drool over the possibility of the GOP's majority enabling them to do all the things they've been threatening to do for these last six years: impeach Obama, kill the ACA, reinstate or propose as much restrictive legislation as they can in areas like women's reproductive health, voter/national ID, immigration, entitlement "reform," national security, etc.  

    Would it be foolish to do so?  Pretty sure it would be, in the end, but the GOP has lost its collective mind and is, in my opinion, incapable of rational, forward-thinking, legislative stewardship, much less responsible leadership.  

    My one fear - well, so far - is that the GOP will use the threat of impeachment to extract some sort of major concessions from Obama not to veto some particularly odious legislation  - perhaps the Grand Bargain that Obama wholeheartedly supported but the passage of which he failed to engineer himself.  

    Because, really, what is gained by impeaching - and convicting  -Obama?  President Biden?  How's that going to change anything?  Do they go for broke and make it a two-fer, and impeach, try and convict both Obama and Biden, so they can elevate the GOP House Majority Leader to the presidency?

    Does anyone in his or her right mind believe that if they could vote articles of impeachment, that  2/3 of the Senate would vote to convict Obama, much less Obama and Biden?

    I'm sort of at the stage where I think that if, in fact, we do end up with the GOP in charge in Congress, we should all hope for two solid years of gridlock, with little to show for GOP insanity by the time the 2016 election rolls around.

    The worst possible outcome here would be a President Obama who decides the GOP majority is something he can "work with," and he ends up actually making the promised horrors possible because the American people want to see Democrats and Republicans "working together" to "get things done."



    I sort of agree (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:57:32 AM EST
    i think Obama would love to "work" with them.  But I don't think they will ever do that.  They would rather self immolate than give him even the smallest victory.

    And I think Obama finally, after six years, understands that too.


    I'm not so sure it's as much that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:16:25 AM EST
    understands the willingness of the GOP to set itself on fire out of spite, as much as it is that a relatively perfect point of tension and balance had been attained that made it appear that he did.

    And I think this election is going to mess with that tension, and at this stage, I think it will be less like the effect from a butterfly flapping its wings and more like what happens when the bull barrels into the china shop.

    It could be ugly.  Especially as the psychology of Dems wanting to appear to be the rational, we-can-get-things-done-for-the-people party rears its possibly ugly head in advance of 2016.

    Obama hates confrontation and conflict, and there's going to be a lot of it coming; I just don't see him being able to change his essential nature in the face of a GOP Congressional majority.

    Those who scoff at the notion of impeachment don't seem to consider that it's only going to take one or two or a handful of GOP crackpots to have this be all we'll be hearing about, night and day, from the media.  They will do their gosh-darned best to make all their wishes for drama and conflict come true.  They will drive the story - we know they will.

    So, whether it actually comes to pass or not is less important than how it will suck every last little bit of oxygen out of the room.  It may happen at the peril of the GOP's future electoral aspirations, but that won't stop them, or the media, from doing it anyway.


    They have a lawsuit pending, remember? (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:37:45 AM EST
    We were going to be hearing about it night and day.  But guess what?  Republicans can't even find anyone to represent them in a lawsuit.

    The Sarah Palins and Rachel Maddows of the world will talk about it because it gets them YouTube hits and ratings and makes them seem like they are relevant.  Ted Cruz will chime in.  There even may be an attempt to do it.  But it isn't going to be successful and would be a political nightmare for the Republicans to do so. Since people keep wanting to bring up 1998, it seems that many of the Republicans who were around then really don't want a repeat of that.

    They are going to fight Obama on other matters, and not worry about something that will take months of attention away from their agenda.


    I'm not sure that it being successful (none / 0) (#111)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 12:15:31 PM EST
    would be the actual endgame, though.

    I'll just say this: look at the GOP candidates expected to win today, and consider that it shouldn't make any political or electoral sense for them to be running, much less winning.  And the fact that they are expected to win tells you what?  That the GOP isn't likely to consider our definition of politically crazy to be valid - how can it be if it's actually working for them?

    I just don't think this is the kind of thing that can necessarily be analyzed on the basis of what we think makes sense - because the people on that side of the aisle being elected to office and who will be driving the conversation and action don't think like we do.


    Oh sure (none / 0) (#114)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 12:18:46 PM EST
    But I think there are a lot of people in the Republican party with their eyes seeing past this year.  They are looking to 2016.  I think if Mitch McConnell becomes Majority Leader - his dream for over 30 years, he's going to think it's a pretty good gig and really won't want to give it up, so he isn't going to do absolutely insane things to jeopardize that (especially since 2016 is already a geographically challenging year for Republicans anyways).

    And all Boehner and McCarthy have to do is try and keep their troops in line on the important stuff with three little words:  "Speaker Nancy Pelosi."


    No one is thinking or talking about (none / 0) (#132)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 02:23:09 PM EST
    a Speaker Pelosi. The Dems have zero chance at the House for at least 8 years.

    If all they've got (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 02:27:54 PM EST
    is we suck less than Nancy Pelosi then they are going to lose in 2016.

    And the problem that McConnell is going to have if he gets to be majority leader is the same problem that Boehner has in the house. Either bring the crackpot legislation up to a vote or do nothing. He also runs the risk of losing his job if he doesn't bring forth the crackpot legislation he's been promising his voters.


    Here's who thinks (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:29:54 AM EST
    Impeachment is actually a viable option.  The list isn't long, because it's a political maneuver, and most serious people know it's just that (except maybe Rachel Maddow.)

    However, impeachment is extremely unlikely to follow a January turnover -- we've previously noted just how few members of Congress actually, without caveats, support impeachment coming into the midterms. There are many, many reasons for Obama's political opponents to hesitate when it comes to impeachment (see: its widespread unpopularity, the 2016 elections, etc.), and few reasons to support it.

    But as it has in the past, talk of impeachment could, briefly, creep back into the mix -- especially if Republicans have unified control of the 114th Congress. Here are some of the people who, if not true believers that impeachment is coming, have raised the specter in the lead-up to Election day.

    Here's what more serious people think will happen.

    Or this (which is pretty much what that last link said).

    Or this.

    It's a handful of people talking about impeachment. But only the pearl clutchers are worried.


    The problem (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:47:45 AM EST
    is a majority of the voters were against impeaching Bill Clinton practically identical numbers and they went ahead with it. I would frankly be surprised with the evangelicals and the tea party having the GOP by the short hairs that they don't do it. You have to realize and certainly you have to realize after this 2014 campaign season that the GOP is pandering to the far right. And wins by people like Joni Ernst (if she wins) are going to empower the nuts out there and they are going to believe it is what the voters want.

    You have to remember to that the voters speaking in the 1998 election did not stop the GOP. They really do not care what the majority of Americans think.


    Try googling impeach Obama (2.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:12:36 AM EST
    or republican senate
    you need to do a better job of keeping up with your partys talking points.

    Not sure what (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:17:55 AM EST
    "my party" is, but I think you're referring to the Republican Party.  But that's not my party - except in your delusions.

    I HAVE googled it - it's all over the place.  But just because some politicans like to shout nonsense and talk out of their a$$es doesn't mean it will actually happen.

    But then again, you know a lot about talking out of your a$$, so I can see why you'd be confused.


    Btw (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:21:11 AM EST
    in answer to your question about what happened to the law suit.  It was never filed.  The speculation is it was delayed to see if they take the senate so they could go whole hog.
    The lawsuit was only because Harry Reid controlled the senate.

    Gee. Really. I didn't know that (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:09:23 AM EST
    Tony Perkins
    "If the Republicans do capture the Senate, there's no more excuses about impeachment. See, what we've heard so far is how we can't do that because we'd never get it through the Senate, the House could impeach him but the Senate would never convict, it would just be a waste of time. Well, if they have control of the Senate it won't be." - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tony-perkins-if-republicans-capture-senate-theres-no-more-excu ses-about-impeachment#sthash.f1wwah4s.dpuf

    Sorry about the link (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:10:57 AM EST
    Tony Perkins on impeachment

    "If the Republicans do capture the Senate, there's no more excuses about impeachment. See, what we've heard so far is how we can't do that because we'd never get it through the Senate, the House could impeach him but the Senate would never convict, it would just be a waste of time. Well, if they have control of the Senate it won't be.

    They are still (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:43:48 AM EST
    not going to capture 2/3 of the Senate, which is what they need to convict.  A simple majority won't do it.
    They can quack all they want, posture, and bloviate, and the House can even impeach.  But in no scenario does the Senate turn 2/3 Republican, and I do not foresee any Democrats voting for conviction.  It will just be a waste of time and money, and serve to annoy a lot of people.

    Surely you don't think (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:47:34 AM EST
    wasting time or money or annoying people would stop them?
    The base would love it.

    People (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:49:28 AM EST
    have to realize that Republicans are not rational people. They know the jig is up for the GOP as it is currently comprised. So in reality they have nothing to lose.

    Adding (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:52:04 AM EST
    they have to get 51 senators to even vote on it.  I still don't think they will do that.

    But part of me hopes they do.  


    51 to do what? (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:36:16 AM EST
    vote on impeachement (none / 0) (#77)
    by CST on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:37:12 AM EST
    keep up jb :P!

    Um, no (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:40:24 AM EST
    It takes 67 Senators to vote to convict. Article 1, Section 3, clause 6 of the US Constitution.

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    51 does nothing.


    Such a font of information (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:44:43 AM EST
    51 would allow Mitch to bring it to the floor for a vote.

    It doesn't need to be brought to a vote (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:56:53 AM EST
    Link - from 1998

    Is the Senate required to hold a trial if the House votes to impeach and fulfills requirements for appointment of managers?  

    While the Senate can theoretically refuse to do so, Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has said it will proceed to a trial early next year; Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), the Senate's leading authority on its own rules, has said the Senate is obligated to try any charges approved by the House. But the Senate can dismiss the charges or simply adjourn the trial at any point during the proceedings, even at the start, according to parliamentary authorities.

    Here are the Senate rules (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:59:29 AM EST
    No mention of a vote, requiring 51 or any other number, is mentioned.



    Yeah (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:59:43 AM EST
    but to even be able to kick it up to the Senate the GOP needs to take the senate. So the chances of the house initiating impeachment are greatly improved if the GOP takes the senate.

    Sure (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:03:31 AM EST
    And maybe the few crazies want it - it's great talking points on FOX News.

    But the leadership still controls the votes on the House floor.  And everyone knows it would be a colossal waste of time and political capital.


    Who is going (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:08:54 AM EST
    to be leadership? The nuts that are running are saying they're not going to even vote for the current leadership. So if they hold to their pledge who's going to be "leadership"?

    They will most likely pick an issue (none / 0) (#193)
    by Politalkix on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:15:13 PM EST
    like Israel's security and a bunch of Democratic Senators will not know what to do during impeachment hearings. Chances of more military action in the ME just went up.

    Well (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:47:11 AM EST
    that's not really even their goal. Their goal is to get another Republican in office and they think impeaching Obama will do it apparently.

    As I said (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:49:10 AM EST
    i believe Obama will goad them into it.  

    Tony Perkins gets a vote? (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:18:41 AM EST
    Wow - that's news to the rest of the country

    It's not (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:39:12 AM EST
    about him voting. It's about the fact that the GOP genuflects in front of him. If they don't do what he says then millions of evangelicals are going to be sitting home in 2016.

    Wow, I really hope they are crazy enough (none / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:27:34 AM EST
    to try it.

    Set a precedent for impeaching every Dem president....nothing partisan about that. Should go over real well with younger voters who are sick of this cr**.


    Bingo, as usual (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 12:05:51 PM EST
    the last democratic president was impeached but not removed from office.  Tell me, does anybody give a sh!t?  Is that how he is introduced around the world?

    You know I discovered I enjoy reading about the weekly episode of Homeland on PreviouslyTV to actually watching it.  It's funny and it takes less of my life.

    (Dead, like I said)


    Exactly, and in much more embarrassing (none / 0) (#116)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 12:29:43 PM EST
    circumstances than whatever they will trump up on Obama (presidentin' while black?)

    Agree on Homeland...yeah, you called it. Happened faster than I expected. Poor kid.


    If Obama takes executive action on (none / 0) (#56)
    by leftwig on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:51:48 AM EST
    immigration, he should be impeached.  Our Constitution was set up so that one person would not have the power to decide such things and taking executive action on immigration would be a clear abuse of power.  

    Is that so? (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:10:56 AM EST
    So when Bush issued executive orders re: immigration, you were demanding his impeachment?

    (crickets chirping)


    Do you care to expound on specifically which (none / 0) (#131)
    by leftwig on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 02:10:43 PM EST
    order you are referencing which was impeachable?

    None (none / 0) (#140)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 02:53:13 PM EST
    As I said in my other comment, these orders are within the authority of the POTUS.  It was you who claimed:

    If Obama takes executive action on immigration, he should be impeached.  Our Constitution was set up so that one person would not have the power to decide such things and taking executive action on immigration would be a clear abuse of power.

    I was pointing out that Bush had also issued Executive Orders on immigration and wondering if you were also demanding his impeachment when he did so.


    Not to Jump on the Band Wagon... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 03:57:59 PM EST
    ...but the excuse "The other guy did it too" is really a defense of anything.

    Pretty sure a lot us have tried that when busted for speeding, and breaking the law is breaking the law, regardless of what the other guy did.

    That being said, it's a damn state of affairs when the only reason Obama would issue the order is because the Congress is incapable of immigration reform.  They should not be able to impeach the person who is essentially doing the job they are incapable of doing.

    If the legislatures don't like, they should do their GD jobs, so the grown ups don't have to.

    We need to start putting a leash on the President.  Not through impeachment, which seems to be the republican answer to everything Obama, but through pressure on the people who actually have the authority to make laws.

    The problem is republican voters continue to vote for people who are incapable of legislating.  So we end up with a bunch of jack@sses who have convinced themselves, and the idiots that voted for them,  that impeachment is a better option that immigration reform, if they manage to get Congress.  Never mind Obama hasn't actually done it, never mind that it's actually their job, never mind that they would have Congress and this would be the time to tackle the issue.

    Republicans, if this is such a god awful thing, get the idiots you voted for to deal with immigration and no one will have to issue executive orders.  It really is that simple.

    Stop blaming the only grown up in the room for doing something.


    I'm not saying Executive Orders are ... (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 05:05:44 PM EST
    ... a good thing.

    I am saying that - from a legal perspective - a POTUS has broad authority to issue such orders on immigration and a myriad of other issues.  Claims that an Executive Order on immigration is an unconstitutional "clear abuse of power" and an impeachable offense are baseless, regardless of what someone wants the law to be.


    What are the ExO's Bush gave on (none / 0) (#144)
    by leftwig on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 03:21:00 PM EST

    Here you go (none / 0) (#146)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 03:24:58 PM EST

       Aliens and noncitizen nationals serving in an active-duty status during war on terrorism; expedited naturalization: EO 13269

        Undocumented aliens interdicted or intercepted from Caribbean region; delegation of responsibilities: EO 13276

    Unlike you, I don't have unfettered loyalty (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 03:54:19 PM EST
    to a Dear Leader.

    Bush made many mistakes.


    Jim (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 04:10:22 PM EST
    you not only had unfettered loyalty to Bush, you had a blind, irrational, familial, borderline-erotic loyalty to Bush.

    Of course, it was all based in emotion and the perception of revenge and cultural vindication represented by "Dear Leader".


    You think I have unfettered loyalty to (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:42:31 PM EST
    Dear Leader?  Seriously?  

    Good Lord, jim - that you can even think that is a safe assumption to make about me tells me that you couldn't buy yourself a clue.

    There are people here you could say that about, but I'm definitely not one of them.


    google is your friend (none / 0) (#148)
    by CST on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 03:27:13 PM EST
    Here are all of Bush's Executive orders.

    Public information people.  Scroll Down, you get to Immigration.


    Aliens and noncitizen nationals serving in an active-duty status during war on terrorism; expedited naturalization: EO 13269

    Now, you may agree with this on a policy level, and disagree with Obama on a policy level, but nevertheless, the "power" question is the same.


    The difference is in the quantity (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 03:56:43 PM EST
    I may, for example, have authority to go out with guys and blow fifty bucks.

    But I don't have authority to blow the total bank account.

    Anyway, I'd like to see the SC get involved. Presidents have become all to imperial for my taste.


    pretty sure (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by CST on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 04:02:33 PM EST
    that analogy is not how the law on executive power works.

    I only have the power to indefinitely detain 10 guys, but the 11th is crossing a line - NOPE.


    The historic pattern has always been (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 04:03:51 PM EST
    that every party activist thinks the President too imperial and overreaching when their's is out of office.



    This is too funny (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 04:58:01 PM EST
    The difference is in the quantity

    Do tell, Jim.  What is the imaginary limit on the number of Executive Orders a POTUS may issue on immigration and where did you come up with this number?  How many has Bush issued versus Obama?

    I'll give you a hint - Obama has issued fewer Executive Orders overall and on immigration.



    There you go (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:53:45 AM EST
    i rest my case

    If you follow the law (none / 0) (#63)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:59:41 AM EST
    he is right.

    But that's whats great about our democracy.   The law is interpritable and politics are equally as important.

    What the Seanate/House should do is use the power of the purse to tie the presidents hands.   This is what's so frustrating about Republicans these days.   Rather then do it the way it should be done they might use impeachement which is a blunt instrument as opposed to their government powers of controlling money.

    The president can try to do whatever he wants but he has zero power on where the money comes from.  Once he has it he can use it how he wants but ultimately the power to tax and collect money resides in the congress.    If they really wanted to oppose him they could do it the old fashioned way.

    All that said I think Obama is bluffing in order to get some sort of deal after he loses.   He wants one more shot at being the great bipartisan president.   Reason being is he knows any actions he takes won't be permanent.   Executive action can be easily undone.   A bill with bipartisan support would cement a legacy and with 2 years to go that's what he interested in.

    We'll see.


    "If you follow the law" - he is wrong (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 12:00:25 PM EST
    If you follow the law he is right.

    What?  How can you say this premise is right:

    If Obama takes executive action on immigration, he should be impeached.Our Constitution was set up so that one person would not have the power to decide such things and taking executive action on immigration would be a clear abuse of power.

    and in the very next sentence claim this?

    But that's whats great about our democracy.   The law is interpritable and politics are equally as important.

    If Obama's action on immigration is a clearly unconstitutional abuse of power worthy of impeachment, how can you then say it's "interpritable" (sic)?  From a strictly legal perspective, the President has broad authority to take executive action on immigration:

    "As a purely legal matter, the President does have wide discretion when it comes to immigration," says Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration scholar at Cornell University Law School. "Just as DACA was within the purview of the president's executive authority on immigration, so too would expanding DACA fall within the president's inherent immigration authority."


    "I think there's little serious question that the administration has broad discretion in almost every aspect of the deportation machine," Michael Wishnie of Yale Law School told me ...

    As Hiroshi Motomura of the UCLA School of Law put it, "He would reach political constraints long before he reaches legal ones.

    Link 2

    "Presidents have pretty much complete discretion when it comes to enforcing criminal and other statutory regimes," said Peter J. Spiro, who teaches immigration law at Temple University. "President Obama can't start handing out green cards. Short of that, from a legal perspective, there are no serious constitutional or other legal constraints that apply here.

    Link 3


    By the letter of the law (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:04:16 AM EST
    I'd say 99% of our presidents overstepped their executive powers.  With the 1% being George Washington who wrote the rules, and maybe that guy who died a month in.

    That's the problem when people start shouting about impeachment.  At some point it just sounds silly.  That's not to say we shouldn't be concerned or try to curb executives who overreach, just be reasonable about it.  Like you said in your post, if congress wants to be taken seriously they need to use the power they have, not pitch a fit.


    The (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:06:34 AM EST
    GOP will never go along with anything he wants. It won't matter if it is the most far right policy in the world after campaigning that Obama "ruining the country" they are never going to work with him. They are going to pass crackpot legislation and Obama is going to veto it. Then the GOP is going to get a major smackdown in 2016 and they can either join the 21st century or fold up their tent and disband the party.

    Given the closed minds in the GOP, ... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:23:16 AM EST
    leftwig: "If Obama takes executive action on immigration, he should be impeached."

    ... executive action at this point would also be the right thing to do. Further, most of the country favors such reform, except for the white wingbats who've long disliked the presence of people of color in their midst anyway, save as a steady supply of landscaping and housekeeping personnel.

    So, guess who wins that argument in public?


    I don't know any white wingbats but I do (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by vml68 on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 01:38:12 PM EST
    except for the white wingbats who've long disliked the presence of people of color in their midst

    know quite a few 1st generation immigrants (all people of color) who are not in favor of immigration reform. The reason being that they had to wait their turn, spent thousands of dollars to get their GCs and in some instances, spend years away from spouses/children/parents while their paperwork was being processed.
    Of course, this is only anecdotal evidence but I think saying only racist white people have an issue with immigration reform is not quite true.


    So Their Issue is More About... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 02:44:29 PM EST
    ...them being mad about others not having to do go through the bureaucracy they did.  

    That isn't really a valid reason as it has nothing to do with the actual policy.  I would imagine if they really thought about it, the prospects of an easier entry for others, like friends and family, just might have them reconsidering their rather petty and selfish stand.

    Either way, there is an exception to every rule.  So you found a couple non-whites, that is like the Tea Party digging up a Democrat to claim they aren't really republicans.  And I am positive Alan Keyes and Herman Cain didn't vote for Obama.

    Those folks you know are on their way to becoming real Americans, make and close the door behind them saying, "No more all filled up suckers."

    How many constitute 'quite a few' ?


    Scott, I was not taking a stand on (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by vml68 on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 04:05:52 PM EST
    whether their reasons are right or wrong, valid or invalid. I was reacting more to Donald's "white people" comment. As ridiculous as this may sound to you and probably most people here, even though I am not white, I find "white people" bashing annoying.  
    White people are not responsible for everything wrong and evil in this world. I think, I can safely say that people of all colors, religions, nationalities, etc. can be selfish, ignorant, racist, evil, etc.

    As for the people I know, I guess I would put the number around 50 or so. So, as I said in my earlier comment, definitely anecdotal evidence. (Btw, every one of these people registered to vote for the first time in 2008, just so they could vote for Obama. So, I would not say racism is at play here).
    The attitude is not so much, "No more all filled up suckers" but "I played by the rules, why can't you?". It is an emotional reaction based on "perceived unfairness" but that does not make it invalid.

    For me personally, I can see both sides of the issue and understand why each side feels the way they do.
    And, I am pretty certain, that if it was me living in poverty in Mexico or one of the Central American countries, I would have made a run for the border.


    Pretty Sure vml... (none / 0) (#172)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 04:44:56 PM EST
    ...that the reason immigration reform has not been enacted is the white folks, so on this issue the blame is almost entirely on "white people".

    And we still haven't reached a point where bashing your own race is a no-no.  OS while you many not lie it, and I may not like brown people bashing, we are certainly allowed to do it to ourselves.

    My comment was in response to yours.  But in reality, immigration reform is probably going to tighten the borders, not loosen them.  In reality, people going though the proper channels aren't going to see much change, it's certainly not going to open the gates. So the idea that your friends think the people behind then are going to deal wit what they did is unfounded.

    The issue mostly revolves around people who already live here, but without documentation and how to keep that number from increasing.

    My Opinion.
    The republican don't want to tackles the issue because what they really want will alienate a huge voter segment that is only increasing.  So they keep doing their best to not address the issue, which is fine, until someone decides to do something, they are all up in arms about executive order and impeachment.  When they could and should address the issue so Obama doesn't have to.


    Scott, there you go again... (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 04:01:12 PM EST
    Having never attended a Tea Party meeting telling is what Tea Party people believe.


    And I'll bring up the labor issue with you.

    Cheap labor okay with you????


    That is Funny... (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 04:51:44 PM EST
    ...considering my only options on the ballot were R, D, L, and GRN.  

    I guess they forgot to put the tea party on the ballot here in Texas and I guess that R behind the tea party jesus, Ted Cruz (R), doesn't stand for republican.

    Get on the ballot or stop bothering me with your fantasy party of republicans too ashamed to be republicans, but vote republican.


    So you are in favor of (none / 0) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 03:59:00 PM EST
    adding 12 million unskilled workers in direct competition with the unskilled poor...white, brown, black and all shades in between.

    Of course you could get your lawn work done cheaper.


    Actually (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 04:07:41 PM EST
    you'd get your lawn work done cheaper if you don't pass immigration reform. Right now they are being paid under the table. So if they become legal their salaries are going to go up. Maybe that's what the GOP is against immigration reform? They like the fact that they can pay people less money for working for them?

    In Other Words... (none / 0) (#195)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 03:41:49 PM EST
    ...the labor market needs to be regulated because competition will not favor Americans.


    • Markets need regulation
    • Jim has little faith in the American worker's abilities.

    They are are already here competing, and I think Americans are doing just fine with the competition.  I also think that those 12M people you speak of are adding a lot of value to the economy.  If accurate, that is more people then every state but 6.  Almost double the population of Tennessee, and you want to what, take out the economic value of 12M people to give Americans an advantage they don't need.

    That is the definition of a republican market, ensure it favors the people who don't need it.

    It's funny how republicans only care about American workers in an immigration debate, but start taking about minimum wage, health care, or unions and then it's a 180.  Then it's every man for himself and they lazy over paid.  Of course your view on health care does not match your party's, so that isn't directed at you, just the people you vote for.


    Seems to Me... (none / 0) (#72)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:29:35 AM EST
    ...that D's got the the AA vote, but if they would impeach over immigration, that would lose the voters that seem likely to determine every national election going forward, Hispanics.

    Lose them and you might as well go home.

    But come on, this is Obama, the guy that thinks compromise is giving the R's whatever they want, and that is damn scary, especially in regards to Social Security.

    It would be pretty awesome if it worked out 50/50 and Biden was the determining vote in the Senate.  He could hold the vote to impeach, go with the party, or go with the possibility of being President.  Political theater that would ensure nothing gets done, which at this point in US politics is a win for the public.


    IMO (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:34:12 AM EST
    50/50 is not at all unlikely.

    They already have lost the black vote. (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 01:35:33 PM EST
    Obama got 95%. So they don't have any leverage with the Repubs or the Demos.

    Non-whites made up 28 percent of the electorate, up a bit from 27 percent in 2008. This group largely backed Obama: 71 percent of Hispanics (it was 67 percent last time), and 93 percent of blacks (down a touch from 95 percent). Republican challenger Mitt Romney won among white voters by 20 percentage points.


    The Repubs have stated they have no plans to impeach Obama. But if he illegally grants amnesty to 12 million undocumented people they may change their mind.


    You must not (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 01:40:40 PM EST
    be too up on what is going then if you think there have been no Republicans talking about impeachment.

    The point about the black vote is that it is growing while the white vote is shrinking and the Hispanic vote is growing too. So yeah, the GOP can continue on their strategy of "get more of the white vote" which they are not going to be able to do or change because they are going to be a dead party if they don't change.


    The only ones wanting to talk (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 01:47:34 PM EST
    about impeachment is the Demos who are trying to get you all riled up...


    If Obama illegal grants amnesty the Repubs won't have to lift a finger to get the white vote.

    What I find interesting is that you seem to think that importing more people into the unskilled labor market will help the working poor.

    Unskilled labor is a commodity. What happens to the price of tomatoes in the summer???


    Are you serious? All Obama has to do (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 02:39:29 PM EST
    is breathe anything that even hints at reforming the immigration laws, and the GOP lay in a new supply of torches and pitchforks.

    Between your ridiculous insistence that it's Democrats who are talking impeachment, and your belief that all white people are opposed to immigration reform, and the not-so-surprising revelation that you're fine with unskilled labor as long as it's unskilled US citizen labor - gotta keep those tomatoes cheap! - the takeaway is that you apparently know about as much about immigration as you do about all the other things you go on and on about; the nicest thing I can say about your latest contribution is that it  will make a great addition to the Illustrated Big Book of jim's Fractured Fairy Tales.

    Complete with stick figures.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 04:11:37 PM EST
    All Obama has to do ....that even hints at reforming the immigration laws,

    Anne, I don't know how to tell you this but we have this branch of government called CONGRESS.

    And they're the ones who make laws. Not the president.


    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 04:46:25 PM EST
    The only ones wanting to talk about impeachment is the Demos who are trying to get you all riled up...

    So strange ...

    16 Republican incumbents and 3 Republican candidates calling for impeachment

    Not to mention Sensenbreener, Sarah Palin, Alan Keyes, Alan West, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News (numerous people).

    Who knew they were "Demos"?

    Heh, heh, heh ...


    No (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 01:52:27 PM EST
    it's Republicans. I guess you don't even know who you are supporting? Joni Ernst for one is running on that. She's the GOP candidate in Iowa.

    Re getting the white vote. That is the same thing that Pete Wilson thought in California didn't he? Well, that did not work out so well did it? It eviscerated the GOP there in California and a lot of states in the west.

    The problem is that the people ARE ALREADY HERE Jim. It's not about "importing more people". It's about the fact that people have come here they have children that are American citizens etc. Are you for deporting American citizens because they have wrong skin color? You seem to be.


    Making them legal opens up all kinds of (none / 0) (#163)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 04:07:24 PM EST
    jobs that are there now.

    But tell you what. Let's close the border. Completely. Then let's issue green cards to every undocumented person who can pass a criminal background check and put them on a path to citizen ship. BUT, they cannot bring anyone else in except wife/husband and children.

    And yes, any additional undocumented are deported immediately. No hearings. Zip. Gone back.

    Would you sign up for that????


    That's pretty (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 04:09:29 PM EST
    much what Obama has proposed and yet you oppose it.

    Well (none / 0) (#169)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 04:21:35 PM EST
    the hard-Right are nervous-and-jerky mind readers and conspiracy theorists: they know that whatever measures Obama publicly proposes, there's this Grand Conspiracy involving changing demographics to tilt the playing field in the Democrat's favor.



    I haven't said I oppose that plan (none / 0) (#186)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 06:26:41 PM EST
    Of course Obama won't close the border and he won't deport the ones who slip after.

    Obama has deported more people (none / 0) (#196)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 06:49:43 AM EST
    that the sainted GWB ever did in the same amout of time, but don't let the facts get in the way of you repeating what Fox News tells you is true.

    Our ruling

    Technically, the ad isn't correct to say that Barack Obama "has deported more people than any other president in this country's history," since George W. Bush cumulatively deported more over his full eight-year term -- and since Bush would remain ahead of Obama if Mitt Romney wins the presidency in November.

    However, we -- and the experts we interviewed -- agree that the ad is right to note a significant jump in deportations under Obama. Measured by the monthly frequency of deportation, Obama's numbers are significantly higher than Bush's were, even as the estimated population of illegal immigrants was fallingWe rate the claim Half True.



    Appreciate what (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 08:35:41 AM EST
    you have. Cuomo would be a literal DREAM here in GA. We're likely to get a repeat of the most corrupt governor in the nation.

    Low bar (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 08:42:33 AM EST
    sorry but it is.  Cuomo has been terrible.  I was chatting with a NYer about this last night.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 08:47:13 AM EST
    that was kind of my point. Whatever Cuomo is he's miles ahead of Nathan Deal.

    1998, though, (none / 0) (#29)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:05:43 AM EST
      did not follow the lame duck President's party takes a "whupping" course. This scenario occurs infrequently enough that the sample size is rather small (2006, 1998, 1986, 1974 and 1958 are the only ones in most if not all of our lifetimes). FDR was never really a lame duck and prior to him you have to go way back to 1918 for an election in a sitting President's 6th year.

      In 1998, the Dems actually picked up 5 seats in the House (though still were the minority party) and the Senate stayed 55-45.

       The Senate that year probably did not present the GOP with the opportunity for gains that it has this year due to which States are in play, but the Repubs were expecting gain in both Houses and the actual results led to recrimination and reshuffling (Bye, Newt, etc.).

      1986, the prior contest in a President's 6th year,  did result in a major gain for the opposition party (and Reagan was considerably more popular than Obama is right now). The Dems gained 8 seats in the Senate and seized the majority. In the House, the Dems added 5 seats to an already comfortable majority.

      1974, was not only 40 years ago, but in the wake of Watergate and the Nixon resignation, so  is probably sui generis. Going back further than that is definitely more just of historical interest than meaningful in evaluating the present.

      In a different way, perhaps, the Republicans of 1998 were pretty darn over-the-top crazy too. I think a difference is that in 1998 we had a more politically shrewd President and a Party that was more capable of "punishing" the GOP for the crazy.

      Just a guess, but I do expect this to turn out more like 2006 than 1998.


    Perusing (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 08:50:49 AM EST
    the polls this morning it looks like Hagan is going to hold on surprisingly. And of course that comes with the caveat if the polls are right. So that means the GOP is going to have to pull an inside straight and win all the remaining 6 competitive seats to take the senate. I really doubt the GOP is going to be able to pull it out in Colorado so I'm going to go vote for Michelle Nunn.

    hmmmm (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:10:40 AM EST
    The three latest polls out today show a tie in one, Tillis up by 2 in a second one, and Hagan up by 2 in the third one. All within the margin of error.  What poll are you looking at that makes you think

    Perusing the polls this morning it looks like Hagan is going to hold on surprisingly.

    Is there some outlier poll that shows her up significantly (past the margin of error)?


    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:24:11 AM EST
    but I'm using the same strategy that you have been using. If they're up even one point they're going to win.

    Tha would be great (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:32:37 AM EST
    except that wasn't any "strategy" I was using.  I always look at multiple polls, over time, and always talked about how polls change and the margin of error.

    You, on the other hand, are not, but ironically, you think your conversations with Facebook friends are scientific enough to predict a Ted Cruz nomination 2 years from now.



    Well (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:40:08 AM EST
    nope but I understand the tea party and you do not. Apparently in Washington they don't understand or are in denial of what the GOP base is doing. The GOP is increasingly a southern party and I have a front row seat.

    That's true. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 12:36:31 PM EST
    Such political tribalism does not resonate well out here on the Pacific Rim, where the GOP has been getting devastated at the polls.

    25 years ago, even though its demographics were then recognized as being in great flux, California was still generally considered by the Beltway folks to be a reliably Republican state in presidential and congressional politics. But then came the huge racially-driven overreach that was Prop. 187 in 1994.

    Fast forward to today, and the Republicans have been almost thoroughly marginalized as a political presence in Sacramento. They hold sway only in the Central Valley's farm belt, sparsely populated eastern California and the high desert communities of Palm Springs and Indio, where mostly wealthy white retirees reside. They have all but consigned themselves to regional party status in the Golden State.

    And further, given that sociologists have long considered California to be a bellwether state for the nation, therein probably lies the GOP's future as a national party, should it continue to maintain its present trajectory as the party of  older, misinformed and paranoid white cranks.

    Even then, while Republicans will likely continue to dominate in those increasingly impoverished rural communities and generally wealthy gated communities, they will do so in the former for only as long as one's white European ethnicity still matters as a primary criteria for holding public office.

    Because once the bleak state of the local economy overtakes racial disdain and ethnic mistrust to become the primary factor driving those poor rural white voters to the polls, the GOP's well on track for achieving political irrelevance or even oblivion, perhaps within a generation. Therefore, unless the Republicans alter their present course, they're staring at a pretty sobering and dire political outlook.



    True, except (none / 0) (#120)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 12:45:02 PM EST
    For all those other Republican races in the rest of the country.

    Joni Ernst (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 01:34:42 PM EST
    is as radical as anything they could put up in Georgia. Michele Bachmann came from MN. It's a disease that infects the entire party. The moderates have been run off JB for the most part. There's what? About 20 of them in the house and then a few in the senate but if the GOP takes the senate there are going to be even more radicals in the senate. Even in other states there are candidates who are running on "southern values".

    to be fair (none / 0) (#126)
    by CST on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 01:40:23 PM EST
    MA is probably about to elect a "Republican" Gov. who makes Mitt Romney look like Ted Cruz.  But I think that's one big difference too between who we send to the federal government and who we elect in local politics.  The northeast republican is alive, they just don't even try to associate themselves with the national party.

    I'm talking (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 01:43:03 PM EST
    about on a federal level. They are completely crazy. On the state level yeah, you have some Republicans like Sandoval in NV that are not insane.

    Or (none / 0) (#139)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 02:52:29 PM EST
    More likely, you are so in the thick of it that you can't see the forest for the trees.

    According to the conventional wisdom, American politics and politicians are more polarized now than they have been since the Civil War, reflecting a growing chasm between Democrats and Republicans. But what if the conventional wisdom is wrong? There's no question that politicians are more divided; just look at their voting records. But what if the polarization of politicians reflects a common mistake about Americans -- a widely held but false belief that Democratic and Republican voters are more divided than they actually are?

    Yes, Democratic and Republican voters are more divided today than at any time in recent memory. Polls show that, compared with just a few decades ago, Democrats and Republicans disagree more about the role of government in providing basic services. Democrats and Republicans dislike one another more, and have fewer social connections with one another. Democrats and Republicans even distrust the opposing side to protect basic health and welfare, illustrated in the deep divisions over what to do about Ebola and terrorism.

    But here's the thing: As strong as political polarization is, it's not as big as people think. Democratic and Republican voters are far less polarized than people believe them to be.


    It matters because the very people who are most mistaken about political reality are the people who are most politically active. People who perceive the greatest polarization between Democrats and Republicans are more likely to vote, to make campaign contributions and to persuade other people. And, as we have seen, political ideologues are the people who perceive the greatest polarization.

    When polarization perceivers are disproportionately engaged in political action, false beliefs about political polarization become self-fulfilling. Political ideologues elect polarized politicians.

    It often seems as if political extremists dominate political discourse by shouting the loudest. Truth be told, political moderates often remain silent -- particularly in midterm elections -- voting less often and removing themselves from the conversation.

    This is unfortunate because, as our research shows, political moderates have more realistic perceptions of the political divisions among ordinary Americans.

    to be fair (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by CST on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 03:05:33 PM EST
    when talking about national politics, and national parties, it really doesn't matter what the people who don't show up to vote think, "average" american or not.

    Reads like it was written by some (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 03:09:57 PM EST
    Third Way, DLC-type who thinks having a strong opinion is a bad thing.

    Did the article come with a medium-sized bowl of lukewarm oatmeal?


    I've never trusted the ... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 04:18:16 PM EST
    ... "squishy middle," by which I mean those people who always seem to have trouble making up their minds about candidates, ballot initiatives and ordinances, etc.

    Further, I've never understood exactly how a politician can pander to an electoral faction that chooses collectively to just go with the flow, without looking like your "bowl of lukewarm oatmeal" and alienating his or her own base of voters.

    It's been my experience that members of that "squishy middle" are generally unlikely to take the time necessary to understand what it is that they really need, in terms of identifying both responsible public officials and effective public policy.

    They also tend to be swayed more by emotion rather than reason, and when they go to the polls they're prone to punch their ticket for whatever they perceive to be the flavor of the week.

    And as the old political adage goes, when you fail to stand for something, you'll likely fall for anything.



    I completely agree with you Donald (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by sj on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 04:23:14 PM EST
    Further, I've never understood exactly how a politician can pander to an electoral faction that chooses collectively to just go with the flow, without looking like your "bowl of lukewarm oatmeal" and alienating his or her own base of voters
    And yet, that is exactly the kind of politician the Dems keep serving up.

    But "moderate" GOP voters aren't ... (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 03:39:50 PM EST
    ... electing moderates to Congress or the statehouses, jb. Rather, they're repeatedly and dutifully lining up behind some real crackpots when they go to the polls, simply because said crackpots have an "R" behind their name on the ballot.

    So, all this twaddle from the New York Times about "political moderates [having] more realistic perceptions of the political divisions among ordinary Americans" is exactly that -- twaddle. Because moderation is not what we're seeing and getting from the GOP in Washington any more. Today, if the person holding office in Congress is a Republican, the odds are better than even that he or she is no moderate. Rather, their political viewplain is likely tilted hard right.



    And you believe that? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by sj on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 04:06:53 PM EST
    I shouldn't be surprised, I guess. Lots of people, for some reason, think no-opinion, or malleable-opinion citizens somehow become active voters.

    You know, as much as jim tries to pretend that there is no tea party, or that no one understands what they are, or whatever his latest dissembling happens to be, I have to say this about the TP: they field candidates. The RW voter tends to have someone they can get behind. If only, sometimes, at the local level. As horrible as that candidate seems to me.

    But the Dems haven't seemed to learn from that. Nope, Dems serve milk-toast at the polls and expect it to be treated like crème brulee.

    That article is the same smug, self-congratulatory clap-trap that has been spit out and [mis]guided the Democrats since the DLC was formed.



    Like Donald (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 03:49:13 PM EST
    said these so called moderate Republicans aren't getting elected or winning primaries or anything. Even if they win the primary they adopt a hard right stance and only cater to the far right. I'm going by what they actually have done, their voting records etc. instead of some fantasy that they are moderates. The tea party has pulled the entire GOP far far right.

    Hagan has (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:25:37 AM EST
    led in 60% of the polls and Tillis only 20%.

    Republicans are going to (none / 0) (#60)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:55:36 AM EST
    either win 6 seats or 10 seats.

    Meaning if they just play the averages they pick up Six and take the Senate.

    If it is a wave and the enthusiasm (if you can call it that) and motivation is really on their side and the presidents poor ratings do what they historically do then all the close races will break their way...Kansas, NC, NH, CO, IA and they get to 10.

    Most likely 6.


    Keep my six pack (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:58:41 AM EST

    I guess (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:02:39 AM EST
    we'll see. All the polls are so close. The fact that the polls are close is a testament to how much the GOP is disliked around the country.

    Kansas is a goner for the GOP i would say along with NH. CO has a real GOP radical running but so does IA.

    The approval rating for the GOP is in the teens Slado. People talk about Obama's approval rating being in the low 40's which it is but it's not like the GOP is liked much either even less than Obama.

    So if your predictions are right we should get ready for impeachment?


    Fine but (none / 0) (#108)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 12:01:07 PM EST
    These RCP average is historically acurate and it says at a minimum Republicans take 6 seast...eventually.

    Might not happen tonight or most likely Republicans will get to 50 but have to wait until January to get to 52.

    The problem for deams is they are losing the Senate right now based on the averages.

    Then you add the presidents terrible poll ratings, in Red states and the history of the party in power losing in mid terms.

    Sorry there is just very little pointing to a Dem hold of Senate.   A Victory would be keeping it to 50/49/1 after the run offs and being able to claim no mandate for republicans etc... etc...

    Most likely it will be 52/47/1 and the 2016 campaign will begin tomorrow after the dust settles.


    Look (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 01:28:26 PM EST
    I definitely expect the GOP to pick up seats. It looks like Arkansas is a goner for the Dems according to the polls.

    The problem I have with the RCP average is that who they say are leading is within the margin of error so if their predictions don't come to fruition they have a disclaimer and the fact that they give equal weight to Insider Advantage as to Quinnipac. Insider Advantage is even laughed at here by Republicans.

    The only thing I know for sure is that if the GOP takes the senate it's going to be jihad 24/7 and they are going to think they have the entire country on board with their nutty agenda. Don't think so? Look no further than Newt Gingrich and how he thought so back in 1994.


    Um (none / 0) (#134)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 02:39:07 PM EST
    The problem I have with the RCP average is that who they say are leading is within the margin of error so if their predictions don't come to fruition they have a disclaimer...

    EVERY poll has a margin of error, so I guess that means if Quinnipiac doesn't have their predictions come true they too have a disclaimer. So what you're saying is that you have a problem with ALL polls and that none are to be believed. Maybe you're right - the polls have been known to be skewed against Democrats - or Republicans.

    Nonetheless, we've reached a stage in campaign season when Democrats have begun to complain that the polls are biased against them. There's a long tradition of this sort of "unskewing." The trailing party will say that its internal polls tell a different story or that its turnout operation will save it. It will critique each poll's demographic cross-tabs. (Because most polls report breakouts for a dozen or more demographic groups, all with small sample sizes, there's almost always something to argue about.) The party will point toward previous instances when it outperformed its polls. As a last resort, it'll claim that this election will be different somehow.

    Usually this doesn't end well for the unskewers. In 2004, some Democrats asserted that John Kerry would outperform his polls because undecided voters would break toward him. Instead, George W. Bush won by a slightly wider margin than the polls predicted. Throughout 2012, conservatives argued that the polls had a Democratic bias. The polls did have a bias -- but it was a Republican one.

    Democrats may not be wrong. The polls could very well be biased against their candidates. The problem is that the polls are just about as likely to be biased against Republicans, in which case the GOP could win more seats than expected.


    One reason for the lack of a long-term bias is that pollsters are capable of making adjustments to their surveys. What adaptations have they made this year? In contrast to past elections, the vast majority of polls in 2014 have either included cellphones or been conducted wholly or partly over the Internet. The failure to reach voters who can't be reached by landlines was probably introducing Republican bias into the polls before, but that may be corrected now.

    What about the "ground game"? There's credible reporting that Democrats are investing more into it this year, and that could help them. But the pollsters, at least as a group, are not expecting the sort of turnout gap they did in 2010. That year, the average poll had Republicans doing about 6 percentage points better among likely voters than among registered voters -- a historically large difference. The average poll we've tracked this year has shown about a 3-point gap (favoring Republicans) instead -- in line with the historical average in midterm years.

    And remember, the question is not which party has the stronger ground game, but whether a stronger ground game will lead to benefits that aren't reflected in the polls. An analogy can be made to stock prices. You might think that Apple makes cool, market-leading products, but that isn't a reason to buy its stock -- pretty much everyone else agrees, and that's reflected in its stock price. It's much more challenging to prove that the market is undervaluing (or overvaluing) the stock.

    What I'm saying (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 03:26:52 PM EST
    is that all the polling is within the margin of error I mean some of these races are someone having a 0.5% lead and RCP is declaring that person the winner. Maybe that person will win by 0.5% but I'm not willing to say it's a done deal like they with that small of a difference.

    You can have a problem (none / 0) (#142)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 03:08:17 PM EST
    because you don't like what it's telling you but the simple fact remains the RCP average has been right plus or minus 1 on both the House/Senate for the last few election cycles and has gotten every presidential election right by a point or so since it started doing it.

    Because they use the averaging method they are almost always (like 99% of the time) correct.

    Look, I've been there.  IN 2012 I convinced myself that Romney was goign to beat the polls, the average and Nate Silver because the polls were skewed and etc... etc...

    It was hopeless wishful thinking.  

    Repubs are going to get to 51 no matter what.  The only question is how much more do they get to.

    RCP says 52 (it will probably be 51 52 or 53).  We'll also probably not find out till the recalls are finished.


    Actually (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 03:33:26 PM EST
    no, it has nothing to do with what they are saying. It is just too close to declare a winner in my book. So many of the leads are within the margin of error. Now maybe that person will win with 0.5% like RCP says but I certainly wouldn't call it a done deal unless the person had a lead outside of the margin of error. Obviously there is a big enough gap in Arkansas to say that Pryor barring some freakish thing is not going to be reelected. I have watched the polls flip back and forth here in GA and both sides declare they're winning so excuse me if I don't automatically buy into RCP's predictions.

    To get to 52 senate seats the GOP is going to have to pull an inside straight much like Romney was going to have to pull in 2012. They are going to have to win EVERY competitive race and I think the odds are against that. Are they going to win some of them? Yes, they are but we just don't know which ones they are going to win.

    I go with what BTD says all polls suck.


    Economy thriving, dow at 17k+ (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jack203 on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:08:20 AM EST
    And people still mad at Obama.  I guess they miss the Bush years with the collapsing economy and the complete and total discredit of the United States and Democracy in front of the entire world by going to war for false reasons.

    So apparently the solution for America is to lower taxes for the rich and super rich, (everyone else can go to hell), more defense industry spending, and more idiotic nonsensical wars.

    I'm hoping the pollsters are wrong about today.  Not looking forward to the smug reactions of idiotic Republicans if they are not.

    The 1% economy is thriving... (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 11:25:18 AM EST
    the 99% not so much...middle class hasn't gotten a raise in 17 years!

    If that's a thriving economy, you can have it.

    But as for the rest, I agree...we have met the enemy and he's in the mirror.


    And you blame Obama for that? (none / 0) (#191)
    by Jack203 on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 09:23:48 PM EST

    Not really... (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 08:19:37 AM EST
    I ultimately blame "we the people", for voting against their interests and the interests of the nation as a whole.  By voting for guys like Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama for president, and the vast majority of clowns who have "served" in the clown show we call Congress for 35 years running.



    There is (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:11:20 AM EST
    a reason the approval rating for the GOP is 16% and you just named them.

    Jack (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 10:23:32 AM EST
    you are either going to have to deal with smug reactions from republicans or smug reaction from me.  So that part is sort of a lose lose.



    Is there a blue moon? (none / 0) (#112)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 12:17:30 PM EST
    Or a stopped clock...I agree with Erick Ericson!

    Bring on the GOP civil war!

    Mr. Angel and I voted during the early voting (none / 0) (#117)
    by Angel on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 12:36:01 PM EST
    period even though most of our votes are for lost causes.  Abbott will win the gubernatorial election in a landslide, and the GOP will win every statewide office, unfortunately.  I love my state but I hate that the idiot majority continues to vote as if they're trying to take us back to the Dark Ages.  

    We do have local elections for county commissioners and judges that should remain Democratic, thank goodness.  

    I fear for the country should the GOP take control of Congress as projected.    

    It shall be a pleasure... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 12:37:27 PM EST
    to vote against Rep. Peter King for the first time...after I got redistricted under that bedwetter's thumb last year.  

    William D. Stevenson it is...shock the world Willy!

    Okay. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 01:37:40 PM EST
    Well, I went to my polling place. Voting was maybe a little heavier than usual but I was really shocked because of who was voting. Usually it's about 50/50 men and women all middle aged and above. Well, today it was about 90% women and the majority of them were young women. I'll be interested to see the numbers on my county later on this week.

    Also my son went to vote today. First time voter. He's going to put a vote in for Carter and Nunn.

    Went to my polling place (none / 0) (#136)
    by smott on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 02:43:34 PM EST
    Here in Pittsburgh and on the whole block it was nothing but Wolf for Gov signs. Not a single Corbett sign the whole way. Not one.
    Never seen that before.

    I went to college in Pittsburgh (none / 0) (#138)
    by CST on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 02:48:08 PM EST
    A brief FB poll of my former classmates who are still there suggests that some people really REALLY don't like Corbett :)

    What's wrong with Kansas (none / 0) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 04:24:01 PM EST

    Judge rules against Kansas gay marriage ban on same day culture warrior Sam Brownback may lose
    U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree says state's gay marriage ban violates the Constitution

    Apparently (none / 0) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 05:10:47 PM EST
    we are having record turnout by Democrats here in GA. So the phone call from the GOP wasn't fake. Some are even predicting that we may not even have a run off. I really hope so because I'm so sick of the flyers and emails and phone calls. Ugh.

    I hope Mitch McConnell (none / 0) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 06:07:13 PM EST
    will stop smiling now.  It's scaring me.

    What is scaring you? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 06:10:04 PM EST
    It's a ghastly mirthless grin (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 06:18:18 PM EST
    Look at it this (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 06:25:07 PM EST
    way: If the GOP takes the senate he is going to have a target on his back so large. Ted Cruz and some of his minions like Ernst and Perdue (if he wins) are going to go after him like crazy. What I wonder is if all these people are saying they are not going to vote for Mitch exactly who are they going to vote for?

    Oh, he's (none / 0) (#180)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 06:11:25 PM EST
    smiling because he got reelected. Whatever.

    This is going (none / 0) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 06:20:29 PM EST
    to be a very strange election. Dem turnout is up 3% from 2010 and younger and browner.

    Carter (none / 0) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 06:23:24 PM EST
    campaign just emailed me saying the race with Deal is a dead heat. Maybe they're looking to avoid a run off. I guess we shall see.

    Sounds like (none / 0) (#185)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 06:25:40 PM EST
    things may be better in GA than some other places.  

    Surpisingly so (none / 0) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 06:34:50 PM EST
    it seems to be that way. However D turnout appears to be up over 2010. So that's a positive.

    There's a (none / 0) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 06:49:43 PM EST
    28 point gender gap here in GA. That's good news for both Carter and Nunn and that's huge for GA.

    welp (none / 0) (#189)
    by CST on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 07:12:01 PM EST
    At the end of the day I filled in the Coakley circle.  She may suck, but I agree with her on the positions more than the other guy. Plus, I know what Republican means around here.  It means rich, white, entitled tech/business guys who always think they're smarter than they are.  Many of them are decent human beings.  But they're also the "think they're smarter than they are so the entire economy crashes but we still really need giant bonuses because only we can fix it" kind of people.  So Coakley got my vote.  I did NOT vote for Stephen Lynch though (he was running unopposed).  That $hit can stay in office without my help.  So if Deval Patrick is the next representative from MA its because of a stealth write-in campaign :)

    It seems (none / 0) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 04, 2014 at 07:23:35 PM EST
    like there are others like you since apparently that race is closer than anyone expected. The R was supposed to walk away with it and isn't.