Biden Thread

[Montmorency]

Most healthcare professionals aren't going to put their career / lives / family on the line to fight against State laws so I'm not surprised that they're playing it safe and covering their own backs rather than risk being dragged through the courts for years.

Upon further reading, what should have been obvious is becoming apparent to me: In states with a presumption of wrongdoing with respect to any medical procedure or medication administered on a pregnant or potentially-pregnant woman with effects or potential effects on reproductive capacity or fetal development (let alone actual abortions within legal exception where such exists), providers are basically required in practice to proactively justify individual care decisions to state prosecutors and regulators.

What should have been obvious is that even when care does not violate the law, even when providers have full expectation that they will be found to be above board, this bureaucracy noticeably increases the costs and decreases the alacrity of care, in the worst case restraining the appetite of providers to even offer such care in the first place. Remember, we're not even talking about abortions here, just anything that may have "effects or potential effects on reproductive capacity or fetal development," which for women and uterus-havers is kind of inclusive of much or most of modern medicine, broadly speaking.



In more developments that leave me tittering at the British version of institutional scandals, more information has emerged on Trumpworld's protocols for implementing their long-advertised purge of disloyalty in the federal government.



In electoral news, a combination of factors has made it possible to entertain the hope that the Democratic Party might just be able to tread water in the November elections, viz. simmering discontent with exuberant Republican excesses at state and national levels*, a string of poor-quality Republican candidates, the 2020 redistricting cycle being a wash for both parties, legislative movement this year, the easing of inflation and gas prices at the pump, and the grinding effect of the January 6 investigative commision's work against Trump's standing on the Right (for mixed reasons).


*Polling indicates that public belief in the legitimacy of the Supreme Court has never been lower in our history. It is telling when even a genuine throne-and-altar reactionary like Adrian Vermeule (right-wing Harvard constitutional scholar) can admit what the left has been saying for decades:

In reality, as this case makes clear, there is no conservative legal movement, at least if legal conservatism is defined by jurisprudential methods rather than a collection of results. West Virginia v. EPA illustrates that every last methodological tenet professed by the movement will be downplayed, qualified or abandoned when the chance arises to limit the regulatory authority of the federal agencies, especially in environmental matters.

For an insight into who Vermeule is, if you don't recall earlier discussions here:

I want to suggest a principle of immigration priority that should, I hope, be broadly acceptable or at least intriguing for all right-thinking persons concerned that current American immigration policy is racist and classist, explicitly or implicitly, de jure or de facto. The principle is to give lexical priority to confirmed Catholics, all of whom will jump immediately to the head of the queue. Yes, some will convert in order to gain admission; this is a feature, not a bug.
[...]
Catholics need to rethink the nation-state. We have come a long way, but we still have far to go — towards the eventual formation of the Empire of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and ultimately the world government required by natural law. [Ed. See also...]

[Pannonian]

So basically will of the people, as represented by the judges appointed by the democratically elected government, overrides legal principles. If you're appointed by the democratic government, you have carte blanche (in this case, for the rest of their lives).

Isn't this basically an ultra-powerful extremely select House of Lords? We have several hundred of them to water their biases down.

[Montmorency]

Among the complaints you'll see is that judges appointed at least by Trump and Bush Jr. (first term if not both) lack democratic legitimacy. But judicial review artisans in general haven't really been assessed in terms of legitimacy until now. The American concept of the judiciary, traditionally at least, is that judges - where not directly elected, as they are in some states - are meant to be insulated from democratic pressure, being rather impelled to a positivistic outcome by their assuredly-apolitical legal philosophies. But whereas the jurist as a character anywhere is indeed influenced by political context and personal preference to work backward to desired outcomes, the Republican legal world has cultivated the judge-as-political operative who consults party advantage first, reactionary ideology second, and legal text, precedent, intent, and principle somewhere distantly after. In the case of American movement conservatism, the 50-year project, well-executed, was to seize the iudiciary as a vanguardist institution by which to promote the movement and the party's preferences, which to be clear are anti-democratic in nature. Explicitly so, as when many Republicans, whether politicians, religious leaders, academics, or business elites tell us that democracy is "incompatible" with liberty and sound living.

[rory_20_uk]

Judges - like many other people - can be impeached. I think that this should happen more often - if for no other reason than so they realise it isn't a lifetime power trip - they're actually supposed to be enforcing the rule of law.

[spmetla]

Yup, also if impeachment was used more often and for simple things like incompetence or loss of confidence instead of requiring 'caught red handed and then admitting it' levels of guilt to move forward. Would nice if impeachment trials had some formal structure instead of making it up each time as politics requires/allows.

[Montmorency]

Judges - like many other people - can be impeached. I think that this should happen more often - if for no other reason than so they realise it isn't a lifetime power trip - they're actually supposed to be enforcing the rule of law.

Republicans do try sometimes, but there's a reason impeachments are rare in the US - the threshold for removal in the US Constitution and most (all?) state constitutions is a supermajority.

One of the many structural problems with the judicial branch in the US - though in current events far from a decisive one - is that, as in ye olde times, judges serve for life (unless they sit in elected positions, which is its own can of worms). There is no non-perverse reason in modern government for any position to be a guaranteed lifetime sinecure. Magistrates are not royalty (nor should royalty be magistrates, or, er, anything).


Edit: Jon Stewart at his best (burn pits). [VIDEO]

[Pannonian]

What does a wholesale revision of the constitution involve, and are there any limits? If the Republicans get their super-majority, can they reinstate slavery, for example?

[Montmorency]

What does a wholesale revision of the constitution involve, and are there any limits? If the Republicans get their super-majority, can they reinstate slavery, for example?

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Republicans can't even claim to formally or quasi-formally begin the process to amend the Constitution unless they, like, liquidate their opposition in Congress and install "alternative" replacements. I'd be more alert about Republican courts rubber-stamping unlawful state and federal actions according to their partisan impact, or increasingly-unchecked political repression in the red states.


For a fun excursion away from the big picture:

As a tax researcher, I was skeptical of rumors Trump buried his ex-wife in that sad little plot of dirt on his Bedminster, NJ golf course just for tax breaks.

So I checked the NJ tax code & folks...it's a trifecta of tax avoidance. Property, income & sales tax, all eliminated.

Full text of NJ tax code for land used for human burial.

No stipulation regarding a minimum # of human remains necessary for the tax breaks to kick in--looks like one corpse will suffice to make at least 3 forms of tax vanish.

The real crime is, you know, all the crime, but it's also a crime what's legal.

[Hooahguy]

For a fun excursion away from the big picture:

The real crime is, you know, all the crime, but it's also a crime what's legal.

Wouldnt there be a zoning issue around that? Surely one small part of the property being used for a cemetery cant change the status for the entire golf course?

This follow-up by the OP was even more revealing:

Yes, but this could not have been Trump's decision: he had not been her next of kin for decades & had no right to decide her burial place.

Ivana's *actual* next of kin--her still-living mom & 3 kids--or the executor of her estate, had to agree to this. THAT's the shocker.

Yeesh.

[Montmorency]

Wouldnt there be a zoning issue around that? Surely one small part of the property being used for a cemetery cant change the status for the entire golf course?

I'm sure there must be some complexity involved, but Trump has for years got over a hundred acres of the property zoned as farmland, allowing him to pay like 1% of the usual property tax. This was documented early in the Trump era.

He's very well known to always be on the prowl for methods by which to nickel and dime the state, some of lesser, some greater magnitude, some of lesser or greater legality.

This follow-up by the OP was even more revealing:

It's also possible Ivana stipulated the burial place in her will, right? These are all screwy people.

[Montmorency]

Kansas has since 2019 enjoyed a judicially-enforced right to abortion access.

The Kansas government, controlled by Republican supermajorities except for another key 2018 Democratic governor win, had timely decided to put forth a referendum:

A vote for the Value Them Both
Amendment would affirm there
is no Kansas constitutional right
to abortion or to require the
government funding of abortion,
and would reserve to the people of
Kansas, through their elected state
legislators, the right to pass laws to
regulate abortion.

The date was set to the day of the primary elections, rather than the general election, to minimize turnout. There wasn't much polling done, but what was indicated the sides were evenly-balanced.

60% of voters came out for abortion rights yesterday in Kansas.

If they can get an “abortion-minded” woman to have a conversation, Pinson feels confident that the center’s staff can change her mind. In their counseling sessions, Pinson says, they “pour into girls,” persuading them that, no matter the obstacles in their lives, they can become successful mothers.

Pinson welcomes even the most devastating cases.

“I’ve seen a lot of 13-year-olds do phenomenal, absolutely phenomenal,” she said. “It doesn’t have to be a negative thing.”

She closely followed the case of the 10-year-old rape victim who was denied an abortion in Ohio last month. If that girl came into her center, Pinson would suggest she consider adoption, she said, adding that abortion would not fix the girl’s problems.

“That life is still a life and, even at 10, she knows a life is inside her.”

Be scared you fundagelical fucks.

[rory_20_uk]

What does a wholesale revision of the constitution involve, and are there any limits? If the Republicans get their super-majority, can they reinstate slavery, for example?

I doubt there are many if any limits in theory

1. The USA already has few international laws it adheres to and could leave any others
2. No other country has done more than a verbal criticism of such things as children in cages / Federal troops arresting people
3. Abroad, other countries have in many cases joined in with breaking international laws in attacking other countries

Even if they'd just baldly overturn the 14th Amendment there'd be some murmours from Europe and that's about it; elsewhere would probably be happy as the last vestiges of pretence of ethics falls away and they can get back to the ethnic cleansing etc with gusto.

The USA has already a long history of both discriminating against non-whites and non-rich and usually does this indirectly rather than overtly - let us not forget our dear Austrian leader was so keen to see how the USA did things before he copied for his own purposes.

[Montmorency]

As before, if the US goes, say so long to Blighty.

The Republicans don't want to overturn the 14th Amendment however, they just want to reinstate the 19th century jurisprudence that corporations can't be subjected to the same level of regulation as women.



Trump's record with the success of his endorsements has been unflattering, so he's trying a weird new trick.



No, it's not an oversight.

There is a BIG Election in the Great State of Missouri, and we must send a MAGA Champion and True Warrior to the U.S. Senate, someone who will fight for Border Security, Election Integrity, our Military and Great Veterans, together with having a powerful toughness on Crime and the Border. I trust the Great People of Missouri, on this one, to make up their own minds, much as they did when they gave me landslide victories in the 2016 and 2020 Elections, and I am therefore proud to announce that ERIC has my Complete and Total Endorsement!

[Pannonian]

As before, if the US goes, say so long to Blighty.

The Republicans don't want to overturn the 14th Amendment however, they just want to reinstate the 19th century jurisprudence that corporations can't be subjected to the same level of regulation as women.



Trump's record with the success of his endorsements has been unflattering, so he's trying a weird new trick.



No, it's not an oversight.

"Mr. President, do you support Eric Greitens or Eric Schmitt?"
"Yes."

[Montmorency]

It's been a miserable slog, but Sinema, Manchin, Gottheimer, et al. may have finally agreed on everything they want to cut from Biden's agenda that climate/energy investment and Medicare reform - assigned the quasi-Orwellian epithet "Inflation Reduction Act" by Manchin - is heading to the House for likely final confirmation. It's more than I predicted at least, namely nothing.

Paul Krugman: "On infrastructure, Obama wanted to invest but couldn't; Trump promised to invest but didn't; Biden actually got it done. What got lost were the extensive social programs. That's a tragedy; we could have virtually eliminated child poverty, among other things. Even there, this bill expanded the enhanced subsidies that have helped bring uninsurance to a record low. But overall, it's a remarkable record for a party with 50 senators and a relentlessly obstructionist opposition."

If by some miracle we keep the House and net a Senator in November it would be a truly self-righteous suicide to continue ignoring the urgency of structural political reform in the US, including court reform, state accession, reaffirming anti-gerrymandering and the constitutional protection of republican government, etc.

[Hooahguy]

Promising midterm news: in a special election for NY-19, Democrat Pat Ryan defeated his GOP challenger by a bit over 2 points last night. Biden won this district by just a point in 2020, and many thought it would flip. This doesnt bode well for expectations of a red wave in November.

[Montmorency]

Promising midterm news: in a special election for NY-19, Democrat Pat Ryan defeated his GOP challenger by a bit over 2 points last night. Biden won this district by just a point in 2020, and many thought it would flip. This doesnt bode well for expectations of a red wave in November.

Currently 538 projects 47-53 Democratic Senators, with a likely scenario being all hold plus exchange in Georgia and Pennsylvania. Their House projection is 230/435 Republican seats on average. There are only two competitive governor's races, those in Kansas and Arizona.

Of course, what matters is how the model is shaping up in 2 months. The latest polling is always more applicable than a historical trend. Retail gasoline prices have been falling continuously for more than a month. Hopefully the global food, water, and energy crises don't reach another acute stage in the fall.


In policy news, Biden has fulfilled his campaign quasi-promise on student loan forgiveness. It's a fairly moderate change whose comparative virtue is that it provides ongoing relief to future students. Biden has actually aggressively pursued existing debt-relief and repayment programs, such as through the following: Borower Defense To Repayment; Total and Permanent Disability; ITT Tech Students; Public Service Loan Forgiveness. His administration's outreach around these obscure and traditionally uncooperative programs has already assisted potentially hundreds of thousands above baseline in clearing their debt. Recent polling suggests that half of Millenials and Gen Z endorse the more expansive versions of student debt relief. Biden's policy seems calculated to garner the support of at least half of Americans overall.

Hopefully the prosecution of Republicans follows a similar workmanlike trajectory.

Quick reference: The federal government owns most student debt (university, technical/trade school, etc.) in the country. This amounts to several trillion dollars of ballooning debt, much of it chronically non-performing (i.e. it never gets repaid and the government loses money holding it), held by some 40 million Americans.

Fun fact: From the 1950s to the 1970s the typical 4-year degree in America, even from private universities, cost about what one would expect from a similar current European education, though I see European universities are increasingly 'rising to American standards.' This is amusing to contemplate considering that debt relief is least popular among Baby Boomers (for whom college debt effectively did not exist).

Basic features: $10000 of debt forgiven for those with incomes under $125K, or couples with incomes under $250K. Rises to $20000 for Pell Grant recipients (available to low-to-mid income students). About half of all student debt holders should be released from their full obligations with these caps. The Sanders/Warren proposals to forgive $50000 in debt would have absolved almost all debt holders.

Long-term improvements: For those who still have to manage student debt, doing so will become almost easy.

The Department of Education has the authority to create income-driven repayment plans, which cap what borrowers pay each month based on a percentage of their discretionary income. Most of these plans cancel a borrower’s remaining debt once they make 20 years of monthly payments. But the existing versions of these plans are too complex and too limited. As a result, millions of borrowers who might benefit from them do not sign up, and the millions who do sign up are still often left with unmanageable monthly payments.

To address these concerns and follow through on Congress’ original vision for income-driven repayment, the Department of Education is proposing a rule to do the following:

For undergraduate loans, cut in half the amount that borrowers have to pay each month from 10% to 5% of discretionary income.

Raise the amount of income that is considered non-discretionary income and therefore is protected from repayment, guaranteeing that no borrower earning under 225% of the federal poverty level—about the annual equivalent of a $15 minimum wage for a single borrower—will have to make a monthly payment. [Ed. This currently designates around the first $30000 in income secure from debt repayment calculations for an individual, or the first $60000 for a family of four.]

Forgive loan balances after 10 years of payments, instead of 20 years, for borrowers with original loan balances of $12,000 or less. The Department of Education estimates that this reform will allow nearly all community college borrowers to be debt-free within 10 years.

Cover the borrower’s unpaid monthly interest, so that unlike other existing income-driven repayment plans, no borrower’s loan balance will grow as long as they make their monthly payments—even when that monthly payment is $0 because their income is low.

These reforms would simplify loan repayment and deliver significant savings to low- and middle-income borrowers. For example:

A typical single construction worker (making $38,000 a year) with a construction management credential would pay only $31 a month, compared to the $147 they pay now under the most recent income-driven repayment plan, for annual savings of nearly $1,400.

A typical single public school teacher with an undergraduate degree (making $44,000 a year) would pay only $56 a month on their loans, compared to the $197 they pay now under the most recent income-driven repayment plan, for annual savings of nearly $1,700.

A typical nurse (making $77,000 a year) who is married with two kids would pay only $61 a month on their undergraduate loans, compared to the $295 they pay now under the most recent income-driven repayment plan, for annual savings of more than $2,800.

Note the distinction between gross and discretionary income (the first is pre-tax).


EDIT: A low-salience provision of the ARRA stimulus Democrats passed in March last year is that all forgiven student loan debt is non-taxable at the federal level through 2025 (by default, the government treats forgiven debts as taxable income). Nice setup.

[Montmorency]

An important aspect of the current student loan system I forgot to mention is that during the process of nationalizing student debt 15 years ago, student debt was made less dischargable in bakruptcy than most (all?) other forms of personal debt for the lifetime of the debtor. Relevant to this example of the takedown in its finest form.

A Republican Congressman criticized student debt forgiveness on the grounds that doing so weakens military recruitment incentives, thus harming national security. There are programs that make shaking off student debt easier for military or other service members (N.B. Until the Biden presidency only perhaps a single-digit percentage of eligible debtors were able to take advantage of their entitlement.)

Leaving aside scrutiny of the ethical and factual dimensions of such a claim, it is absolutely delicious that this very Congressman has submitted legislation this very month that would eliminate the "costly and regressive" Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, the result of which would be to make almost all military service members ineligible for debt relief.

"Heads we win, tails you lose" as they say. These are ruthlessly-malicious cads who want to destroy the country they hate.



Of course, it's possible to use one's position toward a measure of public service rather than carnage. Talk about blue blood, but John Kerry makes a mockery of European claims to antique political dynasties. Well, not a mockery, but a stiff rebuke.

After months of research into Kerry’s ancestry, Burke’s Peerage, experts on British aristocracy, reported on Monday that the Vietnam War veteran is related to all the royal houses of Europe and can claim kinship with Russian czar Ivan the Terrible, a previous emperor of Byzantium and the shahs of Persia.

Burke’s director Harold Brooks-Baker said Kerry had his mother, Rosemary Forbes, to thank for most of his royal connections.

“Every maternal blood line of Kerry makes him more royal than any previous American president,” Brooks-Baker said. “

But what does this mean for America? After all, almost all our presidents can claim descent from royalty, particularly the Anglo-Saxon-Norman aristocracy, even Obama.

Similar research carried out on Bush ahead of the 2000 presidential race showed that he beat Al Gore in the royal stakes, claiming kinship with Britain’s Queen Elizabeth as well as with Kings Henry III and Charles II of England.

The Bush political family as political family, in American context, only dates to the early 20th century, the interwar years. John Kerry on the other hand is a direct descendant of John Winthrop, first among the founding Puritan elite of Massachussetts colony 400 years ago. Not only that, but his Boston Brahmin ancestors - besides OG John ofc - almost continuously found themselves in powerful and prominent political roles until the Civil War era (that I can identify).

[Hooahguy]

To follow up on even more good news, the special election for Alaska's single House district went blue- for the first time in almost 50 years!

Definitely doesnt bode well for the red wave.

[spmetla]

Also a credit I think to the value of ranked ballot voting. Tends to leave the fringe on the fringe where they should be, I hope it's adopted in more states.

[Montmorency]

Also a credit I think to the value of ranked ballot voting. Tends to leave the fringe on the fringe where they should be, I hope it's adopted in more states.

The winner would have won on the first ballot in FPTP in this spread as well, though there might be tactical voter adjustments in that circumstance. Score/STAR voting arguably delivers a more representative outcome as a preferential or approval-type system, grading candidates by cumulative points rather than a series of virtual runoffs.

Not that I would condone the specific outcome, but polling and other indicators strongly suggest that the Republican candidate Begich III* was slightly preferred to the Democratic winner (Mary Peltola) and overwhelmingly preferred to the other Republican loser (Sarah Palin). A score-voting or STAR system would have reflected that sentiment by electing Begich.

But while there are mathematically more representative systems than instant-runoff or ranked-choice, and ranked choice wasn't really utilized in the Alaska special election, it's still a better baseline than FPTP.


*His grandfather was the Democratic Representative At-Large of Alaska in the early 1970s until he died in a plane crash and was replaced with Republican Rep. Don Young, who remained in office for exactly 49 years until he died this March.


Brandon taking off the gloves lately?

[Hooahguy]

It was a great speech by Biden- calling a spade a spade was inevitably going to ruffle feathers among the GOP, though the outcry has been particularly hilarious since they went from "Sleepy Joe" to "Biden is Palpatine/Hitler." As Truman said, “I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.”

Also applicable- "a hit dog will holler."

Now the Dems need to follow up on this with more forceful campaigning. Biden got us off to a great start, now time to bring it home. Call the MAGA GOP a threat to democracy, show voters concrete examples of how the GOP are going to end free and fair elections. Show the rhetoric and votes that the GOP deny the election results. Dont rely on the media for this job, we know they are more invested in the horse race.

[rory_20_uk]

I thought that Tyler Bowyer on Twitter said it best - "This is what we will have if you let Ranked Choice Voting and Independent Redistricting Commissions into your state."

Yes. a country governed mainly by moderates who lean more towards where the Democrats now are / where Republicans were c. 20 years ago.



I'd love such a system to come to the UK where candidates are chosen more on who they are than purely have them picked by the local and central party machinery.

[Montmorency]

You can see my edits clearly; they represent 2019 figures. I believe I also read recently that mortality among young adults has risen to levels not seen since the mid-20th century.

When the New Deal coalition still reigned, American and Western European aggregate life expectancies were roughly equal. Now American life expectancy is probably 3 or 5 years lower.

For reference on Amerindian (the ethnic demographic hit hardest by the pandemic) life expectancy figures, the last time US overall life expectancy was 65 was during WW2.

I wouldn't expect factual rigor from whatever third-echelon TPUSA hack Tyler Bowen is, but I'm genuinely curious how one could construct a scenario in which Idaho, Utah, and Tennessee - three of the most Republican states in the country - go Democratic in presidential elections (RCV or no) while near-balanced purple states like Florida and North Carolina don't. Bifurcating Texas and Florida here definitely deserves explanation. I don't know enough to analogize this to UK constituencies.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would guess that chart is based on what might have occurred in 2020 if RCV had been in place. I would therefore be leery of it, since knowing that RCV instead of fptp is in place will change voter decisions. Using older data to predict would run into some validity error.

[Montmorency]

You can see my edits clearly; they represent 2019 figures. I believe I also read recently that mortality among young adults has risen to levels not seen since the mid-20th century.

When the New Deal coalition still reigned, American and Western European aggregate life expectancies were roughly equal. Now American life expectancy is probably 3 or 5 years lower.

For reference on Amerindian (the ethnic demographic hit hardest by the pandemic) life expectancy figures, the last time US overall life expectancy was 65 was during WW2.

GREAT POWER SOMETHING OR OTHER

One of many reasons the American state has been losing legitimacy for a generation.

I would guess that chart is based on what might have occurred in 2020 if RCV had been in place. I would therefore be leery of it, since knowing that RCV instead of fptp is in place will change voter decisions. Using older data to predict would run into some validity error.

Yeah, that's what I was saying, in that I was skeptical of what underlying data could have been used to generate a result like that.

[Montmorency]

Confirmation that the majority of Republican electeds have become 2020 Truthers.

[Montmorency]

It's just been the same shit for the past decade but Dem electeds are still basically devoted to the politics of normalcy and civility, which in the long-term has had an incredibly corrosive effect on the readiness and mobilization of both the liberal coalition and the party infrastructure.


We can finally comment on the closing stretch to the midterms, two weeks out. There has been, as predicted, a reversion to the mean in public sentiment, though some still maintain the existence of a reproductive-rights swing vote. The reversion doesn't seem to be related to the modest recent reversal (0.15-20c) in gas prices, as the trends preceded it and were smooth during it. The summary from 2 months ago fundamentally still applies:

47-53 Dem Senators, though now 49-51 is the likeliest range. I suspect they maintain the 50-50 split with a one-for-one exchange, but if either of the races in Georgia and Pennsylvania turn out to be flubs as well the Republicans have the majority.
House majority of around 15 seats for Republicans (~230).

The most disturbing development is that Dem gubernatorial candidates have lately slid in the polls in many states, to the point that 5 races are competitive rather than just 2. These are Arizona and Kansas plus Wisconsin, Oregon, and Nevada, with all but Arizona staking Dem incumbency. Losing the governor's office in Wisconsin and falling short of it in Arizona guarantees that those states will declare for the Republican presidential nominee in 2024 if the Democrat carries the vote. (Oregon is at risk today because of the combination of an unpopular incumbent governor and an unusually-strong third-party entrant.)

[Hooahguy]

So how about that midterm huh lol.

I think we are looking at a 51-49 Democrat Senate, plus a narrow GOP House. Honestly if the NY Dem party didnt flub so badly on everything from redistricting to GOTV, we might have kept the House and Senate. Bummer. But on the plus side, the various NY republicans who won in purple districts might not touch impeachment because of how badly it would be used against them in 2024. Also I dont think McCarthy is Speaker in any case, nobody likes him lol

But hey, at least Boebert might lose her seat? Suuuper close race. (as of writing this, the Dem challenger is up 50.01% to 49.99%)

[Montmorency]

Long story short, the midterms actually tracked the polling fairly closely (not Trafalgar or Rasmussen, better luck next time), although a large number of close contests have broken favorably for Dems. Undecideds seem to have broken Democratic for once. If anything polling was slightly too unfavorable to Democrats. Overall you could call it a mediocre night for both parties in terms of normal electoral politics, historically above-average for incumbent parties in midterm elections, and in the process of American degeneration into civil strife another brief respite.

Democrats? half-empty glass might be more full than Republicans?.

It's plain that the abortion crisis counteracted perceptions of inflation, though stable gas prices and Q3 GDP growth might also have helped.

We easily gained two governorships as the "moderate" Republican incumbents of blue states vacated their positions. Keeping the governorships in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and plausibly taking it in Arizona is legitimate security for the 2024 presidential race. Some unusual results include the first Democratic trifecta in Michigan in 40 years, and a potential flip in the Pennsylvania state House on the wire. Altogether it may be enough to foreclose Republican plans to nullify presidential election results.

At first glance voter turnout is probably below 2018, but if so I'm not sure if either party was hurt more than the other.

Control of the Senate will be decided by a runoff election in Georgia yet again, because although Fetterman pulled through in Pennsylvania despite his stroke and everywhere else is a hold, Nevada's Democratic Senator appears to be suffering a predicted narrow defeat.

Trump is widely expected to announce his candidacy for 2024 within a week, and there may be more news on his legal troubles in that time as well.

@Seamus

Bill Nelson won re-election to the Senate with 55% and 4.5 million votes in 2012 in Florida, and Rubio has won now with 58% and 4.5 million votes (after winning with 52%/4.8 million votes in his last election, 2016). Miami is GONE. Every single Florida county swung right compared to 2020, which was already rightward from the 2010s average. Compare with Pennsylvania, where every county swung left or stable this cycle, or Kansas, where a similar statewide blue shift occurred in the governor's race. The notorious Orbanist De Santis performed even better than Rubio and has accumulated enough clout in one term to run a Sanders-scale campaign against Trump in 2024 if he wishes. The state legislature has gone over to a Republican supermajority. This can't be accounted for just by the pandemic influx of conservative retirees, or the tiny Cuban minority.

Is it finally time for

So how about that midterm huh lol.

I think we are looking at a 51-49 Democrat Senate, plus a narrow GOP House. Honestly if the NY Dem party didnt flub so badly on everything from redistricting to GOTV, we might have kept the House and Senate. Bummer. But on the plus side, the various NY republicans who won in purple districts might not touch impeachment because of how badly it would be used against them in 2024. Also I dont think McCarthy is Speaker in any case, nobody likes him lol

But hey, at least Boebert might lose her seat? Suuuper close race. (as of writing this, the Dem challenger is up 50.01% to 49.99%)

From what I'm seeing Cortez-Masto probably loses, but it's possible I guess. How many key elections have we won by 3 or 4 digits in the past few years?

NY Dems didn't cause non-partisan redistricting, that was by popular referendum/constitutional reform. Technically it was state lege Dems being so dedicated to trying to gerrymander this cycle that an independent drafter had to be assigned, leaving the state with a more balanced map than we might have gotten away with.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wo...-redistricting

But it's not that important, since Dems were compensated with a number of seats in other states as a result of anti-gerrymandering actions and some additional gerrymandering of their own; some NY seats would have flipped anyway for the following, more troubling, reason that overall sentiment toward the party here is the lowest since the Pataki era. The long-coveted two-chamber supermajority we gained in the state legislature during the Blue Wave has been lost in both chambers by a seat or two. Schumer had his worst result since his first Senate election in 1998 against New York giant D'Amato. Uber-centrist Max Rose rode the Blue Wave into the Staten Island House district (NY-11) in 2018, then lost it in 2020 53-47. His reaction was to abandon and condemn the Democratic Party, seeking a rematch with Malliotakis as an independent. This time he lost 62-38. While it is pleasing to scornfully regard his comeuppance, we can only hope this broad downturn in the state reverts to the mean.

From what I see of the current returns the GOP winds up with 220-225 seats, I'll guess 222 (the current Democratic majority). Certainly an underperformance but enough to roast up some red meat with vexatious Congressional investigations.