Is a Red Tsunami in 2022 a Sure Thing?

I think that conservative politicians and pundits are becoming way too cockeyed and self-assured about taking back the House and Senate in the 2022 mid-term election cycle. That's all I hear on conservative media, and it seems they're considering it a done deal. This concerns me because I want a conservative majority, but I also recognize that it's simple human nature - and failing - then when people think something is assured they don't consider failing a possibility, and consider what needs to be done to avoid failing. More than just the Presidential election was cheated away from the Republicans in 2020. Cheating gained Democratic political offices and control up and down tickets from national to local in those places where cheating could be gotten away with in amounts that could swing an election.

Therefore I think that instead of just assuming a red tsunami will take back conservative control of elective bodies all the way from local school boards to the U.S. Senate, the Republican party and those responsible for planning elections should be thinking along the lines of "IF the election is fair and free of cheating, THEN - and only then - Republicans have a chance of regaining conservative control." And frankly, I don't see much being done, or even discussed, about ensuring honest elections at any level.

Keep in mind that at one time Hillary as President was a sure thing.

Considering the number of Dem politicians that are retiring this year, a Republican (or at least a non-Dem) majority is increasingly likely.
Given the increasing drag that Joe and Kamala are contributing to any Dem ticket, the odds of a Red tide are pretty high.
As an alumni of the University of Alabama, I just have to say ROLL TIDE!

wiscoaster said:

"IF the election is fair and free of cheating, THEN - and only then - Republicans have a chance of regaining conservative control." And frankly, I don't see much being done, or even discussed, about ensuring honest elections at any level.

Click to expand...

And that's obstacle number one, number two is the fact that most GOP guys are as phony as a three Dollar bill AND have no fighting spirit nor a spine (redundant?)

While I am hopeful we will see a "red wave" in the mid-term elections. I am cautiously optimistic as a lot can happen between now and Tuesday, November 8th, 2022.

bummer7 said:

... as a lot can happen between now and Tuesday, November 8th, 2022.

Click to expand...

Ya, no kidding. The amount of damage done to this country in just one year of the Biden Administration is incredible. Another year until it's guaranteed Congress can block him is one long year. Three more years until a Presidential election is, frankly, something I don't want to dwell on, because it's just too damn depressing.

wiscoaster said:

Therefore I think that instead of just assuming a red tsunami will take back conservative control of elective bodies all the way from local school boards to the U.S. Senate, the Republican party and those responsible for planning elections should be thinking along the lines of "IF the election is fair and free of cheating, THEN - and only then - Republicans have a chance of regaining conservative control." And frankly, I don't see much being done, or even discussed, about ensuring honest elections at any level.

Click to expand...

You hit the nail squarely on the head there - and I think we can be pretty sure that the 'powers that be' in the Republican Party aren't going to do anything since they didn't even bother trying for investigations into what were clearly suspicious results even at the time (and have since been demonstrated to have, in fact, been large scale fraud).

I also expect that as the election gets closer various Republican incumbents will be charged with everything from supporting insurrection (anyone who said anything even vaguely against the narrative being pushed about the January 6th incident) to racism (anyone suggesting anything even vaguely related to secure elections). Not in the courts, mind - there someone might have to produce evidence. No, it'll be an organized... excuse me, an *entirely spontaneous* media campaign. This may actually sway some voters but more importantly it will be a pretext for why they lost.

And while we're considering possibilities, let's toss out one more - why do we assume that there will be an election? Perhaps the Zeta/Omega/Whatever strain will be SO BAD (tens dead across the US in a single month!!!) that the election will need to be "suspended for the duration of the current emergency." Impossible? Who'd have believed three years ago that you'd need to wear a mask to go to the grocery store? That you'd need to show a "vaccine passport" - even as a child - to eat at a restaurant in NYC? That you'd be forbidden from attending church services? That you'd be fired for refusing to take an experimental and highly problematic "vaccine"?

We are living in unprecedented times. We cannot afford to assume that things won't continue to get worse.

Gridley said:

...

And while we're considering possibilities, let's toss out one more - why do we assume that there will be an election? ....

Click to expand...

I think that's a scenario worth considering as not impossible, though only a national state of martial law would make it possible, so I think a higher probability would be a 100% mail-in election, which would be probably worse than no election at all.

Gridley said:

..... We cannot afford to assume that things won't continue to get worse.

Click to expand...

Yes, and looking at all the empty holes on local store shelves I'm concerned it is getting worse.

This morning on OAN there was a story about an auto manufacturer mailing a letter to their vehicle's owners that their vehicle was subject to catching fire, but they weren't issuing a recall because they couldn't get the parts to fix it. Their advice: just drive as little as possible.

wiscoaster said:

I think that's a scenario worth considering as not impossible, though only a national state of martial law would make it possible, so I think a higher probability would be a 100% mail-in election, which would be probably worse than no election at all.

Click to expand...

Agreed that a mail-in-only election is more probable, though why assume it would take martial law? Let's assume for a moment that it would require martial law to make suspending the election legal - I still say, so what? How many of the current administration's executive orders have been legal?

BTW, I'm not convinced that even if we do get a "Red Tsunami" it will do any good. To override a presidential veto you need a 2/3 majority in both houses - we can imagine that in the house if we like, but how many senate seats is it *possible* to flip this year? I believe that only 14 of the Senate seats up for election this cycle are currently held by Democrats. Say they all go and the Republicans hold everything they have. That gives 64 Republicans in the Senate - so for a 2/3 majority several Dems would have to break ranks.

And say we do magically get a 2/3 majority in both houses - again, so what? Will the Republican party suddenly grow a spine? There have been only pro-forma protests of the most blatant illegalities so far, and that's with the advantage of being able to criticize from the sidelines (easy to co-sponsor a bill you KNOW will fail - tell the supporters that you backed it and tell the opponents it never had a chance anyway).

Martial law suspends the Constitution and civil legal processes and it puts the entire population under direct military control and military law. To give one example, no warrant issued by a court is necessary for you to be taken from your home, incarcerated, and tried before a military tribunal without legal defense. If I understand correctly, in the U.S., the consent of both the President and the Congress is required to impose martial law nationally. The Supreme Court cannot block it. The National Guard gets put under Federal control, so individual states cannot "opt out".

The Constitution requires elections, and requires them at specified times and intervals. Therefore elections can be cancelled or suspended only if the Constitution is suspended. I wonder how many people know that it can be.

I certainly hope so, but I've seen Republicans snatch defeat from the jaws of victory often enough to not call it a sure thing.

I sense panic setting in among the Dem leadership.
Their plan of nationalizing election laws so that they can use the COVID pan(Dem)ic to force nation wide mail-in balloting isn't going over very well... .

theotherwaldo said:

I sense panic setting in among the Dem leadership.
Their plan of nationalizing election laws so that they can use the COVID pan(Dem)ic to force nation wide mail-in balloting isn't going over very well... .

Click to expand...

It doesn't need to go over very well. It doesn't need to go over at all in "Blue" areas - those are already good little serfs who vote the way the Dems want (though many of them will adopt the desired methodology anyway - but that's just icing on the cake). Nor does it need to go over in deep "Red" areas - enough fraud to flip those would be too much for those areas to stand. No, they just need enough of an edge in the "Purple" areas to keep some of them "Blue".

They've got a sock puppet in the White House and the federal judiciary is running scared. They don't *need* a large majority in Congress; they just need to keep an organized Republican (or other) Party from getting one. As noted the Senate is safe from a hostile 2/3 majority anyway.

They may need more in 2024, but that's still years away.

Gridley said:

...As noted the Senate is safe from a hostile 2/3 majority anyway.

Click to expand...

The Senate is not safe. Rules require 60 votes - not quite 2/3. That was changed a few years ago. Along with the requirement that a filibuster need just be filed, not actually executed by a Senator taking the floor. It was a Senate rules thing, not a Constitutional thing. Rules can be changed, and they want to. Question is: does it take a supermajority to change the rules, or just a simple majority? Sen. Manchin may be the true national hero here if it's his vote and only his vote that stands in the way of a filibuster rules change.

I guess Sen. Sinema is also opposed to changing the filibuster rules.

wiscoaster said:

The Senate is not safe. Rules require 60 votes - not quite 2/3. That was changed a few years ago. Along with the requirement that a filibuster need just be filed, not actually executed by a Senator taking the floor. It was a Senate rules thing, not a Constitutional thing. Rules can be changed, and they want to. Question is: does it take a supermajority to change the rules, or just a simple majority? Sen. Manchin may be the true national hero here if it's his vote and only his vote that stands in the way of a filibuster rules change.

Click to expand...

Not talking about a filibuster, I'm talking about overturning a veto. Without that Congress can't really do anything since whoever is whispering in Biden's ear will just tell him to veto it.

The Constitution requires a 2/3 majority to overrule a presidential veto - while I grant the Dems ignore the Constitution when they don't like it, they're amazingly quick to cite it when it works for them.

Gridley said:

Not talking about a filibuster, I'm talking about overturning a veto. Without that Congress can't really do anything ...

Click to expand...

OK, gotcha. Congress can't do anything .... but then on the other hand, they can still block much. Or, in other words, kind of the way it was intended to function in the first place.

wiscoaster said:

OK, gotcha. Congress can't do anything .... but then on the other hand, they can still block much. Or, in other words, kind of the way it was intended to function in the first place.

Click to expand...

But 'in the first place' the president was supposed to enforce the laws passed by Congress, not create his own via executive order.

The Senate bill to overturn the "vaccine" mandates shows pretty clearly that they weren't coming from Congress.

So while in theory a non-2/3 majority Congress can block executive overreach, in practice, today, clearly it can't. Even a 2/3 majority might not either, of course.

Bottom line, if you're expecting a "Red Tsunami" in 2022 to make things better, you're not paying attention to what's going on. The best we can hope for is that it slows the rate at which things get worse - and that assumes it happens at all.

Gridley said:

...The best we can hope for is that it slows the rate at which things get worse - and that assumes it happens at all.

Click to expand...

I hope you're wrong and at the same time I fear that you're right.

That being said, slowing the rate is better than doing nothing at all.