Small but substantively important correction: the 17th Amendment provides for direct election of senators, not representatives. I know what you meant :-)
It might be interesting if they actually repealed the 17th Amendment, though. Then all that huge amount of dark money being sloshed around in Senate races will suddenly start getting sloshed around in statehouse races across the country, because the statehouses would be where senators start getting elected. More interesting, many states that tilt red at national level politics still have a pretty strong blue contingent at the state level. They could lose seats.
A bit depends on how successful the voter suppression is, sadly. If we manage to get Obama back, here's hoping for a Democratic majority in the legislature, and that the first thing they get done is laws against voter suppression. It's sickening.
Don't get me wrong. They are definitely going to shave a couple of points off of Democratic turnout counts come November. However, they are looking at a higher point spread in states they consider critical for Mittens
( ... )
I've been watching the polls all through the campaign, and especially the attempts to aggregate state polling to get electoral-vote counts.
Obviously the race isn't a done deal, and if you look at national polls you sometimes see Romney up. But there is no and has never been any indication of a smashing Romney landslide. In fact, the feature of the EV projections that stands out is mostly how stable the race has been: Obama with a modest but persistent margin, that gets larger or smaller but never quite goes away. (I wouldn't be surprised if it does temporarily go away during the Republican convention, just like in 2008. But the Democratic one comes immediately after this year.)
Now, the Republicans actually do still have a good chance of narrowly winning control of the Senate, without giving up the House. This concerns me. If Obama stays in, the upshot is that we get even more Congressional obstruction for a couple of years. But Akin did provide an opening.
Comments 5
Small but substantively important correction: the 17th Amendment provides for direct election of senators, not representatives. I know what you meant :-)
It might be interesting if they actually repealed the 17th Amendment, though. Then all that huge amount of dark money being sloshed around in Senate races will suddenly start getting sloshed around in statehouse races across the country, because the statehouses would be where senators start getting elected. More interesting, many states that tilt red at national level politics still have a pretty strong blue contingent at the state level. They could lose seats.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I think they're going to win, and win big, and prove that doubling down on misogyny and racism is the way to go.
Reply
Obviously the race isn't a done deal, and if you look at national polls you sometimes see Romney up. But there is no and has never been any indication of a smashing Romney landslide. In fact, the feature of the EV projections that stands out is mostly how stable the race has been: Obama with a modest but persistent margin, that gets larger or smaller but never quite goes away. (I wouldn't be surprised if it does temporarily go away during the Republican convention, just like in 2008. But the Democratic one comes immediately after this year.)
Now, the Republicans actually do still have a good chance of narrowly winning control of the Senate, without giving up the House. This concerns me. If Obama stays in, the upshot is that we get even more Congressional obstruction for a couple of years. But Akin did provide an opening.
Reply
Leave a comment