Nate Silver is giving the Republicans a 56% chance of controlling the Senate after the elections this year. Sam Wong is going the other way, putting the odds at 70% Democrat control.

This election is kind of a big deal. 

I'd be voting for anyone who isn't an incumbent.  

I admire the sentiment but I don't know if that really solves the problem. The problem with Congress (and politics as a whole) isn't the people specifically, it's the system. Unless the people you're voting for are interested in changing the system, you're just going to get more of the same.

Kansas is the interest race. Their finances are a disaster, and their Senator doesn't even have a residence in the state.

I'm pessimistic about deep red Kansas electing a Dem Governor (albeit they elected Sebelius), and a non-Republican for Senate for the first time since 1932.

I also don't think all these Dem folks running anti-Obama ads are doing themselves any good.

Get rid of all the Tea Party ********.  That would be a good start.

Posted by stinenavy on 9/23/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Kansas is the interest race. Their finances are a disaster, and their Senator doesn't even have a residence in the state.

I'm pessimistic about deep red Kansas electing a Dem Governor (albeit they elected Sebelius), and a non-Republican for Senate for the first time since 1932.

I also don't think all these Dem folks running anti-Obama ads are doing themselves any good.

Kansas did a good job ending the supply side argument.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/23/2014 3:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/23/2014 12:36:00 PM (view original):
I'd be voting for anyone who isn't an incumbent.  

Probably the best voting strategy.   Other than left/right leanings, you can shove a handful of politicians in a bag and the first one that climbs out is no different than the last.     At least limit how long they get to be a politician.

But if this is true: "you can shove a handful of politicians in a bag and the first one that climbs out is no different than the last"

What good is this: "At least limit how long they get to be a politician"

If they are all the same, you aren't accomplishing anything by turning them over. If they aren't all the same, "incumbent" matters less than "policy preferences."

That already happened. The Kansas Dem nominee and Indy were splitting votes, but the Indy was polling better and he's able to self-fund. They convinced the Dem to drop out. The Kansas SOS (a Repub) tried to keep the Dem on the ballot, after his office said the Dem did what was needed to get off the ballot.

They went to the courts, and the courts decided the Dem could drop off the ballot. So the Kansas SOS is now it hot water for a highly partisan move, and is up for re-election.

Like I said earlier though, I'll believe that deep red Kansas kicks out incumbent Repubs when I see it.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/23/2014 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/23/2014 3:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/23/2014 12:36:00 PM (view original):
I'd be voting for anyone who isn't an incumbent.  

Probably the best voting strategy.   Other than left/right leanings, you can shove a handful of politicians in a bag and the first one that climbs out is no different than the last.     At least limit how long they get to be a politician.

But if this is true: "you can shove a handful of politicians in a bag and the first one that climbs out is no different than the last"

What good is this: "At least limit how long they get to be a politician"

If they are all the same, you aren't accomplishing anything by turning them over. If they aren't all the same, "incumbent" matters less than "policy preferences."

If they're the same, I'd vote them out the next time.  But if I have a choice between A, who I know sucks, and B, who I don't know if he/she sucks or not, I'll choose B.

Congress is straight up embarrassing right now.  Kick em out.

The point would be to remove "politician" as a career.   

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/24/2014 9:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/23/2014 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/23/2014 3:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/23/2014 12:36:00 PM (view original):
I'd be voting for anyone who isn't an incumbent.  

Probably the best voting strategy.   Other than left/right leanings, you can shove a handful of politicians in a bag and the first one that climbs out is no different than the last.     At least limit how long they get to be a politician.

But if this is true: "you can shove a handful of politicians in a bag and the first one that climbs out is no different than the last"

What good is this: "At least limit how long they get to be a politician"

If they are all the same, you aren't accomplishing anything by turning them over. If they aren't all the same, "incumbent" matters less than "policy preferences."

If they're the same, I'd vote them out the next time.  But if I have a choice between A, who I know sucks, and B, who I don't know if he/she sucks or not, I'll choose B.

Congress is straight up embarrassing right now.  Kick em out.

I guess we can hope that they would take the hint. But I don't know. It seems like, as the public grew more and more willing to kick out congressmen who were willing to compromise, congress became more and more gridlocked. Inexperienced politicians seem to cause more harm than good.

  I remember Zell Miller. Democrat. The public didn't try to kick him out.  His own party did.  The democrats did.  I guess they didn't like his style of compromise.  Then there was that guy who ran for Vice-President.  What was his name?  The Jew Boy bronx hated so much.  I remember.  Joe Lieberman.  Ran with Gore.  Yeah.  One year he's Vice-Presidential material and two years later he's being run out of the Party because he compromised with the other party.  I'm confused now.  How does this compromise work?

  I know how it works.  It's a one way compromise with the democrats and the liberal democrat media.  They get their way or it's not a compromise.  And when the Republicans compromise, the democrats beat them over the head with it.  Case in point:

  Bush #1:  Read my lips…no new taxes. So he goes into Iraq and his numbers are at an all time high but he loses the election because the democrats fool the American people with NO NEW TAXES and IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID.  Are you getting this?  The economy suffered because Bush #1 did a good thing and saved a nation from an aggressor.  The democrats then told him he must raise taxes in order to save the economy.  He did the right thing and rose short term rates to pay for the war.  HE REACHED ACROSS THE AISLE. HE COMPROMISED.  Then the democrats bashed his head in for reaching across the aisle and saving the economy and keeping world peace. And some of you idiots voted for Clinton.

  So it goes in a circle.  Clinton runs us down but we're saved by the Republican House but Clinton ignores Bin Laden and Bush #2 saves us and the democrats do the same thing all over again.  

  First they back him then they slam him.  Over 5 years.  All for politics. First the House. Then the Senate and the Presidency. They did't care about security or the Middle East.  It's all politics with them.  POWER. CONTROL. MONEY. 

  And don't be fooled.  That $174,000 congressman's salary comes out to 1.2 million and the Senate gets a cool 3.2 million a year. That's why there are 364 House bills sitting on Harry Reids desk that will never see the light of day.  Don't tell me about compromise.  There is no compromise with the demo-nazis and the bought and paid for republicans. THAT'S WHY THERE IS A TEA PARTY.

  And they are better and honest and next door quality than the political scientists from a liberal think tank that fly in unison like the brainless birds they are. A flock of birdbrains flying in unison reading the same imperfect books from a flawed ideology while ignoring the one thing that made them successful in the first place. And so there is no compromise. Only a berating down of tried and true philosophy. No quarter given. A stain on your brand if you don't comply. Where is the compromise?