Thread: Say It Ain't So, Tingles! MSNBC's Matthews Says Dems Could Lose 10 Senate Seats In Th

Donor Blames Harry Reid for Low Approval Ratings, Being Out of Touch

Democratic leader comes under fire at private fundraiser for Mark Pryor


AP

BY: Alana Goodman
October 2, 2014 12:55 pm

A $1,000-per-plate fundraiser with Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.) turned into an anti-Harry Reid gripe fest last month, after one donor blamed the majority leader for the Senate’s poor public approval ratings and said the idea of him leading the institution was laughable.

“If you asked a thousand Americans, is this the guy who’s best positioned to lead the U.S. Senate, people would laugh at you,” said the donor, according to another attendee and a recording of the event obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Pryor was speaking at an invitation-only fundraiser in New York to benefit the Democrats for Education Reform Federal PAC on Sept. 21.
During the discussion, an attendee began criticizing Reid, telling Pryor that the Democratic leader held some responsibility for the low approval rating of Congress.

“Let me just interrupt,” Pryor said, according to an audio recording that was corroborated by an attendee. “I think possibly the best thing that could happen … to this institution, this election cycle would be if [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell gets beat and Harry Reid gets replaced.”

The rest of Pryor’s comment is drowned out by clapping. A spokesperson for the Pryor campaign did not respond to requests to confirm this statement or questions about his opinion on Reid’s leadership role.

“Okay, so you made my question a lot easier,” the attendee told Pryor. “I agree with you 100 percent, because I think there’s a big, forget about partisanship and [inaudible], there’s a generational issue. I just don’t think Harry Reid is in touch with what is happening in modern America on education, the economy, all of these things.”

He went on to ask Pryor who would be the best option to succeed Reid as majority leader.

Pryor suggested Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), saying he “does a pretty darn good job there in the Senate, and he’s actually, he’s not this crazy wild-eyed, left wing liberal either.”

The senator also had favorable words for Sen. Mark Begich (D., Alaska).

“I think Begich is really strong,” said Pryor. “You know, he’s green, he’s just running for his first reelection.”

He called the leadership role “a full time [job], you have to really focus on that to the exclusion of all the state issues … you really have to devote your life to it. But I think Schumer is pretty much there on that.”

Pryor also weighed in on potential replacements for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) if he lost his seat to Democratic candidate Alison Lundergan-Grimes.

“The next guy in line would be [Senate Minority Whip John] Cornyn from Texas,” said Pryor. “Cornyn, I don’t see him as really being that great.”
Pryor suggested Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.), but “I don’t think he’d ever do it.”

“Of course the best one would be Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.),” he added. “Lamar doesn’t have a chance of doing it, he’s too moderate in this environment.”

Earlier this year, Pryor told Politico that he would support Reid staying on as majority leader, although his endorsement was hardly enthusiastic.
“Yeah,” said Pryor when asked if he would back Reid. “It’s up to him on whether he wants to do it.”

The Republican National Committee later used this to hit Pryor for “ma[king] it clear that, if elected again, his first vote would be for Obama’s best friend—Harry Reid.”

Pryor has been pushing back against the Cotton campaign’s effort to portray him as partisan Democrat and a loyal foot soldier for President Barack Obama, who is unpopular in Arkansas.

A donor at the fundraiser also joked that “a lot of the Koch brothers money” was being used to tie Pryor to President Obama in Arkansas.
“Yeah. Eighty-five percent of it,” said Pryor.

Pryor’s campaign received a $5,000 contribution from Koch Industries last September, the Weekly Standard reported, and the company has been one of the top 20 contributors to his PAC since 2009.

Pryor was also the top Democratic recipient of Koch Industry contributions in the Senate during the 2012 cycle, taking in $10,000, according to OpenSecrets.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/reid-...ic-fundraiser/

Support the Sheriffs that support The Constitution

It’s one thing for one of your sycophant’s to say something under their breath during a commercial break or in the stall during quiet time, but right there with dozens of audience members listening?? You know, this kind of thing could really get Rachel Maddow upset – what does he think he’s doing?
Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/10/chris-matthews-thrill-gone/




Chris Matthews: The Thrill is Gone » Joe For America
Chris Matthews now says President Obama is "intellectually lazy" and "listening to the same voices all the time" on MSNBC's Hardball this week,
joeforamerica.com

Chris Matthews: The Thrill is Gone

Rodney Lee Conover — October 3, 2014


Chris Matthews now says President Obama is “intellectually lazy” and “listening to the same voices all the time” on MSNBC’s Hardball this week, mentioning Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama by name even. Wow! The thrill up the leg has subsided, I guess?
It’s one thing for one of your sycophant’s to say something under their breath during a commercial break or in the stall during quiet time, but right there with dozens of audience members listening?? You know, this kind of thing could really get Rachel Maddow upset – what does he think he’s doing?
“Let’s get tough here,” Matthews said… “Presidents should go out and look for people or else they get atrophied into that little world of people like Valerie [Jarrett] and Mrs. Obama and you’re just listening to the same voices all the time.”
Here’s a transcript:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let’s get tough here. Is this the problem of a second term that presidents get lazy, intellectually lazy, and cut off from the country and they start picking deputies for jobs instead of looking for the best people? The lazy thing to do is somebody leaves, you promote their deputy. This is, I think, part of the endemic problem of second terms. They don’t go out and mix with people, find new people, new hotshots to fill these jobs. They just keep promoting the person whose turn it is and they’re not as good as the person they picked the first time…
MATTHEWS: And before you get me accusing this president of being physically lazy. I think there is a social kind of laziness. Refusing to reach out and meet a lot new people and check a lot of possibilities. Don’t just go with the next person in line. And I really think this second term cabinet is not up to the first term cabinet because they never are. And you know that, Roger. They just never are.
Kennedy went out and met people like [Robert] McNamara and [Dean] Rusk and he went looking for them and he put them into the best slots he could. And he talked them into it, he recruited people he didn’t even know [and] he recruited them. Presidents should go out and look for people. They should be practicing affirmative action all the time in leading or else they get atrophied into that little world of people like Valerie [Jarrett] and Mrs. Obama and you’re just listening to the same voices all the time.
I know it is a rigorous demand but it’s a real one. Or else you’re going to get smaller as your presidency goes on and therefore more vulnerable to surprises.

Then the other day, he bitched that Obama claimed it was “unlikely” that Ebola would reach the United States: “The president said it was unlikely two weeks ago. Well, it’s not the unlikely, it has happened. It’s here,” Matthews said. That leg is getting really lonely with no thrill, no chill and no bill of goods for miles ahead..
Poor Chris –

-30-email Rodney Lee Conover: kowenhoven@gmail.com
go ahead: slam away..Friend him on Facebook – no one refused
www.facebook.com/rodneyleeconover

Sugar? No thanks, I’m sweet enough..

follow Rodney Lee on Twitter @rodneyconover
Twitter is really #stupid, btw

http://joeforamerica.com/2014/10/chr...s-thrill-gone/

Human Events

One of the most reliable indicators of what’s really going through the minds of politicians and their supporters is the way they move advertising money around.




Advertising 'triage' at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee | Human Events
More tea leaves for the 2014 elections.
humanevents.com

Advertising ‘triage’ at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee


By: John Hayward
10/6/2014 02:52 PM

Watching political organizations for “tells” that betray what they really think about upcoming races, even as they loudly declare their intention to win every last one of ‘em, is part of the summer and fall fun for political wonks. One of the most reliable indicators of what’s really going through the minds of politicians and their supporters is the way they move advertising money around. Roll Call reports the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has already begun moving money out of some races it’s giving up on, a process known as “triage,” because it is hoped pulling the plug on lost causes will free up money that can be more effectively spent in livelier races:

For now, House Democrats are only canceling airtime reservations in open-seat races or offensive opportunities. In some cases, the DCCC is still airing advertisements in some of the affected races for the next couple weeks.

In addition to the cancellations, the DCCC is also moving money to other districts, including other open-seat opportunities, districts held by Democrats, and one GOP incumbent target.
House Democrats must net 17 seats to win the majority, but it’s more likely they will lose seats in November. These cuts allow the DCCC to use their resources in other reasons where the party has a higher likelihood of winning.

The list of advertising cancellations includes:

• California’s 3rd and 10th Districts: This now-canceled reservation for the second-to-last week of the campaign was initially intended as airtime to protect Democratic Rep. John Garamendi and target Republican Rep. Jeff Denham.
• California’s 21st District: The DCCC pulled back reservations for the final two weeks of the campaign in their bid to unseat Republican Rep. David Valadao. His challenger, Democrat Amanda Renteria, will almost certainly be recruited by Democrats to run again in 2016 if she comes up short in November.
• Iowa’s 4th District: The House Democratic political arm is pulling a Sioux City broadcast buy against Republican Rep. Steve King for the last two weeks of the campaign.
• Illinois’ 13th District: The DCCC is cutting a second-to-last-week of the cycle in a St. Louis broadcast buy initially intended to target Republican Rep. Rodney Davis.
• Michigan’s 7th, 8th, 11th Districts: The committee is cutting a Detroit broadcast reservation in the second-to-last week of the campaign. They had hoped to target three Republican-held seats in the area.
• New York’s 21st District: The DCCC is canceling its last two weeks of airtime in its bid to hold onto Rep. Bill Owens’ seat in Upstate New York.
• New York’s 23rd District: House Democrats are canceling reservations for the campaign’s last two weeks in their effort to oust Republican Rep. Tom Reed.
• Pennsylvania’s 6th and 8th Districts: The DCCC is scaling back its buy to target retiring Republican Rep. Jim Gerlach’s seat and oust Republican Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick.

The incumbent Republican they’re evidently hoping to take out is Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska. Republicans, meanwhile, reserved much less advertising at the outset, and are adding more without cancelling anything, which is less an indication of how they see the 2014 races than the GOP following their usual campaign strategy: “The NRCC and GOP outside groups tend to reserve late and pay a premium for ad rates. In this effort, they preserve the element of surprise and avoid the frequent cancelation headlines that House Democrats earn.” Presumably Republican strategists feel this element of surprise is worth paying extra for advertising time, while Democrats find the lower prices from early reservations more desirable.
In this particular cycle, the Senate battleground is much more exciting than the House. There, the New York Times notes that Democrats have “rapidly narrowed the traditional financial gap with Republican groups” in the kind of outside political spending Democrats spend a great deal of time complaining about, having built “a smaller but more tightly knit alliance of groups that share donors, closely coordinate their advertising and hit harder than their conservative counterparts.” It looks like some of that outside financial support for Senate races is coming at the expense of Democrat House candidates, who are none too happy about it. Triage isn’t much fun for those judged to be lost causes.

http://humanevents.com/2014/10/06/ad...ign-committee/

http://www.alipac.us/f9/redstate-hou...5/#post1439651

Democrats Will Pay the Price for Obama in November

David Limbaugh | Oct 07, 2014



Democrats are panicking, and rightly so. Going into the November congressional elections, voter opposition to Obama is worse than it was for George W. Bush and for Bill Clinton at their respective six-year marks, and Democrats can't unyoke themselves from him.
It's not just that Gallup's latest polls show Obama's policies are unpopular but that voters are planning to make a statement to that effect in November. Since 1998, Gallup has included a question to determine whether the voters are intending to use their vote to "send a message" that they either support or oppose the sitting president.
Gallup found that 32 percent of voters want their vote to communicate their opposition to Obama, whereas only 20 percent want it to reflect their support for him. This is the highest such "no vote" for a sitting president in the past 16 years.
There is good reason for these poll responses. They are based not on personal animus but on the fact that Democrats have wholly supported President Obama throughout and that a vote for them will mean a vote for continuing with Obama's agenda, his lack of leadership and incompetence on both the domestic front and the foreign front, and his general untrustworthiness.
Americans can't help but notice that Obama has consistently placed his ideology and political interests above the national interests and routinely resorted to partisan sniping and scapegoating instead of accepting responsibility (and accountability) for his decisions and considering a change of course. More disturbingly, voters must notice that Obama's words are increasingly unreliable and that he expects them to believe his version of reality over the reality itself.
His response to a question from a steel plant manager at a town hall meeting last week in Indiana concerning rising health care costs was particularly revealing.
The man said: "We are seeing almost a double-digit increase (in) health care costs every year. ... Do you think that trend's going to go down, and what can we do to control that trend?"
Obama replied, "The question is whether you guys are shopping effectively enough, because it turns out that this year -- and in fact over the course of the last four years -- premiums have gone up at the slowest rate in 50 years." Then Obama assured the gentleman that he would put him in contact with health care people. "I'll bet we can get you a better deal," he said.
Obama's response was troubling in several ways. It was another example of his unwillingness to concede that his policies have caused problems. Here, he even denied there is a problem at all. He rejected out of hand the man's premise that his health care costs are rising, though the man himself has personally experienced them and most of the nation realizes this is not just anecdotal but true mostly throughout the nation. He even implied that it was this man's fault for not looking hard enough for a good deal.
In addition -- and this may even be worse -- Obama acted as if he were some plant manager and not the president of the United States, whose duties apparently now include micromanaging specific health care choices for hundreds of millions of Americans. He actually told the guy he'd help him get a better deal. And this is not the only time Obama has played this role -- acting as though it's his duty to personally administer such matters. It's no wonder so many people believed, early in his term, that Obama would pay their mortgages. How can a president be so radically confused about his job description -- or pretend to be?
This bizarre pattern of behavior can't be lost on the voters. Not long ago, Obama insisted that it had not been his decision to precipitously withdraw our troops from Iraq, a decision that left the vacuum that has allowed the Islamic State to run wild and gobble up swaths of real estate. He blamed it on the Iraqi regime when the truth is that he sabotaged any status of forces agreement that would have involved retaining enough of our troops to make a difference. This is objectively undeniable (ask former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta), yet Obama looks us straight in the face and denies it.
Obama and his administration assure us that Ebola isn't a threat to America or Americans, yet -- here we are. He tells us that his policies are growing the economy "from the middle out," yet we see, under his policies, that median household income is stagnating.
The list is endless. Obama habitually tells the American people that conditions are as he promised they would be rather than as they really are. He expects us to believe things are rosy when they're anything but, and, in any event, he eschews responsibility for any problems, as if he's a bystander.
Have we ever had a president so out of touch and so fundamentally dishonest about the impact of his policies? I don't think so, and I'm betting the voters will show they agree with me in November.

http://townhall.com/columnists/david...1463/page/full

Next time a liberal friend whines about the Koch brothers and the evil Conservatives...send them this....
Hypocrites. Democrats seem to be experts in the practices they chastise Conservatives for.




Democalypse 2014 - Funding or Die
Jon shares some of the fundraising emails Democrats have sent him in the lead-up to the midterms.
thedailyshow.cc.com

Video at the page link:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/bc...rshare_fbshare

http://www.alipac.us/f19/outrageous-...7/#post1441016

CNN Poll: 74% of Voters 'Dissatisfied' Means Trouble for Dems

Monday, 27 Oct 2014 08:15 PM
By Cathy Burke

Signaling Democrats could be hurtling toward a crushing defeat Nov. 4, a new poll shows voters angry about the way things are going — with 74 percent dissatisfied with the way America's being governed — and 53 percent unhappy with President Barack Obama's job performance.

According to the CNN/ORC International Poll, 30 percent of Americans are "very angry" and 38 percent "somewhat angry" about where the United States is headed, with 31 feeling "no anger."

But it's that segment of very angry voters that should be concerning for Democrats ahead of next week's vote: polling director Keating Holland notes the anger level matches the America's mood in 2010 when Republicans took over the House, CNN reports.

Holland said 36 percent of Republicans say they're "extremely" or "very enthusiastic" about voting this year, though only 26 percent of Democrats use those words to describe their enthusiasm level.

"That 10 point difference is certain to affect turnout and hurt Democrats' chances in marginal districts," Holland said about House races on the ballot.

CNN notes the president's job rating gets its best support in the Northeast, at 51 percent, and in urban areas, 60 percent.

But all but one of the races that will decide which party controls the Senate in 2015 are located in geographic areas where Obama's approval rating is in the low 40's, CNN reports.

In Iowa, where Democrats are trying to hold an open Senate seat, Obama has a 56 percent disapproval rating, the survey shows.

In the South, where Democrats are battling for re-election in Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina – and in a tight race for an open seat in Georgia – and where the GOP is trying to protect Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, the president has a 52 percent disapproval rating.

In the West, where Democratic incumbents are fighting for re-election in Alaska and Colorado, Obama's disapproval rating is 55 percent, the poll finds.

Those states all have rural areas with sizable populations, CNN reports, and the president's disapproval rating among rural voters is a staggering 70 percent, the poll shows.

With Republicans expected to snatch current Democratic seats in in Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia, the GOP would only need a net gain of three more seats to take back the Senate majority, CNN notes.

Related Stories:

• Christian Right Will Still Turn Out for Republicans in US Midterms
• Bill Clinton: Republicans 'May Skate' on Midterms

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pol.../27/id/603439/

Mad World News

We could be on the verge of a massive rebellion against Obama... what's about to happen next could be pretty insane.



If Republicans Take the Senate, Here's What Could Happen Over the Next Two Years
Time to throw the Democrats out.
conservativetribune.com

If Republicans Take the Senate, Here’s What Could Happen Over the Next Two Years

With less than a week to go before the 2014 midterm elections, it is looking more and more like the Republicans will take control of the Senate and increase their hold on the House, possibly even taking over more state legislatures and governorships. This will essentially make President Obama a lame duck for the remainder of his time in office.
So how does that play out, with a repudiated leftist president still pursuing a progressive liberal agenda, faced with a Congress controlled by the opposition? We explore three possible options: The best case,worst case, and most likely scenarios.
Click here to get a FREE subscription to the Conservative Tribune.

Best Case Scenario
The Republicans ride an election night wave, picking off all of the expected Senate seats and even a couple that weren’t considered in play. With a solid majority in both houses of Congress, the GOP immediately sets about finishing business that has been sitting idle for the past few years.
New Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell brings to the floor all 300+ House bills that Harry Reid has been ignoring. Numerous pieces of legislation are passed that repeal the worst bits and pieces of Obamacare, but not the whole law. Job creation is put on the front burner, and energy production is unleashed, by way of a reduction in the corporate tax rate and a roll back in burdensome regulations.

Congress actually passes a budget that works and reduces the deficit, with key cuts to the bureaucracy. The worst agencies in the Executive Branch see their budgets slashed, and entire projects are defunded. The Senate opens up their Committees to launch investigations into Obama administration malfeasance, just like the House has been doing. A few of the worst offenders in some of the more spectacular scandals are actually held accountable and forced to resign in disgrace. Criminal investigations, led by special prosecutors, are turned loose on the administration.
President Obama initially vetoes everything that comes across his desk, but after Congress overrides his veto a few times, Obama reluctantly agrees to sign the bills, attaching signing statements and spinning the P.R. to make it seem like the bills are his idea.
Obama signs a few executive orders to bypass Congress, but they are of little significance, as Obama is cowed under the threat of an impeachment. Congress passes several pieces of legislation that specifically address and override prior executive orders, by rule of law.
Americans are pleased that things are finally getting done, and the Congressional approval rating rises from the teens to the twenties, and even the thirties in some polls. Obama is increasingly viewed as an obstructionist president, who does little more than pitch a fit at every GOP backed bill, and serves as a stumbling block for true progress and the long overdue economic recovery for the country.
Republicans are perfectly set up for 2016, as Democrats have been unable to shake the stigma that Obama has cast upon their party. The GOP has a robust primary and emerges with a good candidate that a majority of Americans, both moderate and conservative, can agree upon. The Democrat primary is a complete mess, and Hillary Clinton ultimately decides not to run in these trying times and certain defeat for Democrats.

Worst Case Scenario
The GOP squeaks through a win, with a one seat majority. Election night proves to be too much of a nail-biter, and the final results come down to run-off elections in Louisiana and Georgia, which don’t take place until December and January, respectively.
Widespread voter fraud is later discovered, and there is ample evidence that the fraud played a key role in the election results, but the media ignores it, and nothing is done.
In the meantime, the lame duck Senate under Harry Reid pushes through several controversial bills, using the “nuclear option” simple majority rule. They also confirm several partisan hack nominees that are quickly put up by Obama, to fill open spots in the administration.
With only the slimmest of a majority, Republicans struggle over the next two years to get anything accomplished, as the Democrats play the spoiler role that the GOP has inhabited for the past several years. The few bills that do get passed are immediately vetoed, and Republicans are unable to muster the numbers to override the vetoes.
Obama steps up his destructive agenda and completely ignores Congress, even more than he has already. He wears out several pens and phones, enacting amnesty and essentially ruling by fiat and Executive order for two years. The tyranny goes to a whole new level, and Americans suffer for it.
Unable to gain any traction, Republicans are stymied at every turn. The media jumps in on the fray, and doggedly criticizes the GOP for getting nothing done, hypocritically ignoring the past several years under Harry Reid. Americans quickly lose faith that the GOP offers any hope for change, and congressional approval rates plummet from the teens to single digits.
Mired by backstabbing and infighting, and under constant attacks by Democrats and the media, the GOP has a horrible 2016 primary season, and an exceptionally weak and unlikable candidate somehow emerges as the candidate for president. That candidate is handily beaten by Hillary Clinton, and Democrats end up reclaiming the Senate, placing America right back where it was before 2014.

Most Likely Scenario
The Republicans pick up the seats needed for a majority, but lack a clear cut victory or strong mandate from the people. They also lack a solid vision and plan for the future. The next two years are essentially spent managing the status quo.
The Senate manages to pass some of the backlog of bills that Harry Reid has been ignoring, but Obama vetoes the best of them. Meanwhile, Obama wears out his pen and phone with numerous executive orders and fiat decisions, and continues his tyrannical assault on the Constitution.
More scandals emerge from this most scandalous administration, and the Senate opens Committee investigations, but nothing of consequence is done, and nobody is really held accountable for their actions, whether criminal or otherwise.
Americans become bored with the continued gridlock in Congress, even as Republicans hold a majority, and are further disillusioned by the entire process. The 2016 presidential election sees the lowest voter turnout in history, while Independents and third parties see a spike in growth, as more and more Americans decide that both major parties stink, and neither one will fix what truly needs fixing in our country.
Obviously, we are hoping for the best case scenario, yet steeling ourselves for the worst. Of course, the status quo scenario is the most likely outcome, which means that we are in for much of the same for at least the next two years.
Please share this on Facebook and Twitter if you are hoping that Republicans taking control of the Senate will begin to change things for the better but aren’t setting your expectations too high.

http://conservativetribune.com/futur...-takes-senate/