Please bookmark this thread

[Stinky The Clown]

The Democrats will hold both houses of Congress, thus bucking a long held truism regarding how a "new" president's first midterm favors the opposition party.

As usual, the repubicans will have overreached on the rhetoric and tea bag catering, while the Democrats have managed to not suck as bad.

[rocktivity]

1. I certainly agree--the Dems may not have giving us as much as we wanted

but the majority of the voters realize that the Rethugs will take it away--especially now that Obama went nuclear on the Afghanistan combat pullout.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Orsino]

28. But more Republicans in Congress means even less will get done...

...and perhaps makes inevitable another GOP takeover. x(

[FBaggins]

2. The truism is not that a new president loses the House or Senate

it's that the president's party loses significant numbers of seats (and even that is "most of the time").

Whether or not they lose one or both houses depends on how large a margin they had to begin with. Democrats are running a pretty big lead right now, so they could easily take a clobbering on election day but still retain both houses (almost certainly the senate).

By all means let's try to lift the bar so that anything less than taking over Congress will appear to be a defeat for republicans... but just between us... the very likely -30 in the House and -6 in the Senate is no victory.

[zipplewrath]

6. We ain't losing the Senate

Not anymore than we already have anywho. The GOP would need to sweep all 10 contested seats. Ain't gonna happen. Similarly in the House, they'd have to practically sweep all the seats that are in play. If we lose 2 in the senate and anything less than 15 in the House, we should throw a party.

[FBaggins]

7. Nobody said we were... but it's certainly closer than you make it out to be.

The GOP would need to sweep all 10 contested seats.

There are more than ten contested seats. There are eleven... plus one (CT) that may become competitive... plus we could see either Lieberman or Nelson join the republicans if their vote would make the difference (and the right deal is cut). It's still far from likely (six or so is the most likely outcome), but it isn't outside the realm or possibility. I can tell you for certain that none of those eleven democrats are comfortable today.

Similarly in the House, they'd have to practically sweep all the seats that are in play.

Nope. Not even close. If they swept everything in play they would pick up more than 50 seats.

If we lose 2 in the senate and anything less than 15 in the House, we should throw a party.

Lol! Heck yeah! If we lose twice that we should PRETEND to be happy... and be satisfied that the Republicans will be devastated. If we only lose TWO senate seats (when three of ours are basically gone already) I'll be ecstatic.

[MineralMan]

3. I hope you're correct. To that end, I encourage all

Democrats to start today to help your local Democratic Congressional candidate make this prediction a fact.

[lonestarnot]

4. Yes.

[Wednesdays]

5. All fingers and toes crossed

And knocking on every piece of wood in sight...

[LiberalAndProud]

8. I'm sure you're right.

But we need more seats in the Senate to be able to accomplish anything resembling progress, and I fear that future is likely not in the cards.

Sure, the Cons would like us to believe that we'll have a blowout. I'm sure that they don't even believe that. Nevertheless, any loss of ground will be devastating.

[MiniMe]

9. I think it is pretty normal to lose some seats in both the houe and Senate

But that doesn't mean the republicans can control the house or the senate. I agree with you that the republicans are overreaching.

[jimlup]

10. I partially agree...

We will lose seats but the republicans won't gain nearly as many as they imagine.

Much of the current landscape is media hype.

[WilliamPitt]

11. Sounds familiar

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WilliamPitt/893

:)

[Oceansaway]

12. K&R...n/t

[tavalon]

13. I think we need to unite under the spite banner

See, I'm just not influenced by "Vote for us, we're not as bad as the other guys.", "Vote for us and watch us spin 'til we puke, because even though we told you we would get great things done if given the majority, we were lying." OTOH, amuses me. If it amuses me, it will amuse all of the professional left, I think.

So, my new logo is "Vote Democratic just to spite them!". I think it's a winner!

[Barack2theFuture]

14. 'as bad'

LOL

[thereismore]

15. That's what I think. Plus, Obama will come through big time in October. nt

[Beetwasher]

16. I've Been Saying The Same Thing For A While, The Repubs Blew Their Wad In August

The whole "Mosque" controversy will be a distant memory by Nov. and Obama's going to come out really swinging with in the next couple of weeks to REALLY set the narrative for the election.

We'll lose some seats in the house, and I believe it's entirely possible we may actually gain some in the Senate. If you look at the Senate picutre race by race, you will see what I mean.

[FBaggins]

17. If you had really taken a look "race by race" you wouldn't say that.

I've seen you repeat it half a dozen times, but there doesn't appear to be any connection to reality.

I'm all for the cheerleader who doesn't think the game is lost when they're down by 15 with 45 seconds to play. You could score a touchdown... get the two-point conversion... get the onside kick and throw a hail mary. It's unlikely, but it could happen and it's the kind of optimism that you want a cheerleader to have. When that cheerleader says "I think we'll win by ten" in the same situation... how many will take him seriously?

I don't see how you can pretend that ALL of the professionals who analyze these races must have missed the race-by-race picture. Take a look at the IEM data... that black line is your position. It looks like you could get a great 125:1 payoff if you "put your money where your mouth is". On some trading days there isn't even any interest that that cheap price.



In short... what is it that you think you know that nobody else knows?

[Beetwasher]

18. It Is Within The Realm Of Possibility

I think it's more likely we'll probably lose a couple of seats, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that we could have a net gain. There's 46 solid seats (according NYT analysis) If we hold all the leaning Dems (which I think is likely) that takes us to 51. I think we've got decent chances in most of the tossups and if we run the table (yes, unlikely, and I'm counting Crist as caucusing w/ Dems) that would bring us to 59. Pick off a couple of those leaning Repubs (we've got a decent chance in LA against Vitter and KY against Paul, I even think we've got longshot chances in DE and IN), and there you go, net gain. The polls right now are not really very reliable, things really won't start heating up for another couple of weeks.

It's doable, IMO. Not likely, but doable.

The 18 Seats In PlayLeaning Democratic (5)
California
Connecticut
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia

Tossups (8)
Colorado
Florida
Illinois
Missouri
New Hampshire
Nevada
Ohio
Pennsylvania

Leaning Republican (5)
Arkansas
Delaware
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate

[FBaggins]

19. Let's take a look race by race then.

You're really not taking a "race by race" look at all... you're doing almost exactly the opposite. You're saying "well... I think we win all of the tossup races and probably all of theirs plus a couple 'leans r' seats".

The 18 Seats In PlayLeaning Democratic (5)
California
Connecticut
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia

Three of those (CA/WI/WA) have incumbents that can't crack 50% and have even trailed in some polling. These seats are not "in play"... they are tossups (and almost every rating group has them as such). At least... in any other year that's how they would be rated. When three of the ones that you think are safe are actually in danger... you have a great deal to worry about the ones you think are tossups.

Tossups (8)
Colorado
Florida
Illinois
Missouri
New Hampshire
Nevada
Ohio
Pennsylvania

Something of a joke to call FL a tossup. Yeah... it's a tossup between Republican and RepublicanLite.

NH is an excellent example of the difference between the republican "tossups" and the democratic "tossups" this cycle. The only reason anyone has it as a tossup is because Ayotte is almost always under 50%... but that rule only applies to well-known incumbents (or others in a similar situation). Ayotte hasn't trailed in months (if ever) and often leads by double digits. If that qualifies as a tossup (and many DO have it there), then ALL of the ones you have as "leans D" are tossups.

MO is basically the same thing.Blunt only hits 50 in rasmussen polls, but Carnahan is well behind. Tossup is pretty generous.

IL is a real tossup in the more honest sense. No incumbent... both candidates have trades small leads for months.

Getting harder to hold PA as a tossup. It's still in play, but when PPP has you down by 9 and the best you've done in months is break even... you're not really a tossup. There's more than one race like that, but you're counting on winning almost ALL of them... as well as a couple of the ones below.


Leaning Republican (5)
Arkansas
Delaware
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana

Ummm... did somebody forget ND? That's gone... and DE isn't far behind (but I suppose it's ok to say "leaning" if you don't have a "likely" category. Most of the polling there has been rasmussen's, but Kos/PPP just weighed in and there's no change. Coons hasn't been out of the double-digit deficit yet. CT is getting to be a closer race.

[Beetwasher]

20. There's Nothing In There I Haven't Looked At, Or Addressed In My Post

:shrug:

It's not likely, but it IS doable. As I said, I assume we'll hold all the Lean Dems (I think we will), I never said they were "safe", why are you putting words in my mouth? The "safe" seats are the 46 seats I said were solid. Those seats are "lean Dem" because, well they do lean Dem. Duh. Yes, the polling is close, so what? They still lean Dem. We'd have to almost run the table on the tossups (as I said, unlikely, but not impossible) and pick off a couple of Lean Repubs and I think we can take KY and LA and possibly DE and IN. If Crist wins (likely) he will almost certainly caucus with the Dems, so I include him as part of a net gain.

ND isn't included because it's almost a certain lost seat. That's why they start at 46 safe Dem seats.

Not sure what your beef is, I admit a net gain unlikley, but it IS possible.

[FBaggins]

22. "Looked at" perhaps... but not at all "dealt with"

You've approached it at the level of the hometown fan seeing their football team's schedule for the year. "Well... I think we'll win probably all of our home games... and we always win against the Colts... and I think we'll split 4-3 with the remaining seven" so you think you've just performed an "analysis" that says your team will be 13-3 this year... but there's really no "there" there.

It's not likely, but it IS doable.

The problem is that you haven't been saying that there's at least a one in a thousand chance (which in this case is about right)... you've been giving others a hard time for identifying what is actually the current consensus opinion. You've been saying that the senate picture is getting better and better when it has actually gotten steadily (and almost consistently) worse for the last year and a half. Those who questioned it were told that they obviously didn't understand the Senate or hadn't looked at individual races.

I assume we'll hold all the Lean Dems (I think we will), I never said they were "safe", why are you putting words in my mouth?

"Safe" and "assume we'll win" are really the same thing. Pick whichever words you like.

Not sure what your beef is, I admit a net gain unlikley, but it IS possible.

The current consensus is that we lose 5-6 seats in the Senate. If you (to use your words) had more than a "limited understanding why the Senate is a wholly different animal than the house" - you would know that the 6-9 seat difference between the case you're talking about and the consensus is massive. By all means let's hope for it and keep our fingers crossed... but to give others a hard time for not indulging in the wild fantasy? To pretend that they just haven't taken a hard look at the facts? That's too far.

To simplify... you said that you "wouldn't be surprised" to pick up a seat or two. Any Democrat who follows these Senate races will be ecstatic with anything close to that... just thrilled. But we'll ALL be "surprised" if it happens.

All this "absent some massive change before election day" of course.


BTW - no "beef" here... just political debate in good humor. Don't read more into it than that.

[Beetwasher]

23. So I Have To Meet Your Personal Posting Criterion Now? LOL

"The problem is that you haven't been saying that there's at least a one in a thousand chance (which in this case is about right)... you've been giving others a hard time for identifying what is actually the current consensus opinion. You've been saying that the senate picture is getting better and better when it has actually gotten steadily (and almost consistently) worse for the last year and a half. Those who questioned it were told that they obviously didn't understand the Senate or hadn't looked at individual races."

So now I have to acknowledge the actual numerical odds that you just made up? Or is it just that I have to meet your personal criterion in all my posts? :rofl: And how is posting my opinion giving others a "hard time" and exactly when have I done that? I maintain that the senate picture is not as bad as the broad brush doom and gloom. It's not. If you look at individual races, there's every indication losses will be minimal, but it's too early to tell either way.

"Safe" and "assume we'll win" are really the same thing. Pick whichever words you like"

Well, if you make up defintions of your own in order to make your idiotic case, then sure. Why we can just ignore the NYT categories and just take your defintions instead. :eyes: No, "I assume we'll win" is not the same as safe. I'm making that assumption ONLY to show how it MIGHT be possible we could gain seats. That's not the same as saying the seats are safe. That distinction is probably lost on you, but that's not my problem, it's yours.

"The current consensus is that we lose 5-6 seats in the Senate. If you (to use your words) had more than a "limited understanding why the Senate is a wholly different animal than the house" - you would know that the 6-9 seat difference between the case you're talking about and the consensus is massive. By all means let's hope for it and keep our fingers crossed... but to give others a hard time for not indulging in the wild fantasy? To pretend that they just haven't taken a hard look at the facts? That's too far."

I don't give a shit what the consensus is. Who cares? The "consensus" has been consistently wrong and pro Republican for quite some time. No one thought we'd win the house and senate either. And where have I given anyone a hard time? Again, voicing my opinion is giving people a hard time?? My, touchy touchy. You shouldn't post online if you're so sensitive. Yeah, people need to look at individual races, not the generic ballot. And the individual races show a lot lesss gloomy picture than the general climate. That's all I've said. If you think that's wild fantasy or that I'm somehow insulting you by saying that, too bad.

"To simplify... you said that you "wouldn't be surprised" to pick up a seat or two. Any Democrat who follows these Senate races will be ecstatic with anything close to that... just thrilled. But we'll ALL be "surprised" if it happens.

All this "absent some massive change before election day" of course."

I wouldn't be surprised just as I wasn't surprised when we took back the House and Senate when pretty much everyone said we wouldn't. In fact, I predicted it.

"BTW - no "beef" here... just political debate in good humor. Don't read more into it than that."

Of course you have a beef. You repeatedly reference that I'm "giving people a hard time". No need to read more into it, you make it obvious. But that's cool, beef away, big boy.

[FBaggins]

25. Nope... just recognize the difference between your own wishes and reality...

before accusing others of not know what they're talking about.

So now I have to acknowledge the actual numerical odds that you just made up?

See? Yet another example. You choose not to believe the odds, so they must be "made up" - they aren't any more than las vegas odds are made up (after several days of betting). The odds-making process (betting trends in football, "investment" dollars for the IEM) could turn out to be wrong, but those are the odds. Feel free to look up any of the political odds-making sites where people are wagering actual dollars on the outcome (where, btw, you can see a real "race by race" breakdown... but you won't like it). Find just ONE that supports a "wouldn't be surprised if we pick up a seat or two" fantasy. Just one. And if you REALLY believe what you're saying... why not make a killing? You obviously know something nobody else does... take advantage of that baby!

And how is posting my opinion giving others a "hard time"

When you tell them that if they knew anything about the Senate they would agree with you... that's giving them a hard time (as well as untrue).

If you look at individual races, there's every indication losses will be minimal

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it any more true. The race-by-race analysis looks grim (not "lose the senate" grim, but "lose several seats" grim). Republicans lead in virtually every poll in virtually every "tossup" race, and the enthusiam gap hints that it will only get worse as more polls shift to likely voter models.

Why we can just ignore the NYT categories and just take your defintions instead.

Lol! :rofl: - You don't see that that's what you did? "Tossup" clearly implies "50/50 chance of it going either way" yet you "assume" that we'll win pretty much all of those AND a couple "leans r".

I'm making that assumption ONLY to show how it MIGHT be possible we could gain seats.

Why not assume that we win every seat in the election? Does that demonstrate that it "might be possible"?


Your "race by race" BS is simply that. You're not talking about the polls... and you're not talking about the current odds or race ratings... you're just making it up as you go along.

[Beetwasher]

26. You Just Make Shit Up, It's Hilarious! Your Opinion Is NOT Reality

You buy into the doom and gloom, I don't. It's amazing how people moan and whine about how the slanted the corporate media is and then swallow their narratives hook, line and sinker as soon as it supports their pathetic needs.

And your whining about how I'm somehow giving people a hard time is the funniest thing ever! Waaaahhhh!!!! :rofl:

It's rather pathetic that you can't understand simple concepts like making assumptions in order to play out certain scenarios. It's a sign of shallow, limited thinking. I guess certain concepts are above certain people's heads. Oh well. Not my problem, but it sure is funny!

[FBaggins]

27. Lol... you have an amazing gift for transference.

Because it is you that just "makes sh1t up" and then expects everyone else to accept that they're roses. I've given you actual numbers, actual analysis, and actual predictions... while you've given "assumptions".

You buy into the doom and gloom, I don't.

I know you do... regardless of reality you are universally optimistic. Did you, for instance, make any predictions about the MA senate race a few months back? Can you link to one?

t's amazing how people moan and whine about how the slanted the corporate media is and then swallow their narratives hook, line and sinker

Not wanting to believe something doesn't make it untrue. It isn't anywhere CLOSE to being just a "media narrative"... it's what democratic political analysts are saying and it's what the odds=makers are saying.

t's rather pathetic that you can't understand simple concepts like making assumptions in order to play out certain scenarios

:rofl: and it's hilarious that you can't see that it adds up to "the only way that you can prove you are right is to start with a hypothetical situation where we assume that you're right."

Check those intrade numbers yet? Looks like they make different "assumptions"... poor beetwasher. Right now their odds say we have about a 65% chance of retaining the majority, 20% chance of losing it to republicans, and a 15% chance of a split (obviously leaving the VP to break the tie for us). The break-even point (50% chance) is somewhere between those five and seven seats that I mentioned... and the same thing that Charlie Cook has been saying... and the same thing that Rothenberg has been saying.


http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.com/ratings/senate/august-24-2010-senate-ratings

[Beetwasher]

29. Once Again, I Have To Post To YOUR Personal Preferences??? How Narcissistic Of You!!

:rofl:

Gee, the internet doesn't conform to how you think it should be and I haven't posted properly because I haven't made a prediction about MA? Well, you should whine some more! :rofl:

What's pathetic is you don't understand that I'm not trying to PROVE anything. I'm merely showing how something is possible (and it is), as asked. You can't PROVE you're right and I don't expect you to. All you can do is say "Well, so and so disagrees with you! So there!" So? I realize it's my opinion that things aren't as bad as seems to be conventional wisdom. You think that you're proving something because some experts agree it's a bad climate for Dems. Duh.

Yet another person who thinks his opinion is somehow irrefutable fact. How delusional.

[FBaggins]

30. Can't imagine where you're seeing that.

I've simply been pointing out where you're wrong (which makes for some really long posts).

because I haven't made a prediction about MA?

Poor reading comprehension on your part it seems. Not surprising. No... what I was asking was for you to demonstrate that you don't take the pollyanna-ish view on every single race regardless of facts. You could use that example or pick one of your own.


What's pathetic is you don't understand that I'm not trying to PROVE anything.

Sure you are. You're trying to prove that your posts were anything more than laughable.

Of course you have failed.

I realize it's my opinion

Close. You also assume that your opinion is accurate and that others are wrong (and if anyone would just take a look at the race-by-race breakdown they would of course agree).

that things aren't as bad as seems to be conventional wisdom.

Again... "not as bad as some assume" is just fine. You just appear ignorant of the MASSIVE gap between "we won't lose 5-7 seats" and "we could pick up a couple". Had you said "2-4 seats lost is possible if we catch a couple breaks" I would be right there rooting with you. I'd think they needed to be big breaks... but we've seen them before (two of them just last elections)... but you go much farther.

Yet another person who thinks his opinion is somehow irrefutable fact.

Lol... how ironic that you would post that. :rofl: I've given you the opinions of a number of well respected analysts and you reduce that to merely MY opinion. You're the one who has given only his own unsupported opinion (while simultaneously claiming that anyone who looked at the facts would agree - as if nobody in the profession has taken the time to do that).

[Beetwasher]

31. Of Course You Can't, You Can't Even Imagine Why Someone Would Use Assumptions

In order to game out how a certain scenario might happen. Indeed, you're imagination is quite lacking.

Though I will say, you somehow have no problem imagining that your opinion is somehow fact.

[FBaggins]

32. And your imagination is exceptional.

"Imagination" is all that it is unfortunately.

[Beetwasher]

33. Well, According To You, The Experts Agree With Me

Since I believe that we will retain our majorities and only lose a minimal amount of seats. I only say it's possible (though unlikely) we could gain seats. I've never said anything else, despite you're whining that I'm somehow giving people a hard time.

"Right now their odds say we have about a 65% chance of retaining the majority,..." -Frodo

That's what I think, we will retain our majorities, things aren't as bad as they seem.

"I think it's more likely we'll probably lose a couple of seats, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that we could have a net gain."-Beet

[FBaggins]

35. Lol... there's that active imagination again.

Since I believe that we will retain our majorities and only lose a minimal amount of seats.

The majority of analysts (myself included) expect that we'll retain the majority in the senate (surely you can subtract "5-7 seats" from 59???)

But no... 5-7 senate seats is NOT "minimal seats".

And that was just the odds for the Senate. The House does not look as likely to remain D... let alone limit to "minimal" loses.

[Beetwasher]

36. LOL! Umm, You Realize That's OPINION, Right? No, Obviously You Don't

The "experts" also thought there was no way in hell we would take back the Senate and the House.

You've already wrote off 5-7 seats as if it's a done deal! :rofl:

Yeah, I don't think we'll lose that many seats. They do (according to you). Oh well.

Umm, I have news for you, though. The election is in Nov. You realize that, right? It didn't happen yet, you know. Most of us don't know yet what the results will be. But not Frodo! Frodo knows! :rofl:

[FBaggins]

37. Only because it's "my" opinion, as well as that

of those who are widely accepted to know what they're talking about.

The "experts" also thought there was no way in hell we would take back the Senate and the House

You're entitled to your opinion... but not your own facts. Your statement is flat wrong. There were a number of analysts saying that we had a good shot. It wasn't considered the most likely outcome (we only won because of a party switch and a hair-thin win in VA), but "no way in he11" is badly inaccurate.

The same table (Cook's) that I look to in the current races had seven endangered republican seats and only one endangered democrat... a full month before the election.

http://cooktemp.dreamhosters.com/races/report_pdfs/2006_sen_ratings_oct4.pdf

http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm

Or this from Hotline (through Kos) - again it's early october.

If the election were Tuesday, we'd advise you to get ready for a wave of new Democrats getting elected in races we've never even ranked -- in Montana or California or even Kansas. But luckily for the GOP, the party has four weeks to try and put the Mark Foley situation behind it.

It won't be easy and, frankly, if the Republicans somehow keep control of Congress in the wake of all this, then the Democrats probably will file for Chapter 11 or be sued for political malpractice. Take a look at the movers in this week's rankings: many of them are races with women Democrats. Women candidates benefit more in a bad ethics climate than men.

Sure doesn't match your "no way in he11" spin. In fact... that hotline piece says almost the opposite... that if we DON'T take control we will have seriously screwed up.

You've already wrote off 5-7 seats as if it's a done deal!

Nowhere have I done so. I've only said (correctly) that it's the most likely outcome at this point. The people who do understand the senate (which obviously excludes you) and get paid to make these calls... agree with me.

[Beetwasher]

39. Aww, That's Cute, You Won't Type "Hell" ROFL

There are also experts who say it's possible (though unlikely) we could gain seats in the Senate and that things are NOT as bad as CW dictates. So who's experts are right? Of course! The one's that agree with Frodo! :rofl:

http://www.demconwatchblog.com/diary/3738/dems-have-good-chance-to-gain-senate-seats-in-november

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/3/889839/-The-Dems-improving-Senate-picture

Frodo's magic 8 ball says it's all doom and gloom!!

[FBaggins]

44. Name one ... just ONE

Put up or shut up.

Give me an example of a recognized expert who says it's "possible though unlikely" that we'll pick up seats.

http://www.demconwatchblog.com/diary/3738/dems-have-goo...

Fail. A blog poster? How is he any more of an expert than you are (which is to say not at all)?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/3/889839/-The-Dems...

Closer... but still not very close. Kos isn't exactly on the list of experts (he's just the bigest of the bloggers), but we can count his opinion. Unfortunately the closes you've come is that three weeks ago (when our prospects had improved and we led in some generic polling... all of which has fallen apart) he thought that it might not be so bad and we were getting closer to losing minimal seats. Still not a "possible pick up seats".

But hey... nice try.

Hey... let's take a look anyway. He lists a series of recent polls. Of course there are now more recent ones to review.

He cites OH moving from R+5 to D+2... the latest (real) poll is R+7.
He cites CA moving from D+3 to D+9... the latest (real) poll is R+5 (though I don't believe it).
He cites PA moving from R+6 to a tie... the latest (real) poll is R+9.
He cites IL moving from R+7 to R+3... the latest (real) poll is R+8.
He cites LA moving from R+12 to R+9... the latest (real) poll is R+12.
He cites KY moving from R+1 to a tie... the latest (real) poll is R+5.

You also ignore that kos was citing PPP... which also made clear The national picture does matter and there's a real possibility the GOP will end up winning every close race. But the improvement Democrats are seeing is a reminder that candidates matter too and that the party may be able to buck the overall trends in the places where it proves to have a superior candidate.

[Beetwasher]

46. I Just Did

Blog posters are ok for YOU to cite! :rofl:

Edited on Wed Aug-25-10 02:19 PM by FBaggins
http://outsidereport.blogspot.com/2006/11/election-2006...

[FBaggins]

48. Nope.

I know that when you think of yourself as an expert and all you have if blog posts... you have to assume that other posts that agree with you are also experts... but wishing doesn't make it so.

If you're out of your teens and have followed politics for more than a few minutes, you recognize the big names in political analysis. Those are the experts I've cited (and not a single blog poster). These are people who are paid for their political advice and opinion.

You have yet to cite one that agrees with you (or even comes close).

[Beetwasher]

49. It's Amazing How You Think Only YOU Are Entitled To An Opinion AND You Think It's FACT

Because you think the "experts" agree with you. Hell, it's downright delusional.

You also have some depraved notion that because I post a different opinion that I'm giving people a hard time. Freaky.

[FBaggins]

52. Who said that you aren't entitled to your opinion?

I've said just the opposite.

It's just that your opinion is wrong. :-)


Because you think the "experts" agree with you.

That would be wonderful (and make me wealthy)... but no, I largely agree with THEM, not the other way around. The key here is that there IS NO agreement between your opinion and theirs.

[Beetwasher]

53. Except My Opinion Actually Matches The Experts You Seem To Hold In Such High Esteem

Since I believe the Dems will lose some seats and yet retain their majorities.

What is seemingly beyond your grasp to understand is that I ALSO believe that it is possible but unlikely for the Dems to actually have a net gain in the Senate.

Not hard for anyone who is not delusional to grasp.

[FBaggins]

55. Nope. Not even close.

Since I believe the Dems will lose some seats and yet retain their majorities.

So now it's "some" seats?

So would the 5-7 seats that they're actually predicting fall into your new fantasy of "agreeing" with what you've been saying? Is that also "minimal"?

And, of course, that ignores the House... where they DON'T predict that.

Too funny.

[Beetwasher]

57. I've Consistently Said I Think They Will Lose "Some Seats" And/Or Have "Minimal Losses"

Prove I've said otherwise. You can't, so you just make shit up.

If they lose 5-7 seats that would not be minimal. So what? I'd be wrong. Oh well. If they don't lose 5-7 you will be wrong.

In your demented world you think that because some experts agree with your 5-7 seat loss prediction, that it's somehow reality. How bizzarre.

[FBaggins]

58. Thanks

f they lose 5-7 seats that would not be minimal.

Then you are not in agreement with those experts. Thanks for coming to that understanding.

Going to address how in-line with them your House prediction is? Would 35-50 seats "minimal"?

[Beetwasher]

59. I Think I've Made That Pretty Clear To Everyone Except You Apparently

That I don't agree with the experts who are predicting massive losses (not ALL the experts are predicting losses as large as 5-7 seats). Duh. That was sort of the point of my original post. It is YOU who finally came to an understanding of what's been clear to anyone with half a brain from the get go. At least you've proved that things can eventually be drilled into your skull through repetition.

"I think it's more likely we'll probably lose a couple of seats, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that we could have a net gain."

That's what I've been saying all along. Now, you finally get it! Good job, Hell Boy!

"We'll lose some seats in the house..."

That's my prediction on the house. That and that we will keep our majority. What fantasy do you have about what ALL the experts say, because hell, we all know that they ALL agree with whatever Frodo thinks. :freak:

[FBaggins]

61. And those races I cited in #44?

Those are all in line with your meme that "things are getting better and better", right?

[Beetwasher]

62. Where Did I Say "things are getting better and better"?

:shrug: I haven't said that in this thread. There you go again! Making shit up!

[FBaggins]

65. Oops... sorry... I keep forgetting about your memory issues.

I should be more sensitive. :rofl:

Oh wait! Did I miss your posting rule that said that any of your posts from other threads were non-operative?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=397071&mesg_id=397120

Not only did you say it... but it was in direct response to a thread showing that the one momumental lead of over 40 points in CT had squeezed down to a mere ten (and since then seven with blumenthal under 50% - though that was a less-reliable poll).

[Beetwasher]

66. Ummm, Stay On Topic

We're discussing the issue HERE in this thread and my post here, where I made no such claim, not some other thread from weeks ago. :eyes:

"Where Did I Say "things are getting better and better"?
I haven't said that in this thread. There you go again! Making shit up!"

But I am flattered that you love me so much that you seem to remember everything I ever posted! :hug:

[FBaggins]

68. Lol... so you whine about "Personal Posting Criterion"

and then insist that your former statements are irrelevant and off limits? What a laugh.

Sorry. No. You can't say "I've been saying for awhile" and then insist that nobody can hold you to what you've been saying for awhile.

Hilarious that you would even try.

[Beetwasher]

70. LOL! How Pathetic, We're Discussing One Subject In This Thread

That has nothing to do with the Senate picture "getting better". So you go fishing for something I posted weeks ago that has nothing to do with subject we're discussing now.

Post whatever you want but don't surprised when I call you out on how pathetic it is.

What's hilarious is your apparent hard on for me and obsession with everything I've posted! I mean you actually remembered that from weeks ago!! Aww, that's sweet! How cute!

Sweetie, if you ask nicely, maybe I'll let you buy me dinner. :rofl:

[FBaggins]

71. Did the "subject of the thread" change since the OP?

something I posted weeks ago that has nothing to do with subject we're discussing now.

Umm... because that post as about our Senate chances and this thread is about our Senate chances.

That's "nothing to do with" in your book, eh?

As if I needed any more proof re: your detachment from reality.

I mean you actually remembered that from weeks ago!!

Yeah... it really sets itself apart as one of those nutso "what is this guy smoking?" kinda posts. Then I saw someone make the same argument again here and couldn't believe that there were TWO people on DU so divorced from reality so I checked. The good news is that there's only one.

[Beetwasher]

73. Now You Have Problems Comprehending The Subject???

The subject is that we will maintain our majorities. Yes, yes, we all know in your little fantasy world that now means "things are getting better" even though no one is making that claim here.

"Please bookmark this thread
The Democrats will hold both houses of Congress, thus bucking a long held truism regarding how a "new" president's first midterm favors the opposition party."

Still waiting for you to ask me out, cupcake! You never know until you ask! *wink wink*

[FBaggins]

74. "The subject is that we will maintain our majorities"

And you saying that our Senate chances are getting better and better isn't on topic?

That's simply not rational.

Still waiting for you to ask me out, cupcake! You never know until you ask! *wink wink*

By tomorrow you'll likely remember that it already happened. With your imagination and disconnect between one day and the next who knows?

[Beetwasher]

75. In Your Fantasy World I Guess Anything You Say Is On Topic, Is On Topic

I mean, why not? Let's discuss diaper fetishes too! We are talking about the Senate, right? And Vitter's a Senator....

Are you in to diapers? Kinky!

[FBaggins]

76. Ah... poor Beet. The world won't go along with your

"anything embarassing to beet never really happend... or at least cannot be brought up" rule.


I guess it at least explains your prior attempts at evasion... as long as you didn't "give people a hard time" on the subject on this thread you can claim it never happened.

[Beetwasher]

77. yr puppy love is so sweet, I could just eat you up

I'm just so flattered how you hang on and memorize my every post! Adorable if not a tad unhealthy.

[FBaggins]

38. Lol... more examples of that "no way in he11 we would take back..."

http://outsidereport.blogspot.com/2006/11/election-2006-house-predictions.html

Whoops... my mistake... the guy actually sayd "So the common wisdom is that Democrats will win back the House today, but by how much is the question."

I'll keep looking

Let's see... also in that article...

Lots of official political pundits (Larry Sabato predicts 29 House seat pick up, Stu Rothenberg, Charlie Cook, etc.) peg the Democratic pick up anywhere between 29-40 seats. Democratic pundits have been a lot more guarded with Chris Bowers projecting a 26 seat pick up in the House for Democrats and Kos predicting a modest 24 seat pick up (a likelier outcome he says) or 36 seat pick up if there is a wave).

Well gee... I could have sworn that we only needed 15 to win back the House yet here are all those "no way in he11" analysts predicting more? That can't be. My buddy beetwasher was quite clear on the history.


A great DU thread for you to read. "PREDICTIONS SCORECARD - who predicted correctly, and who didn't?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2951831

Right at the top of "who got it right?" The same Charlie Cook analysis I've pointed you to more than once.

Stu Rothenberg's prediction? We pick up 5-7 seats in the Senate and 30-36 in the House. What were the actual numbers again?

[Beetwasher]

40. Oh, So No One Was Saying It Wasn't Possible, Really?

On what planet was that NOT the conventional wisdom? Talk about fantasy. :rofl:

How bizarre that you won't type the word "hell". :freak: :rofl:

[FBaggins]

41. Wow... you change gears FAST

Trying to spin your claim of what the alaysts thought (which was clearly wrong) into a claim that SOMEBODY thought we couldn't win.

Well duh... there are outliers like you in EVERY election. The point was to demonstrate what the professionals (the very SAME professionals that I've cited for THIS election) were saying prior to 2006... and it doesn't match your created-memory version of same.

How bizarre that you won't type the word "hell".

Glad to entertain.

[Beetwasher]

43. LOL!!! Oh, So NOW You're All Caught Up In The Outliers!

When it supports your hellish position. Yes, there were some outliers who were correct (like me) and predicted the House and Senate takeover. It wasn't the convential wisdom of YOUR vaunted experts though. Umm, yeah "Hell Boy", there are outliers because it's people's opinions. Just like I have my opinion. And hell, just like there are other outliers who also say it's possible (though unlikely) Dems could gain seats in the Senate. Hell, I guess the concept of differeng opinions is way the hell over your head.

[FBaggins]

45. Again... you have an amazing knack for fantasy.

No... in neither case was I "caught up in the outliers". What I pointed out was that there were a handful of non-expert outliers who agreed with what you claim "the experts" were saying at the time... and they were wrong. Just as you've wrong this time.

Yes, there were some outliers who were correct

Wrong. There were the most respected analysts (like Charlie Cook) who were spot on. They weren't outliers.


It wasn't the convential wisdom of YOUR vaunted experts though.

Of course... even though I just demonstrated that it WAS. But as always, you weight your own opinion as fact and any competing fact as mere opinion. You live in Bizarro world, don't you?

[Beetwasher]

47. You Demonstrated Nothing Except You Think Your Opinion Is Fact

Because it matches some other people's opinions and that you have some weird fetish about typing "hell". :freak:

[FBaggins]

50. Nope. The only imagined facts here have been yours.

There ARE no facts about how many seats WILL be gained or lost because the election hasn't happened. But it IS a fact that my opinion matches that of the people who are demonstrated to know what they're talking about. While your opinion rests on nothing but wishes and dreams.

Given how poor a grasp on history you've exhibited... how reliable should anyone hold your guesses about FUTURE events?

[Beetwasher]

51. I Have Posting Nothing Except My Opinion And Been Very Clear About That

You on the other hand seem to think your opinion is reality:

"Nope... just recognize the difference between your own wishes and reality..."

You're opinion is not reality. Neither is the opinions of any "experts". You don't understand the concept. Freaky.

[FBaggins]

54. Nope.

Can you erase bad memories of errors that quickly? I guess you've demonstrated that at least once here... but this is amazing.

You have also stated that if people would just look at the individual races, they would see that you were right.

You on the other hand seem to think your opinion is reality:

Wait... that reads like a statement of fact. What happened to nothing but your opinion?

You're opinion is not reality. Neither is the opinions of any "experts". You don't understand the concept. Freaky.

LoL! I get it now! You feel fine making a wild prediction unsupported by anything but wishes and tinker-bell claps... because nothing else is any MORE valid until the election is actually held. How conveeeenient. And it goes so well with your "the polls still don't matter yet" mantra for dismissing any bad news. Wow... most people need chemical "assistance" to achieve that great a separation from reality. More power to ya bro!

[Beetwasher]

56. Man, You Just Make Shit Up, Thankfully, What I Actually Said Is There For All To See

"If you look at the Senate picutre race by race, you will see what I mean."

In your delsuional world when I say "you will see what I mean" becomes "you will see that I'm right".

And if you look at the Senate race by race there are scenarios in which Dems could gain seats. Not very likely or probable, but the scenarios exist, and that's all I've ever said.

Where did I make a prediction that they would gain seats? I did not such thing. I said something was POSSIBLE. In your bizarre world that's somehow a prediction??? I've consistently predicted minimal losses.

You really do have problems with reality.

[dionysus]

79. ok,*now* you're giving him a hard time...

...carry on with it please.

:hi:

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

64. Arkansas is gone too.

Lincoln the DINO is toast.

[FBaggins]

69. Sigh... yes.

And almost certainly Indiana and Delaware as well.

The most depressing part is remembering what this election looked like right after the last one.

http://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/senate/raceratings_2009-01-12_12-09-59.php

[madinmaryland]

21. That's a very sensible reading of the situation, Stinky, and I agree with you. nt

[walldude]

24. Well it would be difficult to lose with all the ammunition the Republicans

are handing over. This Mosque thing is going to backfire and that NO vote on health care for 9/11 responders should be the center point of the Democratic campaign.

However, losing when it is damn near impossible to lose, is the Democratic way. So I'm not holing my breath.

[EFerrari]

34. delete

(Edit: this was probably a bad idea.)

[tallahasseedem]

42. Consider this...

bookmarked! :)

[Evasporque]

60. kickapoo

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

63. I trust Nate Silver

He wasn't writing much about it for a long time, which worried me.

And based on what he wrote today, it doesn't look good.

[FBaggins]

67. He's good, but I think he just put that model together.

I'd give it a few days for people to give him feedback... but yeah, that's about how it looks to me as well.

Would be interesting (just given my exchange above) to see how many of his 100,000 cycles resulted in democrats picking up a pair of seats. Ah... here it is... looks like about 1%

[grahamhgreen]

72. Except the voting machines are corrupted. nt

[LAGC]

78. The only way this will become a self-fulfilled prophecy is if we VOTE.

Don't take anything for granted. If we don't show up on Election Day, the Republicans win by default. As always.