The odds of Republicans winning the Senate are growing


All three major election forecasting models saw an uptick in the likelihood of Republicans winning the six seats they need to retake the Senate majority over the past week, movement largely due to the party’s strengthened chances in Alaska, Colorado and Iowa.


Well, we know how these models work though… let’s just wait and see. I guess I am like the apostle Thomas, and I have my doubts in the models and I want to see the results.


Probably will affect or influence a lot of judicial and cabinet appointments.


There’s more at stake than that.

I’ve heard Ben Carson twice now imply that he will NOT run if this country cannot get its act together and vote OUT people who attack their Christian values.


The question is, though – who are the Republicans who could be voted in come November? Are they going to be ones who will value life? Are they ones who value freedom? Or are they going to be ones who will go along with the Chamber of Commerce and lobbyist money, and chuck the will of the people down the memory hole, as per usual?

Just because the elephants may be kicking the donkeys out doesn’t mean squat by itself. It just means we get a moron with a different animal badge on his or her lapel. We need GOOD people in office, not just party hacks.


Current projections for seats of interest:

Safe GOP ----GOP +3


Leans GOP GOP +3, Net GOP +6


Toss-Up GOP +3, Net GOP + 8






**Bold **= currently held by GOP

  • = No Democrat running; Independent Opponent Running

Current Projections:

GOP + 8 ( +/- 1),
Independent + 1
Dem -8 (+/- 1)

GOP 53, Dem 44, Ind 3


I believe that the Senate can be overtaken by the Republicans. I also believe that there are grounds for impeaching the President. The only other options are that the President starts cooperating with Congress, rather than fighting against it. God bless:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


Because too many Americans are so hung up on Obama’s appearance, I don’t think impeachment is in the cards.

But what will happen:

  1. Conservative, pro-life, pro-marriage candidates like Ben Carson will be more apt to run. Some of them will NOT run if this country can’t get it’s act together and vote these anti-Catholic liberals OUT.

Kansas and North Carolina should especially be thinking about that!

  1. Harry Reid won’t be as able to protect the White House and vulnerable liberal Senators by stopping legislation the House passes.

  2. As such, the mainstream American media will be forced (albeit yelling, kicking and screaming, I’m sure :rolleyes:) to portray a contest of philosophies between a more conservative Congress and a radical presidential administration run amok.

  3. The Obama Administration will be forced into doing work and taking stances as bills are sent to President Obama’s desk, and more people will pay attention. If Obama ignores Congress that point, his numbers will continue to plummet and voter fatigue will set in for 2016.

  4. Consider what I’ve said above and what it means for 2016. BTW, Hillary’s numbers have been quietly slipping and she’s in real trouble in some swing state polls.


Interesting points. Regarding Hillary and her poll numbers - keep in mind that the democrat media machine will be in full gear trying to shape the narrative to help her: “Hillary - the calm, experienced leader we need in these dangerous times. A former sec of state!” And the perfect answer to the war on women that the Republicans are waging."

Hopefully a GOP senate would prevent a left wing radical on the Supreme Court in the event of a vacancy. That alone is reason to vote Republican.

I don’t really get the significance of the effect a GOP senate would have on Ben Carson running. He’s not a serious candidate.



I would gladly take a Chamber of Commerce Republican over any Democrat. But I agree - we need people who “get it” - who know how far we’ve slid and know what’s at stake.



Unless the Republicans can win enough seats in the Senate to give them 60 or more votes, then nothing is going to happen since they will not have enough votes to override a Presidential veto. It’ll end up being business as usual just like it is for the current democratic majority and nothing will done until after the 2016 elections are complete. So until then its business as usual for the Obama administration.

My main concern is voting out the anti-labor politicians; regardless of political party they belong to. The current President has done absolutely nothing for working people on the labor front, so If an election were held tomorrow and he was running, I’d vote for a more labor friendly candidate.

The commercial mainstream media could care less about who wins; with them it’s all about money and ratings. I know since I have worked in the media for the past 40 years and know the mindset…

Either way, we’ll find out on election day where we stand in this country.


That is exactly the defeatist mentality that the left wants to keep people voting Democrat. “It doesn’t matter, so you may as well feel good and cool inside and for us”. :rolleyes:

BTW, how has the AHA worked out for unions? They can only get a free pass for so long when the nanny feds have their nonsense up to the necks of the American people.

Also, how about the Obama Administration and other Democrat politicians putting radical environmental interests ahead of unions?

I mean really, if they’ve got the union boss votes and money just like they’ve got guaranteed support from African-Americans and Orthodox Jews, why would they listen to any of them? Why wouldn’t they go after people who are on the fence like eNGOs who threaten to vote Green Party, Hispanics and non-union, working class whites in the North?

Many if not most African-Americans and Orthodox Jews staunchly oppose so-called gay “marriage” and the former abhor it when the rich, white, elites in the media and academia demand they pay more to support expensive polices that hurt their communities…yet the Democrats push full throttle because they know when these folks see the word REPUBLICAN on the ballot, they’ll still vote Democrat.




That works for me. A GOP senate until 2016 then decide which party is going to set the agenda. If they do win they should pass all sorts of common sense reforms and send them to Obama to sign. If he vetoes then he’s not working with congress. I think that would set the stage for a GOP advantage in the presidential election.

And, you’re forgetting the courts. As I mentioned earlier - a GOP controlled senate will prevent Obama from nominating bad judges to the bench. That alone is worth having a GOP senate. So its not at all “business as usual” if the GOP wins.



We need to educate ourselves about who is running and what their voting record is. It’s easy in this day and age to look the info up about who is on our voting ballots, then all we need to do is decide which one best fits with the teachings of Christ and his church. simple really


Nate Silver and Sam Wang now agree: Current polls show GOP Senate takeover


67(!) votes are needed to override a veto. I think this celebration is premature. The GOP will only win 2-4 extra seats IMO thanks to some incredibly weak candidates who stand for nothing, and who give America little chance of stanching the decline. I hope that I am wrong, but I acknowledge that both GOP “leaders” Boehner and McConnell are Beltway insiders who are obsequeous toadies for international interests. They are NOT as bad as Deomocrats, however, who clearly desire to transform America into a Karl Marx-inspired two-class state composed of rulers and vassals. Rob :frowning:


The makeup could easily become the same as it was after the 1998 elections, so whatever they could accomplish back then, such as repeal of Glass-Steagall and almost impeachment, theoretically can be done after this Nov’s election. I haven’t checked the 1986 elections, but Reagan couldn’t get his candidate for SC confirmed, had to compromise on budget issues, and also suffered a severe market crash under his watch.

I chose these elections because they were held just before the last 2 years of two-term presidencies. In each the other party was in control of Congress.

The effects of the 2006 elections weren’t exactly favorable to Bush either.

Your thoughts?


He has no business running anyway… Repubicans, which I am likely to vote for anyway, have had too many dark horse-superhero-esque-I’m-telling-a-joke candidates lately. Why should I trust Ben Carson other than for his attitudes? I have nothing against personally him but still. You wouldn’t ask a neurosurgeon to perform an appendectomy, so why ask a neurosurgeon to run a country? lolplease


I don’t think it’s a defeatist mentality at all rather I believe it’s a realistic attitude. Of course one can have hope I suppose but in all reality we all should be able to admit that we know how Washington DC politics works regardless of the party in charge.

I’m not sure what the AHA is so I cannot comment further on that part of your post.

Being that I’m not a democrat, I don’t know all the inner workings as far as putting radical environmental interests ahead of unions. What I can tell you is that he’s done absolutely nothing of importance to unions in general.

Not sure what you mean by union “boss” votes. Can you elaborate more on this for me so I can properly respond to it.

Likewise I’m not familiar with what your mentioning above; I don’t take much of an interest in that since it’s not a paramount issue for me to worry about. At this stage what’s important for me is the candidates position on organized labor.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit