538 predicts a 75% chance of Republican Senate

[MsGuy]

538, the poll analysis site run by Nate Silver that won fame and fortune with it's incredibly accurate calls of the last few elections, gives the Republicans a 75.5 % chance of getting a majority in the Senate.

Oh well.

(sigh)

[AdamSmith]

(Realizing that even my full intention to cast 15 or 20 votes for Kaye Hagan tomorrow will likely not stem the tide.)

[RA1]

I wish this meant something other than the same pols with different names.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

I wish this meant something other than the same pols with different names.

[RA1]

Sounds like a good title. Let's see, a Spanish film in English about a family vacationing in Thailand when the Indian Ocean suffers a tsunami. Could be a depiction of the political maelstrom in DC on any given couple of days.

Not sure what you thought is impossible. Pols changing their stripes?

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

RA1, I just voted and, just for you, I voted for the libertarian candidate for congress.

For the life of me though I can't see why a libertarian would want to be a congress-critter. Maybe it's the case that he wouldn't have run if he thought he had a chance in hell to be elected. (Which he doesn't.)

For the record I voted Democrat, Libertarian, skip, skip, skip, skip, skip, non-partisan and No.

[AdamSmith]

Well, I voted against Thom Tillis. If Hagan wins, it will less from people's love for her than loathing for him.

This btw was our Libertarian candidate, a 53-year-old pizza delivery man.

What, me worry?

[lookin]

Just back from the voting booth myself.

With people, propositions, and measures, there were thirty-six boxes to check this time. Most were easy, but some had layers upon layers. Can't recall ever spending so much time researching a ballot as this one.

The money spent on some of these issues was obscene. For weeks, every other TV ad was for something the insurance companies or the soda manufacturers hated. I wonder if all these ads may backfire on them one day, as I for one am immediately skeptical of anything these guys are willing to spend millions of dollars on.

And the glossy ads in my mailbox every day have been a real pain. I always check to see who's backing a candidate or an issue and rarely vote for someone or something important to the money guys.

We had an even dozen (!) judicial appointments on the ballot this time. I hadn't heard of any of these folks, and trying to research every one of them was far too tedious. I used to leave those lines blank. Then, for a while, I figured I might as well vote for all of them, as they'd get in anyway. Of course, both methods led to wasted votes. Now, I just go to the local Republican voter guide, see who they support, and vote the other way. A blunt instrument, no doubt, but the best I have to hand.

Just yesterday I was wondering what Nate Silver was up to these days and am grateful for MsGuy's timely post. Not happy with the forecast, but it's of a piece with what seems to be the U. S. electorate's desire to march themselves off a cliff. Do they really think the Republicans will stand by them when they need it most?

Perhaps by the time we realize what we've lost, we'll be able to vote out the Citizens United crowd. Assuming, of course, we can still get to the polls.

[RA1]

lookin-

It solves a LOT of problems when you feel the way you express yourself about all pols, not just Republicans. I think I know you really do already feel that way.

Best regards,

RA1

[TotallyOz]

I find elections fascinating and depending on voter turn out in many states who wins. I have family in Kentucky and they were hoping to unseat Mitch but it didn't happen. ;(

[lookin]

lookin-

It solves a LOT of problems when you feel the way you express yourself about all pols, not just Republicans. I think I know you really do already feel that way.

Not at all. I can go all dreamy listening to Elizabeth Warren f'rinstance. Bernie Sanders, Henry Waxman, my local Rep, the Rep before him, and a bunch of others have their hearts in the right place. I like Obama too.

Of course, I'm not lockstep with any politician. There's always some disagreement. But politicians with compassion (Democrat, Independent, or Republican, should one come forward) who turn their ideals into policy get my chad.

If I didn't think there were good politicians out there, believe me, I wouldn't spend so much time bitching about the bad ones.

[lookin]

I'm watching the CBS Evening News with preliminary results looking good for Republicans. Their exit polls are showing that the economy was the number one issue for voters, even with employment up along with the stock market. Voters said the economy was their biggest concern because their wages weren't any better than before the recession.

Folks don't seem to understand that their wages are staying the same not because the economy is weak, but because all the growth is going into the pockets of the 1%.

I don't know whether I'm more distressed by the dimness of the electorate or by the Democrats for not shining a light on it.

[MsGuy]

Lookin, I suspect that folks are less interested in shining lights than in getting that pay stub up.

And for whatever reason the Dems have failed to show much in the way of progress in that area.

====

In the past year or so, I've read a few articles by economists that argue that the period from the 1940s to the early 1970s (when the division of GDP between capital and labor shifted substantially in favor of labor) was an anomaly. In effect they argue that, since the 1980s & for various reasons (they can't seem to agree on just why) labor's share of economic output has been regressing to its historical mean. Not just in the USA but in Europe and the rest of the world. And the rate of the shift back toward capital has been increasing, not slowing down.

When you add to that that economists count senior managers, investment bankers, physicians and the like as 'labor', that paints a pretty grim picture when you get to figuring out what's left over for ordinary folks. And what's going to be left in the future.

[AdamSmith]

[RA1]

The WSJ was reporting that voters were voting against Democrats (and especially BO) rather than for Republicans.

Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting a different result. AE.

Very little has changed. We return to gridlock with a failing President trying to establish a legacy while his party mostly tries to distance themselves from him.

We have disenfranchised ourselves.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

Oldie but goodie...

"Today Obama was in so much trouble he called Hillary Clinton and said, 'Could you start early?'"

– David Letterman

[AdamSmith]

"Supporters of Hillary Clinton have already started a 2016 super PAC on her behalf called 'Ready for Hillary.' And more cautious Democratic supporters have started another super PAC called 'Bracing for Biden.'" –Jimmy Fallon

"Bill Clinton was being interview recently, and he said that despite all the speculation, Hillary hasn't said anything to him about running for president in 2016. Though in fairness, she hasn't said anything to him since 1998." –Jimmy Fallon

"When asked if Hillary Clinton will run for president, Bill Clinton said, 'She's having a little fun being a private citizen.' And then he added, 'Not Bill Clinton fun, but fun nonetheless." –Conan O'Brien

"Joe Biden said that Hillary Clinton's decision to run for president won't affect his decision to launch a campaign. While Hillary says Biden's decision to run for president won't affect her becoming president." –Jimmy Fallon

"Republicans are already trying to paint Hillary Clinton as too old to be president. In fact, a new ad claims she's so old that she could be a Republican." –Conan O'Brien