The leader switch worked remarkably well for the Liberal Party.

so currently defectors are:

Kaine (2030)
Shaheen (Retiring)
Hasan (2028)
Fetterman (2028)
Durbin (Retiring)
CCM (2028)
Rosen (2030)
King (2030)

These votes are highly strategic. Ladd has a point here. All who vote yes are either retiring or not up in 2026.

What leads you to think he would lose primary when Dems in the poll you cited said he deserves to be reelected? Also, "bad fit for district" is a bold take for a guy who has been reelected three times in said district. His position on tariffs was/is bad for sure.

Yes. It's also not clear that partisan legislation would be this crazy if it could actually pass. The House passes nutty stuff all the time because they know it won't go anywhere in the Senate. That would change. No filibuster = no excuses. Which is also why moderates often oppose a change.

Yes I never understood the tariff part. It seems odd to pick tariffs to break with other Dems.

Just to clarify: Do you mean the moderation part worked (elected 4 times), but his stance on Trump/tariffs backfired?

Yes. One of my favorite statistics: In 1955 60% of the committee chairmen in Congress were Southerners (all Ds). By 2015, again 60% of the committee chairs were southerners (all Rs).

Yes. Running independents in places where the D label is toxic is a rational strategy. Those candidates must be allowed to pick heterodox positions that conflict with national Ds. Regarding moderation, does anyone doubt that Jared Golden cannot win ME-02 without moderation one *some* issues?

It's effectiveness has been proven by the experts...

Great work, thanks for sharing this!

There are many ways to reform the current 60-vote threshold. It is doubtful a single Dem senator from a blue(ish) state would go against all his colleagues + Dem president and put the whole D agenda in jeopardy. So how much stock should anyone really put into these statements?

This is amazing! Thank you for doing this work. Is there a codebook somewhere?

Fascinating. So the causal arrows are: historical industrial structure → built environment → demographic persistence → modern political outcomes?

On a more general note, I find it kind of odd that written rules can be "nuked" via precedent. I assume this is a common law thing, but IDK. Unimaginable to e.g. a German legislature that a majority could change procedural rules via precedent when they're clearly written down.