Washington Post: "Republican takeover of Senate appears more and more assured"

[alp227]

The decision by Sen. John Walsh (D-Mont.) not to seek election in November in the wake of a plagiarism scandal is the latest piece of good news for Republicans as they strive to take control of the Senate in less than three months.

Walsh’s departure from the race came in the same week that two Republican senators — Pat Roberts in Kansas and Lamar Alexander in Tennessee — defeated tea party challengers in primary fights, ensuring that every GOP senator seeking reelection would be the party’s nominee.

These past seven days typified the fates of the two parties this election cycle. Democrats have been hit by retirements in tough states — Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota and, to a lesser extent, Iowa — and Republicans haven’t nominated the sort of extreme candidates who lack broader appeal in a general election.

Those realities — along with a national playing field in which a handful of incumbent Democrats are defending Republican-leaning seats in places where President Obama is deeply unpopular — have made a GOP takeover a better-than-50/50 proposition.

full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republican-takeover-of-senate-appears-more-and-more-assured/2014/08/10/e992ed4a-2095-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html

The most upvoted comment after the article:

I honestly don't understand US voters. In 2008 our economy was in a free fall. Bush took a Clinton budget surplus and ran us deeply into debt. Banks failed. Auto companies were failing. Housing market collapsed. Unemployment skyrocketing. Two wars. Our image in the world in the tank for lying our way into Iraq. Do they really want to elect Republicans who can't work with our President, with Democrats, or even with each other? How many times must Democrats bail them out of their messes before voters wise up?

And going off on a tangent about Tea Partiers, here's a tally from my political knowledge of winners & losers among Tea Partiers in recent elections:

Winners:
- Dave Brat: Beat Eric Cantor in US House primary (VA)
- Joni Ernst: Won (R) nomination for US Senate (IA)
- John Ratcliffe: Beat Ralph Hall in US House primary (TX)

Losers:
- Kerry Bentivoliio: Lost to Dave Trott in US House primary (MI)
- Matt Bevin: Lost to Mitch McConnell in US Senate primary (KY)
- Joe Carr: Lost to Lamar Alexander in US Senate primary (TN)
- Ken Cuccinelli: Lost to Terry McAuliffe (D) in governor election (VA)
- Tim Donnelly: Lost to Neel Kashkari in governor primary (CA)
- Steve Lonegan: Lost to Corey Booker (D) in US Senate special election (NJ)
- Chris McDaniel: Lost to Thad Cochran in US Senate primary (MS) but is still whining about it
- Steve Stockman: Lost to Jon Cornyn in US Senate primary (TX)
- Milton Wolf: Lost to Pat Roberts in US Senate primary (KS)

Assuming that Chris Cillizza is right in this article about Republicans retaking the senate, even a Republican takeover will still not be enough for the Tea Party wing, since it's because of "RINO's" like Cochran and Roberts there would even be 51 Republican seats in the first place.

Apparently Republicans are willing to show up and vote for "RINO's" just for the sake of winning office, since when presented with a choice between "GOP establishment" or "Tea Party" they go for establishment...i mean why did Romney not Santorum win the 2012 presidential nomination? Democrats and independents, on the other hand...did we let principles over politics sacrifice Congress in 2010 for not getting enough done?

[MFM008]

1. we shall see

anyone believe the polls?

[DJ13]

2. The cons are delusional

[octoberlib]

3. Chris Cillizza is only concerned with writing clickbait. Sam Wang has a more accurate take on it.

http://election.princeton.edu/2014/08/04/why-youre-wrong-to-get-excited-about-60/#more-10570

2) The certainty fallacy. Silver has done something common among paid writers, which is to do what it takes to attract eyeballs. He has rounded a probability that is barely over 50% to make the statement that one side is ahead.

This problem is endemic to journalism. Nuance with probabilities is just lost on most people. But writers are just trying to appeal to their readers. The real headline is “WE DON’T KNOW” but somehow that is not what gets the lead. Really, he’s caved in to all of you!

Basically, whenever you see a probability like that, you should mentally say “plus or minus 20%” just to get the right idea. Of course, if the probability gets above 80% that doesn’t make sense any more. At that point, it’s OK to say that one side is ahead.

[Major Hogwash]

4. Read my journal.

Chris Cillizza wants so badly to be liked that he will not only lie, he will lay down with pigs . . . . warpigs, that is.

Cillizza has been busy rooting for the GOP to take over complete control of the federal government for the last 6 years.
Every single time that I have seen him discussing President Obama on tv, he would lament the way the Republicans had acted toward President Obama, and then he would finish the interview and give his patented "aw, shucks" look at the end of all of the interviews that he has participated in over the last few years, all the while pretending as if he actually cares.
He doesn't.
If things were working out better for President Obama in Washington, Cillizza would be out of his job whining about the ineptness of our system of government in a New York minute.

Chris' phony baloney act -- trying to convince viewers that he actually cared about this country, while at the same time he had been tearing down Obama -- eventually grew to be so unbelievably bad that at one point in 2009 Keith Olbermann wouldn't have him on his program, "Countdown", on MSNBC anymore.

Now, Cilliza is in to making predictions about elections!

What the fuck!?!

What happened, did Chris go out and buy a used crystal ball at a yard sale this summer, or what?

Hopefully, someday soon the majority of people in this country will wake up to the fact that it was the mainstream media that created most of the mess we are in now . . by acting like lovestruck cheerleaders for Bush when he started the war in Iraq . . . as they trumpeted every single statement Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al made about Iraq for over 5 years, and yet they never once thought of asking themselves the obvious question, "Are these guys fucking insane, or what?"

Yet, just as soon as Bush was gone, even before the embroidered dinner napkins had been changed in the White House, the mainstream media started "pooh-poohing" President Obama's efforts to stabilize the national economy after Obama arrived in the White House.

The inconvenient truth is . . . President Obama is going to get criticized for doing anything.
If Obama walked across a body of water, his critics would say that he was too lazy to swim across it.
However, if Obama would have swam across that same body of water, his critics would instead be prepared with an alternate criticism, and they would say that Obama had acted in a precarious fashion for an American President, and then they would say that he should have taken a boat to begin with, just to be safe.
Nevertheless, if Obama would have taken a boat to cross that very same body of water, his critics would have scraped the bottom of the barrel, and they would ridicule the size of the boat that Obama used.

Criticizing the President is a never-ending, recycling, self-licking ice cream cone.
The only real problem with it is (besides it not helping one bit at all) . . . the only one enjoying it, is the critic!

[hollysmom]

5. I don't worry about woulda couldas - the best thing to do

Is make sure people vote - get out the vote!

[B Calm]

6. There you go republicans, looks like you have the next election already won!

Hopefully they'll stay home knowing they already won the election.

[4139]

7. Need more coffee... I thought it said 'absurd'. Nm