How many Democratic Senators will Lose Their Seats?

Comments on this topic illustrate an observation of mine regarding expectations of progressives and conservative. Talking to friends of both persuasions and observing the media it appears that -
Progressives accept that good intelligent people have differing views, vote accordingly, and may change their opinion over time.
Conservatives by and large seem to feel that any good intelligent person must see the absolute truth in their paradigm and vote accordingly. Thus those who vote differently are either scoundrels or stupid.

Daryl wrote:Comments on this topic illustrate an observation of mine regarding expectations of progressives and conservative. Talking to friends of both persuasions and observing the media it appears that -
Progressives accept that good intelligent people have differing views, vote accordingly, and may change their opinion over time.
Conservatives by and large seem to feel that any good intelligent person must see the absolute truth in their paradigm and vote accordingly. Thus those who vote differently are either scoundrels or stupid.

Obviously...

Daryl wrote:Comments on this topic illustrate an observation of mine regarding expectations of progressives and conservative. Talking to friends of both persuasions and observing the media it appears that -
Progressives accept that good intelligent people have differing views, vote accordingly, and may change their opinion over time.
Conservatives by and large seem to feel that any good intelligent person must see the absolute truth in their paradigm and vote accordingly. Thus those who vote differently are either scoundrels or stupid.

That's fairly much my take. *shrug* Met some smart people who assumed I was an idiot because I didn't agree with them.

As for the topic: The Democratic Party will lose seats in the Senate, but I don't think they'll lose outright control.

summercat wrote:

Daryl wrote:Comments on this topic illustrate an observation of mine regarding expectations of progressives and conservative. Talking to friends of both persuasions and observing the media it appears that -
Progressives accept that good intelligent people have differing views, vote accordingly, and may change their opinion over time.
Conservatives by and large seem to feel that any good intelligent person must see the absolute truth in their paradigm and vote accordingly. Thus those who vote differently are either scoundrels or stupid.

That's fairly much my take. *shrug* Met some smart people who assumed I was an idiot because I didn't agree with them.

As for the topic: The Democratic Party will lose seats in the Senate, but I don't think they'll lose outright control.

I used to believe that the Republicans wanted to paint the family car black, and the Democrats wanted to paint the care white, and everyone was driving an SUV. In other words, the party was irrelevant, and the best we could hope for was gridlock.

Then, the Democrats got control of the government and increased spending as a percentage of the national GDP. They also started mandating changes that made a big difference in my cost of living.

The bottom line is that Democrats at all levels of government want to centralize control and decisions. As long as the changes are part of legislation, I have a voice, even if my voice is diluted by centralization. However, too much of the governing is being transferred to the bureaucracies, where I don't have any voice at all. So, even if Democrats are right on the issues, and I don't concede that, they will be wrong on the implementation, and/or the unintended consequences. I would rather you vote for any party other than Democratic.

I don't know where Summercat lives, however in our political sphere the Liberals are our right wing conservatives (even their name is a lie), the Nationals are the rural party who ally with the Liberals, the Greens are a mix of ecowarriors and far left, and Labor is both our slightly left of centre and workers representation party.

In practice both our Liberals and Labor have traditionally had similar administration and somewhat similar policies. The current Liberal government however does have a more right leaning, and is somewhat trying to copy some Tea Party ideas.
Actually being a retired bureaucrat I don't mind having trained and intelligent professionals doing the administration, instead of some red neck yokel who managed to stack his party election selection.

JRM wrote:[quote="summercat
That's fairly much my take. *shrug* Met some smart people who assumed I was an idiot because I didn't agree with them.

As for the topic: The Democratic Party will lose seats in the Senate, but I don't think they'll lose outright control.

I used to believe that the Republicans wanted to paint the family car black, and the Democrats wanted to paint the care white, and everyone was driving an SUV. In other words, the party was irrelevant, and the best we could hope for was gridlock.

Then, the Democrats got control of the government and increased spending as a percentage of the national GDP. They also started mandating changes that made a big difference in my cost of living.

The bottom line is that Democrats at all levels of government want to centralize control and decisions. As long as the changes are part of legislation, I have a voice, even if my voice is diluted by centralization. However, too much of the governing is being transferred to the bureaucracies, where I don't have any voice at all. So, even if Democrats are right on the issues, and I don't concede that, they will be wrong on the implementation, and/or the unintended consequences. I would rather you vote for any party other than Democratic.[/quote]

We find out on Tuesday!

Current polling estimates that 6-7 seat gain for the Republicans and about 60-70% chance the Republicans will gain control of the Senate (Republicans need 6 to gain control).

Does it really matter?
Democratic or republican, it's the same as the flip of a coin.
Heads or tails but it's still the same coin.

From a distance it appears that having the various levels of federal US government deadlocked between major parties does tend to make for an impotent government.
Apologies if I'm totally misinformed, but if all levels had been of the same party would your healthcare reforms have been more concise and better structured?

Rod wrote:Does it really matter?
Democratic or republican, it's the same as the flip of a coin.
Heads or tails but it's still the same coin.

Really, Obama ran one of the most effective campaigns the first go around. Obamacare was passed by a Democratic House and Senate He controlled the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the government. (side note: their are only 3 branches of the US government!) Our great illustrious leader would rather play golf than honor our commitments. He's been caught in numerous lies to the American public. In many ways he reminds of another Hitler after his failed revolution attempt and when Hitler decided to win election for Chancellor before becoming another Caesar like figure. Our allies constant complaints that in private meetings other World Leaders feel like our President is untrustworthy.

Daryl wrote:From a distance it appears that having the various levels of federal US government deadlocked between major parties does tend to make for an impotent government.
Apologies if I'm totally misinformed, but if all levels had been of the same party would your healthcare reforms have been more concise and better structured?

Rod wrote:Does it really matter?
Democratic or republican, it's the same as the flip of a coin.
Heads or tails but it's still the same coin.

Daryl wrote:From a distance it appears that having the various levels of federal US government deadlocked between major parties does tend to make for an impotent government.
Apologies if I'm totally misinformed, but if all levels had been of the same party would your healthcare reforms have been more concise and better structured?

It's an impotent government with Obama in the presidency because he is an true believing ideologue who is completely unwilling to work with anyone who does not share his beliefs. He has imposed his far left mandate on the American people against their will and that in large part is why his party is about to be hammered in the elections tomorrow. He was elected as part of a Democratic wave in 2008 with a mandate from the people to fix all of the problems that they felt Bush had failed at Iraq, the economy etc. He misinterpreted his mandate (due in large part to the media and fellow sycophants who treated him as the second coming of Christ) as a mandate to impose his vision including healthcare on the American people whether they wanted it or not! And polls at the time and ever since have strongly indicated not!

The Republicans had better take note of this and not overreach their mandate, especially if they win the presidency in 2016. The Republican mandate is to 1) fix the economy and 2) fix the governmental competence problems caused by Obama. NOT to enact whatever right wing stuff they come up with.

Most Americans actually prefer divided government, when there isn't a rigid ideologue in the white house. The Republicans represent those in America on the right side of the spectrum, the Democrats those on the left. By working together and negotiating compromises, centrist policies are produced which neither side is completely happy with but which contain enough of what they want that both sides can live with them. So it's not an all or none situation for anyone. The Clinton years (Democratic president, Republican congress) worked this way for the most part.