117th Congress: DEMS IN DISARRAY!!!111!!

[Kepler]

Montana and Ohio have a Democrat right now.

Georgia had a Democrat in 2022. Kansas had a Democratic incumbent governor. And still does.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'

Being a Doomer hurts the ball club.

[psych]

Or her being on the ballot causes R to relax because they think we'll split the vote. There are infinite hypotheticals, so I don't worry about it. She may well have done more damage being a sore loser after being primaried anyway.

Maybe. Maybe it turns out that the joy of her being gone eventually outweighs the worry for me over her chances of torpedoing a Democrat in a winnable race we’ll need on the tough Senate map Scoob points out Democrats are facing in 2024. Her potential presence in the race adds a confounding variable, not necessarily a good one for Democrats. The recent Oregon race for Governor comes to mind, myriad different factors between the races, coupled with it being just one data point notwithstanding, was not good for Democrats. They won, but it was closer. I don’t mean to imply by any means this worry keeps me up at night, just that my initial reaction wasn’t a positive one.

[Kepler]

With any event outside our control, game it out and figure out how to use it. Every wind is useful to a good sailor.

[dxmnkd316]

With any event outside our control, game it out and figure out how to use it. Every wind is useful to a good sailor.

Just thinking ahead. Who are the good sailors left? Pelosi and McConnell. Otherwise the brain trust has been bled out from the GOP. The Dems are just addicted to the Olds but I think they have some bright futures. AOC has been more or less given the reins on the progressive side. Certainly Schiff and Porter have the chops. There are a few others that seem interested and have some potential, but there's just a small vacuum right now as the old guard dies. They've started to manage the transfer but it's still going to take some time to know if we're shuffling deck chairs or setting up the chess board.

edit: Pete seems like he could be a good choice as well. He's very good at finding the wind.

[psych]

I don't disagree with that sentiment at all, despite me starting to feel sick on the one year anniversary of my house getting assaulted by a tornado.

[Handyman]

I’m not assuming that at all. She gets 2% of the vote, with 1.5% Dem and 0.5% Rep voting for her, with a progressive Democrat like Gallego on the ballot, and not a moderate one like Kelly, in a purple state?
Bottom line, outside of being rid of her stupid a—, nothing good comes from this at election time- unless she retires before 2024.

Hey, remember when you said the Dems would lose the Senate? ;^)

[Handyman]

The Senate looks like it's impossible to hold in 2024. The Map is brutal for Democrats.

People said that this year. Good lord its like you all never learn. You cannot predict what will be "difficult" in 2 years because you have no idea what the climate will be like. Remember Biden was supposed to lose both Houses and it was supposed to be a bloodbath this year.

[Handyman]

Maybe. Maybe it turns out that the joy of her being gone eventually outweighs the worry for me over her chances of torpedoing a Democrat in a winnable race we’ll need on the tough Senate map Scoob points out Democrats are facing in 2024. Her potential presence in the race adds a confounding variable, not necessarily a good one for Democrats. The recent Oregon race for Governor comes to mind, myriad different factors between the races, coupled with it being just one data point notwithstanding, was not good for Democrats. They won, but it was closer. I don’t mean to imply by any means this worry keeps me up at night, just that my initial reaction wasn’t a positive one.

You are ignoring the fact that the Dems you seem to think will vote for her are the reason she is leaving...cause they won't. She might get the Independent vote, but you are also assuming she is the only one to run which she likely won't be.

You are also assuming she is, for once, making a smart political decision.

[Kepler]

Who are the good sailors left? Pelosi and McConnell.

Those are Admirals. The Navigators aren't anybody we'll ever hear of.

A political party is another corporation. The CEO is a hood ornament for attracting capital. The executive VPs are mechanisms for aligning her messaging managing shareholders with the ostensible policy of the corporation. But the actual work, the actual competence, is division chiefs buried way down on the org chart.

Nobody we have ever heard of in politics has ever accomplished anything in politics. They are symbolic representations with nice hair. They are the equivalent of calling the King the leader of the army or the President the Commander in Chief. Yes, for purposes of authority. But they don't do anything. They are only even aware of things the way your company executives are after they see the executive powerpoint.

There are hundreds, if you count local politics thousands, of good sailors.

[Handyman]

Just thinking ahead. Who are the good sailors left? Pelosi and McConnell. Otherwise the brain trust has been bled out from the GOP. The Dems are just addicted to the Olds but I think they have some bright futures. AOC has been more or less given the reins on the progressive side. Certainly Schiff and Porter have the chops. There are a few others that seem interested and have some potential, but there's just a small vacuum right now as the old guard dies. They've started to manage the transfer but it's still going to take some time to know if we're shuffling deck chairs or setting up the chess board.

edit: Pete seems like he could be a good choice as well. He's very good at finding the wind.

The Dems are retiring the Olds from Leadership in the House. I think you forgot that.

[psych]

Hey, remember when you said the Dems would lose the Senate? ;^)

Actually, I never said that. I know I said IF Republicans had nominated competent Senate candidates, they would have won, but I'm as aware as anyone else they didn't, so that gave us a chance to retain OR gain in the Senate, which I know I posted more than once. I lamented the fact that Roe v. Wade being overturned might mean we would only lose 15 seats in the House (only lost 9, so not too far off) and retain a 50-50 Senate (51-49 D, now 50-49 D, but a BIG deal, as I've said), but nowhere did I ever post I thought we were surefire to lose the Senate.
That said, I KNOW I posted a million times we'd lose the House. Guaranteed it. You said Democrats would win the House, and offered a friendly bet on the outcome, which I accepted. Democrats absolutely outperformed expectations, but they still lost the House.
As for comparing the 2022 midterms to the 2024 midterms, every Senate Seat was fought on ground Biden won, including Wisconsin. 2024 is not the same. No amount of "good lord you'll never learn" will change the fact West Virginia is not Arizona and Montana is not Pennsylvania. That said, I think Brown is going to hang on in Ohio, and Tester/Manchin have been defying the odds for years, albeit with the R's inching closer every time.

[bronconick]

The Senate looks like it's impossible to hold in 2024. The Map is brutal for Democrats.

On paper, yes. Always a chance the GOP picks more unelectable primary winners to run in the general. They probably should've won a statewide election or two in Michigan, but couldn't help themselves.

[Kepler]

The Dems are retiring the Olds from Leadership in the House. I think you forgot that.

I think that was his point: that as we retire the old figureheads we lose institutional knowledge. But as we shuffle the old hairdoos out to the abattoir their best staff redistributes to their younger replacements' staffs. The loss of knowledge represented by retiring elected officials is negligible. In fact frequently getting rid of them represents an improvement because we lose the egos of the old guard and the newbies actual listen to the smart people for a while before they bloat.

[dxmnkd316]

The Dems are retiring the Olds from Leadership in the House. I think you forgot that.

Nope. I literally said that :-)

[dxmnkd316]

I think that was his point: that as we retire the old figureheads we lose institutional knowledge. But as we shuffle the old hairdoos out to the abattoir their best staff redistributes to their younger replacements' staffs. The lose of knowledge represented by retiring elected officials is negligible. In fact frequently getting rid of them represents an improvement because we lose the egos of the old guard and the newbies actual listen to the smart people for a while before they bloat.

Yes and no. I agree with the bulk of your post, but it's not negligible the knowledge we're losing with people like Pelosi retiring. They know what to give and take or at least have an idea of how to work the system. I don't think you can't take that for granted. I think the fight of the younger generation is needed, but the wisdom to know which hill to die on and which to give up is important. I do think the older generation is a bit too over conservative strategically. So maybe it will be a good change there as well. Time will tell.