|
MEGATHREAD ONE IS BORN. JURISDICTION OVER ALL DOWNBALLOT RACES GRANTED. BAD POSTERS GET SIX HOURS IN THE CUBES.oystertoadfish posted:NEXT ELECTIONS Current balance: 44 Democrats, 2 Independents who caucus with Democrats, 54 Republicans Cook Report Rankings Sabato Rankings Senate Seats up in 2016: Alabama: Richard Shelby (R), marijuana legalization activist Ron Crumpton (D). Alaska: Lisa Murkowski (R), former Mayor of Seward Edgar Blatchford (D). Arizona: John McCain (R). Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D). Arkansas: John Boozman (R) California: Colorado: Michael Bennet (D), Darryl Glenn, El Paso County Commmissioner (R). Connnecticut: Richard Blumenthal (D) Florida: Marco Rubio (R) Rep. Ron DeSantis (R). Lt. Gov. Carlos Lopez-Cantera (R). Rep. Patrick Murphy (D). Rep. Alan Grayson (D). Georgia: Johnny Isakson (R) Hawaii: Brian Schatz (D) Idaho: Mike Crapo (R) Illinois: Mark Kirk (R). Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D). Indiana: Iowa: Chuck Grassley (R), former Lt. Gov. Patty Judge (D). Kansas: Jerry Moran (R) Kentucky: Rand Paul (R) Louisiana: Maryland: Missouri: Roy Blunt (R). Secretary of State Jason Kander (D). Nevada: New Hampshire: Kelly Ayotte (R), Governor Maggie Hassan (D). New York: Chuck Schumer (D) North Carolina: Richard Burr (R) North Dakota: John Hoeven (R) Ohio: Rob Portman (R). former Gov. Ted Strickland (D). Oklahoma: James Lankford (R) Oregon: Ron Wyden (D) Pennsylvania: Pat Toomey (R). State Senator Katie McGinty (D). South Carolina: Tim Scott (R) South Dakota: John Thune (R) Utah: Mike Lee (R) Vermont: Pat Leahy (D), Scott Milne (R) Washington: Patty Murray (D) Wisconsin: Ron Johnson (R). former Senator Russ Feingold (D). Joementum has issued a correction as of 16:34 on Jul 22, 2016 |
# ? Nov 10, 2014 00:28 |
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2024 06:10 |
|
What are your thoughts on 2016, Joe? I see a whole poo poo ton of R seats up for reelection but I don't know enough about many individual races to have an informed opinion on how things are looking as a whole
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 00:33 |
|
Presidential election years tend to favor the Dems due to higher turnout.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 00:38 |
|
My guess is that the Democrats pick up 2-3 seats, but won't be able to gain a majority in the Senate. SOLID REP HOLD: ID, AZ, ND, SD, KS, OK, AR, LA, ID, AL, KY, UT, IA, SC LEANS REP: NC, GA, MO, FL TOSSUP: WI, OH, NH LEANS DEM: PA, IL, NV SOLID DEM HOLD: CA, WA, OR, NY, CT, VT, MD, HI You can probably argue some of the leans and tossup picks, but there's not a ton of pickup opportunities for the Democrats outside of those. IA is a purple state, but Grassly is hugely popular in the state, which is why I put it as a solid hold for him. Same with Thune in SD, which is not as purple as IA. Kentucky and Florida will be interesting, depending on what Rand and Rubio decide to do extracurricularly that year, but aren't easy targets for the Democrats either way. Vitter will almost certainly move from the Senate to the Governor's mansion in LA, but I doubt a Democrat not named Landrieu will be competitive there. And then there's Nevada, with Reid saying he's going to run again, but he got lucky with two bad opponents in 2010 and the popular Republican Governor, Brian Sandoval, is rumored to be planning a run against Reid.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 00:39 |
|
Even if Rubio runs for President (which is likely), I figure the FL Dems will not have anyone decent to battle for that seat.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 01:00 |
|
If a year from now it's looking like Sink is in the front-running for FLSEN, we can write it off as safe R.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 01:03 |
|
Had Charlie Crist won the election for Florida Governor, I would have put Florida in the Tossup category, but since Rick Scott is still going to be Governor in 2016 then yeah, lean Republican sounds right. Hey, maybe Charlie Crist can run for Florida Senator! I'm not sure if I'm joking or not; the Florida Democratic Party is basically non-existent, as shown by former Republican Governor of Florida Charlie Crist being the 2014 Democratic nominee for Florida Governor. fade5 has issued a correction as of 01:08 on Nov 10, 2014 |
# ? Nov 10, 2014 01:04 |
|
US politics is such a cynical treadmill. I've been subscribed to various election threads in D&D since 2006, and it never ends.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 01:08 |
|
I'm a little unsure on rules on presidential primary campaigns and senate races. If Paul ran for the Republican ticket and didn't get the nomination, my assumption is they'd have to put someone else up for his Senate seat, is that correct?
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 01:12 |
|
Joementum posted:And then there's Nevada, with Reid saying he's going to run again, but he got lucky with two bad opponents in 2010 and the popular Republican Governor, Brian Sandoval, is rumored to be planning a run against Reid. If Sandavol runs I'd say NV is likely a Republican pickup. Dude has popularity most politicians can only dream of, he won on Tuesday with 70.5% of the vote.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 01:15 |
|
TARDISman posted:I'm a little unsure on rules on presidential primary campaigns and senate races. If Paul ran for the Republican ticket and didn't get the nomination, my assumption is they'd have to put someone else up for his Senate seat, is that correct? The rules on this vary state-by-state. The law in Kentucky right now is that no person can appear on same the ballot twice. Paul is pressuring the state GOP to change the nomination process from a primary to a caucus system. Since caucuses don't use state printed ballot, this would get around the Kentucky law for the primary. However, Kentucky's election law states that parties shall use a primary as their nomination process. There's judicial precedent saying that states cannot impose such a requirement on parties as it would violate their first amendment right to free association, but this may require a suit from the state party to get around. Even assuming that all works out for Rand, should he win the nomination, there would still be the matter of the general election ballot. His camp has been hinting that they may file suit here as well, arguing that states cannot impose such restrictions on federal elections. Rand Paul arguing against states rights would, obviously, be absolutely hilarious. Kentucky also has very strict ballot replacement laws, so if he wins the nomination for President and pulls out of the Senate race, the Republican Party would probably not be able to replace him with a new candidate and would need some third party independent proxy candidate waiting in the wings. Whatever happens, it will be very fun to watch.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 01:18 |
|
TARDISman posted:I'm a little unsure on rules on presidential primary campaigns and senate races. If Paul ran for the Republican ticket and didn't get the nomination, my assumption is they'd have to put someone else up for his Senate seat, is that correct? As of right now he cannot run for both. There were some reports they are looking to change the party rules so he could run for both. The problem comes in, if he wins the primary for both, he is going to need to choose one and that could leave the Republican party without a candidate for that seat for the general.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 01:18 |
|
Gotcha, thanks a lot! There's still a lot of stuff that I don't know about rules and poo poo like that that I really want to know. I do agree with you, Joe, no matter what happens, things are going to be pretty entertaining come 2016.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 01:24 |
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:If a year from now it's looking like Sink is in the front-running for FLSEN, we can write it off as safe R.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 01:30 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I have to think she's done, much like Martha Coakley in Mass, right? You'd figure quite a few Democratic voters down there can't remember how many races she's cocked up due to Alzheimer's or whatever.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 01:33 |
|
So, basically, the Democrats have to win every race currently leaning dem, and either two of three tossups while holding NV or losing NV and winning all three tossups. This will get them to 50 seats, which if Clinton wins the presidency, will be enough to take control of the Senate; otherwise, they'll need several more seats in order to make up for everyone who will want to be bipartisan and work with President Christie or whomever. And then two years after that, the Republicans win five seats and we're back to where we started. Am I reading this correctly?
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 01:48 |
|
There's Colorado also that Dems would need to hold which isn't listed in his predictions
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 01:56 |
|
Hedera Helix posted:So, basically, the Democrats have to win every race currently leaning dem, and either two of three tossups while holding NV or losing NV and winning all three tossups. This will get them to 50 seats, which if Clinton wins the presidency, will be enough to take control of the Senate; otherwise, they'll need several more seats in order to make up for everyone who will want to be bipartisan and work with President Christie or whomever. welcome to the Permanent Republican Majority inshallah
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 01:59 |
|
Joementum posted:Whatever happens, it will be very fun to watch. Rand has been rolling out this sort of everyman, pro-minority, one pant leg at a time sort of candidacy recently and I can't wait until he starts getting shut down more (than he already has) in his dream to keep his senate seat but also run for presidency. It'll really start to bring out the petulant entitled priss we all know he is at heart. "But guyyyyyyyyyyys I really really really want toooooooooo!!!!!!" *stomps foot*
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 02:04 |
|
Mark Kirk's seat is as good as gone. It'll be interesting to see if its Lisa Madigan or Tammy Duckworth that gets the D nomination. Funny seeing him namedrop Michelle Obama as a potential candidate for fundraising purposes, though.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 02:05 |
|
Misandrist Duck posted:Mark Kirk's seat is as good as gone. It'll be interesting to see if its Lisa Madigan or Tammy Duckworth that gets the D nomination. Kirk is in, he's quite workable on a personal level even if a bit brain-dead, especially now that his deputy chief of staff is Rauner's chief of staff for transition. Madigan wants mayor if Rahm gets picked for '16, and Duckworth is still angling for a cabinet/veep slot.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 02:14 |
|
Gee, it sure would have been nice to not have lost the Alaska, North Carolina, Iowa, and Colorado seats just now.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 02:17 |
|
Hedera Helix posted:Gee, it sure would have been nice to not have lost the Alaska, North Carolina, Iowa, and Colorado seats just now. Sure would've been nice if that cornhusker senator didn't keep gaffing himself blind, now wouldn't it've been? Sure woulda been drat nice. Ah well, as a liberal elitist lawyer he's Iowa's Obama, too afraid to cut the balls off a boss hog. E: GOTV only results in a 1-4 pt shift, for statewide/federal elections. You artillery is TV, and your Gas! Gas! Gas! is targeted social media outreach. Also, signs don't loving vote. The people you pay for the signs may vote, and the folks who insist that signs be placed someplace above all other things probably will vote, although its not 90%. My Imaginary GF has issued a correction as of 03:04 on Nov 10, 2014 |
# ? Nov 10, 2014 02:28 |
|
I was so hopeful for Begich and his Alaska Native GOTV efforts.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 02:59 |
|
Hedera Helix posted:So, basically, the Democrats have to win every race currently leaning dem, and either two of three tossups while holding NV or losing NV and winning all three tossups. This will get them to 50 seats, which if Clinton wins the presidency, will be enough to take control of the Senate; otherwise, they'll need several more seats in order to make up for everyone who will want to be bipartisan and work with President Christie or whomever. Yes. That's pretty much right on the money. And even if we get President Christie, the Dems don't have a shot at getting more than two seats TOPS in the biggest swing of biggest swings in 2018, so it's pretty much a guaranteed Republican rout for the midterms even if the president is Republican. The Democrats desperately need to work on their bench in the state legislatures, but every Republican midterm sweep keeps those benches clear of the bodies they need to get into higher public office. It's going to be at least eight years for the Democrats to seriously recover their losses. And given that the prognosis for 2020 is hardly a clear Democratic win in the state legislatures, we may have a permanent Republican majority through to 2030. ComradeCosmobot has issued a correction as of 03:18 on Nov 10, 2014 |
# ? Nov 10, 2014 03:16 |
|
My assumption is that Toomey has been keeping a low profile to keep people from realizing he's as crazy as Santorum, is that accurate / consistent with reality?
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 03:17 |
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:I was so hopeful for Begich and his Alaska Native GOTV efforts. What really sucks is that Hillary+Democratic Senate+Republican House functions a lot differently that Hillary+Republican Senate+Republican House. And forget about Hillary having long enough coattails to possibly put the House in play, 2014 was a loving slaughter on that front too. fade5 has issued a correction as of 04:00 on Nov 10, 2014 |
# ? Nov 10, 2014 03:55 |
|
fade5 posted:Same, I was assuming that Alaska and North Carolina were Democratic holds, even if we lost Colorado and Iowa. Also, if Begich had won it might have put the idea that massive GOTV is the way for Democrats to move forward; instead, all it shows them is that Alaska was a waste of money (it wasn't). Your best hope for a Democratic House by 2020 is President Christie in 2016.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 04:05 |
|
fade5 posted:Same, I was assuming that Alaska and North Carolina were Democratic holds, even if we lost Colorado and Iowa. Also, if Begich had won it might have put the idea that massive GOTV is the way for Democrats to move forward; instead, all it shows them is that Alaska was a waste of money (it wasn't). The house is hosed because gerrymandering, the only real hope there is that demographics shift enough to start putting stuff in play the further away from the census (when lines are redrawn) we get.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 04:12 |
|
Anubis posted:The house is hosed because gerrymandering, the only real hope there is that demographics shift enough to start putting stuff in play the further away from the census (when lines are redrawn) we get. The house is hosed because gerrymandering AND because Democrats are all in cities. We overelect people like crazy.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 04:16 |
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:The house is hosed because gerrymandering AND because Democrats are all in cities. We overelect people like crazy. Granted, isn't really just gerrymandering when urban areas should be split up more equitably into districts? There isn't a reason that a urban area needs to be in as small a number of districts as possible. Also yeah turnout was around 35.5-35.6%, it was the lowest turnout since the Second World War....and that was only because a significant portion of the country was fighting abroad. It might have been the lowest peace-time (ish) turnout far longer than that, I am trying to find non-presidential turnout data before the 1930s. Oddly enough Oregon had a 52% turnout rate, and the result was generally favorable for the Democrats. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 13:14 on Nov 10, 2014 |
# ? Nov 10, 2014 13:04 |
|
So what's up with the Permanent Republican Majority thing, I thought demographics were dooming them to a slow lingering death
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 13:56 |
|
Forums Terrorist posted:So what's up with the Permanent Republican Majority thing, I thought demographics were dooming them to a slow lingering death We're currently in the slow part. If you want a picture of the future, California is probably the best place to look.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 14:09 |
|
Forums Terrorist posted:So what's up with the Permanent Republican Majority thing, I thought demographics were dooming them to a slow lingering death Yeah, the demographics are still looming, basically turnout was so suppressed that demographics didn't change much especially in House races where Democrats will need a gigantic advantage to get the same number of seats. Basically, the future is going to look like a Republican House probably until the end of time with very likely a Democratic President. The electoral system in the US is kind of broken at this point. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 14:18 on Nov 10, 2014 |
# ? Nov 10, 2014 14:14 |
|
Let's not forget a really good republican or democratic candidate could come out like Barack Obama, and throw a wrench in things again. It's just there is nobody on the horizon. We met Barack Obama back during Hurricane Katrina which was years before the election.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 14:32 |
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:Let's not forget a really good republican or democratic candidate could come out like Barack Obama, and throw a wrench in things again. It's just there is nobody on the horizon. We met Barack Obama back during Hurricane Katrina which was years before the election. Well a wrench into the Presidential race maybe, it is still going to heavily favor Democrats while there is really no way for the Democrats to regain the House, and the Senate will just flip flop for a while.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 14:34 |
|
MEanwhile, from last thread...some guy posted:Both of these seem crazy to me. In CA that's almost like running for congress. As for New Hampshire, my townships city council has 15 members all of which represent roughly 2,500 voters (I figure each ward has somewhere between 500-1000 residents who aren't even registered) and that's at the municipal level. In PA state reps get about roughly 50,000 voters and state senate about 250,000, which seems about right to me.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 16:07 |
|
spoon0042 posted:My assumption is that Toomey has been keeping a low profile to keep people from realizing he's as crazy as Santorum, is that accurate / consistent with reality? He's a different type of crazy. Santorum was all about social conservatism, Toomey emphasizes economic conservatism. He's tried some centrist stuff in the senate, namely that gun control bill which died and if it weren't for that I'd write him off but as is I could see him pulling out a win if the Democrats send out a flawed candidate.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 16:15 |
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:Let's not forget a really good republican or democratic candidate could come out like Barack Obama, and throw a wrench in things again. It's just there is nobody on the horizon. We met Barack Obama back during Hurricane Katrina which was years before the election. Eh, remember though that any GOP candidate has to make it through their primary to get to the general election. That means that unless things change they'll pretty much have to at least say the right things to the fringe, if not outright embrace it. Neither of those actions (especially the latter) plays well in the general election.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 16:19 |
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2024 06:10 |
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, isn't really just gerrymandering when urban areas should be split up more equitably into districts? That is pretty much just gerrymandering in the opposite way though, isn't it? The problem is that Democrats are very concentrated in cities, while Republicans are much more spread out. So unless you are districting purposefully to spread out the dems it is going to result in fewer Democratic candidates being elected by large margins while more Republicans are elected by lower margins. Ardennes posted:Also yeah turnout was around 35.5-35.6%, it was the lowest turnout since the Second World War....and that was only because a significant portion of the country was fighting abroad. Yeah, Minnesota had ~50% turnout and was the other not so lovely state for Democrats. It was the lowest turnout in a long time for us though.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2014 16:38 |