To follow this logic though: maybe you leave her out to dry to help get Haaland through? If you can convince Sanders to back her out of committee, maybe you let it fail on the floor by however many votes to give Senators a chance to oppose someone to get room to back another?
So then Murkowski can say “I opposed one controversial Biden nominee in Tanden and then backed Haaland because Congressman Young supported her” or something to that effect?
If Tanden is willing to go through that, maybe that’s the ultimate 3-D chess win the administration wants here so instead of getting neither, you can get one of the two?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Another tale of an affluent MN suburb moving left in the Trump era: #SD53. Obama +4.7 to Clinton +12.5 to Biden +21.5. Went from being ~3 points to the right of the state in 2012 to over 14 points to the left in 2020.
#SD53 was considerably wider in 2020 than 2016, but still ran well behind the top of the ticket.
In all but Oakdale P-1 and Landfall did Biden run ahead of Kent. The GOP ran a former Mayor of Woodbury which makes up a lot of the district and probably helped narrow at least part of the margin.
It would be pretty hard to justify anything other than a 4-3 Biden map (that was plausibly 4-3 Trump in 2016). The question may be: how far to the right of the state would the GOP demand the median district be?
Maybe a world where you hand then 3 safe R+>20 seats insulated from a big DFL wave and then make seat 4 a Biden +3 seat which would be R+4 compared to the state. A map that relativly favors the GOP vs statewide performance, though still roughly reflecting overall partisanship?
Inevitably, such a median seat would trend left if current trends continue, so the 4-3 GOP window could be limited, but yet enough for then to take it as a win?