NC-SEN 2020: Tar Heel Tillis

[Lognog]

Not Tillis related, but Congress insider trading inquiry looks 'particularly damning' for Senator Burr, expert says.

At what point is Burr's resignation too late for a special election to be held in November? Possible Mitch is seeing the way the winds are blowing with Cunningham/Tillis and is having Burr hold out.

The election law they've published online says a special election for US Senator will occur at the next election for the NC General Assembly (which is up in 2020), provided that election day is more than 60 days after the original vacancy occurred (so, at the latest, he'd have to leave on Sept. 3).

What's stopping him from doing what Ralph Northam did in the wake of his blackface scandal?

I get that a lot of Republicans in congress and popular figures on the right have called for him to step down, but a lot of prominent democrats called for Ralph Northam to resign too. All northam had to do in the words of Deng Xiaoping "bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership". Northam did that in a media cycle that was much slower so why can't Burr do the same?

[Lognog]

Not Tillis related, but Congress insider trading inquiry looks 'particularly damning' for Senator Burr, expert says.

At what point is Burr's resignation too late for a special election to be held in November? Possible Mitch is seeing the way the winds are blowing with Cunningham/Tillis and is having Burr hold out.

The election law they've published online says a special election for US Senator will occur at the next election for the NC General Assembly (which is up in 2020), provided that election day is more than 60 days after the original vacancy occurred (so, at the latest, he'd have to leave on Sept. 3).

What's stopping him from doing what Ralph Northam did in the wake of his blackface scandal?

I get that a lot of Republicans in congress and popular figures on the right have called for him to step down, but a lot of prominent democrats called for Ralph Northam to resign too. All northam had to do in the words of Deng Xiaoping "bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership". Northam did that in a media cycle that was much slower so why can't Burr do the same?

Northam may well have survived because his heir and his spare had scandals around the same time period; the resignation of all three would have put a Republican in power, so partisanship insulated him in the short term. Then, African-Americans carried the VA Democrats to victory in 2019 (the party didn't seem to be particularly hindered by Northam's earlier scandal at that point), so much of the Democratic electability case for booting him out died.

Burr might not want to brave political controversy if he intends to go into business soon anyway (he announced his retirement from the Senate in 2022 well before this scandal broke). There is no 'heir and a spare' issue protecting him, but McConnell may want him to hold the Seat until 2022 because it will be easier to defend in what will probably be a Democratic midterm. Getting convicted wouldn't automatically disbar him from the Senate (except in the case of treason), but he wouldn't be able to vote from prison and a supermajority of Senators could remove him (IIRC those who could remove Northam were the very same people who were mired in their own controversies).

Trump might not see much downside to putting another NC Senator up considering that he probably needs to win NC anyway, and could perhaps do with a stronger ally than Burr (who could also be controversial within the Republican base depending on what the investigation brings to light). I think the most likely compromise is that they get him to resign within 60 days (or after) the election, so that they can appoint an incumbent ready for 2022 without risking the loss of the seat.

I agree with almost all of that accept that 2022 is shaping up to most likely be a Republican year, adding incentive for the compromise you mentioned

[Lognog]

I agree with almost all of that accept that 2022 is shaping up to most likely be a Republican year

Nothing indicates this so far.
Do you say this based on anything tangible?

Based on 2010 and 1994 and the certainty the economy will still have high unemployment even if recovering.

This.

Joe Biden is clearly up in the polls, especially where it matters.

The economy will not at all recover in two years from this so you have a Dem president with a terrible economy. I don't think thats great news for democrats.

[Lognog]

I agree with almost all of that accept that 2022 is shaping up to most likely be a Republican year

Nothing indicates this so far.
Do you say this based on anything tangible?

Based on 2010 and 1994 and the certainty the economy will still have high unemployment even if recovering.

Trump overlooks fantastic economy and loses => Voters become nostalgic and reward the GOP in 2022
Trump tanks the economy => the recession lasts, Trump's successor takes the blame, voters reward GOP in 2022

Am I doing this right?

Some posters say it like it's written in the stars that 2022 will be GOP wave year.

I mean the last four midterms in a row were partisan waves against the incumbent president

the biggest factor for reelection of the president is the economy

we are just a few months from November and the economy shrunk 5%

I'm not saying its for sure but its not ridiculous to think Trump might lose and the same pattern that's been happening for the last fourteen years repeats itself

[Lognog]

Cunningham is neither a "meh" nor a "star" recruit, he’s a generic Democrat who’s lucky that he’s running in a Democratic wave year.

True, though that’s pretty much what Tillis was in 2014.

Tillis had a much more notable political record.

Right, but his win was pretty much entirely due to the national environment.

And that's why he won the seat in 2014 in the first place. He was just a pretty unpopular speak of the state house in a Republican leaning state in a wave year for Republicans

[Lognog]

Another great day for the Tillis campaign.


https://twitter.com/Sharrison_WFAE/status/1299396632799133697

I kinda understand. How are you supposed to wear a mask while constantly putting your foot in your mouth?

[Lognog]

 extramarital affairs being significant scandals

society has progressed beyond the need for extramarital affairs to be significant scandals

[Lognog]

I don't get why people care what this guy does as a private citizen.

If you think this is "immoral", I would say maybe but that's not how he should be judged. He's a public servant and he should be judged in that metric.

I don't know (or frankly care) what Tilis has done in his private life, however judging him on his public life (trying to get rid of protections for preexisting conditions three times), he's a pretty terrible person

[Lognog]

You guys, this isn’t going to have any impact on the election...

28.3 million says you're right

[Lognog]

Also it can't be understated how inelastic this state is

[Lognog]

https://twitter.com/josh_posts/status/1315773909309030400

Celebrating adultery and home-wrecking to own the cons.  Guess it just goes to show that there are plenty of shameless partisan hacks in the Democratic Party too.  

Actually, it's even worse than that.  You can want Cunningham to win despite his scandal because this could be the tipping point seat for control of the Senate.  Fair enough, but that doesn't change the fact that Cunningham is a lying, pathetic excuse for a human being.  What he did was unjustifiable and utterly reprehensible.  A Democratic Senate majority is worth tolerating him for six years, but that doesn't make Cunningham any less of a deplorable scumbag.

Moreover, celebrating him for being a home-wrecking adulterer just because he happens to be a Democrat is precisely the sort of morally bankrupt partisan hackery that folks here are always complaining about whenever Trump supporters say they don't care about Trump's scandals.

Don't hurt yourself coming down from your high horse.

don't act like it's the 50's. Marriages fail. Private life is different public life. lets just focus on policy

[Lognog]

https://twitter.com/josh_posts/status/1315773909309030400

Celebrating adultery and home-wrecking to own the cons.  Guess it just goes to show that there are plenty of shameless partisan hacks in the Democratic Party too.  

Actually, it's even worse than that.  You can want Cunningham to win despite his scandal because this could be the tipping point seat for control of the Senate.  Fair enough, but that doesn't change the fact that Cunningham is a lying, pathetic excuse for a human being.  What he did was unjustifiable and utterly reprehensible.  A Democratic Senate majority is worth tolerating him for six years, but that doesn't make Cunningham any less of a deplorable scumbag.

Moreover, celebrating him for being a home-wrecking adulterer just because he happens to be a Democrat is precisely the sort of morally bankrupt partisan hackery that folks here are always complaining about whenever Trump supporters say they don't care about Trump's scandals.

Don't hurt yourself coming down from your high horse.

don't act like it's the 50's. Marriages fail. Private life is different public life. lets just focus on policy

Defending adultery and home-wrecking to own the cons.

I don't know what delusion you're under but a simple meme abt a candidate winning despite people knowing he's having affairs is not at all equivalent to the owning the libs

what people do to "own the libs":
not using mail in ballots
not wearing masks
pretending anyone cares about "happy holidays"
saying all lives matter
attacking Joe Biden's sons
defending Qanoners
defending Roy Moore
taking away people's healthcare


The mental gymnastics for you to equate that one meme with all the toxic stuff Republicans do takes the most brain dead "both sides"-ism ive ever seen in my life

[Lognog]

I actually think the GOP's senate advantage isn't as big as people think, considering that small states tend to be more willing to split ballot in senate races, hence why you have more red state Ds than blue state Rs. Because of this, it's possible for Ds to win seats in KS, MT, SC, AK, ect, while a Republican would have a really though time winning NJ or IL at this point.

Is that why the GOP gained net two seats while getting less than 40% of the vote in the 2018 senate elections?

[Lognog]

I actually think the GOP's senate advantage isn't as big as people think, considering that small states tend to be more willing to split ballot in senate races, hence why you have more red state Ds than blue state Rs. Because of this, it's possible for Ds to win seats in KS, MT, SC, AK, ect, while a Republican would have a really though time winning NJ or IL at this point.

Is that why the GOP gained net two seats while getting less than 40% of the vote in the 2018 senate elections?

You have to consider in the 2018 map, there were far more blue states up than red states, especially in the Northeast and Rust belt. There's a good chance this cycle Democrats gain an outsized number of seats relative to their share of the vote because more of the states that are up lean R overall.

[/quote]

California had 100% D instead of like 63 to 37 or whatever. If you take the  2018 CA gov race and add 250k to Feinstein and subtract 250k from  the Generic R facing Feinstein the actual PV was like 9 points. Also Democrats did win the vast majority of seats still. Pretty similar to the 2012 PV victory overall. Also lets not forget post 2012 Democrats were benefitting from the 10 smallest states.. They controlled 13/20 seats in the 10 smallest states(including Maine and Vermont). Infact pre 2012 they also did too but switch Maine for Nebraska. This would have meant a tied senate from 2010 to 2012!
[/quote]

Point taken about 2018, however that's partially because of people like Manchin which will not be an option in short term future. The ten smallest states have a PVI R+4.2 and if you look at the smallest 20 states its a whopping 13.2+R AVERAGE.

[Lognog]

Some how this race topped MA senate for being the most dreadful thread