The state of the Senate race

posted at 8:31 am on November 3, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

We’re coming down to the wire in the 2012 election, and being a presidential year most eyes are trained on the race to the finish between Mitt Romney and President Obama. But control of both chambers in the legislative branch are on the line as well, and as we all know, Congress can do a lot more (or a lot less) in terms of effecting change than the chief executive. Last night, The Ish took a look at the state of the House races and didn’t see much of a change on the horizon. That’s not terribly surprising, given how each state gerrymanders their districts. But the Senate runs on a harder to bump, state by state basis and has some potential volatility built in. Today we’ll take a quick look at what’s coming up there. (Don’t take this as “final predictions” which we’ll be doing closer to Tuesday.)

Of the 100 seats in the Senate, there are less than a dozen that we really need to bother looking at. The GOP is sitting on 42 which are either not up for reelection or so safe that it’s not worth discussing. The Democrats have 44 in those same categories. (And I’m sorry to say to my fellow New Yorkers, our seat in this mix is in that category. It’s just not on the table.) For the record, that Democrat number includes Sanders and Lieberman, who are technically independent, but caucus with the Dems. It also includes Angus King in Maine, who will almost without a doubt follow suit and may soon make some of you pine for the days of Olympia Snowe, who was successfully hounded out of the running.

Still technically in the “leaner” category, but quickly sailing over the event horizon of reasonable chances are three others:

Nebraska: This one should go to Deb Fischer, bringing the Republican “comfortable” total to 43, but we’ll pretend for now that Bob Kerry still has a chance.

Florida: I know people are still holding out hope for Connie Mack, but Bill Nelson holds varying leads in every poll you can find not conducted exclusively among people with the surname of Mack. But much like the presidential numbers, these shift on a daily basis. The Democrats could still take a beating up and down the ticket if the turnout is seriously large.

Pennsylvania: Tom Smith has run a great race, but even Rasmussen has him losing to Bob Casey, bringing the Donkey Party to a likely buffer of 46. This leaves us with a rather shockingly juicy group of eleven seats which may still be in contention, some more than others.

THE FINALISTS (In alphabetical order for lack of any other ranking)

Arizona: This one won’t be a blowout, but Jeff Flake is still up outside the margins in Rasmussen’s last numbers and he should sneak in over the finish line.

Connecticut: This is Linda McMahon’s second bite at the apple, but every late poll has Chris Murphy looking like he’ll send her packing in back to back tries.

Indiana: One of the media’s favorite races. I haven’t spoken to a single non-invested party who thinks this would even have been a race if Lugar was running, but Richard Mourdock managed to trip over his own shoelaces with the finish line in site and Ras has Joe Donnelly up by a slim margin in the final week. It could still go either way, though, and this one is definitely too close to call.

Massachusetts: The race most likely to start a flame war on any blog, Scott Brown became a GOP Rock Star of sorts when he seized a seat in Taxachusetts. But despite Elizabeth Warren’s best efforts to take herself out of the race repeatedly, Obama has some long coattails in the Kennedy’s home town and most polling outlets weren’t holding out much hope for Brown. But just this weekend we saw another shift, and incumbency always carries a certain advantage. Brown may still hold on to this one.

Missouri: Another odds on favorite to fan flame wars, Todd Akin managed to take one of the most likely GOP pickup seats and put it back in play. Rasmussen currently has Claire McCaskill up by nearly double digits, and not one other outlet shows a lead for Akin with three days to go.

Montana: I have no idea why I don’t see this race on the morning talk shows more often. Jon Tester is being challenged by Republican Denny Rehberg and there’s no use linking any single poll on the contest. Everyone has it as pretty much a fifty fifty shot. That’s a GOP pickup waiting to happen if you can turn out a couple hundred extra people in a few precincts.

Nevada: Much like Arizona, I’m not sure if this should be a toss-up race. Even NBC gives Dean Heller a pretty good shot at winning and the rest of the pollsters follow suit. He should deny Shelley Berkley’s bid unless something goes seriously amiss.

North Dakota: Republican Rick Berg should nail this one down pretty early on Tuesday night and send Heidi Heitkamp looking for other employment.

Ohio: Another high strung, tight wire act here. But the consensus of pollsters has Sherrod Brown leading Josh Mandel outside the margins. Sorry, sports fans, but Josh has some tough sledding to pull this one out.

Virginia: George Allen has overcome some early polling deficits and is now in a nail biter with Tim Kaine. It’s not a given by any means, but the momentum seems to be on Allen’s side coming into the home stretch.

Wisconsin: This is shaping up to be another incredibly close one, like most in Wisconsin. Tammy Baldwin (D) and Tommy Thompson (R) have been trading the lead back and forth for a while. This is another one that may just come down to coat tails.

All in all, there is the possibility of a wave in either direction with this many close races. But looking at the trends this week, it may turn out to be something of a split much like the House races. There’s really only three races where I would bet large on the Republicans right now and a couple where I’d wager on the Democrats. This doesn’t stack up like a high chance of the GOP retaking the Senate, but there’s plenty of reason to break out the popcorn on Tuesday.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

If you really believe that, how is the small-government cause helped by electing more Democrats to the Senate?

KingGold on November 3, 2012 at 9:32 AM

In the last 50 years how has electing Republicans benefited the small-government cause.

Be specific please – because IN ALL CASES the GOP has expanded government whenever it’s been in charge.

And that’s because we keep electing Rinos – who then become the most important people in Congress – because everything has to be watered down before it gets through them.

HondaV65 on November 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Todd Akin was a toolbag and always was one. The Tea Party-backed candidate git squeezed out in the primary because the Dems spent millions pushing Akin.

Mourdock was a bit more disappointing. By all accounts, he was a good candidate. But dude, children conceived by rape are part of God’s plan? Only 1-2% of abortions nationwide are the result of rape or incest. The ethical argument for abortion (the right of the woman to control her body) is at its strongest in the case of a pregnancy conceived in a criminal act.

The pro-life movement needs to focus its attention on the 95% of abortions performed purely for the woman’s convenience. Once society as a whole shifts to a pro-life position in general, we can revisit the “marginal” cases of rape, incest, serious birth defect/genetic abormality, etc. (Abortions genuinely required to save the life of the mother are exceptionaly rare and, I believe, morally justified under the theory that Scripture cannot be read to compel suicidal acts).

Outlander on November 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM

JimLennon on November 3, 2012 at 9:26 AM

There was a 8 points swing against Mourdock in Rasmussen. He was up 5 on Oct 10 and now -3. If the GOP lost the IN senate race, we are looking at minimally 2 more years of the dirty tactics and obstruction by Harry Reid.

bayview on November 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

You guys have been begging for political leaders for years who aren’t in this for themselves. You’ve been asking for REAL people in office.

Now you complain when they make the same kind of mistakes a normal person makes.

This is where the right plays identity politics and doesn’t even realize it. You act like your issue with the establishment is entrenched power and corruption. But that’s not it. Your complaint isn’t with politicians who have been bought and sold by corporations, your problem is that your politicians are too “slick” and “professional” looking. However, you didn’t replace the slick, bought and bossed politicians with extremely intelligent, independent minded people. You replaced them with yahoos who tell you *exactly* what you want to hear on the most extreme basis. Candidates who don’t persuade you to their way of viewing things, ala Reagan, but who instead parrot Mark Levin almost verbatim in their campaign speeches. Its not about content, its about symbolism and its sinking you.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

I love Josh Mandel and am a big fan, but I really was expecting to run Mary Taylor for this seat. I think we might have had an easier time with her. Maybe not. I still hope Josh can pull it out. He’s a great guy and Sherrod Brown is a toad.

myrenovations on November 3, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Rasmussen still have Romney and Barry tied nationally at 48 today.

bayview on November 3, 2012 at 9:37 AM

That isn’t true, actually – Ryan has held, and ably defended, the position for years.

He just follows two rules – number one, talk about it as little as possible, and number two, if you’re a man, the word “rape” should never come out of your mouth.

KingGold on November 3, 2012 at 9:27 AM

if you have to hide or sugar coat your position, you are already losing.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Its not about content, its about symbolism and its sinking you.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Projection is a terrible thing.

lorien1973 on November 3, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Well, that’s a depressing read.
hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 8:37 AM

It’s Jazz Shaw what do you expect. The guy is the most establishment RINO in his thinking on everything that Hot Air has. He doesn’t even consider that if the 2010 electorate of R+1 or more shows up his predictions are all wrong. He DOESN’T tell you Rasmussen is using numbers BETWEEN 2008 and 2010 for these close Senate races NOT 2010. Rasmussen will be off if there is a high GOP Turnout and in state like Indiana where he thinks the whole state will write off a Senate seat due to one comment a month ago AND PAY ATTENTION EVERYONE JAZZ TALKS TO WISHES DICK LUGAR WAS RUNNING. You want to talk establishment that IS JAZZ SHAW. His analysis isn’t worth sh*t. I will leave you to contemplate his AUTOMATIC Senate losses.

Conan on November 3, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Men talking about abortion is potentially costing us 2 seats. Men need to STFU about abortion, especially as republicans.

milcus on November 3, 2012 at 8:43 AM

More likely at least three seats.

Scott Brown has run a great race, but Warren is using Akin’s and Mourdock’s gaffes to beat him like a rented mule with women voters who would otherwise be on the fence. They will be her margin of victory.

SoCons need to STFU about not allowing abortions even in cases of rape until they have a solid majority for not allowing abortions except in cases of rape. They are damaging their own cause and dragging the rest of the conservative movement down with them.

cool breeze on November 3, 2012 at 9:38 AM

NotCoach on November 3, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Don’t make this about abortion. My position on abortion is the same as Akin and Mourdock’s. But I’m never going to be stupid enough to muse about the post-rape intentions of God when the public and Democrat ad men are watching.

The fact that both Akin and Mourdock are fumbling because of abortion is a coincidence. Previous candidates I’ve railed on, who threw away eminently winnable seats, were O’Donnell, Angle, and Buck, who got in trouble not for abortion but for other things.

Polished candidates do not have to run ads assuring people that they’re not a witch. Polished candidates do not imply that aggrieved voters might just have to shoot politicians in the other party. Polished candidates do not wax philosophical on the mental state of gay people on national television.

KingGold on November 3, 2012 at 9:38 AM

if you have to hide or sugar coat your position, you are already losing.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 9:37 AM

So how does that apply to democrats who lie about their positions … Obama being the perfect example.

darwin on November 3, 2012 at 9:40 AM

cool breeze on November 3, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Scott Brown is in trouble because Romney is winning the national race. The hyper-partisan MA voters do not want to lose control of the senate if Romney is the president and the GOP hold the house.

bayview on November 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Yup, mining your vaults for a post from 4 years ago is really a great way to show inconsistency, because people don’t mature or grow or anything.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Going Green to Dem is defined as the sign of growth and maturity. Gotcha. Because their policies have held sway in Washington since around 2006 and it is working out oh so very well. For everyone.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on November 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Romney wins.

Then Senate D’s are going to be under a lot of pressure to remove Reid as Leader. Many up for re-elect in 2014 in deep red states. Without the advantage of bus loads of inner city voters, they will go down in defeat if they refuse to pass a viable budget. Reid won’t allow a budget vote, so they will be under immense pressure. Romney will apply the squeeze.

Carnac on November 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

if you have to hide or sugar coat your position, you are already losing.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 9:37 AM

“Sugarcoating your position” it what politics is, friend. If you go out there and say that you want to morph Social Security into a private IRA, you lose by twenty points. If you go out there and say that you want Social Security to be “reformed and stabilized for future generations,” you don’t.

KingGold on November 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Regardless, that’s the bigger issue? Then it should be easy to point out my constant and very verbose hypocrisy in posts where I support Mitt.

Your turn. Put up or shut up.

123go.

rogerb on November 3, 2012 at 9:33 AM

It is extremely telling that you have put the burden of proof on *me* to demonstrate who *you* support, that I would have to look and “discover” what you think. Shows how rarely you ever articulate your beliefs yourself.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Conan on November 3, 2012 at 9:37 AM

No kidding, LUGAR good grief.

Can you confirm that Ras is still using the D+3 model.
Because what you said is what I’m hoping for, that we have more coat tail that it may appear.

MontanaMmmm on November 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Never seen a thread on HA where so many of the posters were so out of touch with what is going on and going to happen on Tuesday. Just wait and see my friends….

Caseoftheblues on November 3, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Since the focus of this thread veered away from the state of the senate race, and into other topics, it is not clear what you are getting at. What will the result of the senate races be?

Dextrous on November 3, 2012 at 9:44 AM

rogerb likes to post others comments in ways that emphasize some internal contradiction or hypocrisy, with uneven results. At times he’s spot on, others he ends up clowning himself. Nonetheless, the unstated logic of his posts is that there’s something about intellectual inconsistency that belies poor thinking or that should discount a person’s political analysis. Now, of course, rogerb is trading in a logical fallacy, but that’s besides the point. The bigger issue is the inherent contradiction that comes form someone like rogerb supporting Mitt Romney, a man who will, and as we saw in the debates, has said *anything* to get elected, regardless of previous positions. In this way, rogerb is guilty of the very sin he locates in others.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Wow, you’re really emotional about what someone says about you on the internet.

spinach.chin on November 3, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Latest Rasmussen polls has Brown and Mandel tied.
NotCoach on November 3, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Don’t tell Jazz the RINO genius that the late minute campaigning by Romney had Coattails that he was too pessimistic to look for

48-48 in OHIO JAZZ you numbskull

Conan on November 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM

cool breeze on November 3, 2012 at 9:38 AM

that’s bogus. Brown is prochoice . warren’s hittting him because he’s a man and that really really pees me off when women do that. that beatch is gonna lose.

gracie on November 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM

KingGold on November 3, 2012 at 9:38 AM

But it us our fault these people say or do things that harm their candidacy’s? I don’t live in Indiana or Missouri, but I would not have voted for Akin and would have voted for Mourdock if I did. Ultimately though each state is responsible for the candidates they select. Furthermore, neither Mourdock or Akin were being promoted by the national party. So I really don’t know what your point is.

But what about that incredibly polished politician Lugar who is acting like a 4 year old sent to bed without dinner? No criticism of his pouting and refusal to help Mourdock?

NotCoach on November 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM

This doesn’t stack up like a high chance of the GOP retaking the Senate

Sadly, I agree. Partly due to a few bad GOP candidates but mostly due to an increasingly socialist electorate.

The Presidential race should not be close. A better candidate might have been able to beat Obama handily, however the GOP didn’t have one. But again, the primary problem is an increasingly socialist electorate.

After almost a century of trying to fundamentally transform the US into a socialist country the socialists are almost there. It may take only another decade or two if the economy manages to limp along that long. Then… economic and socialist Armageddon.

I give the US no better than a one in three chance of avoiding this. If Obama gets reelected it’s at best one on five, and that would only be because the economy of the rest of the world will be in worse shape, with the US economy the last one still standing, even if only on its knees.

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Carnac on November 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

To clarify, you know who Dingy Harry is, right?

You don’t “pressure” that cadaverous horse’s ass. The only way to get rid of him is to throw him out of office – an opportunity, I will continue to remind everyone, we threw away two years ago.

Besides, even if by some chance the Democrats remove him as leader, you know who steps in? My Senator, Chuck Schumer. Who is even worse than Harry Reid if only because of the fact that he’s virtually assured to have his seat until he dies from old age.

KingGold on November 3, 2012 at 9:47 AM

However, you didn’t replace the slick, bought and bossed politicians with extremely intelligent, independent minded people. You replaced them with yahoos who tell you *exactly* what you want to hear on the most extreme basis.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

As if Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, et al. ad nauseum don’t fit this definition just as well?

Please.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on November 3, 2012 at 9:47 AM

“Sugarcoating your position” it what politics is, friend. If you go out there and say that you want to morph Social Security into a private IRA, you lose by twenty points. If you go out there and say that you want Social Security to be “reformed and stabilized for future generations,” you don’t.

KingGold on November 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

one thing is to convince people that the positives of a position are better than its negatives, and your social security argument is a good example.
however, no exceptions abortion is a ideological\religious position that will not find traction with the majority no matter how you try to justify it.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Jazz…i’m gonna play the professor i am. rewrite this thread to reflect the game on the ground in each of these states that will go Red/stay Blue and that’ll tell u who wins the senate seats.

your conclusions are mushy…makes me wonder why u wrote this piece.

gracie on November 3, 2012 at 9:48 AM

MO and IN are not in jeopardy because the candidates voiced their anti-abortion views, it’s because they voiced stupid anti-abortion views.

spinach.chin on November 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Projection is a terrible thing.

lorien1973 on November 3, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I’m well aware of, and write often about, the problem of imagining Obama’s symbolism alone automatically indicates progressive governance. What’s hilarious is that on any metric, considering the enormity of the economic crisis that cascaded into his term from the Bush years Obama’s a remarkably successful President. Huge aspects of the economy, especially throughout 2009 were reacting to and correcting for overvalued property markets. What policies would have prevented that correction for over value? Abolishing NPR? You are the folks who are not evaluating the President on objective metrics. The constant emphasis on dog eating, him being a Kenyan, “anti-colonialism” and that he dared to say “if I had a son he’d look like Trayvon” all speak to the ways conservatives are intensely focused on the symbolics of a Barack Obama presidency and it drives them up the wall.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Wow, you’re really emotional about what someone says about you on the internet.

spinach.chin on November 3, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Well that certainly makes me a minority on this site. *eyeroll*

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:50 AM

So, why don’t pro-life Republicans have a good answer to the rape question? You’d think they would as they know they are going to be asked about every single time they stand in front of a camera. Here is what I would like to hear from them: “I am pro-life. I’d like to know what my opponent thinks of when life begins, what restrictions if any he would place on abortion and how late in a pregnancy is abortion permissible.” Pro-choicers are never asked these questions. So I would refuse to answer the rape/incest question until they do.

IdrilofGondolin on November 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM

MontanaMmmm on November 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

In the case of Indiana I would look at the fact people don’t want to tell themselves or the pollsters they are voting for the guy with the controversy around him. Look at Donnelly support which is not above 45-47%. The “undecideds” are just not telling pollsters…”Yeah I am voting for Murdoch anyway”

Don’t be surprised if they do the same for Akin. That silly comment has to also make them sign up for 6 years of McCaskill.

That support is the kind that evaporates in the voting booth right under pollsters feet.

Conan on November 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM

It is extremely telling that you have put the burden of proof on *me* to demonstrate who *you* support, that I would have to look and “discover” what you think. Shows how rarely you ever articulate your beliefs yourself.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Translated, I got nothing. Rogerb kicks my azz again, (with my own words).

The man is a genius.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM

But it us our fault these people say or do things that harm their candidacy’s?

NotCoach on November 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM

If we agitate for them to be nominated, yes.

This is not Fantasy Politics. If a candidate steps out of nowhere and claims to be the conservative in the race, it’s incumbent upon everyone to check them out. Not just the state’s residents – everyone. Akin, in particular, had a history of letting his mouth get him into trouble, something that even a cursory Google search would have revealed.

Now, I understand that we can’t anticipate everything, and sometimes an October surprise is going to happen no matter what. But now, and especially two years ago, there were warning signs blinking behind every single one of the bad candidates well in advance of their nomination.

KingGold on November 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM

As if Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, et al. ad nauseum don’t fit this definition just as well?

Please.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on November 3, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Not for me. They are pro-Isreal, tend to be pro-war, haven’t cut defense spending, continue to support and fund the War on Drugs. There’s no purely progressive national politicians the way there are purely conservative tea party types.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Polished candidates do not have to run ads assuring people that they’re not a witch. Polished candidates do not imply that aggrieved voters might just have to shoot politicians in the other party. Polished candidates do not wax philosophical on the mental state of gay people on national television.
KingGold on November 3, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Agreed. My concern, though, is that our quest for “sanitized,” uncontroversial, “polished” candidates has led to a Congress that largely lacks ideas, leadership, or integrity. The Democrats put ideology ahead of being “polished” and have enjoyed far more public policy successes in the past decade than we have.

Outlander on November 3, 2012 at 9:53 AM

KingGold on November 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Again, outside of Missouri who was promoting Akin?

NotCoach on November 3, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Well that certainly makes me a minority on this site. *eyeroll*

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Maybe not, but I don’t see a lot of paragraph-long posts about their butt-hurt.

spinach.chin on November 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Again, outside of Missouri who was promoting Akin?

NotCoach on November 3, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Besides Mike Huckabee who isn’t exactly a leader of large coalitions.

NotCoach on November 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Wow, you’re really emotional about what someone says about you on the internet.

spinach.chin on November 3, 2012 at 9:44 AM
Well that certainly makes me a minority on this site. *eyeroll*

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Actually spinach.chin, this one is well versed in dishing it out too. He’s toned it down since he was banned under a different screen name years ago. For threatening violence against another commenter and an invitation to met if I recall correctly.

No saint.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

If the repubs do not gain control of the senate, however, Romney wins the presidency, will “sane” democrats, not the whacked out
lefties, tend to be reasonable and work with the White House?

If Obama’s thug machine is not in place threatening them are
there some that are what used to be called “blue dog democrats”
willing to work with the repubs to help set an agenda that will
rescue this country from the socialist/marxist/communist evils
that Obama installed?

Will Harry Reid remain as majority leader?

Amjean on November 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

The pro-life movement needs to focus its attention on the 95% of abortions performed purely for the woman’s convenience. Once society as a whole shifts to a pro-life position in general

Outlander on November 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM

if convenience abortions were forbidden, there would be an incessant daily barrage of sob stories and suicides, and prohibition would be revoked soon after.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

What policies would have prevented that correction for over value?

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Question is bassackward.

You are the folks who are not evaluating the President on objective metrics.
libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM

U6 consistently above 13 – 14% or more for 3+ years.

How’s that for an objective metric?

Or maybe you prefer the 16 Trillion number BHO couldn’t even bring himself to recall on Dave’s show?

I could list many more examples of objective measures that have me opposed to this clueless man.

Please stop painting with a broad brush that only serves your psyche.

“What policies encouraged the over value”?

You will say evil Wall St.

I say Government meddling in finanacial markets.

We will disagree.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on November 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Everyone is a tough guy on the intertubes apparently…

NotCoach on November 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Not for me. They are pro-Isreal, tend to be pro-war, haven’t cut defense spending, continue to support and fund the War on Drugs. There’s no purely progressive national politicians the way there are purely conservative tea party types.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:53 AM

A testament to how far out of the mainstream progressivism is…

spinach.chin on November 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM

There’s no purely progressive national politicians the way there are purely conservative tea party types.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Well I’m sure if “socialist” and “communist” didn’t still conjur up images of tyrannical governments and millions of dead people we’d see democrats be more open about what they really believe.

darwin on November 3, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Outlander on November 3, 2012 at 9:53 AM

I have to disagree. The Democrats are ideological brawlers, but their candidates play it close to the chest. As far as public, overt leftism goes, Lizzie Warren’s about it. And she’s in deepest-blue Massachusetts.

Plus, we have no choice in the matter. Not when we also have to play against a media that amplifies our mistakes and buries Dems’.

KingGold on November 3, 2012 at 9:58 AM

if convenience abortions were forbidden, there would be an incessant daily barrage of sob stories and suicides, and prohibition would be revoked soon after.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Did history start only after Roe v. Wade and everything before it was make believe?

NotCoach on November 3, 2012 at 9:58 AM

if convenience abortions were forbidden, there would be an incessant daily barrage of sob stories and suicides, and prohibition would be revoked soon after.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

It’s not like birth control isn’t available everywhere. Sob stories wouldn’t go over very well.

darwin on November 3, 2012 at 10:00 AM

I don’t think it’s the abortion discussion, per se. Messrs. Akin and Mourdock only bought trouble when they made weird comments about rape. A candidate saying “I am pro-life. Period.” ala Paul Ryan, never makes himself a punchline.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 3, 2012 at 9:31 AM

This.

However, a bigger problem is that enough women are willing to vote on this basis alone, despite the fact the men saying such things will have absolutely no power to do anything about it even if elected.

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Side comment: I recall reading many posts by libfreeordie earlier this year. They tended to be short little “hit and run” zingers intended to irritate. The comments from libfreeordie that we see here today are completely different– long, complex, and aiming for logical arguments. It’s almost enough to make you wonder if it’s the same person.

Dextrous on November 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Sadly, I agree. Partly due to a few bad GOP candidates but mostly due to an increasingly socialist electorate.

The Presidential race should not be close. A better candidate might have been able to beat Obama handily, however the GOP didn’t have one. But again, the primary problem is an increasingly socialist electorate.

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 9:46 AM

There is much truth to what you are saying. Romney’s 47% comment was right, but for the wrong reason. (It’s not necessarily the 47% who don’t pay income tax, it’s the 47% who are dependent on government transfer payments for their survival).

Democracy only works until people figure out how to vote to take other people’s money…

Outlander on November 3, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Will Harry Reid remain as majority leader?

Amjean on November 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Yes the big problem is that Reid uses the Majority leader position to keep votes from being taken.

See Keystone Pipeline for example that he is holding many Dem Senators hostage to the left-wing agenda. Normally they could pressure the leader but that is not how it works if you vote for a Democrat Senator under Reid. You are handing ALL your power over to Reid.

Too bad these clowns don’t understand that who are voting for USELESS democrat Senator

Conan on November 3, 2012 at 10:03 AM

I hate hate hate how the Washington Senate race isn’t even considered remotely competitive. Michael Baumgartner is an extraordinarily well qualified and experienced candidate, but it’s just assumed that the King County Hive Mind Collective will automatically re-up Cantwell for another six freaking years.

I can’t believe WA is the same state that once elected Scoop Jackson. And with all these foolhardy Californians infesting the voting public, I guess it isn’t.

fiatboomer on November 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Hey folks I would warn you about taking Jazz’s word that these voters are going to vote for Democrats based solely on abortion. Also don’t bet they are going to split their Romney ticket and NOT send a Republican Senator to help with the agenda they are voting for. Coattails folks..It is the oldest concept in elections and it will overcome things like abortion comments OVER a month old. If the Dems Senators make abortion their final argument this weekend people will say “This guy doesn’t get ME!” “he is not getting My vote”

Conan on November 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM
Everyone is a tough guy on the intertubes apparently…

NotCoach on November 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Yep.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Too bad these clowns don’t understand that who are voting for USELESS democrat Senator

Conan on November 3, 2012 at 10:03 AM

USELESS Dem senators: See “Cantwell, Maria” and “Murray, Patty.”

fiatboomer on November 3, 2012 at 10:09 AM

fiatboomer on November 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

I could say the same for Klobachar in MN. She deserves to be turned out. She voted straight down the line with everything Obama and Reid wanted. She will pay no price here in MN for being part of a party that provided no budget for 3 years and is running fiscal conservative ads. It makes me want to vomit.

Conan on November 3, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Did history start only after Roe v. Wade and everything before it was make believe?

NotCoach on November 3, 2012 at 9:58 AM

abortion history mixes itself with the larger trends:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control_movement_in_the_United_States

abortion is the only subject where social conservatives have a rhetorical advantage after centuries of lost battles.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM

For threatening violence against another commenter and an invitation to met if I recall correctly.

No saint.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

You do not recall correctly. I have never once threatened anyone with violence on this website or on the internet. I am not that guy. At all. I tend to let a lot of the personal attacks on me slide, but this is an ugly smear, and NEVER happened.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Nebraska: This one should go to Deb Fischer, bringing the Republican “comfortable” total to 43, but we’ll pretend for now that Bob Kerry still has a chance.

Chuck Hagel endorsed Kerrey on Thursday, but that could work in Deb’s favor…

OmahaConservative on November 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Regardless, that’s the bigger issue? Then it should be easy to point out my constant and very verbose hypocrisy in posts where I support Mitt.
 
Your turn. Put up or shut up.
 
123go.
 
rogerb on November 3, 2012 at 9:33 AM

 
It is extremely telling that you have put the burden of proof on *me* to demonstrate who *you* support, that I would have to look and “discover” what you think. Shows how rarely you ever articulate your beliefs yourself.
 
libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

 
Wait, you misunderstood the discussion and thought it was easier than it really was (nicely done) and you still chose the “shut up” option?
 
Well played.

rogerb on November 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM

It’s not like birth control isn’t available everywhere. Sob stories wouldn’t go over very well.

darwin on November 3, 2012 at 10:00 AM

?

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 10:13 AM

?

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 10:13 AM

?

darwin on November 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM

This.

However, a bigger problem is that enough women are willing to vote on this basis alone, despite the fact the men saying such things will have absolutely no power to do anything about it even if elected.

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM

but socons demand every politician to claim support for its pro life position. this is not a soft request, its a very hard request and kneecaps many candidates in the general.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM

darwin on November 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM

i read you several times, cannot really understand…

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Wait, you misunderstood the discussion and thought it was easier than it really was (nicely done) and you still chose the “shut up” option?

Well played.

rogerb on November 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I’m not playing anything. You’re pulling a Jon Stewart. Engaging in humorist provocation while disavowing any responsibility to articulate a political belief or perspective. That’s fine, just don’t think you’re fooling anyone.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 10:18 AM

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM

What does birth control have to do with abortion?

NotCoach on November 3, 2012 at 10:19 AM

darwin on November 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM

The concept of personal responsibility escapes him.

NotCoach on November 3, 2012 at 10:20 AM

What does birth control have to do with abortion?

NotCoach on November 3, 2012 at 10:19 AM

its the most extreme form of birth control.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Will Harry Reid remain as majority leader?

Amjean on November 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Yes the big problem is that Reid uses the Majority leader position to keep votes from being taken.

See Keystone Pipeline for example that he is holding many Dem Senators hostage to the left-wing agenda. Normally they could pressure the leader but that is not how it works if you vote for a Democrat Senator under Reid. You are handing ALL your power over to Reid.

Too bad these clowns don’t understand that who are voting for USELESS democrat Senator

Conan on November 3, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Could there possibly be a coalition of dems, blue dog and otherwise, whom are tired of being chained to Reid’s agenda
via threats, blackmail, etc. who might try and oust Harry Reid as majority leader, or are there just too many whacked out lefties in the senate who will follow Reid’s lead regardless?

What I am attempting to say is “Is there a chance of a revolt
and who might lead it?

Amjean on November 3, 2012 at 10:21 AM

This.

However, a bigger problem is that enough women are willing to vote on this basis alone, despite the fact the men saying such things will have absolutely no power to do anything about it even if elected.

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM

I agree. But like “I am not a witch”, unforced errors of the dumbass variety sap voter confidence and make a candidate look less than competent.

Your musings on an increasingly socialist electorate was interesting. Made me recall a Newsweek (RIP) cover about 4 years ago:
We Are All Socialists Now

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 3, 2012 at 10:22 AM

i read you several times, cannot really understand…

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM

You said if convenience abortions (abortions as birth control) were prohibited sob stories would fill the airwaves and the prohibition would be reversed.

I said birth control is available everywhere and it’s cheap. Sob stories won’t carry much weight.

darwin on November 3, 2012 at 10:22 AM

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM
You do not recall correctly. I have never once threatened anyone with violence on this website or on the internet. I am not that guy. At all. I tend to let a lot of the personal attacks on me slide, but this is an ugly smear, and NEVER happened.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I’m been wishing for this exchange. So, you’re saying, you swear, that you’re not DeathToMediaHacks, that you didn’t used to post as DeathToMediaHacks?

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:22 AM

rogerb on November 3, 2012 at 9:33 AM

 
… Shows how rarely you ever articulate your beliefs yourself.
 
libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

 
BTW, we’ve discussed this numerous times already:
 

you seem content to cut and paste. Porque?
 
libfreeordie on August 2, 2012 at 11:38 AM

 

you do have a tendency to abandon them once you can’t touch bottom, so too much effort isn’t warranted. FWIW, you’re not the only one.
 
rogerb on August 2, 2012 at 12:38 PM

 
rogerb on August 3, 2012 at 10:57 AM

 
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/03/july-jobs-report-163k-jobs-added-8-3-jobless-rate/comment-page-3/#comment-6095887

rogerb on November 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

This election is about voter turnout. In elections the way to get the voters to the polls is to get them mad. There are a lot of mad Republicans and Indies.

They will definitely turn out and vote. The Dems, except for the extreme left-wing will not, and they are going to stay home in droves.

There are 2 elections that this author forgets about. The 1st is the 1980 presidential election. The 2nd is the more recent Wi. Gov. Scott Walker election. In 1980 Reagan was down (according to polls), by 6%. Reagan won 40 states! In 2012 the race for Gov. Walker was tight , (according to the polls), Gov. Walker won the election by 7%

The moral of the story is. Don’t believe the pollsters, they ALWAYS look more favorable for the Dems., and ALWAYS under-count Republicans.

WV. Paul on November 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

The concept of personal responsibility escapes him.

NotCoach on November 3, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Apparently.

darwin on November 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

but socons solibs demand every politician to claim support for its pro life pro choice position. this is not a soft request, its a very hard request and kneecaps many candidates in the general.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM

The flip side is identical.

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

For threatening violence against another commenter and an invitation to met if I recall correctly.
 
No saint.
 
hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

 
You do not recall correctly. I have never once threatened anyone with violence on this website or on the internet. I am not that guy. At all. I tend to let a lot of the personal attacks on me slide, but this is an ugly smear, and NEVER happened.
 
libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM

 
Boy, you nailed yourself on that one. I guess this thread is about dead, too.
 

this is why I didn’t vote Dem before 2008 and while I’ll probably be returning to the greens from here on out. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
 
libfreeordie deathtomediahacks on January 23, 2009 at 10:41 AM

 
rogerb on November 3, 2012 at 9:06 AM

 
Yup, mining your vaults for a post from 4 years ago is really a great way to show inconsistency, because people don’t mature or grow or anything.
 
libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:08 AM

 

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2009/01/23/the-stimulus-is-a-crap-sandwich/comment-page-1/#comment-309955

rogerb on November 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Let me gives some credit to the left at HuffPo.

If you were to read their articles there would be NO mention of Not Taking the Senate under the same circumstances we are under.

There is also no posters who second guess the candidates. Maybe I don’t want to have the blinders on like they do but you will NOT have them second guessing and election that hasn’t taken place.

The talk constatntly how they are going to go out and kick Republican a$$ on Tuesday

Contemplate that HotAir as you pi$$ and moan and are pessimistic about Tuesday!!!

Conan on November 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Contemplate that HotAir as you pi$$ and moan and are pessimistic about Tuesday!!!

Conan on November 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

I would rather argue with people over our disagreements then walk off a cliff with the rest of the sheep.

NotCoach on November 3, 2012 at 10:26 AM

rogerb on November 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Touche! Bravo!

The fool just inadvertently admitted it is both posters.

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 10:27 AM

rogerb on November 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Nice. I don’t know that I could be that patient after putting the bait out like that.

NotCoach on November 3, 2012 at 10:29 AM

rogerb on November 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

What a setup. You are more than a genius, you are an evil genius.

I like it.

KABAMM!

ROTFreakingFLMAO

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:30 AM

. Shows how rarely you ever articulate your beliefs yourself.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

…obviously…you are not on here…as much as YOU think you are!

KOOLAID2 on November 3, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Yup, mining your vaults for a post from 4 years ago is really a great way to show inconsistency, because people don’t mature or grow or anything.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:08 AM

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2009/01/23/the-stimulus-is-a-crap-sandwich/comment-page-1/#comment-309955

rogerb on November 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

I should have trusted my own instincts as well, because I swore he has only been a member under his current monicker since HA last had an open registration. But him admitting to posting as far back as 2009 threw me and I thought I might be mistaken on that point.

NotCoach on November 3, 2012 at 10:34 AM

You said if convenience abortions (abortions as birth control) were prohibited sob stories would fill the airwaves and the prohibition would be reversed.

I said birth control is available everywhere and it’s cheap. Sob stories won’t carry much weight.

darwin on November 3, 2012 at 10:22 AM

birth control is not full proof and there are countless scenarios from pregnant teen suicides to poor single mothers forced to give kids to adoption. there would be again cases of casualties out of illegal and unsafe abortions
imagine the headline, mother of 3 dies after attempting abortion with some pill for ulcers, refused medical attention out of fear of jail.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 10:34 AM

So, Akins making a stupid statement, apologizing for it, the GOP buckling to liberal media pressure and stopping support for him almost guaranteeing a McCaskill victory should make me not be pro-life? I’m only commenting to the extreme comment above that said I’m not even allowed to talk about it.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 9:31 AM

I think you took it a little too personally; I think the original poster was referring to Republican men running for office.

Apologies are great but I’m not sure they mean a lot to non-conservative voters. I don’t agree with the way the GOP handled it but I don’t believe for a second that’s why McCaskill is ahead.

Shay on November 3, 2012 at 10:34 AM

ogerb on November 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

As usual, your desire to pull a “gotcha” has caused you to jump to wild assumptions with no proof. When I said “I am not that guy” I was using the colloquialism “that guy” to refer to a general obnoxious behavior. Considering you’re all middle aged or older you’re not familiar with that phrase. Google “don’t be that guy” to get a better sense of how people use language nowadays.

But here’s the thing, even if I was disavowing deathtomediahacks, hawkdriver nor you, nor anyone can post an actual post of me threatening violence towards anyone. Put up or shut up.

No doubt you’ll say “your willingness to use logic and to demand proof of accusations proves you’re guilty or something.”

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 10:35 AM

fiatboomer on November 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

You don’t think Baumgartner’s hampered a little bit because he told a reporter to go f___ himself?

KingGold on November 3, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Shay on November 3, 2012 at 10:34 AM

The candidates are no different from the rank and file as to what’s fair to talk about. Just my opinion.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:36 AM

rogerb on November 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Impressive. Maybe it will go away.

Dextrous on November 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM

The flip side is identical.

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

maybe it is, but it should not be an issue. prolife movement should be a social movement mostly focused on changing peoples attitudes toward abortion, thus reducing the number of abortions, not actually lobbying for forbidding ppl that disagree from having them or trying to reduce access to them.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 10:35 AM

But, but, but, but, but, but …

Oh stop it. He sucked you in and proved just what everyone already knew. Come on, he deserves props for hauling you in hook, line and sinker.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM

But here’s the thing, even if I was disavowing deathtomediahacks, hawkdriver nor you, nor anyone can post an actual post of me threatening violence towards anyone. Put up or shut up.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Prove you didn’t say it. Cut and paste the comment you were banned for.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:40 AM

birth control is not full proof and there are countless scenarios from pregnant teen suicides to poor single mothers forced to give kids to adoption. there would be again cases of casualties out of illegal and unsafe abortions
imagine the headline, mother of 3 dies after attempting abortion with some pill for ulcers, refused medical attention out of fear of jail.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Wow … “countless” scenarios, teen suicides, and jail?

You seem to have a tendency to exaggerate.

darwin on November 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Guys, guys, GUYS! The problem with Akin and Mourdock is not their pro-life beliefs, but their inability to express them without falling into the traps laid by leftists in the media. If you run for office and have an IQ above two digits, you should understand that desperate Democrats wave the abortion card, and convince women who will probably themselves never have an abortion that they will be forced to bear some rapist’s child at gunpoint if they vote Republican.

Sekhmet on November 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4