| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
This map does a great job at highlighting what a mess the senate system is: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/7fbx3q/states_with_a_smaller_population_than_los_angeles/ North Dakota has less than a million residents. Los Angeles county has over 10 million. | ||
|
Slydie
1923 Posts
On November 14 2022 02:33 KwarK wrote: Because there are lots of small rural states which means the Senate map is intrinsically gerrymandered against the Democrats. I'd say Gerrymandering is only for the House. Yes, state borders and senator distributions are awful for the Democrats, but unlike some very exotic looking districts, the borders were not drawn with hurting a political party in mind. Texas and Florida have 4 GOP senators, and a lot of people living there. Maye there is a small chance of expanding the Senate so the most populous states get a 3rd seat, but only if the GOP can break even or gain an advantage from it. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On November 14 2022 03:40 Slydie wrote: The Senate being equal representation for each seat is baked into the Constitution, and then shielded by this bit that ends Article FiveI'd say Gerrymandering is only for the House. Yes, state borders and senator distributions are awful for the Democrats, but unlike some very exotic looking districts, the borders were not drawn with hurting a political party in mind. Texas and Florida have 4 GOP senators, and a lot of people living there. Maye there is a small chance of expanding the Senate so the most populous states get a 3rd seat, but only if the GOP can break even or gain an advantage from it. and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. Adjusting the Senate to in any way stop it from being an error that enables minority rule would probably require two amendments to the constitution, one to remove the protection against change and the other to enact the change. It's functionally impossible. | ||
KwarK
United States43170 Posts
On November 14 2022 03:40 Slydie wrote: I'd say Gerrymandering is only for the House. Yes, state borders and senator distributions are awful for the Democrats, but unlike some very exotic looking districts, the borders were not drawn with hurting a political party in mind. Texas and Florida have 4 GOP senators, and a lot of people living there. Maye there is a small chance of expanding the Senate so the most populous states get a 3rd seat, but only if the GOP can break even or gain an advantage from it. They absolutely were drawn with hurting a political party in mind. That was part of the Missouri Compromise, statehood was given out based on a strict plan of hurting midwestern states by ensuring that equal representation remained for the slave states. That’s why Maine exists. It was created to give double senate votes to Massachusetts. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43170 Posts
On November 14 2022 05:18 gobbledydook wrote: You have to remember that America is a federation of sovereign states. So they have 2 chambers. One relates to majority rule (the house, where districts are assigned by population), and the other for state representation (the senate). Except functionally it’s not and hasn’t been very nearly a century. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 14 2022 03:07 Mohdoo wrote: The fact that democrats are able to ever have control of the senate when its design gives Democrats an extreme disadvantage, only goes to show what a mess our current system is. This map does a great job at highlighting what a mess the senate system is: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/7fbx3q/states_with_a_smaller_population_than_los_angeles/ North Dakota has less than a million residents. Los Angeles county has over 10 million. Tyranny of the minority was always somehow preferable to tyranny of the majority to these folks. Wonder why. | ||
|
Slydie
1923 Posts
On November 14 2022 05:18 KwarK wrote: They absolutely were drawn with hurting a political party in mind. That was part of the Missouri Compromise, statehood was given out based on a strict plan of hurting midwestern states by ensuring that equal representation remained for the slave states. That’s why Maine exists. It was created to give double senate votes to Massachusetts. But that was slave states vs non slave states, not GOP vs DEM. I'd have to read up on it, but afaik, alliances between Senators from similar states but different parties was a lot more common back in the day. The US is different, and how people in the US think about representation and democracy is very different as well. It is quite the irony that every child is brainwashed to worshipping a document which has a stranglehold on modernizing the nation and its election system. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21916 Posts
On November 14 2022 05:18 gobbledydook wrote: I think since the cap on the number of House representatives and the minimum number of representatives per state being 1 the House doesn't even do a good job anymore of providing an actual proportional representation.You have to remember that America is a federation of sovereign states. So they have 2 chambers. One relates to majority rule (the house, where districts are assigned by population), and the other for state representation (the senate). | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32742 Posts
On the bright side for Democrats, Katie Hobbs is emerging as the favourite over extreme Trumpist candidate Kari Lake as Arizona's next governor. Arizona is on the way to becoming a blue state. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14036 Posts
Meanwhile they have the backdrop of what will be a miserable runoff in Georgia. They'll need to rally turnout with people who know it doesn't matter anymore than the dems getting to have an outright majority or just a tiebreaker one. Dems have to rally turnout as well but they don't need to shuffle anything and can take a winners lap to celebrate their victories. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On November 14 2022 12:26 Sermokala wrote: I can see Mitch wanting to start the leadership elections early so he can start getting control over a building issue. The gop will probably win the house but who would then become the speaker? The gop looks like it lost the election more than anything and with margins so close they can't have the aoc counterparts abstaine en mass. The party is now fed up with the trump wing but the trump wing is furious at the establishment for it's failures. Meanwhile they have the backdrop of what will be a miserable runoff in Georgia. They'll need to rally turnout with people who know it doesn't matter anymore than the dems getting to have an outright majority or just a tiebreaker one. Dems have to rally turnout as well but they don't need to shuffle anything and can take a winners lap to celebrate their victories. Dems really need to win this Georgia runoff. The 2024 senate map is absolutely atrocious for them. EDIT: Just read the last page talking about senate maps. Saw some pretty weird takes. First off, incumbency has historically given someone an advantage in elections. Additionally, historical trends are extremely strong for a 1st term president's party to lose seats in both the House and the Senate. Second, a "good" or "bad" map is determined by the likelihood of a party being able to pick up seats/hold onto a majority as a baseline (i.e. before accounting for candidate quality). 2022's Senate map was slightly favoring Republicans. There were only two Republican seats that were up for grabs that were solidly competitive; Pennsylvania (with no incumbent) and Wisconsin. North Carolina was a possible pickup for Dem's but NC has been reliably red for a long time; it hasn't voted for a blue President or Senator since 2008. Meanwhile, Republicans had 3 extremely feasible pickups in Nevada (which just elected a Republican governor), Arizona (a state that still leans red), and Georgia (a state that, aside from its senators, is very red). All three of these states went blue by the tiniest of margins 2 years ago. Combine all of this with being a 1st term President's midterm and Republicans had the advantage. It's not just about the number of seats being defended. It's where those seats are. 2024's Senate map is looking terrible for Democrats. How many feasible pickups do Dems have from Republican incumbents? Exactly zero. Every single Republican up for re-election is in a solidly red state. Meanwhile, Democrats have to defend seats in Nevada and Arizona (see above) alongside Wisconin and Pennsylvania (also very competitive, though they've looked marginally better for Dems), Virginia (which recently has tacked back to the GOP side, including with their governor), Michigan (though this has turned fairly blue recently), and then Ohio, Montana, and fucking West Virginia. That's three seats Dems are almost certain to lose, a 4th they may very well lose, two more that are iffy, another two that are competitive but feasible to defend, and one that would be a stretch for the GOP. Now that's a terrible map. Obviously politics and political leanings can change, but I don't think two years is gonna be enough time to make that map any better for the Dems. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21916 Posts
On November 14 2022 12:26 Sermokala wrote: Considering previously they had to get on their knees and beg Paul Ryan to do it against his will I imagine it will be a giant headache to find a speaker.I can see Mitch wanting to start the leadership elections early so he can start getting control over a building issue. The gop will probably win the house but who would then become the speaker? The gop looks like it lost the election more than anything and with margins so close they can't have the aoc counterparts abstaine en mass. The party is now fed up with the trump wing but the trump wing is furious at the establishment for it's failures. Meanwhile they have the backdrop of what will be a miserable runoff in Georgia. They'll need to rally turnout with people who know it doesn't matter anymore than the dems getting to have an outright majority or just a tiebreaker one. Dems have to rally turnout as well but they don't need to shuffle anything and can take a winners lap to celebrate their victories. There are even some rumblings that the Dems and some moderate Republicans might make a play. | ||
|
pmh
1362 Posts
Its still a long way to go and lots of things can happen in 2 years.Trump was looking good for 2020 right up till the pandemic. Everything is so close that even developments in the final 1-2 months can decide elections,the voter doesnt have a long term memory. Clinton sort of lost in the final months,with the email situation. De democrats sort of flipped the odds in the last month before these midterms. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44921 Posts
On November 14 2022 20:43 pmh wrote: It seems premature to me to call the 2024 senate map horrible for the democrats. It still requires states to flip and i dont see a compelling reason why a significant part of the states up for election would all flip republican. Its still a long way to go and lots of things can happen in 2 years.Trump was looking good for 2020 right up till the pandemic. Everything is so close that even developments in the final 1-2 months can decide elections,the voter doesnt have a long term memory. Clinton sort of lost in the final months,with the email situation. De democrats sort of flipped the odds in the last month before these midterms. Keep in mind that only 1 or 2 (or maybe 3 at most) states would need to flip to Republican, and that's assuming that the 50-50 tiebreaker vote is retained for Democrats (i.e., that Dems win the 2024 presidential election and have a vice president to break Senate ties in favor of Dems). If Republicans win the presidency, it becomes even more likely that they retake the Senate too (insofar as being able to make Republican decisions, thanks to them having the tiebreaking vote). | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On November 14 2022 14:19 Stratos_speAr wrote: First off, incumbency has historically given someone an advantage in elections. The president's party almost always loses seats in the house and senate at mid terms. This is what we're talking about with incumbent party having a bad year. On November 14 2022 14:19 Stratos_speAr wrote: North Carolina was a possible pickup for Dem's but NC has been reliably red for a long time; it hasn't voted for a blue President or Senator since 2008. True, but margins have been decreasing every year and we elected a democrat governor in the most recent election. Also keep in mind that the senate election two years ago had Cunningham leading every poll, but he had an affair which probably cost him the election. Calling NC 2020 elections a potential tipping point out of "reliable red" is not as dumb as you're thinking. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
It seems premature to me to call the 2024 senate map horrible for the democrats. It still requires states to flip and i dont see a compelling reason why a significant part of the states up for election would all flip republican. Its still a long way to go and lots of things can happen in 2 years.Trump was looking good for 2020 right up till the pandemic. Everything is so close that even developments in the final 1-2 months can decide elections,the voter doesnt have a long term memory. Clinton sort of lost in the final months,with the email situation. De democrats sort of flipped the odds in the last month before these midterms. I definitely don't think it's premature. As I explained, Republicans aren't defending a single seat in a state that is anywhere close to a swing state. Meanwhile, Dems are defending in two of the reddest states in the country, a third in a state that has tacked hard right since its days as a swing state 10+ years ago, and another four in highly competitive states. The president's party almost always loses seats in the house and senate at mid terms. This is what we're talking about with incumbent party having a bad year. Ah, I see. That makes more sense. True, but margins have been decreasing every year and we elected a democrat governor in the most recent election. Also keep in mind that the senate election two years ago had Cunningham leading every poll, but he had an affair which probably cost him the election. Calling NC 2020 elections a potential tipping point out of "reliable red" is not as dumb as you're thinking. Definitely true, but I just think that Dems picking up NC is a bigger lift than the GOP picking up any of Nevada/Arizona/Georgia. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7371 Posts
| ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32742 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games Organizations Other Games Counter-Strike Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Replay Cast
OSC
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
OSC
WardiTV Invitational
Online Event
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
WardiTV Invitational
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
