U.S. Politics: 22 Trillion Problems But An Unsecured Border Ain’t One

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

As I've said before, looking at history when we are in an entirely different political climate is about as useful as saying that Republicans are the party of Lincoln. 

First, while this isn't close to the GOP electorate's refusal of knowledge, it's of the same ilk.  The only reason the punditocracy can articulate the current political climate is because my field has been warning about it for over twenty years.  And what was the reasoning for such warnings?  "Historical" research (albeit, sure, not all the way back to Lincoln).  Your position is posing like Trump is the cause rather than a symptom, which I think is terribly inaccurate.

Second, I just cited and provided data for why the current political climate - heightened polarization - actually increases the likelihood of volatility when it comes to congressional majorities.  That research, if not my data fair enough, is certainly useful.

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

but states are largely separated into urban-rural divides, and right now you can easily figure out who is and isn't going to be the senate party in a state simply by urban/rural population differences.

Uh, yeah.  That's why I said that.  But shifts are still possible.  Acting like they're tougher than they were in past party systems is either disingenuous or ignorant.

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Can it change in 20 years? Sure. By then we'll have a system where democrats won't be able to appoint a single judicial or executive nominee to their cabinet, won't be able to pass any laws, and will be entirely stuck. 20 years of that will pretty much end what we have as a government, and there's no sign that this kind of hardball is punished (and if anything, it is actively rewarded and lauded as being a good move).

I will eat ten thousand bugs if the Dems don't regain the Senate within 20 years, or 2038.  That's my point.

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But Kal basically hit the nail on the head: she's attractive, and not just in a "D.C. attractive" kind of way. It's impart why AOC gets a lot of attention too, accept she also has a lot of great policy positions and just seems incredibly likable.

Let's stop referring to the attractiveness of female politicians.  Especially after the disgustingness with Gretchen Whitmer's SotS coverage.

[lokisnow]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

It's weird that Trump has held his fire on her thus far.  Even complimented her.  No idea what that means.  Probably nothing.

Easy question to answer, It means he wants to fuck her.

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

There's another wholly inaccurate myth going around here that I feel like dispensing with.  This idea that the Senate is irredeemable for the Dems.  It does look bad for them in 2020, but that hardly is a permanent status - and even that can change quickly.  Let's try to look at this comparatively.  My problem with this premise is that neither party has a majority coalition right now.  The Republicans did after the Civil War and FDR built the most successful party coalition in American history in 1932.  Pre Civil War, for four score and seven years, the party systems were fairly fluid, so let's leave that out. 

So, for a rudimentary look, let's see the majority party switches for these three eras - Post Civil War (1866-1932), New Deal (1932-1980), Reagan Revolution (1980-current)*:

• Post Civil War Senate (66 years or 33 sessions):  5 - 1878; 1880; 1892; 1912; 1918.  Rate (5/33) - 15.2%.
• Post Civil War House (33 sessions):  9 - 1874; 1880; 1882; 1888; 1890; 1894; 1910; 1918; 1930.  Rate - 27.3%.
• New Deal Senate (46 years or 23 session):  5 - 1932; 1946; 1948; 1952; 1954.  Rate - 21.7%.
• New Deal House (23 sessions):  4 - 1946; 1948; 1952; 1954.  Rate - 17.4%.
• Current Senate (38 years or 19 sessions):  5.5 - 1980; 1986; 1994; 2001^; 2006; 2014.  Rate - 28.9%.
  • ^2001 pertains to the famous Jim Jeffords flip, which gave the Dems the Senate majority for about 18 months.  I think that should be worth half a point. 
• Current House (19 sessions):  4 - 1994; 2006; 2010; 2018.  Rate - 21%.

I don't see how you can look at that and be like, damn, the Senate is screwed for the Dems.  Yes, the GOP has an inherent advantage because they appeal to rural voters and rural voters are advantageous in disproportionately small states.  But that's hardly an intractable obstacle, especially, to sound like a broken record, due to polarization.

While that's a really primitive analysis, this is backed up by actual research.  Frances Lee is one of my favorite people in the field, and probably the top Senate scholar that isn't ancient (to be fair to others, most congressional scholars focus on the House, for a variety of reasons).  She wrote a book emphasizing the emerging uncertainty in congressional majorities that happens with polarization:

*I'm not huge fan of using 1980, rather than 1994, as the cutoff.  That's an unending academic debate that ultimately doesn't matter.  However, considering we are talking about Congress, where the trends of polarization began in the late 70s according to DW-NOMINATE, I think it's preferable.

very nice, thank you. I don't think the senate is out of reach, but it's going to take hard work and systematic investment in states the democrats stopped caring about over twenty years ago. Repairing that divestment will take decades.

Still, they should seriously target and invest in at least 31 senate races in 2020, If it's a D+10 kind of year, they could hit that 0.0015% jackpot chance of getting a senate majority. But only if they're trying to win in the first place. the past couple decades of Punting with milquetoast captain bland-i-pants candidates ( or failing to field candidates) means most opportunities in the senate don't really exist for democrats.

But the path to actually improving the senate is singular, break up into smaller states those states which have a population greater than 2x the average of all the states.

 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

democrats stopped caring about over twenty years ago.

Howard Dean had a pretty good run as DNC chair and he emphasized a 50 state strategy.  Just clashed with Josh Lyman, who of course won.

[Bonnot OG]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Did... did you just pull out 'I have black friends' in an attempt to boost your credibility?

Nope. 

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think I do. But Kal basically hit the nail on the head: she's attractive, and not just in a "D.C. attractive" kind of way. It's impart why AOC gets a lot of attention too, accept she also has a lot of great policy positions and just seems incredibly likable. Her reaction to winning was priceless. 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/06/27/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-new-york-reaction-vpx.ny1

She's awesome and adorable. I wish she was this side of the Atlantic.

[Kalbear]

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

First, while this isn't close to the GOP electorate's refusal of knowledge, it's of the same ilk.  The only reason the punditocracy can articulate the current political climate is because my field has been warning about it for over twenty years.  And what was the reasoning for such warnings?  "Historical" research (albeit, sure, not all the way back to Lincoln).  Your position is posing like Trump is the cause rather than a symptom, which I think is terribly inaccurate.

 

I don't think Trump is the cause, but comparing partisanship from then to now is not particularly useful either. 

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

Second, I just cited and provided data for why the current political climate - heightened polarization - actually increases the likelihood of volatility when it comes to congressional majorities.  That research, if not my data fair enough, is certainly useful. 

I didn't see how it changes senate majorities. House? Sure, I'll grant you. But the senate is remarkably more stable, and changes are largely based on either economic issues or candidates personal failings (like Roy Moore). Neither of those things invalidate that the Republicans have a built in advantage, and one can largely rely on that as a baseline. 

It doesn't mean that dems can't take the senate; it just means that they won't likely do it, and when they do they won't have it for very long. 

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

Uh, yeah.  That's why I said that.  But shifts are still possible.  Acting like they're tougher than they were in past party systems is either disingenuous or ignorant.

It's accurate. They are tougher, because partisanship makes it significantly tougher, and because partisanship also makes the costs of NOT voting for your party higher. For Republicans, it is literally the thing they care about most as a party - judicial appointments. For Dems, it basically means being able to block those appointments. Soon both parties will come to the conclusion that they lose nothing for blocking every single appointment the other can make. 

Another way to make this point is that in the 80s and early 90s one could have the reasonable assumption that as long as someone was reasonable qualified and did not have incredibly horrible things in their past, they would make it through executive appointments and judicial appointments. The cost to the voter of voting in a senator that was not their party but was good at getting stuff done for their state (like Byrd, as a great example) wasn't so bad. That is no longer the case now. Senators can no longer finagle things for states like they could, the blue slip is ignored, and all that matters is simple majorities. With that in mind, it's obviously the case that voting on party lines is going to happen more and more. 

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

I will eat ten thousand bugs if the Dems don't regain the Senate within 20 years, or 2038.  That's my point. 

BUG BET BUG BET BUG BET

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

Let's stop referring to the attractiveness of female politicians.  Especially after the disgustingness with Gretchen Whitmer's SotS coverage.

I don't see why we should. I don't think @Tywin et al. or I are actually advocating that women should be pretty in order to win, but pointing it out is ignoring actual data. Gabbard was partially a media darling (especially one appearing regularly on Fox) because of her attractiveness. Sarah Palin was as well. One of Clinton's drawbacks was that she wasn't considered as attractive (IE, per Tina Fey she had reached the unfuckable age), and the same is largely true for Warren. It shouldn't matter, and it's unfair and stupid, and it's also accurate. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well her campaign has just started. I'm willing to give her some opportunity to explain and reflect on her record and explain how she might do things differently as president. As far as her predecessor making more progress in SF, honestly, I don't know anything about that. Could you further elaborate on that?

I’m not an expert but from what I gather His record as DA largely consisted of him using his position as prosecutor to actually get people who would end up typically imprisoned, having their punishments be more able to rehabilitate them, having them enlisted in programs that would help them get better rather be put in a cell. Hallinan was a real progressive prosecutor. Not the type to gleefully recount of having threatened to lock parents who for their kids missing too much school.  I don’t see a lot of excitement generated from black and Latino communities for her

She could do things differently in the office of the presidency and I’m willing to give her some room in explaining(not excusing) her actions. And I will give her credit for the good things she’s done(for example DHS Body-Worn Camera Act) Though, I don’t think one could look at her overall record, and think that it’s a given she’ll actually push for strong reforms in the criminal justice system when President. And this is a big thing for a large amount of people in the base. 

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think its interesting you brought up Hillary. Ultimately, I ended up supporting Hillary over Sanders. Not because I thought Hillary was perfect. And not because I was a fan of everything she did. But, because given my set of choices, I thought she was the better candidate

Fair enough. Though I never thought she was the best candidate. Especially against a populist, appealing towards a change in status-quo.

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'd also note despite what Hillary had to say about Iraq, she seemingly couldn't let go of her interventionist ways. Something that has always bugged me about her. 

Tying back into my earlier statement this like this is why  I didn’t she wasn’t as better option. The idea of America being the world’s policemen is unpopular.. This and her paid speeches I found to the two things that could easily depress many on the left’s enthusiasm for her. 

But I picked Clinton because I immediately thought of her as a presidential owning to massive mistake in the past motivated by seemingly good intentions. And as I pointed out she was given misinformation by the Bush administration. I’m willing to show leniency here and condemn here out of hand. The other type of military interventions(in Libya and Syria for example) she was gun ho for I really can’t defend. 

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

 

Let's stop referring to the attractiveness of female politicians.  Especially after the disgustingness with Gretchen Whitmer's SotS coverage.

Ummm... no?

Stupid people like pretty people. That's a thing. Physical attraction is a part of how human beings judge other humans. It's fucking absurd and almost always a degrading element against women be they Hawt or Nawt. But hiding from it isn't going to solve anything.

Tywin stated a subjective opinion that is highly supportable in a broader logical argument. He didn't say "I liked her because she's got a pretty mouth" or "I'll never vote for a bitch with a face like that."

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think Trump is the cause, but comparing partisanship from then to now is not particularly useful either.

Partisanship is a trend.  I agree it's not useful before a certain point that's far before Lincoln, or even FDR's, time.  But your approach is ignoring the trend entirely.  I'm not sure you understand that.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I didn't see how it changes senate majorities. House? Sure, I'll grant you. But the senate is remarkably more stable, and changes are largely based on either economic issues or candidates personal failings (like Roy Moore).

House majorities have been much more stable since the modern presidency (i.e. FDR).  And they should continue to be with polarization, that's intuitive.  Also, personal scandals like Roy Moore have very little effect at the aggregate level.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Neither of those things invalidate that the Republicans have a built in advantage, and one can largely rely on that as a baseline. 

Does the GOP have an advantage?  Yes.  Does that mean there's a certain baseline?  No.  What's your wannabe baseline?

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's accurate. They are tougher, because partisanship makes it significantly tougher, and because partisanship also makes the costs of NOT voting for your party higher.

No, it's not tougher.  Because both parties have a coalition that is close to winning during any even-ish conditions.  Which, actually, makes it much easier than usual.  Which is why Frances Lee wrote a book about it.

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Another way to make this point is that in the 80s and early 90s one could have the reasonable assumption that as long as someone was reasonable qualified and did not have incredibly horrible things in their past, they would make it through executive appointments and judicial appointments.

I don't know why you're focusing so much on judicial/executive appointments when talking about the overall composition of the Senate.  And frankly I don't see a reason to respond.

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That is no longer the case now. Senators can no longer finagle things for states like they could, the blue slip is ignored, and all that matters is simple majorities.

Are you seriously trying to place this much importance on the blue slip - which varied considerably throughout its existence in terms of impact - on the whole of Senators' power?  Uh...

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

BUG BET BUG BET BUG BET

TIMES INFINITY!!!!

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Gabbard was partially a media darling (especially one appearing regularly on Fox) because of her attractiveness. Sarah Palin was as well. One of Clinton's drawbacks was that she wasn't considered as attractive (IE, per Tina Fey she had reached the unfuckable age), and the same is largely true for Warren. It shouldn't matter, and it's unfair and stupid, and it's also accurate. 

I still don't know why you guys think Gabbard was a media darling.  She was trivia in 2016.  Anyway, I stand by what I said.  I think talking about female politicians' looks doesn't lead to anything good.

[DMC]

25 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Stupid people like pretty people. That's a thing.

Stupid people, and even smart people, tend to make really regrettable statements about pretty politicians.  Mostly female, in my experience.  That's also a thing.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Partisanship is a trend.  I agree it's not useful before a certain point that's far before Lincoln, or even FDR's, time.  But your approach is ignoring the trend entirely.  I'm not sure you understand that. 

I'm in agreement, and I don't know why you're arguing this. My point is that comparing data when partisanship wasn't as big a deal to now isn't that useful. If you're discussing trendlines? Sure - but those trendlines point to a systemic bias for Republicans in the senate. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

House majorities have been much more stable since the modern presidency (i.e. FDR).  And they should continue to be with polarization, that's intuitive.  Also, personal scandals like Roy Moore have very little effect at the aggregate level. 

The only reason that the senate would be more unstable is that it only takes a couple of seats to change the composition. It's very easy to go from 51 to 53, and it's easy to go from 60 to 59 - with one weird election (like Roy Moore). 

But state-to-state is remarkably consistent for senates, especially over time, and there are not very many senate contests that are particularly competitive. And the handful that were more likely to swap - the ones that also track well to the battleground states - are becoming more partisan as well. Sherrod Brown is a good example of this - he is literally the only statewide Dem rep in Ohio right now. He won by 7 points in a 'wave' election year. Think he'll get re-elected in 2024? How many bugs are you willing to eat?

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Does the GOP have an advantage?  Yes.  Does that mean there's a certain baseline?  No.  What's your wannabe baseline?

Like I said, Republicans +4. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, it's not tougher.  Because both parties have a coalition that is close to winning during any even-ish conditions.  Which, actually, makes it much easier than usual.  Which is why Frances Lee wrote a book about it. 

This matters at the country level (and even then not as much) but not as much at the state level. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't know why you're focusing so much on judicial/executive appointments when talking about the overall composition of the Senate.  And frankly I don't see a reason to respond. 

Because we're finding out that it matters massively as a political value and obstruction at the senate level is not punished. Republicans can rightfully do it without fear, and can also tell their constituents that they should fear Democrats blocking anyone - because Democrats should block as well. 

I think one of the reasons that Trump won which still isn't as well understood or hyped up is that Republicans were MASSIVELY motivated to get the Scalia seat filled. Trump early on stated some of the people who he would nominate (he was oddly one of the only candidates who actually did provide real answers to that question), and those people were good conservative choices - and that meant the world to a very large chunk of the Republican elite and voters. And the importance of that power has, if anything, increased tremendously. With no filibuster and no penalty for obstruction, it is important to get a majority and only important to get a majority, and nothing else matters. A majority in the senate can cripple the opposition if they get POTUS, and can massively accelerate success if you do. When you can't pass laws, the only political power that matters is appointments. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Are you seriously trying to place this much importance on the blue slip - which varied considerably throughout its existence in terms of impact - on the whole of Senators' power?  Uh...

Not really, it's just another example of power that has been stripped and therefore made that majority value so much more important. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I still don't know why you guys think Gabbard was a media darling.  She was trivia in 2016.  Anyway, I stand by what I said.  I think talking about female politicians' looks doesn't lead to anything good.

Gabbard got a lot of news in 2016. I think you just missed that for whatever reason. She was considered a potential Dem POTUS pick, and she was often trotted out as the 'see, I think women are awesome, just not Clinton' argument, especially by Bernie Bros. 

[Kalbear]

By the way, if you're wondering why it's R+4 as the baseline, it's entirely based on the Cook Partisan map, giving every Dem and even state to Dems and everything else to Republicans. And you end up with 27 states that are R leaning, 23 that are D leaning. And that even overstates things, as with that system there are a total of 8 states that are D+0 or D+1, and zero states which are R+1. In addition to that, there are 15 states with R+10 or more, and 7 states which are D+10 or more. 

And per Cook, those leans are increasingly getting more extreme, not less. 

I haven't read the book, so take it for what it's worth, but my suspicion is that Frances Lee ignored happily externalities that caused elections to swing certain ways, and largely ignored what party was in office at POTUS. In that respect I guess you're right - that the senate can flip a bit more as a response to the POTUS - but as we saw in 2018, even that has limits, and senate races were oddly predictable based on partisan lean and wave values. Heitcamp had a chance to win in 2012, but was absolutely hosed in 2018. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

If you're discussing trendlines? Sure - but those trendlines point to a systemic bias for Republicans in the senate. 

Yes, for the third (?) time, they have an advantage.  You were arguing that "historic" data didn't matter, that was what this bit was about.  Now you're substantively agreeing it does, so...cool.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The only reason that the senate would be more unstable is that it only takes a couple of seats to change the composition.

Yes, that's pretty much the operational definition of instability.  And the fact we're still pretty close to that status quo is every reason not to freak out.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But state-to-state is remarkably consistent for senates, especially over time, and there are not very many senate contests that are particularly competitive.

Until they are.  You nor I have any idea what will be competitive in 2020, ultimately.  We can try to prognosticate, and in general we'll be right, but there always at least seems to be a Doug Jones that comes out of nowhere.  Or some weird demo shifts no one anticipated that changed Georgia or Texas or something.  Nobody knows anything, especially being sure about the Senate composition for the next 20 years.  Talk about bug bet.

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sherrod Brown is a good example of this - he is literally the only statewide Dem rep in Ohio right now. He won by 7 points in a 'wave' election year. Think he'll get re-elected in 2024? How many bugs are you willing to eat?

This is, like, a complicated contract.  Will Brown even be running in 2024?  I'd bet not.  It he does, yeah, I'd bet he'd win, because he's smart and cautious.

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Like I said, Republicans +4. 

K.  That's a fair baseline I suppose - current composition plus Jones losing.

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This matters at the country level (and even then not as much) but not as much at the state level. 

Ha!  That's silly.  If it matters at the national level - which it does - then at matters at a certain amount of states, necessarily.

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Because we're finding out that it matters massively as a political value and obstruction at the senate level is not punished.

What?  We're finding out what now?  That no one bothered to read the Constitution?  I sure as hell hope not.  Confirmation power is partisan.  The Dems have played their role in exacerbating that recently, poorly.  It is what it is.

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think one of the reasons that Trump won which still isn't as well understood or hyped up is that Republicans were MASSIVELY motivated to get the Scalia seat filled

I haven't seen any date to support this.

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not really, it's just another example of power that has been stripped and therefore made that majority value so much more important. 

My point is blue sips are not a relevant issue.  They have been used and abused depending on the leadership for a very long time.

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Gabbard got a lot of news in 2016. I think you just missed that for whatever reason.

I don't think I missed it, I just didn't view it as significant.  Meh, to each their own.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

Yes, for the third (?) time, they have an advantage.  You were arguing that "historic" data didn't matter, that was what this bit was about.  Now you're substantively agreeing it does, so...cool.

It doesn't matter as a refutation that things could go the dems way, no. I objected to you using historic data as a way of saying 'see, Dems can win back power too!'

Just now, DMC said:

Yes, that's pretty much the operational definition of instability.  And the fact we're still pretty close to that status quo is every reason not to freak out. 

We're what, 4 seats away? I don't see that as surmountable, and 2020 is probably the best shot possible outside of another recession that dems will have. It's a possibility, but I don't see it as a very good shot. 

Just now, DMC said:

Until they are.  You nor I have any idea what will be competitive in 2020, ultimately.  We can try to prognosticate, and in general we'll be right, but there always at least seems to be a Doug Jones that comes out of nowhere.  Or some weird demo shifts no one anticipated that changed Georgia or Texas or something.  Nobody knows anything, especially being sure about the Senate composition for the next 20 years.  Talk about bug bet. 

Right - but you being sure things are going to be about even is much less likely than me being sure that they'll likely be dominated by Republicans. And if the next 20 years are 16 years of Republicans and 4 years of Dems, chances are pretty good that Republicans will have utterly obliterated the judiciary by that point. 

Hell, if a POTUS doesn't have the senate in their first two years, I don't see how they even get anything done. Do they just have a lot of 'acting' heads? 

Just now, DMC said:

Ha!  That's silly.  If it matters at the national level - which it does - then at matters at a certain amount of states, necessarily.

Not really. At a national level population sizes of states matter. They don't when you're talking about the senate. So we can have a fairly close coalition of states because of population -which we kind of do - and also have an absurd balance for Republicans for the senate. And this trend is only growing, as fewer states are becoming more and more populous relative to others. 

For the senate, the main thing that matters is how many states lean a direction. For POTUS that, and the size of the state matter. See the difference?

Just now, DMC said:

What?  We're finding out what now?  That no one bothered to read the Constitution?  I sure as hell hope not.  Confirmation power is partisan.  The Dems have played their role in exacerbating that recently, poorly.  It is what it is. 

We're finding out how crucial it is to voters. Voters didn't care nearly as much as they do now. Largely because confirmation hearings weren't particularly contentious until, well, I guess Bork? 

Just now, DMC said:

I haven't seen any date to support this.

There was a really good report on NPR the other day about this, and there have been several reports on predicting senate and house races based on this. I'll see if I can find a link. It surprised me too - I didn't think Trump was all that savvy in that way - but this was one place where he actually was ahead of the curve compared to others. And he's continued to hammer on this - smartly - because things like abortion rights and gay marriage are still massive hot button issues for Republicans in a way they don't appear to be for Dems. 

Just now, DMC said:

My point is blue sips are not a relevant issue.  They have been used and abused depending on the leadership for a very long time.

Sure, that's fine. It was really not a big deal, just an example of how simple majority values have stripped away all other concerns - including values for a specific state. 

Just now, DMC said:

I don't think I missed it, I just didn't view it as significant.  Meh, to each their own.

Again, things like this were a big deal at the time. This got a lot of news too.  

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I haven't read the book, so take it for what it's worth, but my suspicion is that Frances Lee ignored happily externalities that caused elections to swing certain ways, and largely ignored what party was in office at POTUS. In that respect I guess you're right - that the senate can flip a bit more as a response to the POTUS - but as we saw in 2018, even that has limits, and senate races were oddly predictable based on partisan lean and wave values. Heitcamp had a chance to win in 2012, but was absolutely hosed in 2018. 

Didn't see this, thought the whole post was about Cook which I knew.  The answer is no, she didn't ignore any of that.  She controlled for election swings.  She controlled for party in office.  And she controlled for many other conditions you haven't even thought of.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

Didn't see this, thought the whole post was about Cook which I knew.  The answer is no, she didn't ignore any of that.  She controlled for election swings.  She controlled for party in office.  And she controlled for many other conditions you haven't even thought of.

So how does she come to the conclusion that the senate is unstable when based on the changing of the senate above, it is almost in precise lockstep with the changing of POTUS and economic conditions?

1994 was a reaction to Clinton. 2006 was a reaction to GWB. 2014 was the continued reaction to Obama (though the real major flip came in 2010, when dems went from 60 seats to a lot less). The only weird one in there is 2001, and even you note that was odd. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It doesn't matter as a refutation that things could go the dems way, no. I objected to you using historic data as a way of saying 'see, Dems can win back power too!'

But..it is a way of saying Dems can win back power too.  In fact it's a way of saying they're likely to.  Saying it isn't is ignoring the data.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

We're what, 4 seats away? I don't see that as surmountable, and 2020 is probably the best shot possible outside of another recession that dems will have. It's a possibility, but I don't see it as a very good shot. 

Why do you think 2020 is the best shot possible?  That's really..silly.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Right - but you being sure things are going to be about even is much less likely than me being sure that they'll likely be dominated by Republicans. And if the next 20 years are 16 years of Republicans and 4 years of Dems, chances are pretty good that Republicans will have utterly obliterated the judiciary by that point. 

I'm not sure about anything, but I don't think you're 16/4 spread should be assumed over the next 20 years at all.  That's just ass pulling.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Hell, if a POTUS doesn't have the senate in their first two years, I don't see how they even get anything done. Do they just have a lot of 'acting' heads?

I think this prospect is really..silly.

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

At a national level population sizes of states matter. They don't when you're talking about the senate. So we can have a fairly close coalition of states because of population -which we kind of do - and also have an absurd balance for Republicans for the senate. And this trend is only growing, as fewer states are becoming more and more populous relative to others. 

For the senate, the main thing that matters is how many states lean a direction. For POTUS that, and the size of the state matter. See the difference?

I don't think any of this is in any way insurmountable.  In fact, don't think it's even legitimately arguable to suggest such.  Sorry man, it's just in your head.

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

We're finding out how crucial it is to voters. Voters didn't care nearly as much as they do now. Largely because confirmation hearings weren't particularly contentious until, well, I guess Bork? 

We're finding voters care more about judicial and executive confirmations?  Please cite.

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, things like this were a big deal at the time. This got a lot of news too.  

I'm not denying the links man.  Just that anyone not really into it gave a shit.

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So how does she come to the conclusion that the senate is unstable when based on the changing of the senate above, it is almost in precise lockstep with the changing of POTUS and economic conditions?

Because it has been more volatile recently at a statistically significant level.

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

1994 was a reaction to Clinton. 2006 was a reaction to GWB. 2014 was the continued reaction to Obama (though the real major flip came in 2010, when dems went from 60 seats to a lot less). The only weird one in there is 2001, and even you note that was odd. 

Yes.  ThIs is the F point!  From what we've seen with a polarized era, it switches back every decade or so.

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Two things were going for Gabbard. She supported Bernie quite heavily, going beyond what a lot of others did and quitting the DNC over it. And she's pretty. 

And sadly that really is about it for her. A lot of my faux dem friends who love the military love her for...reasons, but her record is totally shit. 

She also she’s been very outspoken against the US’ tendency to overthrow governments in the Middle East. Especially at the cost of losing American lives. From what I gather from his supporters that is big reason for why she’s good. More and more people, whether they’d be on the left or right have grown heavily dissatisfied with the idea of America playing cop for the world. Gabbard has touched into that sentiment.

Shes also a veteran. 

So I’d say at least four things going for her.

[Kalbear]

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

But..it is a way of saying Dems can win back power too.  In fact it's a way of saying they're likely to.  Saying it isn't is ignoring the data.

It's ignoring trends in favor of historical biases, yes. 

Quote

Why do you think 2020 is the best shot possible?  That's really..silly.

Because in general, dem turnout is better in POTUS election years, 2020 has a lot of Republican incumbents and relatively few Dem vulnerable incumbents, and we may still have something resembling a functional election system in 2020. The map for 2022 isn't as favorable and it's an off year, and 2024 is the same map as 2018, which sucks for dems (though will be slightly better because it's a POTUS year). 2026 has a better map but by that point, if Dems haven't won, I don't think they will again. 

Quote

 

I'm not sure about anything, but I don't think you're 16/4 spread should be assumed over the next 20 years at all.  That's just ass pulling. 

Sure! Didn't claim to be otherwise. It's based on a standard deviation range of +4, and what the 25-75 likely spread is. 

Quote

I think this prospect is really..silly. 

You think that the senate simply refusing to confirm ANYONE is silly? Why? This is literally what Cruz threatened to do if Clinton won. This is what McConnell based his entire system on and got a POTUS elected. This is what Republicans threaten will happen if Dems win. 

What is the penalty for doing it?

Quote

I don't think any of this is in any way insurmountable.  In fact, don't think it's even legitimately arguable to suggest such.  Sorry man, it's just in your head. 

I think it's likely more than not that I'm right. That doesn't mean it will happen, only that it's reasonable to bet on it. 

Quote

We're finding voters care more about judicial and executive confirmations?  Please cite. 

Again, NPR. And we're finding REPUBLICAN voters care a lot about SCOTUS picks and judicial picks. It is one of the big things that Trump fundraises on, it's one of the things that he ran on, it's one of the things that he campaigns on still. And it's one of the things that appear to matter. Republican voters fear that with liberal justices and appointees, they'll lose on abortion, on marriage, on gun rights. It's odd - Pew didn't ask about this at all - but it was a massive deciding factor in the senate elections in 2018. 

ETA: here's a link. 

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/29/17511088/scotus-2016-election-poll-trump-republicans-kennedy-retire

Quote

I'm not denying the links man.  Just that anyone not really into it gave a shit. 

So anyone who didn't know didn't care, and anyone who did did? That sounds tautologically convenient. 

Quote

Because it has been more volatile recently at a statistically significant level. 

Recently being the last 40 years. Not arguing, but looking at how volatile things are compared to the 1920s isn't that useful. 

Quote

Yes.  ThIs is the F point!  From what we've seen with a polarized era, it switches back every decade or so.

The other thing that's odd is that while it is switching, it's switching with smaller and smaller swings, and Republicans are actually gaining here and there. The notion of getting a filibuster-proof majority has to be a pipe dream beyond massive recessions.