|
twoot posted:Do states lock in House re-districting to the post-census only? No. Texas brought a mid-census redistricting to the Supreme Court and won back in 2002 or 2004 so there's precedent it's constitutional. That said, that's something that neither side has really gone for yet because the instant someone starts doing those routinely then everyone does it everywhere every two years (and not just that, you'd also redistrict your opponents into each other's districts routinely to make it so that none could develop a stable base). It's basically one of the few things that are technically possible but are simply not done that are left. The only other ones I can really think of are adjusting the size of the Supreme Court for partisan reasons, and removing subjects from the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
Joementum posted:Thanks for those poll numbers. Do you have a site that does that work for you that you could link me to? I'd love to add it to the OP. If not, and you took the time to compile that: (1) thanks for doing that, and (2) please continue doing it periodically. I got all except for the asterisked ones from http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/11/2016-senator-approvals.html, and were from states with a well-polled election in 2014 and a senate election in 2016. Other approval ratings I had to google individually (Portman and Johnson's approval ratings were from 2014 Spring, and Reid's and Blunt's from 2012) as you can see by the several I missed. All were from PPP for consistency. Nameless_Steve has issued a correction as of 00:56 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Schakowsky. I think GF is right Madigan won't run for gov til her dad retires. Voters would be too leery of that kind of power held in the hands of one family.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Popular Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), who has handily won five senate contests in a row since 1986, will be 80 when she chooses whether to run again in 2016. Maryland's governor has the power of appointment to fill empty Senate seats. If Mikulski doesn't retire, she'll be a shoo-in to win. If she does, a Democrat is practically guaranteed to keep the seat, but the race will sap resources from the DSCC. If this is the case, narrowly defeated Gubernatorial candidate (and current Lieutenant Governor) Anthony G. Brown may have a decent shot at becoming the first Iraq War veteran to hold the office of United States Senator.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:first Iraq War veteran to hold the office of United States Senator. Tom Cotton's going to get this distinction when he's sworn into office in January.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Oracle posted:She'll be 72. I realize the Senate is chock full of septegenarians but that's mostly because most of them have been there since the 60s. I don't think she's up for the political battle, especially when she's got a nice safe seat. Whoever it is, its up to Durbin to recruit them. Madigan really doesn't want Governor, why should she? She wants Mayor. Maybe she'll settle for Senate if Rahm doesn't move. She's polled it in the past.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:No. Texas brought a mid-census redistricting to the Supreme Court and won back in 2002 or 2004 so there's precedent it's constitutional. That said, that's something that neither side has really gone for yet because the instant someone starts doing those routinely then everyone does it everywhere every two years (and not just that, you'd also redistrict your opponents into each other's districts routinely to make it so that none could develop a stable base). It's basically one of the few things that are technically possible but are simply not done that are left. The only other ones I can really think of are adjusting the size of the Supreme Court for partisan reasons, and removing subjects from the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. I wonder if we will see these things happen in our lifetimes. I'd like to think there will be an eventual correction toward comity, someday, but I could just as easily see the opposite happening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Tom Cotton's going to get this distinction when he's sworn into office in January. You know what, I should have known that and totally derped out. I looked Cotton up on election night-- and was surprised to find he doesn't sound like an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:I wonder if we will see these things happen in our lifetimes. I'd like to think there will be an eventual correction toward comity, someday, but I could just as easily see the opposite happening. There has to be. Madison set the system up so that no one group could do anything on its own and force compromise and cooperation. Nothing gets done and the country collapses, otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Johnny Cache Hit posted:Who will we trot out, though? Beshear? I think the last poll I saw showed him with an advantage over Thomas Massie - who is quite the Tea Party darling. Conway has his eyes on Frankfort. Who else does that leave? Mayor Jerry? Greg Stumbo? I worry the bench may be deep but I'm not sure they stack up well against Massie. I was mostly thinking of Beshear, yeah, since that is such a popular rumor. He's probably the only guy who could give Rand a good fight if he is running to retain the seat. I do worry about his age, though. He could decline to run for age/health reasons and, even if he did take the seat, we would probably only get a couple of terms out of him. Grimes probably isn't an option. This past election boosted her name-recognition but did so in a bad way, and she might have difficulty reeling in national-level funding and support after the extravagant '14 campaign was so blatantly squandered. I don't know that she wil challenge Conway in the gubernatorial primary either, even though that has been heavily rumored for a while now. Might have a good shot at that Congressional seat, though, being a Lexington gal. I would say Conway, but he is liable to be exhausted (personally, financially and reputationally) if he whiffs on the Governorship. Abramson is almost as old as Beshear and does not seem to have that kind of ambition. But I think Overly or Atkins could take a decent swing at it, and they could always try to dust off Mongiardo. I'm curious how Conway's background will affect his fortunes in the gubernatiorial race, given our long tradition of refusing to elect Louisvillian governors. And given that he went to Duke
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:You know what, I should have known that and totally derped out. I looked Cotton up on election night-- and was surprised to find he doesn't sound like an rear end in a top hat. Doesn't really matter if he doesn't sound like an rear end in a top hat, he will vote 100% the same as people like inhofe and lankford.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Johnny Isakson confirms he'll run for re-election in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
So the Democratic primary to run against Kirk in IL is totally going to be Rahm vs Duckworth huh?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You've got two opposite inclinations here. The first is that the point of a district is that it has its own unique interests and needs someone to represent those particular interests. That tugs in favor of 'natural' districts: you'd want to put like people together in a district so that their representative represents those interests. The second is democracy - there's a problem when the elected representatives do not represent the electorate, and you've got a, say, 50-50 state that sends 75% of one side to Congress. This leans in favor of making each district competitive so that you avoid wasted votes as much as possible. This is old but worth bringing back up. I favor "like districts" and believe the way to get around the lack of competition is to switch a form of jungle primary, either having the "primary" on the date of the real election like several southern states do or having it prior to it like California does. That way you get interested groups voting together while also giving people a real shot to vote them out, just in many cases voting out one D for another or R for another. I really like runoff systems and wish they were more popular. edit: Also I'm disappointed that Toomey was left off that list of approval numbers last page, I was legitimately interested in seeing what the state thought of him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
In 2013 November, PPP showed Toomey's approval rating to be 36/46 (-10). http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/11/christie-tops-hillary-in-pa-toomey-endangered-for-16.html#more This was during a Republican dip after the Cruz shutdown, but it's practically impossible to overcome those kinds of numbers from his position. Oddly, a Quinnipiac poll taken in 2013 April showed Toomey's approval rating to be 48/34 (+14), with the extra support coming from 41% of Democrats approving. Did Toomey really drop 24 net points in seven months? In any case, PPP's numbers are more recent and PPP is the more accurate polling organization. (edit: I updated the table to include Toomey's numbers) Nameless_Steve has issued a correction as of 18:40 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
One big thing the Democrats have been dancing around is local level politics. If they want to sniff a favorable gerrymander (though it can't get much worse than now) in 2020 they have to start pouring resources into things like getting people elected in governships and state house races. And the Democratic Party suuuuuucks at that right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:One big thing the Democrats have been dancing around is local level politics. If they want to sniff a favorable gerrymander (though it can't get much worse than now) in 2020 they have to start pouring resources into things like getting people elected in governships and state house races. And the Democratic Party suuuuuucks at that right now. They should take lessons from the DFL, we are pretty good at that 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:They should take lessons from the DFL, we are pretty good at that Which is why the Minnesota GOP now controls the state house of representatives by a significant margin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:Which is why the Minnesota GOP now controls the state house of representatives by a significant margin. And we held onto the governor and Franken's seat by a ton, and even a few of the House seats that we were projected to lose. We did the best of any state except Oregon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:And we held onto the governor and Franken's seat by a ton, and even a few of the House seats that we were projected to lose. We did the best of any state except Oregon. Part of that probably had to do with weed honestly enough, 2018 is probably not going to be as kind. Oregon Democrats have pretty much everything they need, and a lot of major social issues are off the table. We will see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:They should take lessons from the DFL, we are pretty good at that I thought you meant the Florida Democratic Party and was about to go off on how horrible they are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Pennsylvania did pretty well too, it was the only state where an incumbent GOP governor was unseated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:And we held onto the governor and Franken's seat by a ton, and even a few of the House seats that we were projected to lose. We did the best of any state except Oregon. Yeah, I know. I'm just pointing out that, as successful as the DFL was, they still lost the House after having a large majority. We definitely could have done better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
The Monkey Man posted:Pennsylvania did pretty well too, it was the only state where an incumbent GOP governor was unseated. Pennsylvania is one of the key targets for the 2020 redistricting: in Presidential years Democrats tend to have a bit of an edge, but their seats are 5D/13R. That's a 16-seat swing if they can take Pennsylvania for the redistricting. Ohio is more of a reach but another key target as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Vitter will almost certainly move from the Senate to the Governor's mansion in LA, but I doubt a Democrat not named Landrieu will be competitive there. Cedric Richmond might be competitive for Vitter's seat if he's tired of the House. He's obviously ambitious and gives decent speeches. There's a state rep whose name I cannot remember right now that might run, but I think he's still too green.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Part of that probably had to do with weed honestly enough, 2018 is probably not going to be as kind. Oregon Democrats have pretty much everything they need, and a lot of major social issues are off the table. We will see. So you're saying what we need to do is get a legalization measure on all of the other 46 state's ballots in 2016? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:So you're saying what we need to do is get a legalization measure on all of the other 46 state's ballots in 2016? 2018. That's when we'll need high voter turnout. (...pun intended)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:2018. That's when we'll need high voter turnout. (...pun intended) Actually you need it in 2020, the redistricting happens between 2020 and 2022.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Actually you need it in 2020, the redistricting happens between 2020 and 2022. Basically we have to hope the Dems don't horribly bungle the 2020 Presidential.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:And we held onto the governor and Franken's seat by a ton, and even a few of the House seats that we were projected to lose. We did the best of any state except Oregon. It'd be more impressive if MNGOP wasn't such a total shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Actually you need it in 2020, the redistricting happens between 2020 and 2022. Admittedly you are probably going to need to well in both elections (or less poorly in 2018 than 2014), Governors and most senate senators have 4 year terms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Basically we have to hope the Dems don't horribly bungle the 2020 Presidential. Or there is a huge wave when President Paul is going for his 2nd term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Pennsylvania is one of the key targets for the 2020 redistricting: in Presidential years Democrats tend to have a bit of an edge, but their seats are 5D/13R. That's a 16-seat swing if they can take Pennsylvania for the redistricting. Ohio is more of a reach but another key target as well. What does the state legislature in Pennsylvania look like?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:What does the state legislature in Pennsylvania look like? Currently Republican controlled. Not exactly narrowly, but in an amount that eyeballing it and knowing nothing about the local politics should be doable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
The Monkey Man posted:Pennsylvania did pretty well too, it was the only state where an incumbent GOP governor was unseated. To be fair it would have been much closer if a lot of people didn't blame Corbett for what happened with Penn State.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Currently Republican controlled. Not exactly narrowly, but in an amount that eyeballing it and knowing nothing about the local politics should be doable. There is a very real possibility that the legislature's districts could look completely different in 2020, we are slowly trundling towards a (horrible, horrible, horrible but incredibly popular with the public) constitutional convention with the specific goal of shrinking the legislature's size. Anyways, it would be very hard for Democrats to hold the trifecta in PA without a wave election in 2018 or 2020. Ironically enough the SEPA part of this map, though currently a GOP gerrymander, might end up filled up with Democrats at that time. The best bet would probably be to keep the governor's office in that time and then force a "compromise" map that results in large parts of the state returning to swing districts. Also, and this is pretty nit-picky, you said earlier that there is a 13 seat difference to be had too, which isn't quite true. It would be a 12 seat difference since PA is almost assuredly going to lose a district due to low population growth. The Monkey Man posted:Pennsylvania did pretty well too, it was the only state where an incumbent GOP governor was unseated. Well, sort of. Corbett got his rear end handed to him yes but Republicans actually gained seats in the state house and senate. In the lower house they gained 8 seats while losing none of their own and added a total of three seats to their senate majority. They've decided to celebrate in the typical PA Republican way, by waging battles between themselves- both the house and senate majority leaders faced leadership challenges. Nothing came of it though and the "relatively" moderate leadership remained in place. Rather than looking at it as a party win I would look at it as an individual candidate's loss. We had something similar happen for our local (county) attorney race in 2010 where, despite the Republican wave, we voted out our sitting prosecutor due to his well known and widely hated lack of competence. Zwiftef posted:Cedric Richmond might be competitive for Vitter's seat if he's tired of the House. He's obviously ambitious and gives decent speeches. There's a state rep whose name I cannot remember right now that might run, but I think he's still too green. I don't mean to be racist (against white southerners?) but I don't think they'd ever give enough of their vote vote to a black Democrat from urban New Orleans for him to be at all competitive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Basically we have to hope the Dems don't horribly bungle the 2020 Presidential. This is as much dependent upon whether the next recession hits before Hillary's re-election, or after. Combined with voter fatigue, a 2018-9 recession would make it difficult.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
JosefStalinator posted:This is as much dependent upon whether the next recession hits before Hillary's re-election, or after. Combined with voter fatigue, a 2018-9 recession would make it difficult. The only sure fire way to avoid a 2020s domination of the House by Republicans is for the recession we are one year overdue for to strike in 2017 under President Christie. Unfortunately it is more likely that the recession strikes under the waning days of Obama's second term and for that to cause the election of President Christie, and his second term coattails prevent Democrats from securing any state legislatures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
So NC is a lean R, but there are rumors that Burr doesn't stick around. He was close with Coburn and that set, and Coburn pledged 2 terms and stuck to it (thing cancer intervened first), and apparently he's not aggressively seeking money like he should for a presidential year. Despite the lurch to the right, NC still has a bench due to the obscene number of statewide electeds. AG Roy Cooper finally decided he wants to run for gov after 16 years as AG, so he's out. Janet Cowell is a potential star. 40something female with a strong resume. I'd hate to lose her on a Senate bid when she could be in line to replace McCrory or Cooper, depending on 2016. Anthony Foxx is a popular pick, but would have been better running as Mayor as opposed to "OBAMA'S ROADS BUREAUCRAT." Brad Miller could run. He's 63 and got drawn out of his House district. Dan Blue gets brought up, but he was Speaker in the 90s and may be seen as too old and worn even if he is in his mid-60s, though I could see them putting him up against Burr to goose black turnout, especially if no one else wants it in the case that Burr runs. The only really clean candidate for that open seat on the GOP side is probably Cherry Berrie. Everyone else is too old (Foxx, Holding), unknown (Mark Meadows?) a prick (McHenry, Rouzer), or a lot more gaffe-prone than Tillis was (Dan Forest, Phil Berger, Robert Pittenger). EDIT: Burr "plans on running," so this is all speculation. If he does, my money is on some State Senator taking the fall. Apparently Foxx is out. De Nomolos has issued a correction as of 02:25 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
De Nomolos posted:So NC is a lean R, but there are rumors that Burr doesn't stick around. He was close with Coburn and that set, and Coburn pledged 2 terms and stuck to it (thing cancer intervened first), and apparently he's not aggressively seeking money like he should for a presidential year. This technically isn't about the senate, but what would be the prospects of McCrory getting ousted?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 02:18
|
|