# 538 Senate Model is out **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 12, 2018, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235 "2018-09-12T19:49:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/41 "2018-09-13T13:23:48Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > What you’re missing is that the Republican Party as it presently exists is fundamentally hostile to Constitutional democracy. It has to be, because its fundamental principles --racism and plutocracy – are deeply unpopular. If this party continues to exist as a major party in its current form, there is no “long run” to consider, because there won’t be any more elections. > > Which is why the SCOTUS confirmation battles don’t really matter, even if the Pubs manage to hold the Senate this year and Trump gets to appoint replacements for RBG and Breyer. It doesn’t matter because in 2021, Congress can pass by simple majority vote a law allowing President Sanders to appoint a half dozen new Justices. > > Yes, court packing is an extreme measure. It’s not something that happens in a healthy, functioning democracy, but sadly we don’t currently have one of those. It has happened before in American history, during the Federalist-Jeffersonian era and again during Reconstruction. > > Hopefully someday soon we can again live in a country where neither major political party poses an existential threat to democracy, and SCOTUS nominees can be evaluated on qualities other than partisan affiliation. We’re not there now, and wishfully pretending that we are is the worst course imaginable. If you postulate “no elections”, with the Republicans in charge, then they really win. If that doesn’t happen, then they still win. Seems you just set up a scenario where, in the long run, heads they win, tails they win. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/42 "2018-09-13T13:48:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > There is no taking back the seat that Scalia vacated. But be that as it may, is it OK to prevent 1 Trump appointee from getting a vote, but not 2? The Dems can block the first appointee when they have a majority in the Senate, but not the second? Depends on whether the presidential election was compromised as well. If so, then the GOP has stolen two seats so far, not one. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/43 "2018-09-13T13:48:54Z")
Every scenario I’ve read about court packing by a future administration seems to involve only 2-6 new justices being packed in. Why not just go big with 100 new justices or something? Because the other side will just follow up 2-6 more seats with something bigger than just 2-6. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/44 "2018-09-13T13:59:37Z")
It seems to me that eventually we have to come to grips with the fact that our politics have become too partisan for the current method of filling the court to work. I think we need an amendment to address it: 1. All new justices get 18 year terms, not lifetime appointments. That way, eventually all presidents will be guaranteed 2 appointments. 2. Unless the Senate votes to reject a nominee within 3 months of it being made, nominees will be automatically confirmed. That way we won’t get another Garland. This won’t address all of the partisan issues but it does mitigate them somewhat. Or we could simply wait for the Republican Party to disband, in which case all national problems cease to exist. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/45 "2018-09-13T14:00:25Z")
The key to the court-packing plan is to have your new shill justices rule that further changes to the Supreme Court’s size are unconstitutional. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/46 "2018-09-13T14:37:52Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > It seems to me that eventually we have to come to grips with the fact that our politics have become too partisan for the current method of filling the court to work. I think we need an amendment to address it: > > 1. All new justices get 18 year terms, not lifetime appointments. That way, eventually all presidents will be guaranteed 2 appointments. > 2. Unless the Senate votes to reject a nominee within 3 months of it being made, nominees will be automatically confirmed. That way we won’t get another Garland. > > This won’t address all of the partisan issues but it does mitigate them somewhat. Or we could simply wait for the Republican Party to disband, in which case all national problems cease to exist. Do you consider either of those two options to be “realistic”? For the record, I would be completely OK with #1, but I’m not so sure about #2. Make it 6 months, and I would consider it. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/47 "2018-09-13T14:42:52Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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 err in conflating historically normal Republican nominees with Current Crook in Chief nominees. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/48 "2018-09-13T14:55:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Do you consider either of those two options to be “realistic”? > > For the record, I would be completely OK with #1, but I’m not so sure about #2. Make it 6 months, and I would consider it. I think it’s hard to know what is realistic. Right now we have a party that refuses to govern responsibly, either in majority or in opposition. I fear that they will continue in this mode until they are destroyed and a responsible opposition to Democrats emerges. If a 6 month period will get me your vote, I shall make that change. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/49 "2018-09-13T15:33:02Z")
So uh… no one want to discuss the 538 Senate model? That’s cool. ---
**Author:** ![Frodo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/frodo/32/302_2.png) [@Frodo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frodo)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/50 "2018-09-13T15:36:50Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > [Shortly before Philip of Macedon (Alexander’s father) invaded Laconia, he wrote a letter to the Spartans saying, “If I invade Laconia, I will drive you out.” The Spartans wrote a one-word letter back to Philip saying, “If.”](https://listverse.com/2016/08/03/10-amazing-facts-about-ancient-sparta/) And Sparta was sidelined and never regained the influence and power it previously had. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/51 "2018-09-13T15:43:04Z")
The way their bell curve is drawn, the most likely result is 50-50. Next most likely is 51R-49D, third most likely is 51D-49R. The way the map looked earlier, this is as good as I can hope for. Either the Dems take control or just fall short and are a shoo-in for control after the 2020 election. TN and AZ in play! Hell yes! ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/52 "2018-09-13T15:52:28Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > [Link](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/) > > 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. I think 1/3 is a bit optimistic, though I would love to see the Ds take it over. Historically, the House had more power as a body while individual senators had more power individually. Now, the Senate has both more power as a body AND more power individually, so it’s the more valuable pick up. While it’s fantastic to see that worm Ted Cruz squirm, I just don’t think we’re quite to an upset there. And I’m worried that there isn’t enough polling in places like Indiana to really know how Donnelly will do. Manchin might do okay, but Donnelly and McCaskill? I’m just not sure. Obviously a wave helps, though waves don’t even need to pick off red seats in red areas in the House in order to flip it, so the House and Senate are really operating under completely different conditions. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/53 "2018-09-13T16:09:48Z")
> [@Frodo](#): > > And Sparta was sidelined and never regained the influence and power it previously had. Plus Phillip did invade Laconia and stripped it of valuable land and gave it to his other Greek allies. He Didn’t bother with Sparta itself as it wasn’t worth much. Sparta rebelled once against the Macedonians, got crushed and was never relevant again. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/54 "2018-09-13T16:12:12Z")
> [@wonky](#): > > …While it’s fantastic to see that worm Ted Cruz squirm, I just don’t think we’re quite to an upset there… If you’ve ever asked “Is there any limit to what Republicans will do in order to win?”, Texas will answer your question. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/55 "2018-09-13T16:23:44Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > If you’ve ever asked “Is there any limit to what Republicans will do in order to win?”, Texas will answer your question. I think I used to ask that. Now I’m sadder and wiser. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/56 "2018-09-13T16:25:35Z")
Agreed that it is a bit generous to the D side … but. “Macro path.” Trump won, among other reasons, because “change” voters, ones who could vote either way or stay home, chose him not HRC. They were willing to roll the dice as to what that change would be. Them coming out to vote to continue what change they are seeing? I’m seeing more “change” energy aimed at changing from the now, not from Obama years. Macro level is turnout. Change voters vote against Trump and GOP dominance this time or they stay home. That moves election results. It might even be enough to squeak Beto in! So maybe possible after all. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/57 "2018-09-13T16:27:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > This is a game of chess, not tic tac toe. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Although, full disclosure, I don’t think 2 wrongs make a right. Much discussion reminds me of the apocryphal frog who didn’t jump out of the hot water because it had warmed so gradually. That frog may be fictional. The warning he offers us is not. > [@](#): > > The 1933 Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service defined the three groups of undesirable civil servants and provided for their dismissal … The third group were any “non-Aryans”, a way of excluding the Jews without explicitly mentioning “Jews” in the legislation. > > [A supplement to that law] forbade any Jews from taking the bar exam which was necessary to become a lawyer. > > On April 25, 1933, the Law Against the Over-Crowding of German schools was passed, and required an end to any Weimar teachings that discussed democracy and equality; it enforced the teaching of racial pride. Under the guise of a concern for educational over-crowding, the Nazis limited the number of Jewish students enrolled in German schools to 1.5% of the total enrollment. “Well, that’s OK,” I’m sure many Germans thought, “they can still work as money-lenders or whatever it is they do.” _ **Trump and the GOP are already denying passports to U.S. citizens who appear to be Hispanic.** _ Scientists who believe in global warming are no longer welcome to work for government. Party alignment is becoming a criterion even for civil service jobs. Highly respected journalists are being ridiculed by the Administration. Tax policies are changing to adversely affect opponents of Trumpism. The Congress of 2019 will make rules for the Census that will have profound effect over the coming decade. If this isn’t the existential crisis of American democracy, _what are you waiting for?_ The [sound of broken glass in the night?](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Novemberpogrome.ogg) ---
**Author:** ![Anny\_Middon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bc79bd/32.png) [@Anny\_Middon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anny_Middon)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/58 "2018-09-13T16:49:14Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You might be right, but it’d be incredibly foolish not to. Nothing to gain, and lots to lose, by considering any Trump nominee for SCOTUS, from a Democratic perspective. If it becomes somewhat obvious that a Dem-controlled Senate won’t consider any typical Trump nominee for SCOTUS, is there anything that requires Trump to nominate someone? The guy clearly hates losing. (Well, no one likes losing, but he seems to take his hatred of it to extremes.). It strikes me as being in character for him to tweet that he will soon nominate someone who is “the best ever – you won’t believe how great he is” and then never actually nominate someone. Of course, his other viable option would be to nominate someone the Dems would happily approve, but I can’t see that happening. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/59 "2018-09-13T17:06:44Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If you postulate “no elections”, with the Republicans in charge, then they really win. > > If that doesn’t happen, then they still win. > > Seems you just set up a scenario where, in the long run, heads they win, tails they win. The only scenario with a good outcome is one where the voters reject the GOP so decisively that it either ceases to exist or radically reforms itself. A democracy can’t survive in the long term if it elects people of Trump’s caliber half the time. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235/60 "2018-09-13T17:35:01Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Every scenario I’ve read about court packing by a future administration seems to involve only 2-6 new justices being packed in. Why not just go big with 100 new justices or something? Because the other side will just follow up 2-6 more seats with something bigger than just 2-6. This tactic really only makes sense IMO if you think it’s realistic that the “other side” might never win another election, or at least not until everyone has calmed down a bit. It’s only to be considered in times of serious crisis. Historical precedents: In 1801, the lame duck Federalist Congress attempted to limit the power of incoming President Thomas Jefferson by declaring that the next SCOTUS justice to die or retire wouldn’t be replaced. They also created a whole bunch of new Federal judgeships which outgoing President Adams hastened to fill before his term ended. In 1802, the Democratic-Republicans undid all that mischief, and the Federalists never controlled the government again and ceased to exist within a few election cycles. In 1866, the Radical Republican Congress likewise reduced the size of the Court to prevent Democratic President Andrew Johnson from appointing any Justices, then restored the previous status quo as soon as President Grant was elected in 1868. The Democrats didn’t control the White House and Senate again until 1892, by which time the passions of the Civil War and Reconstruction had cooled. And of course the idea was floated by President Roosevelt in 1937 but proved wildly unpopular; however, SCOTUS did respond to the threat by becoming somewhat less obstructionist about New Deal policies, so it wasn’t a total loss. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538-senate-model-is-out/821235.md?page=4)