Conventional wisdom and polling say that the most likely scenario is the democrats will narrowly win the house and the republicans will keep the senate and may gain a seat or two
I am going to go out on a limb here and go against that a bit.
here's why
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
I am going with conventional wisdom.
There will be no impeachment proceedings with a narrow Democrat majority in the house.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Some wild cards in the mix
1.
2.
----
So I am predicting the repubs will hold the house just barely and increase their hold of the senate by two. I could certainly be wrong though, we'll see.
To be honest Wazzzup, I have little in the American congressional elections in a few days..
We have a provincial and federal government who keep making us poorer.
:sad:
Quote from: "Fashionista"
We have a provincial and federal government who keep making us poorer.
:sad:
I can understand home is the first priority, and I hope that you will get a chance to help change that. But to me, anti-progressives winning anywhere, whether the US, Canada, UK, Italy, anywhere, even Brazil is a victory for all of humanity. Not everybody sees it that way, but I do.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
We have a provincial and federal government who keep making us poorer.
:sad:
I can understand home is the first priority, and I hope that you will get a chance to help change that. But to me, anti-progressives winning anywhere, whether the US, Canada, UK, Italy, anywhere, even Brazil is a victory for all of humanity. Not everybody sees it that way, but I do.
I understand Wazzzup.
ac_smile
My prediction is that any prediction I will make will be wrong.
I agree about the Democrats running a policy free campaign.
Trump has suggested the repubs could lose the house.
I don't like either American party just like no federal Canadian party deserves the vote of working people. But, at least the repubs aren't going to waste time trying to impeach Trump.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Some wild cards in the mix
1.
2.
----
So I am predicting the repubs will hold the house just barely and increase their hold of the senate by two. I could certainly be wrong though, we'll see.
The women vote will be the deciding factor I predict. Lots of women candidates and most are progs.
Billionaire progtards buying elections.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspolitics/inside-a-secretive-billionaire-club%E2%80%99s-plan-to-help-democrats-take-congress/ar-BBPfQBh?li=AAggFp5&ocid=mailsignout
Inside a secretive billionaire club's plan to help Democrats take Congress
HOENIX, Ariz. — Kevin Rodriguez, a 19-year-old aspiring singer in tight jeans and gray-and-white Nike high tops, had never heard of the powerful progressive donor group Democracy Alliance. But he is a key part of the secretive billionaire club's plot to flip the Sun Belt.
The donor clique, which counts George Soros and Tom Steyer among its members, is quietly giving funds to a handful of local grassroots groups like Rodriguez's employer, Living United for Change in Arizona. They hope that these organizations can do a better job than Democratic campaigns at reaching and turning out young and minority voters in states that liberals have long viewed as just out of their reach.
It's a marked shift from the Democracy Alliance's longtime strategy of funding Beltway think tanks to counter conservative ideas.
And it's also one window into the exclusive cadre's view of the best way to take down President Donald Trump in 2020: By wooing new voters in rapidly diversifying states across the southern U.S., rather than prioritizing fighting Republicans for older white residents of the Rust Belt, a raging debate in the party since the 2016 election. If the investment pays off in next week's election results, the group might take it to more states during the presidential election.
Rodriguez is a paid canvasser for Living United for Change in Arizona, or LUCHA, which offers a blend of immigration services, lobbying on issues like criminal justice, and campaigning — including a yearlong push to register and turn out low-propensity voters. At the moment, Rodriguez is working six days a week on the latter.
Quote from: "Thiel"
I therefore predict that Thiel's predictions will also be wrong.
Quote from: "Herman"
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspolitics/inside-a-secretive-billionaire-club%E2%80%99s-plan-to-help-democrats-take-congress/ar-BBPfQBh?li=AAggFp5&ocid=mailsignout
Inside a secretive billionaire club's plan to help Democrats take Congress
HOENIX, Ariz. — Kevin Rodriguez, a 19-year-old aspiring singer in tight jeans and gray-and-white Nike high tops, had never heard of the powerful progressive donor group Democracy Alliance. But he is a key part of the secretive billionaire club's plot to flip the Sun Belt.
The donor clique, which counts George Soros and Tom Steyer among its members, is quietly giving funds to a handful of local grassroots groups like Rodriguez's employer, Living United for Change in Arizona. They hope that these organizations can do a better job than Democratic campaigns at reaching and turning out young and minority voters in states that liberals have long viewed as just out of their reach.
It's a marked shift from the Democracy Alliance's longtime strategy of funding Beltway think tanks to counter conservative ideas.
And it's also one window into the exclusive cadre's view of the best way to take down President Donald Trump in 2020: By wooing new voters in rapidly diversifying states across the southern U.S., rather than prioritizing fighting Republicans for older white residents of the Rust Belt, a raging debate in the party since the 2016 election. If the investment pays off in next week's election results, the group might take it to more states during the presidential election.
Rodriguez is a paid canvasser for Living United for Change in Arizona, or LUCHA, which offers a blend of immigration services, lobbying on issues like criminal justice, and campaigning — including a yearlong push to register and turn out low-propensity voters. At the moment, Rodriguez is working six days a week on the latter.
His hedge fund was involved in a scheme to defraud foreign investors out of tens of millions of dollars.
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Some wild cards in the mix
1.
2.
----
So I am predicting the repubs will hold the house just barely and increase their hold of the senate by two. I could certainly be wrong though, we'll see.
The women vote will be the deciding factor I predict. Lots of women candidates and most are progs.
Union and NGO money in Canada spend large trying to defeat fiscally conservative candidates/parties. Not that they really exist anymore.
Ah hell, I know brother. You cannot drive very far in this province without seeing a billboard attacking the governing Saskatchewan party.
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Herman"
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspolitics/inside-a-secretive-billionaire-club%E2%80%99s-plan-to-help-democrats-take-congress/ar-BBPfQBh?li=AAggFp5&ocid=mailsignout
Inside a secretive billionaire club's plan to help Democrats take Congress
HOENIX, Ariz. — Kevin Rodriguez, a 19-year-old aspiring singer in tight jeans and gray-and-white Nike high tops, had never heard of the powerful progressive donor group Democracy Alliance. But he is a key part of the secretive billionaire club's plot to flip the Sun Belt.
The donor clique, which counts George Soros and Tom Steyer among its members, is quietly giving funds to a handful of local grassroots groups like Rodriguez's employer, Living United for Change in Arizona. They hope that these organizations can do a better job than Democratic campaigns at reaching and turning out young and minority voters in states that liberals have long viewed as just out of their reach.
It's a marked shift from the Democracy Alliance's longtime strategy of funding Beltway think tanks to counter conservative ideas.
And it's also one window into the exclusive cadre's view of the best way to take down President Donald Trump in 2020: By wooing new voters in rapidly diversifying states across the southern U.S., rather than prioritizing fighting Republicans for older white residents of the Rust Belt, a raging debate in the party since the 2016 election. If the investment pays off in next week's election results, the group might take it to more states during the presidential election.
Rodriguez is a paid canvasser for Living United for Change in Arizona, or LUCHA, which offers a blend of immigration services, lobbying on issues like criminal justice, and campaigning — including a yearlong push to register and turn out low-propensity voters. At the moment, Rodriguez is working six days a week on the latter.
His hedge fund was involved in a scheme to defraud foreign investors out of tens of millions of dollars.
He had a coal investment fund. Now he claims fossil fuels are destroying the planet. :001_rolleyes:
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Some wild cards in the mix
1.
2.
----
So I am predicting the repubs will hold the house just barely and increase their hold of the senate by two. I could certainly be wrong though, we'll see.
The women vote will be the deciding factor I predict. Lots of women candidates and most are progs.
I just saw this poll today
Majority U.S. Women: Democrats Used Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Accusations for Political Gain
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/02/majority-u-s-women-democrats-used-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-accusations-for-political-gain/
Quote
Despite the establishment media and Hollywood's "Believe Women" campaign, the vast majority of American voters — including 84 percent of women and 85 percent of men — say when it comes to sexual harassment allegations, the standards of the legal due process should be applied.
Dunno if this will play a role in the outcome.
I would say no Wazzzup. Women voters will help Democrats not Republicans. I could be wrong, and I hope I am.
By Walter Williams
Democrats are hoping the coming election will give them a majority in the House of Representatives. Republicans and much of our nation dread that prospect. My question is: What would a House majority mean for the Democrats? Let's look at it.
To control the House of Representatives, Democrats must win at least 218 seats, which many predict as being likely. To control the Senate, Democrats must win enough seats to get to 51, which many predict is unlikely. Let's say the Democrats do take the House. If they were to pass a measure that Republicans in both houses didn't like and President Donald Trump didn't like, either, he could use his veto pen. To override Trump's veto, Democrats would need to meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that they muster a two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives (290 votes) and a two-thirds vote in the Senate (67 votes). Neither would be likely.
It's quite a challenge to override a presidential veto. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was the veto king, with 635 vetoes. Only nine of them were overridden. President Grover Cleveland vetoed 584 congressional measures and was overridden only seven times. If the House Democrats were to do all that they promise to do and if President Trump were to marshal the guts of Presidents Roosevelt and Cleveland — both Democrats, I might add — the next two years would be a sight to behold.
But wait! Democrats are pushing for the elimination of the Electoral College and having presidents chosen by majority rule. Might they call for the same for all political decisions? That way, it would require only a simple majority vote, rather than two-thirds, to override a presidential veto.
The Founding Fathers had utter contempt for majority rule. They saw it as a form of tyranny. In addition to requiring a supermajority to override a presidential veto, our Constitution has other anti-majority provisions. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution requires a twothirds vote in each house of Congress or two-thirds of state legislatures to vote for it. On top of that, it requires three-fourths of state legislatures for ratification of a constitutional amendment. Election of the president is done not by a majority popular vote, much to the disappointment of the left, but by the Electoral College.
Having two houses of Congress places another obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. As mentioned earlier, our Constitution gives the president veto power to thwart the wishes of a majority in each house of Congress. It takes two-thirds in each house of Congress to override the president's veto.
The Founders recognized that we need government; however, they also recognized that the essence of government is force and that force is evil. To reduce the potential for evil, they thought government should be as small as possible. They intended for us to have a limited republican form of government wherein human rights precede government and there is rule of law. Ordinary citizens and government officials are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society only to protect its citizens against force and fraud; it does not intervene in cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. By contrast, in a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government deems it to be. Rights may be granted or taken away.
For those Americans who see majority rule as sacrosanct, ask yourselves how many of your life choices you would like settled by majority rule. Would you want the kind of car you own to be decided through a democratic process? What about decisions as to where you live, what clothes you purchase, what food you eat, what entertainment you enjoy and what wines you drink? I'm sure that if anyone suggested that these decisions should be subject to a democratic process wherein majority rules, we would deem the person tyrannical.
James Madison wrote, "Democracies ... have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
The folly, of course, is to govern a nation in the 21st century, based on rules made in the 18th.
Ask yourselves this...if we cannot, and do not, change our Constitutions in accordance with the dynamics of human sociological evolution, at what point will Governments realise that adhering to an ancient manuscript is a bane, not a benefit.
500 years time? 1000? 3000? Or when the rebels are at the city gates, and all is lost.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Ask yourselves this...if we cannot, and do not, change our Constitutions in accordance with the dynamics of human sociological evolution, at what point will Governments realise that adhering to an ancient manuscript is a bane, not a benefit.
500 years time? 1000? 3000? Or when the rebels are at the city gates, and all is lost.
The American constitution has amendments.
All constitutions have amendments. That is why they are called "constitutions" and not "edicts" or "rules".
However, amending a Constitution is complex, unwieldy and largely controlled by Governments. Whilst governments like ours...and I dare say yours...have mechanisms through which their Constitution can be amended, it is only the Government that can initiate any such amendment.
In Australia "Chapter VIII specifies the procedures for amending the Constitution. Section 128 provides that constitutional amendments must be approved by a referendum. Amendment requires:
approval of a referendum bill, containing the proposed amendment, by an absolute majority in each house of the federal parliament; and then
approval of the bill in a referendum, by a majority of electors in each of a majority of the States (that is, in at least four of the six States),
as well as a majority nationwide (that is, comprising voters in both States and Territories); the franchise in a referendum is to be the same as that in an election to the House of Representatives."
Seems fairly straightforward. Yet the last referendum held was in 1967.
A referendum was recommended to the Government in 2010. It has still not been initiated, and it is likely it never will.
I would love to see an argument that supports a situation that the rules under which we are governed can only be changed with the will of the government...the very industry that benefits most from it.
Yet the laws that govern industry, society, criminal conduct and private disputes change regularly in accordance with changes in the community.
Governments will never change the very laws that create them, give them their power, and provide them large salaries.
I quite like the US constitution.
I must admit there are elements of it that are valid and worthy.
But it all falls apart when it declares that citizens have a right to bear lethal weapons.
I don't like most Republicans, but I hope they do well on Tuesday.
I don't care...it surprises me that many of you Canucks seem to, though.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
I know, I know, I know.
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
The way I see it is--A lot of repubs are phonies who abandoned Trump and they deserve to lose...
BUT Trump doesn't deserve to have a dem house messing stuff up for him.
Dunno if this will affect Tuesdays results.
Voter registration groups are using Republican President Donald Trump's nationalist, anti-immigrant rhetoric as an opportunity to drive up Latino enthusiasm. [/quote]
people say its Trump dividing but for years democrats supported border control and not letting illegals in. Then they decided it would help them politically they adopted pro illegal stances. its a clear example of party over country and the increasing extremism and tribalism of the democrat party.
At the end of the day today, $5.2 billion will have been spent on the American midterm elections. ac_wot
And the net result will be either no change or more chaos.
The system doesn't work any more.
I do not listen to predictions. To me, my candidate already won in 2016 and he has 4 years, maybe 8. I am happy. It is the reign of the disruptor! Wahoo!
Quote from: "Velvet"
It's frickin nuts, I know.
I can not understand Americans and their elections. Most people are just bloody crazy...getting all dressed up with signs and yelling at an event...so over the top. It's sad and hilarious to watch.
I'm curious to know who will actually run next? And how crazy it will be?
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Got that right. I too could also give a shit about my court orders. Kiss my ass, like everyone else. Works for me.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
I am going to go out on a limb here and go against that a bit.
here's why
Well Lump this mid term election is shaping up ta be the election of the century.
Both sides claim its a really important one, eh?
The dems and their allies say that democracy is at a country & that the Republicans are cast as the bad guys, the forces of evil!
Personally I don't see how you could have much of a democracy or choice down south.
Like you only have 2 parties to choose from.
Its not like Canada where a 3rd party can rise con from out if nowhere to form the government
Thats true democracy eh?
Or at least a better illusion of it. :icon_wink:
I'll be glad when this election is over and our provincial election and the next federal one.
JOE, what are you doing here?
This is what you posted on VF.
If you are not happy here, why do you come here?
Joe just comes back to do the same troll over and over. He is becoming such an extreme progtard, I think he is ready to join antifa any day now.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
He is an instigator.
Well, he sure instigates a lot of laughter and derision, that's fer damn sure.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
I don't see it....neither one.
If old Joe spent as much time trying to get laid instead of attention whoring on forums he would not be a sixty year old virgin.
Seems Ted Cruz held his senate seat in Texas.
Quote from: "kiebers"
That's good. He goes by the constitution more than almost any other senator.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
His only interest in any of this is negative attention. I ignore him now.
A bunch of B-list celebrities head a telethon for America where prog celebs knocked Trump and urged young people to vote for Democrats who will obstruct his agenda.
Quote from: "Herman"
I heard that none of the candidates celebs campaigned for won. Same with Obama, none of the three candidates he campaigned with won.
----
Its disappointing that republicans lost the majority in the house. But in non presidential elections the party of the president nearly always loses seats. This is normal and expected.
Trump actually came out ahead of most presidents in that republicans actually gained two senate seats.
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "kiebers"
That's good. He goes by the constitution more than almost any other senator.
Rand Paul as well.
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "kiebers"
That's good. He goes by the constitution more than almost any other senator.
Rand Paul as well.
One of the few remaining fiscal conservatives.
Rand Paul is ok, but Ron Paul was much better.
Quote from: "Blazor"
Policy wise, thay are the same no?
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
Quote from: "Blazor"
Policy wise, thay are the same no?
I think so? Rand just seems like a sellout for corporate sometimes though lol.
Quote from: "Blazor"
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
Quote from: "Blazor"
Policy wise, thay are the same no?
I think so? Rand just seems like a sellout for corporate sometimes though lol.
Seems like it or policy wise is?
Shenanigans again in Broward and Palm Beach Counties in Florida. :dash1: