New Polls : Democrats Are In Big Trouble

[NightTrain]

Democrats in five key battleground states are trailing their Republican opponents, according to a new Fox News poll released Wednesday. And the Fox News poll plus a separate CNN poll showed the winds in one of the key races, the Kansas Senate race, shifting toward Republican incumbent Pat Roberts.


The Fox News poll puts Republicans ahead in five key states:


Alaska: Republican Dan Sullivan leads incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, 44-40.

Arkansas: Republican US Rep. Tom Cotton leads incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor, 46-39.

Colorado: Republican US Rep. Cory Gardner leads incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Udall, 43-37.

Kentucky: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell leads Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes, 45-41.

Kansas: Incumbent GOP Sen. Pat Roberts leads Independent challenger Greg Orman, 44-39. In the CNN poll, Roberts led 49-48. This is a swing from most other recent polls that have shown Orman with an advantage.




http://www.businessinsider.com/polls-democrats-senate-control-chances-2014-10#ixzz3FbbWJGeo

[Thunderknuckles]

NightTrain, I'm a conservative and I know not to give any credence to a Fox News poll.
Conservative pundits made asses out of themselves with predictions in the last presidential election. Carl Rove was the worst. It was actually embarrassing to watch him try to justify last minute calls with him scribbling out the math.
Give me a liberal poll from the Huffington Post and we can meet somewhere in the middle :)

[tailfins]

NightTrain, I'm a conservative and I know not to give any credence to a Fox News poll.
Conservative pundits made asses out of themselves with predictions in the last presidential election. Carl Rove was the worst. It was actually embarrassing to watch him try to justify last minute calls with him scribbling out the math.
Give me a liberal poll from the Huffington Post and we can meet somewhere in the middle :)


Error is error. Applying an average is just more error. Instead dissect the poll and audit it for proper methodology.

[BoogyMan]

Guys, even if the GOP does take the senate we are setup for a grand failure and I will tell you why IMHO.

The view of congress is that it is a do-nothing body and the blame, though wrongly so, falls on the GOP even though Harry Reid won't even bring most bi-partisan legislation up for a vote in the Senate. With that in mind just remember that when Mr. Clinton was in office and the congress moved to GOP control in both houses he began to move to the center and worked in a bi-partisan fashion with some give and take to get things done. I am not a fan of Mr. Clinton but this is fact. Mr. Obama has no inclination to compromise on anything with anyone. He isn't smart enough to do the right thing for the American people and he doesn't have the desire to take any kind of bi-partisan steps to the center.

Having said that what we will see in a pliant and malpracticing media will be an effort to paint a GOP congress as the evil malcontented thwart to a supposedly good-hearted president who is just trying to make life better for the average american. They will do this because not one liberal/member of the modern press seems to remember the despotic Marxist/socialist/communist regimes of the 20th century because they have no respect for history. They have no construction in their minds of why Marxism/socialism/communism failed and how many people died horrible and unwarranted deaths due to such political ideologies.

These are dark days...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Guys, even if the GOP does take the senate we are setup for a grand failure and I will tell you why IMHO.

The view of congress is that it is a do-nothing body and the blame, though wrongly so, falls on the GOP even though Harry Reid won't even bring most bi-partisan legislation up for a vote in the Senate. With that in mind just remember that when Mr. Clinton was in office and the congress moved to GOP control in both houses he began to move to the center and worked in a bi-partisan fashion with some give and take to get things done. I am not a fan of Mr. Clinton but this is fact. Mr. Obama has no inclination to compromise on anything with anyone. He isn't smart enough to do the right thing for the American people and he doesn't have the desire to take any kind of bi-partisan steps to the center.

Having said that what we will see in a pliant and malpracticing media will be an effort to paint a GOP congress as the evil malcontented thwart to a supposedly good-hearted president who is just trying to make life better for the average american. They will do this because not one liberal/member of the modern press seems to remember the despotic Marxist/socialist/communist regimes of the 20th century because they have no respect for history. They have no construction in their minds of why Marxism/socialism/communism failed and how many people died horrible and unwarranted deaths due to such political ideologies.

These are dark days...

Islam in its 1400+ YEAR HISTORY IS ESTIMATED TO HAVE SLAUGHTEREED OVER 250 MILLION PEOPLE.

COMMUNISM COMES IN NEXT AT A CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE OF 100+ MILION MURDERED.

Yet we are vile hate mongers to oppose either or dare to criticize either plague!
Accused by fools not worth spit IMHO.... -Tyr


http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4230/so_how_many_did_communism_kill

So, how many did Communism kill?

UPDATED: The historical reality of communist oppression is being ignored. But the truth must not be buried

Why isn't the Black Book of Communism on the curriculum of every school in Europe? Because it isn't exhaustive enough? Because its authors lack credibility? Because there is still more to be understood and researched on the matter?

At more than 850 pages of carefully sifted evidence by a group of top-level scholars from a variety of countries and disciplines, the Black Book is as solid a piece of scholarship as any other you'll find being taught in our schools.

Is it definitive? How could it be? Communist regimes went to great lengths to conceal their crimes, and one of the most oppressive of all, North Korea, still exists to this day. What the book does is use the best available evidence to give a sense of the scale of what we are dealing with.

In introducing the Black Book, lead author Stephane Courtois, Director of Research at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) in Paris, offers the following rough breakdown of the numbers of people that communism killed:

USSR -- 20 million

China -- 65 million

Vietnam -- 1 million

North Korea -- 2 million

Cambodia -- 2 million

Eastern Europe -- 1 million

Latin America -- 150,000

Africa -- 1.7 million

Afghanistan -- 1.5 million

Communist movements, parties not in power -- 10,000

In total, this is not far short of 100 million deaths at the hands of a single ideology. Nothing like this has ever happened before. (As an aside, my personal view is that the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews was the greatest single crime of the modern era, while communism was the greatest criminal system.)

In total, this is not far short of 100 million deaths at the hands of a single ideology. Nothing like this has ever happened before. (As an aside, my personal view is that the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews was the greatest single crime of the modern era, while communism was the greatest criminal system.)

To be sure, these numbers are approximations. Courtois gives a figure of 20 million for the Soviet Union. Alexander Yakovlev, formerly the chairman of Russia's Presidential Commission for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression, estimates the numbers executed or done to death in prisons and camps for purely political reasons at 20-25 million.

But, in his book A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia, he reminds us not to forget the 5.5 million victims of famine in the Civil War and the 5 million in the artificial famine of the 1930s. Other respected authorities offer even higher numbers.

What should be clear from the Soviet Union and beyond is the staggering scale of what we are being asked to internalise.

Apologists have adopted a number of strategies -- beyond outright denial which lasted for decades. One of the most popular and enduring......

[gabosaurus]

BoogyMan and I share basically the same opinion. A GOP majority in the House and Senate would hurt the party's chances to regain the White House in 2016.
Obama, as a lame duck president with dwindling popularity, will care little what happens over the next two years. He can propose legislation that he knows will never pass through Congress. Who gets the blame for this? The "do nothing" Congress, of course. This is in addition to the veto power of the President. Ugly battles will not hurt the White House.
Obama knows a political blood bath is looming among a divided GOP in 2016. He can pick and choose his battles.
In a GOP-controlled House and Senate, which will be the bigger battles -- GOP vs. Dems or Tea Party vs. Moderates? I am going with the latter.

[Thunderknuckles]

BoogyMan and I share basically the same opinion. A GOP majority in the House and Senate would hurt the party's chances to regain the White House in 2016.
Obama, as a lame duck president with dwindling popularity, will care little what happens over the next two years. He can propose legislation that he knows will never pass through Congress. Who gets the blame for this? The "do nothing" Congress, of course. This is in addition to the veto power of the President. Ugly battles will not hurt the White House.
Obama knows a political blood bath is looming among a divided GOP in 2016. He can pick and choose his battles.
In a GOP-controlled House and Senate, which will be the bigger battles -- GOP vs. Dems or Tea Party vs. Moderates? I am going with the latter.
Wow! A thoughtful opinion from Gabby without the snark! May I please have some more?

[fj1200]

Wow! A thoughtful opinion from Gabby without the snark! May I please have some more?

Except that they're both wrong. :slap:


Guys, even if the GOP does take the senate we are setup for a grand failure and I will tell you why IMHO.

The view of congress is that it is a do-nothing body and the blame, though wrongly so, falls on the GOP even though Harry Reid won't even bring most bi-partisan legislation up for a vote in the Senate. With that in mind just remember that when Mr. Clinton was in office and the congress moved to GOP control in both houses he began to move to the center and worked in a bi-partisan fashion with some give and take to get things done. I am not a fan of Mr. Clinton but this is fact. Mr. Obama has no inclination to compromise on anything with anyone. He isn't smart enough to do the right thing for the American people and he doesn't have the desire to take any kind of bi-partisan steps to the center.

Having said that what we will see in a pliant and malpracticing media will be an effort to paint a GOP congress as the evil malcontented thwart to a supposedly good-hearted president who is just trying to make life better for the average american. They will do this because not one liberal/member of the modern press seems to remember the despotic Marxist/socialist/communist regimes of the 20th century because they have no respect for history. They have no construction in their minds of why Marxism/socialism/communism failed and how many people died horrible and unwarranted deaths due to such political ideologies.

These are dark days...

I completely disagree. See the mid to late '90s as example. After the Republicans basically saved the Clinton presidency by passing conservative legislation they managed to control the agenda through DC for six+ years culminating in Bush 43. Congress as "do-nothing" doesn't result in the party in power losing elections because those elections are typically local and the incumbent has the advantage. BO doesn't have to compromise but if Congress keeps sending up legislation and he keeps vetoing then the people will eventually know who is holding things up.

These are bright days... though the Republicans do have a long history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.


BoogyMan and I share basically the same opinion. A GOP majority in the House and Senate would hurt the party's chances to regain the White House in 2016.
Obama, as a lame duck president with dwindling popularity, will care little what happens over the next two years. He can propose legislation that he knows will never pass through Congress. Who gets the blame for this? The "do nothing" Congress, of course. This is in addition to the veto power of the President. Ugly battles will not hurt the White House.
Obama knows a political blood bath is looming among a divided GOP in 2016. He can pick and choose his battles.
In a GOP-controlled House and Senate, which will be the bigger battles -- GOP vs. Dems or Tea Party vs. Moderates? I am going with the latter.

BO has no interest in 2016 as he's not up for reelection. He's basically marginalized by that and really won't be in a position to pick and choose battles because no one will care, he may still break out the veto pen but the Republicans will be in prime position to state everything that they tried to do leading up to 2016. The GOP still has a common foe and it's very easy to keep the ranks tight against an especially recalcitrant opposition.

The struggles within parties are usually only readily apparent when they have control over Executive and Legislative. See the '00s as example.


Islam...

:rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Except that they're both wrong. :slap:



I completely disagree. See the mid to late '90s as example. After the Republicans basically saved the Clinton presidency by passing conservative legislation they managed to control the agenda through DC for six+ years culminating in Bush 43. Congress as "do-nothing" doesn't result in the party in power losing elections because those elections are typically local and the incumbent has the advantage. BO doesn't have to compromise but if Congress keeps sending up legislation and he keeps vetoing then the people will eventually know who is holding things up.

These are bright days... though the Republicans do have a long history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.



BO has no interest in 2016 as he's not up for reelection. He's basically marginalized by that and really won't be in a position to pick and choose battles because no one will care, he may still break out the veto pen but the Republicans will be in prime position to state everything that they tried to do leading up to 2016. The GOP still has a common foe and it's very easy to keep the ranks tight against an especially recalcitrant opposition.

The struggles within parties are usually only readily apparent when they have control over Executive and Legislative. See the '00s as example.



:rolleyes:

fj wrote.... :blabla:

[fj1200]

fj wrote.... :blabla:

See, that only works when you can boil it down to repetitive prattling rants like you are so good at.

[NightTrain]

Give me a liberal poll from the Huffington Post and we can meet somewhere in the middle :)

Roger!

Via HuffPo :

Alaska - Sullivan 47.6%, Begich 43.2%

Arkansas - Cotton 45.6%, Pryor 42.7%

Colorado - Gardner 45.6%, Udall 44.3%

Kentucky - McConnell 47.7%, Grimes 43.4%

Kansas - Roberts 42.0%, Orman 41.9%

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster


You can't have much more of a liberal spin than HuffPo, I think we can all agree. HuffPo agrees with the GOP lead in all 5 races I listed in the OP.

I think it's very important that the GOP gains the Senate to stop the rubber stamping of everything Obama does.

The last 2 years of this disastrous presidency are going to be the worst and with no checks & balances in play at the moment we are headed for some hard times indeed.

[BoogyMan]

I completely disagree. See the mid to late '90s as example. After the Republicans basically saved the Clinton presidency by passing conservative legislation they managed to control the agenda through DC for six+ years culminating in Bush 43. Congress as "do-nothing" doesn't result in the party in power losing elections because those elections are typically local and the incumbent has the advantage. BO doesn't have to compromise but if Congress keeps sending up legislation and he keeps vetoing then the people will eventually know who is holding things up.

You didn't read the part about Clinton actually coming to the middle to work WITH the congress and compromising in order to get some things done that both sides of the aisle wanted to see done. Mr. Obama doesn't have the smarts nor does he have the desire to work WITH anyone. History shows me to be correct here, I would like to think you are right, but experience says otherwise.

[fj1200]

You didn't read the part about Clinton actually coming to the middle to work WITH the congress and compromising in order to get some things done that both sides of the aisle wanted to see done. Mr. Obama doesn't have the smarts nor does he have the desire to work WITH anyone. History shows me to be correct here, I would like to think you are right, but experience says otherwise.

I read it. And right, Clinton did move towards Congress as he had reelection to worry about which BO doesn't. But very little is going to get done in those last two years and the Republicans need to take the opportunity to start passing effective legislation that may not have a chance in Hades of passing but it can clearly differentiate the differences between Left and Right. If they can do that then the people will know who is really holding up any chance at progress.

But I think they also shouldn't go ahead and start passing far-right legislation that will alienate 2016 voters. They should selectively start passing stuff that BO has shown passing fancies on like Corporate tax reform. That is right up their alley.

[Shadow]

Except that they're both wrong. :slap:



I completely disagree. See the mid to late '90s as example. After the Republicans basically saved the Clinton presidency by passing conservative legislation they managed to control the agenda through DC for six+ years culminating in Bush 43. Congress as "do-nothing" doesn't result in the party in power losing elections because those elections are typically local and the incumbent has the advantage. BO doesn't have to compromise but if Congress keeps sending up legislation and he keeps vetoing then the people will eventually know who is holding things up.

These are bright days... though the Republicans do have a long history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.



BO has no interest in 2016 as he's not up for reelection. He's basically marginalized by that and really won't be in a position to pick and choose battles because no one will care, he may still break out the veto pen but the Republicans will be in prime position to state everything that they tried to do leading up to 2016. The GOP still has a common foe and it's very easy to keep the ranks tight against an especially recalcitrant opposition.

The struggles within parties are usually only readily apparent when they have control over Executive and Legislative. See the '00s as example.



:rolleyes:
I see the republicans taking their strong lead and choking on it like they always do. They need the whole party to be on the same page... Never going to happen because they are arrogant and bullheaded

[tailfins]

Roger!

Via HuffPo :

Alaska - Sullivan 47.6%, Begich 43.2%

Arkansas - Cotton 45.6%, Pryor 42.7%

Colorado - Gardner 45.6%, Udall 44.3%

Kentucky - McConnell 47.7%, Grimes 43.4%

Kansas - Roberts 42.0%, Orman 41.9%

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster


You can't have much more of a liberal spin than HuffPo, I think we can all agree. HuffPo agrees with the GOP lead in all 5 races I listed in the OP.

I think it's very important that the GOP gains the Senate to stop the rubber stamping of everything Obama does.

The last 2 years of this disastrous presidency are going to be the worst and with no checks & balances in play at the moment we are headed for some hard times indeed.


Those seats shouldn't even be in play. A GOP majority is a given. Success is at least 53-54 seats.

[DLT]

Democrats in five key battleground states are trailing their Republican opponents, according to a new Fox News poll released Wednesday. And the Fox News poll plus a separate CNN poll showed the winds in one of the key races, the Kansas Senate race, shifting toward Republican incumbent Pat Roberts.


The Fox News poll puts Republicans ahead in five key states:


Alaska: Republican Dan Sullivan leads incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, 44-40.

Arkansas: Republican US Rep. Tom Cotton leads incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor, 46-39.

Colorado: Republican US Rep. Cory Gardner leads incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Udall, 43-37.

Kentucky: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell leads Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes, 45-41.

Kansas: Incumbent GOP Sen. Pat Roberts leads Independent challenger Greg Orman, 44-39. In the CNN poll, Roberts led 49-48. This is a swing from most other recent polls that have shown Orman with an advantage.




http://www.businessinsider.com/polls-democrats-senate-control-chances-2014-10#ixzz3FbbWJGeo

No problem for the Acorn Obamunists. They will just ramp up their voter/election fraud efforts enough to overcome that small margin to obtain victory.


It's not the votes that count. It's who counts the votes - Josef Stalin

[fj1200]

I see the republicans taking their strong lead and choking on it like they always do. They need the whole party to be on the same page... Never going to happen because they are arrogant and bullheaded

I think especially in off year elections we see individual candidates choke on it but on whole they do OK; '94, '10, but we'll see how this one goes. And like I said when they have common opposition they'll be on the same page. The scary thought is if they win in '16 can they hold it together.