Watch this, son. It’s comedy.
Susan Collins doesn’t seem all there. Her shakes are ridiculous.
Lisa Savage impressed the out of me. She’s an AOC type.
Maybe she wasn’t always this bad, but I don’t understand what Mainers found so appealing about Collins the last 20+ years. As far as I can tell she’s a hardline Republican who occasionally votes Democrat when she knows her vote doesn’t matter or when she absolutely needs to in order to avoid political backlash.
Is that 15% number also of independents?
This kinda aligns with my theory that die hard Trump s only make up 35-39% of voters, the other ~5-10% of voters who support Trump can be peeled off if he acts an ass.
There’s another nugget in there. Click the tweet. Says 8% of 2016 Trump voters switched to Biden.
Sounds too good to be true. But even if 1% peel off, Trump is beyond ed.
We all thought the 2020 Senate map was terrible for Democrats, the fact that it's even a possibility of swinging blue is quite a change from 2 years ago. But I'm not getting my hopes up.
Who thought it was bad? The only negative things I heard about it is that it's not as good as the 2022 map is going to be. It has the two Republican senators in blue states (Gardner & Collins) up for re-election. IMO it was definitely a map that favored Dems.
The 2018 map was the real potential albatross for Democrats. They had 10 seats up for election in states that Trump won and 3 more seats in states Trump lost by <5%. Even though they lost 2 seats in 2018 I still think they did as well as possible outside of Bill Nelson's seat in Florida which was a stupid loss.
Here are a few examples of the thinking back in 2018. No one thought Montana, Georgia and Iowa would be in the mix.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a...-for-democrats
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/8/180724...s-disadvantage
https://theweek.com/articles/803277/...ven-worse-2020
Yeah in that sense people didn't think it would be as favorable as it looks now, I misunderstood what you were saying. All I was saying is that it always looked like a map where the Dems would pick up seats.
I hope that Schumer is this focused on running good candidates every 2 years from now on, he made an effort to this year and it shows. Mark Kelly as the candidate in Arizona was brilliant (det sympathy vote), Bullock is the only reason Montana is in play, and Gideon has run a good campaign against Collins. Not being able to convince Stacey Abrams to run in the Georgia special election is the only big missed opportunity I can think of, but that wasn't due to a lack of trying. The 2022 map has several seats that should be pickups for Democrats and very few seats that are in trouble.
Meh Senate maps are always terrible for Democrats since we have two Dakotas, since Wyoming and Montana get equal representation as California and New York, etc.
I'm only speaking in terms of whether they pick up and lose seats. You know I think the 2 senators per state structure is bull .
Hopefully if the Dems get the senate they say the filibuster and give statehood to DC. I say make each DC quadrant a state so it gets 8 senators, that's still not as egregious as when the Republicans gave statehood to Nevada when it had <10,000 residents in order to pad its senate vote.
On the bright side, unless something changes from where polls are, this will be the first election in my lifetime with over 20 states that are lean blue and have 2 Dem senators who don't need to constantly worry about re-election. They're still relying on heads like Joe Manchin and Tester for their majority but not as much as they had to 12 years ago.
Well, get DC and/or Peurto Rico in as states...
Be interesting to see what kind of racist bull the Grifting Old Party trots out to oppose those moves.
Add in four reliably Democratic Senators, and/or electors.
+ Puerto Rico. They should probably be running on that message in Florida too.
Why just make each of them a state? If the Republicans are allowed to draw an arbitrary border to make Dakota two states (which is what they did), make Washington DC 4 states and make Puerto Rico 5 states. Puerto Rico has a population over 3 million and Wyoming has a population of <600,000, breaking Puerto Rico into 5 states still gives each state Puerto Rico state more people than Wyoming has.
If the Cons ution allows you to abuse the system and Republicans refuse to consider amending it to remove the obvious unfairness, take the abuse and unfairness to a new level so their hand is forced.
or... , have one Democratic area cede from a blue state. You could then gerrymander the out of any Republican areas to leave them as helpless as they do to democrats in red states now.
I've suggested this before, but the problem (on top of all the other things that make it impossible, like the Dems being too scared to ever play as dirty as McConnell does) is that I think getting the vote among citizens to secede from a state requires a lot of work, even if Congress and the President are both willing to sign off on it. I don't think it's as simple as congress, the president, Gavin Newsome and the California legislature getting in a room and deciding how to slice California into multiple states that will each elect Democratic senators.
It's easy for us to say just fin 5 different heavily Democratic pockets in California and make each one a state, the actual people who live in those areas probably won't want to go along with seceding from California.
I know. Just wishcasting. :^/
We should push for statehood for PR though. Hard. Maybe then they will get the hurricaine proofing and road funds they need.
Ideally the way you would do it is you tee it up along with a cons utional amendment that gets rid of the electoral college and gives states senators based on population size, then you take it to McConnell and say "Either figure out a way get Republicans to support this cons utional amendment or we're going to admit 10 new states and make sure Republicans never have a senate majority ever again."
I wouldn't really want carving California into 10 states to be the long term solution, would rather just modernize the cons ution.
Guam, US Virgin Island, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands are also candidates for statehood.
And then the watering down begins. When you add this many caveat, it's a lot easier to laugh off this plan.
And honestly, I cant even justify statehoods for territories that have just over 100k people max.
I think you can combine all those territories and they still would fall short of the Wyoming population.
John Oliver had a great episode on representation of US Territories.
Nevada had like 6,500 people when it got statehood. Pretty sure the Dakotas had less than 100k people as well. There’s no population requirement for a territory to be granted statehood.
Im not sure why the idea of those territories gets laughed off. It’s not any more absurd than Wyoming having as many senators as California.
Btw it was absolutely justified when the Republicans added Nevada as a state. The Democrats at the time were using disproportionate small state power as a means of keeping slavery legal, so the Republicans started dealing from the bottom of the deck to make sure Lincoln got re-elected. Now it’s a role reversal and Republicans have gotten out of control in terms of whoring small states to stack the courts with crazy judges a majority of Americans don’t want and to block legislation that Americans actually want. Dirty tricks were necessary to abolish slavery then and they’re necessary now to stop America from becoming a far right oligarchy.
It does when you try to wholesale them.
Puerto Rico and Washington DC seems the most likely, immediate and most sensible to me at the moment.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
