By the other one you mean the seat that Franken gave up so that Democrats could maintain the moral high ground on sexual assault allegations.

Surely we should have stuck with Franken, just look at how well Menendez's re-election campaign is going

Menendez has had some lousy polls, but the most recent Quinnipiac poll had him up 53-42. It will probably tighten some, but I don't think he's in much danger.

Sorry to cut in, but as a Brit sometimes a bit clueless about what these elections all mean.

What does it mean politically for the Dems to take the house but not the senate? Or vice versa? What are their different powers, and what does that mean for Trump's plans...?

Let me know if this should be in a different thread...

1) Tax laws must originate from the House.

2) Senate confirms Presidential appointments like Supreme Court picks, etc.

3) House and Senate can both launch investigations and conduct oversight.

4) House is more the crazy, will of the people chamber due to short terms. Senate is more tempered, longer terms and higher vote thresholds. A bill that easily passes the House may quickly die in the Senate.

5) Senate is the less Democratic chamber as each state gets two Senators despite population. State legislatures used to anoint Senators to power until a Constitutional Amendment gave that power to voters.

Taking the House means Dems can obstruct a ton of Trump’s agenda plus we probably get to see his tax returns. Also we get to do BENGHAZIIIII all over the Trump Foundation with investigations and whatnot.

Getting the Senate means we get a semi-normal new SCOTUS justicewhen RBG dies next year.

Why the hell would you put this statement out? What are you doing?


https://twitter.com/Robillard/status...23793649524737

Just to add some commentary to make sense of this list, #1 is all but meaningless, and #2 is a huge deal. Thus, holding the House is a genuine check on presidential power, but holding the Senate is way, way better. In the short term (i.e. up until 2020), holding the Senate alone is almost as good as holding both chambers for the Dems.

Bredesen statement is vomit inducing

This is ****ing RICH. Guy who won the nomination by slurping Trump's taint now doesn't want Trump stumping with him

So he read a poll and got spooked. Blackburn was always winning that anyway but still, infuriating. I guess one Joe Manchin is enough.

Taylor Swift endorses Bredesen

https://www.instagram.com/p/BopoXpYn...ource=ig_embed

In Nevada - Was surprised (and a little disappointed) to see a spot for Heller that prominently featured Sandoval endorsing him. Sandoval (our previous GOP governor - got term limited out, or he'd easily have won again) had pointedly refused to endorse Laxalt for governor (rightly viewing him as a useless little ****) - thought that he might take a pass on the Senate contest, too. I'd guess that he felt pressure to do something for the GOP in the midterms - he clearly has further political ambitions and probably couldn't sit Nov. completely out. He's pretty/markedly popular in the state - it's a pretty big get for Heller, I think. I think this makes it a lot closer....

MM MD

‘A betrayal beyond words’: The far right melts down over Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Democrats

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...f447&tid=sm_fb

rank and file deplorables are like the fish at the poker table who felt a couple of big stacks by rivering a two-outer and suddenly think they're political geniuses

You guys say Bresden and Manchin suck, and surely they do, but as always the real answer is LOL THE SOUTH. ****ing WOAT.

All politics are national now. This isn’t happenning. If they’re getting waxed elsewhere they’re not winning in Texas, and proably not Arizona or Nevada either.

https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1049484928596017152

Alright, fess up... Which one of you got a job with the Fire Ted Cruz PAC?

I assume you know that Linklater directed Slacker, Dazed and Confused, Boyhood, among others. He lives in Austin.

the dakotas, idaho, iowa, and the midwest all say hello

By all accounts, Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) **** the bed in her debate last night with challenger Leah Vukmir.

Her official twitter was in full radio silence mode all night.

I won't jump the gun and get in the way of the blue wave, but it's worth reminding everyone that a big reason she was elected to the senate in the first place was due to running unopposed in the primary and effectively unopposed in the 2012 general, coupled with an Obama bump in turnout. Tommy Thompson is a popular guy in WI, but the 2012 GOP 4-way primary was vicious and Baldwin raised like 70% more funds than Thompson, who spent all his cash during the primary. They ran zero ads in the weeks up to the general.

Baldwin better hope all the lefties in Milwaukee are super upset about SCOTUS and cast some angry anti-republican votes in November. There is absolutely nothing special about her.

Never heard of him, I was just referencing some of the talk in here a while back about going after Cruz for being such a beta with Trump.

She's up by 13 and 11 in the last two polls, and up a weighted average of 12.4 overall on 538, which gives her a 97% chance of winning.

Thanks for your concern!

You know who else had a 97% chance of winning, roughly 3 hours before results were tallied?

Inso,

I’ll give you 5-1 on her opponent up to $1k