Sinema, Rosen, and Espy (possibly) better than Heitkamp, Donnelly, and McCaskill

[kennetha]

If we can win Arizona and pull off an upset in Mississippi, while holding onto Nelson's seat in Florida, we will once again have a 51-49 Senate. It will still be a disappointment not to have taken control of the Senate. I mean I would have rather held on to Heitkamp, Donnelly and McCaskill. If we had, along with our flipping of Nevada and probably Arizona, that would have been an amazingly good night.

But let's look on the bright side. If we pull off a trifecta by winning Arizona, maintaining Florida, and pulling off a big upset in Mississippi, then we will once again be at 51 - 49. But our new 51-49 will be better than our old 51-49. We will have replaced three wobbly democrats, who were constantly tempted to vote with the Repugnants with three Democrats who flipped a red seat blue. That should be empowering. They will have NO incentive to defect and side with the Republicans.

Add to that that Romney will become the new John McCain, and Murkowski and Collins will be just as much in play as they ever were, perhaps more. Especially now that the people at large have clearly and decisively voted against Trump and all things Trump!


Espy is a long shot, I know. But we gotta work like hell to make it a reality.

[Demsrule86]

1. Such nonsense. They were not replaced with Democrats but Republicans. Had they won, we would have

the majority and could stop Trump's judges. I would rather have three more wobbly Democrats and the majority than three Republicans.

[Tiggeroshii]

3. +1

Agreed tremendously

[Demsrule86]

6. Thank you. I hope we get Arizona.

[DarthDem]

9. I Believe the OP's Point Was . . .

. . . that now that Donnelly, McCaskill, and Heitkamp lost, there's a silver lining. Not that anyone here's glad that they lost.

[kennetha]

21. exactly. that should be obvious.

[Demsrule86]

39. How are such losses a silver lining?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. The only silver lining is we mitigated our losses in the Senate.

We had an awful map to work with.

[Demsrule86]

50. That is true. But the poster stated it was a silver lining to get rid of wobbly' Democrats...I just

don't agree. If the wobbly Democrats had won, we would have a majority right now.

[BannonsLiver]

15. Batshit crazy republicans to boot

It’s amazing that after two years of this shit there are still people so in the weeds with their thought process that they create OPs like this. It’s mind boggling.

[Demsrule86]

40. It is f'ing unbelievable.

Without the Senate, Trump judges keep coming and even if we get the presidency in 20, without the Senate, we will be able to do very little...including judges.

[elleng]

2. Not 'better than,'

but would be good to have them.

Would be GREAT to have them all, Sinema, Rosen, and Espy, AND Heitkamp, Donnelly, and McCaskill.

[Demsrule86]

5. We would have a majority...I do not see a silver lining when any Democratic Senator loses

especially when we do not have the majority.

[kennetha]

22. you obviously miss the point.

Which 51-49 minority would you rather have?

Of course, you'd rather be in the majority, but you can't always get what you want.

[Demsrule86]

38. I want a majority. The 'wobbly ' Democrats as you describe them are needed for a majority without

which even if we manage to get the presidency in 20 we will not be able get SCOTUS nominees or any judges approved. So meaning no disrespect, I think you fail to understand my post and our situation. The Senate is unattainable for us without conservadems...IE big tent majority. So I see nothing good about the situation in the Senate...glad we stopped the GOP from 60 which was possible with the terrible map. Thank God we got the House. Had the 'wobbly' Democrats won in the Senate, we would have a majority.

[kennetha]

48. We all want a majority. That wasn't the point of the OP

The point of the OP that IF we do manage to pull off a 51-49 minority, then we will actually have improved our position relative to our old 51-49 minority.

OF COURSE any MAJORITY is better than any MINORITY. But the point was and is that not all MINORITIES (in the Senate) are created equal.

[still_one]

4. If we can pull those off it is a huge deal. Either way what happened in the midterms will give us

momentum for 2020

[MiniMe]

8. 2020 is a much better outlook for the dems

The repukes are defending a bigger number of seats than the dems.

[still_one]

10. yup, with the Senate especially

[DarthDem]

7. I Think You Raise a Lot of Good Points

Last edited Fri Nov 9, 2018, 01:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Good analysis. I'm completely done with Susan Collins and want that seat in 2020 and am dubious about Mittens' viability as the new McCain. But as sad as it is to say, now that things are over in IN and MO for this cycle, I will not miss Donnelly much and I had tired of the massive juggling act required to save McCaskill every six years. I mean, if the voters in Missouri wanted that punk Hawley that badly, let them have him. (Perhaps we can come back with another really strong, young candidate in 2024, a presidential election year, to challenge him.) I also can't shake the perception, possibly unfair, that Claire had just grown tired. (I feel the same way about Feinstein.)

I will miss Heitkamp, although she was not exactly a frontbencher. I thought she showed some real guts with her decision on Kavanaugh.

I agree that Rosen will be very good. She may be fantastic. Sinema, if she wins (which I think she will, just a guess) may frustrate people, because although she was a very liberal state legislator, she was a bit of a Blue Dog (ugh) in the House. She's an enigma, but I like her a lot and am looking forward to seeing what she brings to the Senate if she wins.

I have a feeling that Nelson will end up winning, just based on how desperate Voldemort is acting only two days after Election Day.

Agreed on Espy. There really isn't any reason why he can't win that race. Senate races in Mississippi normally get lost in the shuffle amidst the rest of the cycle, but here, with the nation's entire eyes on it and the Democrats presumably funneling massive money into the runoff, I think he can pull it off.

Nice post.

[Power 2 the People]

12. Agreed. Let's hope for the best.

[xmas74]

13. Just so you know

there were reports of militia style men milling around the polling stations in several counties in Missouri as a means of intimidation. I know someone who reported it from firsthand experience in the Lone Jack area.

If this is true it might be less that McCaskill wasn't wanted and more that some voters felt intimidated by armed men and chose not to vote out of fear.

[onetexan]

27. If that happened then Dems really need to have a plan

For 2020 and onwards. We need to call police or devise another method to thwart the voter intimidation.

[xmas74]

44. The problem is that this usually happens at churches

and other places that are open to the public but technically private property. Missouri is an open carry state and guns are only banned from state buildings and places that have a very large placard outside of every entrance. This means that they have every right to carry those guns around the polling stations and that it falls on us to prove that we feel directly threatened by them.

There are a couple of ballot initiatives possibly in the works for 2020. There is talk of automatic registration where the person would have to choose to opt out of being a registered voter. There is talk of opening early voting to all, not just those for absentee issues. And there is talk of pushing for the GE every two years as a state holiday. This would allow the schools and state buildings to work as polling stations, which would automatically ban guns within a certain range. And it would cut down on the public/private issues.


There are many more things that are in talks as ballot initiatives but those would dramatically help situations like that. Missouri is one of the states in which the people can draw and gather petition signatures for ballot initiatives to be placed on the ballot for public voting. It's how we defeated Right to Work in August, it's how the minimum wage increased, how we passed CLEAN and passed medical marijuana. If left to the legislature none of that would ever happen.

[onetexan]

45. the ballot initiatives you mentioned are good options

especially automatic registration of voters when they sign up for driver license. California has this currently but i haven't read how effective it's been. Re: the armed harrassers in open-carry states as Missouri, Dems need to strategize what laws they can legislate to thwart such situations. In the least they should find ways to make voters feel safer - maybe local Dems chapters can
discuss with law enforcement in the localities where voter intimidation is known to occur and see what sort of protection the local authorities can offer.
In addition, raising the awareness of the issue will help as well. Dems can publicize the issue well in advance that voter intimidation is against the law, and that voters are to report if they feel they are being harrassed or threatened, or if they witness such a situation.

Open-carry & gun violence overall needs to be a separate issue for Dems to tackle altogether. Gun violence is at epidemic level right now in the US. My work colleagues overseas can't seem to understand why Walmart sells guns, and such ridiculous laws as open-carry. TheNRA needs to be branded as a sponsor of domestic terrorism, and the RW nutjobs or whomever else who use guns to intimidate and cause trouble as domestic terrorists.

[irresistable]

26. Mittens is the new Flake

He thinks that this is his launching pad to the Presidency.

[LisaL]

30. No reason why he can't win?

How about two republicans running during the election got way more votes than him if combined?
Where do you think Espy's votes are going to come from during run off?

[DarthDem]

31. Well . . .

. . . depends on if people can vote in the runoff who didn't vote in the general. Depends on if some people's minds may be changed. Hardly impossible at all. As an aside, I stopped enjoying spreading doom and gloom some time ago. It just doesn't seem worth the effort. Positivity is more fun.

[LisaL]

32. I am just saying, it isn't likely.

Two republicans combined got 20% more votes than Espy.
Presumably all these votes are going to go now to the one republican remaining.

[GoCubsGo]

11. Heitkamp, Donnelly and McCaskill are infinitley better than the assholes who are replacing them.

We'll be stuck with those shitbags for at least three years.

[mrs_p]

14. As a ND resident

Heitkamp is better than Cramer, by a gazllion. I’d rather than a conservative dem than a wackadoodle trumpanista any day.

[Norbert]

17. Heitkap's Cavanaugh vote earned Heiti my undying respect.

[BannonsLiver]

16. What a ridiculous OP

[DarthDem]

18. I Don't Think You Necessarily Understood It

Ah, well, I'm tired of defending the OP. S/he can do it themselves. I thought s/he was quite clear, though.

[GulfCoast66]

19. Don't you find it ironic that the OP is not back defending it?

I find it curious. But you are?

[kennetha]

20. cause I had other things to do.

the point .. which some seem not to get ... is that if we have to have 51- 49 minority, with are better off with the new 51-49 minority than the old one.

The point was not that we are better off in the minority than with a majority.

But some people are just careless readers and sloppy thinkers I guess.

[Demsrule86]

41. No we are not better off...these are still conservative leaning states so they will have to vote

with Trump some and nothing gets to the floor without a majority. It is no different than it was before which given the map is better than what might have happened but won't help us much. We have to have a big tent and win conservadems for a majority. So your comments on those who lost Democratic Senatorial seats are disturbing because it seems that you still believe we can get a 'real' progressive majority in the Senate...we won't. You want a majority than we need a big tent.

[BannonsLiver]

42. The slopppy thinking started with the OP.

[kennetha]

23. obviously you misunderstood it.

[Drunken Irishman]

24. What a dismissive reply.

The OP's point is mangled but a good one: if the Democrats don't win the Senate, but can manage to get it back to 51-49, this minority is much stronger than the minority we had with senators from really conservative states. They're not saying it's better they lost - just that the Democrats are likely in a better position than they were earlier this year solely because they'll have senators in there more likely to support our agenda.

[kennetha]

37. I don't think it's mangled at all.

Tuesday night, pundits were predicting a "massive" shift in the Senate and that we would be down to something like 53-47 at best or possible 55-45 at worst. And they were saying that this would make a HUGE difference in how the Republicans operate, cause they wouldn't need to deal with Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Now 51-49 is possibly within reach. that's still a minority. My only point is that if we magically got there, our new 51-49 minority would actually have a better composition than our old 51-49 minority. Seems pretty straightforward.

[Jim Lane]

43. I agree, not mangled. You simply ran into a knee-jerk reaction.

There are progressives who carry their disdain for the Donnelly-Heitkamp-McCaskill types so far as to say, "They're no different from Republicans. We're actually better off if they lose, because then a more progressive Democrat can come forward and win the seat next time." I think that view is badly mistaken, but it is out there. I argue with those people on JPR frequently.

You didn't say that or anything close to it. You did, however, express something less than total unalloyed adulation of those three. That was enough to set off the people who see themselves as the Defenders of the Faith. They want to disagree with the argument I summarized in the first paragraph, but of course they don't want to go to JPR or to other sites where that argument is actually to be found. The best they could do was, upon seeing your post (the defeated Dems are worse than the Dems elsewhere who won or might win), to misread it as something quite different (the defeated Dems are worse than the Republicans who beat them).

A practical suggestion: On DU (and on JPR, where there is also knee-jerk thinking although on different points), I sometimes waste time in a post by specifically disclaiming the view that I'm not articulating but that I know some people will think they see. My hope is that this short-term waste of time will head off replies of the type that hit you all too often in this thread. Even then, it doesn't always work, but it probably helps some.

[kennetha]

47. Thanks!

[OnDoutside]

25. Excellent point.

[UTUSN]

28. K&R

[LisaL]

29. Mississippi isn't going to happen.

Two republicans running got way more votes than a democrat. So in a run off, democrat doesn't have a chance.

[book_worm]

33. Yeah, run-offs generally favor GOP and combined GOP vote was something like 57-58%

It doesn't mean we don't try but it's very very unlikely.

[beachbum bob]

34. one reason that it is better for AZ and Nevade, they are purple moving to blue while Indiania never

will be

[LisaL]

35. What would be better is to get all of these positions.

We could have had a majority in Senate if we managed not to lose and flip a couple.

[beachbum bob]

36. be better, but realisticlly we have states that do all they can to prevent the "wrong kind of"

person from voting. To start, democrats have to seize local and state control and that is damn difficult in red states

[realmirage]

46. You are absolutely correct

I’d rather have REAL Democrats rather than republican-lite

If all we can get in these red states are republican lites then fine, but this new situation you describe is definitely better