US Politics: CPAC - Finding new ways to bring America to Rune.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

and everyone’s cool (or equally uncool depending on your perspective)

Well, I thought we just established that @Karlbear's really hot right now.

[Larry of the Lawn]

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, I thought we just established that @Karlbear's really hot right now.

Yeah he was tripping on the beach with spider monkeys

[Fez]

7 hours ago, DMC said:

Yup.  There is some tradeoff there.  Not just AZ and VA but certainly New England is much more blue, Nevada as well.  But if you look at the Senate map of the 111th Congress - that shit ain't happening anymore, and it's decidedly to the GOP's advantage overall.

At the same time though, Dems had only been at 44 senate seats in 2004. They got to 60 because 2006/08 were back-to-back two of the best cycles for a single party since the Republican gains of 1978/1980. And Democrats got to 60 not only because polarization trends were moving quicker for them at the time (e.g. consolidating states like VA, MN, and OR before losing states like WV or AR), but also for winning in states they didn't have any business winning even at the time, except for how good the cycles were (e.g. in 2005, I don't think anyone would've predicted Begich or Hagan winning their races). Plus Dems simply won all the close races, and a lot of redder swing seats were close because of how good the cycles were.

If 2022/2024 are as good for Democrats as 2006/2008 had been, I'd see Democrats picking up PA, FL, NC, WI, and OH in '22 (and maybe also IA if Grassley retires), and then FL and TX in '24. Plus hold all their own seats, and throw in a surprise as big as Alaska 2008 in there, and that gets Democrats to 58 or 59 seats at the start of Biden's second term.

I'm not saying I'm predicting that, I wouldn't, but something that good is about equal to what happened in 2006/2008. And on top of that, our 44 senators in 2004 were looking a lot shakier than our 50 senators right now. Some of them seemed unstoppable still, I don't think anyone would've predicted then just how red Arkansas would become for instance. But I think senators like Nelson, Conrad, Dorgan, Johnson, etc. were mainly holding down their seats simply because of how popular they personally were in their states, and how long they'd been fixtures in state politics. Whereas today, Manchin is pretty much the only one fitting that definition.

 

 

[Fez]

In other news, hard to read too much into a single state legislative special election, but the earliest of tea leaves show Democratic engagement remaining high, and not resting on their laurels yet.

 

[DMC]

26 minutes ago, Fez said:

At the same time though, Dems had only been at 44 senate seats in 2004. They got to 60 because 2006/08 were back-to-back two of the best cycles for a single party since the Republican gains of 1978/1980.

In terms of environment (and not Senate maps), the Dems just came off a similarly great cycle in 2018 (basically a carbon copy of 2006) and a pretty good cycle in 2020.  While they aren't at max capacity with their Senate seats like they were post-2008, point is the polarization shifts have clearly lowered their ceiling in the upper chamber since then.  What you're suggesting on top of the past two cycles - maximizing seat gains in 2022 and 2024 - would be unprecedented in the modern era.

[Fez]

24 minutes ago, DMC said:

In terms of environment (and not Senate maps), the Dems just came off a similarly great cycle in 2018 (basically a carbon copy of 2006) and a pretty good cycle in 2020.  While they aren't at max capacity with their Senate seats like they were post-2008, point is the polarization shifts have clearly lowered their ceiling in the upper chamber since then.  What you're suggesting on top of the past two cycles - maximizing seat gains in 2022 and 2024 - would be unprecedented in the modern era.

Agreed on your first point, which is why I wouldn't predict it. However, there is a chance that in 2022 we're going to have an economic boom the likes of which we haven't seen in over 20 years (and this could be less of a bubble too). Which could lead to some pretty unprecedented things.

And on your second point, I'm saying I don't think the Democratic ceiling is that much lower than it was; because taken separately, none of the seats I listed for '22/'24 are so much more of a reach than many of the seats we won in '06/'08. Polarization is certainly worse than it was, and it is why things like 2018 being a great year but we lost Florida happened. But its also balanced out by Democratic states being much firm as well; at this point Collins is basically the only Republican senator holding what should be a blue seat (or at be likely blue). But back in 2004, Republicans still held seats in OR, NV, CO, NM, MN, RI, NH (both of them), and ME (both of them). Now, other than Collins, I can't see any of those going Republican again in a normal election, unless Sununu runs in NH.

[Zorral]

 

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, Fez said:

And on your second point, I'm saying I don't think the Democratic ceiling is that much lower than it was; because taken separately, none of the seats I listed for '22/'24 are so much more of a reach than many of the seats we won in '06/'08. Polarization is certainly worse than it was

Currently the GOP basically has 19 states on lockdown/environment-proof.  Plus six more - FL, MT, NC, OH, TX, WV - where they have the decided advantage (and of course MT and WV would be in the first category if it wasn't for Tester and Manchin..albeit that is half mitigated by Collins).  Barring a string of victories/favorable environments like you're referring - which again would be unprecedented - I think it's pretty clear the Dems ceiling has lowered from about 59/60 to 55/56.  And it's not that polarization has gotten worse (although obviously it has), it's that polarization has solidified more red states than blue states.  Consequently, the GOP can be competitive in more states, particularly in favorable cycles, compared to the Dems.  This inherent advantage is derived from the combination of polarization and malapportionment.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

In other news, hard to read too much into a single state legislative special election, but the earliest of tea leaves show Democratic engagement remaining high, and not resting on their laurels yet.

 

Interesting. I'd be curious to see a little more info to tell if Democratic support remains high or if the infighting in the GOP was a larger factor.

[Fez]

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

Currently the GOP basically has 19 states on lockdown/environment-proof.  Plus six more - FL, MT, NC, OH, TX, WV - where they have the decided advantage (and of course MT and WV would be in the first category if it wasn't for Tester and Manchin..albeit that is half mitigated by Collins).  Barring a string of victories/favorable environments like you're referring - which again would be unprecedented - I think it's pretty clear the Dems ceiling has lowered from about 59/60 to 55/56.  And it's not that polarization has gotten worse (although obviously it has), it's that polarization has solidified more red states than blue states.  Consequently, the GOP can be competitive in more states, particularly in favorable cycles, compared to the Dems.  This inherent advantage is derived from the combination of polarization and malapportionment.

Fair enough. And if that's where you're placing the Democratic ceiling, that works for me. But 55/56 has basically been the Democratic ceiling since Carter. Theoretically they always could've done better, after 2008 they were; but other than that the biggest Democratic majority since 1981 was 57 seats (and the biggest Republican majority 55 seats). I was just pushing back against any idea that Democrats are already at their ceiling at 50.

I agree there's more rock-solid red states than rock-solid blue states, so the Republican floor is higher and their ceiling is higher; but I don't think I ever disputed that.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

I was just pushing back against any idea that Democrats are already at their ceiling at 50.

Sure, I never meant to imply that.  Hell, if 2020 went more like 2008, the Dems should have 53-54 seats right now.

[Kalbear]

10 hours ago, Walter the Singing Wildcat said:

OK dude, I am new here, but is the point that Manchin is now to the left of where they used to be that they all quit and are complaining?   

The problem is not that we have Manchin. The problem is that we only have one of him. We need 10 or more senators like him - people who can get elected in red states, who vote with the party on most things but not everything. 

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure, I never meant to imply that.  Hell, if 2020 went more like 2008, the Dems should have 53-54 seats right now.

And yet, if the Dems did 6% better than they did in November, they would have only picked up NC and ME.  And then there's the question of how the GA runoffs go if it was to determine whether Dems have 50 or 52 seats. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

The problem is not that we have Manchin. The problem is that we only have one of him. We need 10 or more senators like him - people who can get elected in red states, who vote with the party on most things but not everything. 

I find your lack of purity test disturbing.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

The problem is not that we have Manchin. The problem is that we only have one of him. We need 10 or more senators like him - people who can get elected in red states, who vote with the party on most things but not everything. 

10 more Manchins would be good, but I'd rather have 10 more Kellys, Warnocks, and Ossofs

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I find your lack of purity test disturbing.

What is this, a purity test for ANTS?

 

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

10 more Manchins would be good, but I'd rather have 10 more Kellys, Warnocks, and Ossofs

Those are great too, but realistically dems don't have many more of those that they can attain. But places like WV where there is a massive red state and super polarization and a dem wins? Those are the kinds of places that give you a lot of extra power for the next 6 years and possibly more.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

And yet, if the Dems did 6% better than they did in November, they would have only picked up NC and ME.

If the Dems ran the table like they did in 2008 (which is what I said), then they should have picked up Iowa is well, where Ernst only got 51.7%, and perhaps Texas where Cornyn got 53.5% against a weak challenger.  And obviously still won the Georgia seats.  Hence, 53-54.

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

If the Dems ran the table like they did in 2008 (which is what I said), then they should have picked up Iowa is well, where Ernst only got 51.7%, and perhaps Texas where Cornyn got 53.5% against a weak challenger.  And obviously still won the Georgia seats.  Hence, 53-54.

I understand where your math came from, I'm just pointing out that Biden did only 3% worse than Obama in 08, and yet Democrats weren't even close in states like IA and TX (let alone their more optimistic targets like SC and KS). 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

22 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

10 more Manchins would be good, but I'd rather have 10 more Kellys, Warnocks, and Ossofs

10 more Manchins would be a nightmare! I just find him...repugnant. He's no centrist. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Just now, Centrist Simon Steele said:

10 more Manchins would be a nightmare! I just find him...repugnant. He's no centrist. 

It's the price you may have to pay to possibly collect seats in TX, OH, MS etc. Better voter registration and giving Democrats from Red States a long leash is how you try and counter the unfairness of the Senate.