U.S politics: You got knocked the Warnocked out:

[Varysblackfyre321]

I stole this.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Can no-one slow this red tide?

Please slow the flood i'm drowning here!

So much winning I cant breathe.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Can no-one slow this red tide?

Please slow the flood i'm drowning here!

So much winning I cant breathe.

Well the Losing Loser who Loses has been tossing a… lot… of ketchup over the last 24 hours…

[LongRider]

He said it, not me.   
 

 

[Maithanet]

There are six states that voted between 0 and 5 points more Republican than the nation in 2020:  Nevada, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.  Those states are represented by 11 democrats and 1 Republican (Ron Johnson in Wisconsin). 

You would think that with such a crushing advantage in slightly Republican states in the Senate that the Democrats would hold more than 51 seats, but that's the Senate math problem that the Democrats have right now. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

The real math problem is years down the road. Enjoy the glory of victory today. The difference between 51-49 and 50-50 is bigly. 

[DMC]

Looks like the NDAA is going to pass no muss, no fuss.  The catch?  The armed forces rescinding its vaccine mandate.  Notably, the bill authorizes $800 million in Ukraine assistance, $500 million MORE than what Biden requested.  This officially means the last chance to attach ECA reform to something is the omnibus/budget.

[hauberk]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Looks like the NDAA is going to pass no muss, no fuss.  The catch?  The armed forces rescinding its vaccine mandate.  Notably, the bill authorizes $800 million in Ukraine assistance, $500 million MORE than what Biden requested.  This officially means the last chance to attach ECA reform to something is the omnibus/budget.

My mind is blown that the vaccine mandate continues to be such a big deal given all of the other mandatory shots that come with military service.  

[horangi]

8 minutes ago, hauberk said:

My mind is blown that the vaccine mandate continues to be such a big deal given all of the other mandatory shots that come with military service.  

I doubt it is for the vast majority of military members, its just red meat for the base.  Besides, from an epidemiology standpoint, the fact that the mandate has been in place for as long as it has means that getting rid of it now probably isnt that big of a deal (since society at large doesnt have a mandate anyway).  Seems like a pretty good concession to get the NDAA passed. 

[Fez]

33 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

There are six states that voted between 0 and 5 points more Republican than the nation in 2020:  Nevada, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.  Those states are represented by 11 democrats and 1 Republican (Ron Johnson in Wisconsin). 

You would think that with such a crushing advantage in slightly Republican states in the Senate that the Democrats would hold more than 51 seats, but that's the Senate math problem that the Democrats have right now. 

For sure. Barring an absolutely historic landslide, there's only 4 Republican-held senate seats that Democrats have realistic shots at winning right now (ME-Collins, but only when she retires; WI-Johnson; and the two NC seats). But there's a bunch of Democratic-held seats Republicans could win in even a normal-sized wave beyond the 11 you mention; plus there's Tester, Brown, and Manchin.

HOWEVER, there's no telling what might happen in the future. In 2016, Johnny Isakson was winning re-election in Georgia with a 13% margin, and John McCain was doing similar in Arizona. It was far-fetched to suggested that Democrats would hold all 4 senate seats in those states just 4 years later, and keep the ones up 2 years after that. There are other states still very Republican that have been slowly trending Democratic for years, and if those trends continue it would not be similarly shocking if Democrats were holding some senate seats in them by 2030. To me the best bets look like Kansas, Alaska, and Utah; though all of them would probably still hinge on Republicans nominating awful candidates.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

HOWEVER, there's no telling what might happen in the future. In 2016, Johnny Isakson was winning re-election in Georgia with a 13% margin, and John McCain was doing similar in Arizona. It was far-fetched to suggested that Democrats would hold all 4 senate seats in those states just 4 years later, and keep the ones up 2 years after that. There are other states still very Republican that have been slowly trending Democratic for years, and if those trends continue it would not be similarly shocking if Democrats were holding some senate seats in them by 2030.

Yeah this is why I view such pearl-clutching as pointless.  2024 is a worrisome map, aye, but there's really no point in worrying about anything beyond that.  Especially if you've been a political junky for the past 20 years - clearly trends can and have changed.  I never would have thought Georgia and Arizona would have 4 Democratic Senators that won 6 elections in 3 straight cycles.  More importantly, this cycle demonstrated once again that candidate quality matters.  No matter how bad polarization gets, you can't run a campaign with an abacus.

[Gaston de Foix]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah this is why I view such pearl-clutching as pointless.  2024 is a worrisome map, aye, but there's really no point in worrying about anything beyond that.  Especially if you've been a political junky for the past 20 years - clearly trends can and have changed.  I never would have thought Georgia and Arizona would have 4 Democratic Senators that won 6 elections in 3 straight cycles.  More importantly, this cycle demonstrated once again that candidate quality matters.  No matter how bad polarization gets, you can't run a campaign with an abacus.

The reason Senate control matters is big legislative wins and SC judicial nominees. 

For the next 2 years, the former is off the table and may be off the table for the next 6 if a Republican President is elected.  If we have a Republican President and Congress on 20 Jan 2025, the filibuster will be the real restraint FWIW.  If we have a Democratic President and a Democratic House (surely the odds of both are ~50% or less), then Senate control matters for a reprise of reconciliation as in the last 2 years.  There are diminishing returns for reconciliation now, and separate herding cats problems.  The overall picture for big legislative wins is decidedly grim. 

The real benefit of Senate control may be styming a President DeSantis' attempt to abolish the federal income tax in 2025.  

Roberts, Alito and Thomas are not going to retire during a Democratic presidency.  They all appear to be in good health, and much younger than Scalia, Kennedy and Ginsburg even 4 years from now.  Next SC vacancy probably 2028 or later, unless R president and decides to strategically time their retirement.  Sotomayor maybe should go, but won't. 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

The reason Senate control matters is big legislative wins and SC judicial nominees. 

Ya don't say!

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

You would think that with such a crushing advantage in slightly Republican states in the Senate that the Democrats would hold more than 51 seats, but that's the Senate math problem that the Democrats have right now. 

Voter redistricting plays a big role in this, at least in NY state and city.  Dems must get their act together as an effective party for voting.

Thus it was even more of a relief to arise to the decided Warnock win.

Nevertheless, the SCOTUS is set to knock out even more platforms as it hears the case being made that states get to rule on federal elections.

[Gaston de Foix]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ya don't say!

LOL.  I guess my point is that both of those things are pretty unlikely for the immediate future and so Senate control matters a lot less than it did previously.  A lot of the debates about abolishing the filibuster etc. are irrelevant for a while, potentially a long while. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Gaston de Foix said:

LOL.  I guess my point is that both of those things are pretty unlikely for the immediate future and so Senate control matters a lot less than it did previously.  A lot of the debates about abolishing the filibuster etc. are irrelevant for a while, potentially a long while. 

While confirming SC nominees does not seem to likely in the immediate future, (1) you never know - no one thought Scalia was going to die, and retaining the Senate mitigates a repeat of that disaster for two years, and (2) winning 51 seats will not only mean continuing the prodigious pace Schumer is on in confirming lower level court nominees, but will also increase the pace since 51 seats means full control of the Judiciary Committee.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

So, how crazy are Paul Gosar’s constituants?

 

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, how crazy are Paul Gosar’s constituants?

 

https://youtu.be/X2-RsPGNfKw

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

The real benefit of Senate control may be styming a President DeSantis' attempt to abolish the federal income tax in 2025.

Really????

Geez, whenever we in Canada tell US friends to shut up and stop bitching and moaning about their tough lives and tell them about the taxes we pay, they’ve been coming back and citing all the taxes they pay and tell us they get very little for their taxes, that at the very least we have Universal Health Care, lengthy maternity leave, and a bunch of other benefits not available in the US.

Do you guys really want to become a third world nation that desperately?

[JGP]

What does this mean?

 

edit: @DMC, or anyone else dialed in who cares to answer.