|
FlamingLiberal posted:Sam Wang is forecasting a Senate split. I hope he's just being pessimistic. Doesn't a 50-50 split give Dems control of the chamber because of Kaine? Assuming Hillary wins, of course.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
It does. Also, Wang's model is predicting 51 seats for the Dems, so I have no idea what FlamingLiberal is talking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
50 is the dream mark. Come on liberal justices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:It does. Also, Wang's model is predicting 51 seats for the Dems, so I have no idea what FlamingLiberal is talking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I thought I saw 50/50 but maybe I misread that The top bar of the PEC website projects a 50-50 split, his actual article projects 51-49, D control. http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11/08/final-mode-projections-clinton-323-ev-51-di-senate-seats-gop-house/
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
dem senate, gop house is probably what he meant
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Aren't duckworth's margins like hilariously high? Like +>10? Something like that, yeah. Sadly I'm trapped in one of the reddest counties in bumfuck Illinois but at least I can do my part for the statewide races.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
50 means we spend the next twelve months, literally the entire time, talking about Virginia's special election to replace Kaine while the gop stalls to see if they win
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:50 means we spend the next twelve months, literally the entire time, talking about Virginia's special election to replace Kaine while the gop stalls to see if they win Oh, poo poo...that's right. The governor can't appoint an interim?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Oh, poo poo...that's right. The governor can't appoint an interim? it's an interim appointed governor (i hear bobby scott is the likely guy) until nov 2017 when the appointee (or someone else but the dems are smart enough to get an appointee who'll run) has to run in a special election, i believe so the replacement will be democratic for the next session of congress ive been arzying about this since the start of vp chat, i really want them to get like 52 seats at least ffs. i kind of think they will im sorta unfoundedly optimistic about the senate
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
I've heard rumors that Mcauliffe is going to run, any truth to this? Republicans are hoping Fiorina runs. lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Ego-bot posted:I've heard rumors that Mcauliffe is going to run, any truth to this? I....what? Isn't she from California?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Carlimentum knows no borders. Or election results.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Ego-bot posted:I've heard rumors that Mcauliffe is going to run, any truth to this? Democrats are too
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Zephyr Teachout lost by a lot, gently caress
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Maggie Hassan won in NH by 700 votes. This election was bizarre in so many ways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
I called Pat Toomey winning by a squeaker, but the hows and whys of what I thought were so far off I'm embarrassed. Trump...carried...Pennsylvania, I am still in shock. Everything I thought I knew about this dumb state is wrong. 2 years ago we kicked out a republican governor by 9 points and last year all 3 seats on the state supreme court went to democrats. Romney and McCain couldn't win here, President George loving Bush couldn't...Trump did. I assumed like everyone else Clinton would carry PA by about 3-4 points and Toomey who was far more acceptable to suburban women would run 5 points ahead of Trump. Turns out Trump was plenty acceptable to suburban women, now the lesson for Toomey is to get on the loving Trump train right now. If he had embraced Trump the day he won the PA primary in a landslide, Toomey would have won by a bigger margin. In retrospect it's easy to see why McGinty lost and I'm surprised she didn't lose by more. She's cut off from the same cloth as Hillary Clinton, a city dweller, favored by the entire PA democratic establishment, who'se spent her life bouncing back and forth between the public and private sector and getting rich in the process. She excites no one, and as we learned the prospect of the first female
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
I guess Josh Shapiro is the great hope for PA now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:I guess Josh Shapiro is the great hope for PA now. Shapiro waited a whole week after being sworn in for his 2nd term as Montco county commissioner to announce he was running for AG. He's already laying the groundwork to succeed Wolf as governor in 2022 (or possibly 2018 if for some crazy reason Wolf only wants to serve 1 term). It's obvious he only ran for AG as a stepping stone for state wide name recognition on his way to governor (he has no prosecutor experience and hasn't been a lawyer for like 15 years) Josh Shapiro used to be my state Representative when he was in the PA state house, I've met him several times. He is smart, polished, has alot of crossover appeal and is very charismatic but also overly ambitious and everything about him reeks of career politician. If the mood of the electorate when he wants to move up is still "gently caress the establishment" then he's toast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
fishmech posted:nope. net neutrality just means you don't slow down some things on purpose. it's nothing about preventing others from being sped up, say, by the provider buying their own better links to you or paying for in-network cdn. I forgot to correct you on this, but net neutrality does preclude fast lanes. Both by the definition and the FCC's net neutrality rules ( https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet ). Jewel Repetition has issued a correction as of 17:38 on Jan 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:I forgot to correct you on this, but net neutrality does preclude fast lanes. Both by the definition and the FCC's net neutrality rules ( https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet ). It didn't until 2015 (fishmech is still wrong, but he was right until the 2015 rule.) One more example of how "winning" the open internet case was actually the ISPs losing (as I've been saying for quite some time.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 05:35
|
|
