Merely Federal and Worse yet only Presidential

[william the wie]

Assuming:

The Ds elect Hillary 2016

Normal course correction in 2018.

Then in 2020 reelection.

Another normal mid-course correction plus the results of reapportionment.


Result in 2024:

34-6 states where:

Ds where state and congressional districts are won by 90+% and D officeholders are effectively non-existent outside of gerrymandered districts

Only legacy D senators survive in these states.

The Ds get to pick from governors and senators from 14-16 states for a presidential nominee to overcome the impression in 34-6 states where the Ds define the lunatic fringe, sort like of under Obama but even worse.

The Rs on this board do not want this outcome and I wonder why.

 

[Nyvin]

Well if that's the case then by 2024 the entire national judicial system (including the Supreme Court) would be completely dominated by democrat appointed judges save for a few legacy GW Bush ones.

This is pretty much what happened from 1980 to 1992 to give us our right leaning judicial wing today.

Of course I really think the country is too polarized to truly get to the point you're talking about, the GOP didn't win a Senate seat in a single blue state in 2014 for example.

 

[william the wie]

Why do you think there would be confirmations?

 

[Nyvin]

Why do you think there would be confirmations?

They might be able to put up a small fight for the Supreme's seats....but the circuit and district courts would go fast, especially now that they can't be filibustered anymore. Sooner or later even the Supreme seats would need to be filled too.

Plus how in the world would the court system survive with no nominations getting confirmed? It's barely squeaking by right now, holding that crap up for eight years would throw things into utter chaos.

 

[william the wie]

You're assuming the Ds win back the senate but with their current candidate pool and districts I don't see that as possible.

 

[Nyvin]

We hardly know anything about the candidate pool and districts are irrelevant in the Senate.

You're assuming all Republicans would block judicial confirmations for upwards of 8 years, that's just crazy. Even during Clinton's later six years he still got plenty of judges seated when the GOP had Senate majority.

 

[william the wie]

True but Reid, Pelosi and Obama are great teachers so they won't make it out of committee. If they don't make it to the floor and they will all be borked to the max so they won't make it to the floor for confirmation but more importantly it is getting very hard to find D nominees in most states.

Also state delegation veto will continue in force

 

[Nyvin]

True but Reid, Pelosi and Obama are great teachers so they won't make it out of committee. If they don't make it to the floor and they will all be borked to the max so they won't make it to the floor for confirmation but more importantly it is getting very hard to find D nominees in most states.

Yeah good luck with that....

Lol, hard to find D nominees??? Wtf you smokin dude...

Anyway, this is a nice way of putting off losing the presidency, but there really is a floor to how low each party can get nowadays. I would personally say the Democrats are pretty darn close to that in the House right now. The Senate we'll see after 2018 maybe.

 

[william the wie]

From FL to Texas Ds of any sort are very hard to find.

 

[Nyvin]

From FL to Texas Ds of any sort are very hard to find.

Well between Texas and Florida is Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana....so not much surprise there, lol.

Anyway, what in the world leads you to believe Dems are hard to find? I've never once heard this argument before.

 

[william the wie]

From FL to Texas Ds of any sort are very hard to find.

Well between Texas and Florida is Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana....so not much surprise there, lol.

Anyway, what in the world leads you to believe Dems are hard to find? I've never once heard this argument before.

Obviously you've paid no attention to the governor's races in TX and FL. Scott in particular is unelectable against competent opposition. Crist could not be reelected even against incompetent opposition. Our current mayor in Jacksonville may not get reelected and that is not because he is black. He was thought to be only a legacy D but then Obama and some of the national Ds showed up for Corrine Brown and old Alvin made the mistake of greeting them quite publically. Now he has both primary and general election opposition despite bringing in more jobs than any other previous mayor in both percentage terms and absolute numbers. Democratitis is very advanced in FL.

 

[Nyvin]

From FL to Texas Ds of any sort are very hard to find.

Well between Texas and Florida is Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana....so not much surprise there, lol.

Anyway, what in the world leads you to believe Dems are hard to find? I've never once heard this argument before.

Obviously you've paid no attention to the governor's races in TX and FL. Scott in particular is unelectable against competent opposition. Crist could not be reelected even against incompetent opposition. Our current mayor in Jacksonville may not get reelected and that is not because he is black. He was thought to be only a legacy D but then Obama and some of the national Ds showed up for Corrine Brown and old Alvin made the mistake of greeting them quite publically. Now he has both primary and general election opposition despite bringing in more jobs than any other previous mayor in both percentage terms and absolute numbers. Democratitis is very advanced in FL.

2014 was a wave year for the GOP being the 6th year of a democrat president's term. Also Scott won by 1% in 2014, despite the national wave for Republicans...that's certainly not good news for the GOP going forward. Crist isn't an ideal candidate anyway, he has too many flip flops.

 

[william the wie]

From FL to Texas Ds of any sort are very hard to find.

Well between Texas and Florida is Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana....so not much surprise there, lol.

Anyway, what in the world leads you to believe Dems are hard to find? I've never once heard this argument before.

Obviously you've paid no attention to the governor's races in TX and FL. Scott in particular is unelectable against competent opposition. Crist could not be reelected even against incompetent opposition. Our current mayor in Jacksonville may not get reelected and that is not because he is black. He was thought to be only a legacy D but then Obama and some of the national Ds showed up for Corrine Brown and old Alvin made the mistake of greeting them quite publically. Now he has both primary and general election opposition despite bringing in more jobs than any other previous mayor in both percentage terms and absolute numbers. Democratitis is very advanced in FL.

2014 was a wave year for the GOP being the 6th year of a democrat president's term. Also Scott won by 1% in 2014, despite the national wave for Republicans...that's certainly not good news for the GOP going forward. Crist isn't an ideal candidate anyway, he has too many flip flops.

All true except for one omission. Crist was the very best candidate the Ds had left in FL he was also the reason that Scott got into office. Crist lost the 2010 GOP primary to Scott.

The problem for both parties is that the primary system tends to pick the more radical candidate.

The problem for the Ds in particular are:

They are more invested in both economic theories devised prior to the data analysis explosion of the 1970s and therefore economic policies that no longer match reality.

And except for Bush the lesser and WWII a dismal foreign policy record.

Instead of trying to rebuild the Democrats have hunkered down in states with mostly net out migration.

While not insoluable problems the primary system and campaign reforms instituted post-Watergate harms the Ds more than the Rs.

 

[TheOldSchool]

From FL to Texas Ds of any sort are very hard to find.

Well between Texas and Florida is Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana....so not much surprise there, lol.

Anyway, what in the world leads you to believe Dems are hard to find? I've never once heard this argument before.

Obviously you've paid no attention to the governor's races in TX and FL. Scott in particular is unelectable against competent opposition. Crist could not be reelected even against incompetent opposition. Our current mayor in Jacksonville may not get reelected and that is not because he is black. He was thought to be only a legacy D but then Obama and some of the national Ds showed up for Corrine Brown and old Alvin made the mistake of greeting them quite publically. Now he has both primary and general election opposition despite bringing in more jobs than any other previous mayor in both percentage terms and absolute numbers. Democratitis is very advanced in FL.

2014 was a wave year for the GOP being the 6th year of a democrat president's term. Also Scott won by 1% in 2014, despite the national wave for Republicans...that's certainly not good news for the GOP going forward. Crist isn't an ideal candidate anyway, he has too many flip flops.

All true except for one omission. Crist was the very best candidate the Ds had left in FL he was also the reason that Scott got into office. Crist lost the 2010 GOP primary to Scott.

The problem for both parties is that the primary system tends to pick the more radical candidate.

The problem for the Ds in particular are:

They are more invested in both economic theories devised prior to the data analysis explosion of the 1970s and therefore economic policies that no longer match reality.

And except for Bush the lesser and WWII a dismal foreign policy record.

Instead of trying to rebuild the Democrats have hunkered down in states with mostly net out migration.

While not insoluable problems the primary system and campaign reforms instituted post-Watergate harms the Ds more than the Rs.

You know what "net out migration" does? Turn red states purple

 

[william the wie]

Increasingly not, socialization tends to work.

 

[Nyvin]

From FL to Texas Ds of any sort are very hard to find.

Well between Texas and Florida is Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana....so not much surprise there, lol.

Anyway, what in the world leads you to believe Dems are hard to find? I've never once heard this argument before.

Obviously you've paid no attention to the governor's races in TX and FL. Scott in particular is unelectable against competent opposition. Crist could not be reelected even against incompetent opposition. Our current mayor in Jacksonville may not get reelected and that is not because he is black. He was thought to be only a legacy D but then Obama and some of the national Ds showed up for Corrine Brown and old Alvin made the mistake of greeting them quite publically. Now he has both primary and general election opposition despite bringing in more jobs than any other previous mayor in both percentage terms and absolute numbers. Democratitis is very advanced in FL.

2014 was a wave year for the GOP being the 6th year of a democrat president's term. Also Scott won by 1% in 2014, despite the national wave for Republicans...that's certainly not good news for the GOP going forward. Crist isn't an ideal candidate anyway, he has too many flip flops.

All true except for one omission. Crist was the very best candidate the Ds had left in FL he was also the reason that Scott got into office. Crist lost the 2010 GOP primary to Scott.

The problem for both parties is that the primary system tends to pick the more radical candidate.

The problem for the Ds in particular are:

They are more invested in both economic theories devised prior to the data analysis explosion of the 1970s and therefore economic policies that no longer match reality.

And except for Bush the lesser and WWII a dismal foreign policy record.

Instead of trying to rebuild the Democrats have hunkered down in states with mostly net out migration.

While not insoluable problems the primary system and campaign reforms instituted post-Watergate harms the Ds more than the Rs.

Crist wasn't "very best" in any way at all, except name recognition. He was a former Repub turned independent turned Democrat. He had very high popularity ratings at one time back in i think 2009.

Crist was pretty much guaranteed to win the primary due to being the previous governor. There were 10 other candidates that ran in the primary but no one but maybe Alex Sink or Nan Rich had any name recognition to compare to Crist (Bill Nelson obviously would've been able to beat Crist but he refused to run and stayed in the Senate). In all honesty if someone other than Crist ran I think they would've done better...people get tired of the same old same old after a while, I hope to god he doesn't run in 2018 (Granted he did only lose by ~60k votes out of almost 3 million).

I don't see how Dems have a dismal foreign policy record at all, if you're going to back to things that happened in the 1970's or previous that stuff is water over the dam at this point.

The Democrats are popular in pretty much every large city in the country, almost every large city except San Diego has a Democrat Mayor, and their councils are overwhelmingly blue. If the Metro areas are large enough the state is blue, end of story (New York, Illinois, California). If the outer suburbs and rural areas are big enough, the state is red (Texas, Indiana). If all the state has is rural areas...it's red (except Vermont for some weird reason...)

 

[william the wie]

no real disagreement on the specifics of your argument but the implications are suspect

Take the New York theater district with flight and hotel costs Toronto, St. Petersberg and perhaps Sydney are cheaper. So, why is there still a New York?

Given the cost of fixing infrastructure in NYC it is just a matter of time before it goes seriously into the tank.

Urbanization runs up costs faster than revenues and if not for second homes by the wealthy of other countries NYC would become a partial ghost town.

For legitimate theater is better and cheaper in Toronto, the ballet is better and cheaper in St. Pete (pyotir) and on it goes. With cheaper flights and the internet what does NYC, San Fran., or other large urban area do to add value?

 

[Nyvin]

no real disagreement on the specifics of your argument but the implications are suspect

Take the New York theater district with flight and hotel costs Toronto, St. Petersberg and perhaps Sydney are cheaper. So, why is there still a New York?

Given the cost of fixing infrastructure in NYC it is just a matter of time before it goes seriously into the tank.

Urbanization runs up costs faster than revenues and if not for second homes by the wealthy of other countries NYC would become a partial ghost town.

For legitimate theater is better and cheaper in Toronto, the ballet is better and cheaper in St. Pete (pyotir) and on it goes. With cheaper flights and the internet what does NYC, San Fran., or other large urban area do to add value?

62% of all Republican fund raising comes from blue states like New York, Cali, and Illinois.

Large Urban areas ARE value....big cities in this country are money makers, why do you think the rural population is declining everywhere that there isn't fossil fuel production?

Big cities are basically networks of big money all clumped together, the bigger network you have the more money you can attract to join your network, and the bigger your network becomes. The process feeds on itself.

Even in your so called "net-out migration states" it's almost always the big metro areas that are still growing while the small-town areas of the state are the ones in decline.

The Philly area in PA is growing way faster then the central/western parts.

The Texas triangle is about the ONLY part of the state actually growing while western/northern Texas is all in decline.

The DC metro area is exploding and seeing some of the best growth in the country while all of West Virginia next door is falling apart with decline.

Eastern Oregon is declining outside of the Bend City area while Portland holds over 60% of the state's growth.

Big cities ARE the country's wealth.

 

[william the wie]

At one time that was true and it is still the W. Brian Arthur's hot spot hypothesis of path dependency but hot spots always burn out and while sources of income Urban areas are also poverty sinks.

 

[Nyvin]

At one time that was true and it is still the W. Brian Arthur's hot spot hypothesis of path dependency but hot spots always burn out and while sources of income Urban areas are also poverty sinks.

I'm not so sure. It's sometimes kinda intimidating how much the wealth is becoming concentrated into the cities, it seems to be getting to the point where city centers almost crowd out the non-wealthy and become inaccessible to anyone without a high skilled career or just lots of money.

Cities usually aren't "more" impoverished than the countryside, it's just that it's much more concentrated and as such more noticeable (there are exceptions of course, Aka, Flint MI). Most of the poorest areas of the country are quite rural and nowhere near big cities, like Appalachia or northern Maine.