US: Democrats may be unable to retake the Senate until 2022

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/8/18072464/ ... sadvantage

This is bad for the future of the Supreme Court. Still, I am actually kind of optimistic. If Democrats can become more populous I think we can make inroads in the Senate. Look at Texas, for example. Ted Cruz won Texas by 16 points in 2012, but beat Beto O'Rourke by only 3 points in 2018. I think we should continue to support groups like the Justice Democrats who want to get money out of politics and continue to reach out to low-income voters in those areas. We need to fight all instances of voter suppression, including by monetary support if needed, like if a person needs an ID to vote, we help pay for them to get an ID.

Cruz lost all those percentage points because of Cruz, in my opinion.

I do hope the Democrats re-take the Senate, eventually. And they just might.

Let's see how the events of the next two years unfold.

There's some funny stuff about Cenk UUygur in this link, apparently he resigned from the "Justice Democrats" in 2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Democrats

However, I cite this link, because it looks like there are only 7 TOTAL "Justice Democrats" out of 225 House Democrats.

Democrats appear to be mostly economic conservatives and don't support "progressives".

Democrats out-voted Republicans in the Senate by 12 million votes...and the Republicans gained two seats.
Hillary Clinton won by 3 million votes, yet Donald f*****g Trump is president.

How "populous" do you think Democrats will have to get?

Republicans dominate total LAND.

The Senate and electoral college are based on LAND.

2018 Midterm elections map ...

The Republicans have dominated "total land" for a long time. Probably since Truman's day.

Democrats need to work on urbanizing the red states, instead of entirely concentrating within a few blue states. Of course, one big problem with that, is that many Democrats are dependent on the civil rights protections that exist within the blue states, and which are absent in the red states, which make the red states more or less unlivable for them. The problem is, though, if the red states dominate everything, they can end up eroding and destroying the civil rights protections that exist within the blue states.

It's a very difficult problem to solve.

Within most red states, there are blue "pockets" or "islands" which corresponds to cities or university towns within them.

Yeah, that's pretty messed up.

Yeah, Puritanism can be a major problem on the left.



We're going to keep fighting



70% of Americans support Medicare For All:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-am ... ition.html

I think the problem is like I said on the other thread, Democrats are not very good at messaging.

Cute and funny. But not literally true, but does have a kernel of truth.


The Republicans always get the biggest acreage of land on the election maps. That's true even when the GOP looses elections. Has been true for decades because the GOP gets votes from low population density rural areas.

Senate seats and Electorial College votes are not literally parceled out to the states by acreage of land. If that were the case then Texas would have 200 times as many Senators and EC votes as does Rhode Island. The ratio between the states is nowhere near THAT big.

But population, and with it popular will, does get negated by geography.

The House of Reps IS based on population. Big population states get more reps. in the House of Reps.
But each state gets just two senators regardless of population size.

The electorial college votes each state gets is equal to the sum of the number of its senators and the number of its reps. Two plus whatever. So the EC is partially population based and partially independent of population size. So for that reason the EC does work out to giving more power to the individual voter in the less populous states.