When all the Red State Dems are gone from the senate

You'll be looking at a GOP controlled majority for a very long time. I'm surprised this isn't a discussion among politicos, but the numbers are just not in the Democrats favor.

There are quite a handful of Red state dems left in the senate, almost all of them are up for reelection this year. Sure most, if all, might survive reelection due to it being a strong democratic year, but eventually they'll step down from office. And once they're gone, their seats will likely go GOP, and that would put the dems at a horrifying disadvantage.

Let's do the math:

Republicans hold 51 seats

Dems hold 49 (47 plus two independents who caucus with them)

Number of Senate seats that belong to Red state Dems:

6

The states where these Dem Senators come from:

West Virginia
North Dakota
Montana
Missouri
Indiana
Alabama

So 6 plus 51 is 57 if all those dems were replaced by Republicans. This is near a super majority status. Of course republicans are on the verge of losing 2 seats this year (let's say hypothetically of course) That brings the number to 55 if they lose Arizona and Nevada.

55 seats. OK let's assume Susan Collins, the only senator GOP senator from a blue state (I don't count Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan as blue states not after the 2016 elections) retires and is replaced by a democrat or a dem leaning independent like Angus King, that'll bring the number to 54.

The Dems would need to win back seats in Swing states to ever claim back the majority, a tall task considering how incumbents tend to win. Doable sure, but very tricky. Escpcially with how Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin are trending republican in recent years. It also depends on the political enviorment of course. But winning senate seats, even in midterms don't always go the way for the minority party. After the 2018 Dems survived during the 2012 elections, and the Dems managed to keep their majority due to GOP blunders (They still lost a good amount of seats though).

Well yeah, the system is heavily biased toward republican (people vote in small rural state having far more power than than people in populous urban state), but there's just not much that can be done to change that. At this point dem only real hope is that demographic trend keep happening and that newer generation remain more liberal so that when the older generation dies off the new one are more likely to vote dem. This could flip a couple of red state to purple, but that's a big if. Republican will fight tooth and nail to prevent that, there will be more vote suppression tactic. At the same time people who vote liberal are more likely to move to city, often across state, so red state won't change very fast.

Plus on top of all that, dem voter are really unreliable vote, so they probably won't show up in the mid term election (same for local election) so I doubt the senate will flip in... well forever to be honest. If you'd ask someone to make up the perfect political opponent for dem to defeat, they'd probably come up with the current GOP. Farcically corrupt, harboring pedophile, adulterer, racist, a clown as a president oh and actively traitorous on top. And yet there numbers don't really go down anyway. If anything this energized there bases which makes them more likely to vote and disgust swing voter making them less likely to vote ("both party are crap so I won't vote").

Dem would need an amazingly good and charismatic candidate in the 2020 to maybe get the vote out and maybe they'd be able to swing a few more seats than usual, and they just don't have that.

At the same time, supermajority in the senate means very little now, most of the barrier have been Brough down so that a simple majority get the job done almost everytime, and if it doesn't they just change the rule to make sure it does.

Man, you really shouldn't have "Montana" on that list my dude, I live here. Short of a miracle, that seat's not going Red anytime soon.

And your statement of "eventually they'll retire" applies to literally every senate seat.

altnameJag:
Man, you really shouldn't have "Montana" on that list my dude, I live here. Short of a miracle, that seat's not going Red anytime soon.

And your statement of "eventually they'll retire" applies to literally every senate seat.

Yes and when Jon Tester retires his seat will go red, which is the point.

And yet many of them still won reelection, even in strong GOP years. How those incumbents survived is the key to their success: unique individual brands.

You see, the GOP has been trying to unseat Claire McCaskill for the last two terms she's ran and failed both times. Part of that was luck (remember Todd "legitimate rape" Akin?), but another part of that was a strong independent brand separate from the Democrats. In those elections, you may dislike the Democrats, but you trust Claire McCaskill.

Ditto John Tester in Montana, Joe Manchin in West Virginia, and Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota.

Others, like Doug Jones, are likely to still loose their seats when they're up, but others, such as Colorado's seat held by Republican Cory Gardner and Nevada's Dean Heller, are get-able seats that can make up a majority.

Factor into this the 6-year cycles for Senators, which allows for many Senators to be able to ride out wave elections, and you have the potential for some interesting people sitting in unlikely places.

The Gentleman:
And yet many of them still won reelection, even in strong GOP years. How those incumbents survived is the key to their success: unique individual brands.

Money. It's money. They sell out on a whole host of issues and that enables them to receive as much money as their Republican challengers and, being not much different from their Republican challengers and enjoying the incumbency advantage, they win.

Or in Doug Jones's case, he's 1% better than a pedophile.

WolvDragon:

altnameJag:
Man, you really shouldn't have "Montana" on that list my dude, I live here. Short of a miracle, that seat's not going Red anytime soon.

And your statement of "eventually they'll retire" applies to literally every senate seat.

Yes and when Jon Tester retires his seat will go red, which is the point.

...because the people that voted for him are gonna start voting republican somehow?

Do you not know how elections happen?

altnameJag:

WolvDragon:

altnameJag:
Man, you really shouldn't have "Montana" on that list my dude, I live here. Short of a miracle, that seat's not going Red anytime soon.

And your statement of "eventually they'll retire" applies to literally every senate seat.

Yes and when Jon Tester retires his seat will go red, which is the point.

...because the people that voted for him are gonna start voting republican somehow?

Do you not know how elections happen?

Montana is a state that has voted republicans for president for a long time. Trump won it by double digits They elected a republican who should be in jail for body slamming a reporter as their representative for congress. Tester has always won with less then 50 percent of the vote, meaning he's got lucky. The state's government is controlled by the republican party. So yes,, I assume his successor will be a republican.

They have gerrymandering to deal with too; so good luck with that.

CaitSeith:
They have gerrymandering to deal with too; so good luck with that.
image

That's, ah, somewhere between mostly and completely irrelevant to the Senate (or any other statewide election). The only reason not to consider it completely irrelevant is that state borders themselves can have an effect on the composition of the Senate, but state borders aren't exactly redrawn ever ten years (or in anywhere near as intentionally advantageous to one or another party a fashion).

Seanchaidh:

CaitSeith:
They have gerrymandering to deal with too; so good luck with that.

That's, ah, somewhere between mostly and completely irrelevant to the Senate (or any other statewide election). The only reason not to consider it completely irrelevant is that state borders themselves can have an effect on the composition of the Senate, but state borders aren't exactly redrawn ever ten years.

Good to know.

EDIT: Wait, aren't State Senators elected by district? State borders aren't usually redrawn, but what about districts?

Seanchaidh:

The Gentleman:
And yet many of them still won reelection, even in strong GOP years. How those incumbents survived is the key to their success: unique individual brands.

Money. It's money. They sell out on a whole host of issues and that enables them to receive as much money as their Republican challengers and, being not much different from their Republican challengers and enjoying the incumbency advantage, they win.

Yes, they're totally selling out instead of, say, acknowledging they are the senators of more-conservative states and making sure they have a strong individual brand that allows them to not be associated with the national party as much, thereby neutralizing some of the reflextive opposition enough to get moderate voters on board, which are essential in order to have a majority of voters when the elections come around.

Like, at a certain point, you need to decide whether you actually care about democracy and the necessary norms that sustain it (majority rule, compromise, gradual progress). Almost everything I've seen of you since March 2016 has consistently shown apathy if not outright hostility to democracy and its principles, similar to how the GOP discards those principles the moment acknowledging democracy runs counter to their agenda.

If you're an authoritarian socialist, then say so and stop masquerading as a democratic socialist.

Or in Doug Jones's case, he's 1% better than a pedophile.

... helped by maximizing voter turnout among black voters (particularly women). Because, you know, votes do fucking matter.

CaitSeith:
EDIT: Wait, aren't State Senators elected by district? State borders aren't usually redrawn, but what about districts?

State senators are elected by district (the individual details are state-specific).

Federal Senators (the subject above) are state-wide elected offices.

The Gentleman:

Seanchaidh:

The Gentleman:
And yet many of them still won reelection, even in strong GOP years. How those incumbents survived is the key to their success: unique individual brands.

Money. It's money. They sell out on a whole host of issues and that enables them to receive as much money as their Republican challengers and, being not much different from their Republican challengers and enjoying the incumbency advantage, they win.

Yes, they're totally selling out instead of, say, acknowledging they are the senators of more-conservative states and making sure they have a strong individual brand that allows them to not be associated with the national party as much, thereby neutralizing some of the reflextive opposition enough to get moderate voters on board, which are essential in order to have a majority of voters when the elections come around.

Like, at a certain point, you need to decide whether you actually care about democracy and the necessary norms that sustain it (majority rule, compromise, gradual progress). Almost everything I've seen of you since March 2016 has consistently shown apathy if not outright hostility to democracy and its principles, similar to how the GOP discards those principles the moment acknowledging democracy runs counter to their agenda.

If you're an authoritarian socialist, then say so and stop masquerading as a democratic socialist.

I like how you're still pushing being moderate when the middle can't sustain Democrat wins. If you don't give something to the base, you won't get votes in the places that matter.

Or in Doug Jones's case, he's 1% better than a pedophile.

... helped by maximizing voter turnout among black voters (particularly women). Because, you know, votes do fucking matter.

And I like how you're saying votes matter when Democrats aren't getting votes. Hell, you're saying that in response to a mainstream Democrat nearly losing to a pedophile. Someone who won because their opponent lost support with their base. I mean, Jones got fewer votes than Vivian Figures in 2008, Roger Bedford in 1996, or Howell Heflin in 1990.

In contrast, Roy Moore got fewer votes than when Jeff Sessions ran unopposed in 2014. So currently, the Democrats can only win on "compromise and gradual progress" if their opponents lose support of their base.

WolvDragon:

altnameJag:

WolvDragon:

Yes and when Jon Tester retires his seat will go red, which is the point.

...because the people that voted for him are gonna start voting republican somehow?

Do you not know how elections happen?

Montana is a state that has voted republicans for president for a long time. Trump won it by double digits They elected a republican who should be in jail for body slamming a reporter as their representative for congress. Tester has always won with less then 50 percent of the vote, meaning he's got lucky. The state's government is controlled by the republican party. So yes,, I assume his successor will be a republican.

And I, a Montanan, would bet a $20 eShop card that you're wrong. Gianforte won by 6 points in a state that voted Trump by 20. His assault came too late to change people's votes, and Quist was a garbage candidate.

The Gentleman:

Seanchaidh:

The Gentleman:
And yet many of them still won reelection, even in strong GOP years. How those incumbents survived is the key to their success: unique individual brands.

Money. It's money. They sell out on a whole host of issues and that enables them to receive as much money as their Republican challengers and, being not much different from their Republican challengers and enjoying the incumbency advantage, they win.

Yes, they're totally selling out instead of, say, acknowledging they are the senators of more-conservative states and making sure they have a strong individual brand that allows them to not be associated with the national party as much, thereby neutralizing some of the reflextive opposition enough to get moderate voters on board, which are essential in order to have a majority of voters when the elections come around.

Like, at a certain point, you need to decide whether you actually care about democracy and the necessary norms that sustain it (majority rule, compromise, gradual progress). Almost everything I've seen of you since March 2016 has consistently shown apathy if not outright hostility to democracy and its principles, similar to how the GOP discards those principles the moment acknowledging democracy runs counter to their agenda.

Your defense of our cash-directed oligarchy and the candidates who benefit from it takes a giant shit all over majority rule, the compromise that you defend is a compromise between handmaidens of capital, both sides of it paid by the same people to keep the conversation away from alternatives to capitalism, and the gradual progress you venerate is an increasingly lethal strangulation of the poor and working classes of this country. You may drop whatever pretense you have of respect for democracy or join the left in actually supporting it rather than whining about your latest servant of oligarchy not measuring up.

crimson5pheonix:
I like how you're still pushing being moderate when the middle can't sustain Democrat wins. If you don't give something to the base, you won't get votes in the places that matter.

The "hidden democratic base" argument always seems to pop out with these conversations and I've never seen any evidence of it in swing districts/states where they would supposedly do the most good. Most partisans, base voters in particular, are inclined to rack up a win rather than refuse to vote because most of them are inclined to see the other as a greater threat. At the end of the day, that mushy middle is more likely to be the determining factor than the base, and appealing to them does double the effect of appealing to the base (i.e. depriving your opponent of 1 vote that you have rather than just gaining 1 vote from appealing to a voter who would not otherwise vote).

Or in Doug Jones's case, he's 1% better than a pedophile.

... helped by maximizing voter turnout among black voters (particularly women). Because, you know, votes do fucking matter.

And I like how you're saying votes matter when Democrats aren't getting votes.[/quote]
Yeah, because winning elections is so passe?

Hell, you're saying that in response to a mainstream Democrat nearly losing to a pedophile. Someone who won because their opponent lost support with their base. I mean, Jones got fewer votes than Vivian Figures in 2008, Roger Bedford in 1996, or Howell Heflin in 1990.

Yes, he won fewer votes in a special election than a general. And he won. In fucking Alabama. You can argue all you want, but generic Republican versus Generic democrat in Alabama

In contrast, Roy Moore got fewer votes than when Jeff Sessions ran unopposed in 2014. So currently, the Democrats can only win on "compromise and gradual progress" if their opponents lose support of their base.

Again, you're comparing a general election with a special election, which generally has lower turnout overall, so raw totals mean jack shit compared to the actual results.

Doug Jones won by being inoffensive to the people of Alabama and turning out every vote that he could, not by pandering to a base that would likely already vote for him. Roy Moore lost by being so offensive to the mind that the senior senator stated he could not vote for him. These two things are not conflicting, but the simple math of needing more votes to win a seat (with the exception of the Presidency).

Seanchaidh:
Your defense of our cash-directed oligarchy and the candidates who benefit from it takes a giant shit all over majority rule, the compromise that you defend is a compromise between handmaidens of capital, both sides of it paid by the same people to keep the conversation away from alternatives to capitalism, and the gradual progress you venerate is an increasingly lethal strangulation of the poor and working classes of this country. You may drop whatever pretense you have of respect for democracy or join the left in actually supporting it rather than whining about your latest servant of oligarchy not measuring up.

If you want to claim to have the popular and majority will, you have to engage in the actions to build that, by running candidates, voting, hopefully getting nominations and then positions of power, then engaging in the give and take of the legislative process. You, particularly with this post, have shown contempt for the process that brings ideas from musings to policy.

I value liberal democracy over progressive policy and will work within the systems I have to make that happen, no matter how slow and disheartening that process is, because it is only within a liberal democracy that progressive policy truly takes hold. Where those try to claim popular will by fiat, corruption and chaos often follow. It took decades to get basic labor regulations, civil rights, and the even basic welfare state we have now, but most of those are now effectively taken for granted because of those hard fought battles over the course of lifetimes. The US system is full of flaws (the congress, and the Senate in particular, is fundamentally anti-majoritarian in it's design and the presidential system is increasingly being shown to be less effective at responding to political needs due to its division of powers), but the means of addressing those flaws is through the fucking hard work of campaigning, earning votes and eventually legislating, not claiming the popular will and doing nothing that will turn that into actual consequences.

If you want a revolution, go grab a gun and try it. If you want actual progress, be ready to do the hard work of politics.

The Gentleman:

crimson5pheonix:
I like how you're still pushing being moderate when the middle can't sustain Democrat wins. If you don't give something to the base, you won't get votes in the places that matter.

The "hidden democratic base" argument always seems to pop out with these conversations and I've never seen any evidence of it in swing districts/states where they would supposedly do the most good. Most partisans, base voters in particular, are inclined to rack up a win rather than refuse to vote because most of them are inclined to see the other as a greater threat. At the end of the day, that mushy middle is more likely to be the determining factor than the base, and appealing to them does double the effect of appealing to the base (i.e. depriving your opponent of 1 vote that you have rather than just gaining 1 vote from appealing to a voter who would not otherwise vote).

I would think Hillary hemorrhaging votes in the (now former) blue wall should be a big indicator that the Dems lost the base. And chasing the middle is all well and good until you're trying to out-right the right and move into their voting base. At which point you lose. Like Hillary did.

... helped by maximizing voter turnout among black voters (particularly women). Because, you know, votes do fucking matter.

And I like how you're saying votes matter when Democrats aren't getting votes.

Yeah, because winning elections is so passe?

Dems are looking really weak right now. Some real shaky wins.

Hell, you're saying that in response to a mainstream Democrat nearly losing to a pedophile. Someone who won because their opponent lost support with their base. I mean, Jones got fewer votes than Vivian Figures in 2008, Roger Bedford in 1996, or Howell Heflin in 1990.

Yes, he won fewer votes in a special election than a general. And he won. In fucking Alabama. You can argue all you want, but generic Republican versus Generic democrat in Alabama

Yeah, he won off the incompetence of his opponent. That is a terrible strategy to work off of.

In contrast, Roy Moore got fewer votes than when Jeff Sessions ran unopposed in 2014. So currently, the Democrats can only win on "compromise and gradual progress" if their opponents lose support of their base.

Again, you're comparing a general election with a special election, which generally has lower turnout overall, so raw totals mean jack shit compared to the actual results.

So what do turnouts look like when there's literally only one person running? I think this might be relevant.

Doug Jones won by being inoffensive to the people of Alabama and turning out every vote that he could, not by pandering to a base that would likely already vote for him. Roy Moore lost by being so offensive to the mind that the senior senator stated he could not vote for him. These two things are not conflicting, but the simple math of needing more votes to win a seat (with the exception of the Presidency).

And this is why the Democrats are going to lose whenever they're running against someone who can keep it in their pants. The base is abandoning them, the base is not a safe vote. That's the lesson they should have learned in 2016. Unfortunately they're surrounded by people urging them to make the party Republican.

The Gentleman:
If you want a revolution, go grab a gun and try it. If you want actual progress, be ready to do the hard work of politics.

Stop asking for my vote because you obviously don't give one single runny shit about democracy or progressive political change.

CaitSeith:
They have gerrymandering to deal with too; so good luck with that.

Especially when Democrats have become so obsessed with ideological purity and national elections, they ran state parties into the ground and squeezed them for every last dime in 2016 for Hillary's sake. This year, they've launched an all-out assault on progressive candidates all year while quietly purging the DNC and state parties, and haven't paid a lick of attention to state and local races in the run up to a census-year election, in favor of trying to flip seats in the chamber subject to the very gerrymandering they're not even pretending to contest.

Look, I am (was) a lifelong Democrat, and I've always considered myself a bully-pulpit, New Deal, populist progressive. The first time in my life I didn't vote straight-ticket Democrat was 2016, when I realized well ahead of time Hillary would never, ever win in my home state (Indiana), so I indulged myself in conscience-based voting and threw a protest vote Johnson's way. Needless to say, I'm accustomed to a certain degree of duplicity, greed, and outright cowardice in the name of tactical voting. But even then, the post-2012 Democratic party has been such a non-stop cavalcade of organizational incompetence and abject failure despite the odds, even the notion of voting for one makes me want to vomit.

I like Ocasio-Cortez, and I really hope more people like her step up and put out this raging, unquenchable dumpster fire of regressive, authoritarian corporatism. I don't see it happening, and the more likely outcome in my opinion is the emergence of a new populist movement to put the Democratic party in the grave once and for all, but it's nice seeing someone like her slipping through the cracks for a change.

Eacaraxe:

CaitSeith:
They have gerrymandering to deal with too; so good luck with that.

Especially when Democrats have become so obsessed with ideological purity and national elections, they ran state parties into the ground and squeezed them for every last dime in 2016 for Hillary's sake. This year, they've launched an all-out assault on progressive candidates all year while quietly purging the DNC and state parties, and haven't paid a lick of attention to state and local races in the run up to a census-year election, in favor of trying to flip seats in the chamber subject to the very gerrymandering they're not even pretending to contest.

Look, I am (was) a lifelong Democrat, and I've always considered myself a bully-pulpit, New Deal, populist progressive. The first time in my life I didn't vote straight-ticket Democrat was 2016, when I realized well ahead of time Hillary would never, ever win in my home state (Indiana), so I indulged myself in conscience-based voting and threw a protest vote Johnson's way. Needless to say, I'm accustomed to a certain degree of duplicity, greed, and outright cowardice in the name of tactical voting. But even then, the post-2012 Democratic party has been such a non-stop cavalcade of organizational incompetence and abject failure despite the odds, even the notion of voting for one makes me want to vomit.

I like Ocasio-Cortez, and I really hope more people like her step up and put out this raging, unquenchable dumpster fire of regressive, authoritarian corporatism. I don't see it happening, and the more likely outcome in my opinion is the emergence of a new populist movement to put the Democratic party in the grave once and for all, but it's nice seeing someone like her slipping through the cracks for a change.

There is something fundamentally broken when it takes "slipping through the cracks" to even get a candidate that isn't pathetic because of how a major political party is destroying itself.

Sadly, having watched the decline in the democrats for years, I know it may still be a long time coming til the jackasses in charge are rotated out and less insane leadership can replace them.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here