2022 Senate Elections

[kevwun 15,853]

Those bills die when the session ends.  They would have to start over on them from scratch.

Edited July 29, 2022 by kevwun

[gmr548 16,600]

That's a Fox New poll.  If they have him up by 11, he might really be up by 20.

Fox News polling is not the propaganda outfit that their TV opinion shows are. They’re pretty highly respected. They’ve had high visibility clashes with the propaganda side when they made early calls on Ohio in 2012 and Arizona in 2020.

[Js1 85,519]

57 minutes ago, kevwun said:

That's a Fox New poll.  If they have him up by 11, he might really be up by 20.

Fox News' polling is A+ quality.  It's not their "news" division. 

These are good polls for Dems from a quality poster.  GOP Senate recruitment was garbage - Laxalt, Oz, Walker, McMasters, Vance, whoever tf is running in NH.  Actual quality candidates saying no, like Ducey and Sununu, shows that 2022 is a good Senate year for Dems.  

Which is good, because 2024 could be a rough year (Tester, Brown, Manchin, Sinema, Stabenow, Rosen, Casey, Baldwin).  

[Js1 85,519]

Beacon Research for the Environmental Project (Beacon is part of Fox's polling outfit)

NV: Cortez-Masto 51-45
PA: Fetterman 50-39
GA: Warnock 48-43
AZ: Kelly 51-39

[gmr548 16,600]

I mean even if the Republicans win the house if the Senate gets 52 or 54 dems can't they just finally vote through the huge pile of house bills that have already been passed? 

The legislative process in the House restarts with every session, aka every two years.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,211]

I could see the Dems getting to 52-48 only to have Munchkin and Dangerous Creature switch parties to put everything into gridlock again.  Because reasons.

[The Dog 44,118]

 

[Js1 85,519]

9 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I could see the Dems getting to 52-48 only to have Munchkin and Dangerous Creature switch parties to put everything into gridlock again.  Because reasons.

Sinema, maybe she'd go independent.  Because she ain't going to win a primary as a Dem in 2024 and will need a lot of GOP/indie crossover support. 

Manchin has said, repeatedly, over and over, he is a proud West Virginia Democrat.  He's just a conservaDem in an increasingly further left party.  He'd be a  a moderate in the 2009-2010 Senate that featured Blance Lincoln, Robert Byrd, Jay Rockefeller, Mary Landrieu, Tim Johnson, Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan and Ben Nelson. 

SHE, however, is an attention whore of the highest order. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by Js1

[MonkeyDoughnut 10,350]

Pipe dream I know but really hoping the Forward Party gets some traction going into 2024

https://www.forwardparty.com/

They just need to people able to piece together a small band on Congressional members that both sides "need". Whether by getting a couple voted in or getting a few from each party to switch at the potential power opportunity... and then expand from there.  There has been enough success from different Republican and Democratic factions  lately that it might actually take this time.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,211]

7 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

There has been enough success from different Republican and Democratic factions  lately that it might actually take this time.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Fuck Andrew Yang and his grifting third party horseshit.

[Js1 85,519]

Beasley 43-40 in another poll by an R outfit (Bolton's super PAC)

Also Mandela Barnes is now the de facto nominee in WI - Godlewski has dropped out, joining Nelson and Lasry in endorsing Barnes.  Don't discount just how good Ben Winkler in WI is.  Has his nominees fully united now in Barnes and Evers. 

[Gil Bang 25,997]

41 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

And that's fair. 

[gmr548 16,600]

3 hours ago, Js1 said:

Beacon Research for the Environmental Project (Beacon is part of Fox's polling outfit)

NV: Cortez-Masto 51-45

Wow. Going to need to see more polling, but if she is really at 50% at this point then that is enormous.

[Snake Diggity 4,627]

Tim Ryan, Mandela Barnes, and Evan McMullin are not bad candidates.  I really believe those races will be within 5 points.  And it’s a shame Val Demings is up against someone as established as Rubio in FL because she’s a pretty solid candidate as well.

[atomheartbevo 89,777]

5 hours ago, Js1 said:

Sinema, maybe she'd go independent.  Because she ain't going to win a primary as a Dem in 2024 and will need a lot of GOP/indie crossover support. 

She’s a former Mormon turned atheist.  She wouldn’t get the GOP nod and she knows it.

[kevwun 15,853]

Yeah, she's only useful to the Republicans as a Dem senator who votes against the Dems.  They would never actually support her.

[Js1 85,519]

7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

She’s a former Mormon turned atheist.  She wouldn’t get the GOP nod and she knows it.

She’s not trying to get the GOP nod. Either she goes independent and they support her (like Dems do Bernie in VT) or she needs a lot of crossover votes (and AZ is a closed primary so they’d have to switch registrations to vote for her). She’s turbofucked in a primary. 

[The Dog 44,118]

Haven’t seen that poll yet so it’s either a Vance or Ryan internal (could be either)

[gmr548 16,600]

Haven’t seen that poll yet so it’s either a Vance or Ryan internal (could be either)

If it’s an internal, the meaning wild be wildly different depending on what side it’s from.

[Bateshorn 9,929]

4 hours ago, Snake Diggity said:

Tim Ryan, Mandela Barnes, and Evan McMullin are not bad candidates.  I really believe those races will be within 5 points.  And it’s a shame Val Demings is up against someone as established as Rubio in FL because she’s a pretty solid candidate as well.

I think Val Demmings is a good candidate.  I don’t think a mash up of Andrew Jackson, FDR, and Bill Clinton could win for the Dems in Florida rn given how dysfunctional the local FL D party is. 

[The Dog 44,118]

2 hours ago, gmr548 said:

If it’s an internal, the meaning wild be wildly different depending on what side it’s from.

Yeah that's my point - it COULD be from Vance's campaign but he didn't indicate it. Wilson still has a lot of GOP access so either is plausible.

Regardless, neither side is paying money for bogus results. 

[Gil Bang 25,997]

2 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

I think Val Demmings is a good candidate.  I don’t think a mash up of Andrew Jackson, FDR, and Bill Clinton could win for the Dems in Florida rn given how dysfunctional the local FL D party is. 

Yeah, the fucking fake-ass GOP claims to be all "law and order" and "back the blue" and all that bullshit, but they're going to elect that little twerp over actual POLICE. 

[Zonahorn 8,079]

17 hours ago, Js1 said:

Beacon Research for the Environmental Project (Beacon is part of Fox's polling outfit)

NV: Cortez-Masto 51-45
PA: Fetterman 50-39
GA: Warnock 48-43
AZ: Kelly 51-39

3/4 Democrats at or above 50%. You love to see it

[atomheartbevo 89,777]

 

[Gil Bang 25,997]

not senate-specific, but...

 

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,521]

We still have a ways to go and the votes have to be counted but the gop appears to have really stepped on their dicks with many of their candidates. The Roe decision didn’t help them either.  But instead of the gop looking to fight to get up to 52 or 53 seats, they’re now having to fight for 48. Johnson and Vance might be there top fights to avoid a disaster.

if the current trend keeps up, the house may come into play as well.

biden, pelosi and Schumer might have an opportunity right now to get 60 votes on a few bills right now as some gop senators need to move left.

[Gil Bang 25,997]

Yeah, if the dems can effectively communicate (unlikely), they can really make hay out of the vet thing, roe, etc.  

I hope to see Mayor Pete on every sunday show between now and the election.

Edited July 31, 2022 by Gil Bang

[StassneyHorn 6,625]

Voters just have to trust what they see. Hundreds of thousands of new jobs every month, PLUNGING gas prices due to Biden’s executive decision to release the reserves, best job mobility ever, compared to Republicans voting against womens body autonomy, voting against access to condoms and birth control pills, and voting against combat veterans that literally got burned.

[gmr548 16,600]

But instead of the gop looking to fight to get up to 52 or 53 seats, they’re now having to fight for 48. Johnson and Vance might be there top fights to avoid a disaster.

This is some “OU is going to collapse and go 6-6 while Texas wins the Big 12” level CR kool aid.

Even if Democrats do close on PA, they have to go 4/4 on holding seats in purple/very light blue states just to net one seat.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,521]

8 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

 

This is some “OU is going to collapse and go 6-6 while Texas wins the Big 12” level CR kool aid.

Even if Democrats do close on PA, they have to go 4/4 on holding seats in purple/very light blue states just to net one seat.

 

Like I prefaced, there are many days to go but the Dems look good in GA, AZ, NH and NV.

Reminds me of a situation where you bet on a game with a friend. Straight up winner. You're going into the 4th quarter up by a TD. You can still lose the game but you're in a better situation than your friend.

Schumer is in a better situation at the moment that McConnell. That was not the case 3 months ago.

I believe we're wrapping up the last of the important primaries in the next 10 days so we can start getting more precise polling. Not too mention that more polls will start to occur regardless.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Nice Guy Eddie

[Voldemort86 2,259]

Roe will be this years “kavanaugh” effect for the dems. It should save Kelly and Warnock. Maybe Cortez masto.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Voldemort86

[Guest]

Fetterman just seems to be running a masterclass on Dr. Oz. 
 

 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,682]

Not going to search for it, but a recent poll summarized in an article said that those who believe SCOTUS striking down Roe is a "loss" are less likely to vote than those who don't believe that.  (Or maybe, it should have just been summarized as "evangelicals vote more consistently than other groups.")  Womp womp

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,886]

3 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Not going to search for it, but a recent poll summarized in an article said that those who believe SCOTUS striking down Roe is a "loss" are less likely to vote than those who don't believe that.  (Or maybe, it should have just been summarized as "evangelicals vote more consistently than other groups.")  Womp womp

can you state this again in english?

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,682]

People who don't like the Dobbs decision (striking down Roe) are less likely to vote than those who like it.... that's the takeaway

[tigol 2,399]

People who don't like the Dobbs decision (striking down Roe) are less likely to vote than those who like it.... that's the takeaway

Bullshit.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,682]

Ok but don't shoot the messenger

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3579355-those-who-see-roes-fall-as-loss-less-likely-to-vote-than-those-who-dont-poll/

 

Washington Post- Schar School poll 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,886]

once again, WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY ASKING? People with land lines? I'm 43 and have never, ever been contacted about an opinion, save fucking TV ratings (that $2 was awesome!). Am I SOL if I only have a cell phone? I simply don't trust most modern polls because their methodology and cross-section analysis leaves a fuckton to be desired.

[elfenix 34,331]

58 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

once again, WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY ASKING? People with land lines? I'm 43 and have never, ever been contacted about an opinion, save fucking TV ratings (that $2 was awesome!). Am I SOL if I only have a cell phone? I simply don't trust most modern polls because their methodology and cross-section analysis leaves a fuckton to be desired.

i've been polled from both cell phone contact and texts. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,521]

1 hour ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

People who don't like the Dobbs decision (striking down Roe) are less likely to vote than those who like it.... that's the takeaway

 

1 hour ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Ok but don't shoot the messenger

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3579355-those-who-see-roes-fall-as-loss-less-likely-to-vote-than-those-who-dont-poll/

 

Washington Post- Schar School poll 

the results may not be what you think.

• 65% of those polled thought that the changes are a loss in women's rights.
• 35% said the changes were not a loss. Presumably they are pro-life.

Of the 65% pro-choice surveyed , only 52% said they would vote.   For the 35%, 70% said they would vote.

For easy #s, let's say they polled 100 people. The pro-choice candidate would receive 34 votes, while the pro-life candidate would only receive 25.  That's a landslide victory.  

The pro-choice candidate still receives more votes since so many more adults believe this was a loss in women's rights.

[Biff Tannen 45,710]

4 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Fetterman just seems to be running a masterclass on Dr. Oz. 
 

 

A masterclass for those who pay attention to Twitter, which in the scheme of things, isn't that many people.  But yes.  Still a good thing.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

A masterclass for those who pay attention to Twitter, which in the scheme of things, isn't that many people.  But yes.  Still a good thing.

Yes, except it's branching out from that and generating coverage outside of Twitter:
 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,886]

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

A masterclass for those who pay attention to Twitter, which in the scheme of things, isn't that many people.  But yes.  Still a good thing.

I mean, ~440M eyeballs is nothing to turn your nose at. Sure, it's the 15th or so largest SM platform, but to imply nobody reads twitter is a bit hyperbolic.

[Biff Tannen 45,710]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I mean, ~440M eyeballs is nothing to turn your nose at. Sure, it's the 15th or so largest SM platform, but to imply nobody reads twitter is a bit hyperbolic.

Not every person on Twitter is seeing that, which is what you're implying.  It doesn't matter.  My main point is that political junkies and journalists are probably seeing it, but John Q Public that is eligible to vote in the Pennsylvania Senate election is not.

[The Dog 44,118]

[Sawbonz 27,583]

3 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

People who don't like the Dobbs decision (striking down Roe) are less likely to vote than those who like it.... that's the takeaway

I don’t believe this. 

[The Dog 44,118]

How much of an impact can this have considering the primary is tomorrow?

[Sawbonz 27,583]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

 

the results may not be what you think.

• 65% of those polled thought that the changes are a loss in women's rights.
• 35% said the changes were not a loss. Presumably they are pro-life.

Of the 65% pro-choice surveyed , only 52% said they would vote.   For the 35%, 70% said they would vote.

For easy #s, let's say they polled 100 people. The pro-choice candidate would receive 34 votes, while the pro-life candidate would only receive 25.  That's a landslide victory.  

The pro-choice candidate still receives more votes since so many more adults believe this was a loss in women's rights.

[Voldemort86 2,259]

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

 

Good lord….. is he trying to give us the senate? Would love it if he was trying to take down Moscow Mitch.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Voldemort86