RCP has the Dems only flipping one House seat, while the GOP are flipping 18 Dem seats. Most of their "toss ups" are Dem seats as well. RCP is projecting GOP picks up +2 in the Senate for a 52-48 majority.
Solid red wave. Won’t feel that way here as we have a strong contingent that actually think people are happy with the current train wreck leading the country. But that is not representative of reality.
Maybe. I think soccer moms are less worried about that and more worried about the cost of driving them to soccer practice and feeding them after. Abortion has been back-seated by the economic driver in the front seat.
Definitely some truth in this and I was thinking the same thing. Just based on the most recent cycles, if I had to pick a number, I'd say the GOP will have 235 House seats for the next Congress. I think 52 senators is probably accurate though. No doubt the landscape will be changing.
I say 52 or 53 R seats in the upper house, and in the 230 range for Rs in the lower house. Not that it will do any good. Rs are simply the opposite side of the same coin.
Just bought gas yesterday here in California for $5.69 a gallon...at Costco. Thanks Biden...and Gov Nuisance.
BINGO. If you went to bed & woke up in 2028, you'd have to check that #s in the house & senate & who's in the WH house BEFORE you know whether to bitch or celebrate.
While abortion per se isn't a day to day issue for a lot of folks, transferring the woman's choice to (predominantly older, white male) state legislatures largely out of touch with their electorate an issue that directly impacts 53% of the US population certainly is. As to the thread's question, I think we end up with 51 R seats in the Senate (maybe 52 if GA is dumb enough to elect that illiterate) and about 225-230 R's in the house. The house is so gerrymandered I don't think polls for the house are remotely accurate.
It did, but that's a bit of a red herring on the issue of abortion as Biden isn't the one restricting their rights. Just look at the Kansas vote this past summer.
We dont take a majority position as the right one just because its the majority position though. Right? Slavery, age of consent laws, personhood, women voting, etc were all viewed different by the majority at one point. I think on this topic the majority have been badly fooled.
A couple of comments. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's objection to the Roe v. Wade decision wasn't the substance of the decision it was the rationale. She thought that the better argument against state anti-abortion laws would have been equal protection rather than the right to privacy. She definitely didn't support making it a state option. Although that ship has sailed decades ago, segregationists also made the argument that integration/segregation should be a state option. As a point of information the formal name of the Dixiecrat Party was the "States Rights Party". Speaking only for myself, I actually do not think a 15-week cutoff for truly elective abortions is unreasonable provided that there is a broad exception for the health of the mother and also for situations in which there is little or no possibility that continued pregnancy would result in a normal birth or in other words pregnancies in which there is likelihood that the fetus would die in utero or would very severely impaired. In any event a decision to terminate a pregnancy based on the health of the mother should be that of the physician not some prosecuting attorney. I would also note that the overwhelming majority of post-Roe anti-abortion laws go well beyond a 15-week cutoff with a majority effectively outlawing every elective abortion.