Political Roundtable Part XVII

[cammac]

I smile remembering a leader of the New Democratic Party in Canada running a election platform against what he called the "Corporate Welfare Bums". The Democrats should be running in the midterms on the "1% Welfare Bums" and a proposed trickle up tax plan! But then I'm Canadian and WTF do I know!

How can the Republicans support a 80 Billion increase in a defense budget that is already bigger than 6 or 7 major countries total military budget but can't afford diplomacy?

The Wisconsin Republican has detailed an ambitious effort to dramatically reshape Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs that the GOP has long targeted as ripe for reforms. But bring it up with key Senate Republicans and House GOP moderates and they blanch — seeing a legislative battle that may not be winnable and that may not be worth it in an election year where control of Congress is up for grabs.

Still, those sentiments are running headfirst into the hopes of House conservatives, not to mention those of the powerful speaker, whose years-long pitch to privatize Medicare has endeared him to the right.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/27/ryan-mcconnell-congress-entitlements-medicare-social-security-314766

[cammac]

The new Tax Reform package was hastily written by the Republicans in both Congress & Senate. It has not been fully vetted and virtually none of the corporate loopholes were closed and many new ones introduced. Major corporations never paid close to the 34% most were well below 21% and some were paying zero and still getting grants from the government.
That not even going into what the top 1% gets?

There are other models out there, like the Penn-Wharton Budget Model, that are considerably less enthusiastic about the growth-boosting effect of debt-financed tax cuts. They say the right number for revenue loss is between $1.9 trillion and $2.2 trillion — and between $900 billion and $1.2 trillion more than JCT thinks

JCT, for example, evaluates the new break for pass-through entities largely as simply reducing the amount of tax revenue the government will collect from pass-through entities rather than really kicking the tire on the new pass-through tax shelters we're going to see.

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/22/16812144/gop-tax-bill-loopholes-cost-debt-irs

[TGW]

I smile remembering a leader of the New Democratic Party in Canada running a election platform against what he called the "Corporate Welfare Bums". The Democrats should be running in the midterms on the "1% Welfare Bums" and a proposed trickle up tax plan! But then I'm Canadian and WTF do I know!

How can the Republicans support a 80 Billion increase in a defense budget that is already bigger than 6 or 7 major countries total military budget but can't afford diplomacy?

The Wisconsin Republican has detailed an ambitious effort to dramatically reshape Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs that the GOP has long targeted as ripe for reforms. But bring it up with key Senate Republicans and House GOP moderates and they blanch — seeing a legislative battle that may not be winnable and that may not be worth it in an election year where control of Congress is up for grabs.

Still, those sentiments are running headfirst into the hopes of House conservatives, not to mention those of the powerful speaker, whose years-long pitch to privatize Medicare has endeared him to the right.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/27/ryan-mcconnell-congress-entitlements-medicare-social-security-314766

100% agreed, cammac. But to fair, the corrupt democrats agreed on that 80B increase to defense...we can't let them off the hook.

[cammac]

I smile remembering a leader of the New Democratic Party in Canada running a election platform against what he called the "Corporate Welfare Bums". The Democrats should be running in the midterms on the "1% Welfare Bums" and a proposed trickle up tax plan! But then I'm Canadian and WTF do I know!

How can the Republicans support a 80 Billion increase in a defense budget that is already bigger than 6 or 7 major countries total military budget but can't afford diplomacy?

The Wisconsin Republican has detailed an ambitious effort to dramatically reshape Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs that the GOP has long targeted as ripe for reforms. But bring it up with key Senate Republicans and House GOP moderates and they blanch — seeing a legislative battle that may not be winnable and that may not be worth it in an election year where control of Congress is up for grabs.

Still, those sentiments are running headfirst into the hopes of House conservatives, not to mention those of the powerful speaker, whose years-long pitch to privatize Medicare has endeared him to the right.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/27/ryan-mcconnell-congress-entitlements-medicare-social-security-314766

100% agreed, cammac. But to fair, the corrupt democrats agreed on that 80B increase to defense...we can't let them off the hook.

Yes the Democrats aren't saintly either! Unfortunately its choice between 2 evils and even with its faults the democratic party is significantly less evil.

[Pointgod]

I smile remembering a leader of the New Democratic Party in Canada running a election platform against what he called the "Corporate Welfare Bums". The Democrats should be running in the midterms on the "1% Welfare Bums" and a proposed trickle up tax plan! But then I'm Canadian and WTF do I know!

How can the Republicans support a 80 Billion increase in a defense budget that is already bigger than 6 or 7 major countries total military budget but can't afford diplomacy?

The Wisconsin Republican has detailed an ambitious effort to dramatically reshape Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs that the GOP has long targeted as ripe for reforms. But bring it up with key Senate Republicans and House GOP moderates and they blanch — seeing a legislative battle that may not be winnable and that may not be worth it in an election year where control of Congress is up for grabs.

Still, those sentiments are running headfirst into the hopes of House conservatives, not to mention those of the powerful speaker, whose years-long pitch to privatize Medicare has endeared him to the right.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/27/ryan-mcconnell-congress-entitlements-medicare-social-security-314766

100% agreed, cammac. But to fair, the corrupt democrats agreed on that 80B increase to defense...we can't let them off the hook.

It's called politics. You vote against the bill and then have to defend against attack ads that say you hate the troops. Ultimately what matters is what Democrats do when they're in power and on substantial legislation not inconsequential votes.

[pcbothwel]

You can keep screaming "MAGA" until you're blue in the face, but at some point you're going to have to face reality. Trump is the most unpopular president in modern day history. Let it sink in buddy. Accept it. Own it.

I dont need to scream it. My volume is barely above a whisper and accompanied by a wink and a smirk.

[dckingsfan]

Give me one state or municipal election where a Republican over preformed?

I would answer that one with Utah and Nebraska. Both doing extremely well in regards to debt, GDP growth, unemployment and income inequality. If I were looking at what to copy - that is where I would look.

With Utah I agree it is definitely a special case but even Hatch was criticized today by the major Salt Lake City newspaper. I also understand that Mia Love is only a slight favorite in Utah #4. If I'm not mistaken though in Omaha Democrats won the majority in of councilors at city hall. In Nebraska the riding that encompasses Omaha could very likely go Democrat in 2018.

But in both cases the major legislation was put in place by the Rs... it isn't like the Ds have been that much better (if at all) on the local level in terms of governing. It has actually been the reason for most of the success for the Rs to get in power at the national level.

[FAH1223]

A question: How do you think Trump voters will react when the GOP goes after social security/medicare? Many of his supporters depend on these programs.

You all know it's coming. The excuse will be that because the deficit is so huge there's no other alternative. Of course they won't mention the part about adding to the deficit themselves (tax cuts).

Anyone who follows politics closely knows that the GOP's ultimate goal has always been to do away with entitlement (I hate that word) programs. Not save these programs but do away with them.

Hopefully, Trump will do as promised and not touch these programs....at least not in the way the GOP in general wants.

Considering the Senate is now 51-49, its going to be very tough for McConnell to even think about touching those. Ryan is dreaming.

In the past, they could rely on some Democratic votes for "debt" issues as they say that Medicare/Social Security run up the debt, which we know is false (just as they could rely on Democratic votes for tax cuts; Bush got 8 or 9 Senate Dems to vote for his tax cuts). Judging by the votes on Obamacare and the tax cuts, those Democratic votes aren't there anymore.

If anything, we need to be expanding social security. It really is a moral outrage how pensions were basically stolen over for the last 25 years.

[Pointgod]

I smile remembering a leader of the New Democratic Party in Canada running a election platform against what he called the "Corporate Welfare Bums". The Democrats should be running in the midterms on the "1% Welfare Bums" and a proposed trickle up tax plan! But then I'm Canadian and WTF do I know!

How can the Republicans support a 80 Billion increase in a defense budget that is already bigger than 6 or 7 major countries total military budget but can't afford diplomacy?

The Wisconsin Republican has detailed an ambitious effort to dramatically reshape Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs that the GOP has long targeted as ripe for reforms. But bring it up with key Senate Republicans and House GOP moderates and they blanch — seeing a legislative battle that may not be winnable and that may not be worth it in an election year where control of Congress is up for grabs.

Still, those sentiments are running headfirst into the hopes of House conservatives, not to mention those of the powerful speaker, whose years-long pitch to privatize Medicare has endeared him to the right.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/27/ryan-mcconnell-congress-entitlements-medicare-social-security-314766

I think Democrats can form a middle class message without attacking the 1%. Democrats always have problems with messaging which leads people to believe that they're anti business. All the examples of Social Democracies, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Germany are all capitalist and very pro business. This is why Bernie's rhetoric about the corporations and breaking up the big banks is idiotic. It sends the wrong message.

Instead simply tell the truth. Point to the fact that a lot of corporations don't pay anywhere near the 35% corporate rate. Give examples of companies that pay zero taxes (even better if you can use the Trump corporation as an example). Point out that the numerous loopholes in the tax bill let's them horde trillions of dollars overseas and it just sits there instead of being reinvested in companies or the economy. One reason Trump was popular is because he told the truth that the system is rigged to buy off politicians. The messaging and policies should be directed towards small businesses. The more growth of small and medium sized businesses means more growth in American jobs. Democrats should be the pro business and economic equality party. I've said this before attacking your own party is fruitless. Accountability is always important but doing your opponent's work for them seems counter productive.

[dckingsfan]

A question: How do you think Trump voters will react when the GOP goes after social security/medicare? Many of his supporters depend on these programs.

You all know it's coming. The excuse will be that because the deficit is so huge there's no other alternative. Of course they won't mention the part about adding to the deficit themselves (tax cuts).

Anyone who follows politics closely knows that the GOP's ultimate goal has always been to do away with entitlement (I hate that word) programs. Not save these programs but do away with them.

Hopefully, Trump will do as promised and not touch these programs....at least not in the way the GOP in general wants.

Considering the Senate is now 51-49, its going to be very tough for McConnell to even think about touching those. Ryan is dreaming.

In the past, they could rely on some Democratic votes for "debt" issues as they say that Medicare/Social Security run up the debt, which we know is false (just as they could rely on Democratic votes for tax cuts; Bush got 8 or 9 Senate Dems to vote for his tax cuts). Judging by the votes on Obamacare and the tax cuts, those Democratic votes aren't there anymore.

If anything, we need to be expanding social security. It really is a moral outrage how pensions were basically stolen over for the last 25 years.

Agreed that the better word would be services. These are services that are provided to our citizens.

But to think that those services aren't going to eventually be cut is not realistic. The services that we provide have outstripped our ability to pay for them. Part of that is due to baseline spending.

My question: would you rather have Trump make the inevitable cuts and take the blame or wait until it falls on the Ds?

[I_Like_Dirt]

But to think that those services aren't going to eventually be cut is not realistic. The services that we provide have outstripped our ability to pay for them. Part of that is due to baseline spending.

I know I should drop it, but you're splitting hairs in the wrong direction. The services haven't outstripped the ability to pay for them. The leeches attached to those services have outstripped the ability to pay for them. That isn't a reason to do away with those services altogether, nor is it even necessarily a reason not to expand those services. It's reason to seriously look and re-evaluate why those services are so inefficient and cut out a lot of the middle-men profiteering on them. I really do wish either party would champion that particular line of thinking, but sadly, neither do.

The reality, though, is that cutting out those programs isn't actually going to solve the spending problems, either. On the surface, the math seems easy. Where is the money being spent? Cut that and you save money. The reality is it's generally much more complicated than that because cutting spending in one place doesn't necessarily get rid of the leeches, who will often immediately re-attach elsewhere. There isn't any collective insurance if institutions like this go up in flames. It's just so much more rationale to put out the fire first before evaluating what is and isn't salvageable.

[Pointgod]

A question: How do you think Trump voters will react when the GOP goes after social security/medicare? Many of his supporters depend on these programs.

You all know it's coming. The excuse will be that because the deficit is so huge there's no other alternative. Of course they won't mention the part about adding to the deficit themselves (tax cuts).

Anyone who follows politics closely knows that the GOP's ultimate goal has always been to do away with entitlement (I hate that word) programs. Not save these programs but do away with them.

Hopefully, Trump will do as promised and not touch these programs....at least not in the way the GOP in general wants.

I don't know. I've read and watched enough reporting about Trump voters to realize there's a strong cognitive dissonance. Years of right wing messaging and brain washing actually has them believing that their services won't be cut, but rather the people that don't deserve it like the blacks, poors and immigrants.

The most frustrating example is a woman that needs the Obamacare to live. She voted for Trump and when the reporter tells her that Trump said he'd get rid of Obamacare, he asks what she'll do if that happens. She says that she'll just accept death. The answer isn't to just die, you vote for the politicians that want to save and improve Obamacare. You donate or join local organizations that are making a push to save Obamacare. Jesus do everything you can to save it, your ideology isn't worth your life.

Sorry for the rant but long story short Republicans are transparent in their attempt to gut social services. it's been that way for decades. But yet the people who need these still keep handing them power.

[dckingsfan]

I think Democrats can form a middle class message without attacking the 1%. Democrats always have problems with messaging which leads people to believe that they're anti business. All the examples of Social Democracies, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Germany are all capitalist and very pro business. This is why Bernie's rhetoric about the corporations and breaking up the big banks is idiotic. It sends the wrong message.

Instead simply tell the truth. Point to the fact that a lot of corporations don't pay anywhere near the 35% corporate rate. Give examples of companies that pay zero taxes (even better if you can use the Trump corporation as an example). Point out that the numerous loopholes in the tax bill let's them horde trillions of dollars overseas and it just sits there instead of being reinvested in companies or the economy. One reason Trump was popular is because he told the truth that the system is rigged to buy off politicians. The messaging and policies should be directed towards small businesses. The more growth of small and medium sized businesses means more growth in American jobs. Democrats should be the pro business and economic equality party. I've said this before attacking your own party is fruitless. Accountability is always important but doing your opponent's work for them seems counter productive.

I think you completely nailed it here - preach honesty, transparency and fairness.

Talk about some corporations paying 35% and other 0. Talk about some individuals earning the same as another but paying half the taxes of the next guy.

But that would mean that Ds would have to come up with a fair tax bill - something they haven't done in the past - they love their carveouts. Do you think they could sponsor a tax bill with no deductibles?

Talk about spending outrunning revenue and the only way to save our social services is to grow. They have always preached that we are the richest country and can afford more - that would be really tough especially on candidates like Bernie.

If the Ds want to STAY in power, those are the types of things they need to do... I don't think that they need to do anything to get into power - Trump has provided that pathway.

[TGW]

I smile remembering a leader of the New Democratic Party in Canada running a election platform against what he called the "Corporate Welfare Bums". The Democrats should be running in the midterms on the "1% Welfare Bums" and a proposed trickle up tax plan! But then I'm Canadian and WTF do I know!

How can the Republicans support a 80 Billion increase in a defense budget that is already bigger than 6 or 7 major countries total military budget but can't afford diplomacy?





https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/27/ryan-mcconnell-congress-entitlements-medicare-social-security-314766

100% agreed, cammac. But to fair, the corrupt democrats agreed on that 80B increase to defense...we can't let them off the hook.

It's called politics. You vote against the bill and then have to defend against attack ads that say you hate the troops. Ultimately what matters is what Democrats do when they're in power and on substantial legislation not inconsequential votes.

Pointgod...you're a democratic establishment apologist. If the Republicans run attack ads, so what. Run your own attack ads in response. Don't vote against the best interests of your constituents because you're afraid of attack ads. Ridiculous. And let's not act like the democrats were against it in the first place...they are complicit in bloating our defense budget because they're as crooked as the Republicans when it comes to the military industrial complex.

[dckingsfan]

But to think that those services aren't going to eventually be cut is not realistic. The services that we provide have outstripped our ability to pay for them. Part of that is due to baseline spending.

I know I should drop it, but you're splitting hairs in the wrong direction. The services haven't outstripped the ability to pay for them. The leeches attached to those services have outstripped the ability to pay for them. That isn't a reason to do away with those services altogether, nor is it even necessarily a reason not to expand those services. It's reason to seriously look and re-evaluate why those services are so inefficient and cut out a lot of the middle-men profiteering on them. I really do wish either party would champion that particular line of thinking, but sadly, neither do.

The reality, though, is that cutting out those programs isn't actually going to solve the spending problems, either. On the surface, the math seems easy. Where is the money being spent? Cut that and you save money. The reality is it's generally much more complicated than that because cutting spending in one place doesn't necessarily get rid of the leeches, who will often immediately re-attach elsewhere. There isn't any collective insurance if institutions like this go up in flames. It's just so much more rationale to put out the fire first before evaluating what is and isn't salvageable.

So, actually we violently agree (pretty sure anyway). The cost drivers for healthcare (what you call leeches) need to be addressed. And you are right, neither party wants to touch this (I was really hoping that the ACA would do that... sigh). If we did address the cost drivers + have a fair tax policy, we could make it work.

My point - and I think you agree with this - is the current model is unsustainable. So, we are actually lock-step.

(And BTW, I am not against single payer - I am just against single payer without taking on the leeches first - otherwise you get the VHA and that would truly be a step backward.

The Ds political model (as it has been framed) has just been to say we need to tax the 1% more - but that isn't truthful. I like Pointgod's path much better. But it will be very hard for the Ds to give up their caveouts to their favorite constituencies. The Rs are actually much more honest in that regard (big business and big donors).

So, do you think the Ds could change their mantra? Sustainable Government and Tax Fairness for All? Or do you think they will be unwilling to take on the leeches and won't be able to get to tax fairness (their constituents and related carveouts will have to great a pull)?

[I_Like_Dirt]

I think the Ds could, but I don't think they will, no. That said, I'm not attached to either party whatsoever, and if I'm stuck looking at a lesser of 2 evils, I know which way I'd call it at this point. Bankrupt because you paid for inefficient services you can't afford is different than bankrupt because you gave all your money to the already insanely wealthy. It sucks that the Dems can't get out of the credit card mindset at a time when the Republicans seem intent on re-establishing a monarchy and landed nobility of sorts, but it is what it is. I prefer the option that doesn't require some sort of revolution that may not be possible given modern technology to recover from, although "prefer" is too strong of a word by quite a bit.

[dobrojim]

Could someone please clarify this efficiency argument? Are you talking about SocSec/Medicare?
Unless my information is waaay out of date (which is possible), the govt agencies that administer
those programs have overhead rates that most corporations can only dream about, on the order of 2% perhaps.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Could someone please clarify this efficiency argument? Are you talking about SocSec/Medicare?
Unless my information is waaay out of date (which is possible), the govt agencies that administer
those programs have overhead rates that most corporations can only dream about, on the order of 2% perhaps.

I won't speak for anyone else here, but when I speak to efficiency, I mean at large. So to use health care as an example, Americans, per capita, are spending at the very top of the line for health care, both in terms of public funds and through private funds for insurance. Those combined mean that, per capita, America pays roughly double, or more than any other nation on earth for health care. For their expense, they get some things other countries simply don't, like better service at the top, but they also don't actually provide care for everyone, either. On a per dollar basis, the value is extremely poor overall on health care. I say this not as a critique of SocSec/Medicare, etc. I didn't have any particular target specifically in mind, although if I had to pick, I'd be targeting the likes of trial lawyers, insurance companies, drug companies, etc. There are some other layers to it as well, but those are the biggest ones that really do need to be tackled. The value of one dollar spent on health care in the USA doesn't go nearly as far as one dollar spent on health care basically anywhere else in the world.

Ironically, I actually think the one place where America does get at least reasonable value for dollar is the military. When I say this, I don't mean to say the military couldn't necessarily get better value, or that it shouldn't necessarily see a decrease in overall spending over time, but if you look at how much America spends on their military, and then lump together equivalent budgets from other industrialized countries and see what they get on a per dollar basis, things aren't nearly so lopsided and I'd actually suggest they're in America's favor, for whatever that's worth. Almost everything else besides the military, though, and the value for dollar is rather poor when compared to other industrialized nations.

[cammac]

But to think that those services aren't going to eventually be cut is not realistic. The services that we provide have outstripped our ability to pay for them. Part of that is due to baseline spending.

I know I should drop it, but you're splitting hairs in the wrong direction. The services haven't outstripped the ability to pay for them. The leeches attached to those services have outstripped the ability to pay for them. That isn't a reason to do away with those services altogether, nor is it even necessarily a reason not to expand those services. It's reason to seriously look and re-evaluate why those services are so inefficient and cut out a lot of the middle-men profiteering on them. I really do wish either party would champion that particular line of thinking, but sadly, neither do.

The reality, though, is that cutting out those programs isn't actually going to solve the spending problems, either. On the surface, the math seems easy. Where is the money being spent? Cut that and you save money. The reality is it's generally much more complicated than that because cutting spending in one place doesn't necessarily get rid of the leeches, who will often immediately re-attach elsewhere. There isn't any collective insurance if institutions like this go up in flames. It's just so much more rationale to put out the fire first before evaluating what is and isn't salvageable.

So, actually we violently agree (pretty sure anyway). The cost drivers for healthcare (what you call leeches) need to be addressed. And you are right, neither party wants to touch this (I was really hoping that the ACA would do that... sigh). If we did address the cost drivers + have a fair tax policy, we could make it work.

My point - and I think you agree with this - is the current model is unsustainable. So, we are actually lock-step.

(And BTW, I am not against single payer - I am just against single payer without taking on the leeches first - otherwise you get the VHA and that would truly be a step backward.

The Ds political model (as it has been framed) has just been to say we need to tax the 1% more - but that isn't truthful. I like Pointgod's path much better. But it will be very hard for the Ds to give up their caveouts to their favorite constituencies. The Rs are actually much more honest in that regard (big business and big donors).

So, do you think the Ds could change their mantra? Sustainable Government and Tax Fairness for All? Or do you think they will be unwilling to take on the leeches and won't be able to get to tax fairness (their constituents and related carveouts will have to great a pull)?

While the USA and Canada are 2 different countries we can learn from each other. In the early 80s Canada was in a economic crisis our debt portion of the GDP was at USA levels and expanding at a rate that was unsustainable and coupled with high inflation. The Federal governments (both Progressive Conservative & Liberal) took risks. They established a free trade agreement with the USA which latter developed into NAFTA. They introduced a VAT tax which was immensely unpopular at 8% for many goods and services. They managed at the same time to keep essential social services alive. They modified the equivalent Social Security to utilize funds to invest in the marketplace which has created a actuarial sound government pension plan. The Liberals took power on the basis of doing away with the GST but realized it was a effective way at reducing the debt without hurting the poor. Canada had a string of years of surpluses which reduced the debt at the same time allow increases in social policies. Obviously no country was immune to the economic crisis 2008 and deficit spending was again utilized but Canada was among the least affected with no bank or financial institution failures and a still buoyant real estate market. Canada again had a small surplus in 2015 and is running a small deficit due to infrastructure spending. Over the years the GST has been reduced to 5% and social spending on things like childcare increased with a slight rise in age for our government pension plans. The Canadian corporate tax rate is 15% with corporations under 500K in profit @10%. I criticize the federal government because I'm a slight defense hawk and would like our GDP spending at 2%. Think that could be paid for with a slight increase in taxes on the top 1% and a slight increase in dividend taxes.
DK is right someone needs to bite the bullet obviously it isn't the Republicans.

[cammac]

Why Breitbart and Bannon are a boon for the Democratic Party! They are likely going to put up Alt Right Candidates in primaries most Senate Races and many house races.In Paul Ryans 1st Wisc. district they are running this Nazi against him.

Nehlen rightly suffered widespread criticism for promoting the book. Instead of removing the post and apologizing, he doubled-down on his Neo-Nazi rhetoric.

Now Paul Ryan is despicable enough but this guy is right out of the Moorump playbook.
Ryan has always cruised to victory even though in his youth he benefited from many of the social programs that he now strives to eliminate.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/12/27/1727902/-Trump-loving-Breitbart-supported-candidate-goes-on-anti-Semitic-rant-promotes-Neo-Nazi-views
While he will vanquish this opponent in the primary he will have a unique Democrat running against him. Randy Iron Stash Bryce a definite hard working every man who is raising money and has become a media star.
https://twitter.com/IronStache
But Bannon is backing the scum of the earth and may bode well in places like Mississippi which has a 40% and growing Afro American population with growing Asian and Hispanic populations. Two Senate seats are likely up for grabs Shelby 2018 and Cochran likely retirement. Hope that Bannon can get two despicable candidates to win primaries it could open the door for blue in another ruby red state.
Arizona which has been trending blue can be another 2 Senate seats if McCain is unable to fill out his term.