Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Bog wrote:

criddic3 wrote: Simply put, Republicans have more opportunities to flip seats than Democrats do.

Ok so we're all in agreeance here...sadly

criddic3 wrote:They have a 52 - 48 seat majority. Hence the fact that they need a net gain of 6 plus the 2 independents in order to win back the majority.

Are we really not all in agreeance that 48 plus 6 is 54? And we don't all agree 'net' means seats added? I guess you got me here...I cannot assess how the Wikipedia info is supposed to explain why 48 plus a net gain of 3 seats does not equal majority?

However if you click 'previous election' 4 consecutive times you will see the last midterm after a very polarizing president first took office...where a net gain of 6 was added for the party not holding the executive branch...so wishful thinking?

I will concede that 51 is needed to make a majority. However, Republicans are ahead by 6 seats without the independents. Somehow I was doubling up on the independent seats. Bernie Sanders will likely be re-elected in Vermont, but Angus King could conceivably be defeated in Maine. Remember, though, that this is a net gain scenario. Democrats could lose some seats, as well. With 23 up for grabs they will have a lot more to worry about in terms of resources. Republican Senators up for re-election are most often in safe states like Texas, Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, Mississippi, Tennessee and Alabama. That leaves 2 states that lean Republican like Arizona and Nevada. Unlike the House, where all members are up for re-election at the same time, and therefore can be vulnerable to a wave election, the Senate is much less likely to have that kind of occurrence. We also should remember that it took a couple of elections for Republicans to gain the seats they needed for a majority in the Senate. They were able to do so in 2014, which was the second major Republican midterm election in a row. In 2010, despite a wave election and 6 seat gains, Republicans still could not make the majority. Winning Senate races when you're the out party is not easy when you have such a narrow path as Democrats do this time around. It's possible but not something I would bet on.

criddic3 wrote: Simply put, Republicans have more opportunities to flip seats than Democrats do.

Ok so we're all in agreeance here...sadly

criddic3 wrote:They have a 52 - 48 seat majority. Hence the fact that they need a net gain of 6 plus the 2 independents in order to win back the majority.

Are we really not all in agreeance that 48 plus 6 is 54? And we don't all agree 'net' means seats added? I guess you got me here...I cannot assess how the Wikipedia info is supposed to explain why 48 plus a net gain of 3 seats does not equal majority?

However if you click 'previous election' 4 consecutive times you will see the last midterm after a very polarizing president first took office...where a net gain of 6 was added for the party not holding the executive branch...so wishful thinking?

Greg wrote:

criddic3 wrote:Republicans have 9 Senate Seats up for election next year. Democrats have 23. In order for Democrats to regain the chamber, they would have to hold all of their seats and pick up 6 while also holding on to the two independent seats that caucus with them. 8 seats.

There are 48 seats in the Democratic Caucus (including the Independents), so, the Democrats only need to pick up three Republican seats for a 51-seat majority. What's this, alternative math?

I mentioned this already. They have a 52 - 48 seat majority. Hence the fact that they need a net gain of 6 plus the 2 independents in order to win back the majority. Simply put, Republicans have more opportunities to flip seats than Democrats do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_2018

I was going to make a similar comment...although I much prefer Criddic's 57-43 Dem lean result come November 2017. As I've stated before...2018 feels super grim for some get back results we need...but this sort of midterm also seems like the kind where Dems don't struggle to keep any in place seats. Nevada feels almost likely with Arizona and/or Nebraska (in that order) feel possible. Even with a 50/50 folks like Collins or Murkowski (others to come I'm sure) have shown the potential to render Pence moot in a vote.

criddic3 wrote:Republicans have 9 Senate Seats up for election next year. Democrats have 23. In order for Democrats to regain the chamber, they would have to hold all of their seats and pick up 6 while also holding on to the two independent seats that caucus with them. 8 seats.

There are 48 seats in the Democratic Caucus (including the Independents), so, the Democrats only need to pick up three Republican seats for a 51-seat majority. What's this, alternative math?

Sabin wrote: Nixon had to deal with a Democratic Congress and Senate. Trump doesn't.

I've said a similar thing in conversations recently. The Republicans would have to be really embarrassed by President Trump or have real pressure applied in order to try to throw him out. It's a long and exhausting process to impeach and convict. Anyone remember the Clinton impeachment? Took nearly 2 years, half a term. Certainly would make for great theater, with everyone holding their breathes nervously as proceedings were heard and a trial was conducted. Realistically this is impractical for Republicans. They just had a major setback on health care. They are going to move on to tax reform and of course the border wall. The Russian-connection thing is just gonna go around in circles and will eventually peter out unless something big is found soon. So I agree with Sabin that "we're just stuck with him."

Some people say that there's a big switch about to happen with the midterms, but I doubt it.

Here are the stats:

Republicans have 9 Senate Seats up for election next year. Democrats have 23. In order for Democrats to regain the chamber, they would have to hold all of their seats and pick up 6 while also holding on to the two independent seats that caucus with them. 8 seats. They are not likely to flip all 9 Republican seats and they will probably lose a few of their own. Not an easy task.

Democrats need a net gain of 24 seats in the House. If there is a wave like 2006 (where they gained 31) then it is possible. But what would be the catalyst for a wave towards the Democrats in a midterm, which in recent times has skewed more toward a conservative electorate?

My guess is something more dramatic will have to occur for Democrats to take back one or -- certainly -- both houses.

Big Magilla wrote:Maureen Dowd calls Trump a tool:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/25/opin ... .html?_r=2

Pot calls kettle black.

Maureen Dowd calls Trump a tool:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/25/opin ... .html?_r=2

Quote from Senator Bob Menendez: "Hey Republicans, don't worry, that burn is covered under the Affordable Care Act."

Trumpcare crashes and burns. The House won't even vote on it.

Nah, the bigger they are, the harder they fall. It's just a matter of time. As Lincoln said, "you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

It won't get any better with Pence in charge, but at least we won't have the constant drama.

My question is "What happens next?" Comey is a big question mark to me, but it seems unlikely that he won't find something incredibly damning considering that half of his job seems like it's already been done for him. Some definition of treason has been committed. What then? Nixon had to deal with a Democratic Congress and Senate. Trump doesn't. The Democrats don't have the votes to impeach him. So what? We're waiting for Republicans to cross party lines and stand up to him? Why would they start now when some of these people owe him their jobs and the republicans who opposed him lost? I hope I'm wrong but whenever anyone starts explaining to me how he could be removed from office, it has the same tone of those who said he could never be the nominee.

I think we're just stuck with him.

Mister Tee wrote: Sonic, I understand that one would like to be more quickly certain where and how high this Russia story is going, but properly executed law enforcement investigations aren't speedy things. I remind those who weren't around, that we started talking about Watergate in the Spring of 1973, and Nixon didn't resign until August 8th, 1974 -- and there were numerous lulls along the way during which people were continually predicting it would peter out short of major result. An analogy I heard yesterday: it's the pilot(law enforcement)'s job to land the plane safely, not to answer every passenger's question along the way.

My frustration has nothing to do with the slowness of it all. (Actually, I think things are developing pretty swiftly, as these things go.) It's that for months every time there's a minor development, everyone's flipping out like Rachel Maddow with the tax returns. We still don't know what went on and we have no real proof of anything yet. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this isn't very peculiar. It is. But it may end up being less than everyone is imagining it to be, or we may end up never obtaining the necessary evidence. I just want people to take a few breaths and relax, that's all.

If Ryan was saying that it's not his job to defend any president, then the first sentence is correct. The second sentence, however, clearly refers to Mr. Trump and should say either "the current president" or "Mr. Trump".

If Ryan was referring specifically to Trump in the first sentence, then President should be capitalized in both instances.

Anyway, to get back to my original point, the way it's worded suggests, rightly or wrongly, that you respect Ryan but not Trump even though you're willing to give him more chances to screw up.

Speaker Paul Ryan has said pretty bluntly that it's not his job to defend the president and won't go out of his way to do so. Let's keep in mind, however, that the president has only been in office two months.

I think my grammar was proper in this case.