The Classic model has team R about about 2:1 to keep the Senate. This is actually a little more D favorable than others (PredictIt, Predictwise).
I don’t have a ton of time to go into more detail right now, but I thought I’d get the ball rolling.
Back in a bit.
No conviction following impeachment then?
We all know that congrssional Republicans would just do what Trump told them to.
“Mr. Trump, should we vote for tax cuts? Should we vote to have a Mexico-only free trade agreement? Should we vote for incompetent cabinet members? Should we vote for your removal from office? Okee-dokey!”
Your implication would seem to be that Senate Republicans cannot be trusted to perform their duties faithfully. Personally, I am somewhat hopeful, but obviously we need an actual presentation of the evidence.
Only if the Republican Senators remember their loyalty should be to the country…so, no. No guts, no patriotism, only expediency and greed.
Great! While the overall chances are only 1 in 3 right now, if you look at each race, if the Democratic candidate wins in every race in which the model has them favored, the Democrats will barely win back control of the Senate (hold every Dem seat and win NV and AZ).
Do you believe that will happen?
Do you predict that will happen?
Yep, the Democrats simply couldn’t get a two-thirds majority this time around, as there simply aren’t enough Republicans running. In 2020, though…
Still, there’s a one in three chance that the Senate can be returned to American hands, and it might even encourage some of the almost-American Republican senators to grow a little backbone and vote for what’s best for the country. And it’s better odds than the most generous given to Trump, before the election.
I think at this point the chances of that happening depend on Trump’s popularity. If he is unpopular enough on Election Day my optimistic side says that even the TX and TN seats have a decent chance of flipping. On the ground here in Texas things really do seem different compared to previous recent elections. I think Beto has a better than the 1 in 3 chance that 538 gives him, but not quite 50/50. If he does win, that probably means that the NV and AZ seats flip and that the Ds hold on in MO, ND, and FL.
Keep in mind that all of the races are correlated: If one does better than expected, it’s likely at least partly because of a national shift, which will also help the others. Or vice-versa for shifts in the other direction.
Right, and this is famously the issue that lead to lots of people massively underestimating the odds of Trump winning in 2016. Yes, he’d have to narrowly win in lots of states that he was an underdog in. Multiply all those low odds together as independent events and you get a 1% chance prediction.
Except they weren’t independent events, but correlated events.
And the same thing applies in the Senate races. If Democrats overperform in one state, it’s likely they will overperform in other states, same thing for Republicans.
Yes, but if Democrats get a Senate majority then they won’t have to consider any Supreme Court appointments in the last two years of Trump’s term.
They won’t have to, but they will. Maybe not in the last year, but if they up the ante to 2 years, then it’s all out war and no Senate will ever confirm the SCOUTS nominee of a president from the opposite party. Republicans have an advantage in terms of winning the Senate and the Presidency, so if that becomes the norm, then Republicans will clean up.
This is a game of chess, not tic tac toe.
Bricker was boasting that the Democrats won’t have a 2/3rds majority in the Senate and thus be able to remove Trump from office on a strict party line vote.
I’m just pointing out that a 51 seat majority results in a lot of favorable outcomes, as the Republicans who currently hold that slim majority know well. A 51 seat majority for the Republicans, or a 50-50 tie plus the VP means that all Trump appointments are rubber-stamped. A 51 seat majority for the Democrats means all Trump appointments are stonewalled.
It’s not necessary to have the 2/3rds majority required to remove Trump from office to stop Trump’s misrule.
And what odds did Nate Silver give Philip?
EDIT:
It’s already all-out war, and has been ever since the Republicans pulled that stunt.
Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. “Tit for tat” has proven a better strategy than “massive retaliatory attack” in the survival game. And Republican voters are more energized than Democrats over the issue of SCOTUS appointees.
“Moron labe!”
Democrats gain seats by picking them up in more conservative states, so the more seats they get, the more likely they have Senators who will cross party lines and vote for a Republican nominee. You’ll get a good idea of how many seats they need to control by what the vote count is for Kavanaugh. I suspect they’ll need a solid 55 seat majority to make sure they can block future Trump SCOUTS nominees. 51 almost certainly won’t do the trick.
Philip II of Macedon was kind of the Billy Beane of his day.
However, up to this point it has been a largely one-sided way. For the Democrats to adopt the tactics that Republicans have employed, especially in the Senate, would firmly establish an intractable position of obsteuctionism by whomever is in power. Barring extraordinary lack of qualification or some obvious deficiency, a candidate which is nominated should get a hearing, if for no other reason than to dispense with the argument of partisan obstructionism.
The question of whether Supreme Court seats should be lifetime appointments is another issue that really should be addressed as it creates this kind of hyperpartisan manuevering over a branch of government that is supposed to by above the fray and act as a check against bad legislation and executive overreach.
Stranger