Wasn't a Democrat running even with or ahead of a Republican in one of the Dakotas?

Ron,

There are plenty of interesting Senate races this year like Sherrod Brown v Josh Mandel in OH, where Mandel and his backers have already spent over $12 million to Brown’s $4 million and yet Brown still has an 8 point lead.

Overall the Senate Races: Toss Up = 8

Democrat: Not up+Safe 37 + Likely/Lean 10 = 47

Republican: Not up+Safe 42 + Likely/Lean 3 = 45

I know lefty liberals are not very good at math (must be all those wonderful math teachers LOL!!!), but, the R's only need to flip a net of four seats to gain control of the Senate and Dems have to defend 23 seats to the R's 10 seats.

Advantage R's.

____________________________________

Dennis: "Overall the Senate Races: Toss Up = 8"

So, Dennis, all the R's need to do is win half your "Toss Up" seats and that lying scumbag Harry Reid is the Senate Minority Leader.

LMFAO!!!!!

Al: in Visalia CA : North Dakota Senate Race: Heitkamp (Democrat) Berg (Republican) One poll showed Heitkamp ahead, one showed her behind.

Heidi Heitkamp is well liked, long involved in ND politics. ND is a red state, going to tough for Heidi. Berg is worried, his ads are constant and have his mommy coming out telling all and sundry how she has to live on Social Security, and her sonny boy would NEVER cut that for her. Even though he has voted to do it.

That ad is not going over well, Berg is a gazillionaire, and people are asking why he isn't helping his mommy.

You are right Dennis: Guess I was showing a bit of Hoosier Pride.

Hey Joe in Albany, do you think Dennis won a Fields Medal LOL..

Joe,

How about win 5 of 8 to win control if and only if Romney wins.

Otherwise you will need 6 of 8 to get to 51.

How about win 5 of 8 to win control if and only if Romney wins.

Otherwise you will need 6 of 8 to get to 51.

_______________________________________

Only if you accept your unattributed stats on R losses. For all anyone knows, you are quoting Harry Reid's stats or maybe MSDNC's Mr. Ed's stats.

Caesar: I doubt Dennis ever won any awards in math.

Joe,

http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/2012_elections_senate_map.html

Ron Indiana -- Agreed. In regard to the House, it looks like Joe Walsh, Michele Bachmann, and even Eric Cantor are at risk. The far-Right Teabagger gig is going to hurt the Republican Party, if not now, it's just a matter of time.

Heck, with Romney accepting endorsements from Christine O'Donnell, Birther King Donald Trump, and now Richard Murdock, he might as well accept porn star Jenna Jameson's endorsement (no doubt he accepts her money). The GOP is going down the toilet.

Bachmann may pull that race out of the fire. She is in a new district, even more conservative than the one that she was in.

Her opponent is well liked, so you never know.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED -- If the voters in that district reelect Bachmann after the Frank Gaffney Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy, and damage to our foreign policy and people's lives being threatened by unhinged Haters, then we need to toss out not only Batcrap Bachmann, but the entire district. I have a perfect place we can deport them to...

I agree with you, TruePatriot. That area is an anomaly. It is like all the fringe right wing nutcases move there. I had hoped that she would be far behind, but she is 7 points ahead on the last poll I saw.

It is an embarrassment to MN. And I live here.

She gets my vote just because the way she can consume a bratwurst!!!!

Its the economy

..nuff said...

Caesar Augustus-

Its the economy

..nuff said...

The RepubliCONS haven't said anything, nada, zilch, diddly-squat, zippo, about jobs! Where are the J-0-B-S the Republicans promised?

Amazing that Allen, of racial slur infamy, would try this again.....

Does Eric of Cant support him, I wonder?

where is the low unemployment Hussein promised?

Besides Hussein is creating billions of jobs, and yet unemployment rises. It stinks like a red head if you ask me

The GOP nearly destroyed the economy....nuff said...

Bush created fewer jobs in 8 years that President Obama has in 3 1/2 despite the obstruction from the GOP legislators....nuff said...

2 years democrat control. and yes obama has created billions of jobs yet unemployment has been through the roof during the tenure of his presidency. nice try. you should be a top with all your spinning

Caesar - and yet Jody still sounds so much more intelligent than you! Go figure!

where is the low unemployment Hussein promised?

Define "low unemployment"?

Is it the 6% Mr. Romney says he has to get us to in order to be called a success or is it the 4% he says President Obama has to get us to in order for him to be called a success?

ok Noid i'll bite, what did obama claim the 800b pissed away would accomplish. please tell me the % it would be under?

Thats nice seeking now go look into the mirror.

ok Noid i'll bite, what did obama claim the 800b pissed away would accomplish. please tell me the % it would be under?

Hmm...let me think about this one for a second...

...oh, I remember! This is the part where the GOP likes to tell us that President Obama said that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%. See, but here's the thing...the President himself never said that. Now, a silly person would keep on repeating that the President said the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%, but being that you are not a silly person, you are, of course, aware that the President never said this.

That actually came from a report by Christine Romer of the Council of Economic Advisors which projected that with the stimulus unemployment would peak at just under 8% in 2009 while it would peak at 9% in 2010 without it. Those numbers match what the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projected in February 2009...9% unemployment in 2009 without the stimulus and 7.7-8.5% with it.

Of course, the report from the CEA gave the following disclaimer to acknowledge this was a projection and not a promise...

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."

Again, you are not a silly person so there is nothing here that I have told you here that you don't already know.

His econ advisor said that right? Wouldnt such a statement reflect Obama's belief? why would he want 800b to stimulate an economy and not affect unemployment? These were the justifications used to steal 800b, just like the wars. Smoke and mirrors. Noid, face it, he owns it.

But Noid since Obama was in office when the economy really took a nose dive, i guess he cant really blame bush now. disclaimers and all. you cant have it both ways, but i know you will hang your hat on it.

From the Associated Press in my local paper yesterday regarding the low approval rating in Congress.

"Just 151 laws have been enacted in 19 months; more than two dozen of them were to rename post offices and courthouses, or add individuals to the Smithsonian board. Even in 2007-08, when Republican Bush was president and Democrats ran Congress, 460 laws were enacted".

Compromise should not be a dirty word, but obviously it is to Republicans. They refuse to work with President Obama to get things done that will move the economy forward.

why would he want 800b to stimulate an economy and not affect unemployment? These were the justifications used to steal 800b, just like the wars.

Stimulus = $788B...$288B of that represented tax cuts to both individuals and businesses...and agin, since you are not a silly man, you already know that.

But Noid since Obama was in office when the economy really took a nose dive, i guess he cant really blame bush now.

...and you have numbers, of course, to back up your statement that "the economy really took a nose dive" under President Obama (as if in 2008 everything was just peaches 'n' cream)?

Beverly

Who can forget all the unhinged things MichelleBachmannBatcrap crazy and her ilk say?

It works the other way too.

Who can forget all the unhinged things Obama Bobama the lier give me your money has said, like 57 states in the US?

So, Concern......racial slurs are OK with you!

Concern Citizen-856329

Who can forget all the unhinged things Obama Bobama the lier give me your money has said, like 57 states in the US?

Oh really???? You're an idiot!

How about all those explosive, racist, signs t-baggers toted which have infected much of the this country? Racism and the Southern Stragedy is what makes t-baggers tick. Look at these pictures to remind your self,

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-O4j1i3TqILA/Tlys5yDIvzI/AAAAAAAAALI/dsdXDYrckPc/s1600/Niggar.jpg

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z152/UCLABruinKid/ProtestSigns.jpg

http://nocureforthat.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/s-tea-party-signs-large.jpg

Or the racist remarks from idiots like Allen West, Louis Gomert, and other unhinged baggers?

What's a lier?

Concerned please site where Obama said there were 57 states. Tha malarky was debunked 4 years ago. He was referring to the states plus territories, military and expats who would all be casting votes. Michelle Bachmann has said some outlandish things and every one of them poved to be totally and utterly wrong.

Actually independent, non-partisan think tanks and committees all agree that the economy is going in the right direction. It isn't going as fast as anyone would like it to go because of the Republicans in Congress bent on stopping everything but despite the GOP/TPers things are moving along. The number of people on the federal payroll is down under Obama too. Those working for the federal govt. are doing more with less.

It is interesting how the same people who whine about Obama blaming Dubya for this or that are the same ones who had no problem blaming Clinton for all sorts of stuff. Hypocrisy is running rampant in the GOP/TP. It is sad too, the once Grand Old Party is no longer grand and barely a party any more. Because the RWNJs, the Fascist wannabes, the Teapartiers so many centrist, sensible Republicans have become independents or Democrats. It reminds me of the conservative parties of the past. The Federalist party gave way to the Whig party and when the Republican party came along as a more liberal party and one who was opposed to slavery the Whig party went the way of the dodo. The Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson has changed to a more liberal party too but never has it been necessary to completely change as with the conservative side of the political spectrum.

The Democrats had problems with a certain far left leaning element controlling their party and it didn't work well for them. Now they've moved back toward the center and the Republicans have moved from the center to the extreme right. When the Republicans move back toward the center I'll vote Republican again, people will return to the party and things will get done in Congress. The stalemate or retrograde of this country because of the current Republican leadership is unacceptable and as soon as enough people realize it things will change. I just hope they have that epiphany before the current Repub. leadership totally destroys the US of A.

Part of the reason that this recovery is slower than that of other recessions is that every other recovery has increased government jobs to help the economy get moving again. This time, even though the Republicans were the ones that spent so much more than we had, the government is acquiescing to them by decreasing public sector jobs. With decreased public sector employment negating a lot of the private sector job growth, this recovery is proceeding at a slower pace than any previous one.

I think a lot of the partisan bickering that goes on these days could be alleviated by people looking at the bigger picture rather than seizing on little pieces and making a big deal out of them as if they existed outside of the larger context.

Pelosi Fumes at Requests to Release Tax Returns, Implies Journalists Should Have to Do the Same

Friday, 20 Jul 2012 11:16 AM

By Patrick Hobin

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi turned tense and testy yesterday when pressed as to why she refused repeated requests to release her tax returns, even as she is among the loudest voices calling for Mitt Romney do the same, McClatchy News Service reported.

"When I run for president of the United States, you can hold me to that standard," the California congresswoman snapped. When asked whether she and members of Congress should abide by the rules she and other Democrats have set for Romney to release his returns.

"There are no rules. There are no rules," she huffed. "There's no rule about releasing his tax return, so what rules are you referring to?" When asked about the standard she had cited for a presidential candidate, Pelosi said, according to McClatchy, "It's up to the American people. The American people are the judges of that."

On Wednesday, McClatchy reported that Democrats shouting the loudest about Romney's reluctance to release his tax returns do not apply the same standards to themselves and cited Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada among hundreds of elected officials from both parties who refused to release their tax records, McClatchy reported.

Pelosi has said Romney was unfit to serve as President or even in the Cabinet because of his refusal so far to release all of his returns and Reid has said Romney wasn't even fit to be dogcatcher.

But just 17 out of the 535 members of Congress released their most recent tax forms or provided some similar documentation of their tax liabilities in response to requests from McClatchy over the last three months, the news service reported, indicating a double standard. Another 19 members flat out refused and the rest didn't even bother to respond to McClatchy's request.

Pelosi even ridiculed any push for full release of returns by Congress, saying journalists should have to do the same.

"Maybe they [returns] should all be made public, maybe it should be a public function. What do you think of that for everybody?" Pelosi asked, according to McClatchy. "For everybody who writes about it, for everybody who hires people who write about it, the corporate ownership of the media and what are they doing as far as their taxes are concerned.

"Let's not be silly," she said. "It's up to (Romney) to take the consequences of not doing it, or doing it, but not to deflect (the issue) to say, 'Well, if he has to do it, why doesn't everybody else have to do it?'"
Pelosi then said, according to McClatchy: "Because everybody else is not running for president,'' she said, "and that's the last thing I'm going to say about it."

© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

"When I run for president of the United States, you can hold me to that standard," the California congresswoman snapped. When asked whether she and members of Congress should abide by the rules she and other Democrats have set for Romney to release his returns.

"There are no rules. There are no rules," she huffed. "There's no rule about releasing his tax return, so what rules are you referring to?" When asked about the standard she had cited for a presidential candidate, Pelosi said, according to McClatchy, "It's up to the American people. The American people are the judges of that."

Newsmax...nice unbiased source there, eh?

Actually, what the author forgets to mention is that the "standard" of releasing tax returns was something Romney's own father set.

I mean, does he have to do it because Democrats tell him to? No...but should he do it because it's what his father did?

Willard will go to Cali and finish his home and ride the car elevator.

Actually, it was an 8 years terror attack, brought on by W. Bush and the Dick.

Yup, and it was Dick himself who famously said 'deficits don't matter'!..

Spend, spend, spend on unfunded everything.........