My only confident prediction is that this thread will be a complete mess on/after election night.
Agreed. Both the presidential and Senate races in Iowa have been very divisive on this forum. I think this will be the final showdown between the “2016 trends” and “WWC will snap back” groups.
It'll be especially nasty if Iowa gives us a split verdict on Pres/Senate, lol.
I'm not changing my prediction maps in my profile, fwiw. MT and both GA seats flip before IA.
I’m really gonna flip out if Biden wins Iowa but Greenfield doesn’t. Same with North Carolina (if Biden wins while Cunningham doesn’t). A Senate seat is so much more valuable than a few extra electoral votes (which really have no value on their own if you are already at or above 270).
Hence my signature. This is why the "check on Biden" talking point (even when it's made with positive intentions) is potentially so dangerous for Democrats. Things aren't going to get any better if Republicans keep the Senate, no matter how much Biden wins by.
Quite frankly, any Republicans who subscribes to this mentality ought to be satisfied enough that there is going to be a 6-3 conservative majority on the Superme Court to "hold Biden in check."
The level of satisfaction for Republicans regarding the Court as a means to check Biden iis mitigated by the realization that with a Trifecta, they can pack the court. The Senate thus acts as buffer to prevent that.
I'm still honestly not convinced that a Democratic Senate would go through with court-packing, even if Biden and Schumer want to. Democratic Senate caucuses are much more ideologically diverse than Republican ones. I really can't see Manchin or Sinema signing onto the idea.
Yeah, at this point it feels like court pecking is being used as a prop by Republicans to keep wavering voters in senate races and by Democrats to keep their base motivated in the presidential race. I would be astonished if this actually got anywhere near happening in real life.
