Less than three weeks away.

I'll take the GOP and 53 seats.

GOP with 54

Any bets from our friends across the border/pond?

I think those bets are about right. Obama came to our state to support Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown in his bid for governor. Wondering why he'd need his help to get elected. Also, the prez does not seem to be touring a lot of places in the country to get Democrats elected. He's a paraiah to his own party. That tell ya anything?

Senate; 53/47 GOP/Dem
House: probably not much change, let's say 57% GOP, 43% Dem at most, but likelly a few %age points less than that.

Any bets from our friends across the border/pond?

Nah. In truth I haven't really been paying attention this year so I honestly couldn't hazard a guess.

JimHackerMP wrote:Any bets from our friends across the border/pond?

I've not been keeping up with it, as UK politics has been far more interesting.

Looks like the Republicans will gain control. I will go for the current fivethirtyeight.com most likely outcome: R52, D48

(including Independents with as they caucus)

Looks like the House won't move much - a few more Republican seats.

What difference will it make, really? The government is already in gridlock...

freeman3 wrote:What difference will it make, really? The government is already in gridlock...

That's easy.

Harry Reid has blocked votes on scores of bills.

So, if the GOP runs the Senate, all of the President's dishonesty will be on full display. He has repeatedly assailed Republicans for not passing bills he wanted. Well, in January, bills will start hitting his desk and guess what he will do?

Of course he will veto them.

Some bills, however, may be so popular that he . . . gets overridden. I don't even care what the bill is, when that happens, I'm going to go get a strawberry malt.

We also might have a "real" budget. There has not been one for years.

Ok. So Obama's message will change from Republicans not passing bills he wants to Republicans are trying to pass bills that hurt the poor, the vulnerable, children, the elderly or help the rich, big business, etc... same result.
And it might be a while before the Republicans pass a "popular" bill...

Unemployment January, 2009 7.8%
Unemployment September,2014 5.9%

Deficit FY2009 Bush) 1.559 trillion
Deficit FY 2014(Obama) 492 billion

GDP growth 2014 4.06%
GDP growth 2008 - .92%

Health Care Spending slowing but more people covered
57-39% against repeal of ACA

US military deaths 2008 469
US military deaths 2014 49

So by just about any measurement things have gotten a lot better under Obama than they were under Bush. Why would we give it back to Republicans to screw it up again ? I guess if you don't like high economic growth, low unemployment, lower deficits, declining health care costs while more people are covered, and fewer of our soldiers getting killed then, yeah, vote Republican.

Sources:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... care-costs
http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year
http://www.multpl.com/unemployment/table
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed ... chart.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu ... repeal-it/
http://icasualties.org

freeman3 wrote:Unemployment January, 2009 7.8%
Unemployment September,2014 5.9%

Deficit FY2009 Bush) 1.559 trillion
Deficit FY 2014(Obama) 492 billion

GDP growth 2014 4.06%
GDP growth 2008 - .92%

Health Care Spending slowing but more people covered
57-39% against repeal of ACA

US military deaths 2008 469
US military deaths 2014 49

So by just about any measurement things have gotten a lot better under Obama than they were under Bush. Why would we give it back to Republicans to screw it up again ? I guess if you don't like high economic growth, low unemployment, lower deficits, declining health care costs while more people are covered, and fewer of our soldiers getting killed then, yeah, vote Republican.

Sources:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... care-costs
http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year
http://www.multpl.com/unemployment/table
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed ... chart.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu ... repeal-it/
http://icasualties.org

Yet, those aren't genuine "measurements" of what Obama has done.

How about labor participation? How about median income? How about a sense that government actually knows what it's doing about anything?

If Obama was doing a good job, his popularity would reflect that. It doesn't.

For the record, more dead in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush.

Iraq a complete fiasco under Obama.

Yes, he inherited a tough situation. On most levels, he failed. But, if you want to argue that, start another forum. This is about the Senate.

You should feel confident if you're right. After all, Dems have raised more than the GOP.

Well, presumably Republicans are going to win seats because of unhappiness with Obama...but why? I think back in 2008 or even in 2012 most Americans would have, if asked would you be happy with Obama if in 2014 the situation was as it is, would have been thrilled-- yet they are dissatisfied. Our economy is growing at the kind of rate that creates jobs and we're seeing unemployment go down. Deficits are going down. If there is still too much income inequality, too much money to people in finance and corporate management instead of workers, well, I think we can be very confident that it would be worse under Republican leadership. As far as foreign policy goes we have reduced foreign involvement without any significant harm to either our national security or economic interests--at least not yet. And most likely the only way to have stabilized the situation in Iraq was with a lot more dead American soldiers--no thank you. I guess the Benghazi, IRS scandals, et al. (None of which reached the president) have done the job. But it is interesting to note the objective numbers.

freeman3 wrote:Well, presumably Republicans are going to win seats because of unhappiness with Obama...but why? I think back in 2008 or even in 2012 most Americans would have, if asked would you be happy with Obama if in 2014 the situation was as it is, would have been thrilled-- yet they are dissatisfied. Our economy is growing at the kind of rate that creates jobs and we're seeing unemployment go down. Deficits are going down. If there is still too much income inequality, too much money to people in finance and corporate management instead of workers, well, I think we can be very confident that it would be worse under Republican leadership. As far as foreign policy goes we have reduced foreign involvement without any significant harm to either our national security or economic interests--at least not yet. And most likely the only way to have stabilized the situation in Iraq was with a lot more dead American soldiers--no thank you. I guess the Benghazi, IRS scandals, et al. (None of which reached the president) have done the job. But it is interesting to note the objective numbers.

Another hijack attempt!

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2757

Moved your comment here.

Since GOP at 52, 53, and 54 are taken, I'm going to go with:

GOP 51
Dem 49