Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Analysis: The Senate Majority Is Up for Grabs

Analysis: The Senate Majority Is Up for Grabs

The Senate majority rests in six, maybe seven, states

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/image/SenateChamberPostcard.htm

It’s been a while since I’ve written about the Senate, but as the prof did an analysis of the GOP keeping the House, I am revisiting the question of whether or not the GOP can keep the Senate.  As a recap:  The Democrats need to win five Senate seats to win back the majority, only four if Hillary is elected and Kaine, as VP, holds the tie-breaking vote.   Republicans, by contrast, are defending 24 Senate seats to the Democrats’ 10.

As the professor noted, “In the case of the Senate, it will pave the way for Hillary to push through disastrous judicial nominations. And yes, expect Majority Leader Schumer to raise the nuclear option to the Supreme Court level if Democrats control the Senate by even a single (tie-breaking) vote.”

This holds true even if Trump wins the White House and the GOP loses the Senate.  Without the Senate, Trump won’t be able to get the type of justice/s confirmed that he promised.  They simply won’t make it through a Democrat-controlled Senate.

It wouldn’t get that far with the current Supreme Court opening because if the Democrats win the Senate, they will have a little over two weeks in January—the transition period marked by the new Congress being sworn in on January 3, 2017 and the new president on January 20, 2017—to confirm Obama’s pick.  In that scenario, there is no guarantee, at all, that he would stick with Garland; he might decide to make an even more radical pick if assured it would get through a newly-minted Democrat Senate.

The Senate, in other words, matters.

And it’s not clear what will or is even likely to happen.   Conflicting reports abound:  FiveThirtyEight is predicting Democrats have a 73% chance to win the Senate and Nathan Gonzales, editor of The Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report, is saying, “With two weeks to go, control of the Senate is up for grabs. If Republicans can break even in the tossup states, they have a chance to maintain control. But if the landscape shifts just a couple of points against Republican candidates, Democrats will capture the majority.”

Gonzales’ statement seems to reflect the data shown in the latest Sabato Senate map:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-senate/

So, in essence and all things being equal in terms of the other state’s Senate race projections, the Senate majority rests on just six states:  New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, and Nevada.

The National Journal includes Florida as a toss-up, and that’s a fair addition.  Although Rubio enjoyed a comfortable lead over Democrat Patrick Murphy and the DSCC pulled its funding for Murphy, the race has tightened in recent days.

Politico provides an analysis of the six states (excluding Florida) that are up for grabs and that will determine the Senate majority.

The Senate will be won, insiders say, in a half-dozen states that could go either way on Election Day: The traditional swing states of Nevada, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, and the newly competitive states of North Carolina, Missouri and Indiana, which historically lean Republican.

Traditional swing states:

Nevada

The Silver State is the most diverse swing state up for grabs and the only one where Republicans are on offense. Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.) has been a solid recruit for the GOP, acquitting himself well in Democratic-leaning state against former Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto.

Heck has led for most of the year, though polls are showing the race beginning to tilt Cortez Masto’s way. Polling in Nevada is notoriously unreliable due to the difficulty of reaching casino workers and cell phone users. The last two surveys showed Heck up 3 and Cortez Masto up 7.

Pennsylvania

More than ever before, Democrat Katie McGinty’s campaign is hitching itself to the Clinton wagon and attempting to make GOP Sen. Pat Toomey’s indecision on Donald Trump the race’s signature issue. Toomey has said he’s still waiting for Trump to earn his vote.

. . . . But nationalizing the race by making it about Trump carries risks for McGinty as well. While Toomey has carved out a brand distinct from Trump’s, many voters still see her as a generic Democrat. While Clinton has pulled away in Pennsylvania, McGinty and Toomey are running neck-and-neck. And Toomey is attacking McGinty over ethics issues and pressuring her to release e-mails from her time as Gov. Tom Wolf’s chief of staff.

New Hampshire

Democrats just got their best poll of the race from UNH/WMUR, showing Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) losing by nearly double-digits to Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan (D). Democrats are crowing about it, but no one on the ground actually thinks it’s a blowout.

States that traditionally lean Republican

North Carolina

It’s all tied up in North Carolina, where Democrat Deborah Ross has steadily gained on Sen. Richard Burr, a low-key and relaxed lawmaker who vowed not to start his campaign until October. Now, Republicans are betting it all on an advertising blitz about the “radically liberal” stances Ross took while at the American Civil Liberties Union. The spots slam her for voicing concern over the state’s sex offender registry, defending flag burners and even for advocating for an adolescent who was convicted of sexual assault. (The ACLU believed he had been given too harsh a sentence for someone his age.)

Missouri

The GOP assumed Trump’s popularity would guarantee GOP Sen. Roy Blunt’s reelection. But while Trump’s numbers in the state slid slightly over the past month, Democrat Jason Kander gained momentum and kept outperforming Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket.

. . . . Polls show Blunt with only a slight lead and Republicans have privately urged Blunt to hit back at the Democrats’ attacks more forcefully. But Blunt has instead focused on criticizing Kander over his support for Clinton and Obamacare.

Indiana

Republican Todd Young’s campaign is laser-focused on a glaring vulnerability that’s dogged Democrat Evan Bayh since he entered the race in July: The charge that he abandoned Indiana until he wanted to run for office again.

. . . . Despite public disillusion with political insiders, “folks still know and trust the Bayh name,” said Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.).

If the GOP loses the Senate this year, they are in a good position to win it back in two years . . . what we don’t know is how much damage will be done in that time with the Senate led by Chuck Schumer.

Electoral vote reports:

Even if they lose control of the Senate next year, the 2018 map will once again favor the Republicans, as the Democrats will be defending 23 seats in a nonpresidential year, including those in the red (or reddish) states of Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia. Should they wish to secure control of the Senate until the next presidential election, the Democrats will likely need a net gain of eight or nine seats this year—a very tall order.

Better, though, would be their being able to use the favorable 2018 Senate map and midterm election to build their majority into a supermajority, all the better to override a President Clinton or to support a President Trump.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

The refusal of Republicans to close ranks for the 2016 elections may be instrumental in the destruction of our once-great nation.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Rick. | October 23, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    Republicans only make up about 25% or so of all registered voters. If every Republican voted for Trump it still wouldn’t be enough. Same for the Democrats, who hold about 27& of all registered voters.

    The candidate who wins a large majority of independent/unaffiliated voters wins the election. Trump purportedly leads among indies currently (according to ‘polls’) by 10 pts, but that is not enough.

      Right. That’s about how Romney looked at it, but the look should go a little further.
      If the democrats get 5% more of their voters to support all of their candidates than do the Republicans, then the Republicans need a greater success with the independents than do the Democrats.
      My comment was meant to be responsive to the article, which highlights the need to keep the senate in case Hillary wins. It seems that a strategy to stop or blunt Hillary would be two pronged: Work to have Trump win and to keep the senate. Having Republicans split their ballots does not benefit both prongs.

        Actually, I highlight the need to keep the Senate no matter who wins. 😉

          Right. Therein the reason for my first comment, about the potential harm caused by Republicans failing to close ranks this election cycle.
          My second comment was in response to Henry’s, which focused on the presidential race. Therein the reason for my commenting on the need to focus, as well, on the senate prong.
          I’m sure we can come up with a reason to fight amongst ourselves if we keep working at it, just as the Republicans are doing to each other.

    DieJustAsHappy in reply to Rick. | October 23, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    I’ve a sickening feeling that the balance of a majority in the Senate is at stake based upon the outcome of elections involving RINO’s one and all. Burr and Blunt are a couple of the worst. Heck and Ayotte are just as bad. Young, I don’t know how he’ll fare in the Senate. He certainly hasn’t been a staunch conservative in the House. Toomey isn’t any prize.

    Fiftycaltx in reply to Rick. | October 23, 2016 at 7:15 pm

    Actually the recognition of various people that the RINOS are just another part of the UNIPARTY and anathema to freedom and liberty will result in a CONVENTION OF THE STATES (not a “con-con”) and the consequent removal of POWER from the Congress and unelected bureaucrats.

I live in NC and unfortunately Burr is corrupt to the core. An establishment insider. That will work against him with most of Trumps supporters. I have spoke to a few and they will leave the Senate vote unmarked for either candidate.

    Barry in reply to Ottis. | October 23, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    I live in NC, support Trump, despise Burr, and will still vote for the SOB.

    Sometimes the lesser of two evils is all you get.

      clintack in reply to Barry. | October 24, 2016 at 8:30 am

      And between them, the NeverTrumps and the NeverBurrs may give us President Clinton and the Democratic Senate. And the confirmation of hundreds of Federal judges to life terms in seats that have sat vacant for more than a decade.

      Thanks, guys!

To put a perspective on 538:
https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/786056103188508672
A Chicago Cubs vs Cleveland Indians World Series is now slightly more likely than a Trump presidency.

If the Republicans lose the Senate it will be their own fault.
The races which were once shoe-ins are now tight because the Senators couldn’t wait to run away from Trump. From accusations which when you realize that Trump is a germophobe. Can anyone imagine a germophobe groping and kissing strange women? Until he ran he would not even shake peoples hands.

Now Trump supporters are running away from the Republican Senators.

In 2020,12,14 Republican’s ran on the implied promise that they would not behave like the Republican Senate in 2006 and 2008. Guess what they turned out to be the same. It’s their fault.

As for Trump needing the Senate, he can make recess appointments till 2018.

    Isn’t part of your argument about supporting Trump over Clinton that at least we know she will always be progressive and make awful choices?

    The same holds true for a Democrat Senate; they will always do the progressive thing and make awful choices. Always. We know that the Democrats are chomping at the bit to get single-payer, strict gun laws, and about thousand expensive and useless stimulus-funded projects going. We know that.

    A Republican Senate will, at the very least, vote against both single-payer (we know this because none of them voted for ObamaCare which is only slightly better than single-payer) and any infringement on the Second Amendment (we know this because they have refused to do so despite intense pressure from their Democrat buds in Congress, progressive gun grabbing lobbies, and the Obama White House). They will also not rubber stamp just any old SJW for SCOTUS (we know that because they didn’t do that with Garland).

    Sure, they won’t be die-hard conservatives all of a sudden, but they will still do far less harm than a Democrat-led Congress and will also continue to stop a lot of the progressive dream agenda.

    As for recess appointments, that’s not correct. The Senate does not stay in session for a full year, first of all, and second, all a Democrat Senate has to do is write and pass a new adjournment resolution before its first recess next Spring. Don’t forget, too, that there are a lot of “tricks” that can be played to block executive recess appointments. A simple one is simply not to recess at all, a strategy played by the GOP Senate to block Garland.

    I guess I just don’t get how the “we know what we get with Hillary” argument doesn’t extend to the Senate? We surely know what we’ll get with a Democrat Senate, and it’s simply incorrect to assert that the Republican Senate is the same as a Democrat one (maybe naive, maybe stubborn, maybe uninformed or misinformed . . . I don’t know which or if it’s something else).

    We know it’s wrong because the GOP Senate has stopped a lot of things (not just the ones I’ve noted above, but also various gun measures offered up after both Sandy Hook and Orlando; they also blocked the crazy scheme to deny Second Amendment rights to people on various “watch” and “no-fly” lists; they also blocked rather obscure SJW measures like Obama’s “fair housing” crap.). Remember, without a supermajority, they can’t “DO” things, they can only block things. To get things done, they need veto-override numbers (a supermajority). Their job is to stop stuff; that’s how the Senate is set up. It’s a feature, not a bug, in other words.

      The only difference between a Democratic Senate and a Republican Senate is that the Republicans will wait little while before kissing Hillary’s P***Y.

      And no it will not be better then the Democrats because not only will we get the same thing, but we will be told it was done with “bipartisan” support. At least we won’t have to compete with that label.

        My point, Rod, is that it’s an oversimplification to say “we get the same thing.” We don’t. We have evidence of that since 2014 when the GOP won the Senate but don’t have override numbers.

        Honestly, what do you think they could have done? I mean actually could have done based on the Senate’s role and the Constitution? Without being able to override a presidential veto, they can only block Democrat bills. And they do that all the time, often on things that we don’t hear alot about (like “fair housing” and Elizabeth Warren’s attempt to force votes on Obama judge nominations (to federal, not the Supreme Court, though they blocked that, too).

        Look, I hate to be in a position to defend the GOPe-led Senate, but it’s important to be realistic and fair-minded about what is and is not possible. Failure to be so will result in erroneous choices based in emotion rather than logic or fact, and that way leads to serious problems.

          Yeah yeah.

          The reality is it’s another fake wedge issue, to get us to happily vote for people who will screw us over.

          There is only one way to stop Hillary. Don’t let her become President. Barring that I could ccare less what happens.

          We do have three branches of government, and caring only about the executive is puzzling to me because we don’t elect a king (or queen). But I respect your decision.

        inspectorudy in reply to RodFC. | October 23, 2016 at 8:20 pm

        How can you be so obtuse? Have you no eyes to read what Harry Reid did when he ran the Senate? McConnell is a loser but at least there is still some common sense among the R’s. If the D’s win the Senate we are through. If you cannot see that then maybe you should become a Demorat Senator.

          We have had, up until now, a civility that excluded any vulgarity and name calling.
          You obviously have not been reading Ragsy’s posts.

          When was the last time anyone heard of a right wing group shutting down a campus speaker or refusing to let the planned speaker at any event speak?

          I don’t know why don’t you ask Gary Britt?

    Ragspierre in reply to RodFC. | October 23, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    “Can anyone imagine a germophobe groping and kissing strange women?”

    What new crock of shit is this, Lying Rod?

    Not only CAN we “imagine” it, it happened. He bragged about it, and all those photos of him schmoozing with every elitist and their brother/sister/dog are proof that this new “germophobe” BS is just that.

    You’re pathetic.

      Rags demonstrates the intellectual dishonesty of the Left.

      Yesterday: “Saddam was only bragging about having WMDs, you were idiots to take him at his word.”

      Today: “Trump was caught bragging about having women, you are idiots to not take him at his word.”

      People like Rags are so intellectual dishonest that they will use whatever argument works that day, without any regard for consistency of principle. Its how we know that they don’t really believe in the things they lecture us about. Else, their “principles” wouldn’t be so situational.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Fen. | October 23, 2016 at 8:25 pm

        My posting here overlaps Rag’s by over five years and he’s been entirely consistent throughout.

        Who’s “we”? You got a mouse in your pocket?

      inspectorudy in reply to Ragspierre. | October 23, 2016 at 8:24 pm

      I think you have lost sight of the fact that Trump is a big time braggart. He brags about every part of his life and as we have seen much of it is simply not true. Why not apply this same view of his sophomoric teenage bragging with the now unemployed billy bush instead of giving him credit for telling the truth which he is not that familiar with?

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to RodFC. | October 23, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    Here in Colorado, we nominated Darryl Glenn for the Senate to oppose Michael Bennet, the Democrat incumbent. He won 70% of the votes at the state convention and kicked ass in the primary election despite being universally opposed by the State Republican Party machinery. The day after he won the primary, the Republican Senate Campaign Committee announced that they would not be helping him.

    He was still doing well up till October 8. He was within a couple of points of Bennet, and the incumbent Bennet was below 50%, which is not a good sign for the incumbent. On the 8th, at the behest of Paul Ryan, John McCain, et. al. [and I think for a promise of support after all] Glenn joined them in the call for Trump to resign as candidate. His campaign has been dead meat from the moment it hit the media.

    The Republicans WANT to lose the Senate. Just like with Romney in 2012, if they don’t want to win, you can’t drag them across the line, so there is no point in trying.

      Fiftycaltx in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | October 23, 2016 at 7:10 pm

      Well, the country club “R”epublicans don’t want to be bothered with spending too much time away from the country club. That was the deal up until the UPSTART REAGAN showed up and made the “R”epublicans actually have to GOVERN! Ryan and all the other RINOS want to keep shoving FREE FEDERAL MONEY in their pants and not have to worry about the little people.

    inspectorudy in reply to RodFC. | October 23, 2016 at 8:16 pm

    That’s simply not true. McCain is ahead by over 20 % and he ditched Trump. Rob Portman is ahead of his Demorat rival by over 5% and he ditched Trump.
    The only one who shows a loss from ditching Trump is Ayotte. She went from a lead to a 5% deficit. She is also in a very liberal state running against a sitting governor.

Bayh is hitting the same brick wall Jim Slattery in Kansas hit. Elected into the House for southern Kansas, he was fairly popular, until he dropped out of the House to run for Governor in 1994. Yes, that 1994. Shellacked, he went to Virginia to work for a DC law firm and stayed there as a lobbist until 2008, when he decided to come back to Kansas and run against Pat Roberts.

(For those not in the know, in 2008 Pat was being fairly well criticized for not maintaining a Kansas presence other than an apartment, which he only rarely visited. In return, the Democrats nominated and ran a candidate against him who had not been in Kansas for 14 years. Yeah, the Republicans are not the only Stupid Party.)

Hopefully, the result for Bayh is the same.

BTW if Mark kirk and Kelly Ayotte by some miracle keep their seats, I see them looking for any excuse possible to vote against Trump nominees. So how is that going to help?

    inspectorudy in reply to RodFC. | October 23, 2016 at 8:27 pm

    What would be the advantage for them to do that? They would lose any desirable committee seats in the Senate and they would certainly not get any favorable treatment from Trump. Why do you make such statements?

Since the GOP gave obama everything he wanted, what was the point of having a majority. The GOP doesn’t want to win the presidency.
The entrenched, career politicians all need to go regardless of party affiliation. They don’t represent us, want us to hold them accountable or care about us. So why are we sending any of them back to DC? They won’t do a budget, rein in spending, do anything about the debt except to make it worse, they are flooding the country with foreign invaders and they don’t care about protecting us. We’d be better off without them.

    tom swift in reply to showtime8. | October 23, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    We’d be better off without them.

    An attractive option …

    … but not an available one.

    It’d be like going into McDonald’s and ordering something good. Sorry, it’s just not on the menu.

“Without the Senate, Trump won’t be able to get the type of justice/s confirmed that he promised. They simply won’t make it through a Democrat-controlled Senate.”

This shows you do not understand anything at all about the Trump movement.

There could literally be 100 deaf, dumb and insane communists sitting in the Senate and Trump will still get things done.

We are about to experience a whole new world come November 8.

    Ragspierre in reply to catscradle. | October 23, 2016 at 3:43 pm

    Wow.

    You and Fen need to form a “magic thinking” drum circle.

    Wheeeew…

      Rags: “You and Fen need to form a “magic thinking” drum circle.”

      Why bring me into this conversation? I didn’t say anything.

      Oh my bad… you are still livid that I revealed how intellectually dishonest you are on those last two posts.

      So go ahead, pound the table. It’s actually kinda cute.

        Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | October 23, 2016 at 9:45 pm

        I referred to you because you’re the same kind of magic thinker on display here.

        You two should really get together and pool your tin foil.

    Um, what? If you are suggesting that Trump will suddenly be some sort of self-appoionted totalitarian dictator upon winning the presidency, you’re right. I don’t understand that. In fact, I’m stunned to hear that from anyone who has lived through the past eight years of Obama or who has the vaguest understanding of our Constitutional republic.

    I don’t understand why anyone would even want that, and I certainly don’t understand how that would even happen. I have no idea what you think your new Trump world will look like, but I feel relatively safe in saying that you are going to be mightily disappointed should he win.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | October 23, 2016 at 5:23 pm

      I’ve been posting for a year that Trump is going to break his supporters’ hearts in one of two ways: by winning the presidency and doing a very bad job, or by losing the election to the weakest Democrat candidate in decades.

      Of the Trump supporters I know personally, a couple have this thirst for an authoritarian/totalitarian revenging purge. It’s a bit spooky to hear them call for blatant violations of the Constitution, justified only by the observation that Obama did it first, aka “he started it!”. Like listening to 10 year old Nazis sometimes.

      If you are suggesting that Trump will suddenly be some sort of self-appoionted totalitarian dictator upon winning the presidency, you’re right. I don’t understand that. In fact, I’m stunned to –

      Oh geez. Stop with the “Distort Till Nazi” game. You don’t need to be a totalitarian dictator to get what you want out of Congress. Reagan did it. Was Ronald Reagan a totalitarian dictator?

      inspectorudy in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | October 23, 2016 at 8:34 pm

      Fuzzy, from the last debate it became clear the hillary has no idea what our Constitution is. She stated that it should “Represent” all of us. No it shouldn’t! That is what Congress is. Then she said that she would appoint justices that understood the struggles of the LGBT groups and other minorities. My God! The SCOTUS has nothing to do with any group! It is there to determine if a law passed by Congress is Constitutional or if a lower court has misapplied current law. She thinks that SCOTUS is some kind of champion of the people and their job is to right wrongs within our society. This tells me why she failed her DC bar exam and why she should never be allowed into the WH except as a guest.

      If you are suggesting that Trump will suddenly be some sort of self-appoionted totalitarian dictator upon winning the presidency, you’re right.
      I doubt that Trump will be anywhere near as totalitarian as Lincoln.

    “There could literally be 100 deaf, dumb and insane communists sitting in the Senate and Trump will still get things done.”

    You are out of your mind. Otherwise known as crazy.

    Or, not a trump supporter at all, just one of the paid democrats. Which is more likely. No one can be that stupid.

      RodFC in reply to Barry. | October 24, 2016 at 12:40 am

      Congress has approved the wall. All they can do is refuse to fund it. Except Mexico is paying for it.

      Much of what has to be done is executive. Cleaning out the DoJ, IRS, the Joint Cheif of Staff.

      He has broad powers militarily.

      On the budget, he can just refuse continuing resolutions and debt limit increases until a budget is passed.

      He can order audits.

      If the Senate shoots down Diane Sykes, as an example, for SCOTUS, he can make a recess appointment. Then resubmit her name in 2018.

      There is a lot he can do without Congress.

      And … with the corpes of Ayotte and Kirk at their feet, I doubt the Senate is going to go all out to oppose him.

      catscradle in reply to Barry. | October 24, 2016 at 2:55 pm

      From now on please refer to Trump as President Trump.

And as long as Hitlery wins, you’re kewl wit dat, right? Can’t have no WHITE MAN winning a Prezzie, right? He don’t have no vagina.

Rags demonstrates the intellectual dishonesty of the Left.

Yesterday: “Saddam was only bragging about having WMDs, you were idiots to take him at his word.”

Today: “Trump was caught bragging about having women, you are idiots to not take him at his word.”

People like Rags are so intellectual dishonest that they will use whatever argument works that day, without any regard for consistency of principle. Its how we know that they don’t really believe in the things they lecture us about. Else, their “principles” wouldn’t be so situational.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | October 23, 2016 at 9:31 pm

    You are a lying sack of filth.

    I never said either thing.

    But it IS wholly consistent with Da Pig’s nature to have acted as he claimed he did, and as we know he has done on MANY occasions.

    I guess you refer to your young daughter as “a piece of ass”, or permit it done in your presence.

    Lying little puke.

Wow! Some of you need to go to a younger site where the f-word and genital parts are thrown about like rice at a wedding. We have had, up until now, a civility that excluded any vulgarity and name calling. I’m no prude but it is hard to read your words and then respond when they are so vitriolic and hateful. It used to be that only leftists did that. When was the last time anyone heard of a right wing group shutting down a campus speaker or refusing to let the planned speaker at any event speak? They are always leftists and this how they will run this country if hillary wins this election. Name calling each other is no help to Trump if insults are deeply felt and acted upon.

    This post should ahve replied here.

    We have had, up until now, a civility that excluded any vulgarity and name calling.
    You obviously have not been reading Ragsy’s posts.

    When was the last time anyone heard of a right wing group shutting down a campus speaker or refusing to let the planned speaker at any event speak?

    I don’t know why don’t you ask Gary Britt?

    Anonamom in reply to inspectorudy. | October 24, 2016 at 11:58 am

    Amen.

    Sadly the rules of civility are applied unevenly, so a couple of persistent jackasses continue to bait and name-call. And then we are supposed to be surprised when the entire conversation devolves. And then the rules are applied unevenly…

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

DieJustAsHappy | October 24, 2016 at 6:36 am

Even if the GOP retains its majority, a Clinton victory will likely mean a four years that mostly parallels those first ones of Obama. Of course, with her having been a fixture around D.C. for all these years, there won’t be those awkward moments as with Barack.

However, there will be bowing, only it will be her subjects who will be doing so and Congress will be right there among them.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend