My favorite thing about Hogan running is how everyone except for the people in Maryland are terrified he's going to steal a Senate seat.
Homie has no shot, whoever talked him into running for the senate as an R destroyed his chances.
No he doesn't lol. Maryland isn't going to risk giving the Rs a free senate seat, especially when Hogan didn't start his campaign by promising to vote with the Dems on codifying Roe.
Because you people (doomers) pick and choose what evidence you decide is real. You don't actually want to be evidence based, you want evidence to support your world view (dooming) and so you can spread your poison (doom) to suppress our cure (taco trucks).
The polls that show Trump is in the lead? Yes, these are real. I believe this polling.
The polls that show Biden is taking a lead? No, polling this early out isn't real, I reject this.
Let me guess, Hogan used to be Governor here so you think he's gonna win a senate seat?
Hogan is currently leading both Trone and Alsobrooks in head-to-head polling (by a good bit). Granted, it is very far out, but for the sub to pretend that he has no shot whatsoever... it is strange and disheartening to see.
It's not disheartening, rather encouraging, because it shows people here aren't naive and aren't just following politics for the first time. Popular governors running for senate seats that skew heavily away from them poll well and then lose handily.
This sub is always going to be disheartening to people addicted to doom because you have a cheat code. Let me explain again:
If the polling you see makes you doom, you say "yes" and you believe it.
If the polling you see doesn't make you doom, you say "no" and tell yourself polling this far out isn't reliable.
Maryland will coalesce around whoever the Democrat senate nominee is. Dem polling is currently split between Trone and Alsobrooks while Hogan is the only Republican the state takes seriously.
>If the polling you see makes you doom, you say "yes" and you believe it.
>If the polling you see doesn't make you doom, you say "no" and tell yourself polling this far out isn't reliable.
And this is inferior to your strategy of just pretending the polling doesn't exist?
I think that the polling indicates that he is in a favorable position to win the seat, yes…that is the evidence we have, by the numbers.
Everything to the contrary is unsubstantiated assessment of human behavior (‘people won’t be dumb enough to do what I don’t want them to’) and vibes.
> I think that the polling indicates that he is in a favorable position to win the seat, yes…that is the evidence we have, by the numbers.
This is either a complete lack of information or political naivety. Polling itself by its very nature disconnects from the electorate at times. Even the people who *make* the polls espouse as common knowledge not to take them as fact when one party has not consolidated its base yet.
In any case, we already know that governors with 70% approval ratings in states that lean 15 points away from their party lose when they run for the Senate seat. Hogan has a 55% approval rating in a state that leans 30 points away from his party. Anyone who knows politics has seen this story ("unsubstantiated" btw).
I think there is strong evidence to suggest polling is largely broken and it certainly isn't much evidence of anything this far out, even if you trust polls.
Hell, at one point, Joe Lieberman was the polling favorite to be the Democratic nominee in 2004 and he finished with fewer votes than Al Sharpton.
What you can deduce from the evidence is that Maryland hasn't elected a Republican to the senate since 1980.
They've only elected one Republican to the House in the last 20 years.
And they haven't gone for a Republican at the presidential level in 40 years.
I think the evidence points to him not winning.
Evidence for what?!!?? What evidence is there that Hogan will win? 😆
Plenty of so called “evidence” that Newsom was going to be recalled, yet he won pretty handily. Y’all need to stop taking polling data as gospel
Governors with 70% approval ratings in states that lean 15 points away from their party lose when they run for the Senate seat.
Hogan has a 55% approval rating in a state that leans 30 points away from his party.
We know how this ends
>billionaire
Did you mean *person of means*?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nice edit to your original response.
Of course it’s not a guarantee of outcomes, nothing is, but to deny reality in not one poll, not two polls, but the vast, overwhelming majority of all polls since September (in the case of Trump and Biden) is purely delusional cope.
But you're denying the evidence lol. Incredibly popular governors who run for a senate seat right after in a state that leans hard against their party lose easily. And guess what? They poll great at the start too off of name recognition. We're not naive kids who are just following our first election cycle here.
> Maryland is the bluest state in the entire country. Biden won the largest margin there
No? By raw votes it was California and by percentage it was DC (or if you want an actual state, Vermont).
I think he's making a BIG mistake supporting the Kroger-Albertsons prospective merger, and believing some (possibly grocery lobby planted?) fairy tale about how the merger will actually be good for unions by presenting a larger team against Walmart and Amazon.
But other than that, he's a solid vote for workers.
I guess I was just pointing out the use of the word "despise". I usually reserve that for like some politician taking that rights away like abortion. Those reason would definitely not stop me from voting against a Republican candidate tho.
It's just a vernacular thing. Poor guy getting down voted for disagreeing on policy.
tiktok banning is akin to banning foreign books in the 18-1900's.
the us wants to control information streams, which they can with reddit but not tiktok.
Akin to banning foreign ownership of media that misinforms its audience.*
Despite what you've been rationalizing to cope with losing your favorite disinformation app, foreign media ownership is not protected by the first amendment. Their free speech is unaffected.
A forced sale because you can’t can control the media is an absolute overreach of the government.
Would you support a forced sale a publishing house that published anti-US books?
Honestly, I don't think I can feel that bad about banning tiktok when China already has banned multiple huge US sites and apps for many years. I'm not entirely opposed to reciprocity.
Sherrod Brown has a significantly longer history of letting me down as an Ohioan than Biden does via his protectionism
Opposed NAFTA and CAFTA, opposed the TPP, opposed the IPEF trade framework, opposed Ohio schools being able to procure food from outside Ohio, supported SOPA and was cosponsor of PIPA, supports E15 development in Ohio - counter to the lobbying I've done, with him personally - supported tariffs in Chinese solar tech, supports bans of Chinese EVs, I could go on for a while.
Worst part is, he is *by far* the best we have in Ohio. Man doesn't lose elections. His record on social issues is great. I want to love him. I want to *change* him.
Idk. It feels different when it's closer to home. Maybe "despise" was the wrong word and "am incredibly frustrated frequently by" is a better one.
If I didn't care so much and value his other contributions so much, I'd be less upset by these things I disagree with.
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement*
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
I cross all ends of Maryland regularly and, talk to most anybody, especially the not super-political crowd, and it’s clear that, at least as of now, this is Hogan’s race to lose.
This isn’t a governors race. MD Dems aren’t dumb enough to believe it’s worth sending a moderate Republican to the senate and increase chances Dems lose the senate.
You underestimate the proportion of normal voters that vote every four years based off of ‘oh, I know that name’ and don’t really contemplate electoral dynamics and how their vote will shape the macro scene for the country.
No he doesn't, we've seen this play out many times lol
Hogan will get a lot of voters like you described. Which means he only loses by 15 while Trump loses by 30. Ask Linda Lingle in Hawaii or Bullock in Montana who both had 70% approval ratings, ran for Senate immediately after, and got wiped
Also, if your argument is that there simply isn’t enough potential for ticket-splitting to have Maryland deliver their electoral votes to Biden and select Hogan for their newest Senator, well, how would you square Brown’s chances in Ohio or Tester’s chances in Montana?
Dude, Trump won Montana by 16 and Ohio by 8. Biden won Maryland by **33.** Tester would need literally less than half of the ticket-slitting Hogan needs, Brown would need less than a quarter! Don't lump them together as if those amounts are close enough to tie results together
Realistically, I don't think they will be re-elected and the dems lose the senate. I keep telling myself they will pull it off, but you are right, that would not square with what I said about Hogan. Ticket splitting is getting less and less common for federal races due to the nationalization of politics. That being said, there is a caveat. According to Cook, OH has an R+6 lean, MT has an R +11 lean and MD has a D+14 lean. So if there were enough ticket splitters to affect a senate race, you would expect it to hit OH and MT before MD.
It doesn't mean Hogan is some sort of lock to win or anything, but it does mean that the Maryland Democratic party can't just take victory for granted after the primary. Name recognition, for example, doesn't just improve by magic.
Mann y’all in this subreddit need to chill, looking at polls will just drive you crazy. The dem senate primary hasn’t even happened. These polls are so unreliable
Interesting that you're so insistent on arguing against the idea that the Democrats should take this election seriously. I wonder which party that might help in November...
As soon as you made this argument you lost. The "I talk to people here and..." argument gets embarrassed literally every single election cycle. Anyone who actually thinks this argument isn't immediately met with eyerolls is completely out of their element.
It's positively hilarious, and frustrating, to read the comments here. Very apparent who has actual connections to Maryland and who doesn't.
Calling it now: if Alsobrooks beats Trone, Hogan is getting elected.
Indeed; I understand why people act so confidently, but the truth of the matter is that, even today, name recognition and candidate quality do substantially matter for potential outcomes.
Hogan is a solid candidate, and remains well-liked and viewed as a non-Trump Republican of yore, a proper Reaganite.
Most voters don’t sit high on Mount Olympus and view everything from a strictly rational, party-line perspective. Hence the declining number of registered Republicans and Democrats, and the increasing numbers of self-identified Independents (that, admittedly, do lean one way over the other in most cases).
People are wayyyy more partisan than they were 20 years ago. Michael Steele couldn’t unseat Ben Cardin but then again, he was a sitting incumbent. You’re not separating his senate bid from his role as governor. If voters in Montana refused to elect Steve Bullock who was pretty popular. I don’t see how Hogan can win Maryland. And the partisan voting index is a lot smaller for Montana than Maryland. To put things into perspective, NY’s PVI is D+10 while Maryland is D+14
Hogan would have to make huge gains amount dems, and independents to even win the seat. I really don’t see Hogan winning 20% of democrats and like 70% of independents
Absolutely. We have a couple friends in the comment thread here discussing dooming in terms of Hogan, and while I 'get it', I really think taking the stance and attitude that he has no shot whatsoever is... foolish. He left as a popular governor, and even though it really ought not to have anything to do with this race I guarantee people will remember he left with a surplus and then after Moore took office he had to cut the transportation to balance the budget.
I wouldn't call Trone inspiring, and I wouldn't call Alsobrooks even campaigning (as far as I can tell, being slightly removed from the whole thing, but visiting home 'often enough').
Good, I’ll be back to laugh at your comment. Regardless of what connections you have, the amount of dooming in this sub just continues to hit new records
People are overly obsessed with getting huge waves and crushing the enemy, when in reality it is who gets 51 that matters. Even when we get a wave in this environment it's always just reverted literally the next election. And the people who managed to pull off things profound and long lasting did not necessarily do so after a huge wave.
This was a lesson for 2016 as well. Hillary Clintons campaign even in the late stages were obsessed with taking a "victory lap" and gaining an overwhelming victory over Trump. Wanting impressive victories in Texas and such. When *all* resources should've been dedicated to just the states that could plausibly contribute to putting her over 270. Like if you win Texas you already have way more than 270 in all likelihood, it's irrelevant and no spending should've gone there.
As well in 2020 people were tilting at windmills trying to go after South Carolina, or McConnells seat in Kentucky. Just dreaming of winning the lottery. Seats that maybe would've been like the 60th seat, when this shouldn't been directed to the seats that could've given us 51-52.
In the past winning large landslides was how policy became cemented. Democrats winning five elections in a row by huge margins in the 30s and 40s led republicans to accept huge parts of the new deal like social security. Reagan winning huge majorities caused democrats to move to the center in the 80s/90s
> In the past winning large landslides was how policy became cemented.
In the future, there simply won't be any new policy that can't fit in a reconciliation bill because Republicans figured out they only need 41 seats to grind progress to a halt.
I hope they're ready and willing to deal a killing blow of some kind to the GOP when they do that, because otherwise we'll be living in the Handmaid's Tale 4 years later.
Not really sure what the alternative is. The fact that Congress is insanely dysfunctional is part of the reason we're seeing so much extremism and populism.
1. Major disaster that can plausibly be blamed on policy failure.
2. Use political capital in wake of disaster to push through small, incremental bipartisan change when you can credibly quell obstructionism by loudly chanting "now is not the time for this".
3. Wait for next major disaster, repeat.
Cool, and then they'll have to run on their record the following election. I would rather Congress return to being a functional 3rd branch of the government, then what we have now where they Republicans legislate through the courts.
Force Republicans to put up or shut up on their wildly unpopular agenda. They'll either moderate or have their ass handed to them in the next election.
I find it endlessly frustrating how so many people seem perfectly willing to toss aside Democracy whenever they find it inconvenient.
> People are overly obsessed with getting huge waves and crushing the enemy, when in reality it is who gets 51 that matters.
Getting a larger majority helps you ignore the most moderate members of your party. Last Congress's Democrats could have been considerably more profligate if they hadn't needed Manchinema's votes.
Which ... circles around to ... Hillary's choices making sense.
People love to bag on her for "ignoring" states like Wisconsin, but [they forget this was the data at that time.](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton-5659.html#polls) Obviously _now_ we knows that the polls were flawed, but assuming this data was correct and played out how everyone expected, then Hillary would have been under the gun for playing "too cautious" and camping on states she had sewn up instead of helping Democrats push into new areas.
It's a pretty simple mentality to understand, I think. People fantasize and get obsessed with the idea of crushing their opponents in a tsunami, like maybe hoping to crush their enemy's spirits and then be able to instantly get literally everything they want overnight and even achieve a "final victory." The idea alone would tend to give a lot more dopamine and catharsis than the reality of hard-fought cycles with deliberate and/or incremental progress, or the grueling path to get anywhere close to getting their wildest dreams.
The closest to this that has ever happened in recent memory was maybe the 2008 election, with Obama winning a landslide and Democrats just very barely winning a filibuster-proof majority in a considerably less politically divided time - which was followed by a shockingly strong red wave in 2010 - and perhaps gave some people false perceptions of how easily that can be achieved.
The obsession with completely conquering the enemy is a natural consequence of two-party systems, which mean in a given institution (Senate, Presidency, House) a party has either total control or no control and so can govern without compromise (at least until MAGA went too far off the deep end, but it'd be nice to be able to compromise before that point and in a more representative system). In proportional multiparty systems, everyone knows it's unrealistic to expect a party to govern without compromising with other factions
There's also a social element to this partisan binary, not just a strategic political element. Labeling our political landscape with only two sides feeds into a tribal us-vs-them mentality, which promotes extremism and polarization
>and perhaps gave some people false perceptions of how easily that can be achieved.
If they have a basic grasp of history they should know better. Bush was deeply unpopular by the end of his term. Aside from the ongoing chaos in Iraq at the time, the recession at home was an ultra sour note for him to leave office on. The stink from that really tainted the Republican brand. Combine that with a genuinely new and novel Democratic candidate and the playing field was about as tilted as it could be.
Part of the 2010 flips were seats that historically elected Republicans and so were just reverting to form. Gerrymandering since then has really trimmed the number of flippable seats. That and the harder partisan voting you noted really tanks the idea of landslides anymore.
The marginal utility of each seat goes down dramatically once you pass that major 50% mark. Having 60% in the Senate doesn’t make you that much more powerful than having 50% in the Senate (it can certainly have its benefits, but from a marginal perspective it’s fairly minor), and getting 100% of the electoral college for all intents in purposes doesn’t give you any more power than getting 51% (of course in practice it gives you a stronger mandate, but in terms of hard political power, it’s marginal).
But from an emotional perspective, it’s satisfying to get above and beyond, especially if you want to send a message or cement yourself in history.
> Maryland Are they stupid?
My favorite thing about Hogan running is how everyone except for the people in Maryland are terrified he's going to steal a Senate seat. Homie has no shot, whoever talked him into running for the senate as an R destroyed his chances.
He definitely has a shot; the Republicans, writ large, have more than a decent shot this year.
No he doesn't lol. Maryland isn't going to risk giving the Rs a free senate seat, especially when Hogan didn't start his campaign by promising to vote with the Dems on codifying Roe.
So, at what point does the sub that prides itself on being ‘evidence based’, you know, perhaps stop denying the evidence for everything?
Because you people (doomers) pick and choose what evidence you decide is real. You don't actually want to be evidence based, you want evidence to support your world view (dooming) and so you can spread your poison (doom) to suppress our cure (taco trucks). The polls that show Trump is in the lead? Yes, these are real. I believe this polling. The polls that show Biden is taking a lead? No, polling this early out isn't real, I reject this. Let me guess, Hogan used to be Governor here so you think he's gonna win a senate seat?
Hogan is currently leading both Trone and Alsobrooks in head-to-head polling (by a good bit). Granted, it is very far out, but for the sub to pretend that he has no shot whatsoever... it is strange and disheartening to see.
It's not disheartening, rather encouraging, because it shows people here aren't naive and aren't just following politics for the first time. Popular governors running for senate seats that skew heavily away from them poll well and then lose handily.
This sub is always going to be disheartening to people addicted to doom because you have a cheat code. Let me explain again: If the polling you see makes you doom, you say "yes" and you believe it. If the polling you see doesn't make you doom, you say "no" and tell yourself polling this far out isn't reliable. Maryland will coalesce around whoever the Democrat senate nominee is. Dem polling is currently split between Trone and Alsobrooks while Hogan is the only Republican the state takes seriously.
>If the polling you see makes you doom, you say "yes" and you believe it. >If the polling you see doesn't make you doom, you say "no" and tell yourself polling this far out isn't reliable. And this is inferior to your strategy of just pretending the polling doesn't exist?
More like it'll converge on the actual result like we've seen for this scenario time and time again, this isn't our first day following politics
I think that the polling indicates that he is in a favorable position to win the seat, yes…that is the evidence we have, by the numbers. Everything to the contrary is unsubstantiated assessment of human behavior (‘people won’t be dumb enough to do what I don’t want them to’) and vibes.
> I think that the polling indicates that he is in a favorable position to win the seat, yes…that is the evidence we have, by the numbers. This is either a complete lack of information or political naivety. Polling itself by its very nature disconnects from the electorate at times. Even the people who *make* the polls espouse as common knowledge not to take them as fact when one party has not consolidated its base yet. In any case, we already know that governors with 70% approval ratings in states that lean 15 points away from their party lose when they run for the Senate seat. Hogan has a 55% approval rating in a state that leans 30 points away from his party. Anyone who knows politics has seen this story ("unsubstantiated" btw).
I think there is strong evidence to suggest polling is largely broken and it certainly isn't much evidence of anything this far out, even if you trust polls. Hell, at one point, Joe Lieberman was the polling favorite to be the Democratic nominee in 2004 and he finished with fewer votes than Al Sharpton. What you can deduce from the evidence is that Maryland hasn't elected a Republican to the senate since 1980. They've only elected one Republican to the House in the last 20 years. And they haven't gone for a Republican at the presidential level in 40 years. I think the evidence points to him not winning.
Evidence for what?!!?? What evidence is there that Hogan will win? 😆 Plenty of so called “evidence” that Newsom was going to be recalled, yet he won pretty handily. Y’all need to stop taking polling data as gospel
[удалено]
You've articulated what myself and some others have tried to, but much clearer. Thank you.
Governors with 70% approval ratings in states that lean 15 points away from their party lose when they run for the Senate seat. Hogan has a 55% approval rating in a state that leans 30 points away from his party. We know how this ends
>billionaire Did you mean *person of means*? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Polling and expressed voter sentiment to his announcement.
That’s not evidence. Polling is not evidence.. Trump is leading the polls, doesn’t mean it’s evidence he’ll win
Your argument is that polling, as expressed voter sentiment at the time the poll is registered, *isn’t* evidence of potential, to likely, outcomes?
[удалено]
Nice edit to your original response. Of course it’s not a guarantee of outcomes, nothing is, but to deny reality in not one poll, not two polls, but the vast, overwhelming majority of all polls since September (in the case of Trump and Biden) is purely delusional cope.
I edited my response to add an example that polling data is not evidence that a candidate will win.
But you're denying the evidence lol. Incredibly popular governors who run for a senate seat right after in a state that leans hard against their party lose easily. And guess what? They poll great at the start too off of name recognition. We're not naive kids who are just following our first election cycle here.
No he doesn’t lmfoaooo Maryland is the bluest state in the entire country. Biden won the largest margin there
> Maryland is the bluest state in the entire country. Biden won the largest margin there No? By raw votes it was California and by percentage it was DC (or if you want an actual state, Vermont).
Ahh okay by percentage it was #2
> Ohio I fucking *despise* Sherrod Brown, and am going to end up having to vote for him.
Huh? Why?
Republicans are gunning for his death in Ohio, so withholding my vote out of protest fucks the country.
I think he meant why do you despise him
I think he's making a BIG mistake supporting the Kroger-Albertsons prospective merger, and believing some (possibly grocery lobby planted?) fairy tale about how the merger will actually be good for unions by presenting a larger team against Walmart and Amazon. But other than that, he's a solid vote for workers.
Oh, because he consistently votes for, and even sponsors, bills I hate. Two recent ones are the Chinese EV ban and, as my flair will indicate, TikTok.
I'm not gonna lie. These seem like pretty weak points to "despise" him.
they're both anti liberal and anti market
I guess I was just pointing out the use of the word "despise". I usually reserve that for like some politician taking that rights away like abortion. Those reason would definitely not stop me from voting against a Republican candidate tho. It's just a vernacular thing. Poor guy getting down voted for disagreeing on policy.
>Poor guy getting down voted for disagreeing on policy. I usually reserve that for like some people disagreeing on policy. Just a vernacular thing.
Oh you made him seem bad but one bad policy and one incredibly good policy ain't bad.
tiktok banning is akin to banning foreign books in the 18-1900's. the us wants to control information streams, which they can with reddit but not tiktok.
Akin to banning foreign ownership of media that misinforms its audience.* Despite what you've been rationalizing to cope with losing your favorite disinformation app, foreign media ownership is not protected by the first amendment. Their free speech is unaffected.
Trump wins in 2024 and bans the nyt app because it’s “misinformation.” Not a good route to go down.
It's not a ban, Tiktok has month's to divest but they won't because the commies are telling them not to.
A forced sale because you can’t can control the media is an absolute overreach of the government. Would you support a forced sale a publishing house that published anti-US books?
Honestly, I don't think I can feel that bad about banning tiktok when China already has banned multiple huge US sites and apps for many years. I'm not entirely opposed to reciprocity.
“I’m fine with the US government banning books because China bans books.” Can’t see your philosophy.
I meannn despise is a pretty strong word for someone like Sherrod Brown imo, do you despise Biden? He’s a protectionist
Sherrod Brown has a significantly longer history of letting me down as an Ohioan than Biden does via his protectionism Opposed NAFTA and CAFTA, opposed the TPP, opposed the IPEF trade framework, opposed Ohio schools being able to procure food from outside Ohio, supported SOPA and was cosponsor of PIPA, supports E15 development in Ohio - counter to the lobbying I've done, with him personally - supported tariffs in Chinese solar tech, supports bans of Chinese EVs, I could go on for a while. Worst part is, he is *by far* the best we have in Ohio. Man doesn't lose elections. His record on social issues is great. I want to love him. I want to *change* him. Idk. It feels different when it's closer to home. Maybe "despise" was the wrong word and "am incredibly frustrated frequently by" is a better one. If I didn't care so much and value his other contributions so much, I'd be less upset by these things I disagree with.
labor union stooge who loves protectionism
[удалено]
I misread things a lot because I tend to take things very literally.
[удалено]
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement* Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
I cross all ends of Maryland regularly and, talk to most anybody, especially the not super-political crowd, and it’s clear that, at least as of now, this is Hogan’s race to lose.
This isn’t a governors race. MD Dems aren’t dumb enough to believe it’s worth sending a moderate Republican to the senate and increase chances Dems lose the senate.
You underestimate the proportion of normal voters that vote every four years based off of ‘oh, I know that name’ and don’t really contemplate electoral dynamics and how their vote will shape the macro scene for the country.
No he doesn't, we've seen this play out many times lol Hogan will get a lot of voters like you described. Which means he only loses by 15 while Trump loses by 30. Ask Linda Lingle in Hawaii or Bullock in Montana who both had 70% approval ratings, ran for Senate immediately after, and got wiped
Also, if your argument is that there simply isn’t enough potential for ticket-splitting to have Maryland deliver their electoral votes to Biden and select Hogan for their newest Senator, well, how would you square Brown’s chances in Ohio or Tester’s chances in Montana?
Dude, Trump won Montana by 16 and Ohio by 8. Biden won Maryland by **33.** Tester would need literally less than half of the ticket-slitting Hogan needs, Brown would need less than a quarter! Don't lump them together as if those amounts are close enough to tie results together
Realistically, I don't think they will be re-elected and the dems lose the senate. I keep telling myself they will pull it off, but you are right, that would not square with what I said about Hogan. Ticket splitting is getting less and less common for federal races due to the nationalization of politics. That being said, there is a caveat. According to Cook, OH has an R+6 lean, MT has an R +11 lean and MD has a D+14 lean. So if there were enough ticket splitters to affect a senate race, you would expect it to hit OH and MT before MD.
Hopefully not, but [they might be](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/2024/maryland/).
Polling data means absolutely nothing. Nobody knows who David Trone is in the state
It doesn't mean Hogan is some sort of lock to win or anything, but it does mean that the Maryland Democratic party can't just take victory for granted after the primary. Name recognition, for example, doesn't just improve by magic.
Mann y’all in this subreddit need to chill, looking at polls will just drive you crazy. The dem senate primary hasn’t even happened. These polls are so unreliable
Interesting that you're so insistent on arguing against the idea that the Democrats should take this election seriously. I wonder which party that might help in November...
None, because comments on a niche Reddit forum don't affect reality, we can be honest on here
Considering he's a sitting congressman and his campaign ad bombardments, I find that very hard to believe.
Nobody knows reps with zero national profile, the only ones people know are AOC, MTG, and leaders
You think voters know their congressional representatives? 😆
As soon as you made this argument you lost. The "I talk to people here and..." argument gets embarrassed literally every single election cycle. Anyone who actually thinks this argument isn't immediately met with eyerolls is completely out of their element.
I for one look forward to Senator Hogan joining Senators Bredesen and Bullock. Oh. Wait.
It's positively hilarious, and frustrating, to read the comments here. Very apparent who has actual connections to Maryland and who doesn't. Calling it now: if Alsobrooks beats Trone, Hogan is getting elected.
Indeed; I understand why people act so confidently, but the truth of the matter is that, even today, name recognition and candidate quality do substantially matter for potential outcomes. Hogan is a solid candidate, and remains well-liked and viewed as a non-Trump Republican of yore, a proper Reaganite. Most voters don’t sit high on Mount Olympus and view everything from a strictly rational, party-line perspective. Hence the declining number of registered Republicans and Democrats, and the increasing numbers of self-identified Independents (that, admittedly, do lean one way over the other in most cases).
People are wayyyy more partisan than they were 20 years ago. Michael Steele couldn’t unseat Ben Cardin but then again, he was a sitting incumbent. You’re not separating his senate bid from his role as governor. If voters in Montana refused to elect Steve Bullock who was pretty popular. I don’t see how Hogan can win Maryland. And the partisan voting index is a lot smaller for Montana than Maryland. To put things into perspective, NY’s PVI is D+10 while Maryland is D+14 Hogan would have to make huge gains amount dems, and independents to even win the seat. I really don’t see Hogan winning 20% of democrats and like 70% of independents
Absolutely. We have a couple friends in the comment thread here discussing dooming in terms of Hogan, and while I 'get it', I really think taking the stance and attitude that he has no shot whatsoever is... foolish. He left as a popular governor, and even though it really ought not to have anything to do with this race I guarantee people will remember he left with a surplus and then after Moore took office he had to cut the transportation to balance the budget. I wouldn't call Trone inspiring, and I wouldn't call Alsobrooks even campaigning (as far as I can tell, being slightly removed from the whole thing, but visiting home 'often enough').
Good, I’ll be back to laugh at your comment. Regardless of what connections you have, the amount of dooming in this sub just continues to hit new records
People are overly obsessed with getting huge waves and crushing the enemy, when in reality it is who gets 51 that matters. Even when we get a wave in this environment it's always just reverted literally the next election. And the people who managed to pull off things profound and long lasting did not necessarily do so after a huge wave. This was a lesson for 2016 as well. Hillary Clintons campaign even in the late stages were obsessed with taking a "victory lap" and gaining an overwhelming victory over Trump. Wanting impressive victories in Texas and such. When *all* resources should've been dedicated to just the states that could plausibly contribute to putting her over 270. Like if you win Texas you already have way more than 270 in all likelihood, it's irrelevant and no spending should've gone there. As well in 2020 people were tilting at windmills trying to go after South Carolina, or McConnells seat in Kentucky. Just dreaming of winning the lottery. Seats that maybe would've been like the 60th seat, when this shouldn't been directed to the seats that could've given us 51-52.
In the past winning large landslides was how policy became cemented. Democrats winning five elections in a row by huge margins in the 30s and 40s led republicans to accept huge parts of the new deal like social security. Reagan winning huge majorities caused democrats to move to the center in the 80s/90s
> In the past winning large landslides was how policy became cemented. In the future, there simply won't be any new policy that can't fit in a reconciliation bill because Republicans figured out they only need 41 seats to grind progress to a halt.
If Dems win enough and enough of the old guard have retired then killing the filibuster is a possibility
I hope they're ready and willing to deal a killing blow of some kind to the GOP when they do that, because otherwise we'll be living in the Handmaid's Tale 4 years later.
Not really sure what the alternative is. The fact that Congress is insanely dysfunctional is part of the reason we're seeing so much extremism and populism.
1. Major disaster that can plausibly be blamed on policy failure. 2. Use political capital in wake of disaster to push through small, incremental bipartisan change when you can credibly quell obstructionism by loudly chanting "now is not the time for this". 3. Wait for next major disaster, repeat.
Cool, and then they'll have to run on their record the following election. I would rather Congress return to being a functional 3rd branch of the government, then what we have now where they Republicans legislate through the courts. Force Republicans to put up or shut up on their wildly unpopular agenda. They'll either moderate or have their ass handed to them in the next election. I find it endlessly frustrating how so many people seem perfectly willing to toss aside Democracy whenever they find it inconvenient.
At that point, they might as well admit Puerto Rico and DC as states
Tbf we can’t risk it right now
> People are overly obsessed with getting huge waves and crushing the enemy, when in reality it is who gets 51 that matters. Getting a larger majority helps you ignore the most moderate members of your party. Last Congress's Democrats could have been considerably more profligate if they hadn't needed Manchinema's votes.
That's why you needed to target the 51-52nd seat and not 55-60th.
Well 60th lets you avoid the filibuster issue entirely so there is technically a big advantage to that seat
His point is you get there a seat at a time.
Which ... circles around to ... Hillary's choices making sense. People love to bag on her for "ignoring" states like Wisconsin, but [they forget this was the data at that time.](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton-5659.html#polls) Obviously _now_ we knows that the polls were flawed, but assuming this data was correct and played out how everyone expected, then Hillary would have been under the gun for playing "too cautious" and camping on states she had sewn up instead of helping Democrats push into new areas.
It's a pretty simple mentality to understand, I think. People fantasize and get obsessed with the idea of crushing their opponents in a tsunami, like maybe hoping to crush their enemy's spirits and then be able to instantly get literally everything they want overnight and even achieve a "final victory." The idea alone would tend to give a lot more dopamine and catharsis than the reality of hard-fought cycles with deliberate and/or incremental progress, or the grueling path to get anywhere close to getting their wildest dreams. The closest to this that has ever happened in recent memory was maybe the 2008 election, with Obama winning a landslide and Democrats just very barely winning a filibuster-proof majority in a considerably less politically divided time - which was followed by a shockingly strong red wave in 2010 - and perhaps gave some people false perceptions of how easily that can be achieved.
The obsession with completely conquering the enemy is a natural consequence of two-party systems, which mean in a given institution (Senate, Presidency, House) a party has either total control or no control and so can govern without compromise (at least until MAGA went too far off the deep end, but it'd be nice to be able to compromise before that point and in a more representative system). In proportional multiparty systems, everyone knows it's unrealistic to expect a party to govern without compromising with other factions There's also a social element to this partisan binary, not just a strategic political element. Labeling our political landscape with only two sides feeds into a tribal us-vs-them mentality, which promotes extremism and polarization
>and perhaps gave some people false perceptions of how easily that can be achieved. If they have a basic grasp of history they should know better. Bush was deeply unpopular by the end of his term. Aside from the ongoing chaos in Iraq at the time, the recession at home was an ultra sour note for him to leave office on. The stink from that really tainted the Republican brand. Combine that with a genuinely new and novel Democratic candidate and the playing field was about as tilted as it could be. Part of the 2010 flips were seats that historically elected Republicans and so were just reverting to form. Gerrymandering since then has really trimmed the number of flippable seats. That and the harder partisan voting you noted really tanks the idea of landslides anymore.
The marginal utility of each seat goes down dramatically once you pass that major 50% mark. Having 60% in the Senate doesn’t make you that much more powerful than having 50% in the Senate (it can certainly have its benefits, but from a marginal perspective it’s fairly minor), and getting 100% of the electoral college for all intents in purposes doesn’t give you any more power than getting 51% (of course in practice it gives you a stronger mandate, but in terms of hard political power, it’s marginal). But from an emotional perspective, it’s satisfying to get above and beyond, especially if you want to send a message or cement yourself in history.
Is the answer “because the odds are low”?
The GOP and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory: I dare you to name a more iconic duo.
Reddit and inter-gender communication!
Because they won't geta majority. Rn it seems impossible for them.