|
Hedera Helix posted:So, basically, the Democrats have to win every race currently leaning dem, and either two of three tossups while holding NV or losing NV and winning all three tossups. This will get them to 50 seats, which if Clinton wins the presidency, will be enough to take control of the Senate; otherwise, they'll need several more seats in order to make up for everyone who will want to be bipartisan and work with President Christie or whomever. Yes. That's pretty much right on the money. And even if we get President Christie, the Dems don't have a shot at getting more than two seats TOPS in the biggest swing of biggest swings in 2018, so it's pretty much a guaranteed Republican rout for the midterms even if the president is Republican. The Democrats desperately need to work on their bench in the state legislatures, but every Republican midterm sweep keeps those benches clear of the bodies they need to get into higher public office. It's going to be at least eight years for the Democrats to seriously recover their losses. And given that the prognosis for 2020 is hardly a clear Democratic win in the state legislatures, we may have a permanent Republican majority through to 2030. ComradeCosmobot has issued a correction as of 03:18 on Nov 10, 2014 |
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
fade5 posted:Same, I was assuming that Alaska and North Carolina were Democratic holds, even if we lost Colorado and Iowa. Also, if Begich had won it might have put the idea that massive GOTV is the way for Democrats to move forward; instead, all it shows them is that Alaska was a waste of money (it wasn't). Your best hope for a Democratic House by 2020 is President Christie in 2016.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It wouldn't actually, there's no constitutional requirement for single-district House voting. A state declaring it will elect its representatives at-large through a proportional representation vote is completely consistent with the Constitution. Yes, but that's PR on the state level, which still gives a structural advantage to Republicans (because most one-to-two-district states will go 100% Republican, while pretty much every multi-district state will have both Democrats and Republicans in a more even split.). I assume Ardennes was talking about national PR, which would, in fact, be unconstitutional.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Any state could already do pure PR. As far as the federal government is concerned, there's nothing prohibiting PR, and any state could immediately choose to select their representatives through PR without using geographic districts. There's a federal law that currently prohibits multi-member districts. That would have to be repealed first.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Purely out of curiosity, was there a specific thing that happened, or was threatened to happen, to prompt that law? It was passed as a well-meaning attempt to head off lawsuits citing the rightly discriminatory nature of the at-large districts of Texas, Ohio and Maryland in the 89th Congress following Reynolds v. Sims evilweasel posted:edit: wow, I'm extremely wrong, they were banned in 1842 http://archive.fairvote.org/library/history/flores/apportn.htm Later apportionment bills lifted that prohibition. ComradeCosmobot has issued a correction as of 18:27 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:What's the current law? Public Law 90-156, "For the relief of Doctor Ricardo Vallejo Samala and to provide for congressional redistricting." which basically reinstituted the language of the 1842 Apportionment Act you cited. It's even discussed in the very next chapter of the essay you linked. The otherwise controlling legislation is the Reapportionment Act of 1929
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Ganon posted:Hopefully Dems don't screw themselves with the Top 2 primary and the general ends up being 2 Republicans. Do it. Get Top 2 repealed in 2017. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Russ Feingold is leaving the State Department. Naturally, pundits are wondering if this foretells a Johnson/Feingold rematch.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Bob Ojeda posted:Is there some reason independent redistricting commissions don't work? Because they'll probably be declared unconstitutional this year.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:You'd need a constitutional amendment, and that process heavily involves both the Senate and rural states, go figure. Not only that, but you'd either have to win a SCOTUS case or get unanimous ratification from the states.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:I was just about to post this That would basically be the SCOTUS case you'd need to win ("Does having no representation from any state constitute equal suffrage for the purpose of amending the Constitution?")
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:You guys forgot this one Albuquerque citizens will be glad to know they are neither a part of Texas nor of California. Those folks out in Santa Fe and Torrance County will be less pleased.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's a dumb plan but it is a dumb plan doable by two constitutional amendments, which is less hard than every single state. Two amendments plus a SCOTUS win.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Don't see where you'd need that, the amendments can't really be challenged in SCOTUS. Unless you mean to force any states that didn't want to join up. You'd have a state filing a case arguing that a repeal of the "equal suffrage" restriction on amendment subject matter counts as, itself, an "equal suffrage"-related amendment and thus subject to a unanimous ratification process before taking effect. The state would have standing (their rights are arguably infringed) and could make the filing as soon as it "illegally" was adopted at the 2/3rds mark rather than the 100% mark. And it's not like SCOTUS hasn't taken cases relating to the ratification process before.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:So the Senate is a lot less likely to go back to the Democratic party in 2016 now and the Democratic party gets a shittier leader? Correct. That means the Dems need 5 pickups rather than 4 since Nevada is a lock for Sandoval. The viable path to this is Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, ??? (Grassley, Portman, Burr and Ayotte would be next given their states, but they're all relatively popular incumbents who are unlikely to lose; and  if you think the Florida Democratic Party has anyone good enough to kick out Rubio)Meanwhile Democrats still have to defend Bennet in Colorado. The Democrats are unlikely to do worse than their 46-54 split today, but their path to even 50-50 is tough. ComradeCosmobot has issued a correction as of 15:34 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
So in other words, Rubio's returning to the Senate. Because there's no way he's still in the race in May.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I disagree wholeheartedly, he's only getting in in mid-April, he won't pull the plug in just a month unless his roll-out is disastrous, and I doubt that it will be. Sorry, I should have clarified which May I meant. I was referring to Gyges's May 2016 deadline.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I should probably apologize, I thought that May 2015 was the cut-off for registering for the primaries. Come to think of it, May 2016 is a super late deadline. If he waits that long he'd actually be exiting the race after Florida's primary has ended, really loving over his state's voters. Florida has two primaries. A presidential preference primary currently scheduled for March 15 and a general primary in August. Hence the May deadline. Unless Rubio has the nomination by May, he's free to register in the August primary.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:Is there a basic writeup of that whole thing somewhere for us USians who have next to know knowledge of Canuckistani provincial politics? I got the gist (left-center NDP ousts right-wing PC) but the background and details elude me, like how these parties relate to Canada's national parties and what the hell is Wildrose? As an uneducated American having read a little bit about this, Wildrose is basically the Albertan version of the Tea Party.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 18:56
|
|