MY PREDICTIONS FOR TUESDAY

[SnakeTom]

OK here is my election prediction based just on my gut feeling & little else:

Dems will take control of House of Representatives by 10-15 vote margin.

GOP will increase lead in Senate to either 54-46 or 53-47 depending on NJ

In NJ the Dems will flip two seats in Congress (Malinowski over Lance & Mikie Sherrill over Weber. McCarthur will keep his seat for the GOP down the shore,

In a very close race Hugins will defeat Menendez.

TRUMP WILL DECLARE THE ELECTION AS A VICTORY FOR HIMSELF, REGARDLESS OF THE RESULTS

Tom K

 

[HALL85]

New Jersey electing a republican US senator is equivalent to Seton Hall recruiting a top 50 player. Until it happens, I won’t believe it will be a reality. I see Menendez winning again, which is really an indictment on the electorate. How we can elect a POS like him for another term is beyond me. We deserve what we get.

I agree that Sherrill will win, but I think Lance will narrowly hold onto his seat. I live in Hunterdon County and I just don’t see much juice for Malinowski. I’m not a big Lance fan But it’s going to come down to voter turn out and my senses it will be unusually strong in this area.

Republicans will pick up three seats in the Senate and have a loss of 28 in the house.

 

[SnakeTom]

New Jersey electing a republican US senator is equivalent to Seton Hall recruiting a top 50 player. Until it happens, I won’t believe it will be a reality. I see Menendez winning again, which is really an indictment on the electorate. How we can elect a POS like him for another term is beyond me. We deserve what we get.

I agree that Sherrill will win, but I think Lance will narrowly hold onto his seat. I live in Hunterdon County and I just don’t see much juice for Malinowski. I’m not a big Lance fan But it’s going to come down to voter turn out and my senses it will be unusually strong in this area.

Republicans will pick up three seats in the Senate and have a loss of 28 in the house.

My thinking is this regarding the Senate race: when a voter strongly dislikes a candidate they will find an excuse not to vote for them regardless of party. In my view this is why Hillary lost two years ago. She was much more qualifed but just was not likable. Same goes for Menendez. The one thing Menendez has going for himself however is Trump who has said "a vote for any Republican is a vote for me". Well for me personnally that's good enough reason not to vote for any Trump supporter. But many Dems will vote against Menendez regardless.

TK

 

[SnakeTom]

I think Lance will narrowly hold onto his seat. I live in Hunterdon County and I just don’t see much juice for Malinowski. I’m not a big Lance fan But it’s going to come down to voter turn out and my senses it will be unusually strong in this area.

Republicans will pick up three seats in the Senate and have a loss of 28 in the house.

Regarding Lance I live at the other end of the 7th district (Union). This was a Gerrymandered district that starts near Newark Bay and snakes westward toward the Delaware River. It was designed to elect a Republican and Lance has kept winning in the district but his margins have been getting smaller with each election. This time I think the anti Trump vote will do him in. FWIW I have voted both for and against Lance in previous elections depending on his opponent & his more recent voting record. This time I will be voting against mainly because of Trump.

Tom K

 

[SPK145]

My prediction is the same as I posted here 12 months ago:

The dems take the House by a small margin (5-10 seats) and the repubs pick up a few seats in the Senate.

Menendez isn't losing in NJ and Cruz isn't losing in TX.

Trump will declare victory and say it was all because of him.

 

[HALL85]

My thinking is this regarding the Senate race: when a voter strongly dislikes a candidate they will find an excuse not to vote for them regardless of party. In my view this is why Hillary lost two years ago. She was much more qualifed but just was not likable. Same goes for Menendez. The one thing Menendez has going for himself however is Trump who has said "a vote for any Republican is a vote for me". Well for me personnally that's good enough reason not to vote for any Trump supporter. But many Dems will vote against Menendez regardless.

TK

Agree on likability being a major factor, but remember Hillary was unlikable, morally corrupt and insulted half the electorate. Menendez and isn’t that stupid to do the latter.

I prefer to vote on a candidate based on leadership, character and willingness to compromise and work for the electorate. I don’t get the vote for X is a vote for Trump thought process, but that’s me. We elect crap; we get crap. Then we complain...weak sauce.

 

[shu09]

I'm voting for Hugin but I'd be absolutely shocked if he wins. Tough year for Republicans and the sheep in NJ always vote Democrat down the line, even with someone as corrupt as Menendez.

I think Lance wins in the 7th, Sherrill in the 11th. I'll say MacArthur loses. Democrats take the House, GOP keeps the Senate and probably adds to their majority.

 

[HALL85]

One prediction I'd like to make is that there will be a number of results that will significantly deviate from the polling information in both directions. First of all, voter turnout predictions are all over the board. Are Millenial's really going to show up for local elections? Will Trumps base come out again from 2016 numbers? I haven't seen compelling proof that anyone knows with certainty.

Over the past month I've gotten two dozen polling calls, most on the land-line, but recently several on my cell. I'm probably an outlier, but I have given just about every permutation of vote, race, income, etc. (I know, I'm a juvenile). It's a game now and does the public in general have the same respect for the polling process as they used to or are more trying to mis-represent their views to pollsters?

One thing that I think we all agree is that campaign finance reform and spending is out of control. Heard on a report last night that over $250 million has been spent on the Florida races. That's obscene and disgusting. It has to change.

 

[SnakeTom]

I agree I think in recent years many people are reluctant to give out personal information (and for good reason) and are also giving out false information on their political leanings. I think that definitely was the case in 2016 and also will be this year.

Tom K

 

[SnakeTom]

[QUOTE="HALL85, post: 534387, member: 144"

I prefer to vote on a candidate based on leadership, character and willingness to compromise and work for the electorate. I don’t get the vote for X is a vote for Trump thought process, but that’s me. We elect crap; we get crap. Then we complain...weak sauce.[/QUOTE]

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you here, but this time the President has made this election all about himself. It has become a referendum about Trump and about his character (or lack thereof). For that reason I will not vote for those candidates that support him.

TK

 

[Merge]

My prediction is the same as I posted here 12 months ago:

The dems take the House by a small margin (5-10 seats) and the repubs pick up a few seats in the Senate.

Menendez isn't losing in NJ and Cruz isn't losing in TX.

Trump will declare victory and say it was all because of him.

Trump should declare victory if Dems only take a 5 seat majority in the house. The “blue wave” election as a referendum on Trump falls apart if the end up with anything less than a 15 seat majority in my opinion and even then that’s on the weak side of a wave.

My guess is a 20 seat majority and losing 2 seats in the senate.

Of the races mentioned here, I’d say Malinowski, Sherrill, Menandez win in NJ and Beto loses by 4-5 in TX.

The early vote is interesting to me as well. As of yesterday the early vote is up 65% over 2014 which was 5% up over 2010. Can’t read too much into it yet since we don’t know if there are any new voters here or if these people would have voted on Election Day anyway... but if there is increased engagement and turnout goes up overall I’d think that’s a good thing for Dems.

 

[cernjSHU]

There was an issue in Essex County that a Republican candidate was left off the early voting ballots. Those ballots had to be resent. I imagine this will hurt Dems. There will be a lot of people who receive the second ballot and throw it away thinking they already voted. If Menedez loses by a few thousand votes, watch for this to make a huge impact.

 

[seton1996]

I'm voting for Hugin but I'd be absolutely shocked if he wins. Tough year for Republicans and the sheep in NJ always vote Democrat down the line, even with someone as corrupt as Menendez.

I think Lance wins in the 7th, Sherrill in the 11th. I'll say MacArthur loses. Democrats take the House, GOP keeps the Senate and probably adds to their majority.

I agree, I am voting for Hugin but just do not see NJ electing a Republican Senator, especially in the Trump era. I expect Sherrill will win easily in my congressional district as well.

But what do I know, I expected Hillary to win easily in 2016.

 

[Section112]

My prediction is the same as I posted here 12 months ago:

The dems take the House by a small margin (5-10 seats) and the repubs pick up a few seats in the Senate.

Menendez isn't losing in NJ and Cruz isn't losing in TX.

Trump will declare victory and say it was all because of him.

Agree with this. I think Sherill wins in a close race. McArthur wins at the shore - I know Tom by the way he is a brilliant guy and does lots of stuff across the aisle - isn't as hard core Repub as some say he is at all. He actually did the math with the new tax law and checked his constituents and found a large majority of folks in Ocean County will benefit significantly from the new tax bill so that is why he voted for it. Many more saved money on taxes especially in the poor areas. I think Lance goes down.

 

[SnakeTom]

Agree with this. I think Sherill wins in a close race. McArthur wins at the shore - I know Tom by the way he is a brilliant guy and does lots of stuff across the aisle - isn't as hard core Repub as some say he is at all. He actually did the math with the new tax law and checked his constituents and found a large majority of folks in Ocean County will benefit significantly from the new tax bill so that is why he voted for it. Many more saved money on taxes especially in the poor areas. I think Lance goes down.

I know a number of people who absolutely love McArthur, but I also know some who hate him. That's the nature of politics nowadays. I guess that's why we do not elect centrists or moderates any more. To paraphrase Paul Simon "Where have you gone General Eisenhower " .........

Tom K

 

[Section112]

I know a number of people who absolutely love McArthur, but I also know some who hate him. That's the nature of politics nowadays. I guess that's why we do not elect centrists or moderates any more. To paraphrase Paul Simon "Where have you gone General Eisenhower " .........

Tom K

A lot of people don't understand that Ocean County and parts of south jersey are very poor areas. Tom wants to help them. Tom was accused during the election by Andy Kim of being anti-Korean (Andy is Korean)? Tom's two kids are adopted from Korea and he has taken them there to learn more about their heritage. He is not anti-Korean or racist at all. Definitely a no-nonsense guy but very smart and is more interested in getting things done. Probably one more term for him if he gets reelected, maybe two at most - not a lifer. My daughter is close friends with David Tom's son who is studying to be a minister. Good family and even better wife.

 

[cernjSHU]

Agree with this. I think Sherill wins in a close race. McArthur wins at the shore - I know Tom by the way he is a brilliant guy and does lots of stuff across the aisle - isn't as hard core Repub as some say he is at all. He actually did the math with the new tax law and checked his constituents and found a large majority of folks in Ocean County will benefit significantly from the new tax bill so that is why he voted for it. Many more saved money on taxes especially in the poor areas. I think Lance goes down.

Hmm quite the conservative of voting for a tax cut for the rich to explode the national debt. Please don't say you are are fiscal conservative and say you voted for the tax bill.

 

[Section112]

Hmm quite the conservative of voting for a tax cut for the rich to explode the national debt. Please don't say you are are fiscal conservative and say you voted for the tax bill.

You actually have to do the math to understand how much people are saving. My accountant did it for all his clients and by and large the tax increases affected the high income folks. Doubling the std deduction and the child tax credit is a significant savings for lower class and many middle class brackets. There are a few middle class brackets with anomalies but most will see lower taxes. Keep trumpeting the party line. You actually have to do the math to understand. But if you say it a hundred times and click your heels together...

And if you figure out that the majority of your constituents benefit and don’t vote for it what does that say about you. Every politician that serves lower class areas should be educating their constituents to take advantage of the tax credits because it will put money in their pockets.

Where all the politicians fail is not making the cuts needed to be fiscally conservative. They are all good at spending more and more. None of them including Repubs have the guts to make cuts.

 

[SPK145]

Hmm quite the conservative of voting for a tax cut for the rich to explode the national debt. Please don't say you are are fiscal conservative and say you voted for the tax bill.

Those are talking points not rooted in reality.

Spending is the other part of the equation that was not conservative, the spending is abhorrent. For FY 2017 total federal revenues were up $14 billion (0.42%) while spending was up $127 billion (3.19%) resulting in the deficit going from $666 billion to $779 billion, a 17% increase.

 

[SPK145]

My prediction is the same as I posted here 12 months ago:

The dems take the House by a small margin (5-10 seats) and the repubs pick up a few seats in the Senate.

Menendez isn't losing in NJ and Cruz isn't losing in TX.

Trump will declare victory and say it was all because of him.

I'm going to up the dems take the House by a margin of 10-15 seats. Everything stays the same.

 

[Merge]

Those are talking points not rooted in reality.

Spending is the other part of the equation that was not conservative, the spending is abhorrent. For FY 2017 total federal revenues were up $14 billion (0.42%) while spending was up $127 billion (3.19%) resulting in the deficit going from $666 billion to $779 billion, a 17% increase.

Are you suggesting that revenues would have been lower without the tax cut?

That would also not be rooted in reality.

The reality is quarterly revenues declined to where this is the lowest revenues as a % of GDP by quarter since 2012, and Q2 2018 was almost the same revenue as Q2 in 2014 which was not a strong year.

The tax cut increased our deficit. Yes, spending went up but revenues are less than they would have been which increases our deficit / debt.

 

[SPK145]

Are you suggesting that revenues would have been lower without the tax cut?

Nobody has ever suggested that other than you here. But income tax revenues are only about 50% of federal revenues though, you seem to think otherwise?

Spending is much more responsible for the deficit than revenuesin FY 2018.

And the tax cuts went more to the middle class than the 1% in total than gets reported.

 

[cernjSHU]

You actually have to do the math to understand how much people are saving. My accountant did it for all his clients and by and large the tax increases affected the high income folks. Doubling the std deduction and the child tax credit is a significant savings for lower class and many middle class brackets. There are a few middle class brackets with anomalies but most will see lower taxes. Keep trumpeting the party line. You actually have to do the math to understand. But if you say it a hundred times and click your heels together...

And if you figure out that the majority of your constituents benefit and don’t vote for it what does that say about you. Every politician that serves lower class areas should be educating their constituents to take advantage of the tax credits because it will put money in their pockets.

Where all the politicians fail is not making the cuts needed to be fiscally conservative. They are all good at spending more and more. None of them including Repubs have the guts to make cuts.

How much did you save? Did you save a $1000? $2000? How much did the wealthy save on their taxes? I bet it is a lot more than that. You were bought off for peanuts while the wealthy and corporations got tremendous benefits. And the deficit has risen. So far, the deficit is about a 833 billion dollars this year in 2018. Projections are a Trillion for 2019.

Is this fiscally responsible? I say no. And so does the math.

Moreover, I did my math and my taxes actually went up.

 

[Merge]

Nobody has ever suggested that other than you here. But income tax revenues are only about 50% of federal revenues though, you seem to think otherwise?

Spending is much more responsible for the deficit than revenuesin FY 2018.

And the tax cuts went more to the middle class than the 1% in total than gets reported.

I'm not saying spending isn't an issue, but this tax cut will primarily benefit wealthier individuals and will increase our deficit because revenue is lower.

 

[SPK145]

I'm not saying spending isn't an issue, but this tax cut will primarily benefit wealthier individuals and will increase our deficit because revenue is lower.

Economic policy needs to be looked at in its entirety, not just the vacuum of tax cuts. The tax cuts will cost $1 trillion in revenues over 10 years, spending cuts or cuts in the growth of spending should have/could have easily been able to cover this. The repubs absolutely failed with their sending plans.

What were the tax cuts in total dollars per class, not per taxpayer, look like?

 

[SPK145]

And the deficit has risen. So far, the deficit is about a 833 billion dollars this year in 2018. Projections are a Trillion for 2019.

Total revenues were up slightly in FY2018 and again in FY2019 while spending however goes up WAY more than that in both FY2018 and FY2019 and is the true driver of the deficit.

Moreover, I did my math and my taxes actually went up.

If so, that would be because of the limitations on deductions on state and local taxes. Living in NJ and Essex County, those taxes are insultingly high and that is where your complaint should be, not with federal taxation. Why should other states subsidize high NJ taxes?

 

[Merge]

Economic policy needs to be looked at in its entirety, not just the vacuum of tax cuts. The tax cuts will cost $1 trillion in revenues over 10 years, spending cuts or cuts in the growth of spending should have/could have easily been able to cover this. The repubs absolutely failed with their sending plans.

What were the tax cuts in total dollars per class, not per taxpayer, look like?

Right, there were no cuts. Just a reduction in revenue increasing our deficit which is bad policy.

What it looks like depends how far you stretch it out since some of the cuts expire in 2025 so if you make less than 100k, your taxes will be higher than they were on 2017 unless we pass a new laws.

50% of the tax benefit in 2018 will go to around 5-6% of the population.

 

[cernjSHU]

Total revenues were up slightly in FY2018 and again in FY2019 while spending however goes up WAY more than that in both FY2018 and FY2019 and is the true driver of the deficit.



If so, that would be because of the limitations on deductions on state and local taxes. Living in NJ and Essex County, those taxes are insultingly high and that is where your complaint should be, not with federal taxation. Why should other states subsidize high NJ taxes?

As I have said before. My tax bracket actually went up.

Total revenues were up slightly in FY2018 and again in FY2019 while spending however goes up WAY more than that in both FY2018 and FY2019 and is the true driver of the deficit.



If so, that would be because of the limitations on deductions on state and local taxes. Living in NJ and Essex County, those taxes are insultingly high and that is where your complaint should be, not with federal taxation. Why should other states subsidize high NJ taxes?

hmm. Single person standard deduction is 12k. Most middle class property taxes are around 10k. With state taxes surely going over your standard deduction. It does not take much. My bracket goes from 28% to 32 % with the same income. That has nothing to do with property taxes.

 

[Section112]

Your taxes should go up. You are an attorney that probably makes decent money and I believe you have two houses. A no doubt about it. That is how it should work - you are not helping your case.

 

[SPK145]

As I have said before. My tax bracket actually went up.

hmm. Single person standard deduction is 12k. Most middle class property taxes are around 10k. With state taxes surely going over your standard deduction. It does not take much. My bracket goes from 28% to 32 % with the same income. That has nothing to do with property taxes.

Completely inaccurate.

Your highest MARGINAL tax rate will go from 28% to 32% but your total tax rate should go down a few percentage points due to the new tax rates and bracketed incomes.

I do hope you have a good tax accountant. If not, I will help you.

 

[cernjSHU]

Your taxes should go up. You are an attorney that probably makes decent money and I believe you have two houses. A no doubt about it. That is how it should work - you are not helping your case.

Hmm, millionaires and billionaires taxes go down but mine should go up. That’s how it should work?

 

[Section112]

Hmm, millionaires and billionaires taxes go down but mine should go up. That’s how it should work?[/QUOTE
I have no idea what your tax situation is. But millionaires will pay more not less under most scenarios that I have seen.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Great predictions here, particularly SnakeTom, who was first.

Embarrassingly, Menendez got another 6 years. Disgraceful, and no amount of Trump dislike excuses it. Hugin was far from perfect, but he wasn't a known criminal -- and spare me the lack of convictions.

Unfortunately, when you "get out the vote" like the Democrats did, a lot of ignorant people (their base) vote the way they are flat-out told to, and then you have Question 1 passing, which will be another albatross for the NJ taxpayers.

 

[cernjSHU]

Great predictions here, particularly SnakeTom, who was first.

Embarrassingly, Menendez got another 6 years. Disgraceful, and no amount of Trump dislike excuses it. Hugin was far from perfect, but he wasn't a known criminal -- and spare me the lack of convictions.

Unfortunately, when you "get out the vote" like the Democrats did, a lot of ignorant people (their base) vote the way they are flat-out told to, and then you have Question 1 passing, which will be another albatross for the NJ taxpayers.

There are no facts to back that Menendez was a criminal. The indictment was a sham. Not sure what was criminal allegations in the indictment. Moreover, the allegations of teenage prostitutes which were not in the indictment but in Hugin’d ads were below the belt because they were disproven that the witnesses were paid To lie.

 

[seton1996]

There are no facts to back that Menendez was a criminal. The indictment was a sham. Not sure what was criminal allegations in the indictment. Moreover, the allegations of teenage prostitutes which were not in the indictment but in Hugin’d ads were below the belt because they were disproven that the witnesses were paid To lie.

Guess your definition of what is criminal is different from mine. Lots of things the Obama justice department and a grand jury charged him with seem criminal to me. Things like bribery, fraud and using your political power and influence for personal or others gains. If indictment was such as sham, how come it went all the way to trial(wasn't thrown out by judge) and wasn't a 12-0 not guilty by jury?

 

[cernjSHU]

Guess your definition of what is criminal is different from mine. Lots of things the Obama justice department and a grand jury charged him with seem criminal to me. Things like bribery, fraud and using your political power and influence for personal or others gains. If indictment was such as sham, how come it went all the way to trial(wasn't thrown out by judge) and wasn't a 12-0 not guilty by jury?

It was 11-1 for aquital first of all. That is why the Feds did not retry the case. Second, it’s a bribe to receive campaign donations and then do something for that constituent? If that is the case, every politician would be jailed. The Feds has to prove a quid pro quo and they never had any evidence. Same BS theory with regard to the Republican Governor in Virginia whose conviction was overturned on appeal.

 

[seton1996]

It was 11-1 for aquital first of all. That is why the Feds did not retry the case. Second, it’s a bribe to receive campaign donations and then do something for that constituent? If that is the case, every politician would be jailed. The Feds has to prove a quid pro quo and they never had any evidence. Same BS theory with regard to the Republican Governor in Virginia whose conviction was overturned on appeal.

Think your statement above clearly shows it was not a "Sham" and was criminal. I get that every politician could be jailed, but that does not make it not criminal. I admit I was surprised he was charged, as seems was based on a lot of circumstantial evidence. No doubt others could and probably should be indicted, but he was indicted when his own party was running the justice department. That says something to me.

Long before this ever surfaced had heard from people with connections to Hudson County Democratic insiders that he was very corrupt. Sure same thing can be said about many politicians, but it always seemed to be floating around with Menendez, back to his days as mayor of Union City.

 

[Pirata]

The market seems to like it.

 

[SPK145]

The market seems to like it.

They usually do like a split congress, nothing will be done, nothing will be undone.

 

[cernjSHU]

Think your statement above clearly shows it was not a "Sham" and was criminal. I get that every politician could be jailed, but that does not make it not criminal. I admit I was surprised he was charged, as seems was based on a lot of circumstantial evidence. No doubt others could and probably should be indicted, but he was indicted when his own party was running the justice department. That says something to me.

Long before this ever surfaced had heard from people with connections to Hudson County Democratic insiders that he was very corrupt. Sure same thing can be said about many politicians, but it always seemed to be floating around with Menendez, back to his days as mayor of Union City.

Let’s see the allegations . 1) Helping models get visas into the country; 2) Voting against the defense department from giving port security equipment to the Dominican Republic because Melgen wants to sell port security equipment to the DR 3) Interfering with Melgen’s Medicare fraud investigation.

He was supposed to have received donations for this. However he has a twenty year relationship with this guy.

First two allegations on its face are nonsense. The third could be something if he actually interfered. But making a phone call to inquire is not interfering and they had no other evidence.

The fed criminal justice system is not like the state. First, the defense doesn’t receive all evidence from the prosecution before trial to prepare. The Feds rarely lose because the system is completely tilted to the government’s side unlike the state side where everything is turned over and judges bend over backwards for defendants. So this verdict of 11-1 not guilty says a tremendous amount about the strength of the case.