How many Democratic Senators will Lose Their Seats?

biochem wrote:

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?

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.

I often find myself as a divided government type. I am a registered Republican in a very Democratic inner city district. But I registered as a Republican more than 40 years ago when I could agree with its agenda and opposed the Johnson Great Society mandates in Congress. The party today is so far right on issues that are of concern to me that I didn't see a way for them to come back and take congress. Fortunately most of the Tea Party idiots lost in the Primaries and I can live with a number of those who will be elected - however, like Romney in 2012, the Republican candidate in 2016 may be pulled so far to the right by the Tea Party and the "Religious" right in the Primaries as to be unelectable in a nationwide election. To me the Tea Party Republican Congressmen are treasonous SOBs who prefer to bring the disaster of no government to making any compromises. I am no fan of Obama, but if the alternative is the Tea Party I prefer Stalin.

Slightly off topic, but I was flabergasted to learn how many State legislaters were running unopposed.
25%?
Seriously, how does that happen.

Annachie wrote:Slightly off topic, but I was flabergasted to learn how many State legislaters were running unopposed.
25%?
Seriously, how does that happen.

Safe districts and one party control of election process. Chicago is an excellent example. If you are not a registered democrat in Chicago, good luck in getting any services. Graveyards routinely generate significant numbers of votes. There are some republican districts like that as well, but dems have more of the large urban districts.

PeterZ wrote:

Annachie wrote:Slightly off topic, but I was flabergasted to learn how many State legislaters were running unopposed.
25%?
Seriously, how does that happen.

Safe districts and one party control of election process. Chicago is an excellent example. If you are not a registered democrat in Chicago, good luck in getting any services. Graveyards routinely generate significant numbers of votes. There are some republican districts like that as well, but dems have more of the large urban districts.

Like Detroit. An excellent example of a well run Democrat controlled city.

PeterZ wrote:

Annachie wrote:Slightly off topic, but I was flabergasted to learn how many State legislaters were running unopposed.
25%?
Seriously, how does that happen.

Safe districts and one party control of election process. Chicago is an excellent example. If you are not a registered democrat in Chicago, good luck in getting any services. Graveyards routinely generate significant numbers of votes. There are some republican districts like that as well, but dems have more of the large urban districts.

Like Detroit. An excellent example of a well run Democrat controlled city.

I live in a one party Democratically controlled state. Which has been a major problem. Once elected it's generally for life unless convicted of a felony. So after that first election, most of the Democrats basically ignore the voters, do what they want legislatively and ensure that all of their relatives have government jobs.

At least this time around the Republicans managed to field candidates for most of the offices. Although the only ones running an effective campaign were the governor (who may actually win, the voters are tired of the corruption and think that a Republican governor may stop some of it) and the kid running for State Representative with all the enthusiasm and lack of cynicism that comes from youth.

Note to be fair the people I know in one party Republican States have many of the same problems there re corruption, nepotism etc.

Yeah. My state is mostly republican controlled, but there's a fair number of people always being moved in and out of politics, and I hope our ass of a governor gets kicked out of office. Two terms is more than enough. Especially with several scandals to his name. New blood in office is usually not a bad thing and even with one party rule, switching out those in power is a good thing. We have a young man here who is running to be a senator in the state. He's 21 years old. That makes him the youngest person I have seen running for any office in my state since.. ever. He's at least 20-25 years younger than any other politician I've seen/heard of. It's nice to see someone young getting involved in politics.

Think about things for a moment. Why would a safe seat need to rig an election? Pre-selection yeah but the actual election?
It's the marginals where that crap happens. Too much risk for no gain in a safe seat.

Annachie wrote:Think about things for a moment. Why would a safe seat need to rig an election? Pre-selection yeah but the actual election?
It's the marginals where that crap happens. Too much risk for no gain in a safe seat.

I mentioned 2 reasons for those types of elections, not one large and complex reason.

Safe Districts gerrymandered to produce predictable results are one reason. One party controlled elections are another reason. I can see both Chicago and Detroit re-districting to encourage specific types of democrats "owning" a seat in congress. That comes with relying on identity politics. Hispanics want a Hispanic rep, blacks want a black rep and so on.

We find that here. Safe seats controlled by either side get far less in funding. The swinging seats get election sweetener promises, and sometimes the promises are actually kept. In our safe conservative area we were originally promised a highway bypass of the city in 1966, and they have recycled that promise every election since. It may actually be beginning to happen now.

Our press currently indicates a swing to the Republicans in the USA elections.