Posted on 11/02/2016 6:32:58 AM PDT by pabianice
Now, political analysts say Democrats are clinging to their chance of gaining the five seats they need to reclaim the chamber after two years amid signs that Republican candidates from New Hampshire to Nevada are still paying a price for Trump’s many controversies.
Specialists who track Senate races say the latest news that the FBI is reviewing e-mails that may be related to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server is having a marginal effect on races down the ballot — so far.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonglobe.com ...
I will not vote for Kirk (obviously, I won’t vote for Duckworth, either, as I will never vote for a Dim). In all candor, I am writing in my dog’s name.
If they lose Nevada then the Democrats need six seats plus the White House to take control of the Senate. Best chances for wins are Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and surprisingly Missouri.
He sucked anyway
HAHAHAHAHAHA....
not going to happen...
It will be Schumer from New York not Reid who will be leading the Senate.
I changed my mind and will be voting for that Kirk because of Schumer.
As much as it pains me, I am voting straight GOP, then I am done. SCOTUS. ‘Nuff said.
Folks not voting for their local R senator are virtue-signaling fools.
I’m holding my nose with both hands to vote for Toomey in PA. I’m doing it to help Trump. We need to keep the Senate R so Trump has half a chance to get his agenda accomplished.
Otherwise, we’ll have smirking Chuck Schumer blocking everything, just like Harry Reid did. A Dem senate will have Dem chairmen on every committee, including judiciary. Think any of Trump’s SCOTUS picks will get through?
Throw North Carolina in as a possible Democrat senate pickup. Bottom line, the Senate, regardless of party control, will fight Trump to keep the status quo.
In Missouri and think Blunt will keep his seat. Blunt asked Kander to give Hillary back her half-million given her level of corruption and new email scandal.
I think things are breaking Burr's way on that race. North Carolina is probably a lot safer than Missouri is, and that race was on nobody's radar screen. Yet Kander has been steadily narrowing Blunt's lead, and this in a state where Trump is leading by double digits. Blunt will probably still pull it out but it's going to be a long night.
a Trump landslide may save the Senate (not that the GOP deserves it)
Blunt has been trying to attach Kander to Hillary's hip through the entire race and it hasn't worked. Blunt is the personification of all that is wrong with Washington, and the only reason I'm voting for him is that it's a Senate seat with an R next to it and that's way better than Alan Dixon as Senate Majority Leader.
If all of these R jersey wearing Senators had sided with the citizens and the rule of law, they would not be in trouble.
Being Cheap Labor Express stooges is why they are.
Senate will be 54-46 GOP. The only RINO who will lose is Kirk.
If the Democrats take the Senate then it will be judicial Armageddon even if Trump wins the Presidency.
Under the 20th Amendment, the new Congress takes office on January 3 but the new President does not take office until January 20. That means that if Trump is elected President and the Democrats retake the Senate, then Senate Majority Leader Chuckie Schumer will have almost three weeks to push through ratification of all of Obama’s nominees from the Supreme Court down to the district courts and all of the federal agencies and there will not be a damned thing that Trump or the Republican minority will be able to do to stop it.
When Harry Reid unilaterally abolished the Senate filibuster for all Presidential appointments except for the Supreme Court the ONLY reason that he left Supreme Court filibusters alone is because there were no Supreme Court vacancies at the time. Chuckie Schumer will unilaterally abolish the Supreme Court filibuster 5 minutes after he takes office.
It gets worse. Scalia’s Supreme Court seat is not the only Supreme Court seat at issue. The day after the election, far-left octogenarian Justices Ginsburg and Breyer will announce their retirements if it means that Obama can fill those seats as well. They probably already have the young far-left wing radical replacements picked out. That will mean a far-left wing Supreme Court majority of Obama appointees will be legislating every aspect of our lives for the next 30 years.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I believe Blunt will prevail in Missouri.
That a woman who has been politically active, her entire adult life, among a people with the most successful history of economic achievement over their first century and a quarter, of any people on earth, under a Constitutional Government designed to protect that people from a bureaucratic pestilence, which has been the bane of most nations; that such a woman has so missed the essential point of the American achievement, is staggering in its implications.
Mrs. Clinton claimed that a Clinton Government would rebuild the "Middle Class." Was she totally unaware that the American Middle Class clearly built itself? That the American Middle Class resulted from naturally energized individuals, aspiring to achieve the good life, who risked everything to first clear a wilderness, work hard, generation to generation, to save & accumulate the attributes of the good life; with the result that by 1913--the year that a graduated income tax first became Constitutional, this Settler built Federation of newly settled States, had already surpassed every one of the great powers of Europe in industrial strength.
To "rebuild" the "Middle Class," Mrs. Clinton vowed to make the most successful Americans--those who had achieved the most--pay increased taxes; she called it "paying their 'fair' share." But it was clearly to be a tax on success--a tax to fund a raft of new programs (a cancer or pestilence of an expanded bureaucracy). She was obviously indifferent to the fact that the biggest impediment to any poor person with ambition, actually launching a small business to improve his status, is an almost incomprehensible explosion in bureaucratic regulations, most of which premised on the same flawed understanding of how people actually advance, which Mrs. Clinton displayed, on the 19th.
Americans used to learn by experience. What were the experience based lessons of what transpired from the drafting of our written Constitution in 1787, until the passage of the income tax amendment in 1913? Are they instructive or not, for what actually works for human advancement?
The Constitution prior to 1913, absolutely interdicted a tax driven war on the accumulation of individual wealth. Article I, Section 9, which Mrs. Clinton should have remembered from Law School, provided that no direct tax on individual Americans could be applied in any way but per-capita. (That is Warren Buffet would pay the same tax--not the same percentage tax--but the same tax as Joe the Plumber. The Founders had no desire to limit individual success. They sought only to encourage it.
Under their experience based philosophy, there were almost certainly not even 1% of the bureaucratic regulations, with which Americans seeking to improve their lot, must face today. In place of today's pursuit of grievances, real or imagined, there was universal admiration for the high achievers! And the growth rate of a people freed to achieve, was the economic phenomenon of human history.
We do not pretend to know whether it was in her indoctrination by Marxist Pied Pipers in her late teens, or pure confusion in whatever she is struggling with today. But Mrs. Clinton is utterly clueless on how a dynamic economy works; as she is utterly unaware of the dynamic, interactive factors, that drive or stagnate any human aspiration or achievement. What is absolutely clear, even if one ignores her lack of a moral compass in her political dealings; the woman is absolutely unqualified to be President of the United States.
This is one more reason why we must win this election for Donald Trump.
William Flax
Probably. But it'll be a whole lot closer than it should have been.
I 100% guarantee it won't be Reid.
For $hits and giggles, I kept a copy of the Boston Glop’s “prognostications” on the 1994 elections, predicting Democrats would continue to maintain their decades-long lock on power. If you want cognitive dissonance in ink, look no further than the Glop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.