Quo Vadis GOP?

[Zoupa]

Or, she's bought and paid for.

Of course. No one in his right mind would ever be a centrist without being bought.

This was a non-filibuster vote specifically for the voting rights bill. I struggle to see what's centrist about upholding the filibuster anyway. The other party, right down to Collins, Murkowski and Romney voted 100% to make it harder to vote. There is no "center".

[viper37]

Or, she's bought and paid for.

Of course. No one in his right mind would ever be a centrist without being bought.

This was a non-filibuster vote specifically for the voting rights bill. I struggle to see what's centrist about upholding the filibuster anyway. The other party, right down to Collins, Murkowski and Romney voted 100% to make it harder to vote. There is no "center".

The filibuster is different matter than voting rights.

[Zoupa]

The filibuster is what's preventing voting rights safeguard. So no it's not.

[Savonarola]

But a huge historic swing to Republican support at every single level of government? If it was just about that why did the Democrats have success in 2008 and besides that was the second time it happened. So far both times the Democrats have won control of the House, Senate, and Presidency since 1980 they have gotten historically killed the following election and it kind of looks like we might see a repeat. Though the whys and hows seem really misdiagnosed each time. It gets presented like radical reforms are unpopular but the Democrats barely seemed to accomplished much and what they did accomplish tends to be weirdly popular and hang around for a long time despite big gains by the Republicans.

I don't get it. But hey it is not the Republicans also don't get big losses after they take power, just nothing so decisive as what we saw in 1994 and 2010 and it really makes no sense how local, city, and state officials get pulverized just because of something that happened in DC they have nothing to do with.

Both Clinton and Obama had over 250 representatives in the house; Republicans have not had majorities of that size in the house since the 1920s.  One reason why Republicans haven't suffered such historic defeats (in recent history) is that they haven't had as much to lose.  Harding suffered an even larger defeat in 1922 than either Clinton or Obama, but Republicans had 300 congressmen at the time.

While Democrats will almost certainly lose seats in the next election (as the president's party has in almost every election since 1827); it's almost certain that it won't be over 50 seats the way Clinton or Obama had.  There aren't that many competitive districts.

[Savonarola]

This was a non-filibuster vote specifically for the voting rights bill. I struggle to see what's centrist about upholding the filibuster anyway.

"Bottom line is very simple: The ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the Founding Fathers called 'the cooling saucer of democracy' into the rubber stamp of dictatorship. We will not let them. They want, because they can't get their way on every judge, to change the rules in mid-stream, to wash away 200 years of history. They want to make this country into a banana republic, where if you don't get your way, you change the rules. Are we going to let them? It'll be a doomsday for democracy if we do."
-Senator Charles Schumer D, New York

The Filibuster does have broad bi-partisan support; just sequentially rather than simultaneously.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think that is true. Her polling is in line with Mark Kelly overall, but probably much better for a general election. The reason being that while a large percentage of democrats don't like her, they are likely to favor her in a general election anyway, and she is doing better among most other voters.

Last poll I saw had Mark Kelly on about 47% approval, Sinema on 37%. Admittedly that was from the summer and it may have changed.

Sorry Sheilbh but this is really silly. I'm not sure that it is ever true, but her next reelection is in 2024 in a presidential year (and the following election is 2030). I doubt people are going to decline to show up to vote in an election with the president on the ballot because sinema doesn't support reforming the filibuster or whatever.

I can't find it but there was a political science paper I posted when talking about this with grumbler. In all democracies including the US winning over voters from other parties matterd more than turning out your base - but the US was the lowest and the trend was towards turning out your base mattered more.

It might not matter much in a presidential year - but I think that just bolsters my point. The US is becoming a country where uniform national swing matters more, generally, than trying to build a brand as an exception to that. I think it might work in states that are normally very hostile to your party, but in a swing state you're just going to be swept away regardless.

[Valmy]

Or, she's bought and paid for.

Of course. No one in his right mind would ever be a centrist without being bought.

Except she positioned herself as a far left person before. If she was some kind of principled centrist I would be interested in her principles. As I said I just find it confusing.

If what Dorsey is saying is correct and Arizona is going to be big time Republican soon then being a centrist Dem is not going to save her, they will just elect a Republican. There is zero reason I can see to vote against the voting rights bill.

[Valmy]

The Filibuster does have broad bi-partisan support; just sequentially rather than simultaneously.

Personally I would rather the Republicans have a free hand when they have the majority. If the people really think their ideas are so great that they want to sweep them into power then let me see all these great policies in action. The filibuster seems to me just a reason for politicians to justify blaming their own failures on the boogey man of the opposition.

[Valmy]

But a huge historic swing to Republican support at every single level of government? If it was just about that why did the Democrats have success in 2008 and besides that was the second time it happened. So far both times the Democrats have won control of the House, Senate, and Presidency since 1980 they have gotten historically killed the following election and it kind of looks like we might see a repeat. Though the whys and hows seem really misdiagnosed each time. It gets presented like radical reforms are unpopular but the Democrats barely seemed to accomplished much and what they did accomplish tends to be weirdly popular and hang around for a long time despite big gains by the Republicans.

I don't get it. But hey it is not the Republicans also don't get big losses after they take power, just nothing so decisive as what we saw in 1994 and 2010 and it really makes no sense how local, city, and state officials get pulverized just because of something that happened in DC they have nothing to do with.

Both Clinton and Obama had over 250 representatives in the house; Republicans have not had majorities of that size in the house since the 1920s.  One reason why Republicans haven't suffered such historic defeats (in recent history) is that they haven't had as much to lose.  Harding suffered an even larger defeat in 1922 than either Clinton or Obama, but Republicans had 300 congressmen at the time.

While Democrats will almost certainly lose seats in the next election (as the president's party has in almost every election since 1827); it's almost certain that it won't be over 50 seats the way Clinton or Obama had.  There aren't that many competitive districts.

Well that is certainly true. The Republicans still hold big leads in the state houses as well and it is not like they are set up to capture Oregon and California or something.

[alfred russel]

I can't find it but there was a political science paper I posted when talking about this with grumbler. In all democracies including the US winning over voters from other parties matterd more than turning out your base - but the US was the lowest and the trend was towards turning out your base mattered more.

It might not matter much in a presidential year - but I think that just bolsters my point. The US is becoming a country where uniform national swing matters more, generally, than trying to build a brand as an exception to that. I think it might work in states that are normally very hostile to your party, but in a swing state you're just going to be swept away regardless.

That is the wrong analysis. If we concede your general premise that it is all about turnout, that doesn't mean turnout is a key or even possibility for a non headline candidate. Maybe a reinvigorated Trump will drive turnout in 2024. Maybe people will be excited (or not) to vote for Kamala Harris or Biden. I don't know. But I do know that Arizona voters aren't going to decide, "well i don't care about Trump vs. Harris in 2024 and wasn't going to vote, but I'm going to show up because Sinema supported filibuster reform in 2022."

If Sinema thinks that a republican wave is coming, she isn't going to be able to super duper energize the democratic base enough in Arizona to reverse the wave heading for whatever presidential candidate is dominating nationally. But it is possible to survive as an independent democrat: the numbers are vanishing but there are senators and especially governors that are able to win in states leaning to the other party by being moderate.

[viper37]

Personally I would rather the Republicans have a free hand when they have the majority.

So, you want Canada, hey?

Newsflash: political parties rarely get elected for their ideas.  In the 1990s, the Liberal Party ran twice with the exact same platform, most important of which was to repeal the goods and services tax and scrap the free trade agreement that was sending our jobs south of the border.  The 3rd time, they removed the GST part and instead of repealing the FTA proposed to negotiate a better deal with the US.
They got elected 3 times in a row.
The current LPC has used the same trick, used the same platform 3 times in a row and got elected 3 times in a row.
I think people vote against a particular ideology rather than for something.

[jimmy olsen]

I don't think that is true. Her polling is in line with Mark Kelly overall, but probably much better for a general election. The reason being that while a large percentage of democrats don't like her, they are likely to favor her in a general election anyway, and she is doing better among most other voters.

Last poll I saw had Mark Kelly on about 47% approval, Sinema on 37%. Admittedly that was from the summer and it may have changed.

https://twitter.com/kerryeleveld/status/1484209026095214593?s=21

As of January 8th "Sinema's favorable rating among AZ Dems at a whopping 8%"

Top donors are demanding a refund

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/donors-threaten-cut-funding-sinema-527413

[The Larch]

IIRC, Sinema entered Washington politics as a fairly leftist Democrat (she actually started out in the Green Party), not that far away from the "Squad" of its time, and has been moving rightwards (or centerwards, if you prefer) since then, to the point she's currently at, which has puzzled a lot of observers given how swiftly she's evolved. It's not uncalled for to scratch one's head at that development.

[Syt]

She also seems exceedingly reluctant to explain her stances, including answering to her constituents.

[Sheilbh]

That is the wrong analysis. If we concede your general premise that it is all about turnout, that doesn't mean turnout is a key or even possibility for a non headline candidate. Maybe a reinvigorated Trump will drive turnout in 2024. Maybe people will be excited (or not) to vote for Kamala Harris or Biden. I don't know. But I do know that Arizona voters aren't going to decide, "well i don't care about Trump vs. Harris in 2024 and wasn't going to vote, but I'm going to show up because Sinema supported filibuster reform in 2022."

If Sinema thinks that a republican wave is coming, she isn't going to be able to super duper energize the democratic base enough in Arizona to reverse the wave heading for whatever presidential candidate is dominating nationally. But it is possible to survive as an independent democrat: the numbers are vanishing but there are senators and especially governors that are able to win in states leaning to the other party by being moderate.

So looking at Syt's point she now has an approval rating of 8% among Democrats and apparently it's only in the low 30s among Republicans.

I think if you are in a swing state - in a Presidential year you will largely win or not based on the national swing and your best bet is to try and boost the presidential candidate's coat-tails. It's not because you'll necessarily have too much impact on turn-out (but you might have a bit) but you just need people to vote Democrat down all the races and not hover or decide not to vote for you and go Green or whatever. It's not that you'll hurt the Presidential campaign but that if you are in a swing state where that's what's motivating people you are best place 100% tying yourself to that - unless it's like a McGovern/Goldwater nominee.

I think the only way the independent candidate does well is if they're in hostile territory because then you'll get your party's vote because it's better than another likely very conservative/liberal Republican/Democrat and you might get enough support from other voters that you're not that bad really. I think the Mancin/Collins model doesn't work if you're in a swing state, because if it's 50/50 the other side are never going to vote for you because they can get one of their own in which is better than an "independent" Dem/Rep, so the key is getting your 50% to turn out. You're better of being a generic, middle of the pack part of your party.

IIRC, Sinema entered Washington politics as a fairly leftist Democrat (she actually started out in the Green Party), not that far away from the "Squad" of its time, and has been moving rightwards (or centerwards, if you prefer) since then, to the point she's currently at, which has puzzled a lot of observers given how swiftly she's evolved. It's not uncalled for to scratch one's head at that development.

Never trust Greens/Lib Dems/third parties in a FPTP, two-party system because they're just protest voters with no clear views, who are flighty and live for the drama. Their main focus will be running through the halls of Congress shouting about how different they are from everyone else while blocking getting anything do and, more often than not, ending up backing conservative/reactionary forces because their politics is the politics of protest which is always reactionary - their entire motivation is always in opposition to something rather than defined by trying to do something