No. No, it isn't. If we already have a thread for the midterms just BAM me. I didn't see one. I'm feeling lazy tonight so I'll just let Beau talk. Plus, I half expect a good BAMming.
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:53 pm
by Defiant
Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:34 pm
If we already have a thread for the midterms just BAM me.
Wasn't there another video by this guy where he suggested McConnell and other Republican leaders wanted to give the Trumpists free reign for the midterm, so that they could then either double down on Trumpism going into 2024 (if they managed to be successful) or finally bury Trumpism (if they failed)?
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:23 pm
by Defiant
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:24 pm
by Carpet_pissr
Please don’t get my hopes up only to have them mercilessly crushed later.
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:14 pm
by Holman
The latest entrant into the 2022 US Senate race in Pennsylvania is Mehmet Oz, who announced today.
That's TV's "Dr. Oz" to you and me.
He's a quack and a grifter to the core. Obviously he's seeking the GOP nomination.
(Oh, and apparently he actually lives in New Jersey. He first voted in PA last year by registering from his in-laws' PA home.)
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:27 pm
by Carpet_pissr
Holman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:14 pm
The latest entrant into the 2022 US Senate race in Pennsylvania is Mehmet Oz, who announced today.
That's TV's "Dr. Oz" to you and me.
He's a quack and a grifter to the core.
Rut-roh. This dude went to Columbia and actually seems to be quite intelligent.
Trump 2.0 alert! Trump 2.0 alert!!
Let's just hope he has a severe personality disorder that acts as a counter-balance to foil his potential evil.
Holman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:14 pm
The latest entrant into the 2022 US Senate race in Pennsylvania is Mehmet Oz, who announced today.
That's TV's "Dr. Oz" to you and me.
He's a quack and a grifter to the core.
Rut-roh. This dude went to Columbia and actually seems to be quite intelligent.
Trump 2.0 alert! Trump 2.0 alert!!
He'll have to renounce his Muslim faith to win the nom, though.
Yes, prior to 2016. Trump showed us that even people that previously hated and disparaged "your type" will vote for you, if you just pretend to represent their political fury and desire for vengeance against certain groups.
You saw how quickly the R's went from commie, Russkie-haters to "we don't do anything worse than Russia, and hey, that Putin guy, he's amazing! How can we make that happen here?!"
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:06 pm
by Smoove_B
Holman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:14 pm
(Oh, and apparently he actually lives in New Jersey. He first voted in PA last year by registering from his in-laws' PA home.)
I want to congratulate my North Jersey constituent Dr. Oz on his run for US Senate in Pennsylvania. I’m sure this fully genuine candidacy will capture the hearts of Pennsylvanians.
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:15 am
by Smoove_B
Somehow forgot about this commentary Dr. Oz provided in April of 2020. It's pretty clearly now why he's trying to run for a GOP seat.
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:11 am
by Carpet_pissr
Damn, he’s actually the hero we deserve right now, then, considering our attitude and non-reaction to school shootings.
A moderate Republican with enduring support among Democrats and independents, Baker was the GOP’s best hope of holding onto the governor’s office in deep-blue Massachusetts and Polito was widely seen as his heir apparent. But Baker, who eschews national politics, has been increasingly at odds with his own party as it coalesced around former President Donald Trump. Running for reelection presented plenty of obstacles, including a conservative primary challenger backed by the former president and attacks from across the political spectrum on his handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
This makes trumper Geoff Diehl the de facto frontrunner for the GOP nomination. It's unclear if the GOP will field a moderate candidate who could compete. The state GOP chair is a trumper, so the party's very meager resources will go to Diehl. All of which should make it a lock for whomever the Dems stand up. Unless they demonstrate their well-known penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the Mass. State House is going blue, FWIW -- Baker was a RINO anyway.
All eyes turn to Maura Healy, who's doing an impressive job as attorney general.
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:49 am
by El Guapo
Mass AGs have a long and darkly hilarious history of running for governor & senator and losing, though.
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:52 am
by Kraken
El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:49 am
Mass AGs have a long and darkly hilarious history of running for governor & senator and losing, though.
I don't think the Coakley Curse will follow Healey, but now Marty Walsh says he's in. IDK if Healey will take him on. Either way, we're going to have a Dem governor unless things go horribly wrong.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:49 am
Mass AGs have a long and darkly hilarious history of running for governor & senator and losing, though.
I don't think the Coakley Curse will follow Healey, but now Marty Walsh says he's in. IDK if Healey will take him on. Either way, we're going to have a Dem governor unless things go horribly wrong.
It's more than Coakley. Scott Harshbarger also lost a race for governor, and I think one or two others. When I was at the Mass. AG as part of the holiday season they'd have an event where the current and pretty much all former living AGs would come back and talk to everyone, and I remember one of them (Harshbarger, maybe?) making a joke like "This was the best job that all of us ever had - mostly because we lost our subsequent elections".
But yeah, if Diehl is the nominee it's hard to imagine any serious Democrat losing to him, especially since this is following back to back GOP terms. Although you never know for sure.
There is a growing sense of gloom among Democrats in the House. And every week or so, when another Democratic member of Congress announces they won't run for reelection in 2022, the mood inside the caucus worsens.
Morale in the House is already markedly low, but as Democrats look ahead to what could become a trying midterm election cycle, the overwhelming belief is that the wave of retirements has yet to crash.
That was captured on Monday when two Democratic members announced they would not seek reelection in November.
First was Florida Rep. Stephanie Murphy, who announced she would not seek reelection after three terms in the House. She stated that her time in office was both "the honor of my life" and "incredibly challenging for my family and me," but her decision comes as the Republican-led legislature in Florida has taken interest in redrawing the district she represents, a move that would have made it harder for the Democrat to hold onto the Orlando-area seat.
Then came California Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, who said in a statement Monday night that "after thirty years in the House of Representatives, the time has come for me to spend more time with my family."
So far, 22 members of the House Democratic Caucus have announced they will not seek reelection. While it is common for the party in control to see a series of high-profile retirements ahead of a difficult midterm cycle, the sentiment inside the caucus is that even more departures are likely. A combination of political winds tilting toward Republicans, redistricting boxing some members out of easier races and an overall low morale among House members could lead to even more retirements in the coming months.
"We have got a problem here," retiring Rep. Cheri Bustos said of the general morale inside the House. "There are way too many people serving as members of Congress right now who I not only don't look up to, I have zero respect for. And I'm saddened to have to say that."
...
One of the reasons for gloom inside the Democratic caucus is that many of the members have experienced this trend before.
In 2010, two years after President Barack Obama was elected, both parties had to deal with retirements -- 17 for Democrats, compared to 20 for Republicans. But voters still dealt a stinging blow to Democrats and vaulted Republican into power with a 63-seat shift.
"In 2010, it was far worse than anything since because several of those retirements came from overwhelmingly Republican districts that Democrats really couldn't compete for once the incumbents had retired," said Ferguson.
Ferguson added that one reason these retirements -- along with some of this year's -- are particularly powerful is because they came from districts that became remarkably difficult for Democrats to defend.
...
Retirements hit Republicans hard in 2018, with the party having to deal with a substantial 37 departures. Republicans at the time worried the figure presaged numerous defeats just two years after Trump took office. And they were right. Democrats would take back the House in 2018, dealing a blow to Trump and Republican control of Washington.
"The biggest problem is the surprise and the uncertainty. You know the competitive seats, two years before Election Day -- or at least most of them," said Matt Gorman, the top communications operative at the National Republican Congressional Committee during the 2018 midterms. "When these pop up, often times, they are putting you in a worse spot than you were before. And it sucks up time and finding candidates to run and money."
Gorman, like other political watchers, thinks Democrats' retirement problem is about to grow.
"We haven't hit Christmas yet," he said, describing how destabilizing it was when GOP Rep. Darrell Issa -- who is now back in Congress -- announced he would not seek reelection in early January of 2018. "That's the time. You do it right after the holidays after you take about it with your family."
While some redistricting is left to be done, it's looking like the next House map will actually be at least slightly better overall than the current map. Apparently because a few democratic states have pursued aggressive partisan gerrymanders, while Republican states: (1) only have so much room to improve from the 2011 map; and (2) have in some states pursued incumbent job security over maximizing the total number of GOP seats.
One caveat is that aggressive Republican gerrymanders in OH and NC are currently tied up in court. If both are rolled back (unlikely, but possible) then there's an outside chance that the map could slightly favor democrats. But apparently even if they're not, the map should be an improvement.
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2021 8:00 pm
by malchior
FWIW Dana Milbank looked at the same data and came to a different conclusion. Or more accurately he pointed at the factors that increase polarization in the end - if the seat is safe it naturally drifts from the center. That being said I am hopeful that they're limiting the damage. Holder and Obama put significant time into this effort but it remains to be seen if this holds up. To me this feels more like messaging in the face of a bloodbath. And that's exactly what they need to do. They need to convince people to turn out and this seems as good a way as any to make people feel like it is worth it. One of the points of gerrymandering is it depresses the vote overall so I welcome any effort to overcome that effect.
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2021 8:35 pm
by El Guapo
Yeah I don't mean to go too hard into "ok we are all set on gerrymandering" land, but it's good news from the apocalyptic hellscape that I had been worried about.
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2021 10:13 pm
by Holman
Does this mean that the GOP can no longer "take the House on redrawn maps alone"? That's the take we were hearing just a few weeks ago.
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2021 10:54 pm
by malchior
Holman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 10:13 pm
Does this mean that the GOP can no longer "take the House on redrawn maps alone"? That's the take we were hearing just a few weeks ago.
Opinions differ a bit. There are still seats to be allocated and this is one of the more upbeat assessments I've seen. I'm taking it with a grain of salt until we see all the maps. It still stands to reason that upbeat means wash/slight D advantage against the baseline of 2010 when the maps were tilted heavily in the GOP direction. So we're probably still talking a +2 or 3 GOP advantage at best. That's definitely better than the +4 or 5 that it looked like at one point. The downside is that it involved taking a ton of competitive seats off the market and gerrymanders in NY and CA. So...hurray?
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2021 10:49 am
by El Guapo
Yeah, if this projection holds, and if the 2020 House vote repeated exactly, then the Democrats would probably still hold the House.
Of course, unless things dramatically change between now and November, odds are that the actual vote is going to be significantly more GOP than 2020, so I don't think this improves the Democrats' odds of holding the House all that much.
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2021 12:05 pm
by LordMortis
Holman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 10:13 pm
Does this mean that the GOP can no longer "take the House on redrawn maps alone"? That's the take we were hearing just a few weeks ago.
Silly question. In what world can the republicans take the house on something other than gerrymandering alone? The house is supposed to be a measure of populism and republicans take in less votes the democrats, even as they turn out more "of their base."
The GOP has won one popular vote for president in 30 years. 8 cycles and they got the one after 9/11.
Holman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 10:13 pm
Does this mean that the GOP can no longer "take the House on redrawn maps alone"? That's the take we were hearing just a few weeks ago.
Silly question. In what world can the republicans take the house on something other than gerrymandering alone? The house is supposed to be a measure of populism and republicans take in less votes the democrats, even as they turn out more "of their base."
The GOP has won one popular vote for president in 30 years. 8 cycles and they got the one after 9/11.
Well, I think Republicans have won the House vote (aggregated votes for House members) in the past. And the "which party will you vote for?" polling is slightly favoring Republicans at the moment. So while Republicans are doing what they can to tilt the rules in their favor, they do also have a genuine chance of winning the overall House vote as well.
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2021 12:37 pm
by malchior
Also split ticket voting is a thing (though polarization is making that less and less true). In 2016, more people overall voted for Clinton, she lost the EC, and slightly more people voted for GOP candidates. The vote split was ~49% for the GOP and 48% for the Democrats. That translated into the GOP getting 55% of the seats though. They outperformed by 6%. That is partly the effect of the gerrymander at play. There is always a bit of a debate about the actual impact since it is hard to quantify but the thinking has been Democrats might have gotten as much as 52-53% and still not won the majority.
Holman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 10:13 pm
Does this mean that the GOP can no longer "take the House on redrawn maps alone"? That's the take we were hearing just a few weeks ago.
Silly question. In what world can the republicans take the house on something other than gerrymandering alone? The house is supposed to be a measure of populism and republicans take in less votes the democrats, even as they turn out more "of their base."
But the predominant take for the past year+ has been that this year's *further* gerrymandering would guarantee the House for the GOP even if everyone voted exactly the same way they did in 2020. That's what I was asking about.
Holman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 10:13 pm
Does this mean that the GOP can no longer "take the House on redrawn maps alone"? That's the take we were hearing just a few weeks ago.
Silly question. In what world can the republicans take the house on something other than gerrymandering alone? The house is supposed to be a measure of populism and republicans take in less votes the democrats, even as they turn out more "of their base."
But the predominant take for the past year+ has been that this year's *further* gerrymandering would guarantee the House for the GOP even if everyone voted exactly the same way they did in 2020. That's what I was asking about.
Yes, if this right then Republicans can't retake the House through gerrymandering alone (assuming a repeat of the 2020 vote). Though as malchior says there are different views on this given available maps, and we don't have final maps yet, so that's not a sure thing at this point.
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 5:01 pm
by Defiant
Some rare good news:
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:09 pm
by El Guapo
Ah, this is the statewide maps, and the federal congressional map for Ohio is still pending a decision. Presumably this would suggest that those challenging the federal map have a decent chance of success, though that's not guaranteed.
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:53 pm
by Jaymann
What's the (state) constitutional basis for throwing out redistricting? Is there some mile limit on how far apart linked communities can be? District size?
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:56 pm
by malchior
Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:53 pm
What's the (state) constitutional basis for throwing out redistricting? Is there some mile limit on how far apart linked communities can be? District size?
From a quick skim, the Constitution of Ohio requires the redistricting process to attempt to draw a fair map. The folks in the Ohio Senate running the redistricting process directed the map makers to ignore the section that set the rules for partisan balance claiming it was only 'aspirational'. The majority disagreed and said it was a mandatory obligation to try to minimize partisan influence. FWIW the language is 'shall attempt' and they even testified there was no attempt at all.
Sen. Jim Inhofe is expected to announce his retirement in the coming days, according to a person familiar with his plans, likely triggering a special election to replace him this fall.
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:09 pm
by Holman
Texas primary: Beto O'Rourke has easily won nomination for Democratic candidate for Texas Governor.
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2022 5:32 pm
by coopasonic
Holman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:09 pm
Texas primary: Beto O'Rourke has easily won nomination for Democratic candidate for Texas Governor.
Beto v Abbott, good luck, Beto has my vote, but I just don't see it happening.
Holman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:09 pm
Texas primary: Beto O'Rourke has easily won nomination for Democratic candidate for Texas Governor.
Beto v Abbott, good luck, Beto has my vote, but I just don't see it happening.
Mainly I wonder whether there's a chance that non-trivial numbers of Republicans stay home because Abbott isn't as insane as the GOP rivals that he beat.
Holman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:09 pm
Texas primary: Beto O'Rourke has easily won nomination for Democratic candidate for Texas Governor.
Beto v Abbott, good luck, Beto has my vote, but I just don't see it happening.
Mainly I wonder whether there's a chance that non-trivial numbers of Republicans stay home because Abbott isn't as insane as the GOP rivals that he beat.
Didn't Texas just pass voter suppression laws aimed at preventing those who might not vote for Abbott from voting? This will be an uphill battle for Beto to be sure, but I hope he can mobilize those the elephants are seeking to disenfranchise and pull it off.
Re: Too early to think about 2022?
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2022 6:20 pm
by coopasonic
There were also twice as many votes for the R primary compared to the D. That isn't promising, though Beto was practically unopposed.
