Tag Archives: nancy pelosi

The Outlook on Control of the Senate

The time has come the Walrus said

To speak of many things

Of Senates—Of races—and filibusters—

Of polls—and vicious slings

And why Harry Reid still reigns–

And whether liberty rings…

Now as I’ve said before the Electoral College seems to be leaning to a Romney win, but that win will mean nothing if the Democrats remain in control of even a house of Congress.  Keep in mind Obama is already blaming Republicans for doing nothing in Congress when it is the Senate under Harry Reid that is not bringing  any bills up for vote even though House has passed bills that the Senate needs to vote on (but remember, in defiance of all facts, the Republicans are obstructionists). 

So, while the presidency isn’t a sure thing (although the odds are in our favor) it might be best to look at the Senate races before we start ushering in a new era of conservatism with Romney.  (I’d look at the House but with the economy, the lack luster coattails of Obama and the threat of putting Nancy Pelosi back in charge, I don’t think we’re likely to lose the House).  Granted what we would really like is 60 votes to ensure we always have cloture on votes (we can get them voted on).  But I always figure there are seven or eight blue dogs (or at least a few Dems who have to run in 2014) hanging around so we’ll probably be in decent shape if we can get to 53 votes in the Senate. 

So where do we stand right now?

Well According to RealClearPolitics, based on current polls we are at 47 safe or leaning  Democrat seats and 45 safe or leaning Republican states (when you count the seats not up for a vote) and 8 tossups.

 

But as with all things there is always a deeper level. RealClearPolitics, like any news agency survives on advertising, and as such makes money the more it brings you back to their site. If they declared that the Senate was going to swing Republican and there is nothing you can do about, no one would bother to keep checking the Race for the Senate seats more than once a month.  Non-battles don’t get press….so it is in their best interest to have a wide definition of toss up so as to get more people looking for information.  It’s not lying but, it’s also not a straight reporting of the facts.

So let’s look at some of these Toss-Up States.  (Keep in mind I’m working off limited data here).

First a word.  Now with the Electoral College I’ve been using the assumptions that in the end undecided voters tend to break 2 to 1 against the incumbent.  This logic doesn’t always apply here.  There are several seats that are open. Further, will people be voting against the incumbent Senator or the incumbent party (i.e., Democrats)?  Now if the incumbent is a Democrat it might be easier to assume that the undecided vote will break for the challenger, but I can’t be sure of the 2 to 1 ratio.  Whereas as of right now, with the limited data I have, it might be safe to assume that if the incumbent is a Republican the undecided vote is probably going to split pretty evenly. 

You have Wisconsin.  Now the Wisconsin Republican Primary hasn’t been held for the Senate Race but currently it looks like Thompson is ahead by double digits and will likely face off against Baldwin…at which point Wisconsin continues to favor Republicans like Scott Walker and Thompson will win, possibly by double digits, in “toss-up” Wisconsin.  Dems 47-GOP 46.

 

Next we have Nevada, where Heller is consistently up even in heavily biased PPP polls. Granted, there’s nothing terribly recent in terms of likely voter polls…but I get the feeling that so long as we aren’t running a Palin picked candidate (liberal at heart Palin can sure pick losers) Nevada is probably tired of Democrats constantly insulting their state and hurting business.  Dems 47-GOP 47.

 

North Dakota comes next.

Yes in a more recent Mason-Dixon Poll the Democrats are up, but given that it’s within margin of error and given that it is currently controlled by a Democrat (hence the undecided vote will go against the Democrats), the anti-Obama feelings will likely push N. Dakota into the red column.  I’ll admit this is a weak prediction, but I don’t have a lot of data to work with here.  Dems 47-GOP 48.

 

We follow this with Missouri.

Now Missouri is a tad trickier…the GOP primary hasn’t taken place yet and there is no clear winner yet.  However, given that all three candidates outdo the sitting Democrat, it’s probably a safe call to say that Missouri is going to switch to the GOP.  Dems 47-GOP 49.

 

And to round off 50 votes we have Montana where Republicans lead in legitimate polls and hold their own in BS PPP polls.  Dems 47-GOP 50.

At this point with 50 votes the GOP would control the Senate as Romney’s VP (oh please let it be Ryan) would be the tie breaking vote.  But let’s look at the other races.

In Massachusetts we have Scott Brown vs. Elizabeth “Dances with Bullshit” Warren.  As Warren continues to dig herself a deeper and deeper grave with the Pow-Wow Chow, while still up in the air, I think Brown, with the help of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, should be able to pull out a win.  47-51.

 

Turning down South we hit Florida, the source of so many election headaches.

Now technically the polls show the Democrats up in all of the polls, but notice that one is PPP, which can just be thrown out, and the others are registered voter polls, which means move the final number two or three points to the right.  Another close Republican victory…assuming we don’t have a rigged recount Dade county again.

 

And of the toss up states all we have left is Virginia…which I have no idea. The most recent polls has the GOP up…but it’s one poll in a sea of polls having the Democrat up (much older polls) but I have no reason to not believe this most recent one is an outlier…time will tell.  So with Florida and Virginia we could be as high as 47-53 (but that is could, not will unless we dedicate time, energy and money to all of these).

 

Now let’s talk about some long shots.  Now Connecticut and New Mexico are close, not spectacularly close, but not out of the realm of possibility to see a shift. Depending on how much the GOP wants to spend and how much time Romney spends in these states (New Mexico especially, it’s a weaker state for Obama) I would not be surprised to see one of them turn (keep in mind the Connecticut seat is the one being vacated by conservative-Democrat Joe Lieberman…a liberal Republican could stand a chance).

 

 

And last but not least I want to talk about three really long shots. Ohio, Washington and California.  Ohio has Democratic Sherrod Brown defending his seat.  This is a man who has railed against the correct Supreme Court Citizens United decision since the day it was passed because it doesn’t allow him to have the advantage union money used to give him.  This corrupt piece of shit deserves to go down in whatever the political equivalent of the phrase “to the pain” is.  It is unlikely that he will lose his seat, but I would be very happy to this man go.  As for the two west coast states with a Senator up…they’re pretty safe…except that even liberals are getting tired of their rhetoric…and we could manage to pull off a Romney landslide (not impossible) that is if it is clear Romney will win hours before the California and Washington polls close that might be just enough to discourage liberals from coming out to vote and swinging those seats in our favor…long shots, but stranger things have happened.  My point with these last three are if you have some spare cash and want to make a long shot investment…look to the GOP senators in the West.

Overall we are looking at a safe bet of taking back the Senate…not have the 60 votes necessary to push everything through without making deals, but back in control to where we let things come up to vote.  But we are close enough that this is not a hopeless fight…we are close enough that giving all we have for every last vote will actually lead to results.  Now again this should not be taken as a call to relax…no, with every vote closer to 60 we get in the Senate, more and more conservative proposals can get through without Democratic compromises.  We need to get as close as possible, and time, energy and money will get us there.

1 Comment

Filed under Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Laws the GOP should pass, Mitt Romney, politics

Stupid liberal quote of the day…shocker, it’s from Newt.

I keep looking for a Democrat to hit on the stupid liberal quote of the day…but the fact is that their statements are too dumb to even respond to…

 

…take this one from Krugman responding to Romney’s statement about his chief concern not being the very poor:

“As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has documented, between 90 percent and 99 percent of the dollars allocated to safety-net programs do, in fact, reach the beneficiaries.”

Because I always quote Soros funded think-tanks that only Krugman would consider valid to back up statements so preposterousthere are not enough hallucinogenics in the world to make that sound even kind-a-sort-a true.  Honestly who believes that anything the government does only has a 10% overhead?  The rest of it gets even funnier.  But it’s just too easy to pick on a pathological liar and mentally retarded twit like Krugman.  (Last week he claimed that Britain’s cradle to grave socialism is an example of why austerity measures don’t work.)  But you would expect an economist of Krugman’s caliber to be one of the most recognizable faces at a paper that reported a 40 Million Dollar loss last year.  Truly they understand economics at the paper of record.

 

But the fact is that as long as Newt is around even Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, Paul Krugman, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barrack Obama will probably have to take a back seat to making the dumbest liberal statement on any given day.

 

What did Newt say today?

 

“What the poor need is a trampoline so they can spring up,” he said. “So I want to replace a safety net with a trampoline.”

 

 

Dear god in heaven, how did we ever let a man this dumb get this far?

 

Let me explain where the safety net comes from in the wider allegory of capitalism.  Capitalism is an economic system where by you get out of it what you put into it (in terms of education, work-ethic, merit, and skill) so it has often been compared to climbing a ladder, the more effort you put into it the more you get out of it.  But at the highest levels there is a certain amount of risk that your ideas will fail and you will lose what you have—implicitly, although seldom stated, these higher levels are like a series of high wires that one has to try to walk across…and if you fall some will be able to hold onto the wire and regain their balance…and some will not.  As with sane high wire acts there is a safety net to catch you, reduce the force of the fall, and let you get back on your feet so you can begin re-climbing the ladder and get back up on the high wire again, this time wiser and more surefooted (in capitalism this is welfare, education programs, unemployment, housing, medical entitlement programs we already have to protect those in the most destitute positions).  Now as a caller on the Laura Ingram show this morning stated, a lot are treating the safety net as a safety hammock…because human beings are infinitely capable of being lazy.  That is why you have to make sure the net is not larger than it needs be, that is has limits and responsibilities.  This was the main push of welfare reform in the 1990’s, the same kind of reform that we need now…the kind of reform Romney is talking about but Newt seems to think is unfair because we need to be concerned about the very poor.  I can’t remember, who was the champion of the kind of welfare reform Romney is talking about in the ‘90’s?…well whoever it is I’m sure Newt opposed them back then too and called them heartless as well.

 

But let’s put in Newt’s idea of a trampoline into the metaphor instead of a safety net.  Okay, first off has anyone ever seen how a safety net works and how the physics operate? When you hit a safety net after falling, the energy from your fall is both distributed across the entire net and when the energy pushes back up (every action has an opposite reaction) it is enough energy to only throw you up a few feet instead of breaking every bone in your body.  Ever look at the physics of a trampoline? When you hit a trampoline after jumping on it, the energy from your fall is both disturbed across the entire trampoline and when the energy pushes back up (every action has an opposite reaction) it is enough energy to only throw you up a few feet instead of breaking every bone in your body.  Gee that sounds repetitive.  The only difference is that you intentionally try to hit the trampoline with as much force as possible to get the biggest kick back…but if you dropped onto a trampoline from 20 feet (and didn’t die, because falling on a trampoline from any height is generally a death sentence, unlike a safety net) it wouldn’t throw you up into the air 20 feet, you’ll always come up lower than where you started.  (Do not make me go into the calculus necessary to prove that!)  Since the two operate on the same principle it would be kind of like saying “I don’t need a cup I need a glass.  The poor don’t need income they need money.  You don’t need protection, you need safety.”  Yeah, there might be cases where that hair splitting might be needed, but not in this case.

 

But let’s go with Newt’s idea of a trampoline that takes you back to the place you were at when you fell, without any extra work on your part (to hell if physics doesn’t work that way, that’s probably what he meant).  What exactly would that mean in economic terms.  Would that mean if you put $ 50K in your 401K and somehow lost all of it when the market dipped (which would be interesting since no one lost all of their money, they just lost a portion of it…unless you literally made truly terrible choices…but why should you be responsible for the bad choices you make?) would that mean we need a government program that would give you back your 50K immediately?  How about you were a middle manager pulling in 70K a year and then lost your job in the downturn, and you had to dip into your savings to make it by until you got a new job…the trampoline thing (the way Newt seems to mean it) suggests that is exactly what we’re going to do.  Why should you have to climb the ladder again, you should just shoot to right where you were before.  No work, just starting from where you left off.  The more and more I think about this, the less and less it sounds like capitalism.  Now we could just deal with the people who were making it by on a 50 hour a week job (or two) but lost one or both jobs for one reason or another.  Romney points out that we have safety nets for them (and he admits they’re not all perfect but he will work to fix them), but Newt wants to put them back right where they started…how?  Romney suggested focusing on the middle class, growing the middle class, growing the economy, working to make businesses prosper through reforming taxes and regulation.  This would mean there are more jobs, better paying jobs, more opportunity to start climbing the ladder again.  But since Newt attacked this, it can’t be what he wants.  So are we putting in a government jobs program?  More welfare checks, bigger welfare checks (you know whoever championed welfare reform in the ‘90’s must loathe Newt Gingrich for being so opposed to true welfare reform).  What is Gingrich suggesting is his trampoline?  Because every way I run it, it sounds like socialism (but foolish me I use logic and reason, and the Gingrich camp has no use for those).

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Economics, Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Welfare