Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ants

US Politics: Bounties from a Jericho Walk

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

So, I'm high and am daydreaming about a Democratic Senate supermajority arising from an historic defeat in the race for President, that allows us to smash the oppressive capitalists, and maybe hang a few of them from lampposts (before taking them down after 15 minutes or so).

I saw a polling breakdown earlier in the day that found a ton of Democratic Senators have big leads, small leads in places they normally struggle and are within the margin or error in places they never win. 57 seems a bit unlikely, but maybe they can get to 55 and just change the filibuster to that being the new threshold and just undo all their awful legislation while dunking on them with a liberal agenda. Some compromises on the degree it is to the left for the new red state senators, but still, a lot can be undo, and maybe the world can stop laughing at us. Or at least go back to the same degree of laughter that existed before Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Gods you guys are so cute when you have hope. 

Like I said, I was daydreaming, but point taken.

I will say that at this point, some kind of tail-risk electoral event is probably more likely than it would have been in normal times. I view either a Trump or Biden landslide being not too far from the likelihood of a narrow Biden win and narrow Senate loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I saw a polling breakdown earlier in the day that found a ton of Democratic Senators have big leads, small leads in places they normally struggle and are within the margin or error in places they never win. 57 seems a bit unlikely, but maybe they can get to 55 and just change the filibuster to that being the new threshold and just undo all their awful legislation while dunking on them with a liberal agenda. Some compromises on the degree it is to the left for the new red state senators, but still, a lot can be undo, and maybe the world can stop laughing at us. Or at least go back to the same degree of laughter that existed before Trump.

Yeah, I just can't come to any kind of realistic Biden win, even though I think a Biden blowout is possible, that gets us anywhere close to a filibuster-proof majority. Which makes that accomplishment in 2008 so much more impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is looking pretty grim for Trump... right now.  I do expect it’ll tighten up in October / November as I believe there are a number of Republicans or conservative independents who have been flirting with the idea of sitting out, voting 3rd party, or voting for Biden who will ultimately return to the fold.

But a blowout across the board would be just about the best thing that could possibly happen to this country.  I’m sure most here have seen reports about the GOP autopsy that was done after Romney failed to beat Obama where it was concluded that the Republicans needed to become more inclusive and move toward the center on a few issues if they wanted to be a viable national party in the future instead of a collection of regional contrarians.  

Trump’s victory seemingly contradicts the conclusions of that autopsy, it certainly did in the short term - but without rehashing the whole terrible experience of the 2016 campaign, I think there are a few good reasons to believe that Trump’s 2016 victory was a total fluke that isn’t likely to be repeated.  The demographic trends alone are heading in the wrong direction for the GOP.  Trump’s divisiveness worked in 2016, and it could work in 2020, but in the longterm, it really is a losing strategy. 

Much like every other endeavor launched by the powerful members of Trump’s generation - his strategy will prove to be totally self-serving, short-sighted, and completely fuck over it’s inheritors.  The trajectory that Trump has placed the GOP on is not sustainable. 

I do think it is possible that the GOP gets utterly blown out in 2020.  Demographics, the gross mishandling of recent crises, general Trump fatigue, and a more likeable candidate going against him.  If the GOP stays on the Trumpist trajectory it will cost them in the end.  IMO the post-Romney autopsy is still pretty much valid and it is not unlikely that before the decade is out Republicans are pretending like they’ve never even heard of Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Yeah, I just can't come to any kind of realistic Biden win, even though I think a Biden blowout is possible, that gets us anywhere close to a filibuster-proof majority. Which makes that accomplishment in 2008 so much more impressive.

Well, 2008 was set up by 2006. 2018 was definitely a win by Democrats, but Republicans got lucky on a few close races in places like Florida and Georgia, which blunted the win. 60 votes in the Senate is unlikely in our lifetimes. The conditions do seem to be there for a Trump meltdown. I thought that might happen in 2016 though, so I don't have the best track record. The virus does not look like it is leaving any time soon and that would be a pain in the ass to a President that was even trying to fight it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big thing that hasn't happened yet is the hate machine targeted at Biden. They've tried a bit, but it really hasn't had anything stick. But it's only July. His approval rate dropping is going to be a big tell. If his approval rate drops near Clinton's was in 2016 chances are good all those 'hate both people' will go back to Trump, just because they did in 2016 and people in general, when faced with two bad choices, pick the one they know. 

But that again assumes standard elections and standard voting patterns. We don't know if people will go out to vote, we don't know how hard it will be to vote, we don't know how bad the country will be via the virus. Hell, Biden of all fuckers might tell everyone 'if you have the choice between exposure and voting, stay home' because he's that kind of asshole. This election at best is going to be tied up in counts and recounts and confusion until inauguration day, and that's assuming most states do vote by mail and we have a vaguely free election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

At the beginning of the year I was breathlessly posting moment by moment during a SpaceX launch. Only to find that the LIVE FOOTAGE was 8 months old.

We all do the weirdest shit when we're high.

I just assume it was something along the lines

Dude that rocket. Whoa, it's so cool. It's going to space.

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yeah there's so much weird shit she's reading from it. How he sexualizes his female family members, how he didn't even know who Eric Trump's wife was despite them being married for eight years.

You just wrote he, without defining it prior. So it was not clear whether he in your sentence referred to Beavis or Butthead. Thankfully Jaxom cleared up the confusion.

On 7/7/2020 at 2:19 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

Cleveland could either change its name or change the image to one of an actual Indian, I suppose. Though why they would brand themselves with the image of a South Asian person would be a bit befuddling as there is little real connection to the sport in question, so a name change would probably be the better move.

They should just name themselves the Cleveland Sheens. Shows the amazing skills of Charlie Sheen, that he even managed to make a movie about Baseball somewhat entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

We all do the weirdest shit when we're high.

I just assume it was something along the lines

Dude that rocket. Whoa, it's so cool. It's going to space.

You just wrote he, without defining it prior. So it was not clear whether he in your sentence referred to Beavis or Butthead. Thankfully Jaxom cleared up the confusion.

They should just name themselves the Cleveland Sheens. Shows the amazing skills of Charlie Sheen, that he even managed to make a movie about Baseball somewhat entertaining.

Didn’t he also get in trouble for not disclosing his HIV status and spreading it? I think that bumps him a few pegs below Martin and Emilio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

They should just name themselves the Cleveland Sheens. Shows the amazing skills of Charlie Sheen, that he even managed to make a movie about Baseball somewhat entertaining.

Nah, they need to bring back the Cleveland Spiders, if we're changing it, let's name it after the most notable Cleveland quality, borderline statically impossible failure (the Cleveland Spiders hold the single season record for the worst record in baseball history with a record of 20 wins and 134 loses).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ormond said:

I have written in these threads more than once that Trump is so narcissistic that he believes his own lies when he hears himself say them out loud. At around 6:16 there is a quote from Mary Trump's book that starts "The lies may become true in his mind as soon as he utters them...".  It's cool to have my interpretation affirmed by his own niece who is also a psychologist. 

I think that's a common trait in successful politicians, though - Tony Blair, for example, or even Bill Clinton. The difference with Trump is that the lies are more florid and garish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

They should just name themselves the Cleveland Sheens. Shows the amazing skills of Charlie Sheen, that he even managed to make a movie about Baseball somewhat entertaining.

That would be a shame.  As an Indian kid visiting USA for the first time I was flattered that the teams all seemed to be named after my heritage.  I just couldn't pick between the Bengals, the Indians or the Browns :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you assume the chances of Biden winning by a bit more than he currently is up to about the same as the chances of the polling narrowing, you can get to a pretty high number of Democratic senate wins. Thougu 60 is a tall order.

They start at 47. Alabama is probably a loss no matter what (though Jones did release an internal only showing him down a bit a little while ago), so 46. AZ, CO, NC, and ME are all really realistic, so 50. MT currently looks doable just on Bollock's strength; that could change but for now, 51. Based on polling, in a Biden blowout, IA, SC, both GA races, and TX are winnable, that could get you to 56. If Kobach is nominated, KS becomes realistic even in a slightly closer race than current, so that's 57. 

There's no targets past that though. At that point you're relying on Alaska weirdness or a Roy Moore-level scandal to bring down someone totally safe like Sasse. And you'd need both, plus Jones hanging on, to get to 60.

I don't see it. I could see 54 or 55 seats though, if Trump doesn't regain any support (or only the tinest bit) from his current level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Fez said:

They start at 47. Alabama is probably a loss no matter what (though Jones did release an internal only showing him down a bit a little while ago), so 46. AZ, CO, NC, and ME are all really realistic, so 50. MT currently looks doable just on Bollock's strength; that could change but for now, 51. Based on polling, in a Biden blowout, IA, SC, both GA races, and TX are winnable, that could get you to 56. If Kobach is nominated, KS becomes realistic even in a slightly closer race than current, so that's 57. 

There's no targets past that though. At that point you're relying on Alaska weirdness or a Roy Moore-level scandal to bring down someone totally safe like Sasse. And you'd need both, plus Jones hanging on, to get to 60.

I don't see it. I could see 54 or 55 seats though, if Trump doesn't regain any support (or only the tinest bit) from his current level.

Even that strikes me as really optimistic.  The best case scenario for Democrats is winning the big four as you say.  MT and IA are the next best cases for the reasons you give.  You would need the extremely favorable political environment to continue for Greenfield to take Ernst given Iowa's rightward shift in the last 8 years.   

The most realistic path to retaining AL would be if Sessions is the nominee and lots of fervent Trump supporters stay at home or don't vote for him.  

I haven't seen any credible polling suggesting Jamie Harrison is neck to neck or closely behind Lindsay Lickspittle.  SC is a real reach.  If Beto was running in the Texas Senate race against Cornyn he would have a shot.  Jury is still out on Hegar and these competing attacks of racism and sexism are not helping.  Even in a favorable environment I doubt TX flips. 

The problem with Georgia Senate races is that you need 50% to avoid a run-off.  Even if Osssoff beats Perdue 49-47 then there's a runoff in Jan.  And the turnout for these run-offs tend to be lower.  If control of the Senate hinges on the race, maybe, maybe he wins the run-off but I think the numbers for a Dem breaking 50% in Georgia are just not there. 

In the other Georgia race given the multiple Dems in the race, I also see Warnock really struggling to break 50%.  So best case scenario is run-off between Loeffler and Warnock in Jan.  If Trump is soundly repudiated in Nov. and lots of Trump/Collins voters stay at home then maybe there is a shot.  But I think that Dems actually have a better shot at Perdue's seat.

As you say KS is realistic only if Kobach is the nominee.  And I suspect he won't be.  But fingers crossed. 

Alaska is a legit wild card that is underrated both because they elected a Dem not so long ago (Begich, albeit in special circumstances against Stevens) and he came within a hairsbreadth of winning re-election.  We'll get an Alaska Senate poll on Thursday at 10 AM EST but I would rank the chances of winning AK higher than AL, TX, SC, KY.  

Finally, Amy McGrath is sitting on a ton of money and don't underestimate how hated Mitch is both by Dems nationally and how unpopular he is in his own state. He beat Lunsford by only 6% in 2008, another blue wave election.  Mitch and his team are utterly ruthless and amoral fuckers who go extremely hard against their opponent because they know he's unpopular.  McGrath not proved herself a great politician this far but if she makes it a referendum on Mitch, she has a shot.  

So 60 seats in 2020? No way.  But if the Dems have a majority of their party willing to abolish the legislative filibuster (assume at least Manchin, King and Bennett will defect), then the Republicans will offer to cut a deal on some legislative items rather than see it abolished.  I suspect some elements of HR1 and infrastructure.  Maybe immigration.  You may have a repeat of the Gang of 6 negotiations that stalled the abolition of the filibuster for a while. 

And 2022 will actually have a number of decent pickup options for Dems with 12 Dems up and 22 Republicans up and chances in IA (assume Grassley age 86 retires), NC (Burr is definitely going), PA (Toomey can be beaten by the right Dem), WI (will Ron Johnson honor his term limit pledge?), FL (I doubt Rubio will lose but you never know), and Ohio (I highly doubt Portman will lose). 

Edited by Gaston de Foix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Do you think 200,000 dead by November will have an impact on voting?

I think we are already seeing the effect of 130K dead on voting/popularity numbers in the Presidential and Senate races.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Do you think 200,000 dead by November will have an impact on voting?

Do you mean 200,000 above where they are now, or 200,000 in total.  Right now I imagine they would love to only have 200,000 total by November. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Do you mean 200,000 above where they are now, or 200,000 in total.  Right now I imagine they would love to only have 200,000 total by November. 

I'm guessing 200 000 total

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Even that strikes me as really optimistic.  The best case scenario for Democrats is winning the big four as you say.  MT and IA are the next best cases for the reasons you give.  You would need the extremely favorable political environment to continue for Greenfield to take Ernst given Iowa's rightward shift in the last 8 years.   

The most realistic path to retaining AL would be if Sessions is the nominee and lots of fervent Trump supporters stay at home or don't vote for him.  

I haven't seen any credible polling suggesting Jamie Harrison is neck to neck or closely behind Lindsay Lickspittle.  SC is a real reach.  If Beto was running in the Texas Senate race against Cornyn he would have a shot.  Jury is still out on Hegar and these competing attacks of racism and sexism are not helping.  Even in a favorable environment I doubt TX flips. 

The problem with Georgia Senate races is that you need 50% to avoid a run-off.  Even if Osssoff beats Perdue 49-47 then there's a runoff in Jan.  And the turnout for these run-offs tend to be lower.  If control of the Senate hinges on the race, maybe, maybe he wins the run-off but I think the numbers for a Dem breaking 50% in Georgia are just not there. 

In the other Georgia race given the multiple Dems in the race, I also see Warnock really struggling to break 50%.  So best case scenario is run-off between Loeffler and Warnock in Jan.  If Trump is soundly repudiated in Nov. and lots of Trump/Collins voters stay at home then maybe there is a shot.  But I think that Dems actually have a better shot at Perdue's seat.

As you say KS is realistic only if Kobach is the nominee.  And I suspect he won't be.  But fingers crossed. 

Alaska is a legit wild card that is underrated both because they elected a Dem not so long ago (Begich, albeit in special circumstances against Stevens) and he came within a hairsbreadth of winning re-election.  We'll get an Alaska Senate poll on Thursday at 10 AM EST but I would rank the chances of winning AK higher than AL, TX, SC, KY.  

Finally, Amy McGrath is sitting on a ton of money and don't underestimate how hated Mitch is both by Dems nationally and how unpopular he is in his own state. He beat Lunsford by only 6% in 2008, another blue wave election.  Mitch and his team are utterly ruthless and amoral fuckers who go extremely hard against their opponent because they know he's unpopular.  McGrath not proved herself a great politician this far but if she makes it a referendum on Mitch, she has a shot.  

So 60 seats in 2020? No way.  But if the Dems have a majority of their party willing to abolish the legislative filibuster (assume at least Manchin, King and Bennett will defect), then the Republicans will offer to cut a deal on some legislative items rather than see it abolished.  I suspect some elements of HR1 and infrastructure.  Maybe immigration.  You may have a repeat of the Gang of 6 negotiations that stalled the abolition of the filibuster for a while. 

And 2022 will actually have a number of decent pickup options for Dems with 12 Dems up and 22 Republicans up and chances in IA (assume Grassley age 86 retires), NC (Burr is definitely going), PA (Toomey can be beaten by the right Dem), WI (will Ron Johnson honor his term limit pledge?), FL (I doubt Rubio will lose but you never know), and Ohio (I highly doubt Portman will lose). 

Yeah it's optimistic, but that's the point. Everyone is so pessimistic all the time, saying the race is bound to tighten. And that's certainly possible, but there just as easily be a further widening in the race, or a polling error in Biden's favor. And what I laid out is what I see as the best possible case.

On polling, in early June there was a Des Moines Register poll finding Greenfield +3 over Ernst. It's just one poll of course, but in a national environment of Biden +8 or +9, to say nothing of +13 or +14, that's a winnable race.

There hasn't been public South Carolina, but Harrison raised $14 million last quarter. That's enough to make Graham work for it. And Trump won SC by +14 in 2016. If he only wins by 2 or 3 this time, and that's the best case environment I'm talking about, that becomes winnable.

The Georgia run-offs do complicate things there, but I take the opposite view. I think if control of the senate is on the line there's no way that Democrats win. But if they aren't, there's a better chance of Democrats sneaking through. And also, if Biden wins the states by 3 or 4, Ossoff could win outright.

I see zero chance of McConnell losing though. That one's just not happening. It's Kentucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...