US Politics: “How did we come to this...”

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Easily done.

United States Senate.

Do those terms go together?

When it comes to the majority changing the chambers rules on cloture, yes, it is.  How long it'd take McConnell to abolish the filibuster for SCOTUS?  About four months after they achieved unified government.

There's also the upside that the change would embolden Puerto Rican statehood.  And no, it wouldn't change "all the rules."  If you can abolish the filibuster only on up or down confirmation votes but retain it for legislation, you can do the same damn thing for statehood votes.  Like I said, there are drawbacks and I'm not sure it's wise - and of course SCOTUS likely would strike it down anyway - but I think it's definitely worth a serious discussion if/when the Dems get unified govt.  Moreover, I think it definitely will be seriously discussed.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

When it comes to the majority changing the chambers rules on cloture, yes, it is.  How long it'd take McConnell to abolish the filibuster for SCOTUS?  About four months after they achieved unified government.

Joe Biden could win by close to 10% and still not win the Senate. Sad as it is Republicans will likely control the Senate for a long time. Want to give them those easy rules?
 

Quote

There's also the upside that the change would embolden Puerto Rican statehood.  And no, it wouldn't change "all the rules."  If you can abolish the filibuster only on up or down confirmation votes but retain it for legislation, you can do the same damn thing for statehood votes.  Like I said, there are drawbacks and I'm not sure it's wise - and of course SCOTUS likely would strike it down anyway - but I think it's definitely worth a serious discussion if/when the Dems get unified govt.  Moreover, I think it definitely will be seriously discussed.

Lol, no. The House and the Presidency will more likely than not be controlled by Democrats for a long time to come. But the Senate? Ha! Not likely. Are you sure you want to see a Senate unleashed that only needs 51 votes, especially in a country that's further empowering small red states? 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Joe Biden could win by close to 10% and still not win the Senate. Sad as it is Republicans will likely control the Senate for a long time.

Obviously, it's still way too early, but the the Dems regaining the Senate looks like even money under the current environment.  In fact you could say their favorites to get to 50/50 right now.  And while the Senate is likely to be controlled by the GOP for most of the time in the future, how are they gonna abuse those rules?  They can't constitutionally breakup an existing state unless that state grants its consent.  What states do you think want to be broken up?  More importantly, yes, the Senate is going to be increasingly malapportioned in the future - that's the entire point!  This is how you you help alleviate that!

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lol, no. The House and the Presidency will more likely than not be controlled by Democrats for a long time to come. But the Senate? Ha! Not likely.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted.  I really don't think you're getting the entire point of abolishing the filibuster for statehood votes but not for legislation.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Obviously, it's still way too early, but the the Dems regaining the Senate looks like even money under the current environment.  In fact you could say their favorites to get to 50/50 right now.  And while the Senate is likely to be controlled by the GOP for most of the time in the future, how are they gonna abuse those rules?  They can't constitutionally breakup an existing state unless that state grants its consent.  What states do you think want to be broken up?  More importantly, yes, the Senate is going to be increasingly malapportioned in the future - that's the entire point!  This is how you you help alleviate that!

I'm not sure we're seeing the same map. Dems may close the gap, but getting to 50 with a hypothetical Harris breaking the tie seems.....wishful. 

And no. You fix the problem, if you want to be radical, by stripping states of equal representation in the Senate. It's such an outdated idea to begin with. 

Quote

This has absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted.  I really don't think you're getting the entire point of abolishing the filibuster for statehood votes but not for legislation.

You do one, the other will happen. 

Like, seriously? Do you think Republicans will just give one of their last advantages away? 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not sure we're seeing the same map. Dems may close the gap, but getting to 50 with a hypothetical Harris breaking the tie seems.....wishful. 

It's probably fair to call them favorites in Arizona and Colorado right now.  I'd even but Maine at a slight lean, and Cunningham is polling well in NC.  That would get them to 50 all on its own - not to mention encouraging numbers/candidates out of Montana, Iowa, Kansas, and Georgia (twice).

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And no. You fix the problem, if you want to be radical, by stripping states of equal representation in the Senate.

Except you'd need an amendment to do that.  Talk about unrealistic.

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You do one, the other will happen. 

Like, seriously? Do you think Republicans will just give one of their last advantages away? 

The current Republican caucus would never get the votes to abolish the legislative filibuster, and McConnell clearly does not want to.  Of course, that may change in the future.  But, if we're looking long term, and like you said Dems would have likely have the strong advantage in the House while the GOP does in the Senate, so would it really matter anyway?  The filibuster only ultimately matters under unified government (for legislation).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's probably fair to call them favorites in Arizona and Colorado right now.  I'd even but Maine at a slight lean, and Cunningham is polling well in NC.  That would get them to 50 all on its own - not to mention encouraging numbers/candidates out of Montana, Iowa, Kansas, and Georgia (twice).

AZ looks decent. CO does too. But Jones will lose in AL. NC looks maybe okay? But if that's the case, sorry, Republicans still control it. The other states you listed, most polls say it's going Republican, and at best maybe you find some toss up data. 

Quote

Except you'd need an amendment to do that.  Talk about unrealistic.

Of course it's unrealistic. But if we're discussing unrealistic things, why not go for the kill shot?

Quote

The current Republican caucus would never get the votes to abolish the legislative filibuster, and McConnell clearly does not want to.  Of course, that may change in the future.  But, if we're looking long term, and like you said Dems would have likely have the strong advantage in the House while the GOP does in the Senate, so would it really matter anyway?  The filibuster only ultimately matters under unified government (for legislation).

Are you so sure about that? Say somehow Trump wins reelection and Republicans take the House. You don't think they'd just go YOLO? They know their party is dead, but zombies live a lot longer than  we'd like. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

AZ looks decent. CO does too. But Jones will lose in AL. NC looks maybe okay?

I took Jones losing into account.  And no, Bullock is leading in Montana in two recent polls (the only I'm aware of), Greenfield is leading in the last three recent polls, and both Georgia polls are mixed - albeit the runoff makes that difficult.  You seem to be ignorant of the recent state of these races.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But if we're discussing unrealistic things, why not go for the kill shot?

Because DC statehood is infinitely more realistic. 

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Are you so sure about that? Say somehow Trump wins reelection and Republicans take the House. You don't think they'd just go YOLO?

The GOP retaking the House this cycle is much more unrealistic than DC statehood.  Even if, no, I don't think McConnell goes for it.  And Trump isn't even interested in legislating in his first term, don't see why he would be in his second term.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

I took Jones losing into account.  And no, Bullock is leading in Montana in two recent polls (the only I'm aware of), Greenfield is leading in the last three recent polls, and both Georgia polls are mixed - albeit the runoff makes that difficult.  You seem to be ignorant of the recent state of these races.

The last handful of polls that I can find have Montana either a toss up or lean R. Greenfield is also not really leading in any poll I can find. Toss up again is her best hope. 

Please don't call me ignorant when a simple Google search does not back your assertions. Fuck, the turtle probable has a better chance of losing than some of the people you listed, but we're still going to need a good chunk of time to find out who the Democratic challenger even is (I like both though).

Quote

Because DC statehood is infinitely more realistic. 

I mean, neither is going to happen, so we're just having fun spinning our wheels here.

Quote

The GOP retaking the House this cycle is much more unrealistic than DC statehood.  Even if, no, I don't think McConnell goes for it.  And Trump isn't even interested in legislating in his first term, don't see why he would be in his second term.

Again, we still have no idea how voting will actually work. And gut feeling makes me think that heavily favors Republicans. If Trump somehow wins and Republicans hold the Senate while retaking the House, be shocked by nothing they do. 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

A federal judge has ordered longtime Donald Trump confidant Roger Stone to prison on July 14 and into home confinement until then, citing Stone's own evidence of medical issues that he cited to request a delay of his June 30 surrender date to begin a 40-month jail term.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson denied Stone's request to delay the start of his sentence until Sept. 3, instead giving Stone just over two weeks to report to FCI-Jesup.

 

Judge sets July 14 surrender date, immediate home confinement for Roger Stone
Judge Amy Berman Jackson denied Stone's request to delay the start of his sentence until Sept. 3, instead giving Stone just over two weeks to report to FCI-Jesup.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/26/roger-stone-confinement-date-341897

[Ormond]

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

AZ looks decent. CO does too. But Jones will lose in AL. NC looks maybe okay? But if that's the case, sorry, Republicans still control it. The other states you listed, most polls say it's going Republican, and at best maybe you find some toss up data. 

 

I do not think that is true about Maine. There doesn't seem to have been a poll conducted during the year 2020 that shows Susan Collins ahead. The most recent poll shows her losing by 9% to Sara Gideon, who is almost sure to win the Democratic primary, and even shows Collins 1% behind if Gideon's opponent, Betsy Sweet, were to win the primary. 

https://bangordailynews.com/2020/05/28/opinion/new-poll-shows-gideon-leading-collins-by-9-points/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/maine/

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The last handful of polls that I can find have Montana either a toss up or lean R. Greenfield is also not really leading in any poll I can find. Toss up again is her best hope. 

Please don't call me ignorant when a simple Google search does not back your assertions. Fuck, the turtle probable has a better chance of losing than some of the people you listed, but we're still going to need a good chunk of time to find out who the Democratic challenger even is (I like both though).

Well, Bullock and Greenfield's leads are admittedly within the margin, but you're simply wrong about this.  And simply checking these races on wikipedia DOES support my assertions.  And no, the above are polling much better than McConnell's opponent, especially in this most recent poll.  You are being ignorant.

As for the rest of your post, it's not just "spinning our wheels."  As I said originally, it appears you honestly don't realize how realistic this is (at least to get to SCOTUS) if the Dems achieve unified government.  The last point is just navel-gazing.  The Dems are much more likely to take back the Senate than the GOP the House.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I do not think that is true about Maine. There doesn't seem to have been a poll conducted during the year 2020 that shows Susan Collins ahead. The most recent poll shows her losing by 9% to Sara Gideon, who is almost sure to win the Democratic primary, and even shows Collins 1% behind if Gideon's opponent, Betsy Sweet, were to win the primary. 

https://bangordailynews.com/2020/05/28/opinion/new-poll-shows-gideon-leading-collins-by-9-points/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/maine/

Hmm. I don't look at 538 much these days, but those results seem  a lot more reassuring than other things I've seen (most polling has it as a toss up as far as I can see).

But again, what makes any of you have faith that elections will be free and fair? I still think we're going to see some truly strange results. 

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, Bullock and Greenfield's leads are admittedly within the margin, but you're simply wrong about this.  And simply checking these races on wikipedia DOES support my assertions.  And no, the above are polling much better than McConnell's opponent, especially in this most recent poll.  You are being ignorant.

As for the rest of your post, it's not just "spinning our wheels."  As I said originally, it appears you honestly don't realize how realistic this is (at least to get to SCOTUS) if the Dems achieve unified government.  The last point is just navel-gazing.  The Dems are much more likely to take back the Senate than the GOP the House.

Actually wiki seems to be your least reliable source. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_Senate_elections
 

You've got a Republican and Democratic seat that seem sure to flip, and then a few toss ups with Republican incumbents. Best hope seems to be a 50-50 split without some more things changing. And one of those 50 Democrats isn't really a Democrat anyways. 

Say I'm wrong. Say the Senate is 52-48 on our side. What get's through other than court appointments? 

[Martell Spy]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Hmm. I don't look at 538 much these days, but those results seem  a lot more reassuring than other things I've seen (most polling has it as a toss up as far as I can see).

But again, what makes any of you have faith that elections will be free and fair? I still think we're going to see some truly strange results. 

Actually wiki seems to be your least reliable source. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_Senate_elections
 

You've got a Republican and Democratic seat that seem sure to flip, and then a few toss ups with Republican incumbents. Best hope seems to be a 50-50 split without some more things changing. And one of those 50 Democrats isn't really a Democrat anyways. 

Say I'm wrong. Say the Senate is 52-48 on our side. What get's through other than court appointments? 

A tax raise and healthcare bill can pass. And SC justices can safely retire. Anything else is gravy. We definitely need post-Watergate style reforms, but there may not be the political will to do it.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Actually wiki seems to be your least reliable source. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_Senate_elections
 

You've got a Republican and Democratic seat that seem sure to flip, and then a few toss ups with Republican incumbents. Best hope seems to be a 50-50 split without some more things changing. And one of those 50 Democrats isn't really a Democrat anyways. 

OMG dude.  Look at the specific MT and IA races.  That's where I got those numbers from, and they clearly back me up.  You appear to be looking at prognosticators - NOT recent polling, which was clearly what I was talking about.  And, prognosticators tend to lag behind polling because they're inherently conservative.  Even then, the spread does look pretty good for the Dems under the big three (Cook, Sabato, and Rothenberg or Inside Elections).  In fact I bet you Sabato and Rothenburg would agree with my original 50/50 chance estimation, and Cook would be a bit more conservative.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Say I'm wrong. Say the Senate is 52-48 on our side. What get's through other than court appointments? 

What the hell does this have to do with anything?  Hopefully they'll get a piece of major legislation through reconciliation, and, they could very well do this.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

OMG dude.  Look at the specific MT and IA races.  That's where I got those numbers from, and they clearly back me up.  You appear to be looking at prognosticators - NOT recent polling, which was clearly what I was talking about.  And, prognosticators tend to lag behind polling because they're inherently conservative.  Even then, the spread does look pretty good for the Dems under the big three (Cook, Sabato, and Rothenberg or Inside Elections).  In fact I bet you Sabato and Rothenburg would agree with my original 50/50 chance estimation, and Cook would be a bit more conservative.

Dude, that's a lot of lean R and toss up you're citing. Montana:
 

Quote

Source	Ranking	As of
The Cook Political Report[47]	Tossup	June 18, 2020
Inside Elections[48]	Lean R	April 3, 2020
Sabato's Crystal Ball[49]	Lean R	April 30, 2020
Daily Kos[50]	Lean R	June 4, 2020
Politico[51]	Lean R	April 19, 2020
RCP[52]	Tossup	June 25, 2020
Niskanen[53]	Tossup	April 28, 2020

Iowa:

Quote

Source	Ranking	As of
The Cook Political Report[69]	Lean R	June 18, 2020
Inside Elections[70]	Lean R	April 3, 2020
Sabato's Crystal Ball[71]	Lean R	April 30, 2020
Daily Kos[72]	Lean R	June 4, 2020
Politico[73]	Lean R	April 19, 2020
RCP[74]	Tossup	June 25, 2020
Niskanen[75]	Tossup	April 28, 2020

The best data I can find is two seats will flip, one probably flips from R to D (Colorado), and after that, who the fuck knows? But I'm also assuming we're not going to have fair and free elections, and we know who that helps.
 

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

What the hell does this have to do with anything?  Hopefully they'll get a piece of major legislation through reconciliation, and, they could very well do this.

Perhaps. But they will need more than a 50-50 split with Harris hypothetically breaking the tie. 

[Gaston de Foix]

I find this debate over DC statehood fascinating.  DMC, your logic is impeccable as to the permissibility of abolishing the "statehood" filibuster.  I even tend to agree the Democrats are 51-49 to win the Senate if current political climate endures: AZ and CO with 50/50s on Maine, NC and Montana.  Strong chance in Iowa, decent chances in 2 Georgia seats with outside chances in Kansas and Alaska (yes, really). 

But if the Presidential race narrows significantly you could also see just the top 2 out of the 5 breaking for the Dems and Alabama is a virtually certain defeat.  

That said I strongly doubt DC statehood is the hill the Democrats will die on.  A Biden administration will try to work with the Rs on a compromise for their top priorities which I expect to be climate change, policing/criminal justice and gun reform, and immigration/DACA.  I also expect H.R.1. to be pushed by Pelosi as the first item of business. 

I also expect Ginsburg and Breyer to retire by June 2021 (if not sooner) so there will be two SC nominations plus the usual judicial nominations as Dem appointed judges will step down for a Dem President and Senate. 

DMC you have said that you oppose the abolition of the legislative filibuster in an exchange we had a while back.  Here's the problem with your analysis:  The Rs will go as nuclear in response to the statehood amendment as they will for the legislative filibuster.  Hypocrisy is no bar. More so, because as a party they really stand for perpetuating power and tax cuts and this undermines their power. 

You'll have all the usual bullshit about how Eastern Washington should be its own state if DC becomes one: 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/01/28/how_about_a_grand_compromise_on_dc_statehood_139289.html

Biden will be content to keep the filibuster in exchange for a major climate change act and maybe, just maybe H.R.1 if you strip all the voting rights stuff out and just keep stuff to prevent a future trump like mandatory disclosure of tax returns.  If you don't get rid of the fillibuster that is all you get. 

The problem with DC statehood is that politically it doesn't command broad and deep support and is not even easily understandable in the same way health care or climate change are.  Presidents have to think about commanding support from the public for their policies and DC is basically an epithet in much of the country thanks to decades of effective R propaganda (and I write this as a proud DC resident). 

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Dude, that's a lot of lean R and toss up you're citing. Montana:

Iowa:

The best data I can find is two seats will flip, one probably flips from R to D (Colorado), and after that, who the fuck knows? But I'm also assuming we're not going to have fair and free elections, and we know who that helps.

First, look at the dates of those updates.  Two thirds are from April.  I was referring to how the race looks right now.  Which is why I kept on saying "right now," "the current environment," "of course things can change," "the recent state of these races."  Second, prognosticators handicapping races is NOT data.  It's expert opinion. 

Third, things look a lot worse just in the past couple weeks between Trump's sinking approval, Biden's surge in national polling, and the generic ballot remaining dominantly Dem.  All of these factors - not to mention the external factors like the pandemic already looking like it's going to cause a second shutdown, the racial strife, and of course the economy, are factors none of those prognosticators - are thinks such prognosticators take into account, and they haven't been able to do yet.  Maybe Cook's recent update, but even that preceded this past week of awful polling for Trump and the GOP.

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Perhaps. But they will need more than a 50-50 split with Harris hypothetically breaking the tie. 

Oye, I was referring to their chances as being 50-50 to take back the Senate, not the composition being 50-50.  I said they'd be slight favorites at getting to a 50-50 split in terms of composition.  Also, no, they could pass a statehood bill with the VP as the tie-breaking vote.

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

DMC you have said that you oppose the abolition of the legislative filibuster in an exchange we had a while back.  Here's the problem with your analysis:  The Rs will go as nuclear in response to the statehood amendment as they will for the legislative filibuster.  Hypocrisy is no bar. More so, because as a party they really stand for perpetuating power and tax cuts and this undermines their power. 

DC statehood is supported by what will be President Biden and whomever is his VP.  It also is supported by Obama (albeit it'd have been nice if Obama and Biden supported it when they had the chance to do it).  Moreover, it is a substantive racial issue - disenfranchising most black and brown voters - that they can actually do something about.  And racial issues are likely to continue to be incredibly salient among the Democratic electorate.  It is the dominant consensus position of the Democratic Party.  Whereas abolishing the legislative filibuster is not the dominant consensus position of either party, let alone their respective caucuses in the Senate.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

First, look at the dates of those updates.  Two thirds are from April.  I was referring to how the race looks right now.  Which is why I kept on saying "right now," "the current environment," "of course things can change," "the recent state of these races."  Second, prognosticators handicapping races is NOT data.  It's expert opinion. 

Third, things look a lot worse just in the past couple weeks between Trump's sinking approval, Biden's surge in national polling, and the generic ballot remaining dominantly Dem.  All of these factors - not to mention the external factors like the pandemic already looking like it's going to cause a second shutdown, the racial strife, and of course the economy, are factors none of those prognosticators - are thinks such prognosticators take into account, and they haven't been able to do yet.  Maybe Cook's recent update, but even that preceded this past week of awful polling for Trump and the GOP.

Well, sort of. The most recent one for each race is lean's R and toss up, even though the latter got a lean R just a few weeks before.

But now you have me extra confused. Because I wrote exactly that like a week or two ago, and I thought you were one of the people specifically disagreeing with that point.

Or maybe it was @Fez, but we can forgive him because he's a Mets/Jets/Knicks fan and he probably just needs a hug. I know also coming from a shit collection of sports teams.

Yay Lynx? 

Quote

Oye, I was referring to their chances as being 50-50 to take back the Senate, not the composition being 50-50.  I said they'd be slight favorites at getting to a 50-50 split in terms of composition.  Also, no, they could pass a statehood bill with the VP as the tie-breaking vote.

My mistake.

But how can you like Joe Manchin more than me? 

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

But how can you like Joe Manchin more than me?

I suspect it would be very difficult to get Manchin to support the bill, yes.