Wisconsin is a state that has a special election for Senate vacancies, so I'd be nervous about losing Baldwin because there's no guarantee a replacement Democrat will win.
Wisconsin is a state that has a special election for Senate vacancies, so I'd be nervous about losing Baldwin because there's no guarantee a replacement Democrat will win.
This is a concern of mine as well, but I still think that Baldwin as VP would be a good choice for a few reasons: It's pretty unlikely that the Democrats will retake the Senate anyway....
This is a concern of mine as well, but I still think that Baldwin as VP would be a good choice for a few reasons:
It's pretty unlikely that the Democrats will retake the Senate anyway. Optimistically we're looking at a gain of 3 seats and a loss of 1 - making the composition 51-49.
I think that votes for a strong presidential ticket will "trickle down," so to speak, to down-ticket races. Specifically, I find it hard to see Wisconsin voting for Bernie/Baldwin and also voting for a non-incumbent Republican in the same election.
Going along with the last point, Wisconsin is almost certainly going to be one of, if not the deciding factor in the presidential election. I think it's important to have a vice presidential nominee who can speak to disenchanted voters to whom a populist like trump is appealing.
Edit: I just realized that the special election would probably not take place at the same time as the general election.
Care to explain? Also if the Democrats don't take the Senate can they actually do anything? Currently there are hundreds of bills that have been passed in the Democratic house and blocked in the...
It's pretty unlikely that the Democrats will retake the Senate anyway. Optimistically we're looking at a gain of 3 seats and a loss of 1 - making the composition 51-49.
Care to explain? Also if the Democrats don't take the Senate can they actually do anything? Currently there are hundreds of bills that have been passed in the Democratic house and blocked in the Republican Senate. If the Democrats don't retake the Senate then won't we be in the same position as now regardless of who the President is?
Certainly! I probably should have cited that claim. Currently the senate is 53-47, counting Angus King and Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side. States in which the Democrats have the best chance...
Certainly! I probably should have cited that claim.
Currently the senate is 53-47, counting Angus King and Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side. States in which the Democrats have the best chance of gaining a seat (I'm looking at this) are Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and North Carolina, and they have to try to hold Alabama. Out of those five they need to win at least four to have a majority (with the VP as tiebreaker). Maine, North Carolina, and Alabama are all leaning Republican and incumbents tend to be reelected. Additionally, betting odds give democrats about a 1 in 3 chance of retaking the senate.
But, if there is a leftward trend across the country and it does happen, I think (I can't cite anything for this) the Wisconsin election is very likely to go to the Democrat given that he/she will not be competing against an incumbent, in which case it is irrelevant whether Sen. Baldwin is running or not.
Your second question is a good one and I will try to tackle it. Remember that most legislation in the Senate can be blocked by a filibuster, which requires 60 votes to stop, and Sanders has gone on record saying that he is not willing to ditch the filibuster rule. So the only way he plans to pass any legislation even if he takes the senate is through budget reconciliation, which is not subject to the filibuster but is somewhat limited in what can be included and can only be done once a year.
And there are some things that can (supposedly) be done by executive action, such as legalizing marijuana and expunging past convictions. The president also has a lot of control over military actions, and could reduce military presence abroad. It's also possible that the Democrats regain control of the senate in 2022, where there are some seats open that are favorable for them.
I am by no means an expert but that's how I see the senate race right now. I hope that the Senate turns blue in 2020, but it's hard to make a fact-based argument that that is likely.
I know multiple people who will pursue appointments within ICE and do everything within their power to institutionally cripple the agency if they get a President behind them on it. There isn’t...
And there are some things that can (supposedly) be done by executive action, such as legalizing marijuana and expunging past convictions. The president also has a lot of control over military actions, and could reduce military presence abroad. It's also possible that the Democrats regain control of the senate in 2022, where there are some seats open that are favorable for them.
I know multiple people who will pursue appointments within ICE and do everything within their power to institutionally cripple the agency if they get a President behind them on it. There isn’t much legislation you can pass, but there’s a lot of fascistic apparatus that we can dismantle if we come at it with intention.
This is a good point. I'm just nervous because Wisconsin's Democrat bench isn't that deep and everyone that I can think of off the top of my head has the "stigma" of being from Madison or...
I think that votes for a strong presidential ticket will "trickle down," so to speak, to down-ticket races. Specifically, I find it hard to see Wisconsin voting for Bernie/Baldwin and also voting for a non-incumbent Republican in the same election.
This is a good point. I'm just nervous because Wisconsin's Democrat bench isn't that deep and everyone that I can think of off the top of my head has the "stigma" of being from Madison or Milwaukee, which people up north hate. Also Republicans also manage to ratfuck their way to victory a lot of the time despite putting up terrible candidates or outright cheating. Although Baldwin represented Madison in the House before she ran for Senate, so maybe that's not a big deal. There are probably some good contenders I don't know of either.
I appreciate your response, but now that I think about it the special election would be after the general right? That sort of invalidates my own point...
I appreciate your response, but now that I think about it the special election would be after the general right? That sort of invalidates my own point...
Yeah, the special election would have to be after the general. Unless they decide to make a risky play and have her resign her seat before the general?
Yeah, the special election would have to be after the general. Unless they decide to make a risky play and have her resign her seat before the general?
The linked article shows that Sanders is more like to beat trump. Based on Polls. Which were not accurate in 2016. And have nothing to do with a Sanders/ Warren pairing. It's sad they seemed to...
Elizabeth Warren is frequently touted as Sanders’s natural running mate. Her supporters claim that Warren is doing from within the Democratic Party what Sanders is doing from the outside — pushing the party to the left.
However, in a tough election cycle against an incumbent president, Warren is not the best choice for either Sanders or the Left. In fact, as Matt Karp has demonstrated, she’s a massive electoral liability.
The linked article shows that Sanders is more like to beat trump. Based on Polls. Which were not accurate in 2016. And have nothing to do with a Sanders/ Warren pairing.
It's sad they seemed to have a falling out in the last debate.
Wisconsin is a state that has a special election for Senate vacancies, so I'd be nervous about losing Baldwin because there's no guarantee a replacement Democrat will win.
This is a concern of mine as well, but I still think that Baldwin as VP would be a good choice for a few reasons:
It's pretty unlikely that the Democrats will retake the Senate anyway. Optimistically we're looking at a gain of 3 seats and a loss of 1 - making the composition 51-49.
I think that votes for a strong presidential ticket will "trickle down," so to speak, to down-ticket races. Specifically, I find it hard to see Wisconsin voting for Bernie/Baldwin and also voting for a non-incumbent Republican in the same election.Going along with the last point, Wisconsin is almost certainly going to be one of, if not the deciding factor in the presidential election. I think it's important to have a vice presidential nominee who can speak to disenchanted voters to whom a populist like trump is appealing.
Edit: I just realized that the special election would probably not take place at the same time as the general election.
Care to explain? Also if the Democrats don't take the Senate can they actually do anything? Currently there are hundreds of bills that have been passed in the Democratic house and blocked in the Republican Senate. If the Democrats don't retake the Senate then won't we be in the same position as now regardless of who the President is?
Certainly! I probably should have cited that claim.
Currently the senate is 53-47, counting Angus King and Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side. States in which the Democrats have the best chance of gaining a seat (I'm looking at this) are Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and North Carolina, and they have to try to hold Alabama. Out of those five they need to win at least four to have a majority (with the VP as tiebreaker). Maine, North Carolina, and Alabama are all leaning Republican and incumbents tend to be reelected. Additionally, betting odds give democrats about a 1 in 3 chance of retaking the senate.
But, if there is a leftward trend across the country and it does happen, I think (I can't cite anything for this) the Wisconsin election is very likely to go to the Democrat given that he/she will not be competing against an incumbent, in which case it is irrelevant whether Sen. Baldwin is running or not.Your second question is a good one and I will try to tackle it. Remember that most legislation in the Senate can be blocked by a filibuster, which requires 60 votes to stop, and Sanders has gone on record saying that he is not willing to ditch the filibuster rule. So the only way he plans to pass any legislation even if he takes the senate is through budget reconciliation, which is not subject to the filibuster but is somewhat limited in what can be included and can only be done once a year.
And there are some things that can (supposedly) be done by executive action, such as legalizing marijuana and expunging past convictions. The president also has a lot of control over military actions, and could reduce military presence abroad. It's also possible that the Democrats regain control of the senate in 2022, where there are some seats open that are favorable for them.
I am by no means an expert but that's how I see the senate race right now. I hope that the Senate turns blue in 2020, but it's hard to make a fact-based argument that that is likely.
I know multiple people who will pursue appointments within ICE and do everything within their power to institutionally cripple the agency if they get a President behind them on it. There isn’t much legislation you can pass, but there’s a lot of fascistic apparatus that we can dismantle if we come at it with intention.
This is a good point. I'm just nervous because Wisconsin's Democrat bench isn't that deep and everyone that I can think of off the top of my head has the "stigma" of being from Madison or Milwaukee, which people up north hate. Also Republicans also manage to ratfuck their way to victory a lot of the time despite putting up terrible candidates or outright cheating. Although Baldwin represented Madison in the House before she ran for Senate, so maybe that's not a big deal. There are probably some good contenders I don't know of either.
I appreciate your response, but now that I think about it the special election would be after the general right? That sort of invalidates my own point...
Yeah, the special election would have to be after the general. Unless they decide to make a risky play and have her resign her seat before the general?
The linked article shows that Sanders is more like to beat trump. Based on Polls. Which were not accurate in 2016. And have nothing to do with a Sanders/ Warren pairing.
It's sad they seemed to have a falling out in the last debate.