Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the Republicans on here saying clearly Biden will have to govern from the middle and work with Republican senators are either lying or are completely ignorant of actual history. We have literally been in this same situation before. In 2008 when Obama won in the middle of an economic downturn, McConnell refused to work on an economic stimulus policy because having the economy stumble along was advantageous to the Republican Party's prospects in the 2010 midterm. He refused to work with Obama on a REPUBLICAN healthcare plan (the ACA) because any legislation passed by the Obama administration was seen as detrimental to Republicans regaining power in Congress. He was correct in that assessment because that was the biggest midterm pickup.

Unless Biden nominates an ultra-conservative judge, McConnell will block the nomination because Republicans aren't interested in having moderate judges when they can easily block nominations and then pack the courts with FedSoc judges. There is literally no downside to McConnell and the Republican Party in blocking all attempts at governance.

Biden will not have a choice. He cannot build a coalition from the extreme left. Almost every media-declared tossup race in the House and Senate went to the Republicans. Democrats lost seats in the House and are unlikely to retake the Senate.

Biden's best chance to be a productive president is to work with his strong party leadership in the House and pick off some Republicans in the Senate to get things done. Biden has personal relationships in the Senate in both parties that Obama did not build because he spent at least half of his time in the Senate running for president. For whatever reason, Obama reportedly did not seem to like politicking on the Hill when he was president either. Biden is different. He is a tactile politician. VP Harris also can introduce Biden to the new kids in the Senate who got there in the last 4 years. It could work for a while.

Biden will govern from the center because he's a centrist. McConnell won't work with him regardless because the path to Republican power is through Biden's failure as a president.

Anonymous wrote:Where are you guys seeing that it will be 48-50 going in to the GA run-offs? I'm currently seeing D-47 to R-48 with 5 remaining to be called:
AZ - likely D
AK - likely R
NC - close but likely R
Then the two from GA.

Are you counting on NC going blue, or am I missing something?

Anonymous wrote:This might have been covered up-thread, but is the NC seat (Tillis/ Cunningham) still in play? For some reason, I thought it had been called, but looks like it’s much closer than the presidential election in NC. I can’t stand Tillis so this would be great!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if this is the first time ever both senators from a state are on the ballot at the same time? I'm guessing turn out will be decent, especially if control of the senate is actually on the line.

I read an article about this ages ago when Isaksen resigned and the seat opened up - it has happened before but I don’t remember examples. I do remember that when it does happen the two seats almost always break the same way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the Republicans on here saying clearly Biden will have to govern from the middle and work with Republican senators are either lying or are completely ignorant of actual history. We have literally been in this same situation before. In 2008 when Obama won in the middle of an economic downturn, McConnell refused to work on an economic stimulus policy because having the economy stumble along was advantageous to the Republican Party's prospects in the 2010 midterm. He refused to work with Obama on a REPUBLICAN healthcare plan (the ACA) because any legislation passed by the Obama administration was seen as detrimental to Republicans regaining power in Congress. He was correct in that assessment because that was the biggest midterm pickup.

Unless Biden nominates an ultra-conservative judge, McConnell will block the nomination because Republicans aren't interested in having moderate judges when they can easily block nominations and then pack the courts with FedSoc judges. There is literally no downside to McConnell and the Republican Party in blocking all attempts at governance.

Biden will not have a choice. He cannot build a coalition from the extreme left. Almost every media-declared tossup race in the House and Senate went to the Republicans. Democrats lost seats in the House and are unlikely to retake the Senate.

Biden's best chance to be a productive president is to work with his strong party leadership in the House and pick off some Republicans in the Senate to get things done. Biden has personal relationships in the Senate in both parties that Obama did not build because he spent at least half of his time in the Senate running for president. For whatever reason, Obama reportedly did not seem to like politicking on the Hill when he was president either. Biden is different. He is a tactile politician. VP Harris also can introduce Biden to the new kids in the Senate who got there in the last 4 years. It could work for a while.

Biden will govern from the center because he's a centrist. McConnell won't work with him regardless because the path to Republican power is through Biden's failure as a president.

Biden has taken some very progressive positions in the last year. It is too early to tell how McConnell will behave. He may only have 51 senators with the threat of Murkowski or Collins leaving the party hanging over his head. Even with 52 Republicans, they could band together with Romney to insist on fairness. McConnell will not be in a good position to say no to everything. There are probably some Republicans that will have goodwill for Biden simply because he is not Trump.

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if this is the first time ever both senators from a state are on the ballot at the same time? I'm guessing turn out will be decent, especially if control of the senate is actually on the line.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Senate in two years.

Democrats should learn from 2020 and prep for it now.

+1 - really need to do some serious soul-searching on getting back some of those Latino votes. Miami-Dade was a disaster.

Yes. Latinos swung hard for Trump yesterday. Instead of going on about “the demographics are changing!” and thinking changing demographics automatically means you’ll make inroads with those groups. I always laugh when I hear that line because it’s so...simplistic. Use a little nuance, will you? And actually *gasp* do outreach and work for the votes. Latinos (and any other POC group) are not a monolith. Many are actually very conservative due to immigration and the abortion issue.

I never thought they were a monolith. I did think they would not (in the numbers they did) vote for a guy who called their home countries shitholes, who referred to Mexicans as rapists, questioned a Mexican judge on the basis of his race, and who generally would rather round up and return immigrants from their countries rather than see them as American citizens. But I guess voting against your interests is something all races, genders, economic castes, suffer from . . .

See, this is precisely the problem, I think, and the attitude that led to such big losses for the Democratic Party with Latino voters. Who the hell are you to say what their interests are? Thinking that YOU get to define any individual's "self-interests"...it doesn't work that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the Republicans on here saying clearly Biden will have to govern from the middle and work with Republican senators are either lying or are completely ignorant of actual history. We have literally been in this same situation before. In 2008 when Obama won in the middle of an economic downturn, McConnell refused to work on an economic stimulus policy because having the economy stumble along was advantageous to the Republican Party's prospects in the 2010 midterm. He refused to work with Obama on a REPUBLICAN healthcare plan (the ACA) because any legislation passed by the Obama administration was seen as detrimental to Republicans regaining power in Congress. He was correct in that assessment because that was the biggest midterm pickup.

Unless Biden nominates an ultra-conservative judge, McConnell will block the nomination because Republicans aren't interested in having moderate judges when they can easily block nominations and then pack the courts with FedSoc judges. There is literally no downside to McConnell and the Republican Party in blocking all attempts at governance.

Biden will not have a choice. He cannot build a coalition from the extreme left. Almost every media-declared tossup race in the House and Senate went to the Republicans. Democrats lost seats in the House and are unlikely to retake the Senate.

Biden's best chance to be a productive president is to work with his strong party leadership in the House and pick off some Republicans in the Senate to get things done. Biden has personal relationships in the Senate in both parties that Obama did not build because he spent at least half of his time in the Senate running for president. For whatever reason, Obama reportedly did not seem to like politicking on the Hill when he was president either. Biden is different. He is a tactile politician. VP Harris also can introduce Biden to the new kids in the Senate who got there in the last 4 years. It could work for a while.

Biden will govern from the center because he's a centrist. McConnell won't work with him regardless because the path to Republican power is through Biden's failure as a president.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Senate in two years.

Democrats should learn from 2020 and prep for it now.

+1 - really need to do some serious soul-searching on getting back some of those Latino votes. Miami-Dade was a disaster.

Yes. Latinos swung hard for Trump yesterday. Instead of going on about “the demographics are changing!” and thinking changing demographics automatically means you’ll make inroads with those groups. I always laugh when I hear that line because it’s so...simplistic. Use a little nuance, will you? And actually *gasp* do outreach and work for the votes. Latinos (and any other POC group) are not a monolith. Many are actually very conservative due to immigration and the abortion issue.

I never thought they were a monolith. I did think they would not (in the numbers they did) vote for a guy who called their home countries shitholes, who referred to Mexicans as rapists, questioned a Mexican judge on the basis of his race, and who generally would rather round up and return immigrants from their countries rather than see them as American citizens. But I guess voting against your interests is something all races, genders, economic castes, suffer from . . .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ossoff might force a runoff after all. Getting close.

Based on the composition of the outstanding vote, it appears likely that there will be a double runoff in Georgia in January. The Republicans will only be up 50-48, so it is not out of the realm of possibility that we will have a 50-50 Senate with VP Harris presiding to break all ties. Purdue might have a slight edge in a rematch but Loeffler is not a strong candidate.

I think Ossoff might come back stronger in a runoff (he's done it twice now). As for Loeffler - she had 10% less votes than Warnoff.

Very exciting.

Wut?
Loeffler split the vote with Collins
She’s going to win with a head to head.

Her and Collins add up to 46%. She is not popular. Warnoff will get tons of money. And confident predictions are no longer legal in the United States.

Were there any other Republicans or R-leaning independents/Libertarians on the ballot that she could draw support from? I did see that she and Collins together were below 50% but wasn’t sure if there was anyone way down ballot with like .5% whose supporters might go for her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the Republicans on here saying clearly Biden will have to govern from the middle and work with Republican senators are either lying or are completely ignorant of actual history. We have literally been in this same situation before. In 2008 when Obama won in the middle of an economic downturn, McConnell refused to work on an economic stimulus policy because having the economy stumble along was advantageous to the Republican Party's prospects in the 2010 midterm. He refused to work with Obama on a REPUBLICAN healthcare plan (the ACA) because any legislation passed by the Obama administration was seen as detrimental to Republicans regaining power in Congress. He was correct in that assessment because that was the biggest midterm pickup.

Unless Biden nominates an ultra-conservative judge, McConnell will block the nomination because Republicans aren't interested in having moderate judges when they can easily block nominations and then pack the courts with FedSoc judges. There is literally no downside to McConnell and the Republican Party in blocking all attempts at governance.

Biden will not have a choice. He cannot build a coalition from the extreme left. Almost every media-declared tossup race in the House and Senate went to the Republicans. Democrats lost seats in the House and are unlikely to retake the Senate.

Biden's best chance to be a productive president is to work with his strong party leadership in the House and pick off some Republicans in the Senate to get things done. Biden has personal relationships in the Senate in both parties that Obama did not build because he spent at least half of his time in the Senate running for president. For whatever reason, Obama reportedly did not seem to like politicking on the Hill when he was president either. Biden is different. He is a tactile politician. VP Harris also can introduce Biden to the new kids in the Senate who got there in the last 4 years. It could work for a while.