2024 National & State Elections (Not POTUS)
- Thread starter Icky Mettle
- Start date
- Replies: 236
- Views: 7K
- Politics
- Messages
- 2,656
Yeah I'm more worried about what the Baldwin news suggests for Kamala's prospects in Wisconsin (and also if Baldwin loses the Senate is definitely gone).
- Messages
- 3,949
Honestly I don't see how the Democrats take the Senate again for at least a decade, maybe two. Nearly all these states are baked in red.
1. Alaska
2. Idaho
3. Utah
4. Montana
5. Wyoming
6. ND
7. SD
8. Nebraska
9. Kansas
10. Oklahoma
11. Texas
12. Lousiana
13. Alabama
14. Mississippi
15. Indiana
16. Tennessee
17. Kentucky
18. WV
19. Ohio
20 South Carolina
21. Florida
22. Iowa
23. Missouri
24. Arkansas
And all you need is two pickups in any Swing state or blue state with Split Senate seats.
I know you can argue Texas and Florida are swing states, but I need to see it to believe it. Tester looks gone and they could lose Brown. Those would be two lost seats that are not coming back in probably at least 3 voting cycles or ever.
- Messages
- 1,941
Jefferson Griffin wrote in one of his concurrences fairly recently that laws are never enforced in ways that are influenced by racial bias.
- Messages
- 1,598
When you look at all the evils in America that are baked into the Constitution as a result of accommodations made to the slave-holding class, slavery really does taken on the aura of the original sin of the United States. And the ill effects of that original sin are still with us today despite being over 230 years since the Constitution was ratified and nearly 160 years since the 13th Amendment was added. Apparently, it take more than just words on a piece of paper to rid America of its original sin. America has to want to be free of that original sin. But John 3:19 offers no encouragement, "And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil."
aGDevil2k
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,565
Have any polls had her behind though?
Mulberry Heel
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,106
The problem is that's still not a majority for Republicans, and if Republicans gain control of the Senate and turn out to be as extreme as it appears - say pushing a national abortion ban - then I think the remaining 26 states might start voting just as blue as those states do red. Basically we're facing a collision of two facts - an antiquated political system that gives rural red states more power in the Senate than their populations would justify, and a society that is moving increasingly to the left on a whole host of issues like abortion, gay rights, etc. Something is going to have to give one way or another.
I'll choose to be optimistic here and note that politics are never static and coalitions are always changing. We seem to have been in a stasis in terms of trends for the past 10+ years with Obama -> Trump eras, but there is obviously a constant incentive on both sides to win elections and demographics will continue to shift.
Off of this list I could see AK, UT, KS, TX, and MT (yes, I know Tester is there now and will likely lose) as long term pick-ups. Younger, less (evangelical) religious, and/or higher 4-year degree levels. Throw in NC and those are 12 potential pick-ups in the next 5-10 years to offset slipping in other areas. In short, I agree it may be 3-4 cycles but don't expect two decades for the Dems to be in contention for the Senate
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,638
We had the chance to fix America when we had a majority in both houses and the presidency. Alas, Sinema fucked us all. At a minimum we could have made DC a state and locked in two additional senate votes.
But there's a loophole in the constitution right now; someone is going to exploit it and it's probably not going to be us. It should have been us. If I had been president, it would have been us.
It's often thought that amending the constitution requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate and the House and 3/4 of the states. Not true. It only requires a bare majority in both houses and the presidency, and balls of steel. There are no minimum standards for statehood. People talking about making DC a state aren't thinking big enough. Carve 100 states out of it. Admit them to the union, and now DC controls all levers of the government. Then you can pass whatever constitutional amendments you want, basically immediately.
What I have in mind is a pre-packaged constitution. The legislation would create new states. Then the next piece of legislation would include various constitutional amendments. Waive the regular rules, because after all the chamber is now controlled by the new states. Introduce and pass constitutional amendments, the last of which would collapse the new DC states into a single state, add PR, preserve 50 states by smushing together the Dakotas and Vermont and New Hampshire, and then require a constitutional amendment for any further addition of states.
Bang. We could get rid of all the bullshit. Electoral college. State sovereign immunity. Supreme Court. We could even keep the Senate; just that every state gets one Senate and the other 50 Senators would be allocated by population. It doesn't even need to be directly proportional. States could get tiered representation based on population; CA would get 4, TX, FL and NY 3, etc. Whatever the right formula, it could be done.
The Pubs are going to do this eventually, so we should have done it when we had the chance. Fuck Sinema. Also Biden would never have done it, but I wonder if Kamala would (if she ever has the chance). She would go down in history as one of our greatest presidents if she did.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,638
If Trump wins and does what he says he's going to do -- round up the migrants and tariff everything -- then I would expect 2026 to be a bloodbath of such epic proportions that the Dems would pick up at least 6 Senate seats and possibly all of them save the most revanchist states like AL and WV.
RockyMtnHoo
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 407
I know it wasn’t especially popular here when mentioned a couple of weeks back, but if we find ourselves in a situation where Harris wins, and Pubs have a 1 vote majority in the Senate, I’d find a Cabinet spot for Susan Collins. Maine has a Dem Governor who would appoint a replacement, and Collins is at an age that she may not run again in 2026…she’d be 80 when that term completes in 2032.
- Messages
- 2,411
Not sure. But recent trends seem to put it in play. I was really hopeful that she would crush the blue wall states.
RCV news
- Idaho. Oregon and Colorado each have a ballot measure this election to adopt Ranked Choice Voting.
Regarding Idaho's:
- Nevada voted in 2022 to adopt top-5 primary and RCV, but amendments like these must be approved at two successive general elections, so final approval is a ballot measure this yr.
- Alaska adopted ^ the system Idaho/CO are proposing in 2020, but now they have a ballot measure to repeal, ditch it and revert back to the old system.
- Missouri has a ballot measure to PROHIBIT RCV.
- Idaho. Oregon and Colorado each have a ballot measure this election to adopt Ranked Choice Voting.
Regarding Idaho's:
| First, this measure would abolish Idaho’s party primaries. Under current law, political parties nominate candidates through primary elections in which party members vote for a candidate to represent the party in the general election. The initiative creates a system where all candidates participate in a top-four primary and voters may vote on all candidates. The top four vote-earners for each office would advance to the general election. Candidates could list any affiliation on the ballot, but would not represent political parties, and need not be associated with the party they name. Second, the measure would require a ranked-choice voting system for the general election. Under current law, voters may select one candidate for each office, and the candidate with the most votes wins. Under the ranked-choice voting system, voters rank candidates on the ballot in order of preference, but need not rank every candidate. The votes are counted in successive rounds, and the candidate receiving the fewest votes in each round is eliminated. A vote for an eliminated candidate will transfer to the voter’s next-highest-ranked active candidate. The candidate with the most votes in the final round wins.[7] |
[td width="20px"]
”
[/td]- Nevada voted in 2022 to adopt top-5 primary and RCV, but amendments like these must be approved at two successive general elections, so final approval is a ballot measure this yr.
- Alaska adopted ^ the system Idaho/CO are proposing in 2020, but now they have a ballot measure to repeal, ditch it and revert back to the old system.
- Missouri has a ballot measure to PROHIBIT RCV.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,638
UT? Seriously? There's not even a functioning Dem party in Utah. They've been nominating Republicans (e.g. Evan McMullin) to run for Senate.
AK will never go red because of its absolute reliance on fossil fuels. Well, won't go red as long as the Pubs' energy policy is drill drill drill
TX? Maybe. I'll believe it when I see it, but it's not impossible to imagine. But the Dems have to clean up messaging with Latinos. And I don't see the time frame there as 5-10 years. Maybe 10-15. In 2018, in a red wave election, with the best Dem candidate in a while (Beto) going up against the most reviled Pub candidate (Cruz), Cruz won and it wasn't really close. Close by TX standards but 2.5 points isn't really close for an election and again, that was the best shot we've had in a long time. I'll happily eat crow if I'm wrong, and the Dems absolutely should be spending money in TX (you can't win a state if you don't invest there), but it's still entirely speculative.
I can't speak to KS. I have my doubts. The Republican Senators from that state most recently won their elections 60-39 and 55-41, so there's a LOT of work there. Don't be fooled by the gubernatorial election. MA has had Republican governors. MD had one. CA had one not that long ago (Governator).
That leaves us with NC. Absolutely 100% the best pickup opportunity along with the Senate seat the Dems will win when Susan Collins retires. And RonJon's seat in WI (though that's going to be a tough one).
***
On the flip side, we're currently holding many seats that are tenuous. If you look at the current swing states, Dems improbably control almost all of the Senate seats there. 2 in AZ, 2 in NV, 5 of 6 in the Blue Wall, and 2 in GA against 2 in NC and RonJon. That's 11-3. If those states remain tossups, it seems unlikely that the Dems can continue to hold all those seats. The GOP definitely has suffered from own goals in those states. They probably aren't going to nominate Herschel Walker again, and since Warnock could barely beat him, I have my doubts about Warnock's longevity (though he will have more incumbency going forward). I don't know if the GOP can find decent candidates in AZ, but I would not assume that we will be running against Blake Masters and Kelly Lake for all eternity.
And of course, WV is gone and it looks like MT is as well.
Obviously if the country shifts left (or pro-Dem, which isn't the same thing), this all can change. But if you assume that we're stuck with this electorate for a while, it's looking grim for the Dem hopes in the Senate. Which is why it was criminal not to make DC a state -- even if you disagree with my more radical plan to use DC as a constitutional convention.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,638
What's so great about RCV? In theory, it could allow third parties to gain footholds because votes for them won't be "wasted."
But in practice, it's more likely to give traction to billionaires who can self-fund their candidacy, go around the party apparatus and jump into races as a lark or if they feel like it. I consider it quite likely that Elon Musk could win a Senate election in a lot of states, though he'd probably not win a nomination in most of them. This problem is exacerbated by the way RCV rewards candidates for losing finishes. Let's suppose, for instance, that Musk decided to run for Senate in Texas as an independent. Let's also assume that the Dem actually wins a plurality of votes. And then this happens:
first place votes: Dem 48, Musk 8, Pub 44
second place votes: Musk 40, Pub 35, Dem 25
Last place: Musk 52, Pub 21, Dem 27
Pub wins because all most Pubs go Pub->Musk-> Dem, whereas more Dems go Dem-Pub-Musk.
We talk about the problem of our two-party system being the necessary result of our first-past-the-post election system. And that's real, for sure. But it's ALSO true that, because of our campaign finance "system," the third parties that do pop up are little more than campaigns by rich and/or famous candidates. It's no coincidence that the only significant third party candidate in my lifetime was Ross Perot, a self-financing billionaire. This is a problem we don't usually confront because of the election system, but if we change that system, we have to be prepared for this effect to raise its head.
Already, there's a scourge of bored billionaires who try to buy their way into Congress. McCormick in PA is only the latest example. The saving grace is that they have to go through parties to get that nomination, and it doesn't always work. If not, I would assume we will get a Congress disproportionately filled with weird billionaires.
First, who is #4? Can my second choice be someone other than Trump/Musk? Another billionaire who might actually not be as evil - like Tom Steyer or a younger Bloomberg? Or is it a lesser Evil Republican (Larry Hogan for example)? Or is it the second most popular person from the Dem "convention", who in theory is fairly centrist for sake of competition?
Second, How many dems would vote Dem-Pub-Musk if Trump was the Pub? Musk could be horrible in many ways, but at least he isn't a climate denier. And it could be lies, but Musk would very much try to be a centrist. Heck, Trump himself theoretically would need to "moderate" to make sure Dems are voting Dem-Pub-Musk. At the same time, if Musk is truly so Evil that Dems would vote for Repub over him, then would he even have made it onto top 4 versus some Moderate $-backed candidates?
Finally, regarding "I would assume we will get a Congress disproportionately filled with weird billionaires." - most of Congress is swayed by these billionaires or corp money anyway. Financing is a curse regardless.
- Messages
- 2,763
