I have to push back on this, though. The House members themselves don't have to keep running for the same office 20+ years, that's their choice. And you can say what you will about us when it comes to primaries but incumbency literally matters. The DCCC/DSC/RNCC/RSC are first and foremost defenders of incumbents, with suitable resources. Parties should have a vested interest in maintaining some turnover for both underperformers and leadership in the legislature. I don't want legislative term limits, but IF that were the only practical method to achieve this end, I would suggest the minimum term limits to a legislative body be 18 years. It would allow more than enough time to develop systems/relationships but discourage stagnation and also dovetails nicely with the proposal of 18yr SCOTUS term limits. But I would much rather parties themselves get better mechanisms for internal turnover.
2024 Non-Presidential races and issues
- Thread starter wco81
- Start date
I have to push back on this, though. The House members themselves don't have to keep running for the same office 20+ years, that's their choice. And you can say what you will about us when it comes to primaries but incumbency literally matters. The DCCC/DSC/RNCC/RSC are first and foremost defenders of incumbents, with suitable resources. Parties should have a vested interest in maintaining some turnover for both underperformers and leadership in the legislature. I don't want legislative term limits, but IF that were the only practical method to achieve this end, I would suggest the minimum term limits to a legislative body be 18 years. It would allow more than enough time to develop systems/relationships but discourage stagnation and also dovetails nicely with the proposal of 18yr SCOTUS term limits. But I would much rather parties themselves get better mechanisms for internal turnover.
Those are some good points—but how would they be enforced within the party? Reason I ask is there have been a few candidates who ran on the perennial "throw the bums out in Washington" and term limits, only to renege when they became incumbents themselves. These members will also have a strong grip on the levers of power within the party, with the risk of landing back at square one.
The only functional control a party has right now is funding, like I mentioned with the various Congressional committees and the donor base they hold influence over. As a potential change, another option might be limits to specific roles like Speaker or Leader.
We need a tricameral system: the House, the Senate, and the (Senior Living) Quarters. We're paying their pensions anyway, so give them a lifetime position if the are still in Congress at 75 with no cap on the number of members in the Quarters and put them in charge of post offices and casinos.
A really deep dive into the politics in the Sandpoint area of Northern Idaho by Politico.
Link to the Article on Politico:
"North Idaho Has Drifted to the Extreme Right. One Republican Thinks It’s Hit Its Limit."
I pay attention because even though I live in SoCal now, my house is just down the road (and across state lines) from the area in Spokane, WA.
The article highlights two politicians. I don't like either one of these guys, but at least one of them is mouthing some better words and actually meeting with people. Ultimately, it's an interesting look at what passes for "moderate" in an area that features armed militias, a lack of anything resembling reproductive care (the only hospital in the area closed it's labor/delivery ward, for crying out loud!), open carry running rampant, armed harassment is common.
The primary is today, 21 May.. Idaho has a closed primary system, which means (as always) that the more ideologically extreme candidates can whip up more and more support.
And if we're honest? It really doesn't get more extreme than Northern Idaho.
I'm very curious to see how this goes. If nothing else but for proximity to property that I own.
Link to the Article on Politico:
"North Idaho Has Drifted to the Extreme Right. One Republican Thinks It’s Hit Its Limit."
I pay attention because even though I live in SoCal now, my house is just down the road (and across state lines) from the area in Spokane, WA.
The article highlights two politicians. I don't like either one of these guys, but at least one of them is mouthing some better words and actually meeting with people. Ultimately, it's an interesting look at what passes for "moderate" in an area that features armed militias, a lack of anything resembling reproductive care (the only hospital in the area closed it's labor/delivery ward, for crying out loud!), open carry running rampant, armed harassment is common.
The primary is today, 21 May.. Idaho has a closed primary system, which means (as always) that the more ideologically extreme candidates can whip up more and more support.
And if we're honest? It really doesn't get more extreme than Northern Idaho.
I'm very curious to see how this goes. If nothing else but for proximity to property that I own.
The only thing to do in such places is to register with the majority party so you can vote for the least detestable candidate in the primaries, and then vote for the party you really want to win in the general election.
Which is exactly what several Democrats stated when interviewed for the piece.
From the article, emphasis mine.
It is (apparently) a pretty arduous process, but in a state/region where Democrats make up less than 15% of the voting population? Voting in the primary for the Other party is the only real chance you have at any sort of moderate candidate, because the general is going to go [R] as a matter of course.
And given the margins involved in local elections? Democrats switching affiliation for the primary may be the little push to get someone over the edge.
Except for district 6 which, thanks to the University of Idaho, pretty much always elected Democrats...
Also I have heard that Idaho is considering a ballot initiative for open ranked choice party less primaries and runoff elections for the general. Not sure about the details, but it does seem that many Idahoans are sick of how the current system raises the voices of extremists.
That would be a welcome development. Perhaps if successful, could be rolled out to more areas. Probably will get a lot of pushback from entrenched political interests, though.
And also from the article: they have the signatures for a ballot initiative, but are trying to get a bunch more to prevent ‘invalid signatures’ from tanking it:
Here’s to hoping.
Idaho is a lost cause. Those militias are armed to the teeth and begging for an armed confrontation with the Feds because it's probably some wack prophecy.
They canonize guys like Cliven Bundy and the guy at Ruby Ridge.
They canonize guys like Cliven Bundy and the guy at Ruby Ridge.
And if they can be marginalized, even if it’s just a less conservative politician running things, then they can be, to an extent, ignored and allowed to wither away.
It’s still a good barometer for looking at how far a lot of the current GOP rank and file is going (or at least wants to go). And seeing how a Democrat minority interacts and deals with that level of extreme reactionary base while still trying to live there is still both interesting and a good case study for anyone living in states going this direction. And since that’s a LOT of certain swaths of the country, it seems to be almost criminal to write it off as a ‘lost cause’ without examining the details, results, and lessons learned of those interactions and electoral activities.
Well, it worked.
Results: https://results.voteidaho.gov/republican-legislative.html
Legislative District 1 (State Senate)
Jim Woodward (the “moderate”) - 51.9% (8219)
Scott Herndon (the extreme reactionary) - 48.1% (7606)
Margin of victory is just over 600 votes. Woodward lost the seat to Herndon a few years ago by 1700. So his efforts to actually talk to the left and center netted him a victory in the primary. Which means he’s going to win the general for District 1. Because… yeah… No Democrat was even in the primary for State Senate for District 1.
So, Woodward is (most likely) heading back to office. Considering this guy has already voted for the laws (specifically the ones about abortion/reproductive rights that dropped down like a hammer after the Roe v. Wade reversal) that went into effect and caused so many issues in his district? It’s hard to square why this is a good thing.
Here’s to hoping that he FA,FO, and is now going to try and turn back the tide after seeing the ramifications of his votes on his district. Because even a little bit would be better than what Herndon has been doing the last few years. That guy (Herndon) is 100% trying to make The Handmaid’s Tale a reality.
Anyway, the state is still a Red stronghold, and will go the way of the Red Hats during the national election this fall. But little “wins” like this? They can stack up.
Results: https://results.voteidaho.gov/republican-legislative.html
Legislative District 1 (State Senate)
Jim Woodward (the “moderate”) - 51.9% (8219)
Scott Herndon (the extreme reactionary) - 48.1% (7606)
Margin of victory is just over 600 votes. Woodward lost the seat to Herndon a few years ago by 1700. So his efforts to actually talk to the left and center netted him a victory in the primary. Which means he’s going to win the general for District 1. Because… yeah… No Democrat was even in the primary for State Senate for District 1.
So, Woodward is (most likely) heading back to office. Considering this guy has already voted for the laws (specifically the ones about abortion/reproductive rights that dropped down like a hammer after the Roe v. Wade reversal) that went into effect and caused so many issues in his district? It’s hard to square why this is a good thing.
Here’s to hoping that he FA,FO, and is now going to try and turn back the tide after seeing the ramifications of his votes on his district. Because even a little bit would be better than what Herndon has been doing the last few years. That guy (Herndon) is 100% trying to make The Handmaid’s Tale a reality.
Anyway, the state is still a Red stronghold, and will go the way of the Red Hats during the national election this fall. But little “wins” like this? They can stack up.
If it seems like Texas is crazier than usual, you're not wrong. We can track the shift to the "moderate business class" failing to retain control of the party mechanisms. Most of the donors dried up save the super-right oil barons behind Paxton's acquittal. Whether this translates to any Democratic opportunities is a good guess.
IMHO, the two oil barons in question seem to fancy themselves the Devos-style grifters behind the power than actual believers.
IMHO, the two oil barons in question seem to fancy themselves the Devos-style grifters behind the power than actual believers.
Pat Ryan says having only 1% of Americans serving in the military is "problematic".
I say, "Why? Does the country need more soldiers? Would it benefit from more soldiers servering shorter terms of service?"
I say, "Why? Does the country need more soldiers? Would it benefit from more soldiers servering shorter terms of service?"
Not sure if this is the best thread, but seems relevant.
Texas GOP proposes that to win a state-wide seat, you have to win at least half the counties.
It's not too dissimilar to partisans that point out that Trump won more counties nationwide than Biden, like that matters.
Gift link:
Texas GOP proposes that to win a state-wide seat, you have to win at least half the counties.
It's not too dissimilar to partisans that point out that Trump won more counties nationwide than Biden, like that matters.
Gift link:
Loading…
wapo.st
It’s worse than the EC, because even though Wyoming has disproportionate weight in the Electoral College, California has more votes. And also, Wyoming to California is about 1:70 in population, 8 Texas counties each have fewer than 1000 residents, and Harris County has close to five million.
Edit: Just to emphasize the absurdity, Loving County has an estimated population that’s currently under fifty people. Meaning that it would have equal electoral weight to Harris, despite the factor of 100,000 difference in population.
Last edited:
It seems Texas is currently attempting to push the worst possible legislation. Could this survive constitutional challenge?
And, tacking onto the information @fractl shared about some counties in Texas with vanishingly small populations: why aren't some consolidated? Perhaps at one point, they made sense as communities, but declining populations makes their very viability questionable. The West has plenty of ghost towns. These appear to be ghost counties. It's apparent they are being kept for political—not practical—advantage.
Well, normally, counties don't affect all that much in politics, so who cares if there is a huge population difference? Which is why that proposal is so incredibly lunatic.
Unless missing something—isn't the primary thrust of this effort to give outsize influence to conservative communities?
Not exactly "influence". The yokels in rural Texas are so unlikely to collectively flip to voting for Democrats that the Republican candidate would never have to do anything different to garner those votes. The GOP is already winning those rural counties by huge margins.
It would be not too different than saying the Democratic candidate has to win 50% of registered Republicans in addition to winning the overall vote. Practically, that's an all but impossible hurdle for the Democrat.
That stuff gets brought up here every now and again. Too many counties, not enough residents. From my understanding consolidation is mostly a budget issue. If you consolidate 5 counties with a max pop of 10000 to 1 county the thought is you save money on services.
Now I've never heard of them trying to make anyone win half or whatever. Though they've pretty much made the governor position worthless.
John Roberts, our very own Chief Justice, has happily presided over rulings that make political gerrymandering perfectly legal. So yeah, this is just more gerrymandering and the Supreme Court will have absolutely, positively, no problem with it. Apparently voter disenfranchising is the unspoken, unwritten amendment to the Constitution.
I think historically they've been kept by inertia. The people in the smallest counties get what government they do from the state since they're too small to sustain a government for themselves.
And just in from our "Tastes like chicken" department.......
Some of you may remember that Larry Hogan, Republican candidate for the open Senate seat in Maryland, had the audacity to suggest that Americans should respect jury decisions and the rule of law in America. That earned him the ire of the Maryland Republican establishment who called him all kinds of vile names and announced that his candidacy was over.
Well, today the RNC in the form of Lara Trump jumped into the fray and added to the criticism.
Really, the only conclusion from all of this is that the Republican party has lost its collective mind. Hogan stands a good chance of flipping a solid Democratic Senate seat to the Republicans and the Republican Party is treating him like toxic waste tinged with raw sewage. I guess they don't want a Senate majority after all.
Some of you may remember that Larry Hogan, Republican candidate for the open Senate seat in Maryland, had the audacity to suggest that Americans should respect jury decisions and the rule of law in America. That earned him the ire of the Maryland Republican establishment who called him all kinds of vile names and announced that his candidacy was over.
Well, today the RNC in the form of Lara Trump jumped into the fray and added to the criticism.
Really, the only conclusion from all of this is that the Republican party has lost its collective mind. Hogan stands a good chance of flipping a solid Democratic Senate seat to the Republicans and the Republican Party is treating him like toxic waste tinged with raw sewage. I guess they don't want a Senate majority after all.
Last edited:
I really doubt it's a planned strategy, but this might actually help him. Hogan needs to flip tons of Democrats to win, and being very clear that he remains outside the Trump faction of the party is probably critical.
At this point he might as well change parties and change to D, because he won’t get anything done in the Senate as an R if he wins
Sure he will. He still agrees with most of their "practical" platform, aiding the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. He'll be a beard for them, like Romney and Collins, while still voting for their judicial appointments and tax cuts.
The issue with that is it leaves Hogan out in the cold if he's elected. He's not a Democrat and the Republicans will be shunning him. From the state perspective, electing Hogan is a monumentally stupid thing to do, it effectively leaves Maryland with one Senator.
That may leave him in the same general position of another local pol—Joe Manchin—who switched to independent. In this environment, it certainly isn't something the state can afford—especially if he would be caucusing with the Republicans on major issues.
Ah, but can a Republican win without all the Trump-crazy Republicans voting for him? Even in Maryland?
Hogan was a popular governor who won reelection. Part of that is due the Democrats not putting up compelling candidates, and another is that the General Assembly kept him in check. The Senate race will probably be different—Alsobrooks is resonating, and was able to hold off David Trone. Were Hogan elected, he would probably be like Romney—say the right things, but vote with the Republicans on most major issues. Not what Maryland or the country needs at this critical juncture.
It probably depends. There aren't a lot of Republicans in Maryland, batshit crazy or otherwise, so it's possible he could piss off MAGA world and still win. But that would require him to pull in a LOT of Democratic votes. Probably many more than he did in the Governor races he won. And as karolus mentioned, Alsobrooks is doing well and will likely do well in the population-heavy counties of Prince Georges (where she was county exec) and Montgomery. If she does well there and MAGA world stays home, Hogan is toast.
edit: And since it's inside baseball, karolus brought up a really important point: Hogan won both of his Governor races against phenomenally weak Democratic opponents. That's something that gets overlooked by the media when they're touting his virtues as a Republican Governor of a heavily Democratic state.
That's a pretty weird spin. The guy Hogan beat in 2014 was the two-time lieutenant governor, and that guy also went on to get elected to the US House and then win state wide in Maryland for AG. "Phenomenally weak" seems like a massive stretch.
The 2018 opponent looks weaker in that he's less conventionally qualified, but long time head of the NAACP is a compelling resume item in its own right.
Anthony Brown is an impressive politician, but his run for Governor was pathetic. I don't know how he managed it, but he came across as an entitled, arrogant stuffed shirt that turned off pretty much everyone. He really just came across as The Next Democrat In Line For Governor.
And don't get me started on Ben Jealous. Despite a decent record as head of the NAACP, he had almost zero connection to Maryland politics and came across as a carpetbagger just looking to buff his resume so he could run for President. The fact that the guy vanished from Maryland the minute he lost to Hogan is extremely telling about his commitment to Maryland.
So yeah, I view both of them as phenomenally weak. They shouldn't have been, but they both managed to lose to a Republican in a heavily Democratic state.
To add to @DarthSlack: Regardless of how one feels about either of those candidates, it's telling when a majority Democratic state goes over to the other side for governor. Granted, Hogan got a boost for being a moderate, but needed a compelling story to bring people over to win.