Who will control the U.S. Senate after this election?

[badger]

33 of the 100 seats are up for election. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2012)

Democrats are expected to have 21 seats up for election, plus two independents who caucus with the Democrats, while Republicans are expected to have only 10 seats up for election.

The current makeup is:
51 Democrats
47 Republicans
2 independents (that caucus with Democrats)

Remember that a "tie" will be broken by the vice president, either Ryan or Biden.

Thoughts?

[BigTip]

I am surprised at the lack of news I have read on this subject.

[badger]

I am surprised at the lack of news I have read on this subject.

My sarcasm meter is broken, so I hope I am not being trolled :)

If you are not being sarcastic, I am surprised also. This is where the next two years of political shenanigans will really be decided, because I don't think anyone doubts where the House will side (Republican, as it currently is). I could see filibusters tie up the most liberal/conservative agendas here, if there is not a supermajority.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I expect gridlock again.

[pphilfran]

I say it will stay the same...

If everyone votes like me the Senate would go pub and the House would go dem...

[Sooner5030]

banks, insurance, ABA, AARP, MADD, NRA, Unions, RIAA, Med-tech, Pharma, military industrial complex, police force industrial complex, etc.. But it will named either Dem/Pub to keep the mob playing political fantasy football.

[hawaii 5-0]

It'll probably be close to what is is now.

5-0

[BigTip]

My sarcasm meter is broken, so I hope I am not being trolled :)

If you are not being sarcastic, I am surprised also. This is where the next two years of political shenanigans will really be decided, because I don't think anyone doubts where the House will side (Republican, as it currently is). I could see filibusters tie up the most liberal/conservative agendas here, if there is not a supermajority.

lol, no, I was dead serious. The president, whoever it is, can have all the intentions in the world, but really depends on Congress to make things happen. That's why it is so important to have a Republican majority to try and reel in Obama's plans if he were to be reelected. And yet we really have not heard much on how all those races are shaping up.
Perhaps this has been such a heated presidential race there is not space for the various senate races.

[rock on sooner]

My sarcasm meter is broken, so I hope I am not being trolled :)

If you are not being sarcastic, I am surprised also. This is where the next two years of political shenanigans will really be decided, because I don't think anyone doubts where the House will side (Republican, as it currently is). I could see filibusters tie up the most liberal/conservative agendas here, if there is not a supermajority.

If Obama wins, the Senate will stay Dem and the Dems will pick up more than a
few seats in the House. If Romney wins, then the Senate will change hands and
the House will stay Pub. If that happens, the middle class, working poor, poor
and seniors will support the wealthy in the manner to which they are accustomed.

[rock on sooner]

lol, no, I was dead serious. The president, whoever it is, can have all the intentions in the world, but really depends on Congress to make things happen. That's why it is so important to have a Republican majority to try and reel in Obama's plans if he were to be reelected. And yet we really have not heard much on how all those races are shaping up.
Perhaps this has been such a heated presidential race there is not space for the various senate races.

You really won't hear much about any of the House races and only a few Senate
races, Massachusetts and Missouri come to mind. In the last few days before the
election, some of the more prominent House races will crop up in the news...Bachmann
is supposedly in trouble in Minnesota. Here in Iowa, Tea party favorite (and good friend
of Bachmann's) King is in the toughtest fight of his career. Another race, Boswell (D) vs
Latham (R) is pretty heated. District was redrawn and put a Dem and a Pub in the same
district. (Iowa loses a seat due to population issues).

To Badger's point about the House staying Pub, if Obama is reelected, there
are a few scenarios where the anti-incumbent movement could remove a bunch
of the Tea partiers, because they are viewed as obstructionists.

The current bump that Romney is enjoying MAY be short lived, because I
just cannot imagine Obama being off his game two debates in a row.

[badger]

To Badger's point about the House staying Pub, if Obama is reelected, there
are a few scenarios where the anti-incumbent movement could remove a bunch
of the Tea partiers, because they are viewed as obstructionists.

Tulsa's district, Oklahoma Congressional District 1, has already Tea Partied like it's 1999 (or whenever Republicans oust one of their own, hehe). So, to everyone who has been exclaiming "throw the bums out," I say, "YOUR MOVE." We've already ousted our incumbent. Will you oust yours?


You really won't hear much about any of the House races and only a few Senate
races, Massachusetts and Missouri come to mind.
One race that I've always thought about is Connecticut. You might all recall that wife of WWE founder Vince McMahon, Linda McMahon, ran for Senate in 2010 and spent $50 million on her unsuccessful campaign. Guess what she'd doing again this election.

She better win this time, because if she doesn't, she can't run again for four years this time, not two. :)

Seriously though, I don't think she'll win, no matter how much of WWE's money she spends. I'd much rather they spend her campaign money on better TV shows. Aside from a few bright spots (which is due to talent, not writing methinks), the shows have sucked lately.

[hawaii 5-0]

Hawaii has a Senate contest.

Ex-Rep Gov. Linda Lingle. As a Governor she was a moderate. I voted for her twice. She's said she'll reach across the aisle but when pinned down she's a Romney Rubber Stamp.

Dem Maisie Hirono is a Leftist Dem.

5-0

[okie52]

You really won't hear much about any of the House races and only a few Senate
races, Massachusetts and Missouri come to mind. In the last few days before the
election, some of the more prominent House races will crop up in the news...Bachmann
is supposedly in trouble in Minnesota. Here in Iowa, Tea party favorite (and good friend
of Bachmann's) King is in the toughtest fight of his career. Another race, Boswell (D) vs
Latham (R) is pretty heated. District was redrawn and put a Dem and a Pub in the same
district. (Iowa loses a seat due to population issues).

To Badger's point about the House staying Pub, if Obama is reelected, there
are a few scenarios where the anti-incumbent movement could remove a bunch
of the Tea partiers, because they are viewed as obstructionists.

The current bump that Romney is enjoying MAY be short lived, because I
just cannot imagine Obama being off his game two debates in a row.

It would seem based on Badger's numbers that the dems are a lot more vulnerable this election than the pubs (in congress). There is very little chance the house would change hands given the pubs big majority. The senate, however, has a lot more dems at risk than pubs.

I think Obama will be much better on the 2nd debate although I don't think debate is his strong suit.

But, if Obama wins, gridlock more often than not will be a good thing.

[landrun]

I just looked at this earlier today using numbers from Real Clear Politics and Rasmussen.

No matter who wins the presidential race, I think the dems keep the senate. By 1 seat.
There a couple of seats that are about 50/50 in the polls out there, but they were in liberal states so I'm guessing that in the end, they stay with the dems.

In either case, it will be very close.

[landrun]

.... If Romney wins, then the Senate will change hands and
the House will stay Pub. If that happens, the middle class, working poor, poor
and seniors will support the wealthy in the manner to which they are accustomed.

Not to mention the repubs rolling grandma off the cliff and wanting sick childrent to die too. http://cdn.landthieves.com/board/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

I am so tired of people buying into the absurd caricatures and sound bites. :nonchalance:

[rock on sooner]

It would seem based on Badger's numbers that the dems are a lot more vulnerable this election than the pubs (in congress). There is very little chance the house would change hands given the pubs big majority. The senate, however, has a lot more dems at risk than pubs.

I think Obama will be much better on the 2nd debate although I don't think debate is his strong suit.

But, if Obama wins, gridlock more often than not will be a good thing.

Okie, do ya really think gridlock would be a good thing? Seems to me that
finding some common ground for both sides to get about doing the people's
business would be more prudent. A lot of folks are really bummed out about
nothing being done in Washington.

You're right about Dems having to defend more Senate seats but I think that
most of the Dems are okay. Surprisingly, Warren is doing well against Brown
in Mass, which has surprised the RNC and how Akin in Missouri still has a pluse
is nothing sort of miraculous. The Connecticut race that Badg mentioned is, by
all accounts, a slugfest, an expensive one at that.

[rock on sooner]

Not to mention the repubs rolling grandma off the cliff and wanting sick childrent to die too. http://cdn.landthieves.com/board/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

I am so tired of people buying into the absurd caricatures and sound bites. :nonchalance:

My statement is not based on sound bites. I've looked at length into what
R/R want to do, and unless I'm really missing something, what they want to
do with taxes, spending, Medicare/Medicaid and balancing the budget/cutting
the deficit is not fiscally possible. If they can do it then I'll be the first to say
"Well done" and "I was wrong".

[BigTip]

The current bump that Romney is enjoying MAY be short lived, because I
just cannot imagine Obama being off his game two debates in a row.

I think the next debates won't matter as much. The cat is out of the bag sort to speak. Romney dispelled several of the misconceptions that the Obama campaign has spent millions on trying to convince the voters of.

Romney has already preemptively addressed the "47%" comment, so that has taken some of Obama's ammo away. The foreign policy discussion will not go as well for Obama as some people think.

Hell, this election is over. Romney has it in the bag.
Yes, I am kidding!

[badger]

Not to mention the repubs rolling grandma off the cliff and wanting sick childrent to die too.

Meh, there's many that don't want the burdens of society to be a burden any longer than possible. The sick and the elderly are just a few.

And perhaps, the burdens won't want to stick around for what they'll face when there isn't medical care monry to treat the sick or social security to fund the retired.

I wish our country could take care of all of it's own. Anyone running on that platform?

[okie52]

Okie, do ya really think gridlock would be a good thing? Seems to me that
finding some common ground for both sides to get about doing the people's
business would be more prudent. A lot of folks are really bummed out about
nothing being done in Washington.

You're right about Dems having to defend more Senate seats but I think that
most of the Dems are okay. Surprisingly, Warren is doing well against Brown
in Mass, which has surprised the RNC and how Akin in Missouri still has a pluse
is nothing sort of miraculous. The Connecticut race that Badg mentioned is, by
all accounts, a slugfest, an expensive one at that.

It depends on where the gridlock is going to occur. I can tell you that if Obama is in there then I certainly hope for gridlock on energy and immigration given his anti energy policies and pro illegal positions.

On some other issues if there can be a common ground then I'd be for it. I'd be for a major overhaul of Obamacare and make it like the swiss system...now that should make the left very happy but I don't see the right and trial lawyers going along with it. The right would regard it as socialized medicine (which it is) and the trial lawyers would have major tort reform like loser pays and caps on liability. But the system costs about 1/2 of what ours does and is upgradable.

[TAFBSooner]

banks, insurance, ABA, AARP, MADD, NRA, Unions, RIAA, Med-tech, Pharma, military industrial complex, police force industrial complex, etc.. But it will named either Dem/Pub to keep the mob playing political fantasy football.

Dinner. Chicken.

[rock on sooner]

It depends on where the gridlock is going to occur. I can tell you that if Obama is in there then I certainly hope for gridlock on energy and immigration given his anti energy policies and pro illegal positions.

On some other issues if there can be a common ground then I'd be for it. I'd be for a major overhaul of Obamacare and make it like the swiss system...now that should make the left very happy but I don't see the right and trial lawyers going along with it. The right would regard it as socialized medicine (which it is) and the trial lawyers would have major tort reform like loser pays and caps on liability. But the system costs about 1/2 of what ours does and is upgradable.

If Obama is reelected then I think you'll see a shift in some of his energy policies,
specifically the northern Keystone pipeline (even though there won't be nearly the
jobs created that many think will). I think he'll reconsider drilling on some federal
land and I think you see some changes in off shore drilling in both oceans. I think
these things will happen because the tree huggers and Green energy folks won't be
as "important" to the prez, since he won't be running for reelection, not an indictment
of Obama, just a realistic observation of a second term president. As to illegals, I think
what he did with the young illegals was a good thing and it wouldn't surprise me to see
a renewed emphasis on the problem in general, for much the same reason as the energy
shift.

Obamacare will get tweaked by the Dems. (If Romney gets in, there will be more tweaking
but it won't be repealed...much like anyone messing with SS is committing political suicide).
Many things in the ACA are too beneficial to too many people! As more healthy people get
in the program then the costs will come down, even Pub governors will suck it up and take
the Fed handout for Medicaid. If they don't there will be fewer Pub governors in the near
future.

To sum this dissertation up, second term presidents do a lot of things differently, because
they don't to campaign anymore.
(Heard more than one Pub supporter in Colorado say to the NPR interviewer that, while
growth/recovery has been slow, they just didn't want to have to start over (with Romney.)

[okie52]

If Obama is reelected then I think you'll see a shift in some of his energy policies,
specifically the northern Keystone pipeline (even though there won't be nearly the
jobs created that many think will). I think he'll reconsider drilling on some federal
land and I think you see some changes in off shore drilling in both oceans. I think
these things will happen because the tree huggers and Green energy folks won't be
as "important" to the prez, since he won't be running for reelection, not an indictment
of Obama, just a realistic observation of a second term president. As to illegals, I think
what he did with the young illegals was a good thing and it wouldn't surprise me to see
a renewed emphasis on the problem in general, for much the same reason as the energy
shift.

Obamacare will get tweaked by the Dems. (If Romney gets in, there will be more tweaking
but it won't be repealed...much like anyone messing with SS is committing political suicide).
Many things in the ACA are too beneficial to too many people! As more healthy people get
in the program then the costs will come down, even Pub governors will suck it up and take
the Fed handout for Medicaid. If they don't there will be fewer Pub governors in the near
future.

To sum this dissertation up, second term presidents do a lot of things differently, because
they don't to campaign anymore.
(Heard more than one Pub supporter in Colorado say to the NPR interviewer that, while
growth/recovery has been slow, they just didn't want to have to start over (with Romney.)

Sorry RockOn...hoping for an "evolutionary" change in Obama on energy has absolutely no history to suggest it.

Cap and Trade
Shutting down the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts to exploration
Yucca
Campaigning for windfall profits tax
Removal of oil and gas writeoffs
Reneging on Utah lease sales
Permitting at 42% less than W
Federal Lease sales dropped from $9.6 Billion in 2008 to $36 million last year
Oil and gas production dropped on federal lands in last 4 years
Killed Keystone pipeline
Anti Oil and gas EPA appointments
Carol Browner
Van Jones

He stated in his January State of the Union address that he supports natural gas...well he didn't before the speech but what has he done for it since then besides trying to remove their
writeoffs?

Obamacare really has very little cost containment features. It is a bad plan that really won't be "tweaked" into a viable program. Universal healthcare doesn't scare me at all (like the swiss system) but this half azz measure does.

And 2nd term presidents can be fearless about pursuing their ideological dreams. I fear that with Obama.

[rock on sooner]

Sorry RockOn...hoping for an "evolutionary" change in Obama on energy has absolutely no history to suggest it.

Cap and Trade
Shutting down the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts to exploration
Yucca
Campaigning for windfall profits tax
Removal of oil and gas writeoffs
Reneging on Utah lease sales
Permitting at 42% less than W
Federal Lease sales dropped from $9.6 Billion in 2008 to $36 million last year
Oil and gas production dropped on federal lands in last 4 years
Killed Keystone pipeline
Anti Oil and gas EPA appointments
Carol Browner
Van Jones

He stated in his January State of the Union address that he supports natural gas...well he didn't before the speech but what has he done for it since then besides trying to remove their
writeoffs?

Obamacare really has very little cost containment features. It is a bad plan that really won't be "tweaked" into a viable program. Universal healthcare doesn't scare me at all (like the swiss system) but this half azz measure does.

And 2nd term presidents can be fearless about pursuing their ideological dreams. I fear that with Obama.

Well, Big Guy, lots of good points in your argument. Maybe mine is more
wishful thinking, I dont know. But, I'm pretty sure I'm right with the shift,
maybe I'm wrong on the points, but I dont believe I'm wrong on the shift.
Guess we have a different viewpoint on his "dreams". Romney just changes
diametrically repeatedly. Don't trust him, don't believe him, look at his body
language, he never met an issue that he couldn't flip on. His record is undeniable.
It doesn't matter which one, he flips. Today, his tax program, his stance on abortion,
doesn't matter.

[okie52]

Well, Big Guy, lots of good points in your argument. Maybe mine is more
wishful thinking, I dont know. But, I'm pretty sure I'm right with the shift,
maybe I'm wrong on the points, but I dont believe I'm wrong on the shift.
Guess we have a different viewpoint on his "dreams". Romney just changes
diametrically repeatedly. Don't trust him, don't believe him, look at his body
language, he never met an issue that he couldn't flip on. His record is undeniable.
It doesn't matter which one, he flips. Today, his tax program, his stance on abortion,
doesn't matter.

Rockon....Romney has been a flipper, no doubt about it and it may be hard to know just where he will land although obama has certainly had his evolutionary moments. But I'm certain on energy and immigration he will be better than Obama even if he does nothing.

[rock on sooner]

Rockon....Romney has been a flipper, no doubt about it and it may be hard to know just where he will land although obama has certainly had his evolutionary moments. But I'm certain on energy and immigration he will be better than Obama even if he does nothing.

One last question, in your heart, do you trust Romney?

[okie52]

One last question, in your heart, do you trust Romney?

Not particularly. Part of the reason I would vote for him would be that I think the right would somewhat restrain him on any overt shifts to the left due to political expediency.
I don't see Romney as an ideologue but just a politician using the pub party as his springboard. That's not all bad as someone like Romney would probably be much better at working across the aisle than ideologue like Obama.

[rock on sooner]

Not particularly. Part of the reason I would vote for him would be that I think the right would somewhat restrain him on any overt shifts to the left due to political expediency.
I don't see Romney as an ideologue but just a politician using the pub party as his springboard. That's not all bad as someone like Romney would probably be much better at working across the aisle than ideologue like Obama.

Here we can disagree again, I think the right is controlled by the FAR
right (Tea Partiers) that will be emboldened if Romney gets in. They
will see that as a mandate to continue with, imo, an incredibly destructive
approach to gov't. It is fiscally impossible to have less revenue and cut
spending and balance a budget, much less bring down this lousy deficit.
No new revenue assures a weak USA, vulnerable to outside influences,
unable to either monetarily or militarily defend itself.

[okie52]

Here we can disagree again, I think the right is controlled by the FAR
right (Tea Partiers) that will be emboldened if Romney gets in. They
will see that as a mandate to continue with, imo, an incredibly destructive
approach to gov't. It is fiscally impossible to have less revenue and cut
spending and balance a budget, much less bring down this lousy deficit.
No new revenue assures a weak USA, vulnerable to outside influences,
unable to either monetarily or militarily defend itself.

Actually I don't think Romney will be controlled by the TP and I don't think they are close to his core ....whatever that may be.

Obama couldn't even get a budget passed.

You aren't going to have a balanced budget without cutting spending and raising revenues.
The devil is in the details.

[rock on sooner]

Actually I don't think Romney will be controlled by the TP and I don't think they are close to his core ....whatever that may be.

Obama couldn't even get a budget passed.

You aren't going to have a balanced budget without cutting spending and raising revenues.
The devil is in the details.

It is obvious that Romney is sprinting back to the center, doing back
flips along the way. BUT, if he presents revenue increases then the TPers
will raise all sorts of stink. Obama couldn't get anything passed because
of his beliefs about taxes. You are dead right about devil in the details, it's
gonna be interesting who grows the horns. I don't think Romney's gonna get
in but his efforts MAY bring about compromise. Who knows?

[okie52]

It is obvious that Romney is sprinting back to the center, doing back
flips along the way. BUT, if he presents revenue increases then the TPers
will raise all sorts of stink. Obama couldn't get anything passed because
of his beliefs about taxes. You are dead right about devil in the details, it's
gonna be interesting who grows the horns. I don't think Romney's gonna get
in but his efforts MAY bring about compromise. Who knows?

Unfortunately isn't that the way it works for both parties...speak more to the right or left during the primaries then move more to the center for the election?

Probably most issues can be resolved relatively satisfactorily by compromises towards the center. For example, pushing back SS benefits by 2-3 years and raising the cap by about 50% should have some appeal to both sides and be relatively effective in getting SS and medicare back on track. It just takes some guts by our elected officials to do it.

But there are some issues that should be dealt with by either be hard left or hard right or those issues get watered down where they aren't nearly effective enough. I would use hard left on healthcare (swiss system) and hard right on energy as examples.

[rock on sooner]

You know, there are opportunites here for whoever is next prez. Either
man could cement a place in the presidential Hall of Fame, if he would
take on and solve the issues that you just mentioned..SS, Medicare,energy
& healthcare.

[okie52]

You know, there are opportunites here for whoever is next prez. Either
man could cement a place in the presidential Hall of Fame, if he would
take on and solve the issues that you just mentioned..SS, Medicare,energy
& healthcare.


I'd love to see it. When you think about it Reagan and Clinton both did a lot of that type of pragmatism.

[TitoMorelli]

Hawaii has a Senate contest.

Ex-Rep Gov. Linda Lingle. As a Governor she was a moderate. I voted for her twice. She's said she'll reach across the aisle but when pinned down she's a Romney Rubber Stamp.
5-0

So in other words she's still a moderate.

[Curly Bill]

Well, Big Guy, lots of good points in your argument. Maybe mine is more
wishful thinking, I dont know. But, I'm pretty sure I'm right with the shift,
maybe I'm wrong on the points, but I dont believe I'm wrong on the shift.
Guess we have a different viewpoint on his "dreams". Romney just changes
diametrically repeatedly. Don't trust him, don't believe him, look at his body
language, he never met an issue that he couldn't flip on. His record is undeniable.
It doesn't matter which one, he flips. Today, his tax program, his stance on abortion,
doesn't matter.


Having read this thread I'd say most of what you've posted here is wishful thinking.

[rock on sooner]

Having read this thread I'd say most of what you've posted here is wishful thinking.

Just tryin to provide you with entertainment..:biggrin:

[Curly Bill]

Just tryin to provide you with entertainment..:biggrin:

Oh...U donks never fail to do that! :)

[rock on sooner]

Oh...U donks never fail to do that! :)

Prolly almost as good as when you read your own writing....:cheerful: