• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Travel ban upheld

SwissChaletDeac said:
LOL at anyone who is dumb enough to think that the Democrats have a chance in hell of gaining control of the Senate in November. The Democrats are going to have a net loss of seats in November. Could be as few as 1 or 2....or as many as 4 or 5. That would put the post-election GOP majority somewhere between 52-48 and 56-44.

GOP seats in play (3): Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee

DEM seats in play (6): Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, West Virginia, Florida, Montana (And Ohio might even be a 7th one)

To regain control, the Democrats would have to go 9-1 in those races.....and Trump won 9 of those 10 states two years ago. Most by whopping margins: Indiana 19%, Missouri 19%, Montana 20%, Tennessee 26%, North Dakota 35%, West Virginia 42%.
Click to expand...

Manchin is up 9 points and could be up even more if Blankenship gets on the ballot.

Brown is up 17 in Ohio. It's not in play.

Tester is up 8 in Montana

FL and ND are in the margin of error.

There are no current polls in MO. or IN

I'm most surprised about AZ which has Sinema up by at least 8 on every Republlican

NV is still a toss up.

There are no polls since May in TN, but the Dem led in all of the ones on RCP.

There aren't nine that are truly up for grabs. There are 7. If AZ is as the polls say, there are only 6 with the Dems having a +1 going into them.

Although it is would be a true shocker, one poll has Beto O'Rourke within 5 of Cruz. This would be almost a miracle.

As usual, the reality is nothing like BKF states it is.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
What percentages do you think? I took the average of several respected political sites and a couple of odds from bookies.
Click to expand...

I was talking about your relative percentages. The House is in play, no question about that. No way the two should be 30-35 vs 50-60.


Since you asked for my numbers, though, I would place the Democrats' chance to control the Senate at 0% and their chance to control the House at 30%.
 
I haven't seen any site with odds below 60% for Dems to retake the House. I agree that the math in the Senate is a tall order for the Dems. If the elections were today, I'd expect a divided Congress.
 
SwissChaletDeac said:
I was talking about your relative percentages. The House is in play, no question about that. No way the two should be 30-35 vs 50-60.


Since you asked for my numbers, though, I would place the Democrats' chance to control the Senate at 0% and their chance to control the House at 30%.
Click to expand...

So you believe if we ran this year's election a thousand different times that the Democrats would fail to win the Senate back in all of them?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I understand where you're coming from but the analysis isn't whether animus was the "motivating factor" it's whether the animus was the only reasonable explanation. The Colorado amendment in Romer which prohibited any ordinances protecting homosexuality as a class had no such explanation at all beyond bare animus.

I think we can both agree that this case is different since the administration was not only able to rely on the security/nationality rationale but also point to actual concrete steps they took in furtherance of this rationale. There was no such similar rationale in Romer.

The issue remains that any animus analysis is inherently nebulous though as one man's animus is another man's reasonable support.
Click to expand...

That standard makes sense when you aren’t sure what the explanation is. When you are sure what the explanation is then there is no need to examine the realm of all possible explanations to determine if any are reasonable.

Otherwise Trump could have written an Amicus brief stating that his only motivation for the ban was pure animus against Muslims but that Bannon made him go through a sham national security analysis and still not lose the case.
 
RJKarl said:
Manchin is up 9 points and could be up even more if Blankenship gets on the ballot.

Brown is up 17 in Ohio. It's not in play.

Tester is up 8 in Montana

FL and ND are in the margin of error.

There are no current polls in MO. or IN

I'm most surprised about AZ which has Sinema up by at least 8 on every Republlican

NV is still a toss up.

There are no polls since May in TN, but the Dem led in all of the ones on RCP.

There aren't nine that are truly up for grabs. There are 7. If AZ is as the polls say, there are only 6 with the Dems having a +1 going into them.

Although it is would be a true shocker, one poll has Beto O'Rourke within 5 of Cruz. This would be almost a miracle.

As usual, the reality is nothing like BKF states it is.
Click to expand...

You are the one who doesn't have a clue, RJ....probably because you fried your brain with drugs years ago. FL & ND are within the margin of error, there are no polls in MO & IN....but Beto O'Rourke has a shot against Cruz in Texas? That's how you see it? Tell me again how Hillary is going to get 350-400 EVs in the 2016 presidential election.

I quit betting money many years ago, but if I could get your tight ass to post the money (have you ever contributed even one dollar to the expense of running these boards for your 59,000 posts? I've contributed $250 for a tiny fraction of the posts that you've made) I would be willing to cover any amount you wanted to post that the Democrats do not win control of the Senate in November.
 
Ladbrokes and Bet Fair have about the same odds:

Senate:

GOP keep control 4/11
Dems get control 7/2
Tie 6/1

HOUSE:

Dems 4/5
GOP Even

Of all those odds, to me the best bet is 50/50 in the Senate at 6/1.

So BKF can understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying it's likely to bet 50/50. I'm saying given the odds, that's the best investment. To win $100 betting on the GOP in the Senate, you'd have to bet a little less than $300. To $100 on the tie, you'd only have to bet $17.

In an event that is this close, the odds would favor betting on the tie as you'd have much less exposure.
 
SwissChaletDeac said:
You are the one who doesn't have a clue, RJ....probably because you fried your brain with drugs years ago. FL & ND are within the margin of error, there are no polls in MO & IN....but Beto O'Rourke has a shot against Cruz in Texas? That's how you see it? Tell me again how Hillary is going to get 350-400 EVs in the 2016 presidential election.

I quit betting money many years ago, but if I could get your tight ass to post the money (have you ever contributed even one dollar to the expense of running these boards for your 59,000 posts? I've contributed $250 for a tiny fraction of the posts that you've made) I would be willing to cover any amount you wanted to post that the Democrats do not win control of the Senate in November.
Click to expand...

My brain is fried from drugs. Let's look at the statements.

I said: "Although it is would be a true shocker, one poll has Beto O'Rourke within 5 of Cruz. This would be almost a miracle. "

You said : "but Beto O'Rourke has a shot against Cruz in Texas? That's how you see it?"

Do you understand the English language at all? To you what does, "ALMOST A MIRACLE" mean?

Maybe you should have done some drugs.
 
RJKarl said:
My brain is fried from drugs. Let's look at the statements.

I said: "Although it is would be a true shocker, one poll has Beto O'Rourke within 5 of Cruz. This would be almost a miracle. "

You said : "but Beto O'Rourke has a shot against Cruz in Texas? That's how you see it?"

Do you understand the English language at all? To you what does, "ALMOST A MIRACLE" mean?

Maybe you should have done some drugs.
Click to expand...

You said that O'Rourke was within 5% in one poll. Why would you say that & then say it would be almost a miracle if he won? Do you think overcoming a 5% deficit would be almost a miracle?

And if you didn't think that poll was legitimate, why did you even mention it in the first place?
 
Bob trolls threads then cries like a little baby that he is misunderstood and whatnot
 
I prefaced it with "Although it would be a true shocker".

In this case, YES, I do think it would be almost a miracle. This poll's timing is likely the reason.

I SPECIFICALLY stated it "would almost be a miracle". That's REALLY, REALLY, REALLY EASY to understand. There's no real wiggle room.

Well, except in your fired brain.
 
Oh, I almost forgot. It's been fun, and as most of you have probably noticed if you've stopped to breathe occasionally between screaming your talking points, I don't really post on this board anymore. I just post on some immigration posts and had to come back and do a drive-by on this. You may continue to blather on now about how people outside our country should enjoy our constitutional protections and how Trump is a racist. In the meantime, enjoy your meal.

bag-of-dick-award.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top