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

Why do liberals get to have the most extreme views on abortions and conservatives aren’t even allowed to talk about it? So many commenters here said akin is extreme. Wrong! Obama voted for infanticide 3 times!!!!! You can’t get anymore extreme than that. Social conservatives will never shut up about life. We will defend it until the end!!!

sadsushi on November 3, 2012 at 10:41 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

Has anyone ever identified a liberal troll that did not first blatantly lie and then deny?

I haven’t. They are all almost pathologically dishonest.

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 10:43 AM

AAAAaaand remember what your Auntie Sekhmet is saying:

To speculate about Romney’s coattails is to admit Romney is winning in more than a squeaker. It’s a guarantee most of those state polls of Senate races are not accounting for turnout

Sekhmet on November 3, 2012 at 10:44 AM

They are all almost pathologically dishonest.

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I know, right? All this one has to do is cut and paste the remark that got him banned to prove he isn’t violent natured, but he won’t.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Color me naive, but I am becoming more and more optimistic that we could be in for a great surprise come Tuesday.

HoustonRight on November 3, 2012 at 8:59 AM

I’m getting 2010 mid term and 1994 vibes:-)

bluefox on November 3, 2012 at 10:45 AM

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.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 10:35 AM

That’s a bit disingenuous, mon frere. Had you said, “I don’t want to be that guy” or “I’m not that guy anymore“, your meaning would have been crystal clear. Quite surprised that, with all your proud identity flags, you would stoop to throwing shade on the ageist tip.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 3, 2012 at 10:47 AM

What’s really depressing me is how America will look like in 4 years if the Dear Leader wins re-election. He may as well shred the Constitution, because he sure won’t need Congress anymore.
Won’t stop me from voting for Romney on Tuesday, & it will be a much more enthusiastic vote than McCain.
I’m getting a bad feeling about Obamacare not getting repealed. I sure hope those liberals who embraced this monstrosity enjoy filling out all those IRS forms & watching their premiums go up. I suppose they won’t care as long as they get “free” birth control pills & abortions.

Belle on November 3, 2012 at 10:48 AM

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

No see…that’s the thing. Just because you’re out of touch with slang doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Prove you didn’t say it.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Oh is that your game? You didn’t “misremember” you already know that I’ve never threatened anyone with violence, you were just trying to smear me. That’s really honorable. Didn’t you serve in the military or something? Way to make them proud.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 10:49 AM

The polls in PA were taken before Romney’s push for the state.

Smith can win.

forest on November 3, 2012 at 10:49 AM

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:40 AM
Oh is that your game? You didn’t “misremember” you already know that I’ve never threatened anyone with violence, you were just trying to smear me. That’s really honorable. Didn’t you serve in the military or something? Way to make them proud.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 10:49 AM

See, you’re “attacking” my service record. Violent.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM

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

About as much of a chance of the dems replacing Reid as there is that we’ll get rid of our geniuses McConnell and/or Boehner. (i.e. slim to none)

bofh on November 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Don’t make this about abortion. My position on abortion is the same 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

But apparently polished candidates do justify the massive cost overruns for the National Mall remodel if only because they don’t have to smell the tourists. Apparently polished candidates falsely claim to be Native American because of high cheekbones. Apparently polished candidates proudly claim to have served in Vietnam when, in fact, they haven’t.

When a Democrat commits a gaffe, as Joe Biden does every day, Democrats have guts, circle the wagons, find ways to minimize the damage and come out fighting. When a Republican commits a gaffe, the “moderate wing” puts its palm to its face, goes tail between legs to the leftists to distance itself from the comment, and, by extension, the candidate and teeter on the brink of voting for the Obamacare supporting, Dood-Frank championing, green energy subsidizing, public union-owned, tax-and-spend leftist hack because the Republican candidate said something awkward about abortion.

fitzfong on November 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM

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

This is an analysis with a truck-load of caution*.

Jazz is basically assuming a ‘close’ election with Romney winning… maybe.

For myself… I can’t imagine an election were enthusiasm doesn’t travel ‘down ticket’.

My prediction, for what it’s worth.

If it’s a squeaker, and Romney wins… Jazz will right

If it’s a squeaker, and Obozo wins… Jazz will be almost right.

If Romney blows Obozo out of the water… Jazz may well have egg on his face.

(*Just remember where Jazz comes from… it does shape his opinions.)

CPT. Charles on November 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Without the Senate we are screwed. The old fool Dingy will block anything and everything from a President Romney just out of spite. He doesn’t care, he’s not running again. Romney would have to rule by executive order as little Bammie has been doing. By the way dems, thanks for the precedent.

Nevermind who these Republican candidates are, vote for them because the name on the other line in every race might as well be Harry Reid.

slickwillie2001 on November 3, 2012 at 10:50 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

i went looking in spanish google news for examples of abortion deaths in latin america, found one:
http://www.opinion.com.bo/opinion/articulos/2012/1029/noticias.php?id=75951
(use google translate)

I also found that this is an hot topic in latin america where pro abortion laws were recently approved.
http://www.kaosenlared.net/america-latina/item/36132-buenos-aires-fundamentalistas-cat%C3%B3licos-atacan-a-manifestantes-a-favor-del-aborto-al-grito-de-religi%C3%B3n-o-muerte.html

extremist catholics attacked pro abortion women screaming “religion or death” :O

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 10:51 AM

That’s a bit disingenuous, mon frere. Had you said, “I don’t want to be that guy” or “I’m not that guy anymore“, your meaning would have been crystal clear.

“I don’t want to be that guy” would suggest that I have been tempted to threaten violence on the internet, that is not true.

“I’m not that guy anymore” would suggest that I once was the kind of person who would threaten violence on the internet, that is also not true.

“I am not that guy” is a statement of ontology, I am not the kind of person who threatens violence on the internet, period, end of story. I’m not that guy. Again, if you’re not familiar with the way younger people use that phrase, that’s fine. But your lack of familiarity doesn’t prove anything.

Quite surprised that, with all your proud identity flags, you would stoop to throwing shade on the ageist tip.

Oh throwing shade is absolutely something I’m willing to do at a moments notice, I *am* that guy. :)
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 3, 2012 at 10:47 AM

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 10:52 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

Who told you life is fair? It will be when Jesus comes back, until then we have what we have.

Shay on November 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM

See, you’re “attacking” my service record. Violent.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM

I went from being annoyed that you accused me of threatening violence to being powerfully concerned that you don’t understand what words mean.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 10:53 AM

slickwillie2001 on November 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Your right… sort of.

Don’t forget the 2014 mid-term election.

Dingy behaving like a total ass, and blocking any real efforts with recovery and reform, may effect the ‘rat Senators up for renewal in 2014.

Which may affect the behavior of ‘rats who want to survive 2014.

CPT. Charles on November 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM
I went from being annoyed that you accused me of threatening violence to being powerfully concerned that you don’t understand what words mean.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 10:53 AM

So you’re still saying that you never posted under the name DeathToMediaHacks?

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM

How many (non-trolls) here would notice if someone posted a comment you did not make and attributed it to you — by name, date, and time — a comment that had you admitting to vote for an extremist third party?

Next rhetorical question…

How many think a previously banned retread sock puppet troll might not notice that when distracted?

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 10:58 AM

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Whether this person has been on HA under a different name or not, I am fascinated that some people here seem to be able to connect new people with people who have gotten the boot. There are so many people on HA, what is it that makes connections like this for you–in other words, how can you tell? What tips you off?

DrMagnolias on November 3, 2012 at 10:58 AM

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

Oh please, I was around when abortions were only legal in some states. The real argument wasn’t that they were a right but that it was inconvenient for many to get one. Of course the fact that it was/is inconvenient for people to get all kinds of various medical treatments doesn’t count. Isn’t giving birth just as much of a right as an abortion? Yet many hospitals in rural and small towns no longer handle deliveries, some women even cross state lines to do have their babies. Or if a person wants certain surgeries they may have to travel. Why are abortions any different? This is about convenience to pro-abortion people, nothing more.

Deanna on November 3, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Shay on November 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM

I’m not sure why as a Christian my comments is garnering more of your attention than the original that seemed to espouse the theory that men have no right to talk about abortion. I really don’t concern myself with fair. And I’m not going to stop voicing my opposition to abortion because I’m a man.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:59 AM

So you’re still saying that you never posted under the name DeathToMediaHacks?

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM

I’m saying that I have never posted a threat towards violence or “meeting someone” to engage in violence on this or any other internet forum. Ever. Whether I did or did not post under DeathToMediaHacks is immaterial to that fact. I would request that until you can post me threatening violence towards another poster on the internet please refrain from saying “he was banned for threatening another poster.” Because that is a lie.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 10:59 AM

fitzfong on November 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM

If you start comparing GOP candidates to Dem candidates on a one-to-one basis, you’ve already lost.

The game isn’t fair from the outset. For the love of God, the media covered up a Dem congressman beating the tar out of his wife in 2010. Our candidates have to be better – much better.

It’s not enough to say the Democrats run bad candidates too. If a bad Republican runs against a bad Democrat, the Dem will win almost every time.

KingGold on November 3, 2012 at 11:00 AM

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM

I said nothing about violence. I was referring to a prior screen name. p.s. Don’t make me pull this car over…

:P

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 3, 2012 at 11:00 AM

BTW… is there a particular reason why anyone is paying attention to the trolls… other than habit?

CPT. Charles on November 3, 2012 at 11:00 AM

i went looking in spanish google news for examples of abortion deaths in latin america, found one:

I also found that this is an hot topic in latin america where pro abortion laws were recently approved.

extremist catholics attacked pro abortion women screaming “religion or death” :O

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Now it’s my turn …

???????????????

Look, I find killing babies as a method of birth control abhorrent. You don’t.

The left has pushed abortion as a substitute for personal responsibility. The left wants people to relinquish personal responsibility in every aspect of their lives.

darwin on November 3, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I said nothing about violence. I was referring to a prior screen name. p.s. Don’t make me pull this car over…

:P

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 3, 2012 at 11:00 AM

I know what *you’re* referring to dearest CulchaVulcha.”That guy” is a phrase that is currently used to refer to generally disliked behavior. When I said “I am not that guy” in that post, I was using it in that way. I was not, in that post, claiming not to be DeathToMediaHacks. Whatever else is true, about my relationship to the illustrious and brilliant DeathToMediaHacks, well I suppose its a matter of interpretation.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 11:05 AM

What tips you off?

DrMagnolias on November 3, 2012 at 10:58 AM

With libfreeordie/DeathToMediaHacks, it’s actually pretty easy. Probably the easiest. It started with the general tenor of his assertions and then you notice very glaring comment accents. For one, they’re both renowned for putting asterisks before and after a word they want to accentuate. And more. His writing style and opinion thesis just glares.

But most of all, it’s that rogerb sucked him into a comment snare he couldn’t talk his way out of.

:-)

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 11:05 AM

I know what *you’re* referring to dearest CulchaVulcha.”That guy” is a phrase that is currently used to refer to generally disliked behavior. When I said “I am not that guy” in that post, I was using it in that way. I was not, in that post, claiming not to be DeathToMediaHacks. Whatever else is true, about my relationship to the illustrious and brilliant DeathToMediaHacks, well I suppose its a matter of interpretation.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 11:05 AM

I rest my case.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 11:06 AM

I’m getting a bad feeling about Obamacare not getting repealed. I sure hope those liberals who embraced this monstrosity enjoy filling out all those IRS forms & watching their premiums go up. I suppose they won’t care as long as they get “free” birth control pills & abortions.

Belle on November 3, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Wait til they’re told that their elderly cancer stricken parent is too old to bother with any chemotherapy or radiation. Forget that they were war veterans that sacrificed at the altar of freedom for all of us. I was lucky. My mother passed away in 2005 at the age of 82 after having the best treatment that MD Anderson had to offer, which gave her another year. If Ocare isn’t repealed, those days are over. And not just for the elderly. We boomers in our 50s and 60s will be thrown into the “too old” column by the IPAB death panel.

TxAnn56 on November 3, 2012 at 11:07 AM

The left has pushed abortion as a substitute for personal responsibility. The left wants people to relinquish personal responsibility in every aspect of their lives.

darwin on November 3, 2012 at 11:01 AM

When you think about it, being pro-abortion is a bad strategy for them. It means that there will be a decline in the number of supporters over time. Doesn’t seem like a good idea, kill off your future supporters.

Deanna on November 3, 2012 at 11:07 AM

I rest my case.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Yup, you lied to accuse someone of violence and accomplished…wait what did you get for that ugly piece of dishonesty again?

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 11:12 AM

And those two seats will likely cost us the ability to repeal Obamacare. No Senate control = no repeal.

TxAnn56 on November 3, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Through only the Executive Branch, a President Romney can destroy Obamacare in-place. All those paragraphs that start with “the Secretary shall determine” give him that power. They can reset all of Sebelius’s decisions so as to nullify Obamacare. They can set up a White House website where you enter your company details, and then print off an Obamacare Waiver. They can stop hiring for Obamacare, and the IRS staffs that will enforce it.

But would Romney have the intestinal fortitude to do it that way? With Dingy blocking any healthcare legislation meant to somewhat ‘replace’ Obamacare? Would any Republican president?

If a Republican House and Senate sent him a cancel bill, he would have no choice but to keep his promise and sign it. That’s not going to happen because it would take a huge majority in the Senate anyway. If we win the Senate by a seat or two, the best to hope for is to kill Obamacare through a reconciliation budget.

Killing off the grisly Obamacare is going to be a long hard road. No one should think it’s going to be easy. Supermajorities in the House and Senate happen rarely, maybe once a generation and never to Republicans. The democratics made the most of theirs.

slickwillie2001 on November 3, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Am I to understand that the voters in this country, are going to vote in Mitt Romney and then force him to fight Harry Reid every day of the week to get legislation through that will help the economy? Am I to understand that the voters of this country are going to elect the guy who says he’ll repeal Obamacare and not give him a Senate to do it with? If the voters are that ignorant, they deserve the government they vote for. Somehow I don’t believe the electorate is that stupid.

bflat879 on November 3, 2012 at 11:15 AM

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 11:06 AM
Yup, you lied to accuse someone of violence and accomplished…wait what did you get for that ugly piece of dishonesty again?

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 11:12 AM

You’ve lied and are still lying about having previously posted as DeathToMediaHacks. Unless you are willing to unequivocally avow that you have never posted as DeathTMediaHacks.

That would make me quite wrong. I guess I’d have to stand by your word.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Now it’s my turn …

???????????????

Look, I find killing babies as a method of birth control abhorrent. You don’t.

The left has pushed abortion as a substitute for personal responsibility. The left wants people to relinquish personal responsibility in every aspect of their lives.

darwin on November 3, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I am not going to re litigate abortion and I know how many of you feel about it. my point was only show you that a prohibition would bring about many unsavory dramas that US public is not used to any more.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 11:17 AM

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Two thoughts:

1. I apparently don’t get involved enough in conversations with people to notice their comment accents.

2. You’re more observant than I.

:)

DrMagnolias on November 3, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Does HA have any rules prohibiting previously banned trolls returning under a different name?

On most sites that is grounds for auto ban. Or, more accurately, re-banning. Because what’s the point of banning someone if you let them return under a different name?

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM

If you start comparing GOP candidates to Dem candidates on a one-to-one basis, you’ve already lost.

The game isn’t fair from the outset. For the love of God, the media covered up a Dem congressman beating the tar out of his wife in 2010. Our candidates have to be better – much better.

It’s not enough to say the Democrats run bad candidates too. If a bad Republican runs against a bad Democrat, the Dem will win almost every time.

KingGold on November 3, 2012 at 11:00 AM

You’re right. As you mention the Dem congressman who beat the tar out of his wife, I don’t know who you’re talking about.

But again, what constitutes a “good” Republican candidate? I’m sorry, but if a Republican is going to stick his neck out against the vast majority of his own party to vote in favor of Cap & Trade for example, why should I care whether or not he’s in the Senate? He’s going to support Obama’s judicial nominees and scold his colleagues for opposing them. He’s going to lecture his own party as extremists while caving to the Democrats on every issue that matters. Then, when he’s grown tired of facing accountability for his positions from members of his own party, he’s going to endorse, support, or run as a Democrat. See also: Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee, Charlie Crist, Dede Scozzafava, Colin Powell…

fitzfong on November 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM

It will all depend on how people vote, I don’t mean who they vote for, but “how”.

Here in NC we have the “All” choice of choosing the Republican ticket or the dem ticket.

You still have to choose the President and VP separately, and some other non-partisan, but all the others you just hit one button.

If the enthusiasm of the R/R race carries over, and the Republicans come out in force, with a vengeance, they will hit the Republican button. So far it look like early voting is heavy, very heavy in favor of Republicans, a huge difference from the last two elections.

Whatever poll, I give an edge, maybe 3-5% to the Republicans because of the turnout and the enthusiasm.

right2bright on November 3, 2012 at 11:20 AM

You’re more observant than I.

:)

DrMagnolias on November 3, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Doubt that Doc.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 11:24 AM

bflat879 on November 3, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Jazz is ignoring the Michael Baron’s prediction.

Optimism is not a trait in a NE Republican…

CPT. Charles on November 3, 2012 at 11:25 AM

… If the voters are that ignorant, they deserve the government they vote for. Somehow I don’t believe the electorate is that stupid.

bflat879 on November 3, 2012 at 11:15 AM

The electorate may not be that stupid and ignorant. It only takes a couple/few percent here and there for all of that to happen.

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Does HA have any rules prohibiting previously banned trolls returning under a different name?

On most sites that is grounds for auto ban. Or, more accurately, re-banning. Because what’s the point of banning someone if you let them return under a different name?

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Yes, they do, but it has to be proven, usually they catch them by their IP address, but if they used different computers or IP addresses to sign up (some trolls during sign up sign up under several names), then it’s hard to detect the little rats…
But, someone like libfreeordie eventually slips up, after all they are liars/connivers, they are essentially banned (as he/she is) by being laughed at and ridiculed…actually it’s good to have them, it reminds us of how really stupid the libs are, but also how dedicated they are to their foolishness…

A couple of years ago, a banned gal came back, we exposed her by actually identifying her posts as being almost grammatically the same as one six months prior…they all end up crossing the line, they are just plain stupid.

right2bright on November 3, 2012 at 11:28 AM

CPT. Charles on November 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM

That’s pretty good analysis of Jazzs predictions. I’m going to cross my fingers and hope a lot of them coast on the momentum of the presidential election.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 11:28 AM

I am not going to re litigate abortion and I know how many of you feel about it. my point was only show you that a prohibition would bring about many unsavory dramas that US public is not used to any more.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 11:17 AM

And my original point was people are tired of listening to whining. As I said, birth control is readily available to anyone. There’s also the option called “don’t screw if you don’t want a baby”.

darwin on November 3, 2012 at 11:29 AM

I have never once threatened anyone with violence on this website or on the internet. I am not that guy. At all.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM

No, you’re this guy:

That is indescribably stupid. It is *unfathomably* stupid. It is *UNPRECEDENTEDLY* stupid. God intended the pregnancy, but had no other means of bringing the pregnancy about…outside of rape? Seriously…think, think, think before you post. This is what is wrong with conservative Christianity, to a tee.

libfreeordie on October 24, 2012 at 6:56 PM

SailorMark on November 3, 2012 at 11:30 AM

And those two seats will likely cost us the ability to repeal Obamacare. No Senate control = no repeal.
TxAnn56 on November 3, 2012 at 8:50 AM
yep, and social conservatives harp away that what we really need is “true conservatives” instead of mushy middle. mushy middle wins, just look how much romney advanced when he turned to the center. the only problem is that republicans have to pander to the socon groups in the primaries and this wounds the in the general elections.
nathor on November 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Fine. Go win your elections without us, then.

If the GOP is going to give up on life issues – which, sorry, are more important to us than the economy – what’s in it for us?

I’m not going to defend Todd Akin, but that’s mainly because he’s done more damage to the pro life cause than he has the Republican Party.

The_Jacobite on November 3, 2012 at 11:33 AM

right2bright on November 3, 2012 at 11:28 AM

The casual troll does not know enough to work around the IP addy problem.

Habitual trolls, the ones addicted to trolling, the ones where it is part of their personality, the ones obsessed with trolling, know how to do that.

The only way to catch them is forensically. I’ve never seen one that could hide their style, their insults, their favorite bait, their favorite topics, their favorite expressions, and their positions. They all slip up, repeatedly. They are, after all, trolls and trolls must do what trolls do. It becomes a matter of removing reasonable doubts a bit at a time. That is, unless the troll slips up and traps itself, as happened here.

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM

goddammit Todd Akin…

alwaysfiredup on November 3, 2012 at 11:37 AM

I’m not sure why as a Christian my comments is garnering more of your attention than the original that seemed to espouse the theory that men have no right to talk about abortion. I really don’t concern myself with fair. And I’m not going to stop voicing my opposition to abortion because I’m a man.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:59 AM

It ain’t about you.

Shay on November 3, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Fine. Go win your elections without us, then.

If the GOP is going to give up on life issues – which, sorry, are more important to us than the economy – what’s in it for us?

I’m not going to defend Todd Akin, but that’s mainly because he’s done more damage to the pro life cause than he has the Republican Party.

The_Jacobite on November 3, 2012 at 11:33 AM

All three primary candidates were strongly pro-life. His being pro-life is not a problem, esp for Missourians. His being a catastrophic idiot is the problem, when you put it together with a state where people like splitting their tickets (and where Republicans eliminated straight-ticket voting some years ago).

Akin won a tiny plurality in the primary, and committed no major campaign faux pas (really he barely said anything) until 5 days after the primary. Had he made the same comments six days earlier, he would not have won that tiny primary plurality. It’s precisely the sort of situation in which a primary winner could gracefully and credibly withdraw in favor of another general-election candidate. Had he won over 50%, then I’d have said no, he should stay in. He would have been the clear choice. But he wasn’t a clear choice, the primary was a squeaker.

Literally any other Republican in the state could have beaten McCaskill this year. Heck, Pete Kinder could beat her, the guy who is going to win re-election to Lt Gov, and he was chased out of other races by prostitution allegations. It’s Todd Akin’s ego that lost the Missouri senate seat. Slow-motion train wreck, insofar as we have to wait 90 days to see the carnage, but it’s happening.

alwaysfiredup on November 3, 2012 at 11:47 AM

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:59 AM
It ain’t about you.

Shay on November 3, 2012 at 11:41 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

Who told you life is fair? It will be when Jesus comes back, until then we have what we have.

Shay on November 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Your comments are confusing me.

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Fine. Go win your elections without us, then.

who are you going to vote for then?

If the GOP is going to give up on life issues – which, sorry, are more important to us than the economy – what’s in it for us?

you will find something. your enthusiasm will be down but you still will vote repub.

I’m not going to defend Todd Akin, but that’s mainly because he’s done more damage to the pro life cause than he has the Republican Party.

The_Jacobite on November 3, 2012 at 11:33 AM

I you are still unaware that no exceptions abortion is a loser issue.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Was this story written before Harry basically announced that if you’re voting for Romney and actually want anything to get done you need to vote GOP? Because that’s all he did with his promise to block Romney’s ‘Team Party Agenda’.

I thought the GOP was the Party of stupid. I actually think people will see this one from the MSM too because it’s supposed to be a play for the idiot left base.

SittingDeadRed on November 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM

What policies would have prevented that correction for over value? Abolishing NPR?

I feel sorry for the strawman you just lit afire here.

lorien1973 on November 3, 2012 at 12:20 PM

extremist catholics attacked pro abortion women screaming “religion or death” :O

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Since abortion is killing, and you find killing babies ok, why do you say “extremist” Catholics? Aren’t they just as extreme as you since you also support death? And since they are saying “religion or death”, and you acknowledge them as catholics (religious), doesn’t that make them against death, while you are pro-death? I think you have the “extreme” label mixed up. I would say those that are pro-death of innocents to be “extreme” while those who say life is important to be in the mainstream.

dominigan on November 3, 2012 at 12:20 PM

No offense, however, why are any of you chit chatting back and forth with libfreeordie? Or any of the other trolls or whacked out lefties? Who cares what they have to say.

That person is a nutjob and one has to lower oneself intellectually to even converse with him/her.

A few days out from election and you are all hammering away
at one another over basically nothing. Why should libfreeordie’s
lies and/or opinions matter to any of us?

Aren’t there more serious issues to discuss? Or has this site
become a dumping ground for drivel?

It is my opinion that the owners/moderators/banners, whomever,
need to cease looking at total quantity of postings vs. quality.

Why not ban a blathering idiot for continuously posting garbage.

Amjean on November 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

http://unskewedpolls.com/
I read their Senate projections and don’t agree with all of them.
Not sure of their reasoning, but worth a look.

bluefox on November 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM

But, someone like libfreeordie eventually slips up, after all they are liars/connivers, they are essentially banned (as he/she is) by being laughed at and ridiculed…actually it’s good to have them, it reminds us of how really stupid the libs are, but also how dedicated they are to their foolishness…

right2bright on November 3, 2012 at 11:28 AM

I agree… its like having willing sparring opponents for you to practice on. They never seem to understand that here we sharpen our arguments and learn how to debate others so that we can go out and do it for real in the culture wars. They are unknowingly helping conservatives by coming in here and trying to stir things up. They’re just so clueless about it you almost feel sorry for them…

dominigan on November 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM

BTW… is there a particular reason why anyone is paying attention to the trolls… other than habit?

CPT. Charles on November 3, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Just keep em around so they show up on the 7th. Then let loose.

lorien1973 on November 3, 2012 at 12:28 PM

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

I agree with you. But candidates have to know the media is trying to help Democrats and will ask about subsets of abortion (like rape) to get a gotcha answer and run with it. Especially in an election like this year when Democrats cant run on anything else.

I see that I have gotten a lot of negative replies, and I am not saying men cant be anti-abortion. All I was saying is that during elections, it would be prudent for men to not talk about abortions when it is a non-issue, especially if they have no clue what they are talking about (like Akin and Mourdock).

milcus on November 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Oh, great so now the leftie trolls are the new “sparring partners”.

It should be beneath us to sink that low, sparring with morons.
Its not even a fair fight.

Amjean on November 3, 2012 at 12:38 PM

dominigan on November 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM

If HA wants to have some trolls around for any of several reasons, it’s their business, literally.

However, tolerating banned posters who return under a different handle is an entirely different matter.

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Just keep em around so they show up on the 7th. Then let loose.

lorien1973 on November 3, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Do you think they will show up on the 7th when Romney wins?

Amjean on November 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM

I agree with you. But candidates have to know the media is trying to help Democrats and will ask about subsets of abortion (like rape) to get a gotcha answer and run with it. Especially in an election like this year when Democrats cant run on anything else.

I see that I have gotten a lot of negative replies, and I am not saying men cant be anti-abortion. All I was saying is that during elections, it would be prudent for men to not talk about abortions when it is a non-issue, especially if they have no clue what they are talking about (like Akin and Mourdock).

milcus on November 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM

They could say, “Personally I am pro life, or personally I am
pro choice, however, if elected I will be gov/sen/rep of my whole
state and will abide by the will of the people”. If further
pressed, they could respond, “I’ve said all I am going to say on
the subject, move on”. Take control. Do not respond like a little
wienie.

Amjean on November 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM

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

 
Not at all.
 
I would, however, say “even HA posters who never even went to college know that bannable comments are deleted.”
 
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ahotair.com+comment+deleted+user+banned
 
So of course no one can link to it.
 
But you knew that, right?

rogerb on November 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM

I agree with you. But candidates have to know the media is trying to help Democrats and will ask about subsets of abortion (like rape) to get a gotcha answer and run with it. Especially in an election like this year when Democrats cant run on anything else.

milcus on November 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM

You are right in that respect. Democratic party operatives that have acquired old media credentials set up these candidates, just as George Stephalonopis did. They erred in not having practiced and even focus-grouped answers to the obvious questions.

I can excuse the Republican presidential primary candidates here, because George deviously ambushed them out of the blue on contraception, but on abortion you should have these answers ready to go.

slickwillie2001 on November 3, 2012 at 12:43 PM

It ain’t about you.

Shay on November 3, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Question, hawkdriver specifically or men in general?

Cindy Munford on November 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Oh, great so now the leftie trolls are the new “sparring partners”.

It should be beneath us to sink that low, sparring with morons.
Its not even a fair fight.

Amjean on November 3, 2012 at 12:38 PM

In my experience, getting everyone to ignore the trolls is an impossible dream. It will never happen. And some actually enjoy dealing with them.

A particular troll and what it does, the disruption and diversion it causes, is either tolerated — up to some hard to define line — or it is are banned.

That’s up to the HA PTB. It is their site.

Banned trolls returning using a different name, however…

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 12:46 PM

rogerb on November 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Wait. When did we learn that libslaveordie was a previously banned user?

Do you think they will show up on the 7th when Romney wins?

Amjean on November 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Possibly. If they have courage of their convictions they will.

They gotta start whining about job numbers, deficit and drone kill lists at some point. They may as well start early.

lorien1973 on November 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Wait. When did we learn that libslaveordie was a previously banned user?

lorien1973 on November 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM

rogerb brilliantly and very skillfully got it to incriminate itself in this very thread.

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Akin and Murdoch. Perfect example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Can So Cons PLEASE stop insisting that hard right social positions are winners? THEY ARE NOT. Akin will lose, and he should (for being an idiot, a jerk and a pig). Murdoch will also probably lose, and because of those two, we could very well lose the Senate.

idalily on November 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM

In President, Senate and House races I vote Democratic, so Baldwin gets my support either way, but its also kind of awesome.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Awesome? Really? Why? Will her sexual orientation somehow make her a better senator?

hopeful on November 3, 2012 at 12:58 PM

I wonder if rogerb gets that a dogged emphasis on intellectual inconsistency is hilarious from a Romney supporter.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Translated: “rogerb struck a nerve!”

I love it when they squeal like pigs.

Del Dolemonte on November 3, 2012 at 12:59 PM

“Of the 100 seats in the Senate, there are less than a dozen that we really need to bother looking at. ”

A garbage statement, as only one-third of the Senate seats are subject to elections every two years. So rather than the diminuendo of 12/100, it’s really 12/33. And even that misstates the issue, given the nature of a few of the imbalances involved.

rayra on November 3, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Obama’s a remarkably successful President.

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Which is why he ran on that record.

Z———-

Del Dolemonte on November 3, 2012 at 1:06 PM

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

Harry “This War is Lost” Reid is “pro-war”?

News to me!

Z———-

Del Dolemonte on November 3, 2012 at 1:07 PM

bflat879 on November 3, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Jazz is ignoring the Michael Baron’s prediction.

Optimism is not a trait in a NE Republican…

CPT. Charles on November 3, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Jazz is Eeyore-Lite. It’s the reason his comments got plucked for elevation by the RINOs that run this place.

/oh and he left party affiliations off half the races he was regurgitating superficial poll averages about.

rayra on November 3, 2012 at 1:15 PM

So you’re still saying that you never posted under the name DeathToMediaHacks?

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Whether I did or did not post under DeathToMediaHacks is immaterial…

libfreeordie on November 3, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Clintonian Parsing at its finest.

A+

Del Dolemonte on November 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM

idalily on November 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Sure, the minute liberal gaffes are handled the same by the media as conservative gaffes. It’s cute when Democrats demagogue, it’s a fascist plot when it’s Republicans.

Cindy Munford on November 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Wait. When did we learn that libslaveordie was a previously banned user?

lorien1973 on November 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM

rogerb brilliantly and very skillfully got it to incriminate itself in this very thread.

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Yes, that was beautiful to watch.

For that, rogerb gets the coveted Walter’s Basin Award.

Del Dolemonte on November 3, 2012 at 1:18 PM

So you’re still saying that you never posted under the name DeathToMediaHacks?

hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Even though rogerb has made the connection obvious, he can never actually admit to it. To do so would acknowledge he was banned previously, and he would be subject to immediate removal again.

IamDA on November 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Literally any other Republican in the state could have beaten McCaskill this year. Heck, Pete Kinder could beat her, the guy who is going to win re-election to Lt Gov, and he was chased out of other races by prostitution allegations. It’s Todd Akin’s ego that lost the Missouri senate seat. Slow-motion train wreck, insofar as we have to wait 90 days to see the carnage, but it’s happening.
alwaysfiredup on November 3, 2012 at 11:47 AM

I agree completely.

Which is why I thought Steelman (also pro life) was probably the best pick at the time.

Unfortunately, Akin’s stubborn pride kept him from standing aside once his gaffe crippled his candidacy.

The_Jacobite on November 3, 2012 at 1:54 PM

who are you going to vote for then?

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Vote third party. Or, more likely, do what many evangelicals did before 1980: stay home, or vote only in local elections we have some influence over.

We don’t expect perfection, but we do expect *something.*

The_Jacobite on November 3, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Just a short note on Missouri and Indiana. I’m not sure they’re lost yet. They’re certainly not lost until the votes come in and I’m just not sure that people will go out of their way to vote for Romney to repeal Obamacare and not realize they have to elect a Republican Senate to get that done. Knowing it only takes 51 votes for repeal means there isn’t a lot of wiggle room left to vote for someone like Clare McCaskill, who has voted with Harry Reid every time he’s needed her vote.

In Florida, we’re going to have to hold our nose to vote for COnnie Mack IV and my gut tells me most will do it. NOt because Mack was the best candidate (he wasn’t) but because Nelson is a sure-fire vote for Reid in challenging Romney all the time and we’ll never get the job done without a Republican Senate. It’s really pretty simple.

We’ll just have to see how many voters have figured that out also.

bflat879 on November 3, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Would have been a big help if you had identified which candidate was Dem and which Republican. Not all of us follow all of the Senate races in each state.

AZfederalist on November 3, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Yes, that was beautiful to watch.

Del Dolemonte on November 3, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Watching the previously banned retread troll challenging the honesty of other posters was also very entertaining.

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Vote third party. Or, more likely, do what many evangelicals did before 1980: stay home, or vote only in local elections we have some influence over.

We don’t expect perfection, but we do expect *something.*

The_Jacobite on November 3, 2012 at 2:04 PM

so be it, the GOP cannot make unpopular social positions its flag, or else, it loses. better to tack center on social issues than to be a permanent loser.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Akin and Murdoch. Perfect example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Can So Cons PLEASE stop insisting that hard right social positions are winners? THEY ARE NOT. Akin will lose, and he should (for being an idiot, a jerk and a pig). Murdoch will also probably lose, and because of those two, we could very well lose the Senate.

idalily on November 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM

one can say that socons are legitimately raping the GOP.

and is not just this abortion rape issue, its all the stuff they are pushing, its guys like paul brown saying stuff like “evolution and big bang theory are lies from the pit of hell”.

this is nuts, sleepwalking into permanent minority

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 2:32 PM

The_Jacobite on November 3, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Sorry, but the GOP’s job is not to create God’s heaven on earth – After all, doesn’t the bible tell us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s?

JFS61 on November 3, 2012 at 2:34 PM

I predict that turnout on the R side will be EPIC. 2010 was a storm surge. 2012 is gonna be a 120 foot high tsunami.

maineconservative on November 3, 2012 at 2:36 PM

I agree with you. But candidates have to know the media is trying to help Democrats and will ask about subsets of abortion (like rape) to get a gotcha answer and run with it. Especially in an election like this year when Democrats cant run on anything else.

milcus on November 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Knowing that’s the name of the game, what Conservative Candidate would not have a pithy, ready-to-go answer on any abortion question? They know it’s coming as surely Liberal Candidates know they’ll be hit with a gay marriage query (no pun intended).

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 3, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Knowing that’s the name of the game, what Conservative Candidate would not have a pithy, ready-to-go answer on any abortion question? They know it’s coming as surely Liberal Candidates know they’ll be hit with a gay marriage query (no pun intended).

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 3, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Agree.

Not only should they know it is coming and be prepared, they should know the libs, lefties, and MSM will try to use their answer to discredit them in the view of independent female voters who may be overall sympathetic to the pro-life position.

The problem is not their belief that human life begins at conception. I’d wager there are people that vote Dem believe that, some Catholics for example.

Their problem is not being prepared to answer the question(s) in a way that doesn’t alienate potential political allies, that does not give their political enemies a weapon to bludgeon them with, and that can be used to dominate the campaign. Stating they are pro-life, leaving it at that, and deftly moving on to another issue is one way. Stating that they must wait and see what legislation is proposed, so they can read it carefully before rendering an opinion, unlike what Dems did with Obamacare, is another. And so on and so forth.

Liberals and lefties are very good at evasion. They have to be. Republicans, not so much, especially those new to the game/process.

farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 3:10 PM

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

 
Not at all.
 
I would, however, say “even HA posters who never even went to college know that bannable comments are deleted.”
 
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ahotair.com+comment+deleted+user+banned
 
So of course no one can link to it.
 
But you knew that, right?
 
rogerb on November 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM

 
Crickets.

rogerb on November 3, 2012 at 3:29 PM

AAAAaaand remember what your Auntie Sekhmet is saying:

To speculate about Romney’s coattails is to admit Romney is winning in more than a squeaker. It’s a guarantee most of those state polls of Senate races are not accounting for turnout

Sekhmet on November 3, 2012 at 10:44 AM

They have also completely forgotten Chic-Fil-A day.

jaydee_007 on November 3, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Wait. When did we learn that libslaveordie was a previously banned user?
 
lorien1973 on November 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM

 
rogerb brilliantly and very skillfully got it to incriminate itself in this very thread.
 
farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 12:52 PM

 
First time was back in June.
 
And then and now is all hawkdriver, btw.
 

Dude, are you sure you’re not Deattomediahacks?
 
hawkdriver on June 20, 2012 at 1:53 PM

 

This again, didn’t I already respond? Didn’t rogerb already make his case? I thought the matter was settled.
 
libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 1:57 PM

 

You rambled on, never said no, and then you let the thread die.
 
rogerb on June 20, 2012 at 2:04 PM

 

Quite right :)
 
libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 2:07 PM

 
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/20/breaking-eric-holder-asks-for-executive-privilege-on-subpoenaed-ff-documents/comment-page-8/#comment-5942808
 
Funny how it ties in with my earlier “you abandon all your threads when you can’t touch bottom any longer” posts, too. Especially considering he’s still posting in other threads today after abandoning this one:
 
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/11/03/in-crisis-democrats-turn-to-the-dumb-vote/comment-page-1/#comment-2173889

rogerb on November 3, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4