entremet
Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/24/u...n-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
More analysis at the link.
More analysis at the link.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Democrats Have a 60 Percent Chance to Retake the Senate
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
- Status
The Lamonster
Member
I would be surprised if they didn't.
Dems taking the House would be a huge story, though.
Dems taking the House would be a huge story, though.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Sam Wang at the Princeton Election Consortium has it even higher.
~20% of a fifty fifty split
~35% of 51 dem seats
~27% of 52 dem seats
~8% of 53 dem seats
Basically, it's looking pretty good. The House, however, I'm bearish on.
~20% of a fifty fifty split
~35% of 51 dem seats
~27% of 52 dem seats
~8% of 53 dem seats
Basically, it's looking pretty good. The House, however, I'm bearish on.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Maybe they should reconsider that Merrick Garland vote thing
Odds they capitulate and take the known quantity before the election?
I wouldn't consider that to be likely at all. Republicans have an even bigger lead, and they're more entrenched thanks to gerrymandering.
Orbis Tabula
Member
The odds are against them, but it's higher than people would have guess just sixth months ago. The problem is that, while Donald Trump is hurting the down ticket pretty badly, no one could have really predicted this would happen, so some seats which are now competitive weren't ever contested by serious Democratic challengers because they were previously seen as unwinnable. Plus, gerrymandering. I'd say odds of Dems taking the house are less than 40, but that's just a subjective number from the top of my head.
Wowfunhappy
Member
What are the chances of them retaking the House as well?
I'm not sure how it actually helps to have one without the other.
Edit: Found the answer: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/u...edCoverage®ion=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article
I'm not sure how it actually helps to have one without the other.
Edit: Found the answer: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/u...edCoverage®ion=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article
Sir_Crocodile
Member
If the democrats retake the senate can they elect the most left wing judges possible, or is it still philibusterable without a supermajority?
Orbis Tabula
Member
You don't need the House to appoint justices to SCOTUS.
SCOTUS nominees can be filibustered, so they'd need more than a majority to overcome one. However, there's actually nothing stopping the Senate from just getting rid of the rules allowing for a filibuster on SCOTUS appointments with a simple majority. So they couldn't overcome a filibuster, but they can just make them not possible.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
That would be admitting they're going to lose.
They're more likely to try after the election happens.
I'd bet good money that if the GOP filibusters SCOTUS nominees after stating that they want the next President to make nominations, Schumer will nuke the filibuster and the Dems will push through some really solidly liberal judges.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Filling the Federal vacancies from cabinet to judges. That and that little SC opening.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
GOP won't filibuster picks because they know the Dems will go nuclear if they do.
Has nothing to with Dems honestly, the country is just split down the middle with Dems and GOP fighting for scraps.
badcrumble
Member
Not gonna happen until after 2020, and even then they'd better have a really good 50-state game plan in mind.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
doesnt matter. gop will still fillibuster everything.
Doing so would be extremely dangerous. Specifically for the judges.
Not before the election, but certainly during the lame duck.
Historically.
1855-2010
Over the past 100 years the Democratic party has held power nearly twice as long as the Republicans in both the Senate and the House. And the Democratic party has had control of the White House and the two Houses of Congress for 35 years, compared to 16 years for the Republican party over the last 100 years
The problems in this country is that
Presidential power is split nearly equally:
Democrats: 52 yrs
Republicans: 48 yrs
Interesting charts here:
Now I think because of the democratic majorities they have had done a lot to progress the country, but if you look at who the president has been they may have helped to impede progress, including republicans where basically people have had to work with them.
Over time Democrats have had total control total years 1855-2010
Democrats: 35 yrs
Republicans: 16 yrs
Neither Party: 49 yrs
and the time dems had total control you match up with the years you could see where times that the US had made many significant gains. But total control is pretty rare, only small bursts of time.
its actually pretty interesting to see, then match up the time frames with who prospered during those times.
I def want to see how states have been which sometimes have been repub strongholds for a lot of states.
1855-2010
Over the past 100 years the Democratic party has held power nearly twice as long as the Republicans in both the Senate and the House. And the Democratic party has had control of the White House and the two Houses of Congress for 35 years, compared to 16 years for the Republican party over the last 100 years
The problems in this country is that
Presidential power is split nearly equally:
Democrats: 52 yrs
Republicans: 48 yrs
Interesting charts here:
Now I think because of the democratic majorities they have had done a lot to progress the country, but if you look at who the president has been they may have helped to impede progress, including republicans where basically people have had to work with them.
Over time Democrats have had total control total years 1855-2010
Democrats: 35 yrs
Republicans: 16 yrs
Neither Party: 49 yrs
and the time dems had total control you match up with the years you could see where times that the US had made many significant gains. But total control is pretty rare, only small bursts of time.
its actually pretty interesting to see, then match up the time frames with who prospered during those times.
I def want to see how states have been which sometimes have been repub strongholds for a lot of states.
Chuck Schumer ain't about that life. Nuclear option is on the table if the blocking of Supreme Court nominees continues past the election.
AstroNut325
Member
Eh... Vast swathes of the country will simply vote them out in the following midterm for far right lunatics.
Team Alucard
Banned
60% seems low. They only need to swing 4 seats. Johnson, Kirk, and Ayotte are all 100% going down. That leaves them with only one swing seat they have to flip.
In the end its mostly irrelevant, as they aren't getting close to 60 seats, and the ass-whipping the dems are going to receive in 2018 will make 2010 seem tame in comparison.
In the end its mostly irrelevant, as they aren't getting close to 60 seats, and the ass-whipping the dems are going to receive in 2018 will make 2010 seem tame in comparison.
entremet
Member
There's a lot of Republicans out there.
Many posters here tend to underestimate the popularity and ubiquity of GOP in vast swaths of the US.
They also dominate State Houses and Governorships.
And that would be a mistake. If they remove the fillbuster than when the repubs take the senate again it will be a disaster.
That doesn't matter as long as the GOP doesn't have the Senate + House + Presidency at the same time. The president can always veto their bullshit.
And if you look at the 2018 map, they're highly likely to. It's brutal for Dems.
Team Alucard
Banned
Schumer has even less moxy than Reid. No way in hell he goes Nuclear. Its a fantasy.
You are assuming there will never be a GOP president again. The filibuster is there for a reason. The GOP is able to control the congress is because not enough people are voting, especially young voters during mid-terms. It is up to the Dems to get people out to vote for them.
Are you saying it would be better to never appoint a new SCOTUS? Or have to appoint a republican SCOTUS? Because those are the other options.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Reps wont block judges. But dont expect to get anything else passed. All of Clinton's proposals like tax increases, college loan reform, immigration reform, healthcare reform will never get a vote.
Just look at the last six years of Obama's presidency. Dems controlled the senate for four of those years but because they didnt have 60 votes, they couldnt get anything done.
No, House+Senate+President is enough checks and balances. No need for another bs check in the senate. If a party controls all three branches they get to do whatever the fuck they please.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Only a super-incompetent party would fail to retake the Senate from the Republicans this election.
So I guess us liberals should be worried
So I guess us liberals should be worried
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked