Hunter📈🌈📊

@GreatLakesProg Gone are those days, my friend, or I'd just post Manchin winning WV in response.

@StatisticUrban And Carl Levin was very regularly able to beat the margins of polarization in very red years because he actually stood for something and people believed in him. El Sayed has a platform that resonates with the Dem base and people not typically aligned with Dems. Abdul will be fine

No matter who wins the Dem primary in MI, and assuming Dems win the general, I think we've created a situation that has a very high chance of coming back to bite us in 2032.

@GreatLakesProg NYC is like a D+35 city. It's obviously possible El-Sayed becomes universally beloved, but I'd bet against it. MI is a large state, and polarization is very high.

@StatisticUrban Everyone said that about mamdani and now he’s overwhelmingly beloved. Fact is we all know what Stevens will be like in 6 years and Abdul will win over the masses over the next 6 and become popular like levin. I know I will be voting for Abdul in November regardless

@Mike_from_PA That's true, and I've observed the same. BUT it's a lot easier than winning a durable federal trifecta and crafting programs that survive SCOTUS.

@StatisticUrban You can do only minimal left-wing projects at the state level. Most federal funds come with significant strings attached and federal preemption prevents a lot of the more interventionist actions we'd need to actually move the needle. Also, no sovereign control of currency.

Leftists are in a bit of a bind, where, if they want to try to make immediate, tangible improvements to people's lives and trial-run the agenda, it's best to target state governments. But to move the needle on I/P or nat'l politics much at all, they need to to go for Congress.

@Ranchitup68 If you can pull off a Joe Manchin or Jon Tester and win an R+1000 seat, you can say whatever you want, anything from a pro-life blue dog to a Marxist-Leninist.

@StatisticUrban Are we a large tent or not?! You guys were perfectly fine tolerating the blue dogs for so long

These are just not strong candidates imo.

@underscoreL404 True

@StatisticUrban One leads to the other. We saw this with the tea party and maga where the incumbent senators see the successful insurgency and act accordingly

I would be ~fine with Kamala Harris as the nominee in 2028, I have no existential issues with her. I just think much stronger possible nominees exist, both electorally and in general.

@underscoreL404 But that's mostly via persuasion, not direct electoral outcomes. Which is very important, but not the method I'm discussing.

@StatisticUrban long march through the institutions. over 40 dem senators voted to block israeli aid recently

Obviously if you can get the holy grail, POTUS, and Dem majorities in both chambers, you have a shot there. But it's very difficult, isn't it?

But winning like, 20-30 blue seats in Congress just doesn't change much materially.

@nonfictionation @Quilly_Dilly That's not how the apportionment math would work.

@StatisticUrban @Quilly_Dilly You have seats below the minimum.

@nonfictionation @Quilly_Dilly Except no, because you're also increasing the denominator.

@nonfictionation @Quilly_Dilly There's literally no way it could change SCOTUS! It has no impact on the Senate!

That’s not remotely true. I just ran the numbers through Claude, and Gore wins 406 to 398 in a 804 Electoral College It also changes which party held the majority in Congress at key points, and would also change the composition of the Supreme Court. But sure, “that doesn’t change much.” 🙄 Turns out it changes quite a bit…

It just doesn't change much! Not even Bush v. Gore! x.com/StatisticUrban…

- It would make the EC less unfair. Yes, but only slightly. It would only actually change the outcome in edge cases. Not that those don't exist, but they're rare. - It makes gerrymandering harder. It doesn't, you can gerrymander at basically any size district. - More representative! I mean, maybe? I just don't think it would be that noticeable though. Going from 770k people/Rep to 500k, for example, is a marginal change imo.

"Uncap the House" is one of the more puzzling reforms to be die-hard committed to. I'm not saying it isn't a good idea, but it also... just wouldn't really change much at all.

Here's an example on how this just doesn't reduce the electoral college skew much at all. If you used the "Wyoming rule," such that the average of every seat is the population of the smallest state, in 2000, you'd 569 reps. But Bush still wins, by a *larger margin,* 344 to 328!

@nonfictionation @Quilly_Dilly Yes... but that just doesn't change much! Let me give *you* an example. If you had expanded the House to 701 members, in 1932, *the math wouldn't have changed the outcome of a single presidential election* Not even Bush v. Gore!

No. Let me make this simpler. If every congressional district were capped at roughly the population of Wyoming’s at large district, the four smallest states still wouldn’t have enough people to earn a second seat. Wyoming: 1 → 1 (+0) Vermont: 1 → 1 (+0) North Dakota: 1 → 1 (+0) Alaska: 1 → 1 (+0) Meanwhile, the four largest states would gain 51 House seats: New York: 26 → 34 (+8) Florida: 28 → 40 (+12) Texas: 38 → 54 (+16) California: 52 → 67 (+15)

@AGlavkoverkh It would not, it's extremely easy to gerrymander basically any size district you could create.

@StatisticUrban It would effectively stop gerrymandering in a major way

@Liliasa238 I mean, possibly, but you can also just give members a larger staffing budget.

@StatisticUrban Wouldn't it positively impact constituent services at the very least?