American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

She's an opportunist, plain and simple. Follow the money and that's where you'll find Sinema. Face down wallowing at the trough. She's going to face a primary challenge in Arizona, if she doesn't just walk away for some swanky consulting gig. Count on it.

Sinema is cut from the same grifter cloth as Gabbard, she'll have a book called "How The Left Lies" and a routine Fox News appearance gig in short order.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Gabbard never was a liberal in any sense of he word though. Sinema was very liberal, given her lifestyle. She was a voice for the LGBT community at one point which is what makes her choices hard to take by her supporters. She has changed dramatically since getting to Washington. She's got a taste of what power and money is like and she likes them both. She'll do whatever it takes to maintain access to both.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Latest Arizona update.

Hobbs - 1,157,606
Lake - 1,123,376

Hobbs +34,230

This based on the latest "strong Republican" tranche.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1591600361365983234

Doing some math on the back of the napkin...

Pima has been breaking to Hobbs 20-25 points consistently. Still 47,597 votes outstanding.

Coconino has been breaking for Hobbs in the same way. Still 2,702 votes outstanding.

Early voting (mail-in) has been breaking for Hobbs by about 6-8 points. Just under 52,000 votes there.

Total outstanding from non-Maricopa is 326 ballots.

Maricopa has 177,000 ballots left, and has been breaking predominantly for Hobbs, but the tweeter above (who hasn't been right yet) is certain a red wave is about to hit and the remaining vote will go Lake's way BIGLY. With that in mind I suspect that by time Pima and Coconino are all done, and that early vote is finally tabulated, that Hobbs will have a 52,000 vote lead. That should mean that Lake will need 65% of the vote, or 30 point advantage (65/35 split). We have not seen this in anything but the most rural parts of the state. Not impossible, but based on the trends in Maricopa that would be a 38 point swing which just doesn't seem likely.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I haven’t followed closely enough to say this too intelligently, but isn’t there also some indication Lake underperformed other Republicans on the same ballot?

If so, another indication that telling voters “elections are fraudulent, but you should definitely vote for me in this fraudulent election anyway” may not actually be a winning message….

[Lanny_McDonald]

Lake underperformed across almost all of the state compared to the last election. Yes, being a wing-nut is not a winning formula with most of the country, kind of like how it is here on CP. There are some supporters, but when you talk to them for five minutes you quickly realize they are detached from reality and only get their information from conspiracy websites and blogs. The sad thing is, those wing-nuts still greatly influence the Republican party and there are many voters who only vote along party lines. I'm happy to say that my ballot included a few Republicans (the sane ones like Kimberley Yee) and they have earned their opportunity to serve the people.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Maricopa has 177,000 ballots left, and has been breaking predominantly for Hobbs, but the tweeter above (who hasn't been right yet) is certain a red wave is about to hit and the remaining vote will go Lake's way BIGLY.

maybe it's coming this time, but lots of people (including the tweeter IIRC) have said "it's coming now/soon/etc" multiple times already over the last few days and Democrats have outperformed in every one of those drops. We'll see.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I haven’t followed closely enough to say this too intelligently, but isn’t there also some indication Lake underperformed other Republicans on the same ballot?

If so, another indication that telling voters “elections are fraudulent, but you should definitely vote for me in this fraudulent election anyway” may not actually be a winning message….

In general MAGA candidates underperformed across the US. Once all of the vote is counted we can see how much and where but the general trend is that Trump alignment was not helpful.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Pretty depressing that 2 lousy senators can essentially hold the entire U.S. government and a country of 300 million people hostage whenever they feel like it.

You mean 52 senators right. Like the majority of the senate.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I haven’t followed closely enough to say this too intelligently, but isn’t there also some indication Lake underperformed other Republicans on the same ballot?

If so, another indication that telling voters “elections are fraudulent, but you should definitely vote for me in this fraudulent election anyway” may not actually be a winning message….

Not really. Among the other big state-wide races, she's doing as well as or better than any other Republicans. Lake currently has 49.2% of the vote, compared to:

Senate: 46.1% for Republican candidate

Secretary of State: 47.2% for Republican candidate

Attorney General: 49.5% for Republican candidate

It is interesting that that there's probably 100K people who voted for a crazy election denier for Governor, but then voted Democrat for the other offices.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

You mean 52 senators right. Like the majority of the senate.

You seem to be implying that this small group of elected people controls this vast population.

Say it with me now: Re-pre-sen-ta-tive De-mo-cra-cy.

One house represents the population proportionally, and the other house represents each state as an entity. United States of America-federal government uniting each individual state as a unique entity.

It's fine if everyone is there for the right reasons, hence why I don't begrudge Manchin's positions, even if they're outdated.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

You seem to be implying that this small group of elected people controls this vast population.

Say it with me now: Re-pre-sen-ta-tive De-mo-cra-cy.

One house represents the population proportionally, and the other house represents each state as an entity. United States of America-federal government uniting each individual state as a unique entity.

It's fine if everyone is there for the right reasons, hence why I don't begrudge Manchin's positions, even if they're outdated.

Which is completely outdated in the 21st century. It made sense when the US was founded and each state was much more autonomous, but now all the senate does is hold back legislation that the majority of the US population actually wants (universal healthcare, abortion rights, worker protections, LGBTQ rights, etc). California has more people than the smallest 20 states combined, yet they only get 2 votes in the senate compared to their 40. It's tyranny of the minority, and it's what's holding the US back from joining the rest of the western world in quality of life metrics

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Not really. Among the other big state-wide races, she's doing as well as or better than any other Republicans. Lake currently has 49.2% of the vote, compared to:

Senate: 46.1% for Republican candidate

Secretary of State: 47.2% for Republican candidate

Attorney General: 49.5% for Republican candidate

It is interesting that that there's probably 100K people who voted for a crazy election denier for Governor, but then voted Democrat for the other offices.

You have to compare to the last governor election cycle as well. Ducey won the state by 14 points. Brnovich won AG by 3.4 point. Hobbs won SoS by eight tenths of a point. Yee won Treasurer by 18 points. Republicans have underperformed across the state, even in the most Republican of districts. Lake is a popular media personality following in the steps of a popular Republican governor and running against someone who barely campaigned and refused to debate. This should have been a blow out for Lake.

[Lanny_McDonald]

An interesting release just took place in Arizona that is likely to raise some eyebrows. Pinal just had a dump of just under 3,300 ballots, which should have dropped ballots to count just above 245K. With this release, the number of ballots available just jumped to over 260K, or 15K in the wrong direction. It was only a matter of time before some mathematical shenanigans cropped up, so not overly surprised. Welcome to Arizona.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

An interesting release just took place in Arizona that is likely to raise some eyebrows. Pinal just had a dump of just under 3,300 ballots, which should have dropped ballots to count just above 245K. With this release, the number of ballots available just jumped to over 260K, or 15K in the wrong direction. It was only a matter of time before some mathematical shenanigans cropped up, so not overly surprised. Welcome to Arizona.

With receipt of the envelope being 7 pm on Election Day the total number of ballots left to count fluctuating 5 days later doesn’t seem unreasonable.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Which is completely outdated in the 21st century. It made sense when the US was founded and each state was much more autonomous, but now all the senate does is hold back legislation that the majority of the US population actually wants (universal healthcare, abortion rights, worker protections, LGBTQ rights, etc). California has more people than the smallest 20 states combined, yet they only get 2 votes in the senate compared to their 40. It's tyranny of the minority, and it's what's holding the US back from joining the rest of the western world in quality of life metrics

Clearly, the U.S. system needs revamping. But like gun reform I have little belief it will happen.

[driveway]

The US doesn't have a system. The US has 50 systems.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Which is completely outdated in the 21st century. It made sense when the US was founded and each state was much more autonomous, but now all the senate does is hold back legislation that the majority of the US population actually wants (universal healthcare, abortion rights, worker protections, LGBTQ rights, etc). California has more people than the smallest 20 states combined, yet they only get 2 votes in the senate compared to their 40. It's tyranny of the minority, and it's what's holding the US back from joining the rest of the western world in quality of life metrics

It never really used to work like that. It seems to be a product of modern partisanship. People used to work together even if they came from other states and parties and often there were unexpected coalitions. I take your point, but it is a relatively recent phenomenon.

I think there should be a bit more representation by population, but I don't want to sway too heavily in that direction. I think it's important knowing the tenuous history of federalism in America to realize that if you don't give a strong voice to the less populous states you begin to create grievances that divide the nation (ironic considering today's political climate). The whole point of giving states equal representation was to acquiesce some federal control back to the states so they could speak for themselves. Again, it is a nation of individual states that are more or less coalesced together. It's 50 individual nations that present a united front internationally, but are very different from each other within the nation. To change senate away from state representation would likely renew the grievances towards the federal government and only further divide the nation, possibly pushing us closer to civil war.

However, I take your point and I do agree that the level of minority representation is out of control. Wyoming should probably only have one senator, and California should have 3-4.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I think there should be a bit more representation by population, but I don't want to sway too heavily in that direction. I think it's important knowing the tenuous history of federalism in America to realize that if you don't give a strong voice to the less populous states you begin to create grievances that divide the nation (ironic considering today's political climate). The whole point of giving states equal representation was to acquiesce some federal control back to the states so they could speak for themselves. Again, it is a nation of individual states that are more or less coalesced together. It's 50 individual nations that present a united front internationally, but are very different from each other within the nation. To change senate away from state representation would likely renew the grievances towards the federal government and only further divide the nation, possibly pushing us closer to civil war..

California vs Texas? Sure, those should be separate districts. But how is Idaho different than Montana? Or the Arkansas-Mississippi-Alabama bible belt? And there's no way you need two Dakotas. If you want to split the US into proper geographic and demographic representation, then there should only really be 10-12 states total, then it would make more sense to give each equal representation in the senate

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

It never really used to work like that. It seems to be a product of modern partisanship. People used to work together even if they came from other states and parties and often there were unexpected coalitions. I take your point, but it is a relatively recent phenomenon.

I think there should be a bit more representation by population, but I don't want to sway too heavily in that direction. I think it's important knowing the tenuous history of federalism in America to realize that if you don't give a strong voice to the less populous states you begin to create grievances that divide the nation (ironic considering today's political climate). The whole point of giving states equal representation was to acquiesce some federal control back to the states so they could speak for themselves. Again, it is a nation of individual states that are more or less coalesced together. It's 50 individual nations that present a united front internationally, but are very different from each other within the nation. To change senate away from state representation would likely renew the grievances towards the federal government and only further divide the nation, possibly pushing us closer to civil war.

However, I take your point and I do agree that the level of minority representation is out of control. Wyoming should probably only have one senator, and California should have 3-4.

I'd say the electoral college strikes a good balance between state representation and voter representation..... for the purpose of the Senate.

The problem with the US system of government is that it double-dips on state representation. The President is the top government official and respresents each American by the same amount, hence, popular vote is the only truly sensible way to determine who the President should be. The purpose of the Senate is for states to be represented... that's where the electoral college belongs. IMO.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

California vs Texas? Sure, those should be separate districts. But how is Idaho different than Montana? Or the Arkansas-Mississippi-Alabama bible belt? And there's no way you need two Dakotas. If you want to split the US into proper geographic and demographic representation, then there should only really be 10-12 states total, then it would make more sense to give each equal representation in the senate

I mean, that's kind of what I'm getting at by having proportional state representation. Not extreme, or anything, but my idea is pretty simple.

Every state gets one senator to at least give a voice no matter how small the state. What we want is to get away from over-representing a population that has less than 1% of the national population. The first time a state passes 3 million in population (about 1% nationally), they get a second senator. After that, each time a state passes 10 million they get another senator.

Here would be the final tally:

States with one senator:
Wyoming
Vermont
Alaska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Delaware
Rhode Island
Montana
Maine
New Hampshire
Hawaii
Idaho
West Virginia
Nebraska
New Mexico
Kansas
Mississippi

That's a pretty even split between left and right too. 17 senators.

States with 2 senators:
Arkansas
Nevada
Iowa
Utah
Connecticut
Oklahoma
Oregon
Kentucky
Louisiana
Alabama
South Carolina
Minnesota
Colorado
Wisconsin
Maryland
Missouri
Indiana
Tennessee
Massachusetts
Arizona
Washington (state)
Virginia
New Jersey
Michigan

Left and right, and the bulk of the country is represented well. 48 senators.

States with 3 senators:
North Carolina
Georgia
Ohio
Illinois
Pennsylvania
New York

Again, left and right, or purple, and definitely some of the most influential states in the country. 18 senators (more than all the low population states)

States with 4 senators:
Florida
Texas

Leans right, but two of the biggest populations and economies in the country. 8 senators.

States with 5 senators:
California

Boom, there's your fix. 96 senators total, but a better representation of what each state contributes to the country.

I should run for office.