|
Post by hatoflords on Jan 6, 2021 1:09:46 GMT -5
If Dems do win, do we see it not matter because the Dems in purplish states immediately look to their own reelection instead of the good of the country? Or do they actually come together and help out the US Ninja'd in an edit above XD
The Democrats won't have to worry about this problem I think if they keep the party focused on what it can actually achieve with a narrow majority that requires the VP to decide votes. A lot of what Biden ran on is achievable if Harris, Schumer, and Biden work together. They can coral the purple and red state dems on a lot of those issues because they're still popular in red states. The key would be to provide those vulnerable senators legislation that lets them present themselves as their own politicians and not just establishment agents. Manchin in W. Virginia for example would probably benefit from being allowed to break from the party on some issues it can fight for in the Senate but expect to lose. Combine this with an assault on McConnell's failed leadership and abuse of power and you can probably flip a few R's (who are looking at a very unfavorable 2022 map) on more moderate proposals and afford to lose a democrat here and there.
EDIT: The elephant in the room right now probably is COVID relief. Even most Republicans wanted those $2000 checks. It's an opportunity for the Democrats to drive a wedge between conservatives and their party by highlighting McConnell's refusal to even talk about further relief and vulnerable 2022 Republicans might blink after losing both Georgia senate races. That relief would also do a lot to shore up the economy Trump and Republicans have put in a precarious position the past year.
There's also the question of how this hits the future of Trumpism. There was something for Trumptards to be optimistic about in November. Losing both races now? Trump is going to be the patsy for that loss among establishment Republicans. Back in 2016, Trump at best commanded only half the party's undying loyalty. A double Democrat win from the blue (pun!) might give us indications of how influential Trumpism will be going forward depending on how Republicans respond.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jan 6, 2021 1:13:14 GMT -5
Who knows, but I'd prefer the chance of them actually being able to pass bills in the Senate to no chance whatsoever with Moscow Mitch in charge.
|
|
|
Post by hatoflords on Jan 6, 2021 1:18:50 GMT -5
Who knows, but I'd prefer the chance of them actually being able to pass bills in the Senate to no chance whatsoever with Moscow Mitch in charge. Look at it this way.
How cathartic will it feel when the GOF complains about Biden's court picks (which can be seated with 51 votes) and Democrats point out it was McConnell and Republicans who lowered the majority required to seat a SCOTUS nominee to 51? Cause it was McConnell who lowered the required votes for SCOTUS picks to 51, in 2017. So you know. You can throw the line back at them and you won't be spewing total bullshit when you do it! Biden is likely to get 1-2 SCOTUS picks in his term, likely replacing Breyer and Thomas.
Maybe Alito if some unforeseen health issue strikes him, which is possible. The rest of the court though is all pretty young and will likely be in their seats for the next 10-25 years. The next two Presidents (including Biden and whoever is President in 2025) actually will probably be the last to seat anyone on SCOTUS for awhile because we started seating young judges in the late Bush/early Obama years.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jan 6, 2021 1:23:43 GMT -5
Who knows, but I'd prefer the chance of them actually being able to pass bills in the Senate to no chance whatsoever with Moscow Mitch in charge. Look at it this way. How cathartic will it feel when the GOF complains about Biden's court picks (which can be seated with 51 votes) and Democrats point out it was McConnell and Republicans who lowered the majority required to seat a SCOTUS nominee to 51? Cause it was McConnell who lowered the required votes for SCOTUS picks to 51, in 2017. So you know. You can throw the line back at them and you won't be spewing total bullshit when you do it! Biden is likely to get 1-2 SCOTUS picks in his term, likely replacing Breyer and Thomas. Maybe Alito if some unforeseen health issue strikes him, which is possible. The rest of the court though is all pretty young and will likely be in their seats for the next 10-25 years. The next two Presidents (including Biden and whoever is President in 2025) actually will probably be the last to seat anyone on SCOTUS for awhile because we started seating young judges in the late Bush/early Obama years.
Oh, I agree absolutely, I was more responding to dabbler and we posted att nearly the same time.
|
|
|
Post by dabbler on Jan 6, 2021 1:47:47 GMT -5
Who knows, but I'd prefer the chance of them actually being able to pass bills in the Senate to no chance whatsoever with Moscow Mitch in charge. Yeah it's fair
|
|
|
Post by hatoflords on Jan 6, 2021 1:52:07 GMT -5
Ossoff is now in the lead (+3600). Well, unless Purdue manages to pull a surge of votes from areas that overwhelmingly supported Biden and Ossoff in November, he's lost and the Democrats win two special elections in Georgia, which is kind of wow in and of itself. Winning a run off is kind of wow for Dems. The blues generally don't do well in off-season elections. The leads, if things follow the trend from Biden's November win, aren't even going to be close. They're going to be solid blue.
EDIT: Also going to predict now that Stacy Abrams will likely make a Presidential run. Having Georgia in her pocket would be huge in primary and general election season. I think she's said she wants to make another run for governor which she'll probably do (I hope, please let her be smarter than Beto and not run before she's properly positioned). After that though, I think she's gonna be getting lots of calls to make a presidential stab latter in the 2020s, especially if she wins.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jan 6, 2021 2:53:07 GMT -5
Ossof is now ahead by almost 10.000 votes, still close enough for a recount, but comfortably ahead that a recount shouldn't matter. They actually did it! At least now US democracy might stand a little bit of a chance not to implode under Trumpism/blanket obstructionism.
Lets see how violent the protests get today. Trump is all but implying to use violence to let him remain president on Twitter.
|
|
|
Post by adurot on Jan 6, 2021 3:17:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by A Town Called Malus on Jan 6, 2021 7:31:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hatoflords on Jan 6, 2021 9:55:26 GMT -5
Warnock has been declared the winner by NYT. Ossoff's win seems likely but is a lot narrower than I would have thought for the outstanding vote. Still comfortable enough that a recount seems unlikely the change things.
|
|
|
Post by adurot on Jan 6, 2021 10:12:40 GMT -5
He’s still inside the .5% recount margin, just needs to pull ahead a slight bit further.
|
|
|
Post by tannhauser42 on Jan 6, 2021 10:36:12 GMT -5
I'm looking at all that's going on, with the fight against the election results, the refusal in PA to seat a newly elected Democratic senator, a republican official in some city doxxing the city's healthcare workers because he didn't like the covid restrictions, and so on, and I keep thinking about this quote: "If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy."
Anybody else worried about what happens next? We were lucky that the GOP only produced an idiot Trump this time. But what if next time they create a smart one?
|
|
|
Post by dabbler on Jan 6, 2021 10:51:22 GMT -5
I'm looking at all that's going on, with the fight against the election results, the refusal in PA to seat a newly elected Democratic senator, a republican official in some city doxxing the city's healthcare workers because he didn't like the covid restrictions, and so on, and I keep thinking about this quote: "If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy." Anybody else worried about what happens next? We were lucky that the GOP only produced an idiot Trump this time. But what if next time they create a smart one? The PA thing is nuts. Just classic modern Republicans. And this train doesn't slow down. It can't, without them losing power
|
|
|
Post by hatoflords on Jan 6, 2021 10:54:56 GMT -5
Anybody else worried about what happens next? We were lucky that the GOP only produced an idiot Trump this time. But what if next time they create a smart one? They've already done that.
The bright side is that all the self-inflicted wounds of the last 2 months were completely unnecessary. Trump going off the deep end didn't mandate Loeffler to walk in front a crowd and tell her own base not to vote. McConnell's stubborn refusal the talk at all about COVID relief, capped off by single handedly killing the $2000 checks was kind of baffling to watch. I'm not sure what he expected to happen after a full year of classic Republican obstruction with a Republican in the White House of all things. The pointless backing of Trump's electoral challenge, simply tying the party's future prospects to an unpopular and divisive president makes no sense. None of these politicians seem to honestly believe their objections will result in anything but proving their Trumpian credentials and wasting everyone's time.
The Republican party is already full of idiots. They're just less openly idiotic than Trump is.
So my worry is less that they'll make a smart plan, if they could they'd have done it already. The real danger is destructive stupidity. Authoritarian regimes don't rise in secret. The idea that they do is a myth. They rise in the open, usually by convincing enough people that things will be better under the authoritarians. Trump attempted this in all but name, and plenty of R's backed the bid. They failed this time. The question is if the next to try will have more success.
In PA, it's the only election where Republican objections actually have sort of a leg. If the votes in question are tossed, the R wins by 200 votes. The question then is if the Federal courts will make some new standard by which they can interject into state elections and overrule state courts on state election laws, something the GOF seems to desperately want the newly packed federal judiciary to do but that it has thus far remained reluctant to do. Precedent isn't on the GOF's side. The Courts have almost universal always feigned away from tossing votes that have been cast and counted unless someone can actually prove fraud, which the R's don't seem capable of doing. They can only raise a technical complaint with the ballots which usually fails legal tests where the pervailing doctrine is weighing a politician's butt hurt vs damage to the rights of voters who voted in good faith.
The real overreach in PA is the spiteful toss of the Lieutenant Governor over how butt hurt state Republicans are. The Republican legislature really doesn't have that authority and it's just petty.
|
|
|
Post by tannhauser42 on Jan 6, 2021 11:24:35 GMT -5
I'm just thinking about what they were saying on radio news this morning regarding the differences between our state (Texas) senators. Cornyn is not going along with the objection to the election because he plans to actually work with legislators in Washington to govern the nation. Cruz* is going along with the objection because he plans to run for president in 2024 and wants Trump's supporters on his side. *Remember how people actually respected Cruz when he stood against Trump in 2016, only to cave in by election day? I said all along Cruz always does whatever gets him attention, because the only reason he wasn't called out for being the narcissistic attention whore he is was because Trump was an even bigger narcissistic attention whore. Yes, I detest Cruz, can't you tell?
|
|