Senate Predictions

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The New York Times has an interesting forecasting model for the 2014 elections. It appears to be interactive but I haven't tried it yet. Right now, the unaltered models show the Republicans gaining the Senate but only with a margin of 51 to 49 for the Democrats, which hardly constitutes "majority".

We should know in about a month, though.

[SerScot]

An election will take place. The Democratic or Republican party will maintain their control over the Senate. All third parties will be frozen out by the duopoly.

[Vraith]

An election will take place. The Democratic or Republican party will maintain their control over the Senate. All third parties will be frozen out by the duopoly.

I've said too many times...I'm sure folk are sick of it...that we'll always be stuck with a duopoly, except during the brief periods of time when a third party is in the midst of making one of the current Big Two extinct, unless we change the rules/mechanics of our voting system.

As Hashi [and others, but Hashi a LOT] points at often, both parties pretty much belong to the big money.
It's been getting worse. Not just cuz of the money, but where it is used. Cuz the Fed-size party-pack used to pay minimal attention to their Bite-size lower-level counterparts.
Increasingly, they're exerting control down there.

For my money, the Left-money is more confused and impractical in policy and plays more rhetoric/spin games, as things stand, but the Right-money is more insane and prone to outright lies.
Not the kind of choice one is thrilled to be forced to make.

My biggest interest in this is the statistics/polling war going on between my new buddy Sam Wang and my old buddy Nate Silver. Nate, whose methods show a 60-ish% chance Rep's take over, has kicked everyone else's asses for accuracy the last few cycles...everyones except Sam Wang's. And Sam's methods are showing 60-ish% chance Dems+independents who join them keep the Senate.

[Cail]

An election will take place. The Democratic or Republican party will maintain their control over the Senate. All third parties will be frozen out by the duopoly.

Yup.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

An election will take place. The Democratic or Republican party will maintain their control over the Senate. All third parties will be frozen out by the duopoly.

Sad but true.

Yes, Vraith, I do say that a lot. If I say it often enough perhaps people will catch on and look at the situation.

As always, Project VoteSmart is your best friend when trying to sort out election choices. You can look up a candidate and get a history of their voting record or public comments they made.

[Zarathustra]

In my own state's Senate race:

40 painful seconds of Alison Lundergan Grimes refusing to say whether she voted for President Obama

I recommend watching the attached video. It's a pathetic dodge. She cites things like "sanctity of the ballot box. " I suppose she wants (desperately) to keep her vote anonymous. But everyone knows the truth, so why not admit it? She ends up just looking cowardly, like she has something to hide.

Seriously, how can she ask us to vote for her, when she won't even tell us how she votes? How can she have the gall to ask for the job of Senate--where she'll literally be voting on our behalf--but refuses to tell those whose support she seeks how she voted?!?

Obama--the leader not only of her party, but of the country--will still be President for 2 years while she's in office, if she wins, and she doesn't have the courage to say she supported him???? Every Dem supported The First Black PresidentTM. It's no mystery. Some Dems on MSNBC are now saying she has "disqualified" herself because of this. But there are actually worse things that have come out about her, like the fact that recordings have surfaced from her supporters/staff claiming that they know she's lying when she says she'll protect KY coal jobs in order to get elected ... and they approve of such deceit.

[lorin]

In my own state's Senate race:

40 painful seconds of Alison Lundergan Grimes refusing to say whether she voted for President Obama

I recommend watching the attached video. It's a pathetic dodge. She cites things like "sanctity of the ballot box. " I suppose she wants (desperately) to keep her vote anonymous. But everyone knows the truth, so why not admit it? She ends up just looking cowardly, like she has something to hide.

Seriously, how can she ask us to vote for her, when she won't even tell us how she votes? How can she have the gall to ask for the job of Senate--where she'll literally be voting on our behalf--but refuses to tell those whose support she seeks how she voted?!?

Obama--the leader not only of her party, but of the country--will still be President for 2 years while she's in office, if she wins, and she doesn't have the courage to say she supported him???? Every Dem supported The First Black PresidentTM. It's not mystery. Some Dems on MSNBC are now saying she has "disqualified" herself because of this. But there are actually worse things that have come out about her, like the fact recordings have surfaced from her supporters/staff claiming that they know she's lying when she says she'll protect KY coal jobs in order to get elected ... and they approve of such deceit.

They took the video off but the article is interesting.

[Zarathustra]

Oh my god, they pulled the video! The Gannett Co. owns the Courier-Journal, which was the newspaper doing the live stream of the interview for Grimes, in which they were deciding whether to endorse her officially (they will; they're Dems). And now they're PROTECTING a candidate seeking to represent our state in the Senate, by pulling an embarrassing video. That's even more pathetic. They are the Press. And now they're suppressing information from the voters in order to protect their candidate. Figures.

[Vraith]

Oh, for god's sake. You can watch the video AT THE PAGE OF THE PEOPLE WHO OWN IT. [maybe other places, too, I didn't bother to check.]
courier-journal.com

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Vraith is correct--videos never simply disappear. Didn't some Republicans already put her clip into ads of their own? That makes the video public domain--anyone can get it and use it.

Incidentally, Ms. Grimes has a Project VoteSmart page even though she has nothing under the 'votes' or 'positions' tabs yet. Still...she is a Member of the Rules Committee for the Democrat National Convention so we know for a fact that she voted for Mr. Obama in both 2008 and 2012 since he was the Democrat candidate both times. Make sure to browse through her 'speeches' and 'funding' pages, as well.

[Zarathustra]

Oh, for god's sake. You can watch the video AT THE PAGE OF THE PEOPLE WHO OWN IT. [maybe other places, too, I didn't bother to check.]
courier-journal.com

Okay, good point. I didn't check. Obviously.

[sgt.null]

every commercial her opponent runs needs to feature her refusal to answer the direct questions.

[Zarathustra]

I'm not sure it matters anymore. The Dems are no longer buying her ads in the 3 weeks leading up to the election. I think she pissed of someone at the top ...

[Vraith]

I'm not sure it matters anymore. The Dems are no longer buying her ads in the 3 weeks leading up to the election. I think she pissed of someone at the top ...

Wouldn't it be funny, though, if she didn't want to answer because she DIDN't vote for Obama, and was afraid the national Dem's would cut her off if she admitted it? [[which is what she got, anyway...it was a lose-lose no matter what she answered given the Kentucky mood/situation.]]
Now, I doubt that's so. But it's possible and makes me laugh.
Funny she gets slammed for a dodge, but Mitch told at least 10 outright lies.

Anyway, apparently she doesn't NEED the national Dem's money.
If I were leading her campaign and creating her ads, I'd use this hard:
"I'm Allison Grimes, and I TOLD you I'd stand up against even my friends. And see what happened? I pissed them off, they took away their money, and I don't give a shit. I'm glad. I stand on principles." [Not just like that, of course...have to clean and tidy it up and smooth out the spin. But it's workable, could turn a minus to a plus pretty quick if done right...it would be particularly effective if my option were true, if she really did vote against Obama]

Heh...I actually think she's right, in principle...it's no ones damn business, and changes nothing. Not that I believe she did it on principle. Maybe...but unlikely.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Even if she didn't vote for Obama, trying to come out with "I stand up against Washington insiders when I need to" will look like spin and desperation. The truth of the situation is irrelevant. Privacy of the ballot box notwithstanding, she should have answered the question. Campaigns are oftentimes more about appearance than substance.

Quietly not buying any more air time is the best play. Why waste the money?

[Vraith]

trying to come out with "I stand up against Washington insiders when I need to" will look like spin and desperation.

The truth of the situation is irrelevant.

On the first: to people who analyze such things, and/or people who are persuadable, it will certainly look like spin and desperation. Cuz it is. I'm not at all sure, if I were a Kentucky voter, that I could force myself to vote for her [though not only cuz of this]...but it's a terrible situation. Mitch is one of the sleaziest, nastiest peeps in Gov't right now. [[though, apparently, he wasn't always like he is now]].

Anyway, those aren't the kinds of folk that ads and spin are aimed at.
[[and any use of it by the Reps. Who would THOSE be aimed at? We aren't usually, in things like this, trying to convince persuadables...we're trying to turn out the excitables.]]
Trust me, well-made, it would move the needle...and she has, I think I read, over 4 million on hand that needs spending. That's a lot in a market like Kentucky.
If she can't win DESPITE this, she probably couldn't have won at all.

On the second: too often true, and very very sad.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I don't disagree with the assessment of Mitch. The citizens of Kentucky do have other options, though, especially David Patterson. My advice would be for people to vote for Mr. Patterson rather than either Mr. McConnell or Ms. Grimes.

[Zarathustra]

I'm not a Mitch fan, but we did elect Rand, the closest thing to a Libertarian in the Senate.

The race is too close not to vote for Mitch. I usually "waste" my vote and go 3rd party, but the Dems have to be taught a lesson. The Senate must be taken. Then we can work on Rand for Pres.

Also, as a Kentuckian, Mitch gives us too much representation on the federal level to ignore. It would be foolish for Kentuckians to simply toss him aside for someone with no influence/power. Minority leader--or possibly majority leader, in a few months--is worth holding my nose and voting for him.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I understand your reasons for voting for Mitch. In my opinion, though, I think you aren't so much voting for him as you are against her and that mode of thought is a vote for "more of the same". Things can never improve if we keep voting for the same people over and over again....but I am not going to try and change you mind.

I have to keep looking at the polling numbers for the gubernatorial race here. If it looks like Abbot will win without my vote then I will vote Libertarian. If the race is really close then I, too, will hold my nose and vote Republican because that is better than risking the State becoming blue.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Ms. Grimes is now a trendsetter. Democrat candidate Michelle Nunn down in Georgia also won't answer the question "did you vote for President Obama in 2008 and 2012?".

In the interest of equity, Ms. Nunn's home site for her campaign and her Project VoteSmart page.