Really bad news for democrats over the past few days in the senate races.

1. 2 polls today show Toomey tied or up in PA.

2. The latest poll out of IN today shows Young up +5 over Evan Bayh

3. Ayotte has consistently led in NH

4. Burr has led most polling in NC

5. Blunt has led every recent poll in MO

6. Last two polls out of WI has Johnson down just 1 or 2 points behind Feingold

7. Rubio has consistently led in FL the entire way

8. Kirk is getting killed in IL. No Surprise.

9. Nevada would be a republican flip, and Heck has been up in the most recent polls.

The first 8 races are republican incumbents. #9 was held by a democrat.

Democrats would need a net pickup of 5 to win the senate outright, or 4 if Clinton wins. Right now, they are only ahead in 2, plus they are losing NV. As of right now, the dems have a net pickup of 1 senate seat.

In 2 years, democrats could fall below 40 senate seats, as they have a very high exposure in some red states that they will have to protect in the off cycle. These will be seats that were won during Obamas 2012 win.

If Pennsylvania rejects Trump and Toomey then my state has fallen.

Keeping the Senate might be bigger than the Presidency.

(11-05-2016 06:11 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Keeping the Senate might be bigger than the Presidency.

I couldn't agree more. I've actually been saying that for months.

If Clinton wins, she'll have no mandate and no honeymoon. With all the investigations ongoing, she'll be a lame duck on January 22nd.

If Trump wins, he'll have to kiss a lot Republican establishment asses.

All Trump needs is the voters behind him. Theres 2 dozen democratic senators up for reelection in 2 years.

Same reason why Reagan could get stuff done with the dems holding majorities in both houses.

(11-05-2016 06:39 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 06:11 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Keeping the Senate might be bigger than the Presidency.

I couldn't agree more. I've actually been saying that for months.

If Clinton wins, she'll have no mandate and no honeymoon. With all the investigations ongoing, she'll be a lame duck on January 22nd.

If Trump wins, he'll have to kiss a lot Republican establishment asses.

And any open SCOTUS seat has be approved by a Republican majority in the senate. No way if HRC wins that she will get a left wing activist judge confirmed.

(11-05-2016 06:58 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 06:39 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 06:11 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Keeping the Senate might be bigger than the Presidency.

I couldn't agree more. I've actually been saying that for months.

If Clinton wins, she'll have no mandate and no honeymoon. With all the investigations ongoing, she'll be a lame duck on January 22nd.

If Trump wins, he'll have to kiss a lot Republican establishment asses.

And any open SCOTUS seat has be approved by a Republican majority in the senate. No way if HRC wins that she will get a left wing activist judge confirmed.

If Hillary becomes President there will be token opposition to any SCOTUS nominee before being rubber-stamped by the establishment led Senate. So no, keeping the Senate will not be bigger than winning the Presidency.

(11-05-2016 09:17 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 06:58 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 06:39 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 06:11 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Keeping the Senate might be bigger than the Presidency.

I couldn't agree more. I've actually been saying that for months.

If Clinton wins, she'll have no mandate and no honeymoon. With all the investigations ongoing, she'll be a lame duck on January 22nd.

If Trump wins, he'll have to kiss a lot Republican establishment asses.

And any open SCOTUS seat has be approved by a Republican majority in the senate. No way if HRC wins that she will get a left wing activist judge confirmed.

If Hillary becomes President there will be token opposition to any SCOTUS nominee before being rubber-stamped by the establishment led Senate. So no, keeping the Senate will not be bigger than winning the Presidency.

Disagree. While the Senate may be establishment the Republicans are very aware of the dangers of an activist SCOTUS and will work to block far left nominees because they would likely affect the country for 20+ years. Centrists will get through the process but not far left.

(11-05-2016 09:17 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 06:58 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 06:39 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 06:11 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Keeping the Senate might be bigger than the Presidency.

I couldn't agree more. I've actually been saying that for months.

If Clinton wins, she'll have no mandate and no honeymoon. With all the investigations ongoing, she'll be a lame duck on January 22nd.

If Trump wins, he'll have to kiss a lot Republican establishment asses.

And any open SCOTUS seat has be approved by a Republican majority in the senate. No way if HRC wins that she will get a left wing activist judge confirmed.

If Hillary becomes President there will be token opposition to any SCOTUS nominee before being rubber-stamped by the establishment led Senate. So no, keeping the Senate will not be bigger than winning the Presidency.

It will be interesting to see just what kind of politician HRC is on her first foray into this. My guess? She will nominate someone that the GOP members in congress can not turn down without looking totally partisan. It will be someone both sides can live with. Why do I think this? She watched Bill. That is exactly what he would do in order to start off on a good footing with both congress and the public.

Of course I could be totally wrong and she puffs up her chest and nominates a some crazy ass ultra Liberal nutcase. She has to win first.

(11-05-2016 06:39 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 06:11 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Keeping the Senate might be bigger than the Presidency.

I couldn't agree more. I've actually been saying that for months.

If Clinton wins, she'll have no mandate and no honeymoon. With all the investigations ongoing, she'll be a lame duck on January 22nd.

If Trump wins, he'll have to kiss a lot Republican establishment asses.

If Trump wins it will be the other way around.

(11-05-2016 10:10 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 06:39 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 06:11 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Keeping the Senate might be bigger than the Presidency.

I couldn't agree more. I've actually been saying that for months.

If Clinton wins, she'll have no mandate and no honeymoon. With all the investigations ongoing, she'll be a lame duck on January 22nd.

If Trump wins, he'll have to kiss a lot Republican establishment asses.

If Trump wins it will be the other way around.

My guess is that if HRC wins?..We will see her come to the middle very fast and hard to gain favor in her first 100 days. She is like her husband. She knows how to play this game.

(11-05-2016 06:11 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Keeping the Senate might be bigger than the Presidency.

No new supreme Court justices. #wegood2016

https://electionbettingodds.com/congress.html

(11-05-2016 11:26 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  https://electionbettingodds.com/congress.html

51-49 Republican. Thanks for the verification.

(11-06-2016 12:55 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 11:26 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  https://electionbettingodds.com/congress.html

51-49 Republican. Thanks for the verification.

bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Mach's own link estimates a republican senate.

But MUH BETTING ODDS!

(11-06-2016 01:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 12:55 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 11:26 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  https://electionbettingodds.com/congress.html

51-49 Republican. Thanks for the verification.

bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Mach's own link estimates a republican senate.

But MUH BETTING ODDS!

That site is a joke. It has Clinton at 77% to win Nevada. If Mach is offering, I'll gladly take Trump at 3/1 to win the state.

(11-06-2016 01:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 12:55 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 11:26 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  https://electionbettingodds.com/congress.html

51-49 Republican. Thanks for the verification.

bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Mach's own link estimates a republican senate.

But MUH BETTING ODDS!

libs!

(11-06-2016 01:30 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 01:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 12:55 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 11:26 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  https://electionbettingodds.com/congress.html

51-49 Republican. Thanks for the verification.

bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Mach's own link estimates a republican senate.

But MUH BETTING ODDS!

That site is a joke. It has Clinton at 77% to win Nevada. If Mach is offering, I'll gladly take Trump at 3/1 to win the state.

Early voting is looking good for Clinton in Nevada unless there is a lot of dem crossover for trump

(11-06-2016 07:05 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 01:30 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 01:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 12:55 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 11:26 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  https://electionbettingodds.com/congress.html

51-49 Republican. Thanks for the verification.

bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Mach's own link estimates a republican senate.

But MUH BETTING ODDS!

That site is a joke. It has Clinton at 77% to win Nevada. If Mach is offering, I'll gladly take Trump at 3/1 to win the state.

Early voting is looking good for Clinton in Nevada unless there is a lot of dem crossover for trump

Don't know about Nevada but my union family members who are lifelong dems are not voting for HRC. They are members of NAPO, IAFF, and UAW. She lost their votes over BLM and NAFTA (TPP).

It's been weird seeing them post pro-Trump stuff when in 2008 and 2012 they had posted pro-Obama stuff.

Strange times we live in.

(11-06-2016 10:01 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 07:05 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 01:30 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 01:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 12:55 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  51-49 Republican. Thanks for the verification.

bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Mach's own link estimates a republican senate.

But MUH BETTING ODDS!

That site is a joke. It has Clinton at 77% to win Nevada. If Mach is offering, I'll gladly take Trump at 3/1 to win the state.

Early voting is looking good for Clinton in Nevada unless there is a lot of dem crossover for trump

Don't know about Nevada but my union family members who are lifelong dems are not voting for HRC. They are members of NAPO, IAFF, and UAW. She lost their votes over BLM and NAFTA (TPP).

It's been weird seeing them post pro-Trump stuff when in 2008 and 2012 they had posted pro-Obama stuff.

Strange times we live in.

that could be an issue with HRC in NV. she has serious faltering union support. I can not recall a republican receiving the type of union support that Trump has, ever.