DRUDGE report rumor: Both parties see possibility of bigger Republican win

[The Vorlon]

Mind you, who knows what this means..

It's Drudge and the NYTimes, so usually I'd put this in the same category as the Psychic Hotline...

But anyway....

NYT LEAD MONDAY: Both parties see possibility of bigger Republican wins in House than either side was talking about -- even few days ago... Developing...

[Phony Moderate]

The key word being rumor.

[Torie]

They don't read the LEIPS forum; otherwise, this would be old news. Sure, the GOP has "gained" 10-15 seats probably in the last fortnight, as polls roll in where independent expenditures have made a difference in second tier races.  Obama also helped the GOP with his campaigning - yes he did. He said a series of counterproductive things for his party.

There is no such thing as an "expert" on this election by the way. We are all flying rather blind really, when it comes to House races.

[The Vorlon]

They don't read the LEIPS forum; otherwise, this would be old news. Sure, the GOP has "gained" 10-15 seats probably in the last fortnight, as polls roll in where independent expenditures have made a difference in second tier races.  Obama also helped the GOP with his campaigning - yes he did. He said a series of counterproductive things for his party.

There is no such thing as an "expert" on this election by the way. We are all flying rather blind really, when it comes to House races.

Actually, given it's the NYTimes, they will likely report the possibility of Democrats losing seats in the House and that some independent voters do not view the healthcare bill favorably....

[Sam Spade]

lol...

But seriously, we have been talking the past weeks about a victory larger than 45-60 seats being within the realm of possibility.  Hell, Torie was harping on about it in September and he really is smarter than most of us.   

And I said the way the election was going was clear around Labor Day (Dems will lose House) and the Dems (as all parties) would only figure it out in early October (which is basically what Politico just said, lol...)

Of course, this is probably another false flag op of some sort. 

But, you know, when I really "put my ear to the ground" and listen to what I hear, giving the GOP 48-50 seats in the Senate (equal with Dems) and a real massive margin in the House (similar to what Dems have now) makes more sense with the perception of the vox populi that I'm feel.  It would put both sides on notice more than any other result out there:  Obama, who simply refused to listen to Massachusetts back in January, and the GOP, don't follow Bush or we'll kick you out just as quickly as we did Pelosi.

Food for thought.

[The Vorlon]

lol...

But seriously, we have been talking the past weeks about a victory larger than 45-60 seats being within the realm of possibility.  Hell, Torie was harping on about it in September and he really is smarter than most of us.   

And I said the way the election was going was clear around Labor Day (Dems will lose House) and the Dems (as all parties) would only figure it out in early October (which is basically what Politico just said, lol...)

Of course, this is probably another false flag op of some sort. 

But, you know, when I really "put my ear to the ground" and listen to what I hear, giving the GOP 48-50 seats in the Senate (equal with Dems) and a real massive margin in the House (similar to what Dems have now) makes more sense with the perception of the vox populi that I'm feel.  It would put both sides on notice more than any other result out there:  Obama, who simply refused to listen to Massachusetts back in January, and the GOP, don't follow Bush or we'll kick you out just as quickly as we did Pelosi.

Food for thought.

Are you saying that:

 neither party is truly fit to govern and that we need a strong, principled, viable alternative to keep both sides honest,

and:

 that a division of power that prevents either party from doing the insane things they are prone to is a good idea?

If only their was some third party that shared those views I might join it....

[Sam Spade]

lol...

But seriously, we have been talking the past weeks about a victory larger than 45-60 seats being within the realm of possibility.  Hell, Torie was harping on about it in September and he really is smarter than most of us.   

And I said the way the election was going was clear around Labor Day (Dems will lose House) and the Dems (as all parties) would only figure it out in early October (which is basically what Politico just said, lol...)

Of course, this is probably another false flag op of some sort. 

But, you know, when I really "put my ear to the ground" and listen to what I hear, giving the GOP 48-50 seats in the Senate (equal with Dems) and a real massive margin in the House (similar to what Dems have now) makes more sense with the perception of the vox populi that I'm feel.  It would put both sides on notice more than any other result out there:  Obama, who simply refused to listen to Massachusetts back in January, and the GOP, don't follow Bush or we'll kick you out just as quickly as we did Pelosi.

Food for thought.

Are you saying that:

 neither party is truly fit to govern and that we need a strong, principled, viable alternative to keep both sides honest,

and:

 that a division of power that prevents either party from doing the insane things they are prone to is a good idea?

If only their was some third party that shared those views I might join it....

Perhaps that will happen one of these days, but right now the voters are trying to see if either party can figure out what they want to happen (which I think I know - and have pointed out on this forum for a while in my usual cryptic way). 

If one of the parties does, they have control of the political process for the next generation.  Only complete failure by all opens the door to a third option.  We're not there, yet.

[Vepres]

They obviously saw my final prediction thread

[Torie]

Both parties will be doing stuff that they will really loathe doing - and soon - revealing of course just how disingenuous they both are when it comes to campaign rhetoric. Ideology just doesn't get one very far, in the face of insolvency, with the 64,000 thousand dollar question (that term was actually in common currency when I was young believe it or not) being just when the moment would come based on what when markets start pushing up treasury rates based on a higher default and/or inflation risk, leading to a big jump in the cost of carry of our massive debt, leading to ... .

Some of them may never fly home again.

By the way, I suspect the Dems will abandon insurance mandates, before SCOTUS more likely than not does it for them. Obamacare will be revamped into a subsidized private insurance program. I found it interesting the Dem candidate for Insurance Commissioner in CA said they need to go on TV today in an interview, and he was basically a reflexive liberal on everything.

[Sam Spade]

Agree largely with your points on monetary policy, Torie, but the question is merely when it occurs.  I suspect that it'll take another financial crisis, since the reflexive instinct is to do everything to keep interest rates low because of what you mention, regardless of the fact that it triggers capital flight and keeps the economy in a permanent stage of recession (a la Japan).

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Five Reasons Republicans Could Do Even Better Than Expected