Trump’s numbers may be okay, but if Republicans can’t recruit solid candidates it won’t matter much. Missouri looks like it might be a repeat of 2012 with that raging asshole misogynist, and in other states like North Dakota and Ohio actual contenders are choosing to run for the governor’s mansion/other state-wide offices instead.
True, but on the other hand, if Democrats have to recruit Republicans to run as Democrats, their efforts may not matter much, either. For example:
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) led the red-state Democratic charge to end the shutdown by threatening to retire if Senate leaders didn’t back down.
No easy answers, certainly not in the short run.
The National party consistently supports guys like Manchin. It’s unclear whether Manchin helps the party more than he hurts it. And no, it’s not necessary to be as radical as Manchin is to win in West Virginia. Jay Rockefeller and Robert Byrd were the state’s Senators for decades.
The Democratic Party is in a long-term fight, but they never seem to want to contest any battles that are not easy walkovers. That’s how they’ve ended up the minority party in spite of the tremendous unpopularity of the Republicans.
But if the Democrats actually have a majority, even with Dem-lites, that matters immensely, as they will be the majority party, with all the perks and privileges. Might be frustrating to have some Dems defect occasionally, but seems like it would be worth it to be in control of the Senate, its agenda, etc.
I agree.
[quote=“rick, post:4, topic:67951”]
The National party consistently supports guys like Manchin. It’s unclear whether Manchin helps the party more than he hurts it.[/quote]
Good question. I don’t know the answer.
[quote=“rick, post:4, topic:67951”]
The Democratic Party is in a long-term fight, but they never seem to want to contest any battles that are not easy walkovers.[/quote]
Well, there was that dust-up in Alabama last year. The circumstances there were (thankfully) unique but maybe there are more fighters running this year.
“Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) led the red-state Democratic charge to end the shutdown by threatening to retire if Senate leaders didn’t back down.”
Really? There isn’t enough “fuck you” in the universe to explain what I think of Manchin. Wow. Threatening to take the ball and go home. Fuck this guy with a rake handle.
Wouldn’t it be great if the DNC and DSCC committed to vigorously compete in every Senate contest? Instead of making a big deal of mainly working to defend these “tough to hold” seats? Playing to avoid losing is a losing strategy. Heitcamp? Manchin? Yes, it’s about getting to majority, but their power is in threatening to bolt at anything too “liberal.” How about electing some new senators from red, pink, and purple states who win because they articulate Dem issues? The Dem platform, for instance.
Trump’s #s in those deep red states are pretty bad actually. Dems in good shape to hold their Senate seats. Just gotta pick of Heller and the AZ open seat. We have the right candidates and matchups for both.
I’m not sold on TX-Sen. GOP has a consistent +1 mill average margin in Senate elections there. Cruz will get that vote number out. The only way we win in TX is if we can find 1 million net new voters to add to the mix. That’s not impossible. Obama changed electorates that way. But 1 mill is still 1 mill. That’s an additional 250k margin out of each of the 4 major metro areas.
The circumstances there were (thankfully) unique but maybe there are more fighters running this year.
Let’s hope so but who’s message will they be running on, the Clinton/Obama message or Sanders’ more progressive/populist message? Of course this gets buried with all the other shit going on. But it’s still important.
Rockefeller and Byrd were not only the state’s Senators for decades, they were the state’s Senators decades ago. Manchin is a Dem in every sense that matters considering where he is from, not decades ago, but today: that is, in the sense that he has a D after his name. Questioning whether he hurts or helps more overall is an academic exercise. What’s the option, ditch him and either make him choose whether to run as an R or run somebody more to our liking and take the substantial risk that the person elected will not have a D next to his name? We need to concentrate on swinging the districts that are currently held by people with R’s next to their name, not griping about those with the D’s.
As trump and his administration continue to decompensate, the path for a lot of republicans is going to get harder and harder to walk. If they support trump wholeheartedly, they get a big orange anchor tied around their necks, but if they try to distance themselves, the deplorables start thinking about sitting this one out. (And we haven’t even seen primaries yet.)
Manchin is pretty much the only Democrat that will be able to hold this seat right now. I live in WV, and in spite of how progressives feel about him, he’s actually pretty popular here in WV. And believe it or not, voters in WV don’t give a shit what outsiders think. So our opinions mean nuts.
Our options are to piss off Manchin enough so he decides not to run( which, by the way, almost happened last week with the shutdown. The shutdown was wildly unpopular in WV and my very well have imperiled his re-election chances, in fact, his decision whether or not to run likely was the reason the shutdown ended so soon), and cede any chance of regaining a majority, or realize that we don’t have enough blue states to make up a Senate Majority anytime soon, and deal with the likes of him. It’s our choice. One thing I do know is that the purity games haven’t worked out so well so far.
The Daily Mail?
He’s not just West Virginia’s, nor Tennessee’s nor North Dakota’s preznit, no, he’s Russia’s!!!
SMH
i agree that there are no easy answers. It is so important to regain the majority in the Senate. Committee chairs, subpoena power, the ability to do real investigation and shape legislation – all require the party to have a majority in the Senate. Despite the defections during the shutdown negotiations, party discipline has held up surprisingly well (a pleasant surprise to those of us who remember the likes of Lieberman, Nelson etc.). Manchin did vote to save the ACA, for example. I predict that if the Dems retake the Senate, Manchin will vote to scuttle the nominations of right-wing judges, and if so, I still can’t forgive him what he did on DACA, but I think I can tolerate him.
It is terribly disheartening to see the fate of Dreamers held hostage to Manchin’s need to appease the racist voters of Appalachia, but the alternative of being unable to retake the Senate is worse. Let’s get a majority, then a supermajority, before we decide we can’t tolerate people who are not with the party on all issues.
Cruz has not been very visible of late, and I wonder if he is lying low, trying to avoid too-obvious craziness because he is worried about getting re-elected. It may be a fantasy, but I think finding those new 1 million voters and defeating him is doable.
We’ll see. If the recent past is any indication (i.e., 2010, 2014), waves get everyone wet.
In Texas, the place Dems should focus is the House races because the margins we have to make up there to win are smaller and the demographics in a number of these seats is technically on our side. If we run a lot of latino candidates who can tap into the dormant latino vote in districts where latinos make up over 30% of the electorate (and you’d be surprised how many of them exist in TX), we can create a ripple effect that pushes Beto over the top. I count 13 Congressional districts in TX worth targeting. I think we could win 3 to 5. If we’ve really got our turnout game on, then that number could be as high as 8 or 9. That’s where I am focusing in TX.
Last time I looked it was January. These stories are premature. The game changes every day.