Archy1221 Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 34 minutes ago, NM11046 said: Please name ANYONE who believes and advocates for late term "abortion on demand". You can't. I can name PLENTY of Democrats who refuse to put limits on abortion when asked what the limits should be. Your favorite candidate in Florida is one who wouldn’t say in the Senate debate in case you were wondering. Fetterman is another, Tim Ryan is another. 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 10 hours ago, Archy1221 said: I can name PLENTY of Democrats who refuse to put limits on abortion when asked what the limits should be. Your favorite candidate in Florida is one who wouldn’t say in the Senate debate in case you were wondering. Fetterman is another, Tim Ryan is another. Because setting limits on a problem that really isn’t a problem creates legal confusion and lack of quality services for the procedures you’re okay with. 3 1 Link to comment
nic Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 3 hours ago, funhusker said: Because setting limits on a problem that really isn’t a problem creates legal confusion and lack of quality services for the procedures you’re okay with. It should be limited between 15 and 20 weeks…just like most of Europe. Maybe we will get there someday. 1 Link to comment
nic Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 I didn’t know the Republican in the Nevada senate race was gaining ground. The Governor race flipped Republican recently too. Caveat is that polls seem to be wrong lately. Or maybe Nevada is flipping red. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/21/nevada-senate-race-dead-heat-00062850 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/governor/2022/nevada/ 1 Link to comment
Dr. Strangelove Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 38 minutes ago, nic said: I didn’t know the Republican in the Nevada senate race was gaining ground. The Governor race flipped Republican recently too. Caveat is that polls seem to be wrong lately. Or maybe Nevada is flipping red. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/21/nevada-senate-race-dead-heat-00062850 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/governor/2022/nevada/ Like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida, Nevada will be a permanently red state in the near future. The current PVI of Nevada R+2 or so, and it's increasing every election cycle. Soon, states like Nevada will essentially turn into what Iowa and Ohio are today, former swing states that Democrats cannot compete in. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted October 21, 2022 Author Share Posted October 21, 2022 1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said: Like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida, Nevada will be a permanently red state in the near future. The current PVI of Nevada R+2 or so, and it's increasing every election cycle. Soon, states like Nevada will essentially turn into what Iowa and Ohio are today, former swing states that Democrats cannot compete in. It cycles. States change over decades. Some states like Virgina seem to change every 6-8 years. Link to comment
Dr. Strangelove Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 1 hour ago, TGHusker said: It cycles. States change over decades. Some states like Virgina seem to change every 6-8 years. They do, the current trend is great for Republicans. The country is increasingly urbanized, and because the extreme rural bias of the Senate, this hurts Democrats. If the Democrats lose the Senate, which is extremely likely, they probably don't win it back for 12-14 years. Which means that since 2014, Democrats will control the Senate a grand total of 2 years out of 20 by the time they get it back in the 2030s. By then, the court system will be so packed with Republican judges the game is over. The reason Democrats are so apocalyptic is because they realize they've lost the game of politics, it's sort of over for them. 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted October 21, 2022 Author Share Posted October 21, 2022 36 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said: They do, the current trend is great for Republicans. The country is increasingly urbanized, and because the extreme rural bias of the Senate, this hurts Democrats. If the Democrats lose the Senate, which is extremely likely, they probably don't win it back for 12-14 years. Which means that since 2014, Democrats will control the Senate a grand total of 2 years out of 20 by the time they get it back in the 2030s. By then, the court system will be so packed with Republican judges the game is over. The reason Democrats are so apocalyptic is because they realize they've lost the game of politics, it's sort of over for them. Yes, but demographics are changing too. Texas isn't as red as it once was and Florida has been more in play as well. Besides more of us Boomers and the generation before us are 'aging out of the system' - which I believe means fewer reliable voters for the GOP. Link to comment
Dr. Strangelove Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 11 minutes ago, TGHusker said: Yes, but demographics are changing too. Texas isn't as red as it once was and Florida has been more in play as well. Besides more of us Boomers and the generation before us are 'aging out of the system' - which I believe means fewer reliable voters for the GOP. I think my point is that it doesn't matter. Most people are moving to the same few cities, which makes them easier to gerrymander and reduces the number of Sentors they elect. If current trends continue, 30% of Americans will elect 70 Senators by 2040. There isn't anything Democrats can do to combat that, short of trying to convince rural voters - currently convinced there's widespread election fraud and Donald Trump will save them - to vote for them. Link to comment
nic Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 3 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said: Like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida, Nevada will be a permanently red state in the near future. The current PVI of Nevada R+2 or so, and it's increasing every election cycle. Soon, states like Nevada will essentially turn into what Iowa and Ohio are today, former swing states that Democrats cannot compete in. Seriously? I understand why Florida swung back. I can see why Pennsylvania might. Why Nevada and Wiscy? edit: if this is true, the Dems will have a hard time winning the presidency without an Obama like candidate or a bad candidate on the Republican side. At least for a couple generations. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted October 21, 2022 Author Share Posted October 21, 2022 5 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said: I think my point is that it doesn't matter. Most people are moving to the same few cities, which makes them easier to gerrymander and reduces the number of Sentors they elect. If current trends continue, 30% of Americans will elect 70 Senators by 2040. There isn't anything Democrats can do to combat that, short of trying to convince rural voters - currently convinced there's widespread election fraud and Donald Trump will save them - to vote for them. I see what you are saying now. And that is a big problem. The 2 Senators from my home state of SD have as much 'influence' as the 2 Senators from Calif, or NY or Texas. When some of these red states elect the likes of Hershal Walker or in the house MTG (what the $^%^ is wrong with Georgia?) and we end up with more flakes (Not Jeff Flake mind you) in the Senate, we will see dysfunction and obstruction which will interfere with good governance. IF the GOP wins both houses the next 2 years will be one big fiasco. Link to comment
Dr. Strangelove Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 37 minutes ago, nic said: Seriously? I understand why Florida swung back. I can see why Pennsylvania might. Why Nevada and Wiscy? edit: if this is true, the Dems will have a hard time winning the presidency without an Obama like candidate or a bad candidate on the Republican side. At least for a couple generations. The Presidency will be a bit easier. Even though it will still have a rural bias, it at least has some weight for bigger states. Texas, for example, may be a solid blue state in the mid 2030s giving Democrats a large Electoral College advantage for a time, however, they can only elect two Senators no matter how many voters live there. Link to comment
nic Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 24 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said: The Presidency will be a bit easier. Even though it will still have a rural bias, it at least has some weight for bigger states. Texas, for example, may be a solid blue state in the mid 2030s giving Democrats a large Electoral College advantage for a time, however, they can only elect two Senators no matter how many voters live there. With Latinos moving toward republicans, why do you think Texas will flip Blue? Influx of people from California? Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said: Most people are moving to the same few cities, which makes them easier to gerrymander and reduces the number of Sentors they elect. What? Each state gets two whether the people live in urban or rural sections of the state Also I assume you understand Senate races aren’t affected by gerrymandering, (your post is confusing and makes it sound like it affects the number of Senators) and it’s been shown countless times that gerrymandering is a D and R problem. 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 1 hour ago, TGHusker said: And that is a big problem. The 2 Senators from my home state of SD have as much 'influence' as the 2 Senators from Calif, or NY or Texas. No, it’s not a problem. It’s by design. The House is the representative component of the legislature. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts