do senate democrats not realize

[Kingpoleon]

Rioting has been presented as "mostly peaceful protests".  This is not true, and it has not been true, but Democrats flat-out lied about the violence, then attempted to blame Trump for the riots (which I hope you can see is ridiculous).  A majority of Americans (myself included) certainly believe that it is time to look at a slew of issues regarding to policing including use of force and racial profiling.  These are legitimate issues in policing, but they also need to be viewed through the lens of who is actually committing the crimes that police are called to respond to.  These are serious issues with multiple sides to them, but the violence in the streets (committed by groups Democrats will not disavow) prevents serious solutions by serious people.  If your data on who supports BLM and Antifa is still true, it's a testament to a media not being honest as to what is actually going on (at least with their own "analysis"; independent journalists and other outlets have gotten the facts out).

One sentence from Kamala Harris would prompt a good many of the violent protesters to stand down.  These are not spontaneous events; they are coordinated and financed.  She chooses not to do this for reasons I cannot fathom, other than she approves of the violence.  Her statements are what they are.

I don't enjoy harping on this issue.  For most of my life, I have found my natural sympathies with those whose Constitutional Rights are violated by police.  There is no excuse for true police brutality.  But it's not "murder" just because a black subject resists arrest and is killed while trying to apprehend him/her.  There are facts surrounding these circumstances.  What we have now is a group of people violently rioting every time police use force against a black person who is resisting arrest, no matter how lawful,

So, 6% of BLM protests have occurred in the same city as looting. Of these 6%, less than one in five have been shown to stem from regular protests, unless you associate black criminals with black protestors naturally. These looters and criminals are not doing the bidding of Crime Boss Kamala Harris, and your implication that they are sounds a lot like, “She looks a criminal mastermind to me.” Very few Democrats have refused to denounce violence. I am not, contrary to your imagination, some liberal loon; I have been very critical of the 1619 Project, of critical race theory, and of a specific organization called Black Lives Matter.

But to confuse the movement with the organization is wrong headed name calling. When Trump said “America First” - a slogan only used by Charles Lindbergh’s fascistic group that said we should not intervene against Nazi Germany - I fought such wordplay then. “Why use a term with pro-Nazi/Marxist connotations?” Because it is about much more than whatever radical viewpoint started it all.

I’m not a brainwashed supporter of BLM, lured in by postmodernist Marxist conspiracists. I have become, like the majority of white Americans, a supporter because I can see things I didn’t before. I grew up with the idea that our society is post-racism. I did not see what I refused to see. And like the majority of Americans, I do not trust Trump to reform our criminal justice system.

He has refused to support a national standard banning chokeholds. He has refused to support reform of mandatory minimums. He has refused to tell police departments that they are accountable to others, and that investigations cannot all be solely internal. He has not commented on the fact that police are much more likely to stop black people without cause; to utilize force against black people, in every circumstance. That is far more indefensible than even this maniacal idea that the Democratic Party is some demonic force that hires gangs for fun.

(in the case of Breonna Taylor) even when the police were shot at first (after identifying themselves).

This is a widely disputed claim. The original statements of all officers involved stated they did not identify themselves before shooting began. Indeed, had they done so, the purpose of the raid would have been nullified. The idea that this black man heard someone say, “We’re the police!” and - despite having no active warrants or drugs in his home - began to fire? It is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. Frankly, the proof offered - the second revision of police statements - does not rise to the level of ordinary proof, much less extraordinary proof.

Your needless defense of police killing a black woman - and the extraordinary claim behind it - is nothing short of heartlessness.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

The D's don't have 60 votes to pack the Crts at this time, they can get 50 seats or 51 which will put them short of the needed votes to pack Crts. Assuming that they are gonna pack the Crts is a Union dream of getting rid of Citizens United, and D's need to win the majority first.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's ad Puerto Rico and DC as states!!

Even if that works and Ds get another 4 seats, the Senate could easily go R in 2022 or 2024.

[Pericles]

I don't enjoy harping on this issue. 

Yes you do.

Also one more thing, the Black Lives Matter movement has been 'presented' as mostly peaceful because statistically, it is.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I don't enjoy harping on this issue. 

Yes you do.

Also one more thing, the Black Lives Matter movement has been 'presented' as mostly peaceful because statistically, it is.

23 hours a day, I'm not committing a crime.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I don't enjoy harping on this issue. 

Yes you do.

Also one more thing, the Black Lives Matter movement has been 'presented' as mostly peaceful because statistically, it is.

23 hours a day, I'm not committing a crime.

Good for you. I guess.

[Pericles]

Or put it a different way, if 7% of Republicans believed Trump should be a dictator and rule for life, would you say Republicans overall think that? Of course not, that's absurd.*

*I wonder what the actual percentage would be if this question were asked, sadly I think it would be a lot higher than 7%.

[Del Tachi]

C'mon y'all...the "only 6/7% of protests are violent!!" claim is so lame and irrelevant.

No one has a problem with lawful, peaceful protests.  But (by definition) 100% of the disorder, damage and death happening is attributable to violent protests.  The level of resulting suffering isn't alleviated by the total number of (non-violent) protests, and the culpability of Democratic mayors and governors for failing to disperse and control violent rioters and looters isn't diminished because they've *mostly presided over peaceful protests.

And moreover, how exactly do you count protests?  where does one begin and another end (either spatially or temporally)?  how many individual protestors must be violent before the whole gathering is "violent"?  I'm sure whatever lame studies arbitrarily address these questions, but it isn't exactly an exact science.  I'm not sure how they get to the 6-7% figure (if someone wants to succinctly explain, go for it), but it seems pretty obvious that the cities with the largest, longest protests (Minneapolis, Portland, Chicago, New York, LA, etc.) have also seen the most rioting/looting.  The causal inference seems pretty clear - cities without protests don't have riots/looting, either; those with the largest/most protests overwhelmingly do.               

[Santander]

Or put it a different way, if 7% of Republicans believed Trump should be a dictator and rule for life, would you say Republicans overall think that? Of course not, that's absurd.*

*I wonder what the actual percentage would be if this question were asked, sadly I think it would be a lot higher than 7%.

A better analogy would be if you were moving into a neighborhood, and you were told that 93% of the residents were peaceful, would you feel safe?

However, using the 93% stat alone against BLM protests is disingenuous, as it's hard to tell how much of the violence has been aggravated by excessive force from law enforcement or instigation from counter-protesters. And it also does not mean that a full 7% of protestors were violent, only that there was violence at 7% of protests, which includes cases where a very small minority were engaged in violence, which I presume is more common than widespread violence.

[Pericles]

Furthermore, what really is the point of going on about the violence at the protests? Yes, bad things happen. Honestly, it's just being used as a sad excuse to dismiss the legitimate demands of the Black Lives Matter movement and enact meaningful criminal justice and police reform. This is their new strategy, because most people aren't outright bigots like SirWoodbury who take joy in George Floyd's death. Anyway, what is the best way to calm things down? By making the response even more militarized, by brutalizing minorities even more? No, that just inflames the legitimate grievances behind the protests, and which for some people may lead them to commit violent acts (or in other cases gives criminals the opportunity to engage in more brazen criminality). Instead, not only is addressing criminal justice and police reform the morally right thing to do, but practically it will reduce the protests, cool down the violence, and begin to heal the racial divide. Just going on about how the incidents of violence, even if it were as big of a deal as it is made out, does not offer any actual solutions for the issue.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Furthermore, what really is the point of going on about the violence at the protests? Yes, bad things happen. Honestly, it's just being used as a sad excuse to dismiss the legitimate demands of the Black Lives Matter movement and enact meaningful criminal justice and police reform. This is their new strategy, because most people aren't outright bigots like SirWoodbury who take joy in George Floyd's death. Anyway, what is the best way to calm things down? By making the response even more militarized, by brutalizing minorities even more? No, that just inflames the legitimate grievances behind the protests, and which for some people may lead them to commit violent acts (or in other cases gives criminals the opportunity to engage in more brazen criminality). Instead, not only is addressing criminal justice and police reform the morally right thing to do, but practically it will reduce the protests, cool down the violence, and begin to heal the racial divide. Just going on about how the incidents of violence, even if it were as big of a deal as it is made out, does not offer any actual solutions for the issue.

The legitimate demands are rooted in misunderstandings about the actual numbers around police shootings, driven by an race baiting media. Why would any reasonable person support a movement that stirs up terror driven by lies?

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

"Only 7% of protests become riots!"

Okay, cool. One person out of 3,000 attendees at Unite the Right drove his car into a crowd and that was enough to have the entire media howling about the scourge of "violent nazi Trump supporters."

By contrast, in these latest BLM riots, thousands of buildings have been looted. Hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage has been done. Dozens have been killed. All that and the media says "mostly peaceful protests." It's so disgustingly disingenuous.

[Ferguson97]

"Only 7% of protests become riots!"

Okay, cool. One person out of 3,000 attendees at Unite the Right drove his car into a crowd and that was enough to have the entire media howling about the scourge of "violent nazi Trump supporters."

By contrast, in these latest BLM riots, thousands of buildings have been looted. Hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage has been done. Dozens have been killed. All that and the media says "mostly peaceful protests." It's so disgustingly disingenuous.

The difference is that Unite the Right was founded by individuals espousing an inherently violent ideology

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

"Only 7% of protests become riots!"

Okay, cool. One person out of 3,000 attendees at Unite the Right drove his car into a crowd and that was enough to have the entire media howling about the scourge of "violent nazi Trump supporters."

By contrast, in these latest BLM riots, thousands of buildings have been looted. Hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage has been done. Dozens have been killed. All that and the media says "mostly peaceful protests." It's so disgustingly disingenuous.

The difference is that Unite the Right was founded by individuals espousing an inherently violent ideology

Whereas BLM espouses a violent ideology you like, which is so much better.

[Ferguson97]

"Only 7% of protests become riots!"

Okay, cool. One person out of 3,000 attendees at Unite the Right drove his car into a crowd and that was enough to have the entire media howling about the scourge of "violent nazi Trump supporters."

By contrast, in these latest BLM riots, thousands of buildings have been looted. Hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage has been done. Dozens have been killed. All that and the media says "mostly peaceful protests." It's so disgustingly disingenuous.

The difference is that Unite the Right was founded by individuals espousing an inherently violent ideology

Whereas BLM espouses a violent ideology you like, which is so much better.

You consider "stop killing black people" to be violent?

[Anni di ghiaccio]

I guess we're going to have to govern competently and prove to American voters that we are the party that should be in charge.

The Kochs will spend $500 million on ads in the yokel states to convince them it isn't true.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

"Only 7% of protests become riots!"

Okay, cool. One person out of 3,000 attendees at Unite the Right drove his car into a crowd and that was enough to have the entire media howling about the scourge of "violent nazi Trump supporters."

By contrast, in these latest BLM riots, thousands of buildings have been looted. Hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage has been done. Dozens have been killed. All that and the media says "mostly peaceful protests." It's so disgustingly disingenuous.

The difference is that Unite the Right was founded by individuals espousing an inherently violent ideology

Whereas BLM espouses a violent ideology you like, which is so much better.

You consider "stop killing black people" to be violent?

Burn Loot Murder is an inherently violent ideology, the lies about police killing black police are just a cover.

[freepcrusher]

I'm going to have to step in and say that you guys need to stay on topic. The main topic at hand is that they have to be careful with how the senate is going forward. On one hand, the Silents dying off and the millenials aging into the electorate has me optimistic that Judis and Tuxeira's prophecy is finally arriving. Otoh, I'm worried that we could be at a point where a D prez candidate wins by 10 points and still wins minority of states.

[Mr.Phips]

dems might be down to 43 senate seats that year

uh, what?

Yeah, I'm not sure how it gets that bad. They'll probably lose Montana and West Virginia, and possibly Ohio but those IMO are the only seats they'd lose if they win the election, and there's no way the Democrats have only 46 seats in 2024 if Biden wins 2020. Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota might be in play if a Republican wins, but not if a Democrat wins, since senate Dems tend to run ahead of the presidential ticket.

Most likely at least 50 D senators after 2020, possibly as many as 57 (though that's very unlikely). 2022 will have either one or two vulnerable Democrats (Mark Kelly, who will probably be safe, and potentially Raphael Warnock, who if he wins will be much more vulnerable). Even if Ds lose both of those seats, they can offset them with potential gains in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Florida, maybe even Iowa if Grassley decides not to run again. And if Greitens successfully primaries Blunt in Missouri, all bets are off.

This isn't even including as many as 4 new D-leaning seats from DC and PR statehood.

Democrats may very well have more Senate seats in January 2023 than in January 2021.

As long as Democrats take the Senate this year, I'd be surprised to see anything lower than 48 after 2024. It's possible that the Senate may be under D control all the way to 2026.

I really doubt Democrats are picking up any seats (besides maybe PA if Toomey retires) in 2022 if Biden wins.  No chance at FL and NC in a Biden midterm.  That’s just the way it is.  Swing voters will not vote for the party holding the White House in midterms.

If I am a Democratic strategist, I would tell any Democratic House member from a competitive district that they should not bother running for a Senate seat in a swing or Republican state (like Ellsworth, Sestak, and Melancon in 2010)  in 2022 because they can’t win.