Heck on tape: 'I really' want to support Trump but I can't

[Anna Komnene]

Yeah, it's definitely to his honor.

He still must be defeated, though.

New Democratic Plan: Defeat all honorable Republicans in major office and wonder why the crazies are taking control

That's definitely a problem that not enough people realize, but it's not as though the "crazies" are easy to beat.  Like I don't think any amount of investment would get dems over the top in deep red states, so they have to take the chances they can get.  Besides, just because Heck is maybe okay, doesn't mean Cortez Masto isn't better.  CCM is my favorite Senate candidate this year.

[Anna Komnene]

Yeah, it's definitely to his honor.

He still must be defeated, though.

New Democratic Plan: Defeat all honorable Republicans in major office and wonder why the crazies are taking control

That's definitely a problem that not enough people realize, but it's not as though the "crazies" are easy to beat.  Like I don't think any amount of investment would get dems over the top in deep red states, so they have to take the chances they can get.  Besides, just because Heck is maybe okay, doesn't mean Cortez Masto isn't better.  CCM is my favorite Senate candidate this year.

Just out of curiosity: why? Is there anything notable about her other than the fact that she would be the first Latina Senator if/when she takes office? Not meant as a rhetorical question, either; I don't know much about her.

Well, getting a Latina in the Senate would be a great accomplishment.  I'm a big believer that personal experience is a big part of shaping legislative agenda for politicians.  As a Latina, she would bring a different perspective to the Senate and a much needed one.  She's likely to be a more reliable supporter of comprehensive immigration reform (and to ensure that is written in a way that takes into account immigrant concerns), not just because she's a Latina, but probably immigrant groups will be more willing to trust her with their concerns and fears.

As AG of Nevada, she's also been an important advocate against human trafficking and for assisting victims of domestic violence (big issue for me) and has shown that she's willing to take on the banking industry with some of the cases she pursued.  Plus, she's said things that I like about protecting public lands and creating more green jobs.

Tulsi Gabbard is one of my favorite representatives too for a similar reason.  As a female combat veteran, she has experiences that other people simply don't have, and that's led her to sponsor bills that help protect women from sexual assault in the military.  Some of these issues are pretty uncontroversial and pass easily, but it's important to remember that just because something passed easily, doesn't mean that it would have been proposed by just anyone.

[Anna Komnene]

Think about it this way.  The ideal scenario for a party is to control all 100 seats of the Senate.  Crazy right?  But if you're a political party, that's the ideal.  Obviously that will never happen because they have limited resources and because there are some states where no matter how much effort you put into an election, you're still almost definitely going to lose.  

The realistic scenario for a party is to get to a majority of the Senate.  In order to do that, they target the easiest seats to win.  If they're doing well, the party tries to expand and put resources into more seats to try to get to a super-majority.  That's not easy.  It requires a good electoral environment for the party and a lot of resources.  So basically the party is going to operate somewhere around the bare minimum majority and try to siphon off a few more seats.  Even though they want to win as many seats as possible, they aren't going to waste money and effort trying to win Idaho when the chances are pretty much zero and doing that might mean they not only lose Nevada but also their own majority.  

If I'm understanding right,  you'd prefer Democrats reorient their philosophy and their focus and try to have a caucus of states like Louisiana and Alaska instead of Nevada and Illinois.  The problem is Democrats can't just go into those states and win.  Republicans are really strong there.  Dems win sometimes, but it's not the norm.  Dems might be able to win Louisiana if they put everything they have into it but then lose Nevada, Illinois, and New Hampshire because they neglected them.  You're basically asking democrats to concede control of the Senate to the republicans.

[Anna Komnene]

You're basically asking democrats to concede control of the Senate to the republicans.

Not really, because he also demands this from Republicans.

Party competition is kind of like the prisoner's dilemma for international relations.  Without any reason to trust the other party, they won't cooperate.  Whether it's also being asked of Republicans is irrelevant because Democrats have no reason to trust Republicans to cooperate and vice versa.

[Anna Komnene]

Everything Lyin' Steve and Wolfentoad have said applies to Democratic Senators as well (in fact much more so).

Actually, WaPo had an article measuring about that in 2015 and both parties had similar numbers of mavericks in the Senate.  On close votes, Manchin, Heitkamp, Donnelly, and McCaskill all voted against their party over 20% of the time.  On the Republican side, only Collins and Ayotte were over 20%, though Kirk and Heller came close to it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/11/here-are-the-members-of-congress-who-vote-against-their-party-the-most/

[Anna Komnene]

Counting ideology by voting in the Senate is almost always faulty. I'd say they are about even, but Democrats thought they could take down Collins in 2013. Republicans were under no such illusions in 2011.

If you don't believe me about the faultiness, maybe you realize that Kirk is more moderate than Ayotte.

I agree that Kirk has a more moderate persona than Ayotte.  In terms of actual votes, I'm not sure there's a huge difference between them apart from maybe a couple hot button issues that Kirk probably voted for or against because he's from Illinois.  A lot of the mavericky behavior in the Senate seems to happen more on amendments than on actual final votes, and Ayotte is just as active as Kirk on those.