Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
This basically describes 90% of every election above the state leg level. When we vote we win, hence the popular vote pluralities in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons all of which to be honest reflect poorly on us, we do not typically vote in midterms.
So the question becomes, is this a typical midterm? As of today I'd say yes -- I do not see any sort of wave or compelling narrative on the left that would lead to the kind of turnout that would reverse systemic midterm losses. Add in the accident of the awful landscape of seats and as of 9/15 I see no reason to think the GOP won't pick up the Senate and increase their House majority. I'd say that this is as good a time as any to see blue dogs lose to clear the way for genuine liberals in the next cycle, but truth be told almost every DINO is gone, along with almost every RINO.
This election won't change anything -- a 49-51 Senate won't do anything more than a 51-49 Senate and the House will still be on the Crazytrain. This just sets up field position for the 2016 election.
Or to put it another way, you know how every election they say "this is the most important election in memory"? Well, 2014 is the least important election I can remember. And because of that, the GOP should prosper.
This basically describes 90% of every election above the state leg level. When we vote we win, hence the popular vote pluralities in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons all of which to be honest reflect poorly on us, we do not typically vote in midterms.
So the question becomes, is this a typical midterm? As of today I'd say yes -- I do not see any sort of wave or compelling narrative on the left that would lead to the kind of turnout that would reverse systemic midterm losses. Add in the accident of the awful landscape of seats and as of 9/15 I see no reason to think the GOP won't pick up the Senate and increase their House majority. I'd say that this is as good a time as any to see blue dogs lose to clear the way for genuine liberals in the next cycle, but truth be told almost every DINO is gone, along with almost every RINO.
This election won't change anything -- a 49-51 Senate won't do anything more than a 51-49 Senate and the House will still be on the Crazytrain. This just sets up field position for the 2016 election.
Or to put it another way, you know how every election they say "this is the most important election in memory"? Well, 2014 is the least important election I can remember. And because of that, the GOP should prosper.
Last edited:
If you're saying GWB appointed a slew of liberals, I'm sorry but I find that very hard to believe.
Not to mention Kennedy, who is a swing vote, not in the conservative camp by any means. Less than conservative appointments include O'Connor (Reagan) and Souter (Bush Sr.). Throw in Roberts somewhat for his moving around on cases at times, and if you had four solid conservatives on the court instead of those, you'd have seen a good number of cases decided differently. No such weak links on the Dem appointments.
