GA-SEN Runoff (New Impact/FabrizioWard/AARP): Warnock +4

[politicallefty]

Pleasantly surprised. I still was a little worried Democrats might lose interest now that senate control is decided. However, it might also discourage Republicans. And Kemp no longer on the ballot is also a big plus for Warnock.

If Warnock wins, which is likely... Whitmer/Warnock '28?

Yeah, or Shapiro/Warnock.

So much for Democrats running out of people and having no one besides Biden. But the media often keeps saying that.

That was true until this year and was definitely true 8 years into D fatigue after Obama. Even Reagan’s party was similarly running out of people after 1990. It wasn’t until 1994 that they had a good bench again and even then, they weren’t really ready yet. We were really lucky that 2022 was basically a draw or arguably a very minor defeat if Walker somehow upsets. We have reversed some of the problems with the same ticket getting 3 or maybe 4 terms.

This is probably the single best thing for Democrats with this midterm, apart from holding the Senate. The Democratic bench was decimated from top to bottom after 1994 and 2010 (and further beat down in 2014). I love Obama, but he left the party in absolute shambles. We were down to 15 governorships in 2017, the lowest point for the Democratic Party since we've had 50 states. Overall, we can't get back to pre-2010 levels because the South mostly belongs to the Republican Party. However, our bench is strong and revitalized now, and strong where it counts too (diverse in many ways too, particularly geographically). The Democratic Party is overall in strong shape.

[politicallefty]

I would argue that the democrats themselves are to blame for those huge losses.

The GOP did not win big in 2010 and in 2014 simply because they got  massive turnout they won big because the Dems decided to stay home and not even come out to vote at all. I hate to say it, but the Dems deciding not to vote in those Obama era midterms is the reason why Roe v Wade is now dead today..


Thankfully, unlike in 2010 Dems in 2022 knew full well that there would be horrible consequences if they just stayed home and let a bunch radical election denier gain full control over all of congress

All valid points. In essence though, both midterms showed how unreliable the Obama coalition was. They came out for him, but that was it. I think Trump's coalition was similar in that respect. I'm not sure the Senate could've been saved in 2014. That was an awful map. However, if Democrats had been able to hold CO, NC, and AK, they would've controlled the Senate after 2016. Gorsuch definitely would not have been confirmed and Kennedy might have waited another year (in which case, we'd still probably end up with Kavanaugh). If we had won back the Senate in 2016, I'm not sure we would've held it going into 2018 (though it would certainly be possible).

This election made me the most optimistic I’ve been in 10 years.

I felt the same way on election night. Our bench is strong going forward and we mostly held the battleground states. The Midwest was a disaster after 2010 and 2014. That's no longer the case.

[politicallefty]

I would argue that the democrats themselves are to blame for those huge losses.

The GOP did not win big in 2010 and in 2014 simply because they got  massive turnout they won big because the Dems decided to stay home and not even come out to vote at all. I hate to say it, but the Dems deciding not to vote in those Obama era midterms is the reason why Roe v Wade is now dead today..


Thankfully, unlike in 2010 Dems in 2022 knew full well that there would be horrible consequences if they just stayed home and let a bunch radical election denier gain full control over all of congress

All valid points. In essence though, both midterms showed how unreliable the Obama coalition was. They came out for him, but that was it. I think Trump's coalition was similar in that respect. I'm not sure the Senate could've been saved in 2014. That was an awful map. However, if Democrats had been able to hold CO, NC, and AK, they would've controlled the Senate after 2016. Gorsuch definitely would not have been confirmed and Kennedy might have waited another year (in which case, we'd still probably end up with Kavanaugh). If we had won back the Senate in 2016, I'm not sure we would've held it going into 2018 (though it would certainly be possible).

Getting Garland up there alone would have prevented the right to abortion being abrogated and the potential further disincorporation of the 4th amendment. Maybe if Kennedy still retired, they could have gotten someone like Hardimann or whatever his name is. He probably would have had very similar rulings to Kennedy. We still would have gotten ACB even if we still ended up with Jones and was able to save Nelson. That would only get us to 50-50 with Pence breaking the tie. Still though. Dobbs would of had Roberts and Hardimann writing the opinion instead of Alito.

But who knows? If Udall, Begich, and Hagan survived, maybe Dems would be able to get Srinivasan in there instead of ACB if  any of Feingold, McGinity, and Kander delivered.

At the risk of puling a bit more at the tapestry, Schumer controlling the Senate in 2017 in opposition to a Trump Presidency might've changed the adversarial relationship that developed (at least at first). We'd be fresh off the heels of McConnell having blocked Garland for almost a year. The filibuster would still be intact for Supreme Court nominations. Trump would've had to send over someone who was both acceptable to Schumer and the Democratic Majority, as well as a decent number of Republicans. Democrats would've had to give up on Garland, but Republicans wouldn't be getting an anti-Roe FedSoc ideologue. Maybe someone like Amy St. Eve?