Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Rumors of GOP Loss of Senate Vastly Exaggerated

Rumors of GOP Loss of Senate Vastly Exaggerated

Trump not as toxic as Democrats hoped.

For months now, “smart” people on the left and the right have claimed that Donald Trump would destroy the Republican Party’s chances of holding onto the Senate.

It’s now looking as though those predictions were premature.

Mike DeBonis of the Washington Post:

Democratic hopes of winning Senate fade as Trump proves less toxic for Republicans

Democrats are now facing a tougher road to capturing the Senate majority as the presidential race tightens and Donald Trump is not proving to be the dramatic drag on down-ballot candidates that Republicans once feared.

Trump’s resilience and faltering Democratic campaigns in battleground states mean the fight for the Senate has settled into a knuckle-to-knuckle brawl likely to result in a chamber that will be closely divided or potentially even tied.

Democrats can still manage to win the four or five seats they need to claim the Senate majority, but the battle has shifted from purple states that Barack Obama twice carried — Ohio and Florida — to Indiana, Missouri and North Carolina, where Obama lost in 2012.

While Democrats are continuing their efforts in select states to tie incumbent Republican senators to Trump, Republicans are looking to flip that script in those redder states, yoking Democratic candidates to their own unpopular nominee.

Here’s another report from Joseph P. Williams of U.S. News and World Report:

Republicans Could Keep Control of Senate – in Spite of Donald Trump

It’s a dream scenario for Democrats that, in August, seemed on the brink of reality: Widespread predictions that the party would capture the Senate along with the White House, giving a newly inaugurated President Hillary Clinton a legislative partner in Majority Leader Charles Schumer, her former Senate mentor.

Less than a month later, that fantasy has floated away like an end-of-summer breeze.

Two major data- and statistical-analysis websites on Wednesday downgraded Democrats’ chances of wresting Senate control from the Republicans, from highly likely in late summer to something approaching a toss-up in early fall – with less than two months to go before the presidential election.

The New York Times’ The Upshot blog on Wednesday declared its data suggests Republicans are slightly favored to maintain the Senate majority over Democrats, 53 percent to 47 percent. It’s a sharp drop from mid-August, when the blog had Democrats’ likelihood of winning at slightly better than 60 percent and Republicans’ chances at just below 40 percent.

And finally, John Gizzi of Newsmax:

Expert: Republicans Seem Likelier to Hold on to Senate

After weeks of almost-unanimous predictions that Republicans would lose control of the Senate this fall, doubts are emerging that the Democrats can win.

Democrats might just fall short of the five seats they need for a clear majority, a panel at the American Enterprise Institute heard last week.

“Democrats have a chance at winning a tie in the Senate,” said Norman Ornstein, AEI resident scholar and longtime election analyst for CBS News and the BBC. And if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, “Vice President Tim Kaine would cast the tie-breaking vote to give Democrats control.”

Of course, anything could happen between now and election day but it’s amazing how the narrative has shifted away from the Democrats in such a short period of time.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“Trump not as toxic as Democrats hoped.”

…or voters see the Senate as an essential firewall if either stinking, lying, pathological Collectivist thug wins.

http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/09/29/in-slamming-the-seriousness-of-clintons-campaign-trump-says-hell-make-all-your-dreams-come-true/

He promises to make America not only great again, but greater than ever…using BIG GOVERNMENT, which is what he believes in and trusts.

    VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | September 29, 2016 at 11:25 am

    “IF either stinking, lying, pathological Collectivist thug wins.”
    Who is the sweet smelling, truth telling, conservative hero who will save the day? Where is this champion of truth, justice and the ‘merican way? Who is this 3rd choice?
    Oh, wait – you live in ragsland.
    This election is Trump v Hillary. Trump is the better choice. No other comparison matters.

    If his supporters think he needs a firewall, why are his rallies SRO with thousands turned away?

    Serial stupidity is a sign of intransigence, not intelligence.
    Even your boy Ted has seen reality.
    How much more damage to the conservative cause are you going to do with your self centered arrogance?

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 29, 2016 at 12:12 pm

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440505/next-president-follows-obamas-dangerous-precedent-executive-overreach

    Some of you might want to read that, before further showing you’re morons.

      Rock_Knutne_ND in reply to Ragspierre. | September 29, 2016 at 1:27 pm

      Yea, sure. Because NR is the ‘go to’ site for unbiased opinion.

      Sheesh!

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 29, 2016 at 1:31 pm

      “La, la, la… I can’t hear this…!!!”

      “Where’s that sand for me to hide my head in?”

      Courage, neighbor. Buck the fluck up, and READ!

      TPHobbit in reply to Ragspierre. | September 29, 2016 at 3:08 pm

      I read it Rags. Says that Obama set a horrible precedent with the compliance of the mainstream media (and of course the compliance of Congress.) Whom do you think Congress and the mainstream media is more likely to give a free ride to, Hillary or Trump? I’d put my money on Hillary. In my mind, Trump is the safer bet to be opposed in unconstitutional power grabs. Little or no chance of that happening with Hillary. Have a look at this WSJ op-ed from June:

      Clinton, Obama, Trump and the Abuse of Power
      The media effort to label Donald Trump as an authoritarian is absurd.
      By JAMES FREEMAN
      June 21, 2016 6:41 p.m. ET
      The authors of a widely quoted study finding that political conservatism is correlated with an authoritarian personality have announced a correction. Turns out their article in the American Journal of Political Science reported their findings exactly backward. The academics now tell us that views on the left side of the political spectrum correlate with authoritarian traits. Political pundits should consider running similar corrections regarding Donald Trump.
      It has been this year’s most popular media cliché: casting the likely Republican presidential nominee as an aspiring tyrant who will trash constitutional norms in his unending quest for power. Political seers from Georgetown to Manhattan claim to hear in Mr. Trump’s words disturbing echoes of the 1930s. Columnists forecast a dark chapter of authoritarian rule in the U.S. should he be elected.
      But Mr. Trump isn’t that bad. America isn’t that fragile. And for anyone concerned about Washington tyranny, there are larger threats— Hillary Clinton, for one—that deserve attention.
      Mr. Trump has been under fire lately for the temporary ban on Muslim immigrants that he proposed last year. Last week he seemed to refine the proposal, saying the U.S. should screen for terrorist links and also promising, “I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.” Like many Americans, I think the better course is to destroy Islamic State while also welcoming newcomers. But there’s nothing authoritarian about trying to persuade voters that the country should amend its immigration policies.
      President Obama clearly knows this, because he spent much of his anti-Trump rant last week criticizing—not the temporary ban advanced by Mr. Trump—but abuses against American citizens that Mr. Obama imagines will result from the Trump agenda.
      Yet Americans don’t have to imagine the abuses of the Obama administration. Mr. Obama falsely claimed the power to determine when Congress is in recess. He asserted the ability to waive immigration law for millions of people. Does using the IRS against philosophical opponents count as authoritarian?
      No evidence has been uncovered tying Mr. Obama to the IRS targeting scandal. But since he proclaimed that it involved “not even a smidgen of corruption” long before his government had finished investigating, and has made no serious effort to reform the agency, he now bears some responsibility.
      Mr. Trump has made inappropriate or mean-spirited remarks about all kinds of people. But does this mean he’s marching the U.S. toward Nuremberg? For the pundits who claim to worry, let’s hunt for similarities between Donald Trump and the dictators so much on the minds of media folk.
      One trait that ties Donald Trump to some of recent history’s most significant authoritarians is that they achieved many of their goals as relatively young men. While in their 30s, Hitler took over what would become known as the Nazi party, Fidel Castro overthrew the Cuban government, Mussolini created the Fascist movement in Italy and Mr. Trump purchased the property on Fifth Avenue between 56th and 57th that would become Trump Tower, a mix of luxury retail, office space and residential condos.
      By his early 60s Stalin had killed millions of his countrymen. At the same age, Mr. Trump had already offered a signature collection of shirts, ties, cuff links, eyewear and leather goods. He has also peddled furniture, mattresses, bedding, lighting, home décor and more. Did Stalin ever have his own fragrance?
      Mr. Trump has produced plenty of failures, but they occurred in the world of commerce, where customers get to decide whether a venture and its leader succeed. Authoritarians wouldn’t know much about that.
      The rule of law and the honest, open government that Americans cherish, and that allow them to make their own choices, are always threatened by those who seek dominion over free people. But the U.S. has more than two centuries of constitutional order on its side. Despite differences and evolving views on many issues, Americans still love freedom. And thanks to its liberal political leanings, the free press will be a much more reliable check on a President Trump than it has been on Mr. Obama or would be on another President Clinton.
      The facts suggest that Mrs. Clinton is more likely to abuse liberties than Mr. Trump. Only one candidate in this election cycle has run for president while refusing to cooperate with a federal investigation into her conduct in a previous office. Only one candidate is on record opposing the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. Only one candidate condemns the Supreme Court for allowing a movie critical of her to be distributed and advertised.
      Besides seeking to silence critics, another hallmark of authoritarians is that they abhor honest, fair elections. Mr. Trump, unlike the Democratic National Committee of the Bill Clinton era, has never had to return more than $1 million in donations because they were tied to foreign sources and likely illegal.
      America managed to survive Mr. Clinton’s two terms, so it can stand the far less vulgar Mr. Trump. The question is how long it can survive if it elects presidents with a record of opposing constitutional rule of law.
      Mr. Freeman is assistant editor of the Journal’s editorial page.

        Please don’t repost full content here; it’s great to provide a summary, pertinent points, links, but this is a bit much. 🙂 The prof has mentioned this previously, and it seems to be occurring with regularity again. We need to be wary of reproducing, or allowing the reproduction of, full content without permissions.

        Ragspierre in reply to TPHobbit. | September 29, 2016 at 4:51 pm

        “Mr. Trump has made inappropriate or mean-spirited remarks about all kinds of people. But does this mean he’s marching the U.S. toward Nuremberg?”

        I read it back when it was published. ANOTHER exercise in straw man fallacy and reductio ad absurdum.

        Well, along with false equivalents.

        It offers no examination of T-rump’s Collectivism, his donations to the CLINTONS, his endorsement of the CLINTONS, his defense of Dollar Bill CLINTON, etc.

        But, hey, why worry? He has a lot of people attend his medicine show, imirite?

        And my refusal to vote for a Collectivist thug somehow or other “hurts conservatism”. By the reckoning of some T-rump sucking myrmidon who knows nothing and cares noting about Conservatism.

        Trump was never trusted with as much power as Hitler or Stalin. He could not had possibly do as much evil. And yes, our political culture is stronger. Nobody ever made this point, so, yes, it’s a straw man argument. What we are talking about is Trump’s impulse, and it’s authoritarian. He is no leader of the free world.

Very true. Here in Arizona we will likely get to keep our golfer RINOs Flake and McCain so they can champion another valiant attempt to repeal Obamacare.

Two major data- and statistical-analysis websites on Wednesday downgraded Democrats’ chances of wresting Senate control from the Republicans, from highly likely in late summer to something approaching a toss-up in early fall

What a racket! The ideal business—people actually pay for this, and get nothing for it; then they pay for even more of … nothing. “Who’ll win?” “Uhhh, could go either way …”

but it’s amazing how the narrative has shifted away from the Democrats in such a short period of time

No, it’s not amazing at all; it’s just good business. The press and the pollsters don’t wallow in the horse-race aspects of elections because they can’t think of anything else to do; they do it because it’s a money-maker.

    What a racket! The ideal business—people actually pay for this, and get nothing for it; then they pay for even more of … nothing. “Who’ll win?” “Uhhh, could go either way …”

    Well, they don’t quite get nothing for it. They do get a very nice piece of paper, with muddled results that don’t tell them anything useful.

    Really the long and short of it is that a lot of these polls are asking balanced, but over-asked general questions about how individuals feel about the candidates,/i>. What they SHOULD be focusing on are the individual issues without mentioning the candidates at all, or merely asking one “which candidate do you expect you will vote for” question at the very END of the survey (and then correlating those issue responses against the candidate to see if there’s a cognitive dissonance between the issues and the supported candidate.

    Weighting of the polls is important too in the State races. You want to balance geography (meaning population density), party, age and gender to the locality.

    Weighting is the thing that annoys me the most about modern polling, largely because so many pollsters do it so badly. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: A poll with a Margin of Error > +/-3% is worthless.

thalesofmiletus | September 29, 2016 at 11:23 am

You mean the DNC propaganda was wrong? Oh, say it ain’t so…

    What I want to know is what happened to her blue sunglasses.

      It would have looked strange for her to be wearing them indoors. As it was, her mini-seizure that she managed to pass off as a comical attempt to wake herself up in response to Trump about half-way through was enough to cause speculation in the circles I run in.

      I was watching the debate without sound and with closed captioning. I got to pay a lot more attention to body language and staging than I normally do.

      As it was, the camera operators MUST have been instructed to NEVER show Sec. Clinton below the waist or the full podium. I don’t think that I’ve seen a debate EVER that didn’t routinely switch to a full-standing shot of the candidates. The camera operators were slavish in their portrait framing, and there were very, very limited shots from 3/4 behind the candidates for a second or two at a time.

      You only ever saw Clinton’s hands when she raised them up into frame, and she only did so when she was gesturing. Even then, her right hand was routinely holding her fingers in a very awkward position unless she was actively moving them.

It really all depends upon whether the Republicans who can’t stand Trump come out to support Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson and then vote the Republican downballot or if they just decide why bother and stay home. Although if you vote by mail – its big here in California but wasn’t back in Virginia where I used to live – you can stay home, snub Trump, and support the downballot at the same time which I intend to do. (You’re welcome Republicans.)

There’s also the question of whom the rest of the 9% of people that say they intend to vote for Gary Johnson will support for congress. The libertarian party actually does have a viable Senate candidate in Colorado who just qualified for the debates, but in most other states they don’t and without specific polling on the subject its really just speculation which major party will get more of their votes.

“Trump not as toxic as Democrats hoped.”

This is the inevitable result of “crying wolf” when the vast majority of ordinary voters have access to the Internet. I have been noticing, and writing about, this for a while.

Trump has been accused of a parade of horrors, which have turned out to be nothing but a Democratic strategy to promote violence against his supporters for the purpose of blaming him. They even did that in writing, which got leaked. Oh. My.

Then, over and over, his allegedly rough language has been exposed as being more restrained than that of his critics. How awkward it is, for some blathering columnist or a United States President to have to resort to alleging that he wass peaking in code, when the President, Mrs. Clinton and a long list of prominent Democrats and their supporters are readily available via video, saying the actual words.

Then there is a trail of both past and present action, from Trump spending his own money to put an end to racial and religious segregation to hiring a female campaign manager. Some racist, some sexist.

buckeyeminuteman | September 29, 2016 at 2:06 pm

The leftward leaning of the Congress and the uncontrollable President are why we need to hold an Article 5 convention of the states. They already had a mock convention last week and showed would they could accomplish…it needs to happen to matter who is elected president.

Subotai Bahadur | September 29, 2016 at 4:20 pm

It may be that Democrat voters have figured out that a Republican Senate will give the Democrats every single thing that they want and MORE, while absorbing the blame.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend