patrick.net

marcus says

Senate: Democrats gain one seat - not getting control

House: Democrats gain 39 seats

$500 says dems gain less than 39 seats.

It's a prediction. Something I can point to after the election, and of course it's hopeful.

I'll bet you the democrats gain more than 26. Sure, $500

Actually, I think I'd prefer to keep it down to $100. This is pretty aggressive on my part. And I'm not going any higher, becasue I said more than 26, that's 27 or more. A damn good offer. I haven't checked what book makers are saying, but I'm sure you couldn't get that. But I could probably get what you offered, or better from a bookie.

Look at that, we have a market? 26 @39, anyone have anything better? (tbf I offered better above)

LMFAO

This:

bob2356 says

Quigley says

Every single house seat is up for grabs. That’s what happens when you motivate a bunch of people to go out and vote against a bunch of loony racist hateful Democrats.

So basically you are saying you don't have a clue other than it's true because I believe it should be true.

From the guy that posted this:

bob2356 says

Quigley says

Senate: GOP picks up 7 seats.
House: GOP picks up 15 seats.

Red wave baby

Man I want some of what you are smoking. Which are the 22 seats the R's are going to pick up?

I don't think there is going to be any blue wave. The big bucks dark money crowd that took 50 years getting control of all three branches of government and trumps butt bro putin aren't going to let dem's get control of the house and gain subpoena power. Dems will pick up some but not enough for a majority seats in the house after a deluge of big bucks 501 dark money spending and a russian led social media blitz against them for the next month..

bob2356 says

The big bucks dark money crowd that took 50 years getting control of all three branches of government

I don't think this is completely true. Big bucks dark money crowd was for Clinton.They do not care about party as long as candidate tows their line.

personal

Republicans gain 2-3 Senate Seats
Democrats gain a few Seats but don't flip the House.

CBOEtrader says

I haven't checked BUT when I do, you are saying the R's will have spent "Big bucks" compared to the dems? OR, will I find you are full of shit?

Save me the time and fess up.

dr6B says

I don't think this is completely true. Big bucks dark money crowd was for Clinton.They do not care about party as long as candidate tows their line.

No amount of money could have gotten hillary elected. I'm talking about the money prior to and outside of the fucking trump vs hillary which one sucks least joke election. Downstream from the presidential election outside groups spend 800 billion in 2016 on senate/house candidates 80% republican. Prior elections had the similar ratios including presidential candidates. The conservative organizations didn't support trump heavily but the damn sure put a lot of money into R candidates outspending the left wing anywhere form 2 to 4 to 1 for many years. It's running almost 3 to 1 so far this election cycle. https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2018&type=p&disp=O

So the question stands, do you believe the dark money d business group and ultra rich libertarians are going to let their huge investment for the last 50 years to get where we are now go by the wayside and have the D's gain control of the house which would include subpoena power? Even trump is going to have a hard time fucking up that advantage, but it's not for lack of trying.

bob2356 says

No amount of money could have gotten hillary elected.

But as we see Big Bucks wanted Hillary.

The website you pointed me to shows 242M for D's and 328M for R's in 2016, which is not a huge difference. Less that difference between Trump and Hillary spending. In this election cycle, O'Rourke has out-raised Cruz by a large margin. I do not think this is as simple as big money wants R's only"
https://apps.texastribune.org/features/2018/ted-cruz-beto-orourke-fundraising-texas-midterm-2018/
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/10/12/beto-orourke-raised-more-38-million-race-against-ted-cruz/

CBOEtrader says

I don't think this is completely true. Big bucks dark money crowd was for Clinton.They do not care about party as long as candidate tows their line.

Fact check: True.



Even Soros can't put a lipstick on the pig who outspent Trump in Outside Money about 3:1

What is outside money?

dr6B says

The website you pointed me to shows 242M for D's and 328M for R's in 2016, which is not a huge difference. Less that difference between Trump and Hillary spending. In this election cycle, O'Rourke has out-raised Cruz by a large margin. I do not think this is as simple as big money wants R's only"

No one said it's simple. Pull out the presidential amounts and see what the differences are. Go back to earlier elections. Look at who the groups are and who they represent.

The big donors passed on trump. Dark money spending 2016 was down 1/3 from 2012 presidential election because of that. But spending on congressional races was up. Good thing trump was running against hillary who no amount of money could prop up. 2018 isn't a presidential election year, it's only congressional races.

The question still stands. Are the people who spent the last 50 years building the current libertarian republican party dominance going to let D's control the house without spending very dime they can throw at the races?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Important Reminder: Hillary outraised Trump almost 2:1. 3:1 in outside money.

yawn. how many times does that make for the same meaningless point in only 1 thread. the money went downstream. there were candidates other than trump/hillary running in 2016. sorry you weren't aware of that.

bob2356 says

The question still stands. Are the people who spent the last 50 years building the current libertarian republican party dominance going to let D's control the house without spending very dime they can throw at the races?

First, most R's (with exception of Paul who was redistricted out by his colleagues) are not libertarian. Second, I do not believe that "big money" cares which party is in power, so they will support "useful idiots" from either party.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

That graphic is very misleading.
Trump defended himself against at least 2 billion of opposition candidate funds. If you go back to the primaries.

GOP picks up 3 senate seats.
Hold house by 2.

Looks like odds are house will flip.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/
And interesting reasoning...
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-house-and-senate-are-moving-in-opposite-directions/?ex_cid=2018-forecast

bob2356 says

yawn. how many times does that make for the same meaningless point in only 1 thread. the money went downstream. there were candidates other than trump/hillary running in 2016. sorry you weren't aware of that.

Sorry, the Dems were pretty much broke after the election.

It has to be regularly drummed in the head of the left that Big Finance, Big Tech, etc. were big Hillary Supporters.

CBOEtrader says

He's totally full of it.

Multiple people in the thread had to repeat that fact, then he complained that the numbers disproving his conception of reality were being posted by multiple users.

bob2356 says

yawn. how many times does that make for the same meaningless point in only 1 thread. the money went downstream. there were candidates other than trump/hillary running in 2016. sorry you weren't aware of that.

Hey Bob, did you read the instructions?

CBOEtrader says

dr6B says

bob2356 says

The big bucks dark money crowd that took 50 years getting control of all three branches of government

I don't think this is completely true. Big bucks dark money crowd was for Clinton.They do not care about party as long as candidate tows their line.

He's totally full of it.

Help me out @Patrick. This has been flagged twice but keeps magically reappearing.

Posting--"He's totally full of it" about another poster is not a personal attack?

tatupu70 says

Posting--"He's totally full of it" about another poster is not a personal attack?

Yes, that is personal if it's about Bob. I marked it as personal myself now.

https://www.breitbart.com/midterm-election/2018/10/19/exclusive-scott-adams-predicts-greatest-turnout-by-republicans-maybe-ever-in-midterms/

Scott Adams Predicts ‘Greatest Turnout by Republicans, Maybe Ever’ in Midterms

Adams predicted in August 2015 that Donald Trump would win the Republican nomination for president, based on his analysis of Trump’s persuasion skills. He also suggested that Trump had a chance of defeating Hillary Clinton.

At the time, few others agreed, but Adams was correct — and has made several other successful predictions since. His Twitter feed and his morning Periscopes have become essential reading and viewing — and are evidently followed closely by the White House.

He told Breitbart News it is too difficult to predict which party will win the November midterm elections, because there are too many local variations in state-by-state and district-by-district battles, “too many variables bigger than persuasion.”

But he predicts that we will see “the greatest turnout by Republicans, maybe ever.”

Republicans, he suggests, have a stronger message, in pointing to the “mobs” that the left have mobilized in protest around the country over the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and other issues. Fear is the most powerful persuasive force, he argues. That — and the sheer fun of winning bigly — could drive GOP voters to the polls.

CBOEtrader says

What is outside money?

Super PACs and 501(c) "Dark Money". The latter does not disclose donors, can push issues but not specific candidates, and can receive unlimited contributions from anybody.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Multiple people in the thread had to repeat that fact, then he complained that the numbers disproving his conception of reality were being posted by multiple users.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Hey Bob, did you read the instructions?

Did you figure out the numbers for the non presidential races yet? But hey, multiple people posted the same numbers totally irrelevant to the point. I guess they are still working on figuring out 2018 isn't a presidential election year.

dr6B says

bob2356 says

The question still stands. Are the people who spent the last 50 years building the current libertarian republican party dominance going to let D's control the house without spending very dime they can throw at the races?

First, most R's (with exception of Paul who was redistricted out by his colleagues) are not libertarian. Second, I do not believe that "big money" cares which party is in power, so they will support "useful idiots" from either party.

Most R's have made a deal with the devil and if they don't dance to the libertarian tune they will see their funding disappear and face a strong heavily funded primary challenge from some one who will. Big money? Who's big money? Big money on both sides very much cares which party is in power. Only big money on the R side has a long term coordinated plan they have been executing for 40 years.

So the question still stands, after reaching pretty much the pinnacle of their long term goals are the big boys on the right going to roll over and let the D's take back the house? Hint, the koch bro's libertarian network is planning to spend 60% more on republican congressional races in 2018 than 2016 at 400 million. Which is 150 million more than the RNC can come up with. I would say that is a pretty impressive concentration of money and power in one single group that all R politicians have to respect. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/371069-koch-network-to-spend-400-million-during-2018-midterm-election-cycle

bob2356 says

house? Hint, the koch bro's libertarian network is planning to spend 60% more on republican congressional races in 2018 than 2016 at 400 million.

The Koch brothers are pro big business not libertarian. They want cheap labor and unlimited imports and the government to help them oppress the workers as much as possible. They are absolutely the enemy of the MAGA movement. Even more than the Democrats, since they’re slowly being converted, but the Koch people just want domination at any price. There’s no negotiating with someone who wants his boot on your neck.

bob2356 says

Most R's have made a deal with the devil and if they don't dance to the libertarian tune they will see their funding disappear and face a strong heavily funded primary challenge from some one who will.

That is not true, remembering most libertarian of them - Ron Paul. He was redistricted out since they could not whack him in primaries as he was extremely popular in his district despite being a quirky guy. They went as far as making his district semi-blue.

bob2356 says

Big money on both sides very much cares which party is in power. Only big money on the R side has a long term coordinated plan they have been executing for 40 years.

Big money on R side is substantially less than big money on D side. See the picture below. The Masters of Universe actually prefer D's to R's somewhat.

a href="/post/1319527&offset=#comment-1543617">bob2356 says

the big boys on the right going to roll over and let the D's take back the house?

Or Big Boys want D's to take House/Senate and give more money to them.
<

zzyzzx says

Scott Adams Predicts ‘Greatest Turnout by Republicans, Maybe Ever’ in Midterms

Partisan people are known to be the worst forecasters.
Motivated reasoning is killing them.

Heraclitusstudent says

Partisan people are known to be the worst forecasters.
Motivated reasoning is killing them.

Adams was right about Trump, unlike most "pundits". We will see if he keeps being right or has lost his predictive abilities. We do not need to get our underwear in a bunch now, time for that is after elections.

Right one time is not a statistic.

Heraclitusstudent says

Right one time is not a statistic.

Correct, but he went against the predominant school of thought.

The money is on the Dems - period. If Reps were more motivated, they would spend - but they aren't. Sure - for big national elections, money may not be as important since there is so much "free" press. In smaller house races, however, it is all about marketing a name - which means money money money. So, I still think +3 in the Senate to the Reps because those races are running on state/national level issues. House- GOP barely holds the house by one or two. Someone stated that CA Rep districts will NOT filp to dem because of taxes/car reg - we will see c- but from the latest polling combined with last minute dem money, it will be hard to Rep to hold any of the 6 seats as toss ups in CA. Modesto area./district is key.

I just see Blue states getting Bluer - and that is where the Dems will pick up.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/10/17/rush-limbaugh-if-democrats-take-house-they-will-work-force-president-trump-out.
Limbaugh to Hannity: I Don't Trust Polls, GOP Will Hold House, Increase Senate Majority

Booger says

Limbaugh to Hannity: I Don't Trust Polls, GOP Will Hold House, Increase Senate Majority

I don't think those two are much better than MSNBC or CNNPC, in some ways they also exude NPC-type qualities

Florida Republicans mailing in more ballots than Democrats.

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/10/17/republicans-mailing-in-more-ballots-than-democrats-lee-county-is-no-1/

https://county10.com/over-12000-wyoming-voters-changed-party-affiliations-between-july-and-september-2018/

Over 12,000 Wyoming voters changed party affiliations between July and September 2018.

12,509 persons in total changed their party affiliation between July 6th and September 20th:

6,057 Democrats changed and registered as Republicans;
4,355 Unaffiliated persons changed and registered as Republicans;
744 Unaffiliated persons changed and registered as Democrats;
477 members of the Constitution and Libertarian parties changed and registered as Republicans;
430 Republicans changed and registered as Democrats; and
296 persons of various parties changed and registered as Unaffiliated.