Jump to content

Call Your Shot: Deadline 10/23 @ 5:00 PM


MixtyMotions

Recommended Posts

Senate 52-48R

House 230-205D

 

Followed by more or less immediate Trump pivots towards  trading a fully funded border wall for infrastructure and Universal Healthcare, followed by subsequent reelection*. 

 

CHAPPELLE_01_0102_PSYCHICLINE_640x360.jp

 

 

 

 

 

* unless Mueller

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Stupid question: what is the max the Dems could gain in both (theoretically)?

If Democrats won every single election they would have a 58-42 majority in the Senate and 435-0 majority in the House. 

There are 42 GOP senate seats who are not on the ballot in 2018. All house seats are on the ballot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dotard will continue to somehow surprise some in how low he's willing to go, thought they should've known better for over a year.

Dotard enablers will not surprise in how much orange god mushroom knob they're willing to swallow, with a side of doughnuts of course.

Mueller, election results, horrible things happening, wailing and gnashing of teeth: WILL NOT MATTER.

We will not run out of single malt out here on brisket's ledge, even as we greet newcomers daily.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

If Democrats won every single election they would have a 58-42 majority in the Senate and 435-0 majority in the House. 

There are 42 GOP senate seats who are not on the ballot in 2018. All house seats are on the ballot. 

I realized after the fact that the entire house is up. forgot that key detail. I'll see myself out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Dotard will continue to somehow surprise some in how low he's willing to go, thought they should've known better for over a year.

Dotard enablers will not surprise in how much orange god mushroom knob they're willing to swallow, with a side of doughnuts of course.

Mueller, election results, horrible things happening, wailing and gnashing of teeth: WILL NOT MATTER.

We will not run out of single malt out here on brisket's ledge, even as we greet newcomers daily.

And this is all that matters, and is 100% correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Stupid question: what is the max the Dems could gain in both (theoretically)?

There is a nonzero possibility that Democrats could gain as many as 9, but a maximum realistic possibility of as many as 3, because the map is brutal for Democrats in the Senate this year. 2020 is equally brutal for Republicans, by the way, who have a nonzero possbility of picking up the 26 seats in the Senate and a realistic possibility of picking up 4 seats. 
In the house, Dems have a nonzero chance to gain the balance of seats, and a maximum realistic possibility of gaining about 60 with. Republicans likewise have a best case realistic probability of only losing about 10 seats. 
 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

House  224-211 Dem.

Senate 52-48 Rep.

Governors 26-24 Rep  (36 states with elections; 7 Dems and 7 Republicans in states without elections)  

Cruz 51.4% - Beto 48.1%  -  others .05%  

I fear that the Blue wave will not be as high as once thought.  Hope I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you people basing these forecasts on? The polling, which seems to be all over the place? Has anyone gone through and analyzed each competitive race and come to any conclusions informed by, you know, actual data? Or are you just guessing?

If I were to hazard a prediction, it would be no better than a guess based on what I've seen of the polls, which don't seem to be very predictive in most cases.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

What are you people basing these forecasts on?

I used an ethnic hierarchy of last names. Highest to lowest:

1. Non-Funny-Sounding Scottish (Campbell and/or Stewart trump everything)

2. English/Welsh

3. Irish and Funny-Sounding Scottish

4. French/German/Norse

5. Spanish/Italian/Eastern European

6. All else.

Note that in my system the actual race of the candidate does not matter. Just what the name sounds like. Abrams and Gillum sound like they could come from an English village. Kemp sounds German, DiSan deSan disItalianGuyAin'tGonnaGetElected.

It's eccentric, inaccurate, and terribly unfair.  But it explains the multiple defeats suffered by the Roosevelts, Kennedys, Eisenhower, and Obama.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

I used an ethnic hierarchy of last names. Highest to lowest:

1. Non-Funny-Sounding Scottish (Campbell and/or Stewart trump everything)

2. English/Welsh

3. Irish and Funny-Sounding Scottish

4. French/German/Norse

5. Spanish/Italian/Eastern European

6. All else.

Note that in my system the actual race of the candidate does not matter. Just what the name sounds like. Abrams and Gillum sound like they could come from an English village. Kemp sounds German, DiSan deSan disItalianGuyAin'tGonnaGetElected.

It's eccentric, inaccurate, and terribly unfair.  But it explains the multiple defeats suffered by the Roosevelts, Kennedys, Eisenhower, and Obama.

In all fairness, it's probably at least as good as whatever system anybody else on this thread is using.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...