2020 Senate Map

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not gonna happen... republicans will gain seats in the senate

Please explain.

+1 be specific, please. Which incumbent Democrats are going to lose? You need more than Doug Jones to gain “seats” while also retaining every single Republican seat. Cory Gardner at a minimum is toast.

I believe Collins from Maine is toast, as well.

[Anonymous]

I think the Democrats will take the entire Senate!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For some reason, I care about the senate more than the presidency. Obama couldn't even get his supreme court nominee a senate hearing...

Obama got two people on the Supreme Court and they were treated respectfully.

Np- sorry but this isn’t a 2 out of 3 ain’t bad situation.
I’ll be fine once we take all three branches and start impeachment of under qualified federal judges. Start undoing the damage.

Even though you only need a majority in the House to impeach, you need a super majority or 2/3 vote of the Senate to convict. Even if the Democrats win the Senate, tehy are unlikely to win more than 52/48. There is no way that they will come anywhere close to the 66 seats needed to convict a sitting judge. Especially not on purely political grounds and not for actual crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For some reason, I care about the senate more than the presidency. Obama couldn't even get his supreme court nominee a senate hearing...

Obama got two people on the Supreme Court and they were treated respectfully.

Np- sorry but this isn’t a 2 out of 3 ain’t bad situation.
I’ll be fine once we take all three branches and start impeachment of under qualified federal judges. Start undoing the damage.

Even though you only need a majority in the House to impeach, you need a super majority or 2/3 vote of the Senate to convict. Even if the Democrats win the Senate, tehy are unlikely to win more than 52/48. There is no way that they will come anywhere close to the 66 seats needed to convict a sitting judge. Especially not on purely political grounds and not for actual crimes.

Is perjury an actual crime?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For some reason, I care about the senate more than the presidency. Obama couldn't even get his supreme court nominee a senate hearing...

Obama got two people on the Supreme Court and they were treated respectfully.

Np- sorry but this isn’t a 2 out of 3 ain’t bad situation.
I’ll be fine once we take all three branches and start impeachment of under qualified federal judges. Start undoing the damage.

Even though you only need a majority in the House to impeach, you need a super majority or 2/3 vote of the Senate to convict. Even if the Democrats win the Senate, tehy are unlikely to win more than 52/48. There is no way that they will come anywhere close to the 66 seats needed to convict a sitting judge. Especially not on purely political grounds and not for actual crimes.

Is perjury an actual crime?

Why don't you try it and find out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the Democrats will take the entire Senate!!

+1 this is just a blue cheerleading section. I'll stick to the experts its D+1 with 2 tossups.

[Anonymous]

Ok, so if it is acceptable for a candidate for a federal lifetime appointment on the bench to have committed perjury, then what meaning does the rule of law have?

And the response "Why don't you try it and find out?" is very constructive.

[Anonymous]

Every single election since that buffoon won has swung the Dems' way. I can see the Dems doing VERY well, again, in November. Then again, November is far away, and nothing would surprise me anymore.

Get out the vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every single election since that buffoon won has swung the Dems' way. I can see the Dems doing VERY well, again, in November. Then again, November is far away, and nothing would surprise me anymore.

Get out the vote.

No need to let a little thing like the facts spoil your delusion....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/14/parties-have-split-elections-since-2016-democrats-are-usually-outperforming-clinton/#comments-wrapper

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so if it is acceptable for a candidate for a federal lifetime appointment on the bench to have committed perjury, then what meaning does the rule of law have?

And the response "Why don't you try it and find out?" is very constructive.

The question "Is perjury an actual crime?" is remarkably dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every single election since that buffoon won has swung the Dems' way. I can see the Dems doing VERY well, again, in November. Then again, November is far away, and nothing would surprise me anymore.

Get out the vote.

No need to let a little thing like the facts spoil your delusion....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/14/parties-have-split-elections-since-2016-democrats-are-usually-outperforming-clinton/#comments-wrapper

Wait, who do you think is deluded, and what do you think that article proves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every single election since that buffoon won has swung the Dems' way. I can see the Dems doing VERY well, again, in November. Then again, November is far away, and nothing would surprise me anymore.

Get out the vote.

No need to let a little thing like the facts spoil your delusion....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/14/parties-have-split-elections-since-2016-democrats-are-usually-outperforming-clinton/#comments-wrapper

Wait, who do you think is deluded, and what do you think that article proves?

NP. See bolded above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every single election since that buffoon won has swung the Dems' way. I can see the Dems doing VERY well, again, in November. Then again, November is far away, and nothing would surprise me anymore.

Get out the vote.

No need to let a little thing like the facts spoil your delusion....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/14/parties-have-split-elections-since-2016-democrats-are-usually-outperforming-clinton/#comments-wrapper

Wait, who do you think is deluded, and what do you think that article proves?

+1 thank you for posting the article, which is fascinating, but I think you are misunderstanding the word “swing.” Democrats have outperformed 2016 numbers in most elections since 2016. It doesn’t mean they won them all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every single election since that buffoon won has swung the Dems' way. I can see the Dems doing VERY well, again, in November. Then again, November is far away, and nothing would surprise me anymore.

Get out the vote.

No need to let a little thing like the facts spoil your delusion....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/14/parties-have-split-elections-since-2016-democrats-are-usually-outperforming-clinton/#comments-wrapper

Wait, who do you think is deluded, and what do you think that article proves?

+1 thank you for posting the article, which is fascinating, but I think you are misunderstanding the word “swing.” Democrats have outperformed 2016 numbers in most elections since 2016. It doesn’t mean they won them all.

Not even remotely true. While things currently look favorable for the Dems, I don't think you should get too cocky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every single election since that buffoon won has swung the Dems' way. I can see the Dems doing VERY well, again, in November. Then again, November is far away, and nothing would surprise me anymore.

Get out the vote.

No need to let a little thing like the facts spoil your delusion....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/14/parties-have-split-elections-since-2016-democrats-are-usually-outperforming-clinton/#comments-wrapper

Wait, who do you think is deluded, and what do you think that article proves?

+1 thank you for posting the article, which is fascinating, but I think you are misunderstanding the word “swing.” Democrats have outperformed 2016 numbers in most elections since 2016. It doesn’t mean they won them all.

Not even remotely true. While things currently look favorable for the Dems, I don't think you should get too cocky.

No Democrat I know is even close to “cocky” about 2020. We're all scared to death. But elections swinging towards Democrats and fundraising numbers that are larger than those of Republicans are encouraging signs.