|
Gyges posted:Keeping in mind that 2020 is a census year, and a Presidential Election year, so if she does win reelection with some measure of coattails the redistricting is probably going to really help the upcoming D bench. True, but most of the governors will be elected in 2018 and GOP governors would be able to at least force Democratic legislatures to meet them halfway on the maps.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
the best hope for democrats, i think, is a supreme court decision against partisan gerrymandering - not because democrats are saints or anything, just because they suck at winning state legislatures and that's where the gerrymandering happens. i feel like i've read the claim that the swing vote in the court the last time it was raised only held off on declaring it unconstitutional because nobody had presented a 'test' that satisfied him i don't know anything about law, but maybe either a change in the composition of the court, a plaintiff with a smart argument, or some of the state-level stuff like florida's fair districts amendment leads to 5 old people in robes finding the magic words that constrain state legislators in a way that doesn't let them cheat and have the illegal districts for 3 or 4 out of the 5 elections in the decade
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:the best hope for democrats, i think, is a supreme court decision against partisan gerrymandering - not because democrats are saints or anything, just because they suck at winning state legislatures and that's where the gerrymandering happens. i feel like i've read the claim that the swing vote in the court the last time it was raised only held off on declaring it unconstitutional because nobody had presented a 'test' that satisfied him If the Democrats win the House in 2016 they should reauthorize the VRA, with an additional provision that effectively makes it so that covered states are forbidden from gerrymandering. The Supreme Court doesn't like gerrymandering but has never been able to think up a workable standard to say what it is. Kennedy in particular has always kept that door open. evilweasel has issued a correction as of 13:45 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
Isn't it pretty much impossible they'll win the House though? Or is it now becoming possible that Trump depresses Republican turnout enough that they win it?! edit: \/\/\/\/\/wow, even if Clinton doesn't get a Reagan-vs-Mondale-esque win over Trump in EV's that is still huge if it happens. Hell if we even get close to it happening. PC LOAD LETTER has issued a correction as of 13:53 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Isn't it pretty much impossible they'll win the House though? Or is it now becoming possible that Trump depresses Republican turnout enough that they win it?! It should be impossible, but Trump is so loving bad that there's a chance. Not a good chance, still a long shot, but it could happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Like if a lot of GOP voters stay home in Nov, maybe. But it's a very long shot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If the Democrats win the House in 2016 they should reauthorize the VRA, with an additional provision that effectively makes it so that covered states are forbidden from gerrymandering. There is really no way to word that though unless you go for an obscenity style "I know it when I see it" reading and just ram everything through a friendly SCOTUS. Also keep in mind that certain districts are gerrymandered at the behest of the people in that district, like Chicago's weird one that made a Hispanic majority district for the first time. What would be much easier and in line with the previous ruling is to have the VRA apply nationwide, since what you're apparently after is them loving with turnout.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It should be impossible, but Trump is so loving bad that there's a chance. Not a good chance, still a long shot, but it could happen. There's a kind of poetic justice involved if Improbable Candidate Donald Trump leads to Improbable Democratic House.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Like if a lot of GOP voters stay home in Nov, maybe. But it's a very long shot. Basically, Hillary needs to be winning by about 8 points or more for it to start being possible. Still unlikely even then, but that's where you can start wondering. Since people who don't like their party's candidate tend to not vote rather than vote third party or just skip the presidential race, if enough Republicans despise Trump they're likely to stay at home and do serious damage downballot even if those republicans love their local congressman (or don't hate them).
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jarodkeith/status/751540376742326272
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
where's the other 50 percent
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:where's the other 50 percent lol i apologize to the forum this poll is trash http://www.babbagecofounder.com/2016/04/15/cofounder-pulse-poll-paul-27-7-gray-25-8-undecided-46-6/ 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
thethreeman posted:lol i apologize to the forum this poll is trash
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Isn't it pretty much impossible they'll win the House though? Or is it now becoming possible that Trump depresses Republican turnout enough that they win it?! There's a much greater chance of Trump winning and the GOP holding a solid Senate majority than the House has of flipping. Clinton winning by 9-10+ points might be enough but even then it's iffy and would rely on depressed GOP turnout or a shitload of right wingers (as in, millions of them) voting 3rd party. Honestly you shouldn't even think about the House flipping because it's so incredibly unlikely even with Trump being utterly toxic. The best to realistically hope for is that Clinton wins, the Dems retake the Senate, and the GOP's House majority shrinks enough that Ryan's life is able to be made a complete and utter mess so that he's able to live in a state of constant misery that approaches the pain his making GBS threads beliefs inflict on others.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If the Democrats win the House in 2016 they should reauthorize the VRA, with an additional provision that effectively makes it so that covered states are forbidden from gerrymandering. They should also make it cover all fifty states. I mean, Wisconsin isn't Southern but it's fuuucked voting-wise, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
This reminds me of all the people who started off 2010 saying that the Democrats had built up such an edge in seat count that there was no way it could all be reversed in one cycle. Well, it certainly was. However, it was reversed over the course of the cycle as more and more representatives found their leads deteriorating and their previously presumed to be safe seats put into play. That just hasn't seemed to be happening so far this cycle. I don't follow every race, and there are definitely some moving towards Democrats, but there's also large patches of potentially competitive seats that just don't seem to have any deterioration going on right now. SEPA, the Republican seats in New Jersey, anything in Ohio or Indiana, these areas just aren't looking any more favorable to Democrats this cycle than they did last cycle right now. Maybe the wave will build, but it hasn't yet and, with the poor candidate recruitment in a lot of these areas, its going to have to be 90% national and 10% local candidacy for some of these seats to turn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Yeah, here's my post from two years ago:quote:SOLID REP HOLD: ID, AZ, ND, SD, KS, OK, AR, LA, ID, AL, KY, UT, IA, SC From that, I'd move WI and NH into Leans Dem and PA into Tossup. Maaaaybe move IA into Leans Rep, but the rest stays the same. Even if Democrats win WI, NH, IL, NV, PA, and OH they still only have 51 Senate seats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Yeah, here's my post from two years ago: Arizona?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Arizona? Good point. It should be Leans Rep.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
I thought Johnson was even more toast than Kirk, with both of them being pretty much solid Dem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
i guess 'leans' is a pretty wide category in this particular schema but supposedly johnson is just dumb and has never tried to appeal to a non-red-wave electorate, whereas kirk at least has been militantly anti-republican honestly* and has humanized himself after his stroke (but he's got very little chance of holding on regardless) *in terms of high-profile votes and notable quotes, which are the only thing that matters in elections since nobody pays attention to what congress actually does
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Yeah, here's my post from two years ago: Right now I'd put KY more in Leans Rep than Solid Rep. For the time being I'd say that Jim Grey has a better-than-normal chance of replacing Rand Paul.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Yeah, here's my post from two years ago: FL is definitely toss-up. If Hillary's FL margin is as large as polls say, Rubio's chances are looking very poor. The wildcard is if Grayson wins the primary and fucks it all up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
You can argue back and forth about whether a state is leaning or a tossup, but the bottom line is that the best case scenario for the Democrats is probably 52 seats and its more likely they end up at 50 or 51. That's narrow majority that's sure to get wiped out in two years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:FL is definitely toss-up. If Hillary's FL margin is as large as polls say, Rubio's chances are looking very poor. The wildcard is if Grayson wins the primary and fucks it all up. has anyone polled for the primary?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:has anyone polled for the primary? Most recent polls had them basically tied with tons of undecided.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Joementum posted:You can argue back and forth about whether a state is leaning or a tossup, but the bottom line is that the best case scenario for the Democrats is probably 52 seats and its more likely they end up at 50 or 51. That's narrow majority that's sure to get wiped out in two years. I think the Dem ceiling is quite a bit higher if we're looking at a Senate wave year. The Dem ceiling is +10 seats in that case - PA, IL, NH, OH, WI, FL, MO, NC, GA, IA. I am inclined to see 6 seats as being the most likely number Democrats end up with after November (IL, WI, NH, FL, PA, OH) but there is the outside chance of knocking off Grassley and Burr, and then a more remote chance of Blunt (intriguingly, the RSCC just went up in MO) and Isakson going down as well. Edit: I don't disagree that Dems will likely lose their majority in 2018, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Note that the Democratic candidate in GA is an investment banker with no political experience. I'd move that race to solidly Republican. The only hope the Democrats have in a race like that is that Trump's campaign is so disastrous it wipes out down the ballot. I'm not convinced we're there yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
I want to be optimistic but it's just not happening. I just don't think Trump can do enough damage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Note that the Democratic candidate in GA is an investment banker with no political experience. I'd move that race to solidly Republican. The only hope the Democrats have in a race like that is that Trump's campaign is so disastrous it wipes out down the ballot. I'm not convinced we're there yet. It's pretty tough to be a Democrat in GA with political experience. The last good Senate candidate there absorbed her political experience by osmosis from her notoriously bigoted father, Sen. Nunn. That said, I don't really disagree. I think it's a very outside chance. The GOP Senate numbers have looked very poor and losing GA would essentially be the Worst Possible Thing that could happen. I actually missed AZ in there too (somehow), so I guess that's actually a +11. I actually feel pretty bullish about AZ-Sen given McCain's dismal numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Shinjobi posted:I want to be optimistic but it's just not happening. I just don't think Trump can do enough damage. Have you considered the coattail's of Barksdale's hat, though?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
It's a very good hat. Would vote for the hat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:FL is definitely toss-up. If Hillary's FL margin is as large as polls say, Rubio's chances are looking very poor. The wildcard is if Grayson wins the primary and fucks it all up. Florida Dems are idiots so they'll blow an otherwise winnable race, same with PA. The only thing better than the Dems taking the Senate, even if it's 50/50 and VP Kaine* has to constantly be a tie-breaker, would be if it includes McCain losing his seat. Rubio and McCain both losing reelection would be a thing of beauty. * Still hoping for Castro or Perez but Clinton's gonna Clinton I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Florida Dems are idiots so they'll blow an otherwise winnable race, same with PA. If it weren't for Orrin Hatch and his good buddy Ted Cruz, we could theoretically clear the Senate of every member who actually thought they could be President this very election.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Gyges posted:If it weren't for Orrin Hatch and his good buddy Ted Cruz, we could theoretically clear the Senate of every member who actually thought they could be President this very election.  (and Graham and Sanders from this cycle!)
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Lamar ran before he was a Senator, but no loving idea how Bernie and Lindsay slipped my mind there. Though if they don't run for reelection I stand by my inexplicable brain fart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
I just noticed that "Lamar Walked Here!" sign in the background. What a missed opportunity, America.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Bernie Sanders is like 100 so who knows if he'll run for re-election but his term isn't up until 2018 anyway
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:Bernie Sanders is like 100 so who knows if he'll run for re-election but his term isn't up until 2018 anyway eh, Sanders isn't even 80 yet (he's 74). Robert Byrd served in the Senate until he was 92 (when he died). Charles Grassley, who is running for reelection, is 82. Dianne Feinstein is 83.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
I think Bernie will run again. The bigger question is whether he'll run as a Democrat. I suspect not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 19:21
|
|