danivon wrote: He didn't support Republicans as well as Democrats in 2009 and 2010 or later? Like Akin, Brown, Romney...

Please demonstrate what the lies are, and how you know them to be lies based on fact (not just your prejudice).

He gave money to Obama in 2008. No Republican would do that. Obama is no Bill Clinton.

Harry Reid et al went to their nominee and convinced him to drop out. They did this hoping for a coin-flip from Orman?

Puh-leeze.

Because they were going to lose anyway, and yes, they probably do hate Roberts. And they clearly know him, but he ran against them as well. Sure, they'll take him over a Republican, especially when his candidacy is sapping their vote.

Here's how much of a partisan I am: I hate Pat Roberts. I hate the GOP idiot in Mississippi too. They are part of the corrupt class who never saw a reduction in pork they could live with.

Furthermore, I am not voting for the GOP candidate for governor in MA. Not only is he wrong on social issues, but he has said (along with the dim-witted Coakley) that he will defy voters if they vote against casinos in MA.

I am anti-corruption before I am a Republican.

Occam's Razor.

That does not mean what you think it means.

According to you.

Occams Razor simply means that all things being equal you should favour the simpler hypothesis. I don't know enough about this Orman guy (in fact I never even heard of him before I read this thread), but it strikes me that you're both essentially arguing the same thing more or less. Steve is saying the dems dropped out to help him because they think he's likely to favour them and Dan is saying they dropped out to help him because they think he's more likely to favour them and they couldn't have won anyway. It's basically the same argument. I don't see how you could invoke Occam's Razor in favour of either of the subtle differences between your positions.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote: He didn't support Republicans as well as Democrats in 2009 and 2010 or later? Like Akin, Brown, Romney...

Please demonstrate what the lies are, and how you know them to be lies based on fact (not just your prejudice).

He gave money to Obama in 2008. No Republican would do that. Obama is no Bill Clinton.

Mr Jock McTavish of Aberdeen put sugar on his porridge. No Scotsman would do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican ... ma_in_2008

He gave money to Scott Brown, Todd Akin and the National Republican Congressional Committee in 2010. He says he voted Romney in 2012.

An Independent, or at least a centrist swinger, would be likely to do both, to support both sides over time or as appropriate. He's not claiming to be a Republican now - he's saying he was one before GW Bush came along and messed up the budget, that he's been an Independent, and that he has been a Democrat, before going back towards independence in the last 5 years.

Still, you have yet to point out any statement that you have any evidence for being a lie on the part of Mr Orman.

Occam's Razor.

That does not mean what you think it means.

According to you.

No, I am totally in accordance with Sass' analysis. It's not really applicable - and I am not claiming to be applying it.

I've simply put out what Orman has said. You have made assertions, particularly of lying, that are unfounded. In my country we call that libel.

Sassenach wrote:Occams Razor simply means that all things being equal you should favour the simpler hypothesis. I don't know enough about this Orman guy (in fact I never even heard of him before I read this thread), but it strikes me that you're both essentially arguing the same thing more or less. Steve is saying the dems dropped out to help him because they think he's likely to favour them and Dan is saying they dropped out to help him because they think he's more likely to favour them and they couldn't have won anyway. It's basically the same argument. I don't see how you could invoke Occam's Razor in favour of either of the subtle differences between your positions.

Danivon is saying "Who knows how he'll caucus? He says he doesn't know himself and he's likely to go with the winning party."

The Democrats didn't dump their man on a hope and a prayer.

danivon wrote:I've simply put out what Orman has said. You have made assertions, particularly of lying, that are unfounded. In my country we call that libel.

Right. Politicians don't lie. Political parties don't operate behind the scenes. Okay.

As for libel, in our country we have something called "freedom of speech." It's only libel if it is demonstrably false and causes genuine damage. Good luck.

The truth is we'll never know. Orman will lose. However, should he somehow win, I'll wager he'll caucus with the Democrats.

Here's a fun little tool:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... e_map.html

I'll pick the closest races:

Alaska: Sullivan (close)
Arkansas: Cotton
Colorado: Gardner (close)
Georgia: runoff
Iowa: Ernst
Kansas: Roberts (very close)
Kentucky: McConnell
Louisiana: runoff
New Hampshire: (upset special) Scott Brown (may take a recount)
North Carolina: Hagan

Because of the First Amendment there is an actual malice standard with regard to public figures. A public figure suing for libel must prove that the person publishing the lie knew it was a lie (or did it with reckless disregard of the truth) and that it harmed the reputation of the public figure. There is a wide berth given for criticism of public figures in accordance with the First Amendment.

At any rate, I am wondering, what will this change, should the GOP retake the Senate, by however narrow of a margin?

Maybe they can do some income tax reform . . . Bawhahahaw!!!

JimHackerMP wrote:At any rate, I am wondering, what will this change, should the GOP retake the Senate, by however narrow of a margin?

1. Pass a budget. This has not been done in "regular order."

2. Pass immigration reform, beginning with border security.

3. Pass some of the bills that Harry Reid has refused to let come to a vote. A few of them might be veto-proof.

4. Maybe put a bit of a check on the President's executive power grab.

Doctor Fate wrote:Danivon is saying "Who knows how he'll caucus? He says he doesn't know himself and he's likely to go with the winning party."

Kind of (although that is not a direct quote). I am not making a claim on what he will actually do, but commenting on what he has said.

The Democrats didn't dump their man on a hope and a prayer.

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean he has to do as they expect. You are prejudging how Orman will behave.

Right. Politicians don't lie. Political parties don't operate behind the scenes. Okay.

Of course politicians often lie. That doesn't mean a specific politician is lying on a specific point. I'm asking you to tell me what his lies are, and what evidence you have for them. So far, nothing.

As for libel, in our country we have something called "freedom of speech." It's only libel if it is demonstrably false and causes genuine damage. Good luck.

Our laws are different. I'm not threatening to sue on Orman's behalf, so you and freeman can calm down

Freedom of speech, however, does not mean freedom from all of the consequences of speech. Calling people liars without any evidence is at the very least rude.

The truth is we'll never know. Orman will lose. However, should he somehow win, I'll wager he'll caucus with the Democrats.

He is currently ahead of the polling averages on RCP, and 538 has them at 50-50. I think it's not at all easy for you to call it. After all, you were convinced two years ago that Obama would lose, so I won't set much stall on that prediction, if you don't mind.

As for the second part, well he will if the Democrats have 48. If the Republicans are on 51 or more, let's see. What would you wager?

Personally--and I know that Danivon and Sassenach may disagree with me a la the last thread we discussed on (about democracies, etc.) but in my estimation, part of the reason for the "unproductive" 113th and 114th congresses may be due to the difference in majority party in both houses (Senate being Democratic, House being Republican). We may also see a lot of bills hitting the president's desk (because they'll actually get agreed on by both chambers for once in a while!) that will "require" him to make more liberal use of his veto pen.

freeman3 wrote:Well, the Republican candidate is liberal on some social issues and it seems the paper was a bit concerned about one-party rule...but yeah, surprising. I guess I could vote for a moderate Republican who was demonstrably competent in the job...hypothetically speaking.

My prediction is that Freeman will be an independent in 3 years and a Republican in 7. :)

Doctor Fate wrote:

theshrizzz wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:BTW, this morning the liberal Boston Globe endorsed the Republican candidate for Governor . I was both pleased and shocked.

I don't follow these things very closely, but I do live in MA...seemed to me that in general, while that endorsement is somewhat shocking, it's more because Coakley isn't a very good candidate. Nobody seems to like her very much, even Democrats, and most of those who will vote for her are doing so largely because they've never before voted for a Republican and aren't about to start.

I can't believe she was permitted to get the nomination. She has to be the worst candidate I've ever seen for a super-majority party. She lost to Scott Brown--and should not have. But, she's said so many incredibly dumb things. For example, she guessed the gasoline tax in MA was 10 cents a gallon--live, in a debate! Who does that?

My daughter told me that Coakley has said (I don't have a reference) that rape victims should not use lethal force (a gun) to defend themselves. If a Republican said that . . . it would be national news.

She is not a natural politician, that's for sure.

I'm surprised that Fells Acre hasn't come up. She had a major role in that, which is a tragic example of ideologically-driven prosecutorial overreach.

danivon wrote:He is currently ahead of the polling averages on RCP, and 538 has them at 50-50. I think it's not at all easy for you to call it. After all, you were convinced two years ago that Obama would lose, so I won't set much stall on that prediction, if you don't mind.

No problem. What you are ignoring: 1) Roberts was locked in a bitter primary. As an independent, Orman had no primary; 2) Kansas trends pretty red; 3) Obama is very unpopular in KS, so if Orman is believed to want to caucus with the Democrats, the late-deciders will go for Roberts; 4) The chicanery to remove the Democrat will move some small number of voters. I think it will be close, but I think Roberts will win.

As for the second part, well he will if the Democrats have 48. If the Republicans are on 51 or more, let's see. What would you wager?

Whatever you like. He's a Democrat.