2016 U.S. Downballot: THEY ARE THE LAW

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > 2016 U.S. Downballot: THEY ARE THE LAW

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

MEGATHREAD ONE IS BORN. JURISDICTION OVER ALL DOWNBALLOT RACES GRANTED. BAD POSTERS GET SIX HOURS IN THE CUBES.

oystertoadfish posted:

NEXT ELECTIONS

on july 26 there's a runoff for the republican nomination in GA-03, which is safely red i do believe - the republican incumbent retired. i think a guy named crane has the cruz and tea party type endorsements, and a guy named ferguson has the more establishmenty backers. i could be wrong

then on august 2 we get kansas, michigan, missouri, and washington primaries. somebody from the 'holistic party' is running for governor in washington. we can worry about all that poo poo later

july's a light month, but there's more than a dozen states holding primaries in august, so there's that

What?
It's the lower house of our bicameral Congress. I'll pass on describing the legislative functions of the body, instead focusing on its electoral aspects. There are 435 voting members from the 50 states. The Constitution outlines a method for apportioning them as evenly as possible among the states, while Supreme Court rulings have held that within the states, each district must be as nearly equal in population as possible. Whereas in most countries with single-member electoral districts (and for most of America's history) the preferred way to reduce a group's representation has been to create districts with huge disparities in population, the 'one man, one vote' rule, which has applied for several decades now, incentivizes creative mapping to accomplish the same goal.

Gerrymandering

The art of drawing electoral district boundaries so as to help a certain political party or incumbent is named after Founding Father Elbridge Gerry, who signed a gerrymandered Massachusetts State Senate map into law in 1812 which was drawn by Democratic-Republicans in an attempt to reduce Federalist influence. One of the districts looked like a salamander, a political cartoon was drawn (i guess they thought salamanders were dragons in 1812?), and the man's name went down in history. Since his time, GIS and detailed partisan/demographic data have advanced the practice to unprecedented levels of effectiveness and ugliness.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, along with subsequent legislation and court cases that would take a long time to talk about, have created an odd patchwork of semi-binding regulations on the practice of gerrymandering. I will now proceed to inaccurately summarize the current state of legal affairs. If somebody wants to make a factual effortpost I'll gladly quote or link it here.

Gerrymandering for pure partisan intent is currently held as Constitutional (I think this was most recently defended in a 5-4 decision, making a Constitutional ban of partisan gerrymandering a possible topic in upcoming Supreme Court appointment battles), but gerrymandering in the service of denying representation to a racial minority is not (at least, not in states with a long history of racially polarized partisanship. I'm not sure where exactly this stands). Therefore, across the South there is generally one district per state drawn to hold a large black Democratic majority, all but guaranteeing this historically persecuted minority representation* while increasing the job security of white Republican legislators. The same applies to Hispanic populations, which is especially evident in Texas.

*Technically the 'preferred candidate' of the minority community, not the right of a minority to win the seat, is what is at issue here. Most majority-minority districts are represented by members of that minority but Steve Cohen, a white Democrat who has represented a black district based in Memphis since 1983, is a notable exception.

Gerrymandering of the United States House of Representatives is controlled at the state level, because each state draws its own lines. With the exception of a handful of states that hand it over to a nonpartisan committee (this is the usual approach in other countries), most states' legislative bodies draw the maps themselves. This is required once a decade, using the new Census' data, but occasionally mid-decade redistricting is performed. Court decisions in which Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina maps were declared unconstitutional gerrymanders, for example, have triggered mid-decade redistrictings. The fact that unconstitutional maps were used for more than half of the decade's elections in these states indicates how toothless even a successful court challenge against gerrymandering can be.

Because most state governments are controlled by Republicans, the House of Representatives has been gerrymandered to enhance that party's margin of victory (Democrats in Illinois and Maryland have drawn gerrymanders just as ridiculous as any Republican state, but these are outweighed by Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and more). However, demographic sorting also plays a role, resulting in a map that is naturally skewed for Republicans; for example, Obama only received 18% of the vote in the Texas Panhandle in 2012, but Romney only received 3% of the vote in the Bronx. A neutral 'community of interest' map ignoring partisanship would tend to draw more hyper-Democratic than hyper-Republican seats, just because of how people are distributed. The combination of these two effects produced a rightward skew such that Romney won the median House district by a 1.6% margin in an election where he lost the national popular vote by 3.9%.

Distribution of House districts by 2012 Presidential vote - note the rightward skew

Both gerrymandering and demographic sorting cause the median House district to be more Republican than the national average - a rightward skew. How can we attempt to quantify the relative effect of the two? This is the best attempt I'm aware of to draw 'fair' maps from a 'community of interest' basis while taking prevailing interpretations of redistricting law into account, correcting both Republican and Democratic gerrymanders. The partisan Democratic author phrased his findings in a mildly whiny way, pointing out that Democrats would've won his House map in 2012 - not in 2014, though, you'd need a hardcore nationwide Democratic gerrymander for that. Note that he wrote this thing up before most of the court decisions regarding gerrymandering in Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina.

In terms of answering the question I'm posing, though, he found that his new map's median district voted for obama by 2.7% - still more Republican than the nation as a while, but 4.3% less Republican. One possible conclusion, put in terms of Romney's vote share in the median district minus his popular vote share, is that of the total 5.5% Republican advantage, 1.2% is caused by demographic sorting and 4.3% by gerrymandering. That's kind of oversimplifying things, though.

The Map
Here's the overall map as of 2012, colored by presidential finish where you can't see any of the districts in the urban areas:

Here's the map of the current Congress, colored by who won in 2014. Bright red is a Republican pickup, bright blue is a Democratic pickup (there were three!)

Here's a link to zoomable Google Maps for each state with the districts on them, so you can actually see districts in places like LA or NYC - these are also probably outdated:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/1/1039756/-

I'm sure there are better more up-to-date map sites out there; I'll be happy to edit them in.

The Schedule
Alright, so that's the playing field. How about the elections?

This link contains filing deadlines and primary/runoff dates for all states:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_6M_D6QmR52g56g_H_iymgDk7mlAIIArb9lVxC9IiQw/edit#gid=1347664583
This link has everything but the filing deadlines, and is hyperlinked to extremely detailed descriptions of the electoral situations in each state:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G16/events.phtml?format=chronological

Just like the other Federal positions up for election in 2016, the process begins with filing for candidacy, continues through party primaries, and culminates in November with the general election. There are a few special cases (I probably got some of this wrong):

Some states will hold a runoff election later in the election season if no candidate wins more than 50% of the vote in the first round of a party primary; the party primary winners face off in November.

Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, South Dakota, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Louisiana follow this method.

Three states have a 'Top-Two' or 'Jungle' primary system; all candidates, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, everybody, compete in one primary, together; the top two finishers, even if they're from the same party, go head to head in a later election

California and Washington do the logical thing, holding a primary then having the top two face off in November; Louisiana is a silly-rear end place, so they have the first round on the general election day on November 8, then have a special election on December 10 for races where nobody got over 50% in November.

What are some notable races?
Ugh, maybe I'll edit them in later. There are 435 of these drat things, so it's hard to narrow it down, especially at this early date.

But I did want to start it now, because THE FIRST PRIMARIES ARE ~~TOMORROW!~~guess i should edit this out huh. let's just say nothing interesting happened and move on

Other Resources
These are some of the better-respected Congressional election prognosticators out there. For what that's worth.

Cook Political Report
Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report
Sabato's Crystal Ball (go hoos)

These are good blogs to follow for day-by-day discussions of the insane minutiae of down-in-the-weeds elections, including Congressional elections:

Daily Kos Elections. biased toward Democrats, but not nearly as much as most Daily Kos poo poo. Look for the Daily Digests. Daily Digest comment threads often have real information and sometimes even worthwhile discussion, and can be very illuminating if you want to know what Democratic partisans are thinking. They had to ban all discussion of the Democratic Presidential primary because people's feelings were getting hurt lol
RRH Elections. biased toward Republicans, but establishment-y intellectual types, the kind that bitterly, desperately hate and fear Trump. Look for the Political Roundups. Intentionally constructed as a right-wing version of DKE, and their comment threads can be interesting sometimes. They had to ban all discussion of the Republican Presidential primary because, I dunno, I guess they started winding each other up talking about the death of conservatism.

Here's a good place to see how much money each candidate has, which is often a very good proxy at this level for evaluating their seriousness as a candidate:
OpenSecrets.org's Congressional lookup page

Well, that's enough for now. Congressional electoral discussions have a thread now! I don't expect it to be a very active thread for a while (edit: like maybe itll get to page 4 by november), but I intend to update on primary results and let people know when primaries are coming up.

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: ~~Barbara Boxer (D)~~ Open seat. Kamala Harris, CA Attorney General (D).
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: ~~Dan Coats (R)~~ Open seat. Rep. Todd Young (R). Former Senator Evan Bayh (D).
Iowa: Chuck Grassley (R), former Lt. Gov. Patty Judge (D).
Kansas: Jerry Moran (R)
Kentucky: Rand Paul (R)
Louisiana: ~~David Vitter (R)~~ Open seat. Rep. John Flemming (R), David Duke (KKK)
Maryland: ~~Barbara Mikulski (D)~~ Open seat. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D).
Missouri: Roy Blunt (R). Secretary of State Jason Kander (D).
Nevada: ~~Harry Reid (D)~~ Open seat. former Secretary of State Catherine Cortez Mastro (D). Rep. Joe Heck (R).
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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 22:16

Magres: Jul 14, 2011

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

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Presidential election years tend to favor the Dems due to higher turnout.

# ? Nov 10, 2014 00:38

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

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

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

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

Jerry Manderbilt: May 31, 2012; No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.

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

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

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. :smith:

Hey, maybe Charlie Crist can run for Florida Senator! :haw:

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

Kobayashi: Aug 13, 2004; by Nyc_Tattoo

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

TARDISman: Oct 28, 2011

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

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

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

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

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

Fuck You And Diebold: Sep 15, 2004; by Athanatos

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

TARDISman: Oct 28, 2011

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

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

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.

I have to think she's done, much like Martha Coakley in Mass, right?

# ? Nov 10, 2014 01:30

Jerry Manderbilt: May 31, 2012; No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.

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

Hedera Helix: Sep 2, 2011; The laws of the fiesta mean nothing!

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

Ganon: May 24, 2003

There's Colorado also that Dems would need to hold which isn't listed in his predictions

# ? Nov 10, 2014 01:56

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

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.

And then two years after that, the Republicans win five seats and we're back to where we started.

Am I reading this correctly?

welcome to the Permanent Republican Majority

inshallah

# ? Nov 10, 2014 01:59

Xarthor: Nov 11, 2003; Need Ink or Toner for
Your Printer?
Check out my
Thread in SA-Mart!; Lipstick Apathy

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. :getin:

"But guyyyyyyyyyyys I really really really want toooooooooo!!!!!!" *stomps foot*

# ? Nov 10, 2014 02:04

Misandrist Duck: Oct 22, 2012

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

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

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.

Funny seeing him namedrop Michelle Obama as a potential candidate for fundraising purposes, though.

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

Hedera Helix: Sep 2, 2011; The laws of the fiesta mean nothing!

Gee, it sure would have been nice to not have lost the Alaska, North Carolina, Iowa, and Colorado seats just now. :smithicide:

# ? Nov 10, 2014 02:17

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

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

Mecca-Benghazi: Mar 31, 2012

I was so hopeful for Begich and his Alaska Native GOTV efforts. :smith:

# ? Nov 10, 2014 02:59

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

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.

And then two years after that, the Republicans win five seats and we're back to where we started.

Am I reading this correctly?

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

Polygynous: Dec 13, 2006; welp

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

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

Mecca-Benghazi posted:

I was so hopeful for Begich and his Alaska Native GOTV efforts.

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).

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

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

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).

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.

Your best hope for a Democratic House by 2020 is President Christie in 2016.

# ? Nov 10, 2014 04:05

Anubis: Oct 9, 2003; It's hard to keep sand out of ears this big.; Fun Shoe

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).

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.

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

Fuck You And Diebold: Sep 15, 2004; by Athanatos

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

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

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

Forums Terrorist: Dec 8, 2011

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

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

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

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

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

Nelson Mandingo: Mar 27, 2005

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

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

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

Cliff Racer: Mar 24, 2007; by Lowtax

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.

Don't worry, the average PA voter is a retard and has been demanding a reduction in the size of the legislature for decades. They're finally going to get it in two years now too- all major state politicians are officially in favor of the deal and it passed in the legislature last year. It will pass again this year which should get it to the governor's office (PA has some weird law regarding constitutional amendments where they need to be passed in consecutive sessions.)

# ? Nov 10, 2014 16:07

Cliff Racer: Mar 24, 2007; by Lowtax

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

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 22:16

Fuck You And Diebold: Sep 15, 2004; by Athanatos

Ardennes posted:

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.

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.

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.

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

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > 2016 U.S. Downballot: THEY ARE THE LAW

«‹›80 »