Quo Vadis GOP?

[Jacob]

What's the current sense on the midterms? I saw headlines that it's leaning GOP for both House and Senate, but I don't know how reflective that is.

[Barrister]

I've heard talk about a US constitutional convention for my entire life.  It hasn't happened yet.

But the thing is - not only do they need 34 states to call for the convention, it has to be ratified by 38 states.  There is no way you're going to get 38 state legislatures controlled by hard-right republicans who will pass some hard-right new constitution.

[Barrister]

What's the current sense on the midterms? I saw headlines that it's leaning GOP for both House and Senate, but I don't know how reflective that is.

538 gives the Democrats a 62% chance of winning control of the Senate, while the GOP a 75% chance of control of the House.

So things are all very much in play right now.

[The Minsky Moment]

Realistic or alarmistic?

34 states can apply for a convention to be called to propose amendments.  Congress then calls the Convention. But all the Convention can do is propose the amendments.  It then has to ratified through the usual means, i.e. by 3/4 of the states or 38 states.  38 states is still the magic number.

Also, implicit in the Bannon proposal is the assumption that the applying states could limit the scope of what the Convention could consider or propose, a constitutionally dubious assumption.  Otherwise the Convention could also result in proposals to e.g., incorporate an explicit right to privacy, amend the 2nd amendment to permit greater restrictions on gun rights, a right to affordable health care access, or other potential popular proposals that the Bannon people wouldn't like.

[Valmy]

What's the current sense on the midterms? I saw headlines that it's leaning GOP for both House and Senate, but I don't know how reflective that is.

538 gives the Democrats a 62% chance of winning control of the Senate, while the GOP a 75% chance of control of the House.

So things are all very much in play right now.

It was 70% Democrats in the Senate a short time ago. Things are turning the GOP's way.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm not terribly alarmed by the GOP using constitutional means to further their agenda. I mean they already tried a coup.

Given the general situation in the US though, it might make sense for the sensible forces to push malcontent states to leave the Union. Waiting until the sensible ones will have to be the ones to leave may be a high-risk tactic. If you provoke GOP states to leave first then the seat on the security council and the position as official nuclear weapons power according to the NPT would still be in sensible hands.

I see it the other way - we'd be in better shape if Canada had just let the US conquer them in 1812, and help dilute some of the crazy.  Yes it would be tough on Canadians to lose their national identity but sometimes you've got to take one for the human being team.

[Barrister]

What's the current sense on the midterms? I saw headlines that it's leaning GOP for both House and Senate, but I don't know how reflective that is.

538 gives the Democrats a 62% chance of winning control of the Senate, while the GOP a 75% chance of control of the House.

So things are all very much in play right now.

It was 70% Democrats in the Senate a short time ago. Things are turning the GOP's way.

That was in the midst of a global economic meltdown and at the same time as one of the best orators I've ever seen was running for President.

On the other hand even in the midst of an off-year election and the highest inflation in 40 years the GOP at most picks up a handful of seats in the House, and may pick up no Senate seats.

[Valmy]

Yeah this isn't going to be some 1994, 2006, 2010 swing to the opposition party. The Republicans are going to at least win the House but after the 2020 census that was a pretty likely scenario anyway with Democrats having such a tiny majority. And as you say, the Democrats are kind of fucked due to economic conditions that are largely, though not entirely of course, outside of their control.

The idea that the current guys in office are to blame for complex economic conditions that are the result of decisions made many years before, often by people who were not even in the US government, is a dangerous notion IMO. It puts all kinds of pressure for the government to control economics which is generally a bad deal. I hated it when Clinton made his "it's the economy stupid" statement in 1992 and I hate it now. But it is just how it works, no point moaning about it. Sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you don't. Besides it is not like strong economic conditions did the Republicans much good in 2018.

It was a miracle that the Democrats got control of the Senate in 2020. The Republicans are a powerful coalition of populists, nativists, social conservatives, and anarchist-libertarian types of all stripes. That is a difficult overlap of forces. They are especially potent out of power, as benefitting from public rage at the establishment is when they are most effective politically.

I probably should just be grateful that the Democrats have a shot to repeat the miracle in 2022 and hold the Senate under the circumstances. But things were looking much better over the summer. I hate to see things trending south right at the end.

[Barrister]

Yeah this isn't going to be some 1994, 2006, 2010 swing to the opposition party. The Republicans are going to at least win the House but after the 2020 census that was a pretty likely scenario anyway with Democrats having such a tiny majority. And as you say, the Democrats are kind of fucked due to economic conditions that are largely, though not entirely of course, outside of their control.

There was every reason to think it would be a huge swing to the opposition like 1994, 2006, 2018 and 2010 were.  GOP thought there would be.

A series of GOP self-owns took away a lot of that momentum, but the idea there would be significant Dem gains was always a fantasy, and we've probably seen a minor 'reversion to the norm' and will end up with slight GOP gains.

[Valmy]

Somebody on this board pointed out that due to gerrymandering even a big Republican swing wouldn't move the needle that much due to the Democrats majority being so small. The Democrats floor is not far from where they currently sit, at least in the House.

But we will see. I am just hoping for 14 Democratic Congress reps from Texas.

[alfred russel]

T

Somebody on this board pointed out that due to gerrymandering even a big Republican swing wouldn't move the needle that much due to the Democrats majority being so small. The Democrats floor is not far from where they currently sit, at least in the House.

But we will see. I am just hoping for 14 Democratic Congress reps from Texas.

I'd be shocked if the republicans don't get the house and the way that things work now with mostly gerrymandered seats and more radical membership is that a small majority is little different than a big one.

Because the senate class that is up now is from 2016, when trump won and brought in a big senate republican class, the republicans have little room for gains. The room they do have was possibly squandered by nominating really awful candidates in almost every competitive seat. But if Republicans can pick up 4 seats in the senate they will have a real shot at 60 in the coming couple of cycles, which would be a filibuster proof majority, because 2018 was something of a democratic wave and republicans could have a bunch of easy pickups.

The nomination of senate republican psychos is the real wild card. If there is a wave, they could squeek in, and if the wave is that big it could then bring in more normal candidates that republicans have in races that are in less favorable ground like Colorado. On the other hand, if the wave isn't big enough to bring in the psychos, the democrats may pick up a senate seat or two even in a wave (see Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio).

[Valmy]

I'd be shocked if the republicans don't get the house and the way that things work now with mostly gerrymandered seats and more radical membership is that a small majority is little different than a big one.

That is an interesting and true point. The Democrats have not been all that inconvenienced by the smallness of their majority either, at least in the House. The Senate is the only place where more independent voices can screw things up for you.

That and the ridiculous powers the speaker now has thanks to Paul Ryan. Debates and horse trading and modifications to bills seems to be a thing of the past. It is all a up or down vote and nothing comes to the floor the speaker doesn't want to come to the floor.

[The Minsky Moment]

If the GOP does take a thin majority in the Senate, the silver lining is that the filibuster will finally be killed off for good. 

[alfred russel]

If the GOP does take a thin majority in the Senate, the silver lining is that the filibuster will finally be killed off for good. 

I disagree. They didn't kill it off with a majority in both houses and the white house, they won't do it with Biden as president.

[The Minsky Moment]

If the GOP does take a thin majority in the Senate, the silver lining is that the filibuster will finally be killed off for good. 

I disagree. They didn't kill it off with a majority in both houses and the white house, they won't do it with Biden as president.

They will do it to push through the national abortion ban.  The party has become more radicalized now than it was then.