https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/
Things are starting to look better for Democrats in the senate. Though Republicans are a favorite, it's looking like Dems have a real shot at taking the Senate as well as the House
The senate election system is so weird. If we had president hillary or bernie, we'd probably be talking about whether the Republicans are set to win an un-filibuster-able majority or not (due to parties almost always losing seats.) This is unironically one of the best senate maps republicans have ever had, so a disastrous performance is probably only going to give the dems like 1 seat.
At least we'll probably be able to block kavanaugh if he's not in before the election, and the 2020 and 2022 senate maps are very favorable for dems.
A person in North Dakota has 26 times more voting power for senators than the average.
Sucks that the blue wave is happening when most of the seats up for election are incumbent Democrat seats anyways.
On the bright side, Texas and Florida may very well go Blue, and that's in addition to Nevada and Arizona likely going blue, Wisconsin almost certainly going blue, Ohio, Indiana, Montana, Pennsylvania, Maine, and even possibly Tennessee(I mean, Alabama of all places went blue). The only places basically guaranteed to stay red are in the deep south, and the stretch from South Dakota to Oklahoma.
This all assumes the elections go smoothly, and without any Republican intervention/voter suppression(which is highly unlikely imo).
I feel like they're a bit bearish on Tennessee, the Democrat candidate was governor of Tennessee for two terms and well liked apparently, I think he can win.
as a resident of Tennessee witnessing just how dumb hillbilly trash can be, pessimism seems more appropriate
To add onto this, 2020 is terrible for them because of all the teabaggers who came in in 2014 being up for re-election. The senate needs to readjust its re-election staggering again but that would require a tremendous bipartisan act of congress.
This isn't an argument, something isn't necessarily good just because it was put into place by our founding fathers.
I am fully aware, it's just that in 1790 the most populous state had about nine times the population of the least populous (white and free non-white) now California has 68.2 times the population of Wyoming.
That's cus:
Republicans Are Favorites In The Senate, But Democrats Have Two ..
In quite a few races, moreover, there’s a clash between polling and “fundamentals” — non-polling factors like fundraising and a state’s past voting history. The model is skeptical that Democrats have truly made Tennessee a toss-up, for instance, even though that’s what polls show there. On the flip side, it’s surprised that Nelson, McCaskill and Heitkamp aren’t polling better given that parties rarely lose many of their own seats in wave elections. (We’ll go into more detail on these themes in an upcoming Election Update.)
The argument is that there needs to be representation of not just average population, but that rural and urban issues differ greatly and those in less populated states would otherwise be overlooked as votes that matter.
Yep, but you pay a cost for that, for the rural votes you boost you inevitably dis-empower other individuals. The result is a whole lotta rent-seeking, and the country as a whole suffering.
You also establish the precedence to ask "why not empower other minorities?" imo. Black people are an even smaller population than the rural population, and their problems are arguably both more severe, and more solvable (there probably isn't a solution to rural flight.)
That also wasn't the argument at the time, the US was still mostly agrarian. Some states were just larger than others, and people at the time had more loyalty to their state than to the country.
Why are states more important than people
Because every state being equal in the senate means that different individuals have disproportionate power compared to others.
yep
Personally I am fine with a bicameral legislature, but with the population divide in the states which will only increase further, something has to change a bit. The Senate shouldn't be made redundant, I don't know
what to do
Well yeah, this, like most electoral reform, is basically impossible on a national level since it'll require messing with the constitution. A process which requires the support of those who directly benefit from it.
I don't think that means it's a worthless conversation to have though.
The house has problems too that'd need changed as well imo. First past the post is pretty awful, and of course 2 years would be too short of a term for a unicameral legislature.
I'm doing my part. Former Governor Bredeson's a chill dude and he'll be far better than the cockstain who previously sat in that seat.
It's gotten to the point in Indiana where Joe Donnelly (our Democrat senator) is literally running commercials saying he's pro-Trump.
Spoiler alert: Republicans win a huge majority because Americans are way more conservative than anyone expects.
Again.
By "Again" are you referring to that last election where democrats won the popular vote by millions
Uh. I dont think thats ever been the case. its due to voter turnout. Since for the past decade or so, the older baby boomer generation has been a large force in voting. Since they have the free-time to go vote compared to everyone else, it pulls off the impression that the US has a strongly conservative population. While in reality, its the conservative baby boomer voter base along with rural voters.
yeah what the fuck I noticed this
Joe Donnelly votes with Trump 54.7% of the time making him the third most Trumpy Democrat, less then Manchin and Heitkamp, more than Angus King and Doug Jones.
We'll that's not surprising considering this is Indiana and his constituents are made up of people like my great aunt who genuinely believes that all illegals are monsters coming to the US with the express intent of murdering Americans.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
