Could DC become a state by 2020? How about 2022? Puerto Rico? How would itchange the senate outlook?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Could it if Ds win presidency and senate? Right now 40 seantors support DC statehood (All Rs, Sinema, Manchin, Jones, King, Cantwell, Reed, and Whitehouse oppose it, I'm suprised about the latter 3). The number used to only be 23 not that long ago, so it does seem like it's gradually gaining popularity. Might there be some compromise to make it part or MD or VA, to avoid the state being "too tiny", (*WY, VT, heck even Dakotas got to be seperate)? How would it get passed; I could see Kind, Cantwell, Reed, and Whitehouse supporting it down her road but Sinema and Manchin will stand their ground. If it was added, it would add 2 new senators almost guarenteed to be Ds, and slightly balance out the senate. Puerto-Rico seems more likely to be added, as Rs have long supported the idea, and tehre's just less controversy around the idea of it being a state. It would add 2 new senators, both of which would prolly be Democratic but IDK, maybe if Republicans are at the forefront of it gaining statehood, they could get a loan on a seat. It would be inetresting if it was added before the 2022 midterm elections.

[Zaybay]

Could it if Ds win presidency and senate? Right now 40 seantors support DC statehood (All Rs, Sinema, Manchin, Jones, King, Cantwell, Reed, and Whitehouse oppose it, I'm suprised about the latter 3). The number used to only be 23 not that long ago, so it does seem like it's gradually gaining popularity. Might there be some compromise to make it part or MD or VA, to avoid the state being "too tiny", (*WY, VT, heck even Dakotas got to be seperate)? How would it get passed; I could see Kind, Cantwell, Reed, and Whitehouse supporting it down her road but Sinema and Manchin will stand their ground. If it was added, it would add 2 new senators almost guarenteed to be Ds, and slightly balance out the senate. Puerto-Rico seems more likely to be added, as Rs have long supported the idea, and tehre's just less controversy around the idea of it being a state. It would add 2 new senators, both of which would prolly be Democratic but IDK, maybe if Republicans are at the forefront of it gaining statehood, they could get a loan on a seat. It would be inetresting if it was added before the 2022 midterm elections.

They dont oppose DC statehood, they're just not cosponsors on the bill.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Could it if Ds win presidency and senate? Right now 40 seantors support DC statehood (All Rs, Sinema, Manchin, Jones, King, Cantwell, Reed, and Whitehouse oppose it, I'm suprised about the latter 3). The number used to only be 23 not that long ago, so it does seem like it's gradually gaining popularity. Might there be some compromise to make it part or MD or VA, to avoid the state being "too tiny", (*WY, VT, heck even Dakotas got to be seperate)? How would it get passed; I could see Kind, Cantwell, Reed, and Whitehouse supporting it down her road but Sinema and Manchin will stand their ground. If it was added, it would add 2 new senators almost guarenteed to be Ds, and slightly balance out the senate. Puerto-Rico seems more likely to be added, as Rs have long supported the idea, and tehre's just less controversy around the idea of it being a state. It would add 2 new senators, both of which would prolly be Democratic but IDK, maybe if Republicans are at the forefront of it gaining statehood, they could get a loan on a seat. It would be inetresting if it was added before the 2022 midterm elections.

They dont oppose DC statehood, they're just not cosponsors on the bill.

When 40 other Democrats cosponsor it and you don't, you clearly aren't a huge fan of it. Also, 4 of those names listed, are regular swing D senators.

[Zaybay]

Could it if Ds win presidency and senate? Right now 40 seantors support DC statehood (All Rs, Sinema, Manchin, Jones, King, Cantwell, Reed, and Whitehouse oppose it, I'm suprised about the latter 3). The number used to only be 23 not that long ago, so it does seem like it's gradually gaining popularity. Might there be some compromise to make it part or MD or VA, to avoid the state being "too tiny", (*WY, VT, heck even Dakotas got to be seperate)? How would it get passed; I could see Kind, Cantwell, Reed, and Whitehouse supporting it down her road but Sinema and Manchin will stand their ground. If it was added, it would add 2 new senators almost guarenteed to be Ds, and slightly balance out the senate. Puerto-Rico seems more likely to be added, as Rs have long supported the idea, and tehre's just less controversy around the idea of it being a state. It would add 2 new senators, both of which would prolly be Democratic but IDK, maybe if Republicans are at the forefront of it gaining statehood, they could get a loan on a seat. It would be inetresting if it was added before the 2022 midterm elections.

They dont oppose DC statehood, they're just not cosponsors on the bill.

When 40 other Democrats cosponsor it and you don't, you clearly aren't a huge fan of it. Also, 4 of those names listed, are regular swing D senators.

There's no real example of a piece of legislation getting every 'aye' vote to cosign. Whats important is if they've vocally said they oppose it, not if they choose not to write their name on the bill.

To add onto another question asked in the post, no, there is no real compromise on the issue. Neither VA, MD, nor the people of DC want to just merge the federal territory with a neighboring state. In this instance, its really just statehood or bust.

[Former President tack50]

If Biden gets a trifecta, DC almost certainly becomes a state.

Puerto Rico is a more iffy one, but let's say that the Biden administration forces a clear referendum on the issue and does not accept boycotts, and the statehood forces win by a convincing enough margin (say, 60-40)

I think Puerto Rico has a gubernatorial election on 2020 as well, so if the pro-statehood party wins a landslide despite all their problems that would be a good indicator for the pro-statehood people.

If Biden does not get a trifecta, PR statehood is still possible, but becomes much more unlikely. And DC statehood becomes impossible.

As for the Senate, DC is obviously 2 titanium D seats; and I could see some indy or even a Libertarian or Green beating the Republican candidate regularly

Puerto Rico has a completely independent party system from the mainland US and I expect them to keep it that way. PR will send what are essencially 4 indy representatives and 2 indy Senators.

If they have to caucus with one of the big parties, the anti-statehood party senators will caucus with the Democrats while the pro-statehood party senators are mixed I believe. So PR basically has like a 75% chance of electing a de-facto Democrat and a 25% chance of electing a de-facto Republican; but their national party affiliation will matter little to Puerto Ricans I believe; plus the ones who caucus with the Republicans will be RINOs.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

PR probably won't since it will be a swing state, and I don't think both parties have interests with that.

[brucejoel99]

There's no chance in hell of DC becoming a state by Dec. 31, 2020, no.

If Biden wins & the Democrats secure a trifecta, then DC will definitely become a state by Dec. 31, 2022, & Puerto Rico will too if the referendum result this Nov. - provided it's not boycotted - allows for it. If there's no Democratic trifecta, then there's sadly no chance.

As for how it'd change the Senate outlook, DC would obviously be Uber-Ultra Titanium D 'til the end of time itself (only half-joking on that last part), whereas PR would initially be a (non-Atlas) blue state, though Idk if it'd stay that way, given that the island is fundamentally pretty conservative & has some level of Republican tradition (e.g., Luis Fortuño, Jennifer Gonzalez, etc.). It'll probably depend on the directions that the parties follow post-Trump.

[Storr]

There's no chance in hell of DC becoming a state by Dec. 31, 2020, no.

If Biden wins & the Democrats secure a trifecta, then DC will definitely become a state by Dec. 31, 2022, & Puerto Rico will too if the referendum result this Nov. - provided it's not boycotted - allows for it. If there's no Democratic trifecta, then there's sadly no chance.

As for how it'd change the Senate outlook, DC would obviously be Uber-Ultra Titanium D 'til the end of time itself (only half-joking on that last part), whereas PR would initially be a (non-Atlas) blue state, though Idk if it'd stay that way, given that the island is fundamentally pretty conservative & has some level of Republican tradition (e.g., Luis Fortuño, Jennifer Gonzalez, etc.). It'll probably depend on the directions that the parties follow post-Trump.

I would be worried about a filibuster in the Senate, assuming a D trifecta post 2020. It's a shame statehood wasn't passed when Democrats has a 60 vote majority. Of course that majority had many more Red state Dems than a 51-54 seat majority post 2020. But it seems like such a wasted opportunity. 

[Orser67]

The big issue with DC is that, at least as far as I know, granting it statehood would require dealing with the filibuster because a bill/provision regarding statehood wouldn't be eligible for the reconciliation process. Assuming Democrats either annihilate the filibuster or convince enough Republicans to not filibuster a statehood bill, DC seems fairly likely to become a state if Democrats win a trifecta in 2020. Congress will, however, have to deal with some constitutional issues regarding making DC a state. I'm fairly confident that they can resolve those, but I do expect we will see some court challenges from the right.

Puerto Rico is more complicated, because Congress (justifiably) doesn't want to make Puerto Rico a state without a clear mandate to do so from a referendum, and Puerto Rico has now held several referendums with somewhat unclear outcomes (e.g. an overwhelming majority voted for statehood in 2017, but turnout was at 23% because opponents boycotted the vote).

Anyway, assuming that it happened, adding Puerto Rico and DC would have a big impact in making the Senate less favorable towards Republicans.

Without Puerto Rico and DC, states ordered by Trump's 2016 margin:

30th percentile state most favorable to Trump: VA D+5.3
40th percentile state: NH D+0.4
Median state: AZ/NC R+3.6
60th percentile state: IA R+9.4
70th percentile state: MO R+18.6

With Puerto Rico (assumed to be D+10 for this exercise) and DC, states by Clinton's 2016 margin:

30th percentile state most favorable to Trump: NM D+8.2
40th percentile state: MN D+1.5
Median state: FL R+1.2
60th percentile state: TX R+9
70th percentile state: UT R+18.0

[brucejoel99]

The Democrats are gonna have no problem eliminating the filibuster if/when it's necessary to actually get Biden's legislative agenda through.

[MillennialModerate]

You guys are insane.

0% chance DC becomes a state and I don’t think it should be. The point of DC was to be a neutral place, with no state loyalties at all. And frankly it’ll look like a power grab by the left (which shouldn’t bother me the way the right handled the SCOTUS situation - but what can I say)

Puerto Rico on the other hand could be a state and should be one. And it won’t appear as partisan as there is a slight chance of it being a Lean D swing state.

[brucejoel99]

You guys are insane.

0% chance DC becomes a state and I don’t think it should be. The point of DC was to be a neutral place, with no state loyalties at all. And frankly it’ll look like a power grab by the left (which shouldn’t bother me the way the right handled the SCOTUS situation - but what can I say)

Puerto Rico on the other hand could be a state and should be one. And it won’t appear as partisan as there is a slight chance of it being a Lean D swing state.

Your takes truly belong in the Hotter, Badder, and Unpopularer Takes thread.

[Storr]

The Democrats are gonna have no problem eliminating the filibuster if/when it's necessary to actually get Biden's legislative agenda through.

The Democrats could pull a Reid where the Senate Majority deploys a limited nuclear option, eliminating the filibuster on a limited scope (in the 2013 case non-Supreme Court judicial appointments and executive appointments). In this scenario it would be eliminating the filibuster for statehood legislation. Yeah Republicans would be mad, but at least the Dems could claim they aren't weakening "minority rights" all that much. I'll admit it's a slippery slope towards the filibuster being completely dismantled, but we're already falling down that slope with the Reid rule change in 2013 and the 2017 McConnell rule change removing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

[MillennialModerate]

You guys are insane.

0% chance DC becomes a state and I don’t think it should be. The point of DC was to be a neutral place, with no state loyalties at all. And frankly it’ll look like a power grab by the left (which shouldn’t bother me the way the right handled the SCOTUS situation - but what can I say)

Puerto Rico on the other hand could be a state and should be one. And it won’t appear as partisan as there is a slight chance of it being a Lean D swing state.

Your takes truly belong in the Hotter, Badder, and Unpopularer Takes thread.

Oh? Well now that you said that

[brucejoel99]

You guys are insane.

0% chance DC becomes a state and I don’t think it should be. The point of DC was to be a neutral place, with no state loyalties at all. And frankly it’ll look like a power grab by the left (which shouldn’t bother me the way the right handled the SCOTUS situation - but what can I say)

Puerto Rico on the other hand could be a state and should be one. And it won’t appear as partisan as there is a slight chance of it being a Lean D swing state.

Your takes truly belong in the Hotter, Badder, and Unpopularer Takes thread.

Oh? Well now that you said that

It's just that, with all due respect, your take is 100% illogical. The DC statehood proposal currently under consideration by Congress doesn't prevent the seat of the federal government itself from being "a neutral place" because the federal district would still exist, constituting the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, the Mall, & other federal properties adjacent to the Mall. The fact that more people live in DC than WY or VT without adequate congressional representation is reason enough to grand statehood, & I nor anybody else who gives a damn about voting rights in this country is "insane" for believing that.

If anything, you're the insane one for legitimately believing that there's a "0% chance DC becomes a state," given that more momentum (especially within Congress) has been built for DC statehood in the last 18 months than at any other point before in our history. The Speaker of the House is putting the legislation admitting DC into the Union to a vote in her chamber because she knows that there's definitely already enough votes in support of it to carry a majority in the House of Representatives; if there weren't, then she wouldn't be putting it to a vote. Moreover, the Senate Minority Leader has made passing the legislation a #1 priority if/when the Democrats take the Senate in November, & the far-&-away frontrunner to be the next President of the United States has pledged to sign said legislation, with all of them stressing its importance for democracy. So, given all of that information, even if you believe that DC statehood is still unlikely (which - don't get me wrong - can be a legitimate belief: I mean, for all I know, I'm wrong & when the time comes, Schumer's gonna be too gun-shy to nuke the legislative filibuster, which would kill DC statehood in its tracks if we don't have 60 seats), you simply can't seek to claim with any amount of credibility that there's a "0% chance."

[MillennialModerate]

You guys are insane.

0% chance DC becomes a state and I don’t think it should be. The point of DC was to be a neutral place, with no state loyalties at all. And frankly it’ll look like a power grab by the left (which shouldn’t bother me the way the right handled the SCOTUS situation - but what can I say)

Puerto Rico on the other hand could be a state and should be one. And it won’t appear as partisan as there is a slight chance of it being a Lean D swing state.

Your takes truly belong in the Hotter, Badder, and Unpopularer Takes thread.

Oh? Well now that you said that

It's just that, with all due respect, your take is 100% illogical. The DC statehood proposal currently under consideration by Congress doesn't prevent the seat of the federal government itself from being "a neutral place" because the federal district would still exist, constituting the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, the Mall, & other federal properties adjacent to the Mall. The fact that more people live in DC than WY or VT without adequate congressional representation is reason enough to grand statehood, & I nor anybody else who gives a damn about voting rights in this country is "insane" for believing that.

If anything, you're the insane one for legitimately believing that there's a "0% chance DC becomes a state," given that more momentum (especially within Congress) has been built for DC statehood in the last 18 months than at any other point before in our history. The Speaker of the House is putting the legislation admitting DC into the Union to a vote in her chamber because she knows that there's definitely already enough votes in support of it to carry a majority in the House of Representatives; if there weren't, then she wouldn't be putting it to a vote. Moreover, the Senate Minority Leader has made passing the legislation a #1 priority if/when the Democrats take the Senate in November, & the far-&-away frontrunner to be the next President of the United States has pledged to sign said legislation, with all of them stressing its importance for democracy. So, given all of that information, even if you believe that DC statehood is still unlikely (which - don't get me wrong - can be a legitimate belief: I mean, for all I know, I'm wrong & when the time comes, Schumer's gonna be too gun-shy to nuke the legislative filibuster, which would kill DC statehood in its tracks if we don't have 60 seats), you simply can't seek to claim with any amount of credibility that there's a "0% chance."

I don’t think you’re insane for wanting it to be a state and having a rational for it. What’s insane is thinking that it becoming a state would actually happen with the way the Republicans operate.

[brucejoel99]

You guys are insane.

0% chance DC becomes a state and I don’t think it should be. The point of DC was to be a neutral place, with no state loyalties at all. And frankly it’ll look like a power grab by the left (which shouldn’t bother me the way the right handled the SCOTUS situation - but what can I say)

Puerto Rico on the other hand could be a state and should be one. And it won’t appear as partisan as there is a slight chance of it being a Lean D swing state.

Your takes truly belong in the Hotter, Badder, and Unpopularer Takes thread.

Oh? Well now that you said that

It's just that, with all due respect, your take is 100% illogical. The DC statehood proposal currently under consideration by Congress doesn't prevent the seat of the federal government itself from being "a neutral place" because the federal district would still exist, constituting the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, the Mall, & other federal properties adjacent to the Mall. The fact that more people live in DC than WY or VT without adequate congressional representation is reason enough to grand statehood, & I nor anybody else who gives a damn about voting rights in this country is "insane" for believing that.

If anything, you're the insane one for legitimately believing that there's a "0% chance DC becomes a state," given that more momentum (especially within Congress) has been built for DC statehood in the last 18 months than at any other point before in our history. The Speaker of the House is putting the legislation admitting DC into the Union to a vote in her chamber because she knows that there's definitely already enough votes in support of it to carry a majority in the House of Representatives; if there weren't, then she wouldn't be putting it to a vote. Moreover, the Senate Minority Leader has made passing the legislation a #1 priority if/when the Democrats take the Senate in November, & the far-&-away frontrunner to be the next President of the United States has pledged to sign said legislation, with all of them stressing its importance for democracy. So, given all of that information, even if you believe that DC statehood is still unlikely (which - don't get me wrong - can be a legitimate belief: I mean, for all I know, I'm wrong & when the time comes, Schumer's gonna be too gun-shy to nuke the legislative filibuster, which would kill DC statehood in its tracks if we don't have 60 seats), you simply can't seek to claim with any amount of credibility that there's a "0% chance."

I don’t think you’re insane for wanting it to be a state and having a rational for it. What’s insane is thinking that it becoming a state would actually happen with the way the Republicans operate.

The idea of DC becoming a state is clearly predicated on the Republicans losing the Presidency & Senate, as has been made clear time & time again throughout this thread. "The way the Republicans operate" would be irrelevant to the calculation (unless they continue to hold the Senate majority, in which case, of course the idea of DC statehood would remain impossible for the time being), & if you think that it wouldn't be, then maybe you really are insane.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Let's wait til Ds get 53 votes, they would have to eliminate the filibuster without Sinema, King and Manchin
 

Also, since Biden wants Immigration Reform,  they would have to eliminate the filibuster for that too

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By 2022, PR maybe, DC no. I'll be shocked if the Dems have more than 50 Senators in the next Congress (and even that many is only likely, not certain), so it only takes 1 Democratic Senator voting no (or simply not voting) to sink any proposal under even the most optimistic assumptions, if the Republicans are a solid no bloc. Getting some Republicans to vote in favor of either PR statehood or reviving the DC Voting Rights Amendment is likelier to happen than getting any of them to support DC statehood, as there are reasons other than perceived partisan advantage to oppose DC statehood.

[CookieDamage]

By 2022, PR maybe, DC no. I'll be shocked if the Dems have more than 50 Senators in the next Congress (and even that many is only likely, not certain), so it only takes 1 Democratic Senator voting no (or simply not voting) to sink any proposal under even the most optimistic assumptions, if the Republicans are a solid no bloc. Getting some Republicans to vote in favor of either PR statehood or reviving the DC Voting Rights Amendment is likelier to happen than getting any of them to support DC statehood, as there are reasons other than perceived partisan advantage to oppose DC statehood.

Why would you be shocked?

[CookieDamage]

Anyways, I think it's a likely possibility. Republicans will be totally opposed, but if they're in the minority and Dems eviscerate the fillibuster who cares what pubs think??

The issue with PR would be another shoddy referendum but then again even with meager turnout and a less than overwhelming statehood win, would Dems really care?

Also, the case could be made that DC and PR being added simultaneously is a continuation of the old tradition of adding two states of rather different politics or leanings to maintain balance in Washington.

DC = Solid Democratic state in perpetuity
PR = Democratic now but open to Republican or conservative growth due to the island's conservative makeup. Maybe in 25 years the GOP will have a seat or two here in the house and one senate seat.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By 2022, PR maybe, DC no. I'll be shocked if the Dems have more than 50 Senators in the next Congress (and even that many is only likely, not certain), so it only takes 1 Democratic Senator voting no (or simply not voting) to sink any proposal under even the most optimistic assumptions, if the Republicans are a solid no bloc. Getting some Republicans to vote in favor of either PR statehood or reviving the DC Voting Rights Amendment is likelier to happen than getting any of them to support DC statehood, as there are reasons other than perceived partisan advantage to oppose DC statehood.

Why would you be shocked?

First off, Doug Jones is going to lose in Alabama, so the Dems need to pickup four other seats just to get to 50. Arizona and Colorado look to be the only certain gains right now.  They should get at least one of Maine and North Carolina, and getting both is possible but far from guaranteed.  While Iowa, Montana, and the Georgia special aren't impossible, none of them is likely and they become less likely the more it looks like Biden will win as there are a small number of voters who favor divided government more than either party and thus will vote Republican in the Senate race precisely to prevent a Democratic trifecta even if they vote for Biden for President. Everything needs to go better than expected, with no surprises the other way, such as Peters losing in Michigan, to get the Dems past 50. Not impossible, but not looking likely right now.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

By 2022, PR maybe, DC no. I'll be shocked if the Dems have more than 50 Senators in the next Congress (and even that many is only likely, not certain), so it only takes 1 Democratic Senator voting no (or simply not voting) to sink any proposal under even the most optimistic assumptions, if the Republicans are a solid no bloc. Getting some Republicans to vote in favor of either PR statehood or reviving the DC Voting Rights Amendment is likelier to happen than getting any of them to support DC statehood, as there are reasons other than perceived partisan advantage to oppose DC statehood.

Why would you be shocked?

First off, Doug Jones is going to lose in Alabama, so the Dems need to pickup four other seats just to get to 50. Arizona and Colorado look to be the only certain gains right now.  They should get at least one of Maine and North Carolina, and getting both is possible but far from guaranteed.  While Iowa, Montana, and the Georgia special aren't impossible, none of them is likely and they become less likely the more it looks like Biden will win as there are a small number of voters who favor divided government more than either party and thus will vote Republican in the Senate race precisely to prevent a Democratic trifecta even if they vote for Biden for President. Everything needs to go better than expected, with no surprises the other way, such as Peters losing in Michigan, to get the Dems past 50. Not impossible, but not looking likely right now.

I'd favour Dems in all of those races except GA, but they have other opportunities in GA-REG, KS and TX and long shots in AK and SC.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Kansas requires Kobach winning the primary, which is only possible because of the lack of a runoff, for the Democrats to have even a remote chance.

Georgia regular will be more difficult than the Georgia special.

There's no Democrat on the ballot in Arkansas.

Cornyn and Graham are both safe in the general.

Tennessee would be a likelier pickup than either Texas or South Carolina since it's not impossible for Haggerty to win the GOP nomination there and then get caught up in scandal that sticks, but that's a very low probability event.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Kansas requires Kobach winning the primary, which is only possible because of the lack of a runoff, for the Democrats to have even a remote chance.

Georgia regular will be more difficult than the Georgia special.

I've long suspected Warnock/Collins-Loeffler is a slightly better matchup for Dems than Ossoff/Perdue, but unless other Democrats drop out, that one is practically guaranteed to head to a runoff, at which Democratic chances will be greatly reduced. GA-REG can be won outright and the state is inelastic. Both races are tilt R, in my opinion.

There's no Democrat on the ballot in Arkansas.

AK, not AR (Alaska).

Cornyn and Graham are both safe in the general.

I've yet to see much evidence suggesting Cornyn will substantially outperform Trump (though I wouldn't be hugely surprised) and though Graham is probably safe, the risk of him being undone by sex scandal leaks will remain tangible until November.

Tennessee would be a likelier pickup than either Texas or South Carolina since it's not impossible for Haggerty to win the GOP nomination there and then get caught up in scandal that sticks, but that's a very low probability event.

<5%, so safe R all along (though perhaps not titanium if the Haggerty scandal was serious enough). Unless you think John Cornyn is a political titan or that TX is unflippable presidentially, I don't see why you should have TX as safe R.