So can the Democrats keep the Senate?

[JD50]

How's he an enigma? Popular former governor and although the odds are against him, he probably still has a 20% chance.

Seems like a 50/50 Senate is about the best Dems can hope for:

Consensus 2024 Senate Forecast - 270toWin

Consensus expert ratings for the 34 Senate elections to be contested in 2024

www.270towin.com

Battle for the Senate 2024 | Real Clear Polling

Battle for the Senate 2024 | Real Clear Polling

www.realclearpolling.com

I hate to go the anecdote route but you'd have to live in Maryland to understand. Maryland is a very blue state, but somehow elected Hogan twice even though he's a typical shitty republican, and he's way more popular even now than he should be.

 

[Dave_5k]

I hate to go the anecdote route but you'd have to live in Maryland to understand. Maryland is a very blue state, but somehow elected Hogan twice even though he's a typical shitty republican, and he's way more popular even now than he should be.

Aye, I think Democrats are vastly underrating and underfunding to fight the risk of Hogan stealing that Senate seat. (While it is likely to be Harris +20 or more, over 20% of democrats polled plan to vote for Hogan, making it neck-and-neck Senate race)

If Hogan wins this Senate race, it will become a permanently locked in stolen seat for Republicans until he dies or retires, almost exactly like Manchin was for the Dems in West Virginia (and as one other thread noted, the "independent" minded Manchin voted with Biden 88% of the time, which Hogan will undoubtedly match or beat for the MAGA Republicans).

 

[nickqt]

Maybe. 50-50 or 48-52 R-D shouldn't be surprising. Holding the Senate and regaining the House and White House would sure be nice.

The more concerning thing is that as the population shifts from rural areas to regional cities, Republicans will almost assuredly gain and retain a supermajority of 60+ Senate seats over the next 20-30 years. The Senate and Electoral College are both antithetical to legitimate responsive government.

 

[MrSquished]

Maybe. 50-50 or 48-52 R-D shouldn't be surprising. Holding the Senate and regaining the House and White House would sure be nice.

The more concerning thing is that as the population shifts from rural areas to regional cities, Republicans will almost assuredly gain and retain a supermajority of 60+ Senate seats over the next 20-30 years. The Senate and Electoral College are both antithetical to legitimate responsive government.

Not sure how this leads to the outcome you speak of?

 

[Dave_5k]

Maybe. 50-50 or 48-52 R-D shouldn't be surprising. Holding the Senate and regaining the House and White House would sure be nice.

The more concerning thing is that as the population shifts from rural areas to regional cities, Republicans will almost assuredly gain and retain a supermajority of 60+ Senate seats over the next 20-30 years. The Senate and Electoral College are both antithetical to legitimate responsive government.

52 D would basically require a blue tsunami with Harris - the most likely chances at 51 and 52 would be stealing seats in Texas and Florida (along with everything else going perfect in defending all the 50/50 races for the Dems), which is only even then possible due to how unliked and unlikable Scott and Cruz are.

 

[manly]

I hate to go the anecdote route but you'd have to live in Maryland to understand. Maryland is a very blue state, but somehow elected Hogan twice even though he's a typical shitty republican, and he's way more popular even now than he should be.

I don't know enough about Hogan, but he seems "better" than Ron DeSantis or Greg Abbott.

These electoral anomalies happen, such as well-respected Charlie Baker previously in Mass (and Romney before that), and Andy Beshear in Kentucky. Hogan is the underdog but he's got a puncher's chance.

Not sure how this leads to the outcome you speak of?

LOL is dude trolling us? He thinks Dems will get 52 this time, but Pubs are set to hold 60 seats within a generation? Like WTflyingF?

For reference, The Hill has the GOP with a 70% chance of taking the Senate. Democrats have a lot of work left to do in these two short months.

 

[JD50]

I don't know enough about Hogan, but he seems "better" than Ron DeSantis or Greg Abbott.

These electoral anomalies happen, such as well-respected Charlie Baker previously in Mass (and Romney before that), and Andy Beshear in Kentucky. Hogan is the underdog but he's got a puncher's chance.

Oh he definitely is, but that's a pretty low bar and doesn't change the fact that he will vote with Republicans in the Senate the vast majority of the time. He tends to take a lot of credit for things he had nothing to do with, like veto proof bills that the Democratic legislature passed and Hogan wouldn't sign. He never once showed his face at the annual pride parade in Annapolis... until this year. He also pretended to talk a big game about being anti-Trump but when it came down to it he decided to write in Ronald Reagan instead of voting for the only person who could actually beat Trump.

 

[JD50]

Not sure how this leads to the outcome you speak of?

He probably means people moving from shithole red states that might have a chance to go purple, to already solidly blue states.

 

[nickqt]

Not sure how this leads to the outcome you speak of?

People moving out of rural states to large regional cities doesn't create a balanced Senate.

3 Republican voters and 2 Democratic voters in Wyoming = 2 Republican Wyoming Senators.

10-12 super populated regional cities drawing Democratic voters from surrounding states = less Democratic Senators. I'm not a prophet, it's been brought up by a lot of people. It's just math.

52 D would basically require a blue tsunami with Harris - the most likely chances at 51 and 52 would be stealing seats in Texas and Florida (along with everything else going perfect in defending all the 50/50 races for the Dems), which is only even then possible due to how unliked and unlikable Scott and Cruz are.

I mixed up the letters, I meant 48-52 D-R. I should have put the letters with the numbers instead of making it parallel ratios.

So, 48D - 52R.

 

[MrSquished]

People moving out of rural states to large regional cities doesn't create a balanced Senate.

3 Republican voters and 2 Democratic voters in Wyoming = 2 Republican Wyoming Senators.

10-12 super populated regional cities drawing Democratic voters from surrounding states = less Democratic Senators. I'm not a prophet, it's been brought up by a lot of people. It's just math.


I mixed up the letters, I meant 48-52 D-R. I should have put the letters with the numbers instead of making it parallel ratios.

So, 48D - 52R.

Do you have any interstate immigration data to back anything you just proposed about how drastically our geographical population will change in the next 30 years? Any trend?

 

[manly]

Do you have any interstate immigration data to back anything you just proposed about how drastically our geographical population will change in the next 30 years? Any trend?

To change the topic a bit, there is some evidence that Texas could be purple in the next decade and that would change the Electoral College math dramatically in Dems favor. Obviously having even one Democratic Senator from TX would make it a bit harder for Repugs to have 60.

Page 31 - Kamala vs the Orange Felon - Presidential Race 2024 - Polls, News, Etc...

Page 31 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

Demographically TX should already be more competitive, but they keep electing the same dirtbags like Greg Abbott and Ted Cruz to office by healthy margins.

Nationally, one of the large instances of interstate migration that we know about is that there are burgeoning Latino communities all over the country now, because service workers are needed basically everywhere.

 

[nickqt]

Do you have any interstate immigration data to back anything you just proposed about how drastically our geographical population will change in the next 30 years? Any trend?

Are you going to make an argument that regional cities are going to get smaller with the Democratic voters of those regional cities moving to rural areas to enjoy all of the great opportunities that rural areas offer them?

Where do you live and work?

 

[MrSquished]

Are you going to make an argument that regional cities are going to get smaller with the Democratic voters of those regional cities moving to rural areas to enjoy all of the great opportunities that rural areas offer them?

Where do you live and work?

So that sounds like a no, you don't have any data, just feelings.

 

[nickqt]

So that sounds like a no, you don't have any data, just feelings.

And you didn't answer my question. You definitely just won a big argument.

 

[MrSquished]

And you didn't answer my question. You definitely just won a big argument.

You made a very bold assertion about massive population movement in the US. I just asked for any sort of data at all to back that up. A very fair question before anybody wastes time on any discussion with it.

 

[nickqt]

You made a very bold assertion about massive population movement in the US. I just asked for any sort of data at all to back that up. A very fair question before anybody wastes time on any discussion with it.

Hold on.

First off, in a thread about retaining the Senate, I said 50-50 is likely, and I meant to say 52R-48D but I tried to use parallel ratios and mixed up the letters. Which I corrected. I can see the Senate being 48-52 either way. Who knows? No one until the votes are counted.

So, this entire thread is "feelings".

Second, you bolded me saying: "The more concerning thing is that as the population shifts from rural areas to regional cities"

This is happening now, and it's always been happening. You can look at census data throughout US history to see regional cities literally attracting people from rural areas to regional centers where there are jobs and opportunities that just don't exist in rural areas.

As regional cities grow, attracting more open-minded liberal-esque people, rural states are going to become more red. And as we all know, no matter how small of a population North Dakota has, they get 2 Senators. And no matter how large of a population California has, they get 2 Senators.

I didn't predict a massive population shift. I'm talking about the ongoing population growth of regional cities/megaregions over 20-30 years.

In the future, 20-30 years from now, the House will be one thing, while the Senate will be another. Unless the Senate is apportioned by population, I highly doubt that traditional conservatives won't have a solid majority, if not super majority. At least with 50 states. Adding states would change that, which is why Republicans are so against it and liberals are relatively behind it.

Again, unless you think that regional cities and megaregions are going to start dispersing liberal voters into rural areas. I think that's a far more unlikely scenario.

 

[zinfamous]

I dunno, I'm getting really bad vibes about this race. I know I know, vibes and all, but still. Hogan is an enigma in this state and Alsobrooks is nowhere to be found. It honestly seems like she's trying to lose. Or maybe they've just written off the entire Eastern Shore and that's why I don't see any Alsobrooks ads.

I have seen the same Alsobrooks ad more over the last week, during local evening news time, hell and even Amazon ads. Though, I've also seen the fucking Hogan ad on 3x back-to-back repeat during the increasingly annoying Amazon ad breaks.

 

[zinfamous]

How's he an enigma? Popular former governor and although the odds are against him, he probably still has a 20% chance.

Seems like a 50/50 Senate is about the best Dems can hope for:

Consensus 2024 Senate Forecast - 270toWin

Consensus expert ratings for the 34 Senate elections to be contested in 2024

www.270towin.com

Battle for the Senate 2024 | Real Clear Polling

Battle for the Senate 2024 | Real Clear Polling

www.realclearpolling.com

he means enigma in that Hogan is an extremely popular white Republican politician in an extremely democratic, very black voter base. He absolutely obliterated his opponent in his last governor's race. I don't even remember that guy's name.

 

[zinfamous]

Oh he definitely is, but that's a pretty low bar and doesn't change the fact that he will vote with Republicans in the Senate the vast majority of the time. He tends to take a lot of credit for things he had nothing to do with, like veto proof bills that the Democratic legislature passed and Hogan wouldn't sign. He never once showed his face at the annual pride parade in Annapolis... until this year. He also pretended to talk a big game about being anti-Trump but when it came down to it he decided to write in Ronald Reagan instead of voting for the only person who could actually beat Trump.

honestly, it was the reagan vote in that made me realize he is, indeed, just another shitty republican.

 

[eelw]

honestly, it was the reagan vote in that made me realize he is, indeed, just another shitty republican.

Yup it doesn’t matter he’s in a safe Dem state. He needs to hold his nose and vote D to clean up his party.

 

[JD50]

he means enigma in that Hogan is an extremely popular white Republican politician in an extremely democratic, very black voter base. He absolutely obliterated his opponent in his last governor's race. I don't even remember that guy's name.

Ben Jealous. Awful campaign and it's reminding me of Alsobrooks. Maybe it'll be fine and I just have PTSD from Hogan winning 2x.

 

[MrSquished]

Hold on.

First off, in a thread about retaining the Senate, I said 50-50 is likely, and I meant to say 52R-48D but I tried to use parallel ratios and mixed up the letters. Which I corrected. I can see the Senate being 48-52 either way. Who knows? No one until the votes are counted.

So, this entire thread is "feelings".

Second, you bolded me saying: "The more concerning thing is that as the population shifts from rural areas to regional cities"

This is happening now, and it's always been happening. You can look at census data throughout US history to see regional cities literally attracting people from rural areas to regional centers where there are jobs and opportunities that just don't exist in rural areas.

As regional cities grow, attracting more open-minded liberal-esque people, rural states are going to become more red. And as we all know, no matter how small of a population North Dakota has, they get 2 Senators. And no matter how large of a population California has, they get 2 Senators.

I didn't predict a massive population shift. I'm talking about the ongoing population growth of regional cities/megaregions over 20-30 years.

In the future, 20-30 years from now, the House will be one thing, while the Senate will be another. Unless the Senate is apportioned by population, I highly doubt that traditional conservatives won't have a solid majority, if not super majority. At least with 50 states. Adding states would change that, which is why Republicans are so against it and liberals are relatively behind it.

Again, unless you think that regional cities and megaregions are going to start dispersing liberal voters into rural areas. I think that's a far more unlikely scenario.

So you just expanded on your feelings while providing zero data to show any interstate immigration trends are pointing to your feelings at all. This is also very funny considering certain states, like Texas, have been getting closer and closer in elections as a trend over the last decade.

Amazing.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you going to make an argument that regional cities are going to get smaller with the Democratic voters of those regional cities moving to rural areas to enjoy all of the great opportunities that rural areas offer them?

Where do you live and work?

Most states have a handful of blue cities surrounded by a lot of red rural areas. It doesn't matter where in a state someone moves, be it rural or urban, it matters what state they move to.

Do I care if a Democratic voter moves to Austin, Texas or Loving County, Texas? No, no I do not.

 

[nickqt]

So you just expanded on your feelings while providing zero data to show any interstate immigration trends are pointing to your feelings at all. This is also very funny considering certain states, like Texas, have been getting closer and closer in elections as a trend over the last decade.

Amazing.

What parts of Texas are getting an increase in population making it closer and closer in elections? The rural areas?

Never mind, you're so set in making what I said about feelings while ignoring the fact that cities and megaregions are pulling in population that you'll ignore objective reality unless I provide you evidence that has been notarized, when census data going back to the 1700 exists and is available.

How about Ohio? Is it becoming closer and closer each over the last decade? How about Florida?

Ok then.

Most states have a handful of blue cities surrounded by a lot of red rural areas. It doesn't matter where in a state someone moves, be it rural or urban, it matters what state they move to.

Do I care if a Democratic voter moves to Austin, Texas or Loving County, Texas? No, no I do not.

You're only looking at 1 state.

There are 49 other states. So Texas becomes bluer as people move to cities/megaregions of Texas.

It's already happening in Atlanta, that has nothing to do with how the Senate is going to look in 2044-2054 when those cities and megaregions have tens of millions of people while every state that doesn't have large cities or megaregions are going to become even redder.

Are there going to be 30+ states with enough cities to give the Democratic Party 60 Senators? Can you name those 30 states? Right now the Democratic Party is competitive in about 20-23.

 

[manly]

honestly, it was the reagan vote in that made me realize he is, indeed, just another shitty republican.

Well now you guys are just being redundant.

But seriously, how many prominent Republicans didn't vote for Trump in either general election AND admitted that? I realize I'm setting the bar super low*, but that puts Hogan in rare air. I'm not saying he deserves to run well in Maryland; just that on the shittiness scale, he's not overflowing diapers.

* with Repugs, that's the only way they ever clear the bar