What a joke!!!

1. Have you ever believed Tweety Bird Chris Mathews before? Does anyone????

2. You didn't even bother to spell his name correctly in the title. Is this you in this picture? Web Link

True, the 2014 Senate map will be unkind and the Dems will barely hold the Senate, as they are defending their 2008 cycle gains. The exact opposite occurs in 2016 when the Repubs have to play defense on their 2010 cycle seats. Dems lose 4-5 seats this cycle, but gain 6-9 in 2016.

Hillary's election may pudh the Dem gains to 10-12 in 2016.

What goes around, comes around.

Where's the GOP replacement plan for ObamaCare? There is none.

Iowa poll for 2016 released today: Web Link

Hillary's lead is GROWING. Chris Christie (Romney's 'Pufferfish') LOST TEN POINTS.

Quinnipiac Poll of Iowa voters on the 2016 presidential contest - Hillary beats all Republicans tested by double-digit margins. Conducted March 5-10, margin of error of ±2.6 points (December results):

Hillary Clinton: 49 (45)
Rand Paul: 39 (44)

Hillary Clinton: 48 (40)
Chris Christie: 35 (45)

Hillary Clinton: 51 (47)
Jeb Bush: 37 (40)

Hillary Clinton: 51 (48)
Ted Cruz: 35 (41)



The GOP has nothing.

Of the 36 Senate elections this year (33 regularly scheduled and three specials), 16 races are competitive. Of those races, 14 are currently held by Democrats, and just two are held by Republicans.

A conservative estimate would be an even spit. If that occurs, the Republicans pick up 7 seats. They only need 6 to control the Senate.

Since 1952 the presidency has changed political parties 7 times. Only once in 64 years has one party held on to the White House more than 8 years and that was the Republican Party from 1981 to 1993.

If Obama had done a good job as president then Ms. Clinton would have a good chance. Unfortunately for her the Democratic Party has too much baggage with the failed Obamacare Program and the runaway debt. The national debt today is 17.502T. Obama has been in office 1878 days and has raised the national debt by 6.875 Trillion Dollars. If he keeps his current pace the national debt under Obama will increase 10.797 Trillion Dollars or will have accumulated more debt than all the presidents preceding him combined.

Then look at the Congressional race in Florida which was flooded by heavy Democrat money from all over the country and a personal appearance by her husband Bill Clinton. Obama carried that CD twice in 2008 and 2012 and David Jolly, the Republican, handily beat Alex Sink the Democrat, and that race had a 3rd party libertarian candidate which subtracted votes from the Republican.

The Democrats cockily called that a Bellwether race. Now that aren't calling it that anymore. Bill Clinton's charisma and influence has significantly waned. No one cares about Bill Clinton anymore and unless the Republicans put up a bad candidate, which they could, 2016 will be a Republican year for the White House.

"then Ms. Clinton would have a good chance."

Are you BLIND? (dumb question, anyone calling Obama a socialist is either blind or hasn't a clue... )

Today's poll from above shows Clinton killing the GOP. Who do you think can beat her?

Quinnipiac Poll of Iowa voters on the 2016 presidential contest - Hillary beats all Republicans tested by double-digit margins. Conducted March 5-10, margin of error of ±2.6 points (December results):

Hillary Clinton: 49 (45)
Rand Paul: 39 (44)

Hillary Clinton: 48 (40)
Chris Christie: 35 (45)

Hillary Clinton: 51 (47)
Jeb Bush: 37 (40)

Hillary Clinton: 51 (48)
Ted Cruz: 35 (41)

re: Florida on Tuesday - in the morning, the top GOP guys said it wasn't important, because they thought they couldn't pull it out even though it's been a red district forever; once they won, they said it was very important. Two can play that stupid game.

"with the failed Obamacare Program "

Again, somoeone can't do basic math.

From the conservative business bible, BLOOMBERG, today:

"President Barack Obama’s health-care law is becoming more entrenched, with 64 percent of Americans now supporting it outright or backing small changes. […]

“Things definitely seem to be getting better,” said Paul Attard, 50, a political independent in Evergreen, Colorado and a program manager for a cell-phone company who wants the law modified rather than repealed. “It seems like they are getting a lot more people to join. It’s a sign that the system is working.” […]

Fifty-one percent of Americans favor retaining the Affordable Care Act with “small modifications,” while 13 percent would leave the law intact and 34 percent would repeal it. That’s the highest level of public acceptance for the law yet in the Bloomberg poll."

Web Link

net: America WANTS OBAMACARE or an improved version of it.

The GOP lost that one also. You are so far out on the far right fringe you can't even see the center.

Those same polls had Walter Mondale beating President Reagan in 1984. Remember these polls are conducted by the liberal news media. Clinton will get beat if she foolishly decides to run. The Republican have so much dirt on her that they are holding back waiting for the right moment. If she wisely decides to sit it our the dirt will be withheld in case she tries for another run in 2020.

You are going to have to do better than that. Meanwhile the midterm elections will stop the Obama Socialist agenda dead in its tracks. The only arrow Obama will have in his quiver is the veto which he will use against some common sense legislation which will bolster the Republicans chances in 2016.

A headline in last month's Gallup mPoll says

"Majority of Americans Still Disapprove of Healthcare Law"

Web Link

If you got to keep your Plan, your Doctor, your Deductable and saved $2,500 per year on Obamacare then by all means please vote Democrat. But if any of the promises Obama made did not come true then you should consider your options. I voted for Obama twice. I am not going to make the same mistake in 2016. I trust Ms. Clinton as much as I trust Obama. Both parties lie to get elected but recently it is the Democratic Party that has hit me very hard in the wallet. It has gravitated too far to the left and I will be voting Republican until the Democratic Party comes back to the center.

"Those same polls had Walter Mondale beating President Reagan in 1984. Remember these polls are conducted by the liberal news media."

This was the same bull#### that Karl Rove was peddling to Fox viewers and Romney right up to election night.

How'd that work out for ya?

Did you have a big sad when you found out the "liberal" polls were correct, and the "unskewed" fringe right polls were based on Rovian Magic Dust?

I feel so bad for you, sittting there on election night, having held your nose and voted for the FlipFlop Man, Mr 47% himself, only to see him get beat by 5 million votes, and get....

wait for it....

47%.

Absolutely HILARIOUS.

The old Gallup poll is stupid. It doesn't ask WHY those do disapprove - for example, I answered NO, I do not approve - I want single payer or Medicare buy-in for all, instead of the insurance company regulation that essentially is ObamaCare. More complete polls will show you that 15-20% of Americans disapprove of ObamaCare because it doesn't go far enough.

remember, from conservative BLOOMBERG: 64-34 favor ObamaCare

"President Barack Obama's health-care law is becoming more entrenched, with 64 percent of Americans now supporting it outright or backing small changes. […]

Fifty-one percent of Americans favor retaining the Affordable Care Act with "small modifications," while 13 percent would leave the law intact and 34 percent would repeal it. That's the highest level of public acceptance for the law yet in the Bloomberg poll."

Duck dynasty. ... who will beat Hillary? Santorum? Huckabee? One of the 'legitimate rape' guys?

Name him.

We can use the laugh.

This is difficult for the Republicans to field legitimate rapists since the Democrats hold a monopoly and that type of candidate. And while it has not yet got a legitimate rapist elected it is alleged that it was successful in getting an illegitimate rapist elected.

Bill Clinton's alleged rape of Juanita Broderick, if true, was not legitimate. See the long list of allegations against Bill Clinton. Yeah he is a stand up guy (when he is not lying down).

Web Link

Those Democrats are class acts.

Both Menlo Observer and Romney Romney went over the line, starting by quoting Todd Akin, and his "Legitimate Rape" speech in the "2012 GOP War on Women". That's how fast those on the fringe can degrade the conversation.

Menlo: name two members of the GOP for me...

1. Name a GOP politician more popular with Americans than Bill Clinton (ignore your fringe fantasies for a moment) Web Link

George Bush? Dick Cheney? John McCain? Mitt Rmoney? Sarah Palin? Huckabee? Santorum? The 999 guy? Either Paul?

Americans spoke - you, Fox, and the Clinton haters and your fatansy fabrications are far out of the mainstream.

2. Name a GOP politician who can beat Hillary?

I will wait.

Ronald Reagan was vastly more popular than Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton never got a majority of the vote. He garnered a measly 43.1 percent of the popular vote in 1992 and 49.23% of the vote in 1996. By contrast Ronald Reagan got 50.75% of the vote in 1980 and 58.77% in 1984.

Now for the electoral vote count

Reagan 1980 489-49
Reagan 1984 525-13
Clinton 1992 370-168
Clinton 1996 379-159

Reagan's opponents got low double digit electoral votes. Clinton's opponents got low triple digit electoral votes. In fact in the second elections for both, Clinton's opponents got more than 10 times the electoral votes than Reagan's opponents.

In the history of the electoral college no president had aver received more electoral votes than Ronald Reagan did in 1984. Comparing popularity of Bill Clinton with Ronald Reagan. Not even close except at the Mustang Ranch where Bill Clinton was vastly more popular than 'no show' Ronald Reagan.

Ha, ha, ha, that's pretty good.

When comparing Reagan to Clinton, shifting from today's approval popularity figures to history.

That shift is awesome debate tactic on your part, since Clinton is far more popular today than Reagan.

Maybe because:
-- Reagan tripled the national debt?
-- Raised middle class taxes 11 times?
-- Had the largest tax increase ever on working Americans when he doubled payroll taxes?
-- Illegally traded arms to IRAN?
-- Ran away like a crying toddler upon the murder of 250 American Marines in Beirut?
-- Had the most corrupt administration in history? (over 100 indictments)

So you haven't answered question 1.

And you completely ignored question 2, denying us a real insight into your fantasy world.

So let's try again:

1. Name a living GOP politician more popular with Americans than Bill Clinton

2. Name a living GOP politician who can beat Hillary

I will wait.

Reagan wouldn't get elected in today's tea bagging gop. Too many tax increases.

Not to mention the 748 S&L's he bankrupted and the hundreds of billions it cost American taxpayers.

Nice post, mancrush - I forgot about Reagan's S&L fiasco and billions in bailouts charged to the American taxpayer. No, Reagan would lose every GOP primary.

Since Menlo won't answer the two simple questions, let's take apart his "ten seat" thesis...


Democrats have to defend 21 Senate seats in 2014 and Republicans defend 15 seats. 7 of the 21 Democratic Senate seats are in red states. Only one Republican seat is in an blue state.

So yup, tough battleground in 2014, but it completely flips in two years.

In 2016, Republicans will be defending 24 seats, over than twice as many as Democrats — 24 Republican seats to 10 Democratic seats. Seven of those Republican seats are in blue states. Democrats will be defending only one seat in a red state.

Dems lose 5 in 2014, republicans lose 8 or more in 2016.

I predict more in 2016, because Hillary will have long coattails. The republicans have no viable candidate in 2016.

Disagree?

Then tell us who will beat Hillary in 2016!

No one. The GOP is toast until they start coming up with viable candidates - such as one that will admit to the Bush disaster, and have real solutions to jobs and the recovery form the Bush recession.

Until then? Blue drapes in the Oval Office!

The only dude who can beat HRC is that fat boy from NJ. He gets all the Wall Street money that is scared of the tea baggers that Observer likes.

But pufferfish had to lawyer up last month because of traffic.

Just another crook.

All the big bank money that was going to Christie will now go to Jeb Bush.

Bush has been doing wall street work for a decade.

Thats all we need. Another Bush, this one having taken money from banksters.

Barbara Bush was right. America doesn't need another Bush.

Carolyn Ryan, the New York Times Washington Bureau Chief, told NBC's Meet The Press host David Gregory her paper's reporters are being told Obama is "poison" for the Democrats battling for reelection in the 2014 mid-terms.

Republicans will most likely win 7 senate seats and take control of the Senate. The House is not even remotely in contention.

There are 36 Senate seats up for re-election this year: 21 held by Democrats and 15 by Republicans. There are seven open seats where no incumbent is running, and five of them are currently Democratic-held in Iowa, Michigan, Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia. Michigan looks like the only win for the Democrats while Iowa is up for grabs and Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia should go to the Republicans.

Republicans, meanwhile, are defending two open seats, in Georgia and Nebraska. Republicans should easily defend both.

Democratic incumbents in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina are seeking re-election in states that 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney carried by double digits.

Not a rosy picture for the Democrats on the national level. However things look very rosy for the Democratic Party in California

NYT Reader: who are McCain and Romney campaigning with?

Chris Christie?

-- there isn't a pol out of DC that isn't toxic, somewhere.

Glad you finally figured out the 2014 senate map, finally. I posted it above days ago, with the corresponding trainwreck that is the 2016 republican senate map.

What goes around, comes around.

GOP picks up 6 or 7 this time, and loses 7 or 8 when Hillary beats some republican looney enough to win the GOP primaries.

NYT Reader: who will be the designated GOP loon to lose in 2016? Name a name?

Since you brought up the official CA Republican Party-- just curious, have they finished their bankruptcy proceedings yet?

It's funny watching this crowd talk right past each other. One group talks about the topic, namely that the even Democrats are admitting that they are unlikely to take back the House and may not even retain the Senate. The other group ignore this sentiment entirely and not-so-cleverly deflects to a Presidential election which is (a) two election cycles away and (b) very uncertain. Not a single person has announced their candidacy at this time.

It is clear that November 2014 is not looking good for Dems. And who knows what will happen in 2016? Relying on polls showing Clinton a strong favorite, didn't work out so well for nominees Huckabee, Guiliani and Clinton, all who were strong favorites at this point two election cycles ago. And if Secretary Clinton decides not to run, as some have speculated, it will be an incredible spectacle.

Pogo: Not sure you noticed, but in SEVERAL posts, I referenced the 2014 senate map (very unfavorable to Dems due to defending 2008 gains) is the exact opposite of 2016 senate map (very unfavorable to the GOP due to defending 2010 gains) because they mirror each other.

So for the third time (at least) "What goes around, comes around."

Specifically, every 6 years.

But you don't think including the two, as relative, matters....

As for "watching this crowd talk right past each other" -- odd, I looked at each of my previous posts and I directly addressed the previous post.

As for "Not a single person has announced their candidacy at this time." True, but as you are well aware, an announcement is merely a formality coming very late in the game, coming after

- get some talking heads to call you a candidate

- have a close 'confident' leak your 'possible' interest

- going to CPAC

- many trips to Iowa, a state that serves no purpose to their current constituents (want a list of republicans who've been there in the last year?)

- side trips to NH and SC

- announce you will be announcing 'something', sometime

- announce you will be announcing 'something', soon!

- announce you will be announcing 'something', on a certain date

- hiring staff

- have an insider declare an interest in forming an exploratory committee

- announcing interest in forming an exploratory committee

- announcing the formation of an exploratory committee

- multiply the above 3X (a state committee, the federal, plus a 527 committee)

- announcing they are thinking of filing papers

- announcing they are filing papers

- actually filing papers

So yup, Pogo, no one has ANNOUNCED their candidacy!

1. What makes you think I was directing my comments to you?

2. That said, yours was not even a very deft deflection. There wasn't one mention in your lengthy post about Chris Matthews' comment that the Dems could well lose 10 seats in the Senate. For what it's worth, I don't think they will, but unless sentiment changes quickly and our President's approval rating climbs, November isn't looking very good for Dems or the President's agenda.

3. Yes, The math does favor the Dems in three years.

Pogo: "There wasn't one mention in your lengthy post ... that the Dems could well lose 10 seats in the Senate."

Really?

"...but in SEVERAL posts, I referenced the 2014 senate map (very unfavorable to Dems due to defending 2008 gains) is the exact opposite of 2016 senate map (very unfavorable to the GOP due to defending 2010 gains) because they mirror each other."

In the several posts referenced, I suggested multiple times it could be, for example: "GOP picks up 6 or 7 this time, and loses 7 or 8 when Hillary beats some republican looney enough to win the GOP primaries."

Yes, I didn't reference Chris Matthews directly, but frankly, why would anyone? He's a bloviator of the 1st degree, who's opinions waffle with the wind, and when facts prove him wrong, rarely corrects himself. We find the same on Fox (take a look at Napalotano and his recent wingnut assertions that Lincoln started the Civil War!)

Its the fringe that rants about supposed socialism and other tin foil stuff that speaks right past any discussion. They can't engage; certainly not with a lot of fact.

Someone on Fox said Lincoln started the war?

Sounds about right.

"We're all neocons now." - Chris Matthews (2003)

Why would anyone listen to that idiot? Or a poster who claims that a subsidiary of General Electric, then sold to Viacom, is "the Public Relations Arm of the White House" ???

I never heard of the thing about Lincoln starting the Civil War, I assumed the poster above was making it up.

But, nooooo.....

The Fox guy seriously thinks it's Lincoln's fault, even though the South Carolina secession documents (seceding because of SLAVERY) were drawn up before Lincoln took his oath. Sure enough, it is what is being promoted on Fox. Watch a quite amusing takedown of the Fox idiot by a panel of historians at the Daily Show site.

Politifact on the Fox idiot's lies here Web Link

Dang, now I'm all worked up on this Chris Matthews thing - "We're all neocons now"

I don't get how politicians and TV pundits still have a job if they failed Americans in the most critical decision of the last decade, ie. cheer-leading for taking brave Americans to war for no reason. If you supported that colossal disaster, the price for your error should be to never be taken seriously again.

The price for the rest of us for a Matthews type decision is 5,000 brave Americans killed, and debts that will last 100 years or more. If you supported that atrocity - first apologize, then shut up and go away in shame. Web Link

Deep, deep shame, Chris Matthews.

I continually find it stunning that peeps find amazement at Fox lying to their viewers. They've been doing it for years, to the point they believe in their own crap. Look at election night, where they were lying to their viewers for weeks under the guise of "de-skewing" the polls that said Romney/BoyWonder were going to get creamed. There they were at 9pm on election night insisting it would still work out.

Republicans need to win six seats to regain control of the Senate in November. Twenty-one of the 36 seats up for grabs are held by Democrats and seven of those are in states that were won by Mitt Romney in 2012. In contrast, just one of the 15 Republican seats being contested was won by President Obama in 2012.

The seven Democrat Senate seats, all of which are in states won by Mitt Romney in 2012 that will most likely go Republican are:

1. Alaska where Mark Begich will be voted out of office. Alaska is a traditional Republican State.

2. Montana. John Walsh was appointed to fill out Max Baucus's remaining term. Baucus knew he would not get re-elected. He quite accurately portrayed Obamacare as a train wreck. This senatorial election will also be a train wreck for the John Walsh.

3. South Dakota. Tim Johnson will lose. President Obama has a greater chance of having his likeness carved out on Mount Rushmore than the Democrats have of retaining this Senate Seat.

4. Arkansas. Mark Pryor will be turned out by the voters. Even before Clinton left office Arkansas has been solid Republican in every Presidential election. What an embarrassment that was for Al Gore but not as big an embarrassment as him losing Tennessee,

5. Louisiana. Mary Landrieu will most certainly regret her vote on Obamacare.

6. North Carolina. The home of the Über Liberal Duke University will probably not be enough to save Kay Hagan. Although she does have a better chance than the other 6 Democrats in Republican states. However, if there is an upset it will be in North Carolina.

7. West Virginia. Jay Rockefeller can't put enough money in this election to hold on to his seat. With the Obama Administration's attack on the 2nd amendment and it's war on coal Jay will go down in flames. You see in West Virginia, people hunt for food and work in coal mines.

The only Republican Senate seat in a State won by Obama is held by Susan Collins of Maine. Maine is a very independent minded state going back and forth from Democrat to Republican. Susan Collins will most likely withstand the challenge to her seat.

There are also two Democrat States where Republicans have a chance although the odds favor the Democrats in both races. Tom Harkin is retiring leaving no incumbent in Iowa. Jeanne Shahin has served only one term in New Hampshire and New Hampshire, like Maine, is fairly independent.

My prediction Republicans 52 Democrats 48.

VP Biden becomes the Decider (h/t GW Bush) when it goes 50/50 after 2014, with McConnell losing in Kentucky being the sole bright spot for Democrats to crow about until 2016, when Dems go back to 55-58 seats.

Am curious about your spin, such as "the Obama Administration's attack on the 2nd amendment"??

What Obama attack on the 2nd amendment? Granted, 90% of Americans want expanded background checks, etc.. but I haven't seen Obama back any significant legislation. "Nine in 10 Americans support expanding background checks on gun purchases in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, an extraordinary level of agreement on a political issue and a finding that's been duplicated in nearly every major public poll."

ObamaCare a trainwreck? Better tell the 59% of Americans who want to keep ObamaCare as is, or keep it and improve it, vs the 29% who want to either repeal, or repeal and replace with an unknown GOP alternative (source: KFF 3/2014) Web Link

"As previous Kaiser tracking polls have found, many of the ACA’s major provisions continue to be quite popular, including across party lines. For example, large shares of Americans – including at least seven in ten overall and at least six in ten Democrats, Republicans, and independents – have a favorable view of the fact that the law allows young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plans up to age 26, closes the Medicare “doughnut hole” for prescription drug coverage, provides subsidies to low- and moderate-income Americans to help them purchase coverage, eliminates cost-sharing for preventive services, gives states the option of expanding Medicaid, and prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Nearly as many (including a majority across parties) have a favorable view of the “medical loss ratio” provision that requires insurance companies to give their customers a rebate if they spend too little money on services and too much on administration and profits. Somewhat more divisive is the law’s Medicare payroll tax on earnings for upper-income Americans, which is viewed favorably by about three-quarters of Democrats and just over half of independents, but just a third of Republicans."

The GOP war on ObamaCare is over, and they lost quite awhile ago. It's just getting worse for them as time passes and Americans see the benefits for themselves, their families, neighbors and the country.

Of course, the GOP has yet to identify their 'replace' plan as part of the repeal and replace.

And they never will. As soon as they do, and it's scored by the CBO, they will lose a lot more elections.

Kentucky’s voters for federal races are deep red Republican, with Kentucky not electing a Democrat to the Senate since 1992. And the McConnell campaign has tied Grimes’ identity to the Democratic Party which is vastly unpopular in Kentucky given that only 4 out of 120 counties in Kentucky voted for Obama in 2012 with 116 counties voting for Romney.

McConnell spokesperson Allison Moore said "Alison Lundergan Grimes may be a new face, but she's pushing the same old agenda of President Obama and the national liberals who are funding her campaign...Her big-spending, anti-coal platform is severely out of touch with Kentucky."

Grimes also lags far behind McConnell in fund raising. McConnell has a vast cash advantage of $10.9 million to $3.3 million, as of the last FEC filing. Given that Romney creamed Obama by 60.5% to 37.8% McConnell should repel the Democratic challenge. But the Republican party should be grooming a successor for the next election cycle. McConnell does not inspire voters.

The impartial Gallup Poll says that 55% of Americans disapprove of the Unaffordable Care Act and 40% approve of it.

Web Link

ACA repeal will be difficult since there won't be enough Republicans to override a veto. But Obamacare will be an albatross around the Democratic Party's neck dashing Hilary's last hope of becoming President in 2016. Every cloud has a silver lining.

"Gallup says that 55% of Americans disapprove of the Unaffordable Care Act and 40% approve of it."

Yes, because Gallup didn't ask of the nature of the "disapprovals"! A number of Americans disapprove of ObamaCare because it didn't go far enough to reign in for-profit insurance companies. That's why a more thorough question reveals:

"59% of Americans who want to keep ObamaCare as is, OR KEEP AND IMPROVE it, vs the 29% who want to either repeal, or repeal and replace"

re: "Kentucky's voters for federal races are deep red Republican" - Yes. And they are sick and tired of McConnell, as McConnell is so DC-centric, he doesn't know the difference between Duke and UK.

Let's look at how red is Kentucky -

RCP Average Grimes 43.0 McConnell 42.5 Grimes +0.5%

Why? "McConnell has a vast cash advantage of $10.9 million to $3.3 million"

Down home folk in Kentucky know all that cash came from lobbyists in DC. And they are responding (the sentence in the WSJ blog before your total above...) "Ms. Grimes raised $2.1 million in the fourth quarter of last year compared with $2.2 million by Sen. McConnell" Web Link

What I love about liberals is that there are so few in Kentucky. Now Mitch McConnell isn't exactly the greatest Republican; but when compared to Grimes he looks pretty damn good. [Portion removed.]

Happy Trails losers (The Party of Leland Yee).

whoa, Martha! The poster above has some anger issues! fmjs and suppositories? SO CLEVER!!

Sadly, the poster also has some factual issues! The leader of the Republican Party, Minority Leader Mcconnell is a great republican. Has to be, that's why Republicans put him as Leader.

Unfortunately, KY voters don't like him either, evidenced by numbers showing Republican Leader Mitch running for his political life in a very tight race in Kentucky.

Kentucky: where Kentuckians know what they're thinking, opposed to some looney from Central Menlo Park ("there are so few in Kentucky"). Anything else you want to tell us that flies in the face of reality, Mister KY 'expert'?

What cracks me up is that liberals who look down on the South and know very little about it make themselves self proclaimed experts on how Southerners vote. We voted overwhemingly for Mitt Romney in 2012. Our stste has been solid Republican since 1996 and as a previous poster said only 4 out of 120 Kentucky counties voted for Obama.

I know that those carpet bagging pollsters got you all spun up about Grimes but these are the same people who told you the Walter Mondale was beating the tar out of Ronald Reagan. How did that turn out? Well President Reagan got the most electoral votes of any president in the history of the United States.

Now Grimes will put on a respectable showing- for a Democrat; but Democrats have learned to have low expectations in Kentucky. And even though Mitch McConnell pisses us off regularly we ain't gonna vote for some Obama "Stepford Wife". No thank you. You can keep the California left wing thinking to yourselves. We don't smoke marijuana in Frankfort. Now you have to excuese me I am gonna have some B & B. Now for you Yankees that ain't Benedictine and Brandy (that is liberal sissy stuff) that is bourbon and branch.

You all take care, you hear.

Hey folks! We got us a GEN-U-INE Kin-tuk-e gal posting all the way from Frankfort!

(insert snickers here, MV, esp for you b&b reference, almost as funny as the pot one!)

Carpettbagging? "I know that those carpet bagging pollsters..." Wow. Can you read?

Fox pollster Rasmussen has it a tie. Wenzel is a GOP firm and has Mitch plus 1. Gravis is another GOP pollster and they only have Leader Mcconnell up 5 points, and that was 3 months ago. Those GOP pollsters are carpetbaggers? You mean like Scott Brown moving to New Hampshire?

"We don't smoke marijuana in Frankfort." Ha, that's even more funny! What dream world is our fake KY gal living in?!?!? That's the stupidest thing I've read here!

"FRANKFORT, Ky. — Kentucky House members voted Wednesday to legalize a medicinal oil derived from marijuana... " Read more here: Web Link

"Frankfort: Local women to testify in favor of medical marijuana" Web Link

MV, the last one is video, so you don't have to hurt your head by trying to read it.

who are you referring to as "MV?"

Good question.

Also a good one - why @Menlo didn't respond when called on his spin...

>Am curious about your spin, such as "the Obama Administration's attack on the 2nd amendment"??

>What Obama attack on the 2nd amendment? Granted, 90% of Americans want expanded background checks, etc.. but I haven't seen Obama back any significant legislation.

You two should talk to each other, not past each other, @Menlo.

Grimes isn't popular outside of Louisville or Lexington, and she has no name recognition, however Republicans will go to the polls in November, Obama's popularity which is probably around 30 percent in the state will suppress any "groundswell" for Grimes.

The media don't seem to understand the majority of votes in Kentucky's last 4 presidential elections and 2010 were all against Democrats, not the other way around, sure McConnell isn't at stellar levels, but Kentuckians also know Majority leader of the Senate, can bring home the bacon to the state.

Bill Clinton's influence will be much like the Florida special election for the House where David Jolly beat Alex Sink despite a Tea Party Presence. Old Bill simply does not have the juice any more. Maybe that is why now Hilary is not so concerned about her husband's philandering. Bill Clinton's influence is on the wane as will his wife's be in another 2 1/2 years.

@Menlo... completely ignoring the following:

- s/he was called on her dumb 2nd amendment spin, and refuses to explain - in part because there is no reality-based explanation that won't make her look more loony.

- s/he keeps going back to her KY is "a red state, y'all" form of prediction, even when republican polls show McConnell in a serious battle.

- my favorite part of her spin - a fox viewer ALWAYS brings Clinton into any post!

Just remember - Mitch McConnell put GOP chances of a senate takeover at 50%.

In 2012.

Web Link

How did that work out?

Bruce Braley just stepped in the doo doo by insulting the greater part of the Iowa electorate. He is a Democrat in the House running for Harkin's soon to be vacant senate seat.

Web Link

The formerly safe Democratic seat now may very well be up for grabs. Thanks Bruce. We knew we could count on you. One more seat where the Democrats have to defend now. That gaffe must have cost the DNC a cool mil.

Menlo Voter - Pogo and Ogop are calling you on straying off topic, and not responding to legitimate questions, and you time after time prove them correct.

You were just called out:

"- s/he was called on her dumb 2nd amendment spin, and refuses to explain - in part because there is no reality-based explanation that won't make her look more loony.

- s/he keeps going back to her KY is "a red state, y'all" form of prediction, even when republican polls show McConnell in a serious battle.

- my favorite part of her spin - a fox viewer ALWAYS brings Clinton into any post!"

Ogop - great pick on GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell prediction that the GOP would take the senate, in 2012!

Menlo Voter - how did that turn out?

Now, to Braley - yes, a gaffe. Turns up in a poorly produced GOP ad, an ad from a couple Romney staffers, running a back room group called "Priorities for Iowa". If anyone can grasp defeat from the jaws of victory, it's the Romney short sleeve boys.

Menlo Voter - you remember Mitt, don't you? Funny thing about Mitt and his crew, till about 9pm election night, with Mitt and Rove telling you they were beating Obama? Do you recall that, or is it still a sore spot, voting for Mitt?

Too soon?

Farmer:

I believe they are calling out Menlo OBSERVER as I have posted nothing other than a question about who they meant by "MV."

You can return to talking past each other now.

Menlo Voter, please excuse the mistake.

It is indeed Menlo OBSERVER who posts the slime, and then will not defend it when called upon to do so.

But I have not talked 'past' him, in fact, my last post included the IA seat he brought up.

Farmer:

sorry, I misspoke. You're not talking past each other. You can continue your dialogue of the deaf.

MV -

Best comment and laugh of the day!

Thanks POGO!

Now even Time Magazine has an article on how the Republicans are favored to retake the Senate in 2014.

"(Nate) Silver's data-driven journalism website FiveThirtyEight made one of its first major political predictions since its relaunch: Republicans will take back the Senate in the midterm elections behind held later this year."

Web Link

Libs, the Obama Socialist Train is going to get derailed. Sorry for the train wreck.

Menlo Observer post neglects the rest of Nate Silver's story:

" And they’ll have to avoid taking losses of their own in Georgia and Kentucky, where the fundamentals favor them but recent polls show extremely competitive races.”

However, Silver says that it “wouldn’t take much” for the Democrats to recalibrate in the coming months and pull ahead."

Menlo Observer again proves Menlo Voter's claim: "dialogue of the deaf" as follows...

Menlo Observer, you've been asked before:

"You were just called out:

- s/he was called on her dumb 2nd amendment spin, and refuses to explain - in part because there is no reality-based explanation that won't make her look more loony.

- s/he keeps going back to her KY is "a red state, y'all" form of prediction, even when republican polls show McConnell in a serious battle.

- my favorite part of her spin - a fox viewer ALWAYS brings Clinton into any post!"

.... GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell prediction that the GOP would take the senate, in 2012!

Menlo (observer)- how did that turn out?"

Of the 14 states with GOP senators up for reelection, 12 of them went for Romney by double digits -- very safe territory. And the GOP candidate won all but one of them.

Democrats, meanwhile, are defending seven seats that went red in the 2012 presidential race. And the "safe" seats that Democrats are defending are much less safe than the "safe" seats Republicans are defending.

These numbers reinforce the the GOP's chances. And they suggest the GOP doesn't necessarily need a big "wave" election to take back the Senate.

The Democrats sometimes hold an edge on the generic ballot -- even in a neutral environment -- so the fact that the GOP leads this big in these states suggests they've got a good chance at reclaiming the Senate.

Dasvidaniya Harry Reid.

As pointed out by Pogo and Menlo Voter, poster Menlo Observe again refuses to respond to his/her previous claims, and in fact is still engaged in her "dialogue of the deaf".

re: her recent claims, please refer to her previous post and it's link: "And (the GOP) have to avoid taking losses of their own in Georgia and Kentucky, where the fundamentals favor them but recent polls show extremely competitive races..... (HOWEVER it) wouldn't take much" for the Democrats to recalibrate in the coming months and pull ahead."

So Menlo Observer's fantasy world of large gains beyond 6 or 7 seats is just that - a fantasy. The GOP may control the senate for 2 years, maybe not.

Menlo Observer: why won't you defend your previously posted slime?

"- s/he was called on her dumb 2nd amendment spin, and refuses to explain - in part because there is no reality-based explanation that won't make her look more loony."

Also, any comments on:

"- s/he keeps going back to her KY is "a red state, y'all" form of prediction, even when republican polls show McConnell in a serious battle.

- my favorite part of her spin - a fox viewer ALWAYS brings Clinton into any post!"

.... GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell prediction that the GOP would take the senate, in 2012!

Menlo (observer)- how did that turn out?"

The Search engine Bing shows 11,600,000 web links for "Obama's attack on the second amendment"

Web Link

Farmer Jones, take some time to read them.

Bing results as proof for a fallacy -- Holy Toledo Batman, maybe an intelligence poll test is wise, after all. Who knew? Bing results as proof for a fallacy -- that may be the funniest thing I've read today (haven't hit the comix yet, tho)

fwiw, @NRA, put the exact phrase "Obama's attack on the second amendment" into bing WITH the quotes and you come up with a grand total of thirty six (36) hits, predominately far-right sites, and a couple sites reporting on those far right sites. Oddly, bing is too weak to even list this page as having those words.

36 hits! (to be fair should be at least 37 with this page)

@NRA - Google shows 135,000,000 results (in 0.32 seconds) for "Republican War on Women". (969,000 results if you keep it in quotes.)

Does that make the "Republican War on Women" true? Or just 10x more true than the idiotic statement "Obama's attack on the second amendment"?

Oh, here ya go: Google lists 41,500,000 results for the words 'sun rises in the west' - that makes the Sun rising in the West 3 times more truthful than "Obama's attack on the second amendment". (fwiw, 2 million hits with "sun rises in the west" in quotes)

Well, anyone that uses bing, I guess that's the type of intellectual curiosity one can expect....

@NRA & @menloobserver (@voter too?) What actual laws has Obama passed that have massively infringed on the right for a militia to bear arms? Massive, you know, like 11,600,000 hits worth of massive.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Y'all are just a tool of the NRA, who's sole function is to protect gun manufacturers and retailers. But keep drinking the koolaid, and using bing!

Returning to the thread, imho, it's that kind of lunacy that makes me feel the right will find some way of not winning the Senate in 2014. Just a hunch, but they'll pull some internal fratricide like a Sharon (beheaded bodies in the desert) Engle or Christine (I am not a witch) O'Donnell. I don't think they learned squat in 2012.

"Obama's a SOCIALIST!" say some righties, others say he's a momslacks wearing feckless wimp.

THEY ALL SAY (after the stupid claims) "so fight Obama, send (me) money!!

Pretty funny.

Since the fringies above love to quote Matthews and NYT:

"Republicans, poised for strong gains in the midterm elections, are offering starkly conflicting messages about President Obama to rally their voters. In one moment, they say the president is feckless and weak. But in the next, they say Mr. Obama is presiding over an “imperial presidency” that is exercising power that verges on dictatorial."

And they all want donations, just like Yee.

So, Obama's WEAK, and a SOCIALIST, but he's STRONG, and IMPERIAL, but no matter what --- SEND MONEY!!

"The “imperial presidency” message has also been good for fund-raising. ............ Then the email moved in for the kill: “Contribute $100, $50, $25 or what you can so that we can continue to defend Americans from Obama’s power grabs and massive government overreach.”"

Even fnnier? All the 2016 wannabes went to beg in front of Shelly Adelson this weekend (Christie apologiazing, Walker licking, Rubio drooling, etc..) yes, begging from a guy who bribes the Communist Chinese to run his casinos in Macao. Web Link

Of interesting note, Adelson, who is getting his bottom kissed by Christie, etc.. is being charged with bringing prostitution into his Communist Chinese casinos; how much do you think he pays in bribes to the Communists?

Web Link

The Washington Post, the darling of liberal Democrats now says that the Republican Party has an 80% chance of winning the Senate

"As we have begun to incorporate candidate experience into the model, our initial sense is this: Republicans may have a far better chance of winning control of the Senate than we or other analysts previously thought. Here is a preliminary estimate: The GOP could have as much as a 4 in 5 chance of controlling the chamber."

Menlo observer's post about the WaPo article neglected the following:

"At the same time, three caveats are worth emphasizing:

1. The model is based only on relatively recent elections.....

2. Early forecasts can be wrong, too, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid noted in pushing back against Nate Silver’s recent sense of the Senate landscape. Forecasting presidential elections is usually not that hard but it is difficult to predict the outcome of House and Senate races. Things may change. This is only a forecast based on conditions today....
3. Good candidates may prove not so good later on. We have captured only one facet of the candidates thus far. As time goes on, fundraising numbers and polls may reveal different facets, positive or negative, and our model will take that into account. If less electable Republicans emerge from primaries or if some otherwise experienced GOP candidates implode, then perhaps Democratic Senate chances will improve.

In short, this is not a final forecast."

Or, as posited by poster bing bang bong: " Just a hunch, but they'll pull some internal fratricide like a Sharon (beheaded bodies in the desert) Engle or Christine (I am not a witch) O'Donnell. I don't think they learned squat in 2012."


-----------------------------------------------------


Menlo Observer: why won't you defend your previously posted slime?

"- s/he was called on her dumb 2nd amendment spin, and refuses to explain - in part because there is no reality-based explanation that won't make her look more loony."

Also, any comments on:

"- s/he keeps going back to her KY is "a red state, y'all" form of prediction, even when republican polls show McConnell in a serious battle.

- my favorite part of her spin - a fox viewer ALWAYS brings Clinton into any post!"

.... GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell prediction that the GOP would take the senate, in 2012!

Menlo (observer)- how did that turn out?"

Farmer Jones,

If you are so confident that the Democrats will retain the Senate then about a friendly wager. If the Democrats hold the Senate then I will write a check to the ACLU of Northern California for $1000. If the Republicans take the Senate then you will write a check for $1000 to the NRA. We can let the Almanac be the escrow agent.

You can jawbone all you want but the proof is in the wager.

Awww, HL, another wager? You need to actually read my posts, rather than create a strawman. "The proof is in the wager" such as previous offers of wagers you've made via the Almanac?

Poster 'bing bang BONG' quite destroyed your previous argument - no response?

"@NRA & @menloobserver (@voter too?) What actual laws has Obama passed that have massively infringed on the right for a militia to bear arms? Massive, you know, like 11,600,000 hits worth of massive.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Y'all are just a tool of the NRA, who's sole function is to protect gun manufacturers and retailers. But keep drinking the koolaid, and using bing!"

Farmer Jones,

If you are so confident that the Democrats will retain the Senate then you should take NRA's bet and embrace the opportunity to get a sizable donation from a right-winger for the ACLU. Be a mensch.

"If you are so confident that the Democrats will retain the Senate"

Ahhh, nice continuation of the strawman! You clearly don't read other posts, either. Good to know.

Which explains why you have never commented on the trash you post!

-------------------

Menlo Observer: why won't you defend your previously posted slime?

"- s/he was called on her dumb 2nd amendment spin, and refuses to explain - in part because there is no reality-based explanation that won't make her look more loony."

Also, any comments on:

"- s/he keeps going back to her KY is "a red state, y'all" form of prediction, even when republican polls show McConnell in a serious battle.

- my favorite part of her spin - a fox viewer ALWAYS brings Clinton into any post!"

.... GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell prediction that the GOP would take the senate, in 2012!

Menlo (observer)- how did that turn out?"

Funny thread -- filled with partisans and strawmen.

Nate Silver has it at 60% that the GOP takes the senate for a couple years. This early, one has to go with Nate. Astute comment though, above, about the GOP's propensity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

That said, it is amazing how the fringe lunatics refuse to respond to someone calling them on their bs...

"- s/he was called on her dumb 2nd amendment spin, and refuses to explain - in part because there is no reality-based explanation that won't make her look more loony."

Priceless.

Oh, Nate, you silly sod, you know it's too early for all this. Just look at the true toss-up for the Senate in 2014 (N Carolina) and they don't even have their rightie primary until May. Until then, we have no idea who will run against Hagen - it could be a mainstream wall street approved republican or it could be another completely loony tea bagger. There's something like ten candidates, represented by a swath that goes from big business republican to tea bagging freakazoids.

If the NC republicans pick wrong, Hagan wins and Reid stays as majority leader (not dissimilar to NV republicans picking Sharron Angle to dethrone Reid himself - what a disaster!)Simple as that. Glad I could help.

When Obama was running for the Illinois State Senate candidate, he answered a questionnaire in which he was asked “Do you support state legislation to ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns?” Senator Obama’s terse one-word answer was: “Yes.” When running for president, he made the disingenuous claim that some staffer must have answered the questionnaire by mistake, counting on most Americans not realizing that state senate candidates usually don’t have a large campaign staff, and that it would be highly inappropriate for a staffer to answer such a high profile question without first consulting with the candidate.

Obama has always been an ardent supporter of Chicago’s gun law which is virtually a complete ban on guns, and an absolute ban on handguns. Obama reaffirmed his unwavering support of Chicago’s gun law by stating that the law “works in Chicago.”

However the Chicago Law is no different than the D.C. law the U.S. Supreme Court previously struck down in Columbia v. Heller.

Apparently Obama foolishly thought that no one would pick up on that. Unfortunately for him a follow-up lawsuit challenged Chicago’s gun ban, making its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. During that landmark lawsuit - McDonald v. Chicago, Obama ordered then Solicitor General Elena Kagan to stand down and not file a brief supporting the Second Amendment; once again reinforcing Obama’s support of the unconstitutional Chicago gun ban law.

In McDonald v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court justices held that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right that applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore that the Chicago gun ban law Obama supported is unconstitutional.

So now Obama claims to support the Second Amendment as he pushes new gun-control laws. The American people need to remember that he always says that while aggressively trying to strip law-abiding citizens of those very same rights.

Menlo Observer: You originally wrote "With the Obama Administration's attack on the 2nd amendment..." What attack? You have not provided an answer, despite your luster about the supreme court. Listing a questionnaire from two decades ago hardly constitutes an "attack on the 2nd amendment". As someone pointed out above, neither does proposing background checks, which are supported by 80-90% of our country.

What Obama "attack on the 2nd amendment" are you talking about?

Also from the previous post: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Simple, efficient, complete background checks, supported by a vast majority of our countrymen, seem to fit in well with "a well regulated Militia".

What attacks on the 2nd?

*bluster

not 'luster'

Also: *Listing a questionnaire from two decades ago hardly constitutes an "attack on the 2nd amendment" FROM THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION (as you claimed.)

Obama's support of a complete ban of hand guns is an attack on the second amendment. During Obama's first term as President, even after an identical D.D. law was struck down by the SCOTUS, Obama instructed Elena Kagan not to file a brief in support of the second amendment. McDonald v. Chicago was a direct attack on the second amendment and the SCOTUS agreed.

Obama is against people's right to bear arms.

That sod busting tarheel must be smoking too much donkey manure. 20 Years ago Obama was just a Community Organizer counseling people not to work but to go on the dole. He began is campaign for Illinois Senate in 1996 and was unopposed in the Democrat primary. That is like a Democrat running unopposed in a primary for State Senate in San Francisco.

If you were to take a survey of all registered gun owners in the United State, a super-majority of them would state, without equivocation, that Obama is against the second amendment. Yet liberals only want criminals to own handguns.

It ironic how liberals who are opposed to the second amendment say that Obama is for it. Get real. What fantasy world are you living in.

What a bunch of hooey!

The poster asked you to justify your stupid assertion: "With the Obama Administration's attack on the 2nd amendment..."

And all you have is something like "he was a community organizer a couple decades ago"?!?!?!?!?!?

WassaMattaU? You forget to throw in ACORN, too!?!?!? Don't forget the part about being a Socialist Muslim going to a radical Christian church (my favorite wingnut claim!)

Go ahead - list out the legislation that the Obama ADMINISTRATION has proposed to justify your ridiculous claim!

Some "legal brief" is all you have?!???? For the MASSIVE "Obama Administration's attack on the 2nd amendment..." ???!!?!?!?!?

At least Cheney and Bush had Powell hold up drawings at the UN!

Farmer Jones,

You are about to have a Senate crop failure. You see the good Farmers of our great USA have the good sense to rotate their crops. So the Senate crops in Alaska, Arkansas, Montana, South Dakota, North Carolina, Louisiana and West Virginia will be rotated to revitalize the earth and our country. Farmers in Michigan and Colorado just might do the same. You have just depleted the minerals out of your soil and all the donkey dung you can gather won't restore the minerals in your topsoil.

Menlo Observer: Yes. For two years, the GOP *may* have a one seat advantage in the Senate, before they most assuredly lose 5-10 seats in 2016 (the 2010 gains, as outlined above.)

But your list is wildly optimistic: the chances of Michigan and Colorado turning Red are much, much less than McConnell losing in Kentucky, at this point. And as Tarheel wrote, let's see which bozo emerges from the GOP primary before Hagen is written off.

Giving up on your stupid claim of "With the Obama Administration's attack on the 2nd amendment..." when all you had was some fantasy instructions to Kagen as proof?

Well, you and poster NRA sure do like your "donkey manure/dung" references!

>WassaMattaU? You forget to throw in ACORN, too!?!?!? Don't forget the part about being a Socialist Muslim going to a radical Christian church (my favorite wingnut claim!)

Ripping. Awesome.

Menlo Observer and NRA -- a quick question: do you think the President is an American? One asks, just to gauge where in the spectrum you lie.