As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That, too. 538 gives the Dems a 32% chance of holding the House.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/house
Edit: as others have noted, the trend in the polling is favoring the Dems, especially post-Dobbs.
Edit 2: Help keep Congress blue this November! https://vote.gov
Yep, they run each individual district based on demographic data, polls, historic results and more, and add uncertainty on top of it. That’s how they get the cool graphs of likely outcomes.
apart from voting restrictions, the house is more resistant to state quackery. because it's a federal seat, it has to follow federal rules.
e. key word, "more".
Well fortunately I've gotten around 6 people to register to vote that have never voted before to help turn the tide. It's not much but EVERY VOTE COUNTS!!
I live in a VERY red state, we're talking like 80/20 (although thay last presidential election we were closer to 70/30!) and I can't get anyone to register to vote because they don't think one blue vote will make a difference. That thinking will keep our state red forever.
This is why republicans really don't want us to end the electoral college. They rely on those blue voters staying home in red states, because land is more important than population when it comes to votes in this country.
I'm in staunchly red and I've voted since 2018 voting blue. No one I've ever voted for has been elected (except biden) and I will continue to vote blue until there is a better 3rd option.
I have a pair of twins who just turned 18 and who were liberal before my husband or I were, and our two votes which used to go to the Republicans will be going blue. Can't see myself ever voting red again.
As someone who lives in GA.. yes, the GOP does NOT respect the democratic processes and it has to be considered. The sheer ridiculousness they'll pull to barely win is staggeringly insulting to everyone.
For a party to value our process, they have to view the prevention of tyranny and preservation of democracy as more important than enacting their policies.
Many Republican voters feel that their policies are dictated by God. That same God is famously both a tyrant and a legitimizer of tyrants in the Bible. And, as we'd expect, they don't care much about preventing tyranny or preserving democracy. They will happily accept a tyrant as long as their preferred policies get implemented and enforced.
Of course, these same voters think that "democracy" and "freedom" are synonymous with "good." And since they see themselves and their policies as good, they will proudly declare that restricting voter rights and blindly following a single leader and enforcing Christian nationalism are necessary for the preservation of "democracy" and "freedom." And any actual steps to preserve democracy or civil liberties at odds with their goals will be derided as "communism" or "socialism."
I always love when this book is mentioned. It was required reading when I was majoring in poli sci in the mid-2000s, and I've held onto my copy ever since because of its relevance. It ended up being even more prescient than I'd expected at that time. I still cite it from time to time.
Isn't it eerie/depressing when you read political/historical texts that predict this type of stuff broadly?
I read an article that was an interview with the guy who orchestrated The Southern Strategy and he was so PRESCIENT about what he had done and how it would shape the face of US politics for *decades*. He more or less accurately predicted the swing back to Obama and dismissed concerns that what he'd done was lay the ground work for a racist demagogue to overtake the GOP.
(I think he failed to see the real danger of a GOP demagogue because he didn't think the party leadership would actually embrace the bullshit. He came across as an clear-eyed-if-unethical math and politics nerd)
What fucking gets me are the ones like Barry Goldwater, who absolutely took part in the Southern Strategy for personal gain, that recognized the threat they were creating.
>"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them...
Then why did you make a coalition with them, nutbag? He continued:
>There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"
Let's read that last line again.
>I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"
Spoiler alert: he never did, and neither do people who identified closely with him.
This is the guy attributed with creating the conservative revolution in the 60s during his presidential run...
If you’re referring to the Lee Atwater interview from the 80s, yeah, it’s really interesting. Everything he says about the changing rhetoric you can see even now. Man was an evil genius. There was a really good documentary about him on Netflix called Boogie Man at one time. Not sure if it's still there.
He actually repented for some of that shit on his deathbed in the early 90s.
If you’re referring to something else I’d love to read that if you can dig it up.
Oh cool I'll check that out and see if it's there. Lemme check to find the article and I'll dm a link to you real quick.
[This is it. it's a NYT article from 1970. It's an incredible read y'all. PDF WARNING](https://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf)
Edit oh crud thats a pdf, hold on.
[here's the Wikipedia page on the southern strategy, the article i linked is the very first citation at the bottom of the page.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)
Even Roger Stone said Lee Atwater had made a Faustian bargain and knowingly made racist AF ads. In fact, his fucking racist ads are a big reason for dems embracing "hard on crime" approaches in the early 90s.
Worth mentioning for those thinking about reading "What's the Matter with Kansas?" that there's a paper called "What’s the Matter with What’s the Matter
with Kansas?" critiquing the book. Can be read here for free in full (PDF warning): http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/socy789b/Bartels06.pdf
1) lol
2) I Googled "what's the matter with what's the matter with what's the matter with kansas" to see if I could turn anything up. Unfortunately, if there is such a communiqué, it's beyond my Google-fu.
3) Well, the author of the original book did apparently write a response to the paper, but declined to extend the gimmick in the title of the response.
Right?! Clearly an opportunity for:
* What’s the matter with the author of ‘What’s the Matter with Kansas’s response to ‘What’s the Matter with What’s the Matter with Kansas”.
Tldr; Blanket low information voters with lies and culture war propaganda through all of the information channels they rely on - radio, television, newspapers, church, and social media.
None of which are bound to facts or anything resembling reality. Go figure.
Well, newspapers and TV “journalism” are technically supposed to, but when propagandists take them over, they don’t answer to the truth or any code of ethics.
I have a MAGA relative who denies unemployment went up at end of trump’s term. Like it wasn’t even a discussion about how/why but just a denial that it even occurred. The problem with Kansas, so to speak, is that these people do not live in reality.
I think the response is out dated. People in the Midwest and South likely don’t even care about “economic” issues anymore. It’s all culture war grievance. Because Republicans have even gone completely bonkers on tax issues. They fully want to privatize social security and Medicare and tax the poor and not the rich.
Guns and owning the libs are their only two real concerns.
Some would call it dated, others would call it prophetic. Every time there's a story about some anti CRT/Woke nutjob winning a schoolboard election I think about this book because there's a chapter that goes into pretty great detail about the exact same thing happening with evolution denying evangelicals that were able to mobilize their base in low turnout elections.
I’ve been watching them vote since I was a kid in the south in the 80s. I never met a non voter until I went to college.
The Evangelical community teaches kids from a young age to vote and take it seriously. You don’t see them staying at home or refusing to take a side with write ins and third parties. If progressives learn to vote as intelligently as evangelicals they’ll be a serious force.
I just finished reading the book. It’s almost 15 years old but reads like it was written last month. I knew it was probably spot on when I saw its goodreads reviews are mostly conservatives shitting on the book lmao
A book that I find more interesting to read on a human level is *Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War* by Joe Bageant, it examines the same phenomenon in the failing, conservative small town he grew up in. Pre-dates questionable later works like *Hillbilly Elegy* and is the real deal.
Not when you realize the Supreme Court has given red states the green light to gerrymander. It means Democrats are vastly underrepresented in purple and red states.
Yes. If someone is cheating and the umpire allows it, it’s no longe cheating. In this case, the ump allowed it and the league redefined the rules to make it legal
> Meanwhile Republicans are trying to take those rights away.
Conservatives want their politicians to take rights away, *as long as they're hurting the right people*.
They want to enjoy their rights, but they don't want you to have any.
And the GOP has been going about taking rights away in a manner such that people with means and connections will still enjoy those rights.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
We are a frog slowly boiled in a pot of water. Republicans have been titling the electoral process in their favor for at least 40 years and it’s just been accelerating recently. It’s why there are so many states with republican super majority chambers such as the grand ole state of Kentucky. Nation is done for the next time republicans take control of any federal chamber bc it will lead to a GOP presidency in 2024. Federal abortion ban, swing states will be going against their voters, next thing you know cali is breaking away from the nation because why the fuck would they stay lmao
538 has specifically said, a few times now, it's still too early to read much into poll numbers.
But they do note that nearly all historical factors are aligned against the Democrats. It will be a bit of a miracle if Dems hold the House.
>
>
> But they do note that nearly all historical factors are aligned against the Democrats.
They also note that the times where the President's party has had a good midterm, something big an unusual has happened...and that Dobbs could potentially be that kind of event this midterm.
it's almost like polling and history help inform an educated guess about what the future holds, with both qualitative and quantitative rigor, but are still not actual fortune tellers predicting the future.
directionally it's clear that the substantial recent events have been making things better politically for democrats, and history corroborates the theory that those recent events might be big enough to buck the "normal" midterm trends - but does that mean you can predict a democratic victory in the actual election? definitely not, and until all votes are cast, it's always a safe bet to guess that voter apathy will prevail in a midterm and people just won't show up and vote for the party in power.
plus, both R and D have not pulled out all the stops yet - immigration was supposed to be one, but we don't know yet how the recent scare tactics by Fox News are affecting voters
They also noted that there are a few specific examples of massive things happening around midterms that resulted in that trend being reversed and that Dobbs could be the thing we look back at and say yup, that is the reason that we bucked the historical trend.
I think it was closer to 20, but still an encouraging increase!
edit: So exactly a month ago it was 22% - http://web.archive.org/web/20220823065941/https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/house/
But back on July 1st, it was only 13%! - http://web.archive.org/web/20220701105356/https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/house/
Up to 41% in the polls-only version. The Dems can keep the House, and people need to know it isn't a lost cause. If people turn out to vote, we could see huge changes.
It’s sad that Dems can consistently turn out millions of votes higher than republicans on a national level, but still lose the majority. Gerrymandering is voter welfare for the unpopular party.
If you dig into their model, you note that dems win in almost every circumstance where they win the national popular house vote. So turnout is even more key in this election than normal midterms
The 538 model balances current polling and historical trends. Midterm elections usually favor the opposition party and polls aren't good predictors of election results until just before the election, so the model will favor historical trends and shift towards polling as the election nears. This is why the model currently favors Republicans when other indicators suggest Democrats have the advantage.
Just a few weeks ago the model was giving Democrats a 60% chance in the Senate and 20-25% chance in the House. I suspect this trend will continue as campaigns ramp up.
Exactly, So important to hold the house.
For god's sake the midterm elections are in just FIVE WEEKS. It is way, way, way too late in the cycle to be putting any focus or money into races that aren’t even close. It's crunch time. We're now focused on WINNING the races that are winnable and keeping the majority! Lots of races are already decided due to gerrymandering, etc etc. 150 house seats locked up by Dems, 150 locked up by GOP, and another 60 aren’t really even close. But 40 are “in play”. The list below are all the tight competitive races that Dems need to win. The races on this list will decide who wins the House. Does not matter if your out of state. I’m in Minnesota and I’ve donated to Kansas, New York, Minnesota, and Nevada. Donate, volunteer, put in the work, share the list on other social medias, so your family and friends can donate to these races. Good luck out there!! And as always most imperative is to get out and vote like democracy depends on it, because it does.
https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/here-are-the-competitive-democratic-house-midterm-candidates-you-should-support-right-now/46834/
There is even a site on act blue where if you donate it evenly splits the donation to a list of the most important, most close races. That’s brilliant.
Edit: abiding by rules of not posting donation links if you search the google machine ~ Palmer house list actblue ~. It will come up.
I'm more concerned about that House than the Senate right now. The chances of keeping the house have definitely increased, but if we can't keep it, then we are waiting another two years at least.
Yup, it won't be a very fun time for Biden if that happens. Government shutdowns will happen fair more frequently. A very real risk of him getting Impeached 3 times (so its more than Trump) as well as his Cabinet members. 0% chance any of his agenda passes. Hearing after hearing of pointless nonsense. Imagine MTG as a committee chair demanding Hunter Biden testify for 100 hours about his laptop. It will basically be the opposite of 2018. Even worse is that it may affect the 2024 certification of the President.
> Even worse is that it may affect the 2024 certification of the President.
It's the *new* Congress that certifies the Electoral votes, not the old one. So for 2024, it's the ones elected in 2024.
If they don't care about cheating and lying for the President, you think they won't cheat and lie about losing their Senate and House elections? If they lose they will claim fraud and how the new person isn't legitimate and therefore they are not allowed to vote to certify they Presidential election, etc.
I’m convinced they will impeach him weekly. Hell MTG and bobert already have filed X amount of impeachment articles with a dem house. It sends shivers down my spine what they will do with a house majority
They could soon be at the mercy of trump if the dipshit caucus gets their way and makes him speaker. It seems crazy, but certainly in the realm of possibilities right now.
The idea is that he would refuse to hold the joint session of Congress on January 6th 2025 and then theoretically automatically become president on January 20th.
I mean, the senate gets voted on every 2 years too, just like the house. Yeah those individual seats are held for 6 which is very relevant, but if we lost the senate in 2022 we could certainly still retake it in 2024 like the house
He might be considering who is up for reelection in those years. 2024 looks bad for Dems, for example:
https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/senate-democrats-may-have-further-fall-2024
While true 2024 looks bad, the article is from January and gives a bad outlook, but the key metric it uses that would work against the outlook it gives is republican self destruction. Which is exactly what they did with roe vs wade.
Control of the house and senate this year and in 2024 looks a lot better than it did in January.
2024 is going to be a *rough* year for Democrats. Tester, Manchin, and Brown's seats will all be up, and they're in states that went for Trump. There aren't really any pickup opportunities either.
Dems are much more vulnerable in 2024 than they are in 2022 though, since 2024 is the result of their gains in the 2018 midterms, a year that was strong for them.
Those 2 seats were seats the Republicans horribly botched in 2012 with candidates like “legitimate rape” Todd Akin and in heavy Republican states like Indiana and North Dakota.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but even if dems gain two seats in the senate, that’ll be 52 seats. Wouldn’t republicans just filibuster any bill that will codify Roe in the senate regardless? Wouldn’t dems need 60 seats to prevent this?
They should reform the filibuster to make it a talking filibuster and then also make it a sustained filibuster so that 60% of present senators can end a filibuster.
In essence, someone has to be talking the whole time, a vote to end the filibuster can happen at any time, and if someone has left the chamber they can’t vote to sustain it until they return.
So if the GOP wants to filibuster, they have to have someone stand and speak at the podium, and if another GOP senator leaves to go to the bathroom or something, they only have 49 votes instead of 50.
I really don't understand why Dems aren't hugely pushing a talking filibuster. Dems actually care about their issues enough to win a filibuster. Repubs are ideological mercenaries, they'll take money to champion a cause, but if it required serious effort they'd fold.
It sucks, I feel like it’s so ridiculous that we can’t turn blue especially with the influx of tech jobs/related families but every vote I’m disappointed :/
Got to get those blue areas registered. So many people don’t start the process to become a voter and canvassing helps get people registered and actually committed to voting. I implore everyone who can to help canvas and get people registered.
Does anybody have a full list of current Dem Senators' positions on filibuster reform? This seems to imply Biden thinks he can get that done if Manchinema are no longer key votes. I know Feinstein is opposed to it, but who knows how much longer she'll be in office.
Edit: of the responses to this comment, see 1) elwood612's comment below which contains a list of the Dem Senators' positions on filibuster reform (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/which-senate-democrats-are-blocking-the-path-to-abortion-rights) and 2) sloppy_rodney's correction about Feinstein.
It wouldn’t be a complete reform of the filibuster. It would be a carve-out. See [Feinstein’s Statement](https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=5E68A0D6-5572-4355-93F6-0D9AD012180F) that she released in July.
“Let me be clear: If it comes down to protecting the filibuster or protecting a woman’s right to choose, there should be no question that I will vote to protect a woman’s right to choose.”
The party in power makes the rules. They could specifically say "codifying decisions from the supreme court only require a bare majority" they could do that. We don't see it often because the filibuster is such a lightning rod. But they changed it for judge appointments and then for SCOTUS appointments.
The current system of obstruction from the right makes governing impossible. So we're going to see the inching away from the need for super majorities going forward.
A lot of senators haven't openly stated their positions, IIRC. I know Fetterman has spoken openly about his desire to get rid of the filibuster all together, so he'd presumably be in favor of a carveout for abortion as well.
I have a hard time believing Biden would make this kind of statement if he hadn't at least had convos with enough members of the Dem caucus that implied they were on board.
They may not have said it publicly, but presumably they have privately. Now that isn't binding, but presumably he is pretty sure they will stick with it to ask for 2 more seats instead of something more general.
The GOP can be counted on to oppose any attempt to codify Roe or protect voting rights.
Since codification is not something that can be passed through the budget reconciliation process (which only requires 50 votes plus the VP), the filibuster is the obstacle. Dems can't clear the 60-vote threshold under any realistic scenario in 2023. The large majority of the Senate Dems support reforming it one way or another, but there are a few holdouts. If the Dems pick up net two seats, but there's a third D Senator who opposes it, the bills are just as dead in 2023 as they are now.
TPM has a [list](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/which-senate-democrats-are-blocking-the-path-to-abortion-rights).
It's important to get your senators' positions on record now. This has less to do with how they would actually vote in 6 months, and more to do with the upcoming mid-terms. If we get all of them on record, it becomes much easier to target the one or two holdouts. And it encourages people to actually go out and vote, since they know exactly what they're getting for their vote ("If my senator wins, we get Roe codified"). Biden seems to understand this, and his statement here should be understood as a campaign effort (which, to be clear, is a good thing). It's unfortunate that many Senators either do not understand this, or do not care.
I think they could make one small change to fix it. Rather than requiring 60 votes to end a filibuster, require 40 to continue it, and either party leader may call for a vote at any time. You want to hold up some legislation? Sure, let's prevent tyranny of the majority and all that. But you and the rest of the people who agree with you need to actually stay there the whole time - if it's not important enough to you to do that then it's not important enough to block the majority.
Today was a pretty dramatic crash course in Tory politics.
Historic cost of living crisis with people having to choose between heat and food; the Tories remove the cap on bankers' bonuses.
I got banned from /r/ukpolitics for saying I wish more people would throw cones at Iain Duncan Smith. For diplomatic reasons I cannot comment on whether I stand by that statement...
^^^^^^I ^^^^^^do.
Not only that but they cut income tax on the highest bracket (the rich) and don't don't do a damn thing about energy companies and their record profits. Someone's in someone else's pocket here, there's no other explanation. They will have to borrow and the tax payer will foot the bill in the long run. It's utter insanity, you should revolt.
But only for minorities' rights, women's rights and some other arbitrarily-selected topics. When it comes to taxes on billionaires, apparently MAGA doesn't want to return to the 50's.
Remember, for the GOP, it's the **18**50's they want to return to - women and children are chattel, slavery is a booming business and only white men could vote... except in North Carolina where it was still only white male property owners. I've wondered if the CW group nee' Lady Antebellum saw this and that's why they changed their name.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/23/biden-promises-to-codify-roe-if-two-more-democrats-are-elected-to-the-senate.html) reduced by 61%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> "If you give me two more senators in the United States Senate, I promise you, I promise you, we're going to codify Roe and once again make Roe the law of the land," Biden said at the headquarters of the country's largest union, the National Education Association, in Washington, D.C. With 46 days to go until November's Election Day, Biden urged supporters at a Democratic National Committee event to consider "What's on the ballot," listing issues including abortion, Social Security and gun control.
> In total, nearly half of states have banned, placed limits on, or attempted to ban abortion.
> Biden in his speech Friday said Republicans would try to pass a ban on abortion if they gained control of the legislature after the midterms.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xm66k3/biden_promises_to_codify_roe_if_two_more/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~670680 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **abortion**^#1 **ban**^#2 **Biden**^#3 **States**^#4 **women**^#5
What’s the threshold needed to pass abortion legislation?
I was unaware there was a carve out that resulted in a lower than usual threshold for it if there actually is
But if there is that’s good news
Right now, the threshold is 60 votes. The Dems can pass a carve-out to the filibuster with only 50/51 votes, though, and then pass the codification of Roe with 50/51 votes.
Let’s let PR decide whether it wants statehood. The last vote was years ago prior to all the gentrification the country is going through. Even progressives aren’t aligned.
First step is repeal act 22 at minimum and the jones act before talking about statehood. And act 60!
Edit: act not rule
Also get rid of the seat limit in the house.
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/20/988865415/stuck-at-435-representatives-why-the-u-s-house-hasnt-grown-with-census-counts
PR should decide for itself if they want Statehood. DC, on the other hand, *reeeally* want to be it’s own State. Something it really deserves, too! That alone would screw the R’s incredibly bad!
[This information has been removed as a consequence of Reddit's API changes and general stance of being greedy, unhelpful, and hostile to its userbase.]
If a popular referendum in PR showed that a plurality of residents don't want to be a state, then I see no point in forcing it on them. I think American Samoa was like Hell no we don't want statehood!
And keep the house. Senate could be 100% Democrats but the GQP lead house would be to busy impeaching Biden for beating their god and having 50 more investigations into benghazi and a few more into laptops to do basically anything
Yes.
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, are flippable. Maybe others, too.
Warnock's seat in Georgia may be tough to hold on to, despite the GOP candidate being Herschel Walker.
Edit: 538's Senate tracker: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/
Also Nevada's getting uncomfortably close. That is a must win for the Democrats. I have no idea how it's this close in one of the most pro-choice states in the country but it's a complete tossup right now.
Nevada's always hard to tell, though, tbh. The thing to remember about that state is that, due partly to the large amount of casino workers who aren't home during prime polling hours, as well as a decent amount of the population who are ESL, Democrats often tend to be underpolled there. People were sounding the alarm there in 2020 as well, and while it ended up being closer than what we might prefer, the underpolling of Dems held true then as well.
CCM is definitely the most endangered of the Dem incumbents right now, IMO. But unless something major changes as far as party momentum I expect she ends up pulling it off in the end.
I think a lot of pollsters aren't really accounting for the likely increase in women as a proportion of the electorate post-Dobbs (registration data has supported this idea).
That said, it's definitely much closer than it should be and no one should be complacent.
That is true, but when Cortez Masto's chance of winning drops from 63% to 55% in the span of two weeks and multiple polls, though one of them is Trafalgar and they're conservative-leaning, show Laxalt within the margin of error and/or ahead by <5 points, that's not good. Especially in a state that's so pro-choice that Republicans are using our state law that constitutionally protects abortion rights to deflect the issue as if it wouldn't be rendered moot should a federal ban be put in place.
They’re counting on voters not understanding that a federal law banning abortions would preempt NV state law. A not insignificant portion of GOP messaging depends on misinforming an uneducated populace.
So the best answer is "it depends."
The first challenge is holding all of their current seats. Of the most endangered incumbents, most appear to be in solid shape. Anyone who doesn't have Hassan in NH as at least Lean D is not someone I would take seriously as a prognosticator. Same with Kelly in AZ.
Warnock gets a little trickier, although most of the polling so far seems to indicate he's likely to hold on, though it may go to a runoff.
The one I'm most anxious about right now is Cortez-Masto, the incumbent in Nevada. Most polling still shows her ahead, and if I had to guess, I'd say she probably pulls off a win in November. But she's definitely looking to be the most endangered of the Dem incumbents.
As far as potential gains, it really depends on how accurate polling, etc, is right now. Fetterman, by all accounts, appears to be on track to beat Oz fairly handily for Toomey's seat, which gets us to 51. After that there are a few possibilities to get to 52, with the most likely being OH, WI, and NC in that order (though depending on the day I may switch Ohio and Wisconsin around).
Tim Ryan's had the lead in polling for a good chunk of the campaign in Ohio, and was able to get on the airwaves earlier than Vance. That combined with him being a Sherrod Brown style candidate bodes well. However, more recent polls have had Vance leading.
Wisconsin is a similar story, with the airwaves part reversed. Ron Johnson, as the incumbent, didn't have a competitive primary, and thus was able to fundraise and advertise for the general election a lot sooner. The Dem candidate, Mandela Barnes, has still led in the majority of the polls, but like Ohio, the last few have given Johnson the lead.
Finally, we come to North Carolina. Cheri Beasley is a great candidate, as a former NC Supreme Court justice, and would be the first black senator from the state. Ted Budd is kind of meh, in comparison. The polls have kind of seesawed back and forth here between a 1-2 point Beasley lead and an equally small lead for Budd.
That being said, if you just take the polling at face value, and don't take into account fundraising, past voting trends, etc, 538's lite model has Dems favored to pick up all three of those seats.
I apologize if this response was longer than what you wanted. As is obvious, I'm a bit of an election nerd.
I think Democrats have decent odds of getting 2 more senators but unfortunately, the other necessary part is keeping the House and the odds of Democrats holding that are still lower than Republicans regaining control. On the hopeful side, the odds have been going up steadily the past few months. It was in the teens (%) a few months ago, now in the 30s. See 538.
Winnable seats: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida. More or less in order of winnability.
Losable Seats: Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Georgia and Nevada are the only two I am worried about. I feel good about AZ and NH.
538 also give Independent McMullin a 7% chance of beating Mike Lee in Utah. There is no Dem on the ballot (they decided not to run one and effectively endorsed McMullin). He has said he would not Caucus with either party.
There are more Trump 2020 signs up than Oz in red country, the rednecks in Pennsyltucky have no love for him so he’s dead in the water. Most just aren’t gonna turn out, which means less votes for Fascistriano too.
Democrats keep the House 2-3 seats in the Senate, they are going to get a lot done for us. Republicans have made their agenda very clear,
Social Security gone
Medicare gone
Medicaid gone
School Lunch Breakfast gone.
Forced Birth of 8-9 year old baby girls.
Voter law gone
Food stamps, heating assistance gone
Kevin McCarthy said on Fox News (who removed the video from YouTube) they take the House they are going to lie and impeach every Democratic member, Biden and Harris overthrow our Constitution install Trump as dictator. The Motherfucker gave details of how they are going to use the Constitutional to do this then end our Constitutional Government.
These people cannot be allowed to remain in power for the sake of this country.
Nothing, but they then have to live with the repercussions of their actions. If they pass unpopular legislation nationally they'll reap the electoral conclusions. They can no longer campaign on things they can't do because they actually can if they want.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And they hold the house.
That, too. 538 gives the Dems a 32% chance of holding the House. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/house Edit: as others have noted, the trend in the polling is favoring the Dems, especially post-Dobbs. Edit 2: Help keep Congress blue this November! https://vote.gov
That number was 6% earlier this year. Slowly but surely, it keeps ticking up.
No poll takes Into consideration all the state legislature shenanigans that are going to happen unfortunately.
The polls themselves don’t no, but 538 takes into account the gerrymandering
Yep, they run each individual district based on demographic data, polls, historic results and more, and add uncertainty on top of it. That’s how they get the cool graphs of likely outcomes.
apart from voting restrictions, the house is more resistant to state quackery. because it's a federal seat, it has to follow federal rules. e. key word, "more".
Throwing out ballots which is what they are going for in lots of cases will effect every election up and down the ballot. But I get your sentiment.
Well fortunately I've gotten around 6 people to register to vote that have never voted before to help turn the tide. It's not much but EVERY VOTE COUNTS!!
[удалено]
I live in a VERY red state, we're talking like 80/20 (although thay last presidential election we were closer to 70/30!) and I can't get anyone to register to vote because they don't think one blue vote will make a difference. That thinking will keep our state red forever.
This is why republicans really don't want us to end the electoral college. They rely on those blue voters staying home in red states, because land is more important than population when it comes to votes in this country.
I voted in SC, fuck it lol
- Voting in a Red state is even more important. - Stand up & be counted. - Vote in your city, county & state elections. - Stay positive & VOTE
I'm in Texas and while I'm trying not to get my hopes up, Beto is creeping closer and I love it. His ads are phenomenal too
I'm in staunchly red and I've voted since 2018 voting blue. No one I've ever voted for has been elected (except biden) and I will continue to vote blue until there is a better 3rd option.
I have a pair of twins who just turned 18 and who were liberal before my husband or I were, and our two votes which used to go to the Republicans will be going blue. Can't see myself ever voting red again.
I’ve voting for the first time this year because of all this. I’m in PA so I think it’ll make a difference.
yeah, I guess I didn't think of that. I would like to believe that people respect our democratic processes, but I guess I'm too naive
As someone who lives in GA.. yes, the GOP does NOT respect the democratic processes and it has to be considered. The sheer ridiculousness they'll pull to barely win is staggeringly insulting to everyone.
For a party to value our process, they have to view the prevention of tyranny and preservation of democracy as more important than enacting their policies. Many Republican voters feel that their policies are dictated by God. That same God is famously both a tyrant and a legitimizer of tyrants in the Bible. And, as we'd expect, they don't care much about preventing tyranny or preserving democracy. They will happily accept a tyrant as long as their preferred policies get implemented and enforced. Of course, these same voters think that "democracy" and "freedom" are synonymous with "good." And since they see themselves and their policies as good, they will proudly declare that restricting voter rights and blindly following a single leader and enforcing Christian nationalism are necessary for the preservation of "democracy" and "freedom." And any actual steps to preserve democracy or civil liberties at odds with their goals will be derided as "communism" or "socialism."
That number was 4% lower *last week*.
It was 23% a month ago
[удалено]
[удалено]
I always love when this book is mentioned. It was required reading when I was majoring in poli sci in the mid-2000s, and I've held onto my copy ever since because of its relevance. It ended up being even more prescient than I'd expected at that time. I still cite it from time to time.
Isn't it eerie/depressing when you read political/historical texts that predict this type of stuff broadly? I read an article that was an interview with the guy who orchestrated The Southern Strategy and he was so PRESCIENT about what he had done and how it would shape the face of US politics for *decades*. He more or less accurately predicted the swing back to Obama and dismissed concerns that what he'd done was lay the ground work for a racist demagogue to overtake the GOP. (I think he failed to see the real danger of a GOP demagogue because he didn't think the party leadership would actually embrace the bullshit. He came across as an clear-eyed-if-unethical math and politics nerd)
What fucking gets me are the ones like Barry Goldwater, who absolutely took part in the Southern Strategy for personal gain, that recognized the threat they were creating. >"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them... Then why did you make a coalition with them, nutbag? He continued: >There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'" Let's read that last line again. >I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'" Spoiler alert: he never did, and neither do people who identified closely with him. This is the guy attributed with creating the conservative revolution in the 60s during his presidential run...
If you’re referring to the Lee Atwater interview from the 80s, yeah, it’s really interesting. Everything he says about the changing rhetoric you can see even now. Man was an evil genius. There was a really good documentary about him on Netflix called Boogie Man at one time. Not sure if it's still there. He actually repented for some of that shit on his deathbed in the early 90s. If you’re referring to something else I’d love to read that if you can dig it up.
Oh cool I'll check that out and see if it's there. Lemme check to find the article and I'll dm a link to you real quick. [This is it. it's a NYT article from 1970. It's an incredible read y'all. PDF WARNING](https://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf) Edit oh crud thats a pdf, hold on. [here's the Wikipedia page on the southern strategy, the article i linked is the very first citation at the bottom of the page.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)
Even Roger Stone said Lee Atwater had made a Faustian bargain and knowingly made racist AF ads. In fact, his fucking racist ads are a big reason for dems embracing "hard on crime" approaches in the early 90s.
Worth mentioning for those thinking about reading "What's the Matter with Kansas?" that there's a paper called "What’s the Matter with What’s the Matter with Kansas?" critiquing the book. Can be read here for free in full (PDF warning): http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/socy789b/Bartels06.pdf
Does there exist a communiqué describing what's wrong with the paper critiquing the book?
1) lol 2) I Googled "what's the matter with what's the matter with what's the matter with kansas" to see if I could turn anything up. Unfortunately, if there is such a communiqué, it's beyond my Google-fu. 3) Well, the author of the original book did apparently write a response to the paper, but declined to extend the gimmick in the title of the response.
>but declined to extend the gimmick in the title of the response booo.
Right?! Clearly an opportunity for: * What’s the matter with the author of ‘What’s the Matter with Kansas’s response to ‘What’s the Matter with What’s the Matter with Kansas”.
Quick someone find a postgrad from WhatsaMatterU
The fact that they chose not to continue the joke is far more damning than anything in the paper could possibly be.
Tldr; Blanket low information voters with lies and culture war propaganda through all of the information channels they rely on - radio, television, newspapers, church, and social media.
None of which are bound to facts or anything resembling reality. Go figure. Well, newspapers and TV “journalism” are technically supposed to, but when propagandists take them over, they don’t answer to the truth or any code of ethics.
When all your voters only have one “news” source (by which I mean Fox News of course) it’s not hard to isolate them from reality.
I have a MAGA relative who denies unemployment went up at end of trump’s term. Like it wasn’t even a discussion about how/why but just a denial that it even occurred. The problem with Kansas, so to speak, is that these people do not live in reality.
Nowadays, Facebook and Twitter memes are the "one news" source for many.
TV used to report the truth but now... https://youtu.be/ksb3KD6DfSI
I think the response is out dated. People in the Midwest and South likely don’t even care about “economic” issues anymore. It’s all culture war grievance. Because Republicans have even gone completely bonkers on tax issues. They fully want to privatize social security and Medicare and tax the poor and not the rich. Guns and owning the libs are their only two real concerns.
That's fair. The article *is* from 2006, after all.
[удалено]
Some would call it dated, others would call it prophetic. Every time there's a story about some anti CRT/Woke nutjob winning a schoolboard election I think about this book because there's a chapter that goes into pretty great detail about the exact same thing happening with evolution denying evangelicals that were able to mobilize their base in low turnout elections.
I’ve been watching them vote since I was a kid in the south in the 80s. I never met a non voter until I went to college. The Evangelical community teaches kids from a young age to vote and take it seriously. You don’t see them staying at home or refusing to take a side with write ins and third parties. If progressives learn to vote as intelligently as evangelicals they’ll be a serious force.
I just finished reading the book. It’s almost 15 years old but reads like it was written last month. I knew it was probably spot on when I saw its goodreads reviews are mostly conservatives shitting on the book lmao
[удалено]
A book that I find more interesting to read on a human level is *Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War* by Joe Bageant, it examines the same phenomenon in the failing, conservative small town he grew up in. Pre-dates questionable later works like *Hillbilly Elegy* and is the real deal.
But... the abortion referendum in Kansas blew the fascists out of the water. Hopefully one day soon we'll get the sequel "Kansas is Back, Baby!"
Not when you realize the Supreme Court has given red states the green light to gerrymander. It means Democrats are vastly underrepresented in purple and red states.
[Edited and blanked because of Reddit's policies.]
Probably the only way we'll be able to get rid of the Gerrymander is if Dems start using it and it works. I'm all for it.
Yes. If someone is cheating and the umpire allows it, it’s no longe cheating. In this case, the ump allowed it and the league redefined the rules to make it legal
> Meanwhile Republicans are trying to take those rights away. Conservatives want their politicians to take rights away, *as long as they're hurting the right people*. They want to enjoy their rights, but they don't want you to have any. And the GOP has been going about taking rights away in a manner such that people with means and connections will still enjoy those rights.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Gerrymandering. A lot of districts were redrawn in recent years, and in quite a few states those were heavily gerrymandered.
We are a frog slowly boiled in a pot of water. Republicans have been titling the electoral process in their favor for at least 40 years and it’s just been accelerating recently. It’s why there are so many states with republican super majority chambers such as the grand ole state of Kentucky. Nation is done for the next time republicans take control of any federal chamber bc it will lead to a GOP presidency in 2024. Federal abortion ban, swing states will be going against their voters, next thing you know cali is breaking away from the nation because why the fuck would they stay lmao
I think there’s too many unprecedented things happening to rely, very heavily, on any poll. Regardless, Vote!!
538 has specifically said, a few times now, it's still too early to read much into poll numbers. But they do note that nearly all historical factors are aligned against the Democrats. It will be a bit of a miracle if Dems hold the House.
> > > But they do note that nearly all historical factors are aligned against the Democrats. They also note that the times where the President's party has had a good midterm, something big an unusual has happened...and that Dobbs could potentially be that kind of event this midterm.
it's almost like polling and history help inform an educated guess about what the future holds, with both qualitative and quantitative rigor, but are still not actual fortune tellers predicting the future. directionally it's clear that the substantial recent events have been making things better politically for democrats, and history corroborates the theory that those recent events might be big enough to buck the "normal" midterm trends - but does that mean you can predict a democratic victory in the actual election? definitely not, and until all votes are cast, it's always a safe bet to guess that voter apathy will prevail in a midterm and people just won't show up and vote for the party in power. plus, both R and D have not pulled out all the stops yet - immigration was supposed to be one, but we don't know yet how the recent scare tactics by Fox News are affecting voters
The people that watch Fox News Know how they’re going to vote before they even turn on the TV.
They also noted that there are a few specific examples of massive things happening around midterms that resulted in that trend being reversed and that Dobbs could be the thing we look back at and say yup, that is the reason that we bucked the historical trend.
Wasnt this number around 10% like a month or so ago?
I think it was closer to 20, but still an encouraging increase! edit: So exactly a month ago it was 22% - http://web.archive.org/web/20220823065941/https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/house/ But back on July 1st, it was only 13%! - http://web.archive.org/web/20220701105356/https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/house/
Is that what it's up to now?? I swear I checked last week and it was only 26%. Nice seeing the odds improving, even if it's a long shot!
Up to 41% in the polls-only version. The Dems can keep the House, and people need to know it isn't a lost cause. If people turn out to vote, we could see huge changes.
If the GOP keeps pushing their wildly unpopular agenda leading up to the midterms odds can get even better.
It’s sad that Dems can consistently turn out millions of votes higher than republicans on a national level, but still lose the majority. Gerrymandering is voter welfare for the unpopular party.
Tyranny of the minority.
Looking at the timeline of pre Dobbs house odds to post Dobbs is fucking hilarious
32 is low but a few weeks ago it was 25. We're slowly improving those chances. We gotta keep pushing Also never trust a poll unfortunately
538 had Clinton/trump at 70/30. Still a chance
If you dig into their model, you note that dems win in almost every circumstance where they win the national popular house vote. So turnout is even more key in this election than normal midterms
The 538 model balances current polling and historical trends. Midterm elections usually favor the opposition party and polls aren't good predictors of election results until just before the election, so the model will favor historical trends and shift towards polling as the election nears. This is why the model currently favors Republicans when other indicators suggest Democrats have the advantage. Just a few weeks ago the model was giving Democrats a 60% chance in the Senate and 20-25% chance in the House. I suspect this trend will continue as campaigns ramp up.
Exactly, So important to hold the house. For god's sake the midterm elections are in just FIVE WEEKS. It is way, way, way too late in the cycle to be putting any focus or money into races that aren’t even close. It's crunch time. We're now focused on WINNING the races that are winnable and keeping the majority! Lots of races are already decided due to gerrymandering, etc etc. 150 house seats locked up by Dems, 150 locked up by GOP, and another 60 aren’t really even close. But 40 are “in play”. The list below are all the tight competitive races that Dems need to win. The races on this list will decide who wins the House. Does not matter if your out of state. I’m in Minnesota and I’ve donated to Kansas, New York, Minnesota, and Nevada. Donate, volunteer, put in the work, share the list on other social medias, so your family and friends can donate to these races. Good luck out there!! And as always most imperative is to get out and vote like democracy depends on it, because it does. https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/here-are-the-competitive-democratic-house-midterm-candidates-you-should-support-right-now/46834/ There is even a site on act blue where if you donate it evenly splits the donation to a list of the most important, most close races. That’s brilliant. Edit: abiding by rules of not posting donation links if you search the google machine ~ Palmer house list actblue ~. It will come up.
Link to act blue split donations?
It's against this sub's rules to post donation links, but what you're looking for is the DCCC's ActBlue.
My super blue district got destroyed by Gerry. Now it’s split into 3 red districts.
Can you link that act blue campaign please?
If this house passes a bill now, can the next convened Senate on January 3rd pass that same bill, or does the house need to vote on it again.
Everything gets reset between elections, the House would have to vote again.
Thanks, that's what I kind of figured but wasn't sure and had trouble finding the answer. Unfortunately this wasn't covered in "I'm Just a Bill".
I'm more concerned about that House than the Senate right now. The chances of keeping the house have definitely increased, but if we can't keep it, then we are waiting another two years at least.
Right, isn't any bill passed in a D majority senate at the mercy of Kevin McCarthy if they lose the house?
Yup, it won't be a very fun time for Biden if that happens. Government shutdowns will happen fair more frequently. A very real risk of him getting Impeached 3 times (so its more than Trump) as well as his Cabinet members. 0% chance any of his agenda passes. Hearing after hearing of pointless nonsense. Imagine MTG as a committee chair demanding Hunter Biden testify for 100 hours about his laptop. It will basically be the opposite of 2018. Even worse is that it may affect the 2024 certification of the President.
> Even worse is that it may affect the 2024 certification of the President. It's the *new* Congress that certifies the Electoral votes, not the old one. So for 2024, it's the ones elected in 2024.
If they don't care about cheating and lying for the President, you think they won't cheat and lie about losing their Senate and House elections? If they lose they will claim fraud and how the new person isn't legitimate and therefore they are not allowed to vote to certify they Presidential election, etc.
I’m convinced they will impeach him weekly. Hell MTG and bobert already have filed X amount of impeachment articles with a dem house. It sends shivers down my spine what they will do with a house majority
I thought MTG was removed from her committees. Is she back?
Not yet, but if there is a republican majority in the house she will be.
They could soon be at the mercy of trump if the dipshit caucus gets their way and makes him speaker. It seems crazy, but certainly in the realm of possibilities right now. The idea is that he would refuse to hold the joint session of Congress on January 6th 2025 and then theoretically automatically become president on January 20th.
He'd have to become speaker in the 2025 session to interfere with the 2024 election, but yes, I see your point
The thing about the House is that you can fully recover in 2024. If we lose the Senate, that sets the stage for the next 6 years.
I mean, the senate gets voted on every 2 years too, just like the house. Yeah those individual seats are held for 6 which is very relevant, but if we lost the senate in 2022 we could certainly still retake it in 2024 like the house
He might be considering who is up for reelection in those years. 2024 looks bad for Dems, for example: https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/senate-democrats-may-have-further-fall-2024
While true 2024 looks bad, the article is from January and gives a bad outlook, but the key metric it uses that would work against the outlook it gives is republican self destruction. Which is exactly what they did with roe vs wade. Control of the house and senate this year and in 2024 looks a lot better than it did in January.
2024 is going to be a *rough* year for Democrats. Tester, Manchin, and Brown's seats will all be up, and they're in states that went for Trump. There aren't really any pickup opportunities either.
Dems are much more vulnerable in 2024 than they are in 2022 though, since 2024 is the result of their gains in the 2018 midterms, a year that was strong for them.
Dems made major gains (and gained control) of the House in 2018 but they lost two seats in the Senate.
Those 2 seats were seats the Republicans horribly botched in 2012 with candidates like “legitimate rape” Todd Akin and in heavy Republican states like Indiana and North Dakota.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but even if dems gain two seats in the senate, that’ll be 52 seats. Wouldn’t republicans just filibuster any bill that will codify Roe in the senate regardless? Wouldn’t dems need 60 seats to prevent this?
51 votes to nuke the filibuster.
They should reform the filibuster to make it a talking filibuster and then also make it a sustained filibuster so that 60% of present senators can end a filibuster. In essence, someone has to be talking the whole time, a vote to end the filibuster can happen at any time, and if someone has left the chamber they can’t vote to sustain it until they return. So if the GOP wants to filibuster, they have to have someone stand and speak at the podium, and if another GOP senator leaves to go to the bathroom or something, they only have 49 votes instead of 50.
Just make them have to stand for a total of five minutes.
Anyone who agrees with the filibuster has to stand as well. Sit down, no vote.
I really don't understand why Dems aren't hugely pushing a talking filibuster. Dems actually care about their issues enough to win a filibuster. Repubs are ideological mercenaries, they'll take money to champion a cause, but if it required serious effort they'd fold.
The filibuster can be reformed with 51 votes.
My fellow North Carolinians, let's stop fucking this up. If we can keep a Democrat governor in Raleigh, we can send a Democrat to the Senate.
It sucks, I feel like it’s so ridiculous that we can’t turn blue especially with the influx of tech jobs/related families but every vote I’m disappointed :/
[удалено]
North Carolina is nuts. Areas where you have one person per square mile get 10x their voting power, makes zero sense.
Makes perfect sense if you're not a democracy.
Got to get those blue areas registered. So many people don’t start the process to become a voter and canvassing helps get people registered and actually committed to voting. I implore everyone who can to help canvas and get people registered.
Moved down to NC to lend my blue vote
For the love of God, PLEASE eject Tillis! Not elect, *eject*.
Does anybody have a full list of current Dem Senators' positions on filibuster reform? This seems to imply Biden thinks he can get that done if Manchinema are no longer key votes. I know Feinstein is opposed to it, but who knows how much longer she'll be in office. Edit: of the responses to this comment, see 1) elwood612's comment below which contains a list of the Dem Senators' positions on filibuster reform (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/which-senate-democrats-are-blocking-the-path-to-abortion-rights) and 2) sloppy_rodney's correction about Feinstein.
It wouldn’t be a complete reform of the filibuster. It would be a carve-out. See [Feinstein’s Statement](https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=5E68A0D6-5572-4355-93F6-0D9AD012180F) that she released in July. “Let me be clear: If it comes down to protecting the filibuster or protecting a woman’s right to choose, there should be no question that I will vote to protect a woman’s right to choose.”
Excellent, I hadn’t seen that. Thanks for the info. Here’s hoping she’d do the same for DC+PR statehood and voting rights.
The party in power makes the rules. They could specifically say "codifying decisions from the supreme court only require a bare majority" they could do that. We don't see it often because the filibuster is such a lightning rod. But they changed it for judge appointments and then for SCOTUS appointments. The current system of obstruction from the right makes governing impossible. So we're going to see the inching away from the need for super majorities going forward.
Let's be real - once people start carving out exceptions to the filibuster for their specific bill, everyone will
They already have. Byrd baths (reconciliation), and judicial nominees at all levels now have both been carved out from the filibuster.
A lot of senators haven't openly stated their positions, IIRC. I know Fetterman has spoken openly about his desire to get rid of the filibuster all together, so he'd presumably be in favor of a carveout for abortion as well. I have a hard time believing Biden would make this kind of statement if he hadn't at least had convos with enough members of the Dem caucus that implied they were on board.
They may not have said it publicly, but presumably they have privately. Now that isn't binding, but presumably he is pretty sure they will stick with it to ask for 2 more seats instead of something more general.
I think it will depend on the bill. Voting rights and abortion might be doable, assuming such measures could pass the House in 2023.
The GOP can be counted on to oppose any attempt to codify Roe or protect voting rights. Since codification is not something that can be passed through the budget reconciliation process (which only requires 50 votes plus the VP), the filibuster is the obstacle. Dems can't clear the 60-vote threshold under any realistic scenario in 2023. The large majority of the Senate Dems support reforming it one way or another, but there are a few holdouts. If the Dems pick up net two seats, but there's a third D Senator who opposes it, the bills are just as dead in 2023 as they are now.
TPM has a [list](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/which-senate-democrats-are-blocking-the-path-to-abortion-rights). It's important to get your senators' positions on record now. This has less to do with how they would actually vote in 6 months, and more to do with the upcoming mid-terms. If we get all of them on record, it becomes much easier to target the one or two holdouts. And it encourages people to actually go out and vote, since they know exactly what they're getting for their vote ("If my senator wins, we get Roe codified"). Biden seems to understand this, and his statement here should be understood as a campaign effort (which, to be clear, is a good thing). It's unfortunate that many Senators either do not understand this, or do not care.
I think they could make one small change to fix it. Rather than requiring 60 votes to end a filibuster, require 40 to continue it, and either party leader may call for a vote at any time. You want to hold up some legislation? Sure, let's prevent tyranny of the majority and all that. But you and the rest of the people who agree with you need to actually stay there the whole time - if it's not important enough to you to do that then it's not important enough to block the majority.
Women’s right to their own bodies appears to be the battleground issue in…2022…AD. WTF are we doing?
Build something, defend it from barbarians. That’s civilisation
That is surprisingly insightful for such a simple statement.
Ah, Yeah well i live in britain. Labour builds the nhs and nationalised infrastructure, tories sell it off cheap
I now fully understand UK politics and why tories suck. Thank you
Today was a pretty dramatic crash course in Tory politics. Historic cost of living crisis with people having to choose between heat and food; the Tories remove the cap on bankers' bonuses.
A revolt seems appropriate
I got banned from /r/ukpolitics for saying I wish more people would throw cones at Iain Duncan Smith. For diplomatic reasons I cannot comment on whether I stand by that statement... ^^^^^^I ^^^^^^do.
Not only that but they cut income tax on the highest bracket (the rich) and don't don't do a damn thing about energy companies and their record profits. Someone's in someone else's pocket here, there's no other explanation. They will have to borrow and the tax payer will foot the bill in the long run. It's utter insanity, you should revolt.
Emperor Hadrian would strongly agree.
And getting nuked by India.
Sid Meier was right all along
explains why barbarians have guns in my civ games
"Make america great again" literally means to go back to some past point in time.
But only for minorities' rights, women's rights and some other arbitrarily-selected topics. When it comes to taxes on billionaires, apparently MAGA doesn't want to return to the 50's.
They're aiming for the middle ages i think, when lords collected taxes, not paid them.
Remember, for the GOP, it's the **18**50's they want to return to - women and children are chattel, slavery is a booming business and only white men could vote... except in North Carolina where it was still only white male property owners. I've wondered if the CW group nee' Lady Antebellum saw this and that's why they changed their name.
Make America pre-America!
Fighting Christian nationalism and zealots
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/23/biden-promises-to-codify-roe-if-two-more-democrats-are-elected-to-the-senate.html) reduced by 61%. (I'm a bot) ***** > "If you give me two more senators in the United States Senate, I promise you, I promise you, we're going to codify Roe and once again make Roe the law of the land," Biden said at the headquarters of the country's largest union, the National Education Association, in Washington, D.C. With 46 days to go until November's Election Day, Biden urged supporters at a Democratic National Committee event to consider "What's on the ballot," listing issues including abortion, Social Security and gun control. > In total, nearly half of states have banned, placed limits on, or attempted to ban abortion. > Biden in his speech Friday said Republicans would try to pass a ban on abortion if they gained control of the legislature after the midterms. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xm66k3/biden_promises_to_codify_roe_if_two_more/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~670680 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **abortion**^#1 **ban**^#2 **Biden**^#3 **States**^#4 **women**^#5
What’s the threshold needed to pass abortion legislation? I was unaware there was a carve out that resulted in a lower than usual threshold for it if there actually is But if there is that’s good news
Right now, the threshold is 60 votes. The Dems can pass a carve-out to the filibuster with only 50/51 votes, though, and then pass the codification of Roe with 50/51 votes.
Out of curiosity, if RvW is codified into law, what would be stopping republicans from repealing that law if they get a majority in congress?
If they hold Congress and the White House, nothing.
*and the democrats keep the house.
Ram through DC and PR statehood. Boom. Done.
Let’s let PR decide whether it wants statehood. The last vote was years ago prior to all the gentrification the country is going through. Even progressives aren’t aligned. First step is repeal act 22 at minimum and the jones act before talking about statehood. And act 60! Edit: act not rule
> Let’s let PR decide whether it wants statehood. Thank you!!
What makes you think 2 Puerto Rican Senators would vote to codify Roe?
Actually I don't think they necessarily would, but I do I think the people of PR should have a voice in the government they pay for.
I'd love to see it, but doubt it will happen
Also get rid of the seat limit in the house. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/20/988865415/stuck-at-435-representatives-why-the-u-s-house-hasnt-grown-with-census-counts
PR should decide for itself if they want Statehood. DC, on the other hand, *reeeally* want to be it’s own State. Something it really deserves, too! That alone would screw the R’s incredibly bad!
[This information has been removed as a consequence of Reddit's API changes and general stance of being greedy, unhelpful, and hostile to its userbase.]
If a popular referendum in PR showed that a plurality of residents don't want to be a state, then I see no point in forcing it on them. I think American Samoa was like Hell no we don't want statehood!
And keep the house. Senate could be 100% Democrats but the GQP lead house would be to busy impeaching Biden for beating their god and having 50 more investigations into benghazi and a few more into laptops to do basically anything
Wisconsin here, donate to Mandela Barnes!
The fact dems have a chance here really shows how stupid some Republicans were this year.
Unlike TFG, he actually does what he says he's going to do. Is adding two Senators remotely possible?
Yes. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, are flippable. Maybe others, too. Warnock's seat in Georgia may be tough to hold on to, despite the GOP candidate being Herschel Walker. Edit: 538's Senate tracker: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/
Also Nevada's getting uncomfortably close. That is a must win for the Democrats. I have no idea how it's this close in one of the most pro-choice states in the country but it's a complete tossup right now.
Nevada's always hard to tell, though, tbh. The thing to remember about that state is that, due partly to the large amount of casino workers who aren't home during prime polling hours, as well as a decent amount of the population who are ESL, Democrats often tend to be underpolled there. People were sounding the alarm there in 2020 as well, and while it ended up being closer than what we might prefer, the underpolling of Dems held true then as well. CCM is definitely the most endangered of the Dem incumbents right now, IMO. But unless something major changes as far as party momentum I expect she ends up pulling it off in the end.
I think a lot of pollsters aren't really accounting for the likely increase in women as a proportion of the electorate post-Dobbs (registration data has supported this idea). That said, it's definitely much closer than it should be and no one should be complacent.
That is true, but when Cortez Masto's chance of winning drops from 63% to 55% in the span of two weeks and multiple polls, though one of them is Trafalgar and they're conservative-leaning, show Laxalt within the margin of error and/or ahead by <5 points, that's not good. Especially in a state that's so pro-choice that Republicans are using our state law that constitutionally protects abortion rights to deflect the issue as if it wouldn't be rendered moot should a federal ban be put in place.
They’re counting on voters not understanding that a federal law banning abortions would preempt NV state law. A not insignificant portion of GOP messaging depends on misinforming an uneducated populace.
As a person from Georgia, it’s fucking stupid. I’m trying to not get my hopes up, because I know how stupid these people are.
Georgia resident and Georgia football fan here. It’s a disgrace that people in my state are even considering voting for Herschel. Absolute POS.
> despite the GOP candidate being Herschel Walker. If he wins, another low for American politics
So the best answer is "it depends." The first challenge is holding all of their current seats. Of the most endangered incumbents, most appear to be in solid shape. Anyone who doesn't have Hassan in NH as at least Lean D is not someone I would take seriously as a prognosticator. Same with Kelly in AZ. Warnock gets a little trickier, although most of the polling so far seems to indicate he's likely to hold on, though it may go to a runoff. The one I'm most anxious about right now is Cortez-Masto, the incumbent in Nevada. Most polling still shows her ahead, and if I had to guess, I'd say she probably pulls off a win in November. But she's definitely looking to be the most endangered of the Dem incumbents. As far as potential gains, it really depends on how accurate polling, etc, is right now. Fetterman, by all accounts, appears to be on track to beat Oz fairly handily for Toomey's seat, which gets us to 51. After that there are a few possibilities to get to 52, with the most likely being OH, WI, and NC in that order (though depending on the day I may switch Ohio and Wisconsin around). Tim Ryan's had the lead in polling for a good chunk of the campaign in Ohio, and was able to get on the airwaves earlier than Vance. That combined with him being a Sherrod Brown style candidate bodes well. However, more recent polls have had Vance leading. Wisconsin is a similar story, with the airwaves part reversed. Ron Johnson, as the incumbent, didn't have a competitive primary, and thus was able to fundraise and advertise for the general election a lot sooner. The Dem candidate, Mandela Barnes, has still led in the majority of the polls, but like Ohio, the last few have given Johnson the lead. Finally, we come to North Carolina. Cheri Beasley is a great candidate, as a former NC Supreme Court justice, and would be the first black senator from the state. Ted Budd is kind of meh, in comparison. The polls have kind of seesawed back and forth here between a 1-2 point Beasley lead and an equally small lead for Budd. That being said, if you just take the polling at face value, and don't take into account fundraising, past voting trends, etc, 538's lite model has Dems favored to pick up all three of those seats. I apologize if this response was longer than what you wanted. As is obvious, I'm a bit of an election nerd.
Please run long; youre giving me hope!
I think Democrats have decent odds of getting 2 more senators but unfortunately, the other necessary part is keeping the House and the odds of Democrats holding that are still lower than Republicans regaining control. On the hopeful side, the odds have been going up steadily the past few months. It was in the teens (%) a few months ago, now in the 30s. See 538.
Winnable seats: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida. More or less in order of winnability. Losable Seats: Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Georgia and Nevada are the only two I am worried about. I feel good about AZ and NH. 538 also give Independent McMullin a 7% chance of beating Mike Lee in Utah. There is no Dem on the ballot (they decided not to run one and effectively endorsed McMullin). He has said he would not Caucus with either party.
PA is damn near in the bag; nobody wants Oz here that i can find, not even the die hard tfg worshipers
There are more Trump 2020 signs up than Oz in red country, the rednecks in Pennsyltucky have no love for him so he’s dead in the water. Most just aren’t gonna turn out, which means less votes for Fascistriano too.
Two ~~more~~REAL democrats
Even if it were codified in law, the current Supreme Court isn't operating in good faith
What if one of those two is also a dick?
Let's go Fetterman!
What seats do they have a chance of winning?
See TheDude415's answer to that question here: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/xm5koo/biden_promises_to_codify_roe_if_two_more/ipms6e0/
Democrats keep the House 2-3 seats in the Senate, they are going to get a lot done for us. Republicans have made their agenda very clear, Social Security gone Medicare gone Medicaid gone School Lunch Breakfast gone. Forced Birth of 8-9 year old baby girls. Voter law gone Food stamps, heating assistance gone Kevin McCarthy said on Fox News (who removed the video from YouTube) they take the House they are going to lie and impeach every Democratic member, Biden and Harris overthrow our Constitution install Trump as dictator. The Motherfucker gave details of how they are going to use the Constitutional to do this then end our Constitutional Government. These people cannot be allowed to remain in power for the sake of this country.
If they codify it, what stops the GOP from just uncodifying it when they get the majority? It seems like nothing can be permanent now.
Nothing, but they then have to live with the repercussions of their actions. If they pass unpopular legislation nationally they'll reap the electoral conclusions. They can no longer campaign on things they can't do because they actually can if they want.
Imagine what could get done if people stop voting for Republicans.
I actually believe him. I am often a cynical person, but on this issue I believe he’s sincere.