Elections Why the GOP is expected to win the House but NOT the Senate.

[Snowblindlove]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fiveth...ored-to-win-the-house-but-not-the-senate/amp/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/

Republicans have chosen some poor and not highly favored people to run in key Senate races. However, they are favored in the House for sure

A divided Congress looks likely! the GOP had its shot in 2018 to win more big Senate elections and blew it as the 2018 Senate map was more favorable for them the fact they didnt win beat the Democrat Senator in Montana, Ohio, Michigan and West Virginia is a big loss for them as if they had won those 4 easily winnable seats they would have 54 seats today. At least 3 of those races in 2018 they could of or should of won but didnt. Also demographics in key Senate races favor democrats but in key House races urbanization of Dems moving to bigger dense areas favors the GOP as it leaves more districts depleted of Democrat voters.


""""
Republicans are substantial favorites to take over the U.S. House of Representatives following this November’s midterm elections, but the U.S. Senate is much more competitive, according to FiveThirtyEight’s 2022 midterm election forecast, which launched today. Democrats are also favored to hang on to the governorships in a trio of swing states in the Rust Belt — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan — although they are significant underdogs to win high-profile gubernatorial races in Georgia and Texas against Republican incumbents.

The split diagnosis reflects the difference between macro- and micro-level conditions. The national environment is quite poor for Democrats. Of course, this is typical for the president’s party, which has lost seats in the House in all but two of the past 21 midterm elections. But Democrats are also saddled with an unpopular President Biden and a series of challenges for the country, including inflation levels that haven’t been seen in decades, the lingering effects of the still-ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and fraying trust in civic institutions"""

 

[Deorum]

They will take both, but the Senate is obviously the bigger prize for its direct connection to approving federal judiciary candidates. Republicans really only exist to block and obstruct legislation, deregulate industry and occasionally pass tax cuts. It's true that the GOP doesn't really have much in the way of a policy platform, but a lot of people prefer no policy to Democrat policy.

 

[Deorum]

These midterms are kind of a big deal, @Bald1. If the Republicans can at least take the House then that means the last half of Biden's term will be entirely lame duck from a legislative agenda perspective. The Dems will not be able to pass anything even through the 'reconciliation' process that eschews a 60-vote Senate majority because they'll have already been cut off through the standard simple majority vote rules of the House.

If they take the Senate, then Biden will not be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice if something were to happen to any of them because Mitch McConnell will block the hearings from even taking place until after POTUS election; he did exactly this in 2016 after Scalia's death with a GOP Senate majority. The US federal legislature will not be legislating aside from their bipartisan feeding of the MIC, and that de facto transfers (even more) considerable power to the SCOTUS with its wide 6-3 conservative majority in place.

 

[Bald1]

These midterms are kind of a big deal, @Bald1. If the Republicans can at least take the House then that means the last half of Biden's term will be entirely lame duck from a legislative agenda perspective. The Dems will not be able to pass anything even through the 'reconciliation' process that eschews a 60-vote Senate majority because they'll have already been cut off through the standard simple majority vote rules of the House.

If they take the Senate, then Biden will not be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice if something were to happen to any of them because Mitch McConnell will block the hearings from even taking place until after POTUS election; he did exactly this in 2016 after Scalia's death with a GOP Senate majority. The US federal legislature will not be legislating aside from their bipartisan feeding of the MIC, and that de facto transfers (even more) considerable power to the SCOTUS with its wide 6-3 conservative majority in place.

I tend to stay out of discussions about the mechanics of US politics and talk about general ideas and social trends. I catch enough "but but you're not even American" bullshit as is. Lol

But as with repealing RvW and the the SSM debacle I wouldn't want any conservative (as in the actual definition of the word, and not the left/right perspective) leaning nutters in charge of the supreme court of any land.

Blah blah blah, they're in support of big business isn't a valid criticism as all politicians are bought and paid for by big money. But C's tend to be less cautious on environmental issues and the evangelical factor means I couldn't be in support of such a thing. There's miles of ground between indulging minorities and playing the "god wills it" card and at the end of the day, regardless of how fucking squirrelly idiotic many on the left are becoming, religious motivations must be kept out if politics. And perhaps even more importantly the judicial process. Yeah, I incessantly criticize the "left" but at the end of the day it's because I see such religious fervor tendencies fester in my former political home. But no way in hell could I support the originators of such behavior.

On a personal ethics level the idea that abortion and marriage rights can be dictated by old fuckers in positions of insulated power pisses me off at my core. What a giant leap backwards ffs. And that's the problem with such a contentious political environment. Terrible decisions tend to get made by those willing to take advantage of the chaos. And when the SC flips their polar opposites will continue that trend unless people chill the hell out.


Not sure if that stream of consciousness rant was what you wanted, but that's all I got on the topic.


Edit due to brain fart. Wrote legislative instead of judicial process. I don't proof read my junk so stuff like that tends to happen.

 

[Deorum]

Not sure if that stream of consciousness rant was what you wanted, but that's all I got on the topic.

It was excellent, but unfortunately the dubs I'm wearing won't let me reward it.

Edit due to brain fart. Wrote legislative instead of judicial process. I don't proof read my junk so stuff like that tends to happen.

Edits are another thing I'm crippled from doing.

I tend to stay out of discussions about the mechanics of US politics and talk about general ideas and social trends. I catch enough "but but you're not even American" bullshit as is. Lol

But as with repealing RvW and the the SSM debacle I wouldn't want any conservative (as in the actual definition of the word, and not the left/right perspective) leaning nutters in charge of the supreme court of any land.

Blah blah blah, they're in support of big business isn't a valid criticism as all politicians are bought and paid for by big money. But C's tend to be less cautious on environmental issues and the evangelical factor means I couldn't be in support of such a thing. There's miles of ground between indulging minorities and playing the "god wills it" card and at the end of the day, regardless of how fucking squirrelly idiotic many on the left are becoming, religious motivations must be kept out if politics. And perhaps even more importantly the judicial process. Yeah, I incessantly criticize the "left" but at the end of the day it's because I see such religious fervor tendencies fester in my former political home. But no way in hell could I support the originators of such behavior.

On a personal ethics level the idea that abortion and marriage rights can be dictated by old fuckers in positions of insulated power pisses me off at my core. What a giant leap backwards ffs. And that's the problem with such a contentious political environment. Terrible decisions tend to get made by those willing to take advantage of the chaos. And when the SC flips their polar opposites will continue that trend unless people chill the hell out.

The most interesting thing here to me is probably how much you are to the left of me, lol. Indeed, you were one of the straight dudes arguing for same-sex marriage in the Thomas thread to an extent and level I couldn't ever possibly care to; not just on SD but in general. I mean I literally don't care about my own rights in regards to sexual orientation. I am fine with leaving those things up to the individual states to determine based on their regional culture and values. If this happens it also blows holes into the "nobody cares" narrative because that's bullshit, it always has been, and they're going to prove it (more than they already do).

Another one is your mention of the environment. I won't say I don't care and I'm not on some "let corporations toss hazardous chemicals into the rivers" sort of shit, but I definitely lean towards the side of amplified industrial production with bare minimum of regulations, both environmental and otherwise. America has the resources to be both the largest global producer and exporter of petroleum products, that's a goal I'd like to see it attain not just for the economic prosperity and geopolitical leverage that it brings, but the national security of being energy independent. The manufacturing sector is another I care deeply about and want operating as unrestrained as possible.

 

[Bald1]

It was excellent, but unfortunately the dubs I'm wearing won't let me reward it.



Edits are another thing I'm crippled from doing.



The most interesting thing here to me is probably how much you are to the left of me, lol. Indeed, you were one of the straight dudes arguing for same-sex marriage in the Thomas thread to an extent and level I couldn't ever possibly care to; not just on SD but in general. I mean I literally don't care about my own rights in regards to sexual orientation. I am fine with leaving those things up to the individual states to determine based on their regional culture and values. If this happens it also blows holes into the "nobody cares" narrative because that's bullshit, it always has been, and they're going to prove it (more than they already do).

Another one is your mention of the environment. I won't say I don't care and I'm not on some "let corporations toss hazardous chemicals into the rivers" sort of shit, but I definitely lean towards the side of amplified industrial production with bare minimum of regulations, both environmental and otherwise. America has the resources to be both the largest global producer and exporter of petroleum products, that's a goal I'd like to see it attain not just for the economic prosperity and geopolitical leverage that it brings, but the national security of being energy independent. The manufacturing sector is another I care deeply about and want operating as unrestrained as possible.

Gracias.

I wasn't really arguing for gay rights though, was I? I was arguing against unjustified discrimination. Just because that argument lands in favor of gay people is actually irrelevant. In a different time or right now in different places my views would make me a criminal. John Locke (peace be upon his name) would have preferred me in jail and in SA I'm considered a terrorist. My secular views are similarly looked down on and by the guy I was arguing with to boot. But beliefs can be changed, right? So there's some validity in discrimination based on ideology. Discrimination based on happenstance of birth is a whole different kettle of rotten fish. Fuck that noise. I may not be cozy with the intolerant left, but doubly unfriendly to establishment intolerance. If that makes sense. That doesn't make me left as political compass moves depending on which way you're moving, but it definitely makes me a (small "l", make no mistake) liberal.

Environmental protection is a bit of a landmine in my view. We need industry. We need fuel. But we also need a healthy and viable economy. Would I like a utopian world where perpetual motion machines are a thing? Yes please, where do I sign up? But we're nowhere near there, or anything close to such marvels. EVs suck, they're not viable for all sorts off reasons and have a worse carbon footprint than the 78 Cherokee Chief on 40" Boggers I used to run around in. Ideologues are morons who'd see us all fucked while our ideological enemies would rule at the expense of everyone's freedoms and the environment.

North America has better environment protection laws than anywhere overseas, so while big oil would undoubtedly lobby to keep them the industry standard (not unprecedented as they killed the electric car almost a century ago before their potential could have been truly explored) as far as energy production goes for the time being. The trick is how to stop global monetary interests from fucking society and the planet as a whole. And while I'm firmly in the capitalist camp I also believe a little bit of socialism goes a long way.

To bring it back to the topic at hand, as @Ruprecht says reactionary and populist politics are a cancer. The wild swing the US is seeing will do nobody any good. So an exclusively conservative judiciary is bound to cause problems as checks and balances go out the window. And sooner or later things will swing the other way, then those cheering now will find themselves crying. Seems the polar opposite is happening on the culture war front, but neither side wants to absorb that simple lesson so it's go team go politics.

Crazy times..

I'm not proofreading that shit, so please excuse any mistakes..

 

[fingercuffs]

Gracias.

I wasn't really arguing for gay rights though, was I? I was arguing against unjustified discrimination. Just because that argument lands in favor of gay people is actually irrelevant. In a different time or right now in different places my views would make me a criminal. John Locke (peace be upon his name) would have preferred me in jail and in SA I'm considered a terrorist. My secular views are similarly looked down on and by the guy I was arguing with to boot. But beliefs can be changed, right? So there's some validity in discrimination based on ideology. Discrimination based on happenstance of birth is a whole different kettle of rotten fish. Fuck that noise. I may not be cozy with the intolerant left, but doubly unfriendly to establishment intolerance. If that makes sense. That doesn't make me left as political compass moves depending on which way you're moving, but it definitely makes me a (small "l", make no mistake) liberal.

Environmental protection is a bit of a landmine in my view. We need industry. We need fuel. But we also need a healthy and viable economy. Would I like a utopian world where perpetual motion machines are a thing? Yes please, where do I sign up? But we're nowhere near there, or anything close to such marvels. EVs suck, they're not viable for all sorts off reasons and have a worse carbon footprint than the 78 Cherokee Chief on 40" Boggers I used to run around in. Ideologues are morons who'd see us all fucked while our ideological enemies would rule at the expense of everyone's freedoms and the environment.

North America has better environment protection laws than anywhere overseas, so while big oil would undoubtedly lobby to keep them the industry standard (not unprecedented as they killed the electric car almost a century ago before their potential could have been truly explored) as far as energy production goes for the time being. The trick is how to stop global monetary interests from fucking society and the planet as a whole. And while I'm firmly in the capitalist camp I also believe a little bit of socialism goes a long way.

To bring it back to the topic at hand, as @Ruprecht says reactionary and populist politics are a cancer. The wild swing the US is seeing will do nobody any good. So an exclusively conservative judiciary is bound to cause problems as checks and balances go out the window. And sooner or later things will swing the other way, then those cheering now will find themselves crying. Seems the polar opposite is happening on the culture war front, but neither side wants to absorb that simple lesson so it's go team go politics.

Crazy times..

I'm not proofreading that shit, so please excuse any mistakes..

You weren't arguing. You were taking a stand for human rights. You weren't on a pedestal or anything, just being a nice normal person.

 

[KnightTemplar]

It was excellent, but unfortunately the dubs I'm wearing won't let me reward it.



Edits are another thing I'm crippled from doing.



The most interesting thing here to me is probably how much you are to the left of me, lol. Indeed, you were one of the straight dudes arguing for same-sex marriage in the Thomas thread to an extent and level I couldn't ever possibly care to; not just on SD but in general. I mean I literally don't care about my own rights in regards to sexual orientation. I am fine with leaving those things up to the individual states to determine based on their regional culture and values. If this happens it also blows holes into the "nobody cares" narrative because that's bullshit, it always has been, and they're going to prove it (more than they already do).

Another one is your mention of the environment. I won't say I don't care and I'm not on some "let corporations toss hazardous chemicals into the rivers" sort of shit, but I definitely lean towards the side of amplified industrial production with bare minimum of regulations, both environmental and otherwise. America has the resources to be both the largest global producer and exporter of petroleum products, that's a goal I'd like to see it attain not just for the economic prosperity and geopolitical leverage that it brings, but the national security of being energy independent. The manufacturing sector is another I care deeply about and want operating as unrestrained as possible.

No worries, bro. I got your back

 

[Bald1]

You weren't arguing. You were taking a stand for human rights. You weren't on a pedestal or anything, just being a nice normal person.

Well who the hell gave people the power to dictate that these consenting couples can get married while those other ones can't? And the RvW thing is a fundamental violation of bodily autonomy. And those two things should be of concern to any thinking person.

Doesn't necessarily make me nice or normal person (lots of people here would say the exact opposite lol) and an argument could be made that I'm advocating from a selfish perspective knowing that depending on who or what side is in the driver's seat any one of our sacred cow beliefs could be on the chopping block.

 

[fingercuffs]

Well who the hell gave people the power to dictate that these consenting couples can get married while those other ones can't? And the RvW thing is a fundamental violation of bodily autonomy. And those two things should be of concern to any thinking person.

Doesn't necessarily make me nice or normal person (lots of people here would say the exact opposite lol) and an argument could be made that I'm advocating from a selfish perspective knowing that depending on who or what side is in the driver's seat any one of our sacred cow beliefs could be on the chopping block.

Friend, my argument is if it doesn't affect us why should we be old women curtain twitchers about it? Two ladies getting married who love each other...I don't understand outrage.

 

[Bald1]

Friend, my argument is if it doesn't affect us why should we be old women curtain twitchers about it? Two ladies getting married who love each other...I don't understand outrage.

Exactly. You're looking at this from the starting point of inclusivity. As in "Everyone should have equal rights unless there's reason for justified discrimination." The people I was arguing with have an exclusionary starting point. As in "why should those other people over there have the same rights as me?" And that's a fundamentally flawed way of assessing human rights.

If you believe in equality then basic human rights should be unassailable. If you believe in equality but only situationally then you're a dishonest hypocrite. I may be an abrasive prick at times, but I'll never agree that people should be treated differently because of inherent identity.

The funny thing is this conversation shouldn't even belong here but the SC unfortunately has the power to mess with such fundamentals like some kings court of Lords during the dark ages.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

*Bookmarked to be bumping this thread in November after the Republicans win the Senate.*


Currently its split 50-50, and as horrible as the Democrats polls are across the country, the OP articles are basically predicting the Democrats won't lose a single senate seat?

 

[fingercuffs]

Exactly. You're looking at this from the starting point of inclusivity. As in "Everyone should have equal rights unless there's reason for justified discrimination." The people I was arguing with have an exclusionary starting point. As in "why should those other people over there have the same rights as me?" And that's a fundamentally flawed way of assessing human rights.

If you believe in equality then basic human rights should be unassailable. If you believe in equality but only situationally then you're a dishonest hypocrite. I may be an abrasive prick at times, but I'll never agree that people should be treated differently because of inherent identity.

The funny thing is this conversation shouldn't even belong here but the SC unfortunately has the power to mess with such fundamentals like some kings court of Lords during the dark ages.

In a Sherdog manhug way, I love this post. Thank fuck people like you here who are rational nice humans exist.

Could you imagine being shunned for decades because you can't enjoy sex with a loved one and respect that in marriage?

Females getting married is equally as lovely, Sherdog doesn't have a problem with that though, it's just the men getting married.

 

[Deorum]

The funny thing is this conversation shouldn't even belong here but the SC unfortunately has the power to mess with such fundamentals like some kings court of Lords during the dark ages.

It isn't just the Supreme Court, but the circuit and district courts. FedSoc gave Trump a list of handpicked, ultra-conservative judges in their institutional pipeline and Mitch McConnell got them appointed to the bench at surreal, breathtaking speed. They appointed like 230 federal judges, more in four years than Obama did in eight over two full POTUS terms. I've said many times that Mitch is one of the most effective and shrewd political operators in the history of the country. Easily.

"Our job is to do everything we can, for as long as we can, to transform the federal judiciary, because everything else we do is transitory."

Libs really don't have a fucking clue. And this shit all went down while people were occupied talking about peachmints, mean tweets, two scoops and fish feeding with the recently assassinated Prime Minister of Japan.

 

[Deorum]

FedSoc

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is an American legal organization of conservatives that advocates for a textualist and originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution. It features a student division, a lawyers division, and a faculty division. The society currently has chapters at more than 200 American law schools with the lawyers division comprising more than 70,000 practicing attorneys. It was founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.

In January 2019, The Washington Post wrote that the Federalist Society had reached an "unprecedented peak of power and influence." Of the current nine members of the Supreme Court of the United States, six (Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett) are current or former members of the organization. Politico wrote that the Federalist Society "has become one of the most influential legal organizations in history—not only shaping law students' thinking but changing American society itself by deliberately, diligently shifting the country's judiciary to the right."

 

[Deorum]

You weren't arguing. You were taking a stand for human rights. You weren't on a pedestal or anything, just being a nice normal person.

Or subhuman rights. :-/

Well who the hell gave people the power to dictate that these consenting couples can get married while those other ones can't?

The fundamental underlying idea is that the other (perfect descriptor, lol) consenting relationships in question should be criminalized and illegal themselves. And they were, for a very long time, in the west, very recently in the United States. The history there is really, really not good. Even if I didn't know what that looks like across the entire span of human history, it would be rather telling when you've got the founder of the Black Panther Party (lmao) of all fucking things openly stating in 1970 that he believed 'gay people' were the most oppressed minority group in American society. <45>

 

[fingercuffs]

It isn't just the Supreme Court, but the circuit and district courts. FedSoc gave Trump a list of handpicked, ultra-conservative judges in their institutional pipeline and Mitch McConnell got them appointed to the bench at surreal, breathtaking speed. They appointed like 230 federal judges, more in four years than Obama did in eight over two full POTUS terms. I've said many times that Mitch is one of the most effective and shrewd political operators in the history of the country. Easily.

"Our job is to do everything we can, for as long as we can, to transform the federal judiciary, because everything else we do is transitory."

Libs really don't have a fucking clue. And this shit all went down while people were occupied talking about peachmints, mean tweets, two scoops and fish feeding with the recently assassinated Prime Minister of Japan.

And all the stolen votes and her emails

Edit: mods reading the edit lol.

 

[Deorum]

And all the stolen votes and her emails

Edit: mods reading the edit lol.

Oh, the right-wingers are mostly dumb as fuck too. A lot of them shit on McConnell because Trump soured on him and started attacking (monkey see, monkey do) completely oblivious that he's used his position as Senate majority leader to arguably do more for the conservative cause and legal movement in America than anybody else in history when its all appointed and done. This country is filled to the brim with sub-100 spastics and it probably plays a big factor into why my life is so fucking easy.

 

[fingercuffs]

Oh, the right-wingers are mostly dumb as fuck too. A lot of them shit on McConnell because Trump soured on him and started attacking (monkey see, monkey do) completely oblivious that he's used his position as Senate majority leader to arguably do more for the conservative cause and legal movement in America than anybody else in history when its all appointed and done. This country is filled to the brim with sub-100 spastics and it probably plays a big factor into why my life is so fucking easy.

I know so many angry WRers keep telling me to fuck off back to England because they're neanderthals but I haven't done too bad either. The first Covid payour we didn't qualify because we earned too much the previous year, the next year neither of us worked so got a cheque, we're getting a Newsom $750 cheque because I haven't worked since last year.

Think what you will of me, I know most of you think I'm dumb as a post. My husband isn't though, it is funny that people here think we don't deserve to live here.

 

[SummerStriker]

Historically, having a Dem president and Senate, but GOP house, is the best mix for stock returns.