Nate Silver: GOP Has 60 Percent Chance Of Winning The Senate

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

By SAHIL KAPUR Published AUGUST 4, 2014, 12:08 PM EDT

In his latest forecast, statistics whiz Nate Silver gives Republicans a roughly 60 percent chance of winning control of the Senate in the November elections.

"Summing the probabilities of each race yields an estimate of 51 seats for Republicans. That makes them very slight favorites — perhaps somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-40 — to take control of the Senate, but also doesn't leave them much room for error," Silver wrote at FiveThirtyEight on Monday.

The statistician who rose to fame for correctly forecasting the outcome of prior elections noted that his latest analysis is similar to his previous Senate forecasts which give Republicans a slight edge.

Republicans need to win 6 seats in the Nov. 4 elections order to retake the majority. The fundamentals favor them in several key contests.

###

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nate-silver-gop-60-percent-change-winning-senate

[leftieNanner]

1. GOTV...GOTV...GOTV....

GOTV. Or we're all screwed.

[brooklynite]

7. But that doesn't include for Udall, Shaheen and Hagan, right?

You know, Third Way honorary co-chairs? We have to stand for our principles even if it means throwing incumbents under the bus.

Or so I've been told here.

[joshcryer]

47. Udall led the anti-NSA march with Wyden.

So of course he has to be thrown under the bus.

[MADem]

76. Good thing "here" ain't the real world, eh? nt

[mahatmakanejeeves]

24. No "if's", "and's", or "but's".

What the poster said.

Yes, that is a correct use of all those apostrophes.

[Historic NY]

2. Lots of hand ringing and sitting.....

I don't see much action as we inch closer and closer to Nov. Baggers seem fired up...but then weren't they in Nov 2012.

If we lose the Senate we lose it all...its the end game.

[Gore1FL]

35. "It all" would require the WH.

They may take the Senate. They may keep the house. No way they get 2/3 in both.

[freshwest]

62. A GOP Senate would impeach Obama. Then Biden would take over, and all the work

would be undone in 2016.

[Gore1FL]

63. There would be riots in the street if they tried that. n/t

[freshwest]

66. And a civil war from the RWNJs who are driving cross country to shoot somebody.

Oh, don't listen to me tonight, not feeling well. Really thought the SHTF would wait until 2017.

Haven't been able to be as active as I once was so I only have a small view of what's going on IRL. I am a couple of groups but aren't part of a bigger thing right now.

So my view comes from DU, which seems to be about vote depressing more than anything else, is likely skewed.

[KinMd]

72. It would take 67 senate votes to remove Obama..

impeachment is not a worry even if Repukes gain control

[freshwest]

85. I agree... but I'm not thinking of removal unless we lost terribly.

But remember Watergate as I watched the hearings on networks for what seemed like months. And just about everything was coming to a standstill.

The circus they'd put on would be worse than they did to Clinton in the HoR and then their big blustering foolishness in the Senate. They keep following the same MO.

The many lawsuits filed by the Starr Chamber prevented progress. They had to be answered. So much could have been done without Gingrich. Who got his majority through the hate radio demagoguery that still exists, mainly Rush.

It then became the major sell of the new cable networks. We are still being ruined by all those overpaid jerks who tasted first blood on Clinton.

And this country is not what it was in Bill's day, it's worse as far as the craziness that's gone mainstream and is more vicious. Putting Obama out isn't needed to do fatal damage to his presidency and the government.

We need a back lash to push what these clowns are doing to us all.

[Acornsouth]

86. "If" they gain control of the Senate, and "If" the matain the House...

would mean that they would be able to Impeach the President and Vice-President...Making John Boehner the acting President...

And here is an example of what he would do ...

&list=UU5jdZmxutobzwuzR0f8C1hw

John Boehner would bring the same dysfunction to the WH as he does to the House of Representives

[jmowreader]

91. They won't have enough votes to convict

It takes 67 votes to convict. In the 2014 election, if they flipped EVERY Democratic seat to Republican, they'd be one vote short...and there's no way in hell they'll sweep the election.

[Nye Bevan]

96. Are you aware that it is the House, not the Senate, that impeaches a president? (nt)

[hrmjustin]

3. Vote!

[tomm2thumbs]

4. Two words: Supreme Court

Their legacy goes so far beyond any 4 or 8 year presidential terms...

... and of course there are more words than that, but those are the first two that hit the fan.

[Clyde Tenson]

8. Exactly...take away the Citizens United ruling...

...and the results of Mr. Silver's poll would be inverted. This is an all out cash race.

[EEO]

9. Justice Ginsburg should consider retiring.

Let the accusations of me being a sexist fly.

[Demit]

10. So tell us what wonderful liberal judge we'd get in her place.

Who would Obama nominate? Who would the Senate confirm?

Nothing about your shortsighted suggestion is sexist. It is, however, not very well thought out.

[EEO]

12. Short-sighted? It is the opposite. If the Democrats lose the Senate the Supreme Court...

...which is already quite possibly lost for a generation, may be lost for much longer. One more conservative will make these 5-4 decisions 6-3 decisions. And if you want an idea of who Obama would nominate, look at his former decisions.

[Demit]

14. No, I want YOUR idea of whom he would nominate. It's your scenario.

Presumably you trust him to nominate someone as rock-solid liberal as Justice Ginsberg, only younger. And you presumably see no problem at all getting that rock-solid liberal judge confirmed by this Senate. Why, that liberal will just sail through the process, easy-peasy! Gee, why didn't everybody else think of that, lol?

[EEO]

15. I just gave you my idea. You just didn't accept it and decided to put up a few straw men to burn...

with your statements following every "presumably." When has a Supreme Court nominee ever sailed through the process? You'll find the process go from difficult to near impossible with a Republican held Senate. But don't think of that. You may actually have to look at history to form your opinions about the future - like looking at who Obama has already put on the Supreme Court to judge his future actions. That appears to be far too much to ask from you.

[Demit]

17. You don't really have any names of judges you'd like, do you?

Your "idea" is a vague generality. I want you to think it through—the practicalities, the actual logistics. You're the one wants to trade a sure thing. How do you see it going down, and with whom?

And as for what you think is a rhetorical question, quite a few nominees have sailed through the process. Like Antonin Scalia 98-0. Like Anthony Kennedy, 97-0. Like Ruth Bader Ginsburg 96-3.

[EEO]

22. Well, that's at least three.

And while we are thinking about things. You think about the repercussions of the conservatives putting another justice on the Supreme Court, which you are conveniently glossing over with your own ideas.

I again invite you to check Obama's history on the issue of his nominees. You harp about logistics when those logistics would change dramatically if the Republicans win control of the Senate, which is the point.

At least you to dropped the exclamations. Well done.

[Demit]

30. John Paul Stevens 98-0; David Souter 90-9; Stephen Bryer 87-9; Sandra Day O'Connor 99-0.

LOL. Just admit that in saying nominees never sailed thru the process you made another un-thought out statement.

Yes, the Senate used to be a more collegial place. Where the oppo party granted the governing party the appointments it wanted, within reason. That's not the case these days. Elena Kagan was confirmed 63-37. Sonia Sotomayor, 68-31. But six more Rs in 2015—what Nate Silver is prognosticating—still wouldn't have changed their getting confirmed. Losing the majority in the Senate will not translate to "conservatives putting a justice on the Supreme Court."

Even if we were to lose the Presidency in 2016, it doesn't necessarily mean another conservative on the Supreme Court. Minority Democrats could kick up just as much of a fuss then as minority Republicans do now. In the meantime, some important cases are working their way up to SCOTuS in the next two years. You want to trade away a brilliant mind in jurisprudence, who has gravitas, who has seniority, whose thinking will have a long reach down through the years in the law—for what? For whom? For very uncertain benefit.

[merrily]

69. And the practical difference between a 5-4 decision and a 6-3 decision is?

The issue is Kennedy, who is sometimes a swing vote. Another "reliable" winger on the SCOTUS would end Kennedy's ability to swing the court.

Kennedy is the one who should consider retiring.

[EEO]

92. The practical issue is the hole you have to dig yourself out of to regain the court.

[broadcaster75201]

20. Oh stop putting up the straw man

That is not sexist. Not even an argument. That is only brought up by you. It's myopic.

The reason she should NOT retire is she is a damn good Liberal Judge. You ridge that all the way to the end. There is still the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees in the Senate. No way Reid will kill that off and no way the GOP approves anyone. Furthermore it is HIGHLEY likely Obama, to get along, will settle on some Right of center Dem corporatist.

Ginsburg retiring would be close to disastrous. There is no way the GOP keeps the Senate, or the WH, in 2016.

And stop playing the martyr.

[EEO]

23. The martyr? In a recent discussion I was accused exactly of sexism, so there is a precendent.

And do you have a crystal ball? Such confident predictions in 2014 and 2016.

[merrily]

70. Breyer is only 5 years younger, almost to the day.

But, I don't think it sexist to choose the oldest one.

If you suggest that Breyer and/or Ginsburg might consider retiring, though, you might avoid sexism comments. Even better, say that ideally, Kennedy would retire.

[Dreamer Tatum]

5. And Brazil was going to beat Germany. nt

[jamzrockz]

25. For Godsake

They lost because Neymar got injured

[ChairmanAgnostic]

29. they lost because they were a bunch of ungovernable prima donnas who

have as much in common with a team player as Sarah Palin has with a rocket scientist.

[Crowman1979]

6. Everybody calm down!

We haven't even reached October yet. When most of the polls have been published.

[kracer20]

11. GOTV Using Social Media

There needs to be a HUGE push to blanket all social media with GOTV reminders of when and where to vote in the last few days leading up to the election. Far too many people simply don't tune in to the TV and radio like they used to, and the Mid-Terms just don't generate the water cooler buzz like the Presidential elections do.

With all of the distractions in our lives, I wonder how many people don't go out and vote because they simply forgot, or there wasn't enough buzz to get them planning their day around going to vote.

[kelliekat44]

13. I think there needs to be a huge push to spread this info to scare the bejeezus out of complacent

Dem voters of all stripes. Nothing motivates people like fear.

[BlueStater]

16. Republicans serve as a great inspiration to people everywhere.

Do absolutely nothing but whine for five fucking years and you get rewarded for it.

[Cosmocat]

38. This country ....

I have come to a point where I have accepted that it really is not THEIR fault.

These pols are who they are.

"WE" elect them and "we" find ways to keep reelecting them.

The gods honest truth is that it is a reflection of who we are.

Saddens me, but I can't find it in me to blame them.

[DaDeacon]

18. This is now...

We have time to change this before Nov.

[Chasstev365]

19. Nate Silver is NOT God!

If the GOP keeps aliening African Americans, Hispanics, the Gay community, and women who get out to vote on election day, the Republicans will not retake the Senate. Even with GOP vote suppression tactics, I predict the Democrats hold the Senate by at least 1 seat.

[broadcaster75201]

21. Well of course not but ...

He is THE most accurate. He is usually spot on. But the variable is GOTV. And he knows that is the variable. But, unfortunately, Dems just do not vote in mid-terms. HOPEFULLY they will vote this time and there is every reason to believe they will.

[840high]

56. He is good.

[Monk06]

84. He's god when he finds in favor of the GOP. The right hated him in '12

[liberal N proud]

26. If true, the voters are truly stupid.

[deutsey]

27. Irredeemably stupid

[davidpdx]

71. It's been known to happen

[QuestForSense]

28. This is why every single Democrat needs to vote this time.

A good reminder that everyone's neck is on the line now, so there is no future (literally) in remaining passive and not voting. Every single Democrat needs to vote this time.

[polynomial]

31. pole comes with controversy

The pole people are actually the signal people for the one percent.

The video by John Oliver explains it very well…check it out.

They make the argument then the message is built into the news and especially the thirty second commercials for hate radio and profiteering cable.

The pole comes with controversy and rhetoric with Journalism chaos with the famous saying “There are so many questions”.

No question about it, the advertisements, and the news breaking special are camouflaged with symbolism to promote the one percent on cable and satellite.

Radio is pure hate.

The pole people send of the first thread to make a path. This is characterized by a generous amount of commercial corporate advertising that we the people have never known about.

Yes, the advertising is snoozing the average American to vote against their needs or real beliefs. If you believe the poles and the advertisements your voting for the one percent.

[MyNameGoesHere]

32. History has shown us that last cycles darling prognosticator

is this cycles dud. That's just the way it is.

[jaysunb]

33. Democrats will not only retain control, but will likely gain 1 or 2

seats in the US Senate.

You heard it here first !

[freshwest]

64. Okay, jaysunb. You have credibility. But are you John Lucas brand confident?

ELECTION SPOILER: Obama wins in a LANDSLIDE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251130631

Hilarious, encouraging and realistic. He was the most powerful heart on DU at that time, IMO.

[jaysunb]

67. I haven't been wrong yet. LOL !

I've called every election since 2002 here at DU, including the theft of the 2004 Presidential contest.

John was/is "da man" I'm more in the vein of "Frank" Lucas.

[freshwest]

68. Okay, huh, Frank, I'm taking your word for it. John kept me sane and made a big turnaround for me!

My favorite pic from 2012!

[jaysunb]

73. Walk with me...take my hand...

still waters run deep.

[misterhighwasted]

34. Didn't he predict a Romney win also?

Nate Silver is no shaman. He could be WRONG about the Senate majority.
Just sayin

[Demit]

36. No.

[0rganism]

37. not that i recall

he was dead-on accurate wrt the electoral college in 2012 iirc -- he had a number of bins with probabilities assigned to each, and the final result was in his #1 pareto. Additionally, i seem to recall that he is one of the few who was that accurate. He also correctly predicted the 2012 senate races.

Of course he could be wrong, anyone can be wrong sometimes, but putting 60-40 odds on the GOP winning the house and having them not pull it off wouldn't exactly be him "being wrong" -- it's a less-probable result in his estimation. Less-probable outcomes do happen.

The real around here is the sudden rejection of anyone, even normally trustworthy sources, when bringing up election forecasts we don't want to hear. Instead we need to stop the wailing, gnashing of teeth, and shooting of messengers; if we don't do our parts to help motivate our apathetic off-year electorate, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.

[BootinUp]

41. Its just a snapshot in time.

Don't think he is saying its over.

[hack89]

43. No. He nailed the 2012 election. Just like 2008. Nt

[Major Hogwash]

46. Early in the summer, he had Romney gaining on Obama and declared it "a dead heat" at 1 point in time

But, Nate pulled back from that prediction after the video of Romney railing about "the 47% just wanting free stuff" was put on the internet.

Silver couldn't predict a thunderstorm if he had to, so why anyone pays any attention to him, is beyond me.

[misterhighwasted]

98. Yes that's what I remember. So the odds are that Nate could be wrong

What are the odds of Nate being a time traveler?
Or a bookie with a good computer program.

[onecent]

50. No he did not predict

a Romney win. This man spot on....and a master at it. Look him up. I honestly believe whatever he says goes. It's almost eerie!

[politicman]

39. who care anymore..

Really who care anymore, Obama and the rest of the democrats are not that different from the repukes.

I used to really admire Obama, I though that when he got elected he would change the course of the country, both internally and externally.
And his first 5 years I was extremely happy with because he did it with an opposition party that was determined to try and stop him any chance it could.

But the last year it is like I am seeing a totally different Obama and because of this, whether he gets a more democratic congress or not, it wont change the direction he has been going.

How on earth can any democratic president (let alone Obama who I thought was exceptional) accept that torture occurred under previous administration and ask everyone to not be sanctimonious and just move on?

How on earth can any democratic president (let alone Obama who I thought was exceptional) sit idly by and watch Israel conduct a month long massacre against the Palestinians and not say a word publicly demanding that women and children not be killed by Israeli bombs?

How on earth can any democratic president (let alone Obama who I thought was exceptional) insult and ridicule Russia so publicly instead of keeping his restraint and diplomatic tact which he is known for to avoid making the situation escalate even more?

For the above, I honestly don't care whether he gets a congress that is more supportive of him or not because the path he is taking these days is not that different from the path that Dubya took.

If Obama is being compromised by the intelligence agency or someone else who has some info on him, we will never know, but one thing I am damn sure about is that this Obama is a totally different Obama that we have seen for years and years.

[DCBob]

44. thats precisley what the repukes want us to believe.

Well said. .

[politicman]

48. maybe your vomiting should go to Obama and the democrats who..

are going for a strategy of getting votes for being the lesser of 2 evils rather than giving the populace something to get excited about and vote for it.

Well, if it is what the repukes want us to believe, then Obama has helped them with this objective.

If Obama and the democrats can so easily discard their morals in pursuit of votes, then I personally think that is even more reprehensible than the repukes who had no morals to start off with.

The reason Obama was elected twice was because in both elections he gave the people something to vote for, something to get out and pound the pavement and get votes because they were excited by him.

The last year and a little bit, Obama has discarded giving the people something to vote for, and capitulated to the point where he is hoping to get votes for being the lesser of 2 evils, and that strategy will ultimately fail because there are a lot of people like me out there who would rather not vote than vote for a lesser of 2 evils scenario.

[840high]

57. +1

[Dawson Leery]

77. +1

[drynberg]

45. Dems aren't angels, however, they are better than those Devil Elephants...really, just read 'em!

[politicman]

49. lesser of 2 evils does not cut it...

Again, this whole scenario where democrats want to get votes for being the lesser of 2 evils is disgusting in my eyes.

Voting should be something that is carried out because you are excited and want to vote for a particular candidate, not because the other side is more evil.

Obama in his 2 presidential elections gave the people something to be excited about and they get off their asses and went to the polls and voted him in, expecting the same people to get off their asses and vote again in congressional elections where you position yourself as a lesser of 2 evils is stupid strategy, if Obama cant be bothered to give people something to actually vote for then the democrats deserve a drubbing in November.

[jeff47]

54. You fix that in the primary.

You fix that by voting for better Democrats in the primary. Then you vote for the Democrat in the general, even if they're a moderate.

Repeat as needed. You will gradually shift the party to the left. It is exactly what crazy Republicans did to shift the Republicans to the right.

No better Democrat in your primary? Run. Even if you lose, defending their left flank requires the moderate Democrat to shift left.

[onecent]

51. Very well said!!

[Peacetrain]

52. Oh please.. sell that to someone else..

[sheshe2]

58. ...

"Really who care anymore, Obama and the rest of the democrats are not that different from the repukes."

Really????!!!!!!!!! Care to talk to me about women's issues and the GOP The SCOTUS 5Menz and the Democratic Party???!!!!





Fail!

[politicman]

61. you explain to me the following then...

Well from what I am seeing, Obama in particular (ever since being elected the first time) is moving more and more right towards the repukes as every day comes and passes.

You explain to me how a presidential candidate that used the topic of torture during his presidential campaign can go from criticising the other side for using it, to a position where he wants the populace to move on and not be 'sanctimonious' about its use after 9/11 because it was carried out by 'patriots'.

You explain to me how a presidential candidate can campaign against interfering with other nations and nation building, and then turn around over the years and attempt his very own nation building in Libya (how is that working out now?)

You explain to me how a presidential candidate can campaign on the 2008 financial crisis, yet over the years turn around and provide bankers and corporations with all the opportunity while the middle class stagnates and sometimes goes backward.

You explain to me how a presidential candidate can campaign on being thoughtful and diplomatic and then over the years become a president that wants confrontation with Russia through sanctions and even goes so far as to ridicule them in public, the same way that Dubya was known to do.

Why has he kept so many officials from Dubya's ear on? Why has he allowed fracking to increase whilst he talks about the environment?
Why has he allowed the intelligence agencies and MIC to continue the work they started under Bush?


When Obama campaigned and was elected the first time, he promised so much that he has now abandoned or made an about face on.

Sure the repukes are making his policies impossible to implement, BUT my problem is not that they haven't been implemented, my problem is that he personally has discarded many things he promised and gone the other way on them.

[sheshe2]

65. You answer a question with a question. Good dodge!

"Really who care anymore, Obama and the rest of the democrats are not that different from the repukes."

Really????!!!!!!!!! Care to talk to me about women's issues and the GOP The SCOTUS 5Menz and the Democratic Party???!!!!

[politicman]

75. not dodging, it is you that is dodging by excusing Obamas about face on many issues...

So now we have to be happy with a president and his party because they made some progress on a handful of issues, after running on a platform that he will transform the way the country has been run for decades?

Obama was supposed to be the president that finally changed the course of the nation, from domestic issues to foreign policy, YET all he has accomplished is in 6 years is advance a couple of issues, which themselves are important but for a candidate who promised so much he has delivered so little.

Sure he had an obstructionist congress and that excuses his lack of success in changing the nation, BUT these days he has abandoned many of his promises without continuing to fight to bring them to fruition and in some cases actually gone the other way and acted like his predecessor who believe it or not was a complete train wreck.

I pointed out earlier just a handful of things Obama campaigned on that he has discarded and even gone the opposite direction on, the list could go on forever.

[sheshe2]

80. not dodging?

okay, got it. So many words and you never answered the question I asked. I don't care how many statements you made here. You did not answer the question I posed.

First here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014862429#post58

Then Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014862429#post65

You answer a question with a question. Good dodge!

"Really who care anymore, Obama and the rest of the democrats are not that different from the repukes."

My response~

Really????!!!!!!!!! Care to talk to me about women's issues and the GOP The SCOTUS 5Menz and the Democratic Party???!!!!

And then on you go~

not dodging, it is you that is dodging by excusing Obamas about face on many issues...
View profile
So now we have to be happy with a president and his party because they made some progress on a handful of issues, after running on a platform that he will transform the way the country has been run for decades?

How am I excusing Obama when I only posted once and asked you a question? Then my follow up.... Where did I say any of that? Yikes!

Stay Cool Stay Calm Then Breath. You'll feel better in the morning!

[politicman]

88. try it this way..

I didn't dodge in my second post, I admitted Obama has done good by advancing a few issues, I give him thumbs for those issues.
But they don't outweigh the disappointment he turned out to be after promising so much to get elected.

I pointed out a multitude of issues that Obama has either abandoned or did an about face on and asked you to explain why my critique of him was not right, you never answered a single point this meaning you dodged.

So I'll ask again, why should anyone vote for the democrats this election cycle when Obama has discarded his positions on many issues whilst he was campaigning to get elected and even some issues he has turned around and gone the Republican route on?

Should the populace (especially liberals) line up to vote to give Obama more allies in Congress when Obama wont distinguish himself from the repukes on many issues?


Why should we as liberals accept a 'lesser of 2 evils' scenario, when the proper scenario should be that the president and allies in congress excite us to vote based on policies that us liberals are happy with?

My god, how on earth can have liberals gotten to a point where we are asked to vote to prevent the other party getting into power, instead of each one of us wanting to vote to get good politicians in so that proper liberal policies are enacted?

[nolabels]

94. The SCOTUS is the only real issue he can deliver on

Issues about equal rights for women, non-WASP's and LGBT in general are being changed by the populous as a whole. There isn't a politician on earth that could change any of that. If you feel the need to give Obama credit after being pushed into it, so be it.

As for SCOTUS, the so called liberals who sit on that court are a selfish as anyone else. They won't resign and let someone else younger take over because they think they personally are the only ones that can get the job done. It's called stalemate

Till something outside the political realm takes over, then the focus will be just that, political stalemate

[BootinUp]

40. If we lose the Senate, its our own fault. nt

[blkmusclmachine]

60. If we lose the Senate, it's "Game Over, DEMS"

[KinMd]

74. Obama will still have this thing I like to call a VETO

[Proud Liberal Dem]

42. "Never tell me the odds!"

GOTV!

[Peacetrain]

55. I have a lot of respect for Nate Silver..

He is one of the better pollsters.. but this is early... it is a wake up call for our side to GOTV though!!.. and I am okay with that.. maybe it will get people to not take this one for granted.. or listen to some goober, try to depress the Democrats ..

[madville]

59. I think the immigration/border crisis

Will greatly influence the midterm results. The President's upcoming executive actions will drive the right crazy and make them turn out in a tidal wave, this really couldn't have happened at a worse time.

[Agschmid]

81. Okay then no more research grants for Viagra type studies.

[Agschmid]

82. Also I think what most of us can agree on is the "distastefulness" of your post.

[The Magistrate]

83. You A Special Little Snowflake, Fella, Ain'tcha?

[6000eliot]

79. These odds are not that great.

I wouldn't bet my house on a 60% chance. Women and Latinos are pissed and will be voting in November. We will hold the Senate.

[Acornsouth]

87. this will tell you what is really on their minds of the Teabagger party...

&list=UU5jdZmxutobzwuzR0f8C1hw

[pstokely]

89. GOTV is the key

How accurate have August polls been for November elections? We'll know more after Labor Day, Dems chances may get better or worse

[LeftishBrit]

90. Well, I hope they don't

But as I remember, until the last few weeks, it was considered very unlikely that Dems would regain the Senate in 2006. IIRC, in 2012, it was thought that even with an Obama victory, it was quite possible that the Dems would lose the Senate and that the best to be hoped for was to hold on with a reduced majority - when the Dems actually increased their majority everyone was astounded (thanks for everything, Richard Mourdock!) So here's hoping!

[libodem]

93. Oh Goddess

Bad news. He is quite the predictor. My Prez, will have to go rogue and be a dictator for the next 2 years. Bring it on!

[Delphinus]

95. Unfuckingbelievable.

[Nye Bevan]

97. Anyone having second thoughts about ending Senate filibusters? (nt)