Friends, whoever the Republican nominee in 2024 turns out to be (gee, I wonder...), it's critical that he (or she) should have a fair chance to win. In other words, the ground rules for the election shouldn't artificially favor any candidate, and those ground rules should be followed to the letter. That certainly wasn't the case in 2020, as you'll read below (and Mr. Adams only scratches the surface). Things are looking much better for 2022 and beyond. That's because state courts are standing up to leftist attempts to rejigger our election infrastructure to favor Democrats, and state legislatures are closing loopholes and cracking down on the use of private money to fund our boards of election. By and large, our state-level election laws are already written in a way that locks the system down and prevents fraud. The problem is that, in the context of the COVID pandemic, Dems and their fellow travelers felt empowered to ignore those laws. There's ample reason to believe they won't get away with that again, and, if they try it, we now have a Supreme Court that may slap them down. SCOTUS doesn't like overturning elections once they've happened -- that much is clear -- but that doesn't mean it won't intervene before the fact to ensure that those elections are conducted fairly. Fingers crossed!
Speaking of 2024, the tea leaves are settling in such a way that it's getting harder and harder to deny that DJT is very likely to run, and extremely likely to win the Republican nomination. Now, if he announces before November, Trump mania could upend the midterms (although personally I suspect the dynamics wouldn't shift that much -- the Dems are going to run against Trump either way). Now, the Dems keep telling us that Trump will be wearing an orange jumpsuit any day now! Really and truly! Uh huh. That could have quite an impact...but only if the Dems know what they're talking about, which is always doubtful.
Finally, as you all know, the GOP is heavily favored to take the House in November, but not necessarily the Senate. Sean Trende says that a Republican Senate is still more likely than not, based on historical...well, trends, which are Trende's cup of tea. I'm inclined to agree.
History would suggest that it would be more probable than not that the Senate would turn over from Dem to GOP, but people don't vote on trends -- they vote on people. And, so far, the GOP has picked sucky people to run for Senate. Fetterman is up 6-10 on Oz, depending on the poll. Warnock is up 9 on Walker, based on the Emerson poll (not surprising -- Walker is a disaster). Ryan leads Vance in OH. Beasley and Budd are even in NC. Johnson in WI is in trouble. The only Dem in trouble is Masto in NV so long as Laxalt doesn't implode. NH would have been trouble for Dems if Sununu ran against Hassan, but he is staying as governor (he is eyeing 2024, and doesn't want a possible Senate loss to stymie that).
ReplyDeleteThe other interesting note is that, despite all the headwinds Dems are facing, the latest Siena Poll has generic congressional Democrat beating generic congressional Republican by one, after being down by seven.
Now, if Trump declares before Election Day, there may be a small blue wave.
Yes, history suggests Congress will change. But, history doesn't vote.
RAY HERE Another masterpiece from Comrade Rod Carveth, whose philosophy is: that if he believes it, it must be true. Good job there, DOCTOR Rod.
ReplyDeleteRod, that is a masterpiece of wishful thinking and evidentiary cherry-picking. You should go back and read some of your Senate predictions in 2020. You might develop some humility. Might. Probably not.
ReplyDeleteRay, you heard it here first: a "small blue wave" is a a-comin'! Batten down the hatches.
RAY HERE Looks like I need to get my surf board out. Hope Bro. Ron can come with me.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy et al from Jack::In my opinion: Rod often presents plausible empirical evidence to support his views. I usually disagree with his conclusions but I suggest they should be countered when seen necessary, by equally courteous empirical and logical argument. Let both sides abjure ad hominen dreck and subsequent discourse according to intellectually creditable standards leading to objectively believable conclusions! If we choose to advance so, let us resolve to stay the dialectical process!
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy et al from Jack: But, as an addendum to my pontification: I think the use of ad hominem in response to initiated ad hominem, is justified.
ReplyDeleteRay, it's just a "small blue wave", so I wouldn't count on any surfing. Bring your water wings and have a good paddle, though. My gut tells me Rod can build some killer sand castles too. He knows the fantasy genre in and out, clearly.
ReplyDeleteJack, only a giant a**hole would engage in ad hominem attacks, in my opinion. I will now proceed to give you a comprehensive list of giant a**holes known to me... Oh, wait -- I might have screwed up our dialectic before it even got started. Drat!
But yes, Rod always has evidence. His arguments are mostly plausible too. Cherry-picking polls doesn't prove much of anything, though. I mean, if I did that, I could argue that the GOP is going to win the popular vote for the House or Senate by 10+ points...but I'm not dumb enough to think that any poll that claims that is likely to be correct. When the average of polls says Republicans are ahead, well, they probably are...modestly (but peristently, in this cycle).