Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 18, 2014, 06:09:06 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 1211
76  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Who was the last republican nominee to win new york city? on: December 09, 2014, 02:56:47 am
I might add that there were different strains of WASPs in the republican party. Much of New England was of a Unitarian/Anglican background that tended to be more moderate. Those that settled in the midwest (Kansas, Indiana) tended to be more of a Calvinist bent.

The story of New England in terms of Protestant Religious fervor amongst the Congregationalists at least, is one of steady decline. By the 20th century that was coming into full force, but the politics lagged considerably in this and therefore it was not until the mid 20th century that you began to see liberals like Aiken and Progressives like Prouty representing Vermont, whereas prior to them it was much more of the traditionalist almost paleoconservative bent that represented the state, who had by 1958 become unelectable in the state. Maine elected a similarly conservative Republican as late as 1946, and NH had Conservative Senators until 1960's and 1970's. The liberalism of the GOP establishment in Northeast (depending on your definition) is a post New Deal impact to respond to the demographic changes, both in the form of immigrants and increased unionization and as well as changes within the traditional GOP Yankee base in the region.

Also your previous point about voter awarenss is big. Voters weren't as informed as they are today and voted based on tribalism a lot, a point I have made at several points in this thread. And so yes you had liberals voting for the GOP because they had abolished slavery even though the PArty was hardly liberal overall (and such would be the case throughout 90% of its history). You had two ideological wings in both parties, a split on foreign policy in the GOP and the Wet/Anti-KKK versus Dry/Pro-KKK divide within the Democrats. That is why emphasizing the composition of the coalitions (and its changes over time) is not as indicative as my friend from Idaho would like to contend. They were such because the Party presented their bs in a way that seemed benign or relied a lot on sheer ignorance and legacy voting. That goes for both parties. These were both top down machines for much of the time that we are discussing and therefore it makes sense. No one doubts that The GOP was a corporatist shill in the 1880's, but a lot of working class voters voted for Harrison because of the tarriff. That hardly makes the GOP any less corporatist obviously.

You need to consider that those Calvinists in KS, IN, OH and MI came from New England.  Their seperation may have proved to be what preserved their Calvinism as it bled away in the home region. Also the use of the term moderate is rather misleading considering it is perhaps the most variable of any term throguhout history and could mean absolutely anything. It is fairly clear that the EAst in general was the more Conservative region within the GOP pre-New Deal. Most of the Progressives were out west with a few exceptions and most of their opponents were in the East like Wadsworth, Hanna, Penrose (I make policies beneficial to business and you reward me by donating to my campaign. He said that publically to a business group), Reed, Gillett, Aldrich to some extent, and of course Cannon being the farthest West in Illinois. You also had the anti-immigrant GOP politicians in rural protestant New England.
77  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: The Federalist Party: October 2014 Convention (Leaders/Endorsement Declarations) on: December 09, 2014, 02:32:31 am
Okay I am opening a 24 hour period for non-Federalists to request out endorsement in races without Federalists and any secondard endorsements. I apologize for the shortness of this, but time limitations demand it. This also means this thread is going to be rather confusing this week. Tongue


Declarations so Far:

Chairman:
NC Yankee

Non-Federalist Endorsement Requests
Pacific Governor:
Simfan34
78  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: 2018: DOAs and Retirements on: December 09, 2014, 01:28:58 am
As I said in another board, I would not be surprised if Hillary won with a Republican Senate majority, and even a rather secure one like 53 or 54 seats.
79  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: NC 2016 Gubernatorial Discussion Thread on: December 09, 2014, 01:24:43 am
I got to get myself into a 2016 mindset, but mind seems to not want to. Tongue

80  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: Rebuild the Pacific with me - Paleobrazilian for the Pacific Council on: December 09, 2014, 01:16:45 am
Endorsed and Good Luck. Smiley


Let me know if I can assist your campaign in any way.
81  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: The Federalist Party: October 2014 Convention (Leadership Declarations) on: December 09, 2014, 12:59:44 am
Running late isn't so bad as it gets us some action during the midterm convention season, which we haven't done since early 2013 I think. Tongue
82  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: The Federalist Party: October 2014 Convention (Leadership Declarations) on: December 09, 2014, 12:56:19 am
Federalist Party Members have 48 hours to declare for the positions of Chairman and Vice Chairman.


Sorry for these being so late. It had been my plan to get them going before Thanksgiving but then my work schedule increased in the lead up to the holidays and that was that.


I declare for Chairman.
83  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Nightmare Senate Scenario for Dems on: December 09, 2014, 12:44:55 am
Asigning a numerical limit on something occuring based partially off of 2008 (when the economy was collapsing) and 2012 where Republicans were taking on incumbents in most all Obama states makes little sense. Thompson and Allen did not run campaigns that were such that would have allowed them to win whilst Romney lost their states, but both the background to do so and could have done so had they operated differently. That is especially the case with Thompson.

Several of the 2016 incumbents have a history of running strong campaigns and correcting from mistakes as opposed to letting them continue (Rubio did so after his first quarter and after that, he went up like a rocket). The only one that doesn't is Johnson actually. Ayotte overperformed, Kirk held on in a very Dem seat in 2006 and 2008 (with Obama a top the ticket), Toomey managed to get the Lehigh Valley to vote for a fiscal conservative (and without the Santorum pro-labor flavored side issues) three times running. Rubio nearly got 50% in spite of a former Republican being on the ballot in a three way race and with having supported off shore drilling against the backdrop of the Gulf Oil Spill. Portman always out performed the ticket by several points in OH-02 and destroyed his opponent in the last three months in 2010. Likewise, Burr has taken his opponents to the cleaners in the last three months of two campaigns as well.

This is compared to Dole, Coleman, Smith (who ran as bad a campaign as Brown in 2012 if not worse) and the like? Partisanship is a reality, but assigning a hard rule about ticket splitting in 2016 based off of 2008 with its economic collapse and rather lackluster candidates is a bit of a stretch. Shift just a few points, maybe three and you have four Republicans winning in Obama states (Smith, Coleman, Sununu [it was like 52-46 no?] as well as Collins winning).
84  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: Civil Rights Act of 2014 (Debating) on: December 09, 2014, 12:01:35 am
What is the current (soon to be text) assuming the latest amendment is adopted?
85  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: Youth Employment Act (Voting on Amendment) on: December 08, 2014, 11:59:08 pm
Nay
86  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: The Atlasian Universal Education Bill (Debating) on: December 08, 2014, 11:56:00 pm
NAY


There is $X in clause three. Is that suppose to be there?
87  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) on: December 08, 2014, 11:52:23 pm
A firework is a low-potency explosive.

Then how does this amendment construe the abrogation of the right to keep and bear arms?


The Atlasian language is far less constricting, and does not contain a potentially purpose driven limitation, which many on the left have used to justify gun control. It also allows for the banning of fireworks.
88  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Regional Governments / Re: IDS: Speaker PiT Commemoration Act on: December 08, 2014, 11:43:11 pm
We should be careful and view the history of previous triggers both here and in the Northeast regarding the size of the legislature. Other than that word of warning, this has my full support.
89  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Is Donnelly really set to lose in 2018? on: December 08, 2014, 11:36:16 pm
Indiana has a ton of candidates to choose from, the only reason why he won was because Mourdock got tied to Akin, and a good Libertarian showing.
Sorry to nitpick, but Donnelly won 50.04%, so the Libertarian candidate is irrelevant for 2012.


But for 2016, it's very possible they could act as a spoiler for either the Senate or Governor's race.  

Does not the use of the word "and" after "Akin," concede already that y did not cause z on its own but that x+y yielded z?
The 50+% showing suggests that Donnelly would have won without the libertarian.

Where did the Motley say he lost solely because of the Libertarian? He said he lost because of Todd Akin and the Libertarian. That is arguably correct. Akin effect put Donnelly over 50%, the Libertarian dragged Mourdoch down to 44%.
90  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Is Donnelly really set to lose in 2018? on: December 08, 2014, 11:30:27 pm
Indiana has a ton of candidates to choose from, the only reason why he won was because Mourdock got tied to Akin, and a good Libertarian showing.
Sorry to nitpick, but Donnelly won 50.04%, so the Libertarian candidate is irrelevant for 2012.


But for 2016, it's very possible they could act as a spoiler for either the Senate or Governor's race. 

Does not the use of the word "and" after "Akin," concede already that y did not cause z on its own but that x+y yielded z?
91  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Who was the last republican nominee to win new york city? on: December 08, 2014, 11:23:12 pm
It was actually from a correspondant, not a congressman but I found the quote:

Quote
"When I look at that man sitting almost alone in the Senate, isolated in his gloom of hate and bitterness, stern, silent, watchful, suspicious and pitiless, I am reminded of the worst types of Puritan character... You see the impress of the purer persecuting spirit that burned witches, drove out Roger Williams, hounded Jonathan Edwards for doing his sacred duty, maligned Jefferson, and like a toad squatted at the ear of the Constitution it had failed to pervert."[17]

The man referenced was Senator George F. Edmunds of Vermont.
92  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Who was the last republican nominee to win new york city? on: December 08, 2014, 10:12:16 pm
The Republican Party isn't the party of business, the Republican Party is not the party of religious zealotry, the Republican Party is not the party of nativism etc. These terms strike me as being very imprecise, especially when you're describing the core values of a diverse party that has existed for 170 years.

The Republican Party has consistently throughout its history been the favored party of business throughout its existance. Were their progressive elements like TR and alike in the party, yes, because Party's are coalitions and also that in that era, wealth, ethnicity and money determined party as well as geography. But can you really say that TR was more then an aberation when you look at the consistent corporatism of the 1800's, the laissez faire 1920's, 1930's opposition to the New Deal and so on through the 20th century. A lot changes, my purpose to indentify what largely stays the same so as to connect these Parties throughout history. It is easier for someone who is not a Republican to do because the easiest path is through the cynical approach of a Mechaman.

The Republican Party has consistently been dominated by Protestant religious groups (and I would point out that New England Puritans and Southern Baptists today, both shared a Calvinist connection). They then have been the vehicle by which those political views were translated into policy from a moralistic perspective. From the end of prohibition, to rise of the moral majority, there is a mere gap of 40 years, and then we get a return to the norm for the GOP (not a takeover by theocrats or some flipping of the Parties). Protestant religious fervor had bled away in New England and only the prsence of the new Southern base allowed the GOP to return unto itself, almost the exact opposite of the narrative of the Parties flipping.

As for nativism/reluctance towards immigration, the range of viewpoints from opposing immigration entirely to limiting it or expressing reluctance in this day and age has almost consistently been expressed through the Republican Party more so then the Democratic Party. Even when the whole of the South was Democratic, the GOP still led them on this front leading the drive to restrict immigration in the mid 1920's.

The Republican Party is a sprawling big tent coalition that serves many interests and goals depending on the locale and its support base. A few decades it was an entirely different beast than it was in 2014, just as the Republican Party of the 1950s was an entirely different beast than the Republican Party of the 1980s. I think you're making the classic mistake of treating interests in a big tent, two-party system as static variables. In the American two party system, there has always been the presence of dynamic push-pull factors that destroy the notion of static coalitions, which are constantly shifting.

As for the comment about plantation owners, there's a reason why I used the term "former plantation owners": I was clearly alluding to the period after Reconstruction in the South.

The Republican Party of the 1950's though was at best an aberation determined by the fact that the North had changed, The South was still Democratic and therefore that left but one option and that was to change with the times in those regions. That is the source of Dewey and Rockefeller. But notice how long it lasted, when it came to choosing between a pro-business big gov't liberal party, and a Conservative Republican Party that sustained itself off of the South and West, it is patently obvious where the Party went. Not to change itself into something it had not been, but to prserve its own core objectives. Did the Party change, yes, but it didn't change on that key front and that is my point. THe price has been ideological polarization as liberals realized the GOP had made its choice and the Conservatives likewise with the Democrats.

I have stated repeatedly that the Parties were divided ideologically precisely because of that voting along cultural, ethnic, geographic, religious and income lines and that such gave way once ideology took paramount. But what is the political understanding of ideology and is not the political construction of certain lead figures. The Democrats want to help the poor and middle class, using gov't as a tool. The Democrats have always claimed to do the former, they just came to embrace the latter as the tool to do that about midway through their existance. The Reagan Conservative wants a strong military (goes all the way back to the beginning), strong economy by getting gov't outo f the way of business (business loved gov't in 1789 a big difference that is forgotten also and that didn't change until the Progressive Era), and traditional values (with a strong religious motivation, goes all the way back).

I barely even touched on defense and crime and other such issues where the Republican Party (or at least the one that only likes gov't when it does what it wants) acts very much like the Federalist Party of Adams and Hamilton even as they use the rhetoric and tools of Jefferson and Madison. There is a reason for that. 
93  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Who was the last republican nominee to win new york city? on: December 08, 2014, 09:49:34 pm
It surprises me that both the "progressive/liberal" republican party of the 19th and early 20th century and the conservative republican party of today both get crushed there.

Did NYC switch from conservatism to liberalism at the same time the Rs switched from liberalism to conservativism?

The Republicans have generally always been the party of business and of religiously (Protestant) motivated crusades (In those day's abolition and prohibition/temperance, as well as the public schools).

All of those reforms were opposed by the German and Irish Catholic immigrant groups. Abolition would bring blacks into competition for their jobs whilst slavery kept them safely down south (Dred Scott is in my view the key that causes this viewpoint to shift as it raised the specter of slavery itself bringing about that very competition. Hence why Lincoln emphasized "all Slave or all free". It was brilliant political strategy as it forced these pro-slavery northerns to flip and vote for a moderate anti-slavery Republian like Lincoln both in 1858 [he won the collective popular vote but lost since Senators were elected by state legislature] and 1860. This did not include NYC where Lincoln lost and barely carried the state by a narrow margin thanks to solid support upstate and NYC was one of the hotbeds of copperhead sympath during the war (Fernando Wood?) as well as the site of the NYC draft riots (those same pro-slavery working class Irish Democrats against the blacks)). Prohibition of alcohol interferred with the strong heritage of strong spirits and beer amongst those immigrant groups. Also the Republicans being of Congregational (Puritan) New England and Midwestern stock largely, preferred that the King James Bible be read in said public schools and Catholic immigrants wanted nothing to do with that. So instead they opened parochial schools and Republicans tried to ban school choice to force them to go to public schools and be tought the "good (Protestant) Christian education lest they be condemned to hell for eternity".

German immigrants typically did not have any particular opposition to abolition itself.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act was deeply unpopular, and the "forty eighter" immigrants especially were strongly anti slavery. The main obstacle to German immigrants in supporting the Free Soil and Republican parties was the association with nativism and prohibition, and the traditional allegiance to Democrats of German Americans from older waves of immigration. Germans ended up voting Republican, bringing an anti-nativist, anti-prohibition voice into the party.
Looking at the House vote on the 18th amendment,  the Republican and Democratic parties both voted roughly 2-1 in favor.  The opposition to prohibition among Democrats in the North was overwhelmed by the support for it among Democrats in the rest of the country.

That is correct, my point was never to say that thse three items determined equally and fully on each immigrant group, but from amongst them at least one of two of those matters made the GOP a rather unappealing group to immigrants overall and especially to the Irish for whome all three probably applied at one time at several different instances prior to the Civil War. That said when the GOP did bottle it up and focus on the matter of containing slavery, especially once its preservation was no longer a gurrantee of keeping "them down south", the Republicans did rather well amongst Germans. And then in 1874 and 1884 they made the mistake of letting loose that sentiment and they lost.
94  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Alaska Governor called for Walker! on: December 08, 2014, 09:32:27 pm
He is not as far off base, or at least would not be a fear years ago to say you had to bipartisan alliances competing for power defined by their willingness or lack thereof to be a shill for big oil.

The Alaska Tea Party and the Tea Party in general was defined by opposition to corporate welfare and that includes the corrupt relationship between the Alaska GOP and big business. Sarah Palin has been one of the few tea party figures to preserve such rhetoric (along with Rand Paul).

A Tea Party (as understood nationwide) + Democrat alliance sounds nuts. An Alaska Tea Party + Democrat alliance is not so easily dismissed precisely because of the history of Palin and her actions regarding oil companies and such forth.
95  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Who was the last republican nominee to win new york city? on: December 08, 2014, 04:27:22 am
Where have you gone, Mechaman,
we need you now more then you will know....



He would share you cynicism regarding the Democratic Party, but he would agree with my narrative as it is largely in line with the points he made in his inconvenient history thread.
96  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Who was the last republican nominee to win new york city? on: December 08, 2014, 04:13:27 am
The idea that the core aspirations of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party haven't changed much over the past two centuries is utter rubbish and that's putting it rather politely. Unless you believe that political philosophy is irrelevant, there's no basis for that claim. It's one thing to say that there is some kind of continuum between the Democratic Party of Jackson and the Democratic Party of Obama and quite another to say that the Democratic Party's core aspirations are the same. That strikes me as historical revisionism in its worst form.

Republicans aren't the Party of business? The Republicans Aren't the Party of Religious Zealotry? The Republicans aren't the Party of nativism in the modern era? Democrats aren't the Party of Workers and Immigrants (at least relative to the Republicans, as I said they surrendered some of there core in 1992 with the DLC and Clinton)?  You mistake tools for objectives, you mistake contextual histocial realities as being the whole affair, and you place rhetorical flavor over interests served (It is not what and how, but for who and why). A Southern Party was going to be pro-slavery and anti-NAtive American, a New England Party was going to be nativist, elitist and dogmatically Protestant. History is won by imperfect men. The former established the concept of people other then the elities running society and the latter ended slavery.



Former plantation owners, who always voted for Democrats, certainly aren't "common men".


lol, no. That is completely incorrect. Notice I emphasized northern in my previous post and that analysis is limited to the north for this reason. Slave owners (with some variances by states) were elites and were drawn to the Party of elites against the party of the populist mob. Where the hell do you think Pinkney came from?  The Deep South Whigs?  Only just before and following the Civil War did they get folded into the Democrats as part of the regionalization of politics.

Lord have mercy where in the world do you get the nerve to say "always", a rather obvious trap in any historical discussion. Tongue      

Neither are Yankee smallholding farmers or Lutheran machinists/craftsmen, who tended to vote for Republicans. The proletarian "commen men" of immigrant stock in the North didn't care all that much about two party politics. This is why the New Deal transformed Americans: they finally had a reason to lay claim to American civic life. Before this, the two parties didn't stand for much besides patronage jobs, contacts with various bureaucrats within party machines and standing up for cultural traditions, either of the Old World (Papist, Democrats) or of the New World (Yankee Puritan, GOP).

The New Deal had a transforming effect, but the rise of JAckson was cosnidered just as transforming to the immigrants of the 1820's and 1830's, which meant they could actually vote, unlike before. History is incrementally won by imperfect men. But of course Democrats have been throwing the baby out with the bathwater for two decades now, so it comes as no surprise that you would reject the progress made pre-1932, without which, 1932 would not be possible.

Without the expansion of suffrage in the 1830's, you don't get FDR in the 1930's.
97  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Who was the last republican nominee to win new york city? on: December 08, 2014, 02:58:08 am
It surprises me that both the "progressive/liberal" republican party of the 19th and early 20th century and the conservative republican party of today both get crushed there.

Did NYC switch from conservatism to liberalism at the same time the Rs switched from liberalism to conservativism?

The Republicans have generally always been the party of business and of religiously (Protestant) motivated crusades (In those day's abolition and prohibition/temperance, as well as the public schools).

All of those reforms were opposed by the German and Irish Catholic immigrant groups. Abolition would bring blacks into competition for their jobs whilst slavery kept them safely down south (Dred Scott is in my view the key that causes this viewpoint to shift as it raised the specter of slavery itself bringing about that very competition. Hence why Lincoln emphasized "all Slave or all free". It was brilliant political strategy as it forced these pro-slavery northerns to flip and vote for a moderate anti-slavery Republian like Lincoln both in 1858 [he won the collective popular vote but lost since Senators were elected by state legislature] and 1860. This did not include NYC where Lincoln lost and barely carried the state by a narrow margin thanks to solid support upstate and NYC was one of the hotbeds of copperhead sympath during the war (Fernando Wood?) as well as the site of the NYC draft riots (those same pro-slavery working class Irish Democrats against the blacks)). Prohibition of alcohol interferred with the strong heritage of strong spirits and beer amongst those immigrant groups. Also the Republicans being of Congregational (Puritan) New England and Midwestern stock largely, preferred that the King James Bible be read in said public schools and Catholic immigrants wanted nothing to do with that. So instead they opened parochial schools and Republicans tried to ban school choice to force them to go to public schools and be tought the "good (Protestant) Christian education lest they be condemned to hell for eternity".

You also had the nativist element from both the Whigs and Know-Nothings, which in the north was folded into the Republican Party. From the Whigs and before them, The Federalists, you inherited those that opposed the extension of the vote to all white males (they preferred property and wealth requirements).

In contrast, as far back as Jefferson, the Democrats ascribed to be the Party of the common man against the elites and the Party of immigrants. They supported the extension of the franchise to all white males and welcomed the immigrants from Ireland and elsewhere, particularly in NY, where they used the corruption of Tammany Hall to get them jobs and other forms of assistance.

Therefore, heavily Catholic and immigrant heavy New York City was the Democratic base whilst, WASP upstate NY was the Republican one. The wealthy in NYC voted Republican as did large segments of the middle class but after the franchise was extended, they were outvoted and more so with each new boatload of Irishmen coming in. Also, demographics have changed areas of the country dramatically. New England's puritanical nature was frowned upon by Southerners who consider it overbearing and controlling (I ran across a quote from a Southern Congressmen in the 1880's expressing this sentiment regarding a Senator from Vermont). Federalists also tried to contrast Jefferson as an atheist compared to the devout Adams. Only the mid 20th century brings this to a complete end in its last holdouts in rural New England.

This notion of the the Parties simply flipping is one of the worst distortions and oversimplifications that is being put out there in American History in the modern era. Very little of the core aspirations of either Party has changed (save maybe for The Democrats with their embrace of Wall Street as part of the DLC and Clinton in 1992) much in the past two hundred years. What has changed is that ethnic, religious and geographic based voting has given way to ideological based voting.
98  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Arizona redistricting goes to Supreme Court on: December 08, 2014, 01:47:20 am
What's the legal justification for striking down commissions?
A hyperliteral reading of Article I Section 4 so that only a State legislature may devise district maps for the House of Representatives.

But that ignores that State legislatures can delegate the drawing of Congressional districts to non-partisan commissions. What they cannot do is to draft districts that grossly disenfranchise large segments of the population. Michigan is a prime example: if you live more than ten miles west of US 23 or to the north of Bay City and you are a Democrat, your voice is unlikely to be heard in the House of Representatives. The Koch syndicate owns your Representative and pulls the strings.   
Michigan is not heavily gerrymandered. Most of the Democratic areas are in and around Detroit. There are Democrats in Southwest MI but its still culturally conservative I would think thus  that area of MI elects Republicans to Congress.

Its the eighth district that is their primary objection if I am not mistaken. Though the current map has other flaws as well and the process was clearly rigged, hency why they need a commission in my view.
99  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Nightmare Senate Scenario for Dems on: December 08, 2014, 01:22:19 am
It's possible, but unlikely.

The advantage for Democrats is that it's unlikely that the same party will have an awesome 2016 and 2018.

The party that does well in 2016 Senate races will likely win the White House, which means they'll probably not have a great midterm. That said, Republicans did so badly in 2012 that it won't take much to pick up seats in 2018. Democrats will be defending 25 Senate seats. Republicans can win only a third of the races, and they'll pick up three seats.

The map is not the biggest determinant as we have seen, it can limit (2010) or enlargen a wave (1980), but the fundamentals still control things. However in this situation, it is not like the GOP has anything left to lose in Class 1 as Dems have gained seats every cycle since 1994.  There are five double digit Romney states with Democrats (MT, ND, MO, IN, and WV) and five more sitting in winable swing states (FL, VA, OH, WI, PA if Casey retires). UT, WY, TX, TN, MS and NE are safe, AZ is surely likely GOP in a lower turnout midterm, leaving only NV (and Dean Heller is hardly a push over).

Since Wicker cannot be NRSC chair in 2018 as he is up (that is a rule no?), I hope that Moran is put back in charge again. Ensign came back for a second stint in 2008, though largely because no one else wanted the blame for that cycle.
100  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Nightmare Senate Scenario for Dems on: December 08, 2014, 01:09:35 am
Leaving off PA as an opportunity state in 2018 is a big mistake. Anybody who thinks that Casey enjoys being Senator is out of his mind and a retirement is rather possible. In which case there are a number of GOP candidates that top the list of being solid competitors (Gerlach, Meehan, Dent, Cawley, Tim Murphy, just to name a few).

Frighteningly plausible. Hell, Toomey and Johnson could pull it out.

I'd like to see what a Johnson/Hillary Clinton voter looks like.

Maybe similar to a Gore/Santorum voter in 2000?

Santorum was a populist and friendly with the unions.
Johnson is a hardcore tea-partier that has nothing to show during his first 4 years as a senator other that partisan attacks and gridlock.

Santorum's record in 2000 was his support for welfare reform and tax cuts. When it is said he was friendly with unions, that doesn't mean that union leaders and Santorum would be locking arms. The leadership probably despised him. It means that he could get union members to vote for him even though he was a conservative (very much so socially) and also more often then not economically as well, against the wishes of the union leadership. This was because of his origins, and his rhetoric combined with the use of certain less central issues (minimum wage for instance. Toomey does the same thing, but his is reversed using small sub issues on the social side like guns and DADT repeal to move to the center, whilst voting 96% ACU).
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 1211


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines