Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Interesting that you flipped the customary colours for the two parties.
So you figure on at least a hung Senate unless Trump wins with some coattails.

I created the maps in another site that does a historical study on elections. Until a few years ago, red was for Democrats and blue was for Republicans because the Democrats were seen to be on the Left (with socialists and commies) and blue was associated with conservative causes (like Franco's Spain).

Today red fits Republicans because red is associated heavily with totalitarian causes (Commies and Nazis), as if they were making Freudian slips about themselves (the Republican Party has taken on characteristics of a totalitarian organization)... but the source of those maps still has Democrats in red and Republicans in blue. If I want to create a map, that is where I create it -- and where I get it from.

I am not sure that I see an advantage for Republicans. If they win all the close Senate races they will hold onto the Senate and exchange Senate seats in Illinois and Wisconsin for Senate seats in Colorado and Nevada. But that is the most favorable situation that I can see for Republicans. That's how things worked in 2014, a low-turnout election. Low turnout usually favors Republicans, as in 2010 and 2014. But 2016 will feature a high-turnout election, as is especially typical of a Presidential year with an open seat for President.

Look at the states that I see as tossups for Senate seats. All but one (Nevada, with Senator Harry Reid retiring) now has an incumbent Republican Senator. Some of my calls are arguable; I just saw a poll of Georgia in which the incumbent Republican Senator has a lead... but only a 38% approval rating. Losers of 2014 did well in an R-leaning state in a bad year for Democrats; if Democrats can get out the vote in Georgia they might swing that Senate seat. A 38% approval rating is very poor. Until I saw that abysmal approval rating I thought that Republicans had an edge in Georgia. They don't hold an edge in Georgia.

At this stage I go largely with random scatter of results for lack of anything else.

Republicans don't have a solid nominee for Florida... which is big trouble for holding onto the Senate seat that Marco Rubio is vacating.

Republicans can be counted on to fund every possible campaign in 2016 so that they have a chance of transforming America into a Christian and Corporate State, the sort of country that I would emigrate from if I were thirty years younger. (I'm 60).

The Koch family remains the most powerful dynastic family short of the Windsor family and the House of Saud... it owns the House of Representatives and will hold it until at least 2022 due to effective gerrymandering. We no longer live in a representative democracy.

Iowa GOP results becoming a little clearer -

...according to the entrance poll, evangelicals made up 64 percent of the 2016 electorate. And that pretty much explains Cruz's victory.
He won 34 percent of evangelicals, while Trump won 22 percent and Rubio won 21 percent.

Among the 36 percent of caucus goers who aren't evangelicals, Trump took 29 percent, Rubio took 26 percent, and Cruz took 18 percent.

NH demographics look a lot different.

Hope there's a lot of video of Cruz going out all holy-poly.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And exactly who are the Cruz supporters if not weirdo/wacko? I would argue that even Rubio, or Bush or Kasich voters are weirdo/wacko but let's put them aside now as Wacko Establishment.

From my sources, Rubio grabbed from Trump those religiosity voters that can't stand Cruz and got cold feet with Trump. All that religiosity confusion of Iowa goes away in NH. It does come back, to a lesser but still important extent, in SC; on Super Tuesday, however, it becomes insignificant - I think that means that Rubio will not repeat getting Trump voters.

Mike's theory of Trump collapsing once he's shown he's a "loser!" is what's now in play here. It has to be either Trump actually loses in NH or wins but it is so close (ala Clinton/Sanders Iowa) that it becomes a "momentum meme." Only 7 days for such a big turnaround so I sort of doubt it.

As these primaries go from the early ones each providing a sense of "game enders" to being "barely mentioned on the evening news," what's critical is can the Trump/Cruz juggernaut keep Rubio frozen out of any actual win. If that theme emerges strongly, then Rubio will not make it to the mid-March FL primary, if it is weak then his continuing candidacy will hinge on the outcome of his home state primary.

Trump will win in NH but faces a shellacking in SC. NV is a toss up.

Super Tuesday will be the true shake out.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, it's a lot more that 10 points, Mike - more like 24 points.

Here's some good trend lines, but you have to scroll down past the Iowa number to get to NH -

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...cruz.html?_r=0

What you would find interesting is the last 7 day switch in 2008 NH with Romney starting out ahead but eventually losing to McCain. That sort of looks like your scenario for Trump, but we need to note both the dramatic change in 2008 before the 7-day window (Cruz only beat Trump by 3 percentage points) and the fall of Trump by the needed percentage points would need to be triple what McCain accomplished. Possible, but I don't believe probable.

On the other hand, your hypothesis doesn't need an actual lost by "Loser! Trump;" he just needs to be taken down considerably and then the momentum meme goes into SC and NV.

The real question is whether Cruz or Rubio will emerge to take second place. If the Trump/Cruz tag team can keep Rubio from gaining even a second finish, particularly on Super Tuesday, he won't last long enough to get tested in his home state of Fl in mid-March. It's also helpful that other GOP Wacky Establishment types (i.e., Christie, Kasich, Bush) have been doing better in NH and may also block Rubio; I don't think there's enough time or candidate personalities to be talked out of NH even with Rubio's showing in Iowa - he may have actually encouraged them that a 3rd place finish is actually a "win!"

My fingers crossed that a total repugnant GOPer will still emerge as the nominee.

My hope is that for both the Dems and GOP the respective candidates in the General are both at least fair to midland and we don't get a monster in the WH. Well, that's already assured on the Dem side (I know, I know, the Hillary haters vehemently disagree, but I can think of far, far worse than Clinton! And the only real Sanders hater on this board appears to be John X .... ). On to hopeful eventual sanity on the GOP side.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

My hope is that for both the Dems and GOP the respective candidates in the General are both at least fair to midland and we don't get a monster in the WH. Well, that's already assured on the Dem side (I know, I know, the Hillary haters vehemently disagree, but I can think of far, far worse than Clinton! And the only real Sanders hater on this board appears to be John X .... ). On to hopeful eventual sanity on the GOP side.

Where I'm coming from is that I see every GOPer in the clown car as being repugnant, including Kasich. It's just that for most voters, some of the clowns (Trump, Cruz) are more obvious that others.

The best chance of keeping a repugnant clown out of the WH is to have the one most obviously repugnant be their nominee. Anyone thinking there's a risk in that of getting the worse hasn't really done a serious review of what the clowns are offering - there's no actual daylight between them other than style.

As for SC, Trump is pretty far out in front; not as much as he is in NH but still far more than the supposed bump he was getting about a week ago in Iowa (that now serves the meme that he's a loser!). His lead in SC looks more real and quite a lot to dissipate in 2.5 weeks. If it did happen (i.e., his collapse), it would support Mike's hypothesis even if Trump does well in NH.

From my perspective, my concern for a Trump collapse is that it gives Rubio an opening; I'd rather see those votes go to Cruz and/or dissipate to the other zany Establishment clowns.

For those thinking Rubio is actually less repugnant as opposed to carefully working to paint that persona, I present to you his number one financial backer -

http://www.gregpalast.com/rubios-bil...-sugar-daddie/

Rubio's Billionaire Vulture
Paul Singer, the GOP's Baddie Sugar Daddie

Monday, February 1, 2016
The untold story of the sources of the loot controlled by Paul "The Vulture" Singer and why he needs to buy the White House

It's out of the closet –– or, more accurately, out of the coven. The list of the billionaires who have given at least $2.5 million to Conservative Solutions, the pro-Rubio Super PAC, is headed by Paul Singer. Singer and his hedge fund crew at Elliott Associates, with their donations to the Republican National Committee and other "independent" groups like "Solutions", makes it likely that Singer is now the top funder for the GOP.
....

Asbestos anyone?

Before I get to the story of his attack on African kids, let me tell you how Singer made his first billion, his first killing (and I don't mean that metaphorically): via an attack on victims of asbestos poisoning.

Background: The executives of a few asbestos companies, WR Grace, USG and Owens-Corning, knew that their asbestos factories were killing their workers. When caught and sued, the companies filed for bankruptcy, agreeing to pay almost all their earnings to those dying and injured by their asbestos.
But Singer had a better idea. These companies, as you can imagine, were worth next to nothing; and Singer bought Owens-Corning for a song.

If he could cut the amount paid to the victims, Singer could boost Corning's value big time. So, a PR campaign was begun attacking the dying workers, saying they were all faking it.

One attacker was a guy named George W. Bush.

In January 2005, President Dubya held a televised meeting to promote an "expert" who pronounced that over half a million workers suing Singer's industry were liars. If workers couldn't breathe, he said to the grinning President, it wasn't the fault of asbestos.

The "expert" was not a doctor, but notably, his "research" was partly funded by ...Paul Singer. And so was Bush. Since the death of Enron's Ken Lay, Singer and his vulture flock at Elliott International had become the top contributors to the Republican National Committee. It's hard to measure his largesse exactly because some of that help comes in through the side door. For example, Singer put money behind the "Swift Boat" smear on Bush's opponent, John Kerry.

The legal, political and PR attacks on the dying workers chiseled away the compensation expected to be paid by the asbestos companies, boosting their net worth. Singer then flipped Corning, selling it for a neat billion-dollar profit.

It's legal, it's brilliant, it's sick, it's Singer.

Pay your debt small African nation or I will literally kill your babies -

Singer's new modus operandi is to find some forgotten tiny debt owed by a very poor nation (Peru and Congo were on his menu). He waits for the US and European taxpayers to forgive the poor nations' debts; then waits at bit longer for offers of food aid, medicine and investment loans. Then Singer pounces: legally grabbing at every resource and all the money going to the desperate country. Trade stops, funds freeze and an entire economy is effectively held hostage.

Singer then demands aid-giving nations pay monstrous ransoms to let trade resume. At BBC TV's Newsnight, we learned that Singer demanded $400 million dollars from the Congo for a debt he picked up for less than $10 million. If he doesn't get his 4,000% profit, he can effectively starve the nation. I don't mean that figuratively—I mean starve as in no food. In Congo-Brazzaville last year, one-fourth of all deaths of children under five were caused by malnutrition.

For BBC, I tried to ask Vulture Singer the diplomat's question about the baby killing, but I couldn't get past George Gershwin. (In the New York office tower housing the billionaires' roost, a George Gershwin look-alike in top hat and tails plays show tunes on a grand piano for Singer's grand entrance.)

Or, have your country pay for you to flee -

One of my favorite Singer scores was his successful scheme to legally loot the Treasury of Peru. The nation's US lawyer told me, aghast, how Singer let Peru's rogue President, Alberto Fujimori, flee his nation to avoid murder charges. Singer had seized Fujimori's get-away plane. The Vulture named his price: One of Fujimori's last acts as president before he fled was to order his dirt-poor nation to pay Singer $58 million.

Obama and Clinton must pay!

But there's trouble on the horizon for Singer. In 2007, Britain outlawed Singer and all other Vulture speculators in Third World debt from collecting their pound of flesh in the United Kingdom. Other European nations are following suit.

Several US Congressmen are pushing a UK-style prohibition on Singer's activities. (Even Chevron Corporation is complaining about the Vulture attacks. When Chevron calls bankers unscrupulous, they've got to be really unscrupulous.) Without a veto pen over Congress, Singer stands to lose hundreds of millions of dollars.

Singer plays defense, but is best at offense: To collect on some of his claims against Argentina, his lobbyists have pushed a bill in Congress to put an economic choke-hold on trade with the South American nation. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blocked this crazy attack on our ally. As a result, Singer is not a happy gaucho. There will be blood. Obama will have to pay.

.but, but, but Rubio is a moderate.

Yea, and a Christian too!

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Well Trump lost. Now comes the test of my hypothesis.

I will point out that Trump lost 10 or more points relative to his rivals. If you apply this to his NH pols only 10 points separates him from his closest rival and this is before ant post-Iowa momentum effects. I think NH will be a close-run thing, and if Trumps loses there he will collapse like Guiliani.

Your figure on Trump's loss from his poll numbers in Iowa is correct. However, Trump is ahead by about 20 points in NH, not 10. Rubio has a long way to go to catch up, and he's not even in 2nd place. Rubio's other establishment-lane, more-moderate-then-he candidates have about the same. Cruz is in 2nd place in one poll (Kasich is in another), but can go no higher in NH. Also, this is an open primary, so more independents and less-dedicated voters will vote. So it would seem like a 5 to 10 point victory for Trump is most likely. South Carolina, though, could turn out more like Iowa if Trump has lost his luster. It may depend on whether Cruz has as strong a ground game in SC as he did in IA.

The South Carolina Real Clear Average, with the last poll on Thursday Jan.28, is:

Trump 36
Cruz 19.9
Rubio 12.7
Bush 10.0
Carson 8.7
others below 3

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Your figure on Trump's loss from his poll numbers in Iowa is correct. However, Trump is ahead by about 20 points in NH, not 10. Rubio has a long way to go to catch up, and he's not even in 2nd place. Rubio's other establishment-lane, more-moderate-then-he candidates have about the same. Cruz is in 2nd place in one poll (Kasich is in another), but can go no higher in NH. Also, this is an open primary, so more independents and less-dedicated voters will vote. So it would seem like a 5 to 10 point victory for Trump is most likely. South Carolina, though, could turn out more like Iowa if Trump has lost his luster. It may depend on whether Cruz has as strong a ground game in SC as he did in IA.

The South Carolina Real Clear Average, with the last poll on Thursday Jan.28, is:

Trump 36
Cruz 19.9
Rubio 12.7
Bush 10.0
Carson 8.7
others below 3

Those Carson and Bush voters will bleed upward and likely not to Trump.

BTW look for Bush to get creamed in both NV and NH.

It will be glorious seeing someone from the Bush cabal having to drop out so early. People are sick and tired of the Bush Crime Family.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

My hope is that for both the Dems and GOP the respective candidates in the General are both at least fair to midland and we don't get a monster in the WH. Well, that's already assured on the Dem side (I know, I know, the Hillary haters vehemently disagree, but I can think of far, far worse than Clinton! And the only real Sanders hater on this board appears to be John X .... ). On to hopeful eventual sanity on the GOP side.

The comparative moderates (Bush and Kasich) have been clobbered in the Iowa Caucuses. Forget Fiorina.

Eventual sanity on the GOP side? Maybe in 2024 after a couple of landslide defeats.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Eventual sanity on the GOP side? Maybe in 2024 after a couple of landslide defeats.

They might also need some new memes. Reagan's have been overdone. The best new conservative ideas might not come forward until the flaws in the new progressive ideas become visible. That would have to wait on new progressive ideas.

Originally Posted by B Butler

They might also need some new memes. Reagan's have been overdone. The best new conservative ideas might not come forward until the flaws in the new progressive ideas become visible. That would have to wait on new progressive ideas.

Stop same sex marriage!

Guns for anyone who wants them!

Creationism forever!

School prayer!

Tax cuts increase tax revenues!

Never recognize Cuba!

Never recognize Iran!

Rheingold is my beer, the Dry Beer!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Stop same sex marriage!

Guns for anyone who wants them!

Creationism forever!

School prayer!

Tax cuts increase tax revenues!

... Republicans got stuck defending the economics of Herbert Hoover for 20 years until Dwight Eisenhower denied their desirability.

They're also ready to push -

- Chastity belts because really, who can trust a woman with her body?

- Federal lands are for everyone; bring your gun if you want some

- Nuke the Middle East; let's get that 2nd Coming going on

- Nuke Russia, China and N. Korea while we're at it

- The banks know best!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Stop same sex marriage!

Guns for anyone who wants them!

Creationism forever!

School prayer!

Tax cuts increase tax revenues!

Never recognize Cuba!

Never recognize Iran!

And these might sound crazy, but that's quite literally what they propose.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

... Republicans got stuck defending the economics of Herbert Hoover for 20 years until Dwight Eisenhower denied their desirability. They have a bunch of doosies to deny. And I don't mean Duesenberg automobiles!

Yep. After FDR, they didn't really get back into the game until LBJ, Nixon and the Southern Strategy. I don't know that any new ideas the Democrats come up with will be as high impact as the New Deal and the US as a Superpower. A conservative comeback could come sooner if there is no decisive successful crisis the Democrats can hang their hats on. FDR would be a tough act to match in terms of reinventing a new America.

The Republicans might try a variation on sanity as soon as 2024, but a successful new platform might have to wait longer.

Originally Posted by playwrite

They're also ready to push -

• Chastity belts because really, who can trust a woman with her body?
• Federal lands are for everyone; bring your gun if you want some
• Nuke the Middle East; let's get that 2nd Coming going on
• Nuke Russia, China and N. Korea while we're at it
• The banks know best!

Could you link to a source on these? Sounds to me like you're making up stuff on the top of your head again, demonizing folks you don't like.

Originally Posted by playwrite

They're also ready to push -

- Chastity belts because really, who can trust a woman with her body?

- Federal lands are for everyone; bring your gun if you want some

- Nuke the Middle East; let's get that 2nd Coming going on

- Nuke Russia, China and N. Korea while we're at it

- The banks know best!

Do you honestly believe that even a plurality of people in the GOP support such things?

Seriously?

That is divisive 3T and early 4T thinking.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Could you link to a source on these? Sounds to me like you're making up stuff on the top of your head again, demonizing folks you don't like.

I think you and I are Regenerists however it takes lots of folks a degree of time to get the memo that the 3T is now history.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And these might sound crazy, but that's quite literally what they propose.

I have not seen any credible GOP people promoting rump militias breaking Federal Law and seizing a wildlife refuge office with armed force. Maybe a few fringies believe in that but most are in favor of Rule of Law.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I have not seen any credible GOP people promoting rump militias breaking Federal Law and seizing a wildlife refuge office with armed force. Maybe a few fringies believe in that but most are in favor of Rule of Law.

That's likely true. I wonder what Cruz would say.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Well Trump lost. Now comes the test of my hypothesis.

I will point out that Trump lost 10 or more points relative to his rivals. If you apply this to his NH pols only 10 points separates him from his closest rival and this is before ant post-Iowa momentum effects. I think NH will be a close-run thing, and if Trumps loses there he will collapse like Guiliani.

Well the proof will be in the pudding for NH. As I've pointed out earlier Mike, Iowa almost never picks the eventual nominee. Since the 1970s they've only done it twice (Bob Dole who was a favorite son of a neighboring state, and W who captured all the cash early and sucked the oxygen out of the GOP room).

Should Trump win NH with the spread the polls leading upto the primary project, there is a very good case for him also taking SC. Remember I've already essentially said I think he very well could be a GC for the Jeffersonian-Jacksonian tradition and SC has a lot of that going on. The whole south does actually.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I think you and I are Regenerists however it takes lots of folks a degree of time to get the memo that the 3T is now history.

I don't think that you two are alone.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Could you link to a source on these? Sounds to me like you're making up stuff on the top of your head again, demonizing folks you don't like.

Chasity belts - show me a GOP clown car participant who is not anti-choice, and then explain to me how you actually stop a woman wanting an abortion - it's either Guantanamo or the belt


Public lands. - from the GOP platform -

“Experience has shown that, in caring for the land and water, private ownership has been our best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while the worst instances of environmental degradation have occurred under government control. By the same token, the most economically advanced countries – those that respect and protect private property rights – also have the strongest environmental protections, because their economic progress makes possible the conservation of natural resources. In this context, Congress should reconsider whether parts of the federal government’s enormous landholdings and control of water in the West could be better used for ranching, mining, or forestry through private ownership. Timber is a renewable natural resource, which provides jobs to thousands of Americans. All efforts should be made to make federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service available for harvesting. The enduring truth is that people best protect what they own.”

- and we know ammosexuals vote GOP and we know how ammosexuals go about getting their federal lands - if you've been in a coma lately and not up-to-speed, try googling "bundy."

Nuke the ME - as Ted Cruz, current GOP frontrunner says -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovRM...youtu.be&t=850

Nuke other bad actors - sounds like your banking on them just nuking brown people, but maybe you might want to hedge your bet at least for yellow skin people? Sort of a in for penny, in for a pound thingee - in for a couple hundred million, why not in for a couple billion? I mean the radioactive fallout from the ME strike will have already made 2/3 of Eurasia toxic; why not finish the job?

Banks know best - show me a clown car participant who hasn't promised to overturn Dodd/Frank on the first day in office; do you really think they'll stop with that? If you do, you need to pay a little more attention to who is bankrolling their campaigns.

Oh,. as to a "regeneracy" - pssss, that is a 1T endeavor. It comes after the 4T, and 4T's are a fight where one side is a clear winner. If you're currently a "regenerist," it's because you're either: never were in the fight but just a sissy bystander; gotten too old and tired to continue the fight; or just can't wait to be a carpetbagger. Either man-up or go polish your carpetbag for another 5 years minimum.

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/02/ra...esidential-bid

Rand Paul Suspending Presidential Bid

Sorry, Libertarians, but at least you'll always have 1990s Somalia - good memories there.


Sadly, the GOP losses the only semi-sane* foreign policy


*
http://www.juancole.com/2015/04/pres...le-policy.html

This is getting to be a sad -

...Yet there are signs Mr. Bush may still have some work to do to finish in the top tier here. Speaking to a crowd at the Hanover Inn near the Vermont border during his final stop of the day, Mr. Bush finished a fiery riff about protecting the country as commander in chief — “I won’t be out here blowharding, talking a big game without backing it up,” he said — and was met with total silence.

“Please clap,” he said, sounding defeated.

The crowd laughed — and then, finally, clapped.