2020 US Election (Part One)

[Socrates99]

So I'm only just starting to dig into the Senate races (which some people don't even realize are happening - it's one-third every 2 years, people!). I found some maps that I thought were helpful.

Current state-by-state Senate representation by party. Red means that state is represented by 2 Republicans, blue means 2 Democrats, purple means one of each.

State-by-state seats up for election in 2020. Red means a Republican seat is on the block, blue means a Democratic seat, grey means no Senate seats are up. I believe that, barring something sudden like a death (we can see "AZ Special", for instance), only 1 seat in a given state is up for grabs during one election.

Currently, the Republicans have a small lead. Democrats need to net 3 more seats in 2020 to achieve a 50-50 split (in any 50-50 vote, the Vice President casts the deciding 101st vote).

Maps are courtesy of Rasmussen, and are 10 months old. I'm not sure anything has changed since then, but I haven't looked.

Don't even ask me about the House. I can barely even remember how many people are in that chamber. Is it 435? I think it's 435.

So 2020 is the opposite of 2018, more Republicans are up for reelection than dems. Head of the ticket is a big deal. Dems need somebody who excites the base. Go home Joe.

I worry about my state. It went Trump by a small margin and Peters is the weaker of our two senators. Biden at the top of the ticket is going to be a repeat of Hillary. This time Trump could help a Senate challenger too. John James was a solid choice against Stabenow in 2018. He could beat Peters in 2020 if he runs again. Stabenow only beat him by 300k votes in a year that was a supposed blue wave.

 

[Ironsided]

Go home Joe.

..6 feet under ground ..and take Nancy with you.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So 2020 is the opposite of 2018, more Republicans are up for reelection than dems

Right but few of the seats up for election in red states are actually competitive. To me it looks as much an opportunity for the GOP to expand their lead in the senate as it is for Democrats to catch up. Even with a hot candidate at the top, I don't expect the Democrats to flip Wyoming or West Virginian, for example.

 

[Socrates99]

Right but few of the seats up for election in red states are actually competitive. To me it looks as much an opportunity for the GOP to expand their lead in the senate as it is for Democrats to catch up. Even with a hot candidate at the top, I don't expect the Democrats to flip Wyoming or West Virginian, for example.

Well most of the dems are safe too. Really I only think Jones AL and Peters MI are vulnerable. Dems need a serious populist to protect those seats. A progressive like Warren might work but I'd feel safer with a populist like Bernie.

 

[Lexicus]

Tbh Jones will be made more vulnerable by a left candidate at the top, because it will be more apparent how flaccid he is

 

[hobbsyoyo]

@Socrates99
I don't think it matters what Democrat is at the top for the wide majority of races in red states. They won't vote for anyone with a D next to their name, no matter who's running for Senate or the Presidency. There are a few edge cases like Arizona and Alabama but those always depend on outside factors more than anything - like Alabama putting a rapist on the ticket or Arizona putting up someone who already lost and then was appointed by the governor.

Tbh Jones will be made more vulnerable by a left candidate at the top, because it will be more apparent how flaccid he is

I agree this is going to be a huge problem in red states. Whatever Democrat winds up on the Senate ticket will be running against the President in a lot of ways (unless it's Biden) as they think going progressive will cost them the election.

 

[Zardnaar]

Expect Doug to lose Alabama so Dems need 4 Senate seats plus presidency.

There's no liberal seats left to pick up.

 

[Berzerker]

What? Who? I can't find any.

Watch MSNBC... Look at your quotes, all 4 imply Bolton is a source of stability. Murphy said 'I’m no Bolton fan, but'...but what? Bolton should stay? Tucker Carlson over at Fox is rejoicing Bolton is out, why aren't these Democrats?

I've seen a parade of numerous Democrats on MSNBC lament the fact Bolton got fired. Why? They complained when he was hired!

Democrats Should Feel Free to Say It’s Great That John Bolton Is Gone

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/democrats-react-to-john-boltons-white-house-exit.html

Democrats, however, can’t celebrate that Bolton is gone, because that would be applying a positive spin to a development at the White House. So in the immediate hours after Bolton’s firing/resignation numerous Democrats issued statements decrying the “chaos” at the White House when simple statements of confetti emoji would have sufficed.

The author proceeds to quote the same people you did.

 

[rah]

Partisan Politics, who would have guessed.

 

[Takhisis]

I was kind of thinking we always get used as the gold standard, don't we? Little rural districts? I could dig more, but every time I get bored enough to wade into county voting data it comes back approximately as actualized into actual voting.

As for the actual question, if you don't have a vehicle, you don't work. If you work, you are probably commuting out of township. So either way, the people voting are usually driving. It's not really an optional expense. I do, generally, ride a bike on voting day. Unless there's other stuff going on, then it's whether or not I get back home-ish before they close. Probably somewhere ~2/3 of the voters as in the referenced 2,500 per polling station.

It's so alien to me; here in the megalopolis there simply isn't enough space for people to have a car apiece. It makes sense once you explain it, but it's not that intuitive.

Also (I've seen it earlier in the thread) the bit about the US holding elections on working days is simply outlandish. Here it's always on a Sunday so that if need be you can travel on Saturday, and registration is automatic.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

State-by-state seats up for election in 2020. Red means a Republican seat is on the block, blue means a Democratic seat, grey means no Senate seats are up. I believe that, barring something sudden like a death (we can see "AZ Special", for instance), only 1 seat in a given state is up for grabs during one election.

Each Senator has a 6 year term, staggered so that 1/3 of them are elected each 2 years. Normally a state has either 1 or 0 Senators elected each 2 years.

This election cycle, however, both of Georgia's senate seats are up for grabs. Johnny Isakson is not dead, but due to his worsening Parkinson's Disease he has decided to resign effective December 31, 2019. Governor Brian Kemp may appoint a temporary replacement but there must be a special election on November 3rd, 2020. If no candidate wins a clear majority then there will be a runoff on January 5, 2021. Then things will revert to the normal schedule with another election for that same seat in 2022.



The number of members in Congress was set at 435 by a statute passed on 1911. Before that, they used to increase the size of the house regularly to account for population growth.

If Congress has continued to grow like the founders intended, the House would have over 2000 members now. Wyoming would still have only 1 representative in the house, while Texas and California would have several hundreds each.

The Electoral College is required to have 1 member per senator and per representative from each state, so that 1911 statute also grants more rural states a huge unfair advantage in presidential elections. Neither Trump nor George W. Bush would have had much of a chance of winning if the larger states had the number of representatives or electors that they were really due based on their populations.

 

[Socrates99]

@Socrates99
I don't think it matters what Democrat is at the top for the wide majority of races in red states. They won't vote for anyone with a D next to their name, no matter who's running for Senate or the Presidency. There are a few edge cases like Arizona and Alabama but those always depend on outside factors more than anything - like Alabama putting a rapist on the ticket or Arizona putting up someone who already lost and then was appointed by the governor.


I agree this is going to be a huge problem in red states. Whatever Democrat winds up on the Senate ticket will be running against the President in a lot of ways (unless it's Biden) as they think going progressive will cost them the election.

Elections aren't really about convincing people from the other side. Most party affiliated voters are TFGs (too far gone.) It's about exciting your base while suppressing your opponent's. That's the tactic Trump used in 2016 and it worked.

Down ballot races do benefit from the top of the ticket. An embattled senator can get a boost if the presidential nominee excites voters. Even a dumb centrist will get a bump over a Republican if a "far left" candidate is running for potus since they could be more easily pressured into supporting a progressive agenda than a Republican could.

 

[Zkribbler]

that 1911 statute also grants more rural states a huge unfair advantage in presidential elections.

The Electoral College is set up in the Constitution, not by any statute.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The Electoral College is set up in the Constitution, not by any statute.

The Electoral College is set up in the Constitution, but it is a 1911 statute that sets the total number of members of the House of Representatives and thus the Electoral College.

The more electors there are in the Electoral College based on representatives in the House, the less the +2 electors per state based on the senate would matter. If we had 300 million house districts then the electoral college's bias towards less populace states would be completely negligible.


It seems that I was mistaken about how large a disparity there is between the size of districts in different states though. I thought I remembered reading somewhere that things had gotten so bad that the most populace state had more than 10x as many people per congressional district than the least populace state, but the first chart I found in a DuckDuckGo search showed that the people of Montana are the least represented in the house (with 994,416 people per representative) while the most represented are the people of Wyoming with (568,300 people per representative). I guess this is a much less serious issue than I thought.

https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml

 

[Commodore]

I see why you're confused. You might not know this, but American Congresscritters vote for policy that affects people outside of their District.

Way to act like a condescending ass. Yes I am aware they vote on national laws, but they do so, in theory, according to the interests of their constituents. Expecting, or even hoping, for a district to vote against its own interests in favor of interests of some outside and, dare I say, foreign district is unreasonable and a waste if time.

I would also say outsiders trying to influence election results in a particular district would be tantamount to a foreign power attempting to influence the election and should be just as illegal. And yes, I think this applies to Republicans as well. Candidates should not be allowed to accept donations or any other support from people or organizations outside their district. That includes the DNC and RNC.

Basically, I want US politics to become much more localized and start breaking down national-level political organization. The US wasn't meant to be run as a singular nation, and really all the problems we are seeing now started once the federal government shifted its identity from a collection of semi-autonomous states that support and defend common interests to a singular nation.

 

[Berzerker]

if I cant have a voice in who represents your district, your representative should have no voice in my district

 

[Commodore]

if I cant have a voice in who represents your district, your representative should have no voice in my district

Ok. My representative doesn't have a voice on your district though. All my representative does is vote on bills presented before him. Just because the result of that vote may have an impact on your district does not mean my representative has a voice in your district.

Also I don't like the implication that you are somehow entitled to a voice in my district just because federal laws my rep votes for may may impact you. I mean, a lot of US policies have an impact on other nations, does that mean they should be allowed to interfere in our elections? The answer is no. Just because something impacts you does not automatically entitle you to a voice in that thing. You don't live in my district, you don't spend your money in my district, you don't pay taxes in my district, therefore you are not entitled to a voice in my district.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

Expecting, or even hoping, for a district to vote against its own interests in favor of interests of some outside and, dare I say, foreign district is unreasonable and a waste if time.

I would also say outsiders trying to influence election results in a particular district would be tantamount to a foreign power attempting to influence the election and should be just as illegal. And yes, I think this applies to Republicans as well. Candidates should not be allowed to accept donations or any other support from people or organizations outside their district. That includes the DNC and RNC.
[snip]

I agree with this position. In Seattle, there is a city council member (Kshama Sawant) whose vast majority of funding comes from Socialist Alternative (her party), from back east (like Minnesota). She’s extremely divisive to say the least (she has actually said “you’re either with me or part of the problem”) and has voted against the best interest of Seattle and has meddled in projects for other districts (her district is Capitol Hill, the progressive gayborhood, she’s loudly proclaimed South Seattle, North Seattle, and Magnolia as regressive and in need of turning greenspace into affordable housing and to getting on board with Rent Control).

 

[Lexicus]

Way to act like a condescending ass.

You said something incredibly stupid so condescension is the least you can expect.

Also I don't like the implication that you are somehow entitled to a voice in my district just because federal laws my rep votes for may may impact you. I mean, a lot of US policies have an impact on other nations, does that mean they should be allowed to interfere in our elections? The answer is no. Just because something impacts you does not automatically entitle you to a voice in that thing. You don't live in my district, you don't spend your money in my district, you don't pay taxes in my district, therefore you are not entitled to a voice in my district.

The First Amendment entitles me to express opinions about what goes on in any district. If you don't like it move to China.

 

[El_Machinae]

You don't live in my district, you don't spend your money in my district, you don't pay taxes in my district, therefore you are not entitled to a voice in my district.

I don't get a vote, that's for sure. If you don't like me butting I can understand. Ostensibly I have a stake in anything that leaves your state. For example, if your district is likely to vote to increase global pollution, I should say something.

I think we both understand that, although parsing out when my interference is justified or not is hard.

What should really concern you is donor money, because obviously money can have an incredible dark effect. I might be wrong, but I think only Bernie Sanders has an active plan to reduce the amount of outside influence they can be brought to bear on your district.

Something to consider. Bernie has been screaming about citizens united the loudest. And you are definitely distressed about outside people caring about local election results