2020 Senate Elections

[conVINCEd 21,469]

28 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Not that I would but is there really anything stopping someone from moving there just to vote? It can make the difference in how the country could be ruled, whether courts are packed, whether there will be 2 new states. I don’t even know if you would even need to spend one night in Georgia to claim residency. It might take a trip or 2.

All you technically need is a mailing address.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,515]

28 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

All you technically need is a mailing address.

And what you consider your home can be a changing concept.

[conVINCEd 21,469]

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

And what you consider your home can be a changing concept.

If you don’t have the ability to receive mail things get more complicated than they need to be.  I think you could get a voter ID and a mail ballot without much effort, as long as you have someone to receive that mail.

[Francisco 2.0 32,395]

I had a sobering thought today; maybe someone else has put it in this thread.  And I can't help but to think this is already being gameplanned.

Let's assume that both the runoff seats are won by Democrats.   Sometime aftewards, if I'm Mitch McConnell, what's going to stop me from persuading a Democratic senator.....Manchin......to switch parties with the lure of a committee chairmanship or some other prize?  I can see that turtle necked motherfucker doing just that.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Francisco 2.0

[atomheartbevo 89,762]

1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

I had a sobering thought today; maybe someone else has put it in this thread.  And I can't help but to think this is already being gameplanned.

Let's assume that both the runoff seats are won by Democrats.   Sometime aftewards, if I'm Mitch McConnell, what's going to stop me from persuading a Democratic senator.....Manchin......to switch parties with the lure of a committee chairmanship or some other prize?  I can see that turtle necked motherfucker doing just that.

Does Manchin want to win his next reelection.

 

[Francisco 2.0 32,395]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

Does Manchin want to win his next reelection.

 

In West Virgina, it's a miracle he has his seat as a D.  If he were to switch parties, I don't know that it would affect his future prospects.

The governor switched parties in 2017 just 6 months after winning the election as a Democrat,  and won reelection this year with 65% of the vote.  The other senator is a Repub.

 

 

 

 

[orangecat92 306]

1 hour ago, conVINCEd said:

All you technically need is a mailing address.

What are the following people waiting for?

clintons, carville, Obamas.  Get over there.  

[StassneyHorn 6,624]

West Virginia is much more person driven instead of party driven. Helps if you’re a Republican nowadays tho.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,515]

You’re overthinking it with manchin. He wouldn’t switch to the gop. Now if it’s 50-50, manchin isn’t a rubber stamp for whatever Schumer wants. In that scenario, some bills might have to be altered to get his vote.

[Francisco 2.0 32,395]

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

You’re overthinking it with manchin. He wouldn’t switch to the gop. Now if it’s 50-50, manchin isn’t a rubber stamp for whatever Schumer wants. In that scenario, some bills might have to be altered to get his vote.

Ok, perhaps.

Is there another dem that might be persuaded?  We all know the US Senate is a game for Mitch, and he knows how to play it.  Manchin is the most obvious, simply for the political environment of the state he is from, and...he's probably the most conservative Democrat on that side of the aisle.

 

 

[phdhorn 6,224]

12 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

In West Virgina, it's a miracle he has his seat as a D.  If he were to switch parties, I don't know that it would affect his future prospects.

The governor switched parties in 2017 just 6 months after winning the election as a Democrat,  and won reelection this year with 65% of the vote.  The other senator is a Repub.

 

 

 

 

The Manchin thing is no secret.  There's been talk for the last 3-4 years, and it's been well on the table for a long time, and well-known.  . The reason is that West Virginia has trended as one of the "reddest" states in the past 10 years.  It used to be lots of Reagan Democrats, but they've been going much more straight Republican.  Look at this:  Manchin won the governorship in 2008 with 70%, and almost half a million votes.  In 2010 he ran in the special senate election, and won fairly handily over the Republican, who still made a decent showing, about 53/43, and again more or less cruised to victory in '12 (same Republican candidate, 60/36.  But in 2018, he barely beat a different Republican candidate (in a Republican middterm, no less, when the "other party" usually does very well).  Only 3 percent.  He also got almost 100,000 fewer votes (in a State which doesn't have a big population, that's a lot), granted it was an off-presidential year, with many less votes expected.  But still that percentage... 49+/46+... 

It's apparent that he doesn't have the pull he used to with "crossover" Republicans, they went much higher for the GOP candidate.  Likely people are just tired of him there and want new blood, but also the state's clear sweep towards red.  in 2016, the Dem/GOP breakdown was ~580K (44%) to ~400K (31%).  In just 4 years, that total as of October this year was 470K (37%) to 458K (36%).  It's almost tie, and that's just the people that switched parties - WVa still has a good 10% or so of "red Democrat" voters.  It's pretty obvious that the next election would be even tighter, and more likely a GOP win, no matter who the candidate is.  One of their recent gov's switched parties as well.

So it's a foregone conclusion that if Manchin remained Democrat, he would be in a position to lose the election as WVa keeps trending red. He himself has hemmed and hawed on it, probably not needing party affiliation much.  This year however it's a little more under pressure to follow the trend and his political philosophy.  WVa is now to the point where even a well-liked Democrat is very beatable by a new slew of recent Republican voters there.

However... 

Manchin is 73, and would be 77 at his next go-round, 2024.  If he wants to retire after this run, which I think he will, he really won't care and stick with his lifelong party.  I think that's what he'll do, as he would see no personal reason to worry about the next election.

But, if he wants to run again, I think he'll switch parties, for sure.  However, I don't think he'll do anything until well into next year - this Georgia thing I don't think will matter to his timing.  I think he's considering retiring, but of course you don't decide and/or announce until the next election season, which really doesn't generate public interest until say about 2022 (you can say the campaigning starts "now" but people don't want to hear anything until 6 months before the primaries or elections or whatever.  So you're wasting your time if you think it matters before then).  Maybe the Turtle can talk him into switching now, but Senators are much less prone to arm-twisting or bribing as House members.  That usually doesn't work for the Senate.

But you can bet your ass that there are a buncha nervous Democrats on the Hill having meetings now to make sure that "what Joe (Manchin, not Biden) wants, Joe needs to get."  He's drivin' the boat and he knows it, at least up to, if not after, Jan. 5).

Let's just say I really doubt he'll switch... but if he does between now and Jan. 20 (or even Jan. 5 Georgia runoffs) it wouldn't exactly stun me.

Edited November 8, 2020 by phdhorn
Oops, forgot some zeroes. I was told that maths is hard.

[WBT 20,644]

13 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Not that I would but is there really anything stopping someone from moving there just to vote? It can make the difference in how the country could be ruled, whether courts are packed, whether there will be 2 new states. I don’t even know if you would even need to spend one night in Georgia to claim residency. It might take a trip or 2.

Their conscience?  Belief in the right to choose one's own representatives?

Edited November 8, 2020 by WBT

[Wulaw Horn 19,140]

Murkowski would seem just as likely to me to flip parties as Manchin. 

[phdhorn 6,224]

12 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Murkowski would seem just as likely to me to flip parties as Manchin. 

I dunno, in a state that she won comfortably in 2016 and the Democrat came in 4th among pretty much every political party that 3 people made up in their kitchen and ran for, she's a safe R.  She just has to keep [pulling out the Libertarian/centrist Dem shiny penny every 6 years and she's golden.

The R is leading the D in this state by 30 points with over half the ballots counted, and no one with any political know-how is saying it's going to change much if at all.  Trump won by 62-31 and the state just voted down open primary format and fuel surtax, which tend to reflect R/conservatives.

Alaska is a state that's 1) Republican, 2) whatever else is interesting that week 3) Democratic.  Murkowski has to appeal to 1) and 2), not 3).

[Wulaw Horn 19,140]

Isn’t she old as shit?  She might not give a fuck about Alaska or re-election. 

[berlinerbaer 678]

Joe Manchin flipping to the Rs would be the worst idea ever. As a Republican, he would be just another cog in an obstructionist Senate going along on Mitch's ride.

As the conservative Democrat in a 50/50 Senate, he becomes the most powerful person in the entire chamber, and West Virginia vaults to being the most consequential state in the union. He would have Schumer's ear 24/7.

This only applies until 2024, after which I think he retires.

 

Edited November 8, 2020 by berlinerbaer
emphasis added

[Reynolds Woodcock 4,788]

20 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

Joe Manchin flipping to the Rs would be the worst idea ever. As a Republican, he would be just another cog in an obstructionist Senate going along on Mitch's ride.

As the conservative Democrat in a 50/50 Senate, he becomes the most powerful person in the entire chamber, and West Virginia vaults to being the most consequential state in the union. He would have Schumer's ear 24/7.

This only applies until 2024, after which I think he retires.

 

This is accurate. Manchin would (unfortunately) wield enormous power in a 50-50 scenario. A problem I would love to have, but obviously it's much more likely to be 48-52, and he will be just another minority senator in the black hole that is the Moscow Mitch-controlled senate. 

[Jive Turkey 12,631]

This is pretty damn powerful. Especially compared to the privileged life of Loeffler. 

 

[Paul Wesley 3,287]

6 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

We gotta get MJ Hegar's media team to Georgia -- STAT! -- to get him some tattoos and a motorcycle.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Paul Wesley

[orangecat92 306]

8 hours ago, phdhorn said:

I dunno, in a state that she won comfortably in 2016 and the Democrat came in 4th among pretty much every political party that 3 people made up in their kitchen and ran for, she's a safe R.  She just has to keep [pulling out the Libertarian/centrist Dem shiny penny every 6 years and she's golden.

The R is leading the D in this state by 30 points with over half the ballots counted, and no one with any political know-how is saying it's going to change much if at all.  Trump won by 62-31 and the state just voted down open primary format and fuel surtax, which tend to reflect R/conservatives.

Alaska is a state that's 1) Republican, 2) whatever else is interesting that week 3) Democratic.  Murkowski has to appeal to 1) and 2), not 3).

She was given the job by her father years ago, and is not well liked.  Lost a primary one year, and someone talked her into running as a write in candidate.  She won....she is a rino.  

[phdhorn 6,224]

8 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Isn’t she old as shit?  She might not give a fuck about Alaska or re-election. 

She's only 63.  Easily good for 10 more years (or at least one more election) if she wants.

[Wulaw Horn 19,140]

1 minute ago, phdhorn said:

She's only 63.  Easily good for 10 more years (or at least one more election) if she wants.

Thanks. Thought she was 70’s for some reason. 

[phdhorn 6,224]

8 hours ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

This is accurate. Manchin would (unfortunately) wield enormous power in a 50-50 scenario. A problem I would love to have, but obviously it's much more likely to be 48-52, and he will be just another minority senator in the black hole that is the Moscow Mitch-controlled senate. 

But it's not about that.  It's about getting re-elected.  If WVa continues trending, the GOP candidate would win over him in 2024.  You might be thinking in those terms, but he's not.  He wants to be able to get another shot.

Sure if it's 50-50 he probably wouldn't switch - depending on how much he thinks he can get something to help his constituency.  And again i think he wouldn't switch at this point.  But actually if it's not 50/50t, he'd be in the party that controls the legislation and can more easily get stuff in that helps his group (i.e. concessions to mining/coal/etc.), which would help him with, again, an increasingly Republican voting base in his state.  And the Turtle would probably help him, being from a mining state himself.

I think he'll stick for now.  He might down the road, though.

Edited November 9, 2020 by phdhorn

[Horn Dog 9,886]

Doesn’t the ACA  SC case start soon?  When will the decision be announced?  The SC overturning ACA maybe just the kick in the pants the dems need to get people to understand the stakes.

[DanRydell 799]

Doesn’t the ACA  SC case start soon?  When will the decision be announced?  The SC overturning ACA maybe just the kick in the pants the dems need to get people to understand the stakes.

Oral arguments are tomorrow but there won’t be a decision until spring.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,515]

Worrying about manchin flipping is just that, worrying. If he decides to flip to the GOP there’s nothing to prevent that from occurring. So far, he hasn’t done that even to his own potential peril in the last election that he knew was a risk. Dems have a gift with a Dem senator from WV. When it goes away, it goes away.

Worry about something that can be more controlled like trying to win the 2 GA seats.

[kevwun 15,811]

Someone mentioned it, but if he switches parties he will lose a lot of influence.  He'll just be another Republican senator in a small state and no one will cater to him anymore to make sure he is on board with various bills.

[phdhorn 6,224]

On 11/7/2020 at 8:44 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Not that I would but is there really anything stopping someone from moving there just to vote? It can make the difference in how the country could be ruled, whether courts are packed, whether there will be 2 new states. I don’t even know if you would even need to spend one night in Georgia to claim residency. It might take a trip or 2.

At most 30 days' residence (but states can shorten, not lengthen, this length of time.  Georgia has kept to the 30 days, which means you have to show proof of residency 30 days or more before the voting date).  That deadline date of course in this case is something like Dec. 5.

You have to show proof of living in the state (gas/elec bill, driver license, etc., whatever is usually required for proof of residency.) and provide a valid current domecile address, and you have to claim it as your primary living address. 

Supreme Court ruling Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972), which eliminated state-imposed residency duration.

Note that this is specifically for voting.  Other residence requirements for other things, i.e. 183 days for income tax purposes, etc.

Edited November 9, 2020 by phdhorn

[Biff Tannen 45,695]

Can someone explain to me how Biden will get anything done (aside from rolling back dotard’s insane EOs) without the senate?  Why would McConnell do anything different than he’s done the past 8 years?

[Gil Bang 25,984]

Well, Biden was a senator forever and has good relationships with several GOP senators, and also, Biden isn't black. 

[Hank Scorpio 17,729]

Biden is blacker than any black Republican politician. Just ask corn pop. 

[phdhorn 6,224]

7 hours ago, kevwun said:

Someone mentioned it, but if he switches parties he will lose a lot of influence.  He'll just be another Republican senator in a small state and no one will cater to him anymore to make sure he is on board with various bills.

Maybe, but the only caveat to that is that Manchin is the ranking member on his big love, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.  Murkowski is the chair.  Talk has been that the Turtle would try to work out a deal to give him that chair and move her to another one of her interests.  She's currently Vice-Chair on Appropriations, probably the most powerful Senate committee ( or maybe after Judiciary). I doubt she'd get that one over Shelby, but Turtle could move her to another Chair.  That's the part no one knows what would happen.  But no doubt he'd try to work out that Chair for Manchin.

Manchin would love to chair that thing, so I've read.  And it would be a painless switcharound.

However, he could be a gambling man for this reason.  If D, he's probably gonna get that chair anyway as the majority party.  If R, it's too late, and he won't get anything of course.  So his gamble could be, do I switch now and get guaranteed the Chair (if that's what's up)?  Or gamble the D's take the Senate and inherit it anyway?

Whatever happens, he's not going to "just be a vote".  He's going to get a lot more power than he has now, in either case.  It's just up to him how he would hope to do it.

I still don't think he'll switch, but this is why if he does it wouldn't stun me.  Anyway, it's pretty nice to be Joe Manchin right now.

Edited November 9, 2020 by phdhorn

[Gil Bang 25,984]

 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

On 11/8/2020 at 1:09 PM, berlinerbaer said:

Joe Manchin flipping to the Rs would be the worst idea ever. As a Republican, he would be just another cog in an obstructionist Senate going along on Mitch's ride.

As the conservative Democrat in a 50/50 Senate, he becomes the most powerful person in the entire chamber, and West Virginia vaults to being the most consequential state in the union. He would have Schumer's ear 24/7.

This only applies until 2024, after which I think he retires.

 

Or he could switch and vote the exact same way he does, or even vote super liberally, and red voters will support him since he has an R next to his name.

It might actually be possible to run on Bernie's platform as an R and win. Just don't say the word socialist.

[gmr548 16,590]

 

On the one hand, Warnock is a superior candidate to Ossoff and has an opponent with issues. You could see a reason to feel okay there. On the other hand, southern whites gonna southern white.

[gmr548 16,590]

Or he could switch and vote the exact same way he does, or even vote super liberally, and red voters will support him since he has an R next to his name.
It might actually be possible to run on Bernie's platform as an R and win. Just don't say the word socialist.

I’ve always said the best thing Obama could’ve done while Trump was in office is come out against every Democratic policy goal. Trump would then demand it bc aggy and his idiot base would happily completely flip for him because they don’t know shit about shit.

[Wulaw Horn 19,140]

8 hours ago, kevwun said:

Someone mentioned it, but if he switches parties he will lose a lot of influence.  He'll just be another Republican senator in a small state and no one will cater to him anymore to make sure he is on board with various bills.

Nah- if he switches parties it will involve a massive bribe (power/position/influence- not illegal money)- he ain't switching to be a back bencher.  That's not how any of this works. 

[Wulaw Horn 19,140]

6 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

I’ve always said the best thing Obama could’ve done while Trump was in office is come out against every Democratic policy goal. Trump would then demand it bc aggy and his idiot base would happily completely flip for him because they don’t know shit about shit.

I guess the Dems won with the resistance (but it could be argued they didn't) as Trump was a 1 term president- but I don't think if I was a Dem I'd be particularly happy with the state of things right now- it seems pretty precarious.  I always thought better than operation resistance would have been "operation CO-Opt this moron" as Trump doesn't give a shit about ideology and would have loved to make a trillion dollar infrastructure bill happen, or something like that. They could have had him govern as the most liberal GOP president ever, instead they thrust him to the right.  Maybe it was worth it and maybe it wasn't.  I get why the Dems didn't want to play it that way- but if they had I wonder if they could have played Trump and made him a sucker (my bet is they could have but who knows).

[phdhorn 6,224]

20 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Nah- if he switches parties it will involve a massive bribe (power/position/influence- not illegal money)- he ain't switching to be a back bencher.  That's not how any of this works. 

Truth. Senators and their votes are secondary to them. The thing they're all after is committee chairmanships and power positions, that's what matters, and that's why most of them run for Senate in the first place. In the house, most newbies don't know where they're going to be assigned. in the Senate, most of them know where they're going even before the elections.

[Paul Wesley 3,287]

39 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

On the one hand, Warnock is a superior candidate to Ossoff and has an opponent with issues. You could see a reason to feel okay there. On the other hand, southern whites gonna southern white.

I mean, image a senate race in the south where one guy is a weird dude who dresses like Woody from Toy Story and has numerous credible allegations of creepy behavior with young girls over a period of decades...

Imagine a guy like that running against a guy in law enforcement who successfully prosecuted the terrorists who murdered children who were attending a Baptist church.  
 

***That*** was razor thin.

So yeah, southern whites aren’t gonna care even a little about corruption.  

[gmr548 16,590]

I guess the Dems won with the resistance (but it could be argued they didn't) as Trump was a 1 term president- but I don't think if I was a Dem I'd be particularly happy with the state of things right now- it seems pretty precarious.  I always thought better than operation resistance would have been "operation CO-Opt this moron" as Trump doesn't give a shit about ideology and would have loved to make a trillion dollar infrastructure bill happen, or something like that. They could have had him govern as the most liberal GOP president ever, instead they thrust him to the right.  Maybe it was worth it and maybe it wasn't.  I get why the Dems didn't want to play it that way- but if they had I wonder if they could have played Trump and made him a sucker (my bet is they could have but who knows).

In a different world maybe. If the Democrats had one or both of the houses of Congress when he came in. The Democrats had zero power for the first two years. As it was, “resistance” was the only option. After two years of GOP control, you’d be asking not just Trump, but the GOP senate (bigger lift) to essentially reverse course. I don’t know about that.

And that of course is before you think about how problematic working with him is, which is a whole different discussion.

As a Democrat, priority number one was getting him out. I’d have sacrificed the house in a heartbeat, though it was never on the table. He is a unique blend of despicable and incompetent. America is a better place with him heading for the door. Everything else is secondary and we can fight those battles in 2022 after two years of people saying “Oh, yeah, this is what an adult as President looks like.” Because no matter how unremarkable Biden is, that’s the bar. I’m certainly not thrilled, but I’m not upset.

[burntorangebongos 10,750]

If you haven't yet, consider giving to fairfight.com to give to the campaigns of both the Democratic candidates in Georgia. 

Whatever you can give. Help Abrams and all the folks in Georgia flip the state blue and get rid of two insider trading fuckstick senators. 

These two seats will make Mitch the minority leader and Joe can get some things done for ACA , etc. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by burntorangebongos

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

I gotta tell you, I'm a little torn on how to approach this.

This is an equivalent to a special election, from the standpoint that it is not on a "normal" election day.  That means that turnout is necessarily going to be lower than it was last Tuesday.

I think broadly that favors Democrats in an age in which Democrats do better among college-educated whites (who are generally higher-propensity voters).  But at the same time, turnout among Blacks also takes a dive in that type of election, and Warnock and Ossoff are going to are going to need those votes.

The problem is that any mass-media type of thing risks turning out low-propensity Republican voters as much (and maybe more) than it turns out low-propensity Democratic voters.  Throughout the Trump presidency, Democrats did better in special elections that flew under the radar.  When special elections became high profile--see, e.g., Ossoff's run for GA06--Democrats had problems.

So I don't know on this.  Maybe some type of rope-a-dope of trying to keep this election somewhat under the radar while still giving to Fair Fight and other organizations that are going to work exclusively on turnout.

[BradInATX 9,208]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I gotta tell you, I'm a little torn on how to approach this.

This is an equivalent to a special election, from the standpoint that it is not on a "normal" election day.  That means that turnout is necessarily going to be lower than it was last Tuesday.

I think broadly that favors Democrats in an age in which Democrats do better among college-educated whites (who are generally higher-propensity voters).  But at the same time, turnout among Blacks also takes a dive in that type of election, and Warnock and Ossoff are going to are going to need those votes.

The problem is that any mass-media type of thing risks turning out low-propensity Republican voters as much (and maybe more) than it turns out low-propensity Democratic voters.  Throughout the Trump presidency, Democrats did better in special elections that flew under the radar.  When special elections became high profile--see, e.g., Ossoff's run for GA06--Democrats had problems.

So I don't know on this.  Maybe some type of rope-a-dope of trying to keep this election somewhat under the radar while still giving to Fair Fight and other organizations that are going to work exclusively on turnout.

 

Good thing Dems have really been proving that they have a strong ground game lately, which would be perfect for your "generate enthusiasm while laying fairly low" strategy.

Wait.

[swraith 347]

Does Trump rally his base for the GA races? Hold some rallies in GA? Or does he abandon the GOP to itself?  I think that will be an aspect at play.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,466]

Just sent Fairfight.com 100 bucks.  Don't tell the GOP, but the money is actually coming from Europe.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[burntorangebongos 10,750]

Mine came from Mexico. 

[Huckleberry 33,045]

9 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

Good thing Dems have really been proving that they have a strong ground game lately, which would be perfect for your "generate enthusiasm while laying fairly low" strategy.

Wait.

But he's talking about Georgia and Abrams absolutely kicked ass at the ground game for the last two years.

Will she be able to do it for a special election? That's working against the Democrats there but in their favor is that she can point to the Presidential result in Georgia as validation for what she told them for two years about turning Georgia blue.

[SizzleChest 8,284]

Would not shock at all if the suburbs turn out a shitload of Warnock-Perdue voters, and that ends up the result.  These people will get swayed by all the divided government arguments.

[BradInATX 9,208]

But he's talking about Georgia and Abrams absolutely kicked ass at the ground game for the last two years.
Will she be able to do it for a special election? That's working against the Democrats there but in their favor is that she can point to the Presidential result in Georgia as validation for what she told them for two years about turning Georgia blue.

Good point. I'm just astonished that the DNC conceded the valley to the Republicans on the ground. What a colossal fail. But yeah, different places and infrastructure.