The Senate Math for CCW in 2017

It’s not looking probable; we would need a miracle. Here’s the breakdown

Starting with the 2013 vote (57 Ayes to invoke cloture), I did up a spreadsheet of the likely vote results in 2017, based on current occupancy, the 2013 vote, and the Senators political stances on the issue.

I came out with maximum of 59 Aye votes (assuming Luther Strange gets to vote Aye or his replacement votes Aye).

The vote delta (because we had both gains and losses)

NH: -1 (Maggie Hassan replaced Kelly Ayotte)

IA: +1 (Joni Ernst replaced Tom Harkin)

SD: +1 (Mike Rounds replaced Tim Johnson)

WV: +1 (Shelley Moore replaced John Rockefeller)

However, what I don’t see is the 60th vote. I broke out the Nay votes who are in seats up in 2018 in states that voted for Trump

Bill Nelson is a hard NO
Claire McCaskill is a hard NO
Sherrod Brown is a hard NO
Bob Casey is a firm No
Tammy Baldwin is a hard NO

And, if anyone flips to be the 60th, I wouldn’t put it past some of the presumptive Ayes to flip to Nay to prevent it. Fix NICS is already being pulled out as a cover for voting Nay (and was used for that purpose in the House).

Now, maybe the GOP leadership knows something I don’t, or this really was a setup to burnish everybody’s 2A pro/con credentials. Whichever way that goes, if you want reciprocity this year, better start praying.

44 thoughts on “The Senate Math for CCW in 2017”

  1. I overlooked him because I had filed him as an Independent, but Angus King is up in 2018, voted Nay, and is in a newly-minted ConCarry state.

    So he’s a theoretical flip, but I doubt it.

    1. You might as well consider King a Massachusetts Democrat. Maine is a very split state, the Portland area is as Liberal as Cambridge Mass or Seattle WA, or Portland OR.

      Meanwhile the rural parts of the state are who beat back Bloomberg’s UBC referendum.

      King’s base are crapping their pants every night since Maine stopped requiring permits.

      1. It’s a statewide election, though – can the Republicans not find a serious candidate?

        1. There was talk that Governor LePaige (who signed Constitutional carry into law) would be running, but I think he’s backed out of that race.

  2. If Fix NICS isn’t bundled in the senate version then that would be a sign that they don’t want to really pressure Nay votes.

    1. That’s a good point, but I don’t think it’d help the Nays at all. I don’t know that there’s ANY waverers on the Nay side.

      1. True, and with that could be that even if Fix NICS were applied none of the Nay votes would flip.

        Eve a National Reciprocity bill that only allowed resident permits to count would probably not shift any Nay votes.

        Keeping Flyover proles from legally carrying in their Blue Cities really does seem to be their red-lie.

        1. And, yes, specifically, preventing out-of-staters to carry in Our Home Towns is a redline for the antigun folks.

          Including at least a handful of blue-state gun owners I’ve seen.

    2. Unless this is attached to something that spends a lot of money, or is “must pass” in some other way, this is all just for show prior to the mid-term elections.

      This is not a serious effort, and the GOPe is just fucking with us. It’s all according to schedule.

      1. If it is just the GOPe messing with us, why is Rand Paul playing coy? He voted Aye last time, and could safely endorse this if he thinks it’s doomed to fail.

  3. Assuming the bill becomes law this year I think we are in a long drawn out legal fight in the courts.

  4. As a long term Florida resident, I’m kinda of shocked the Republicans haven’t yet found anyone to run against Nelson that wasn’t an awful candidate.

    I am also kind of surprised the filibuster is still in place at this point, especially in light of this past years developments. I would be shocked if the filibuster survives the next Democrats takeover of the Senate, whenever that is.

    1. This is exactly the kind of bill the filibuster exists for. Regardless of my own views on the rightness of it (hint, I call it Constitutional Carry for a reason), this is a major change in the status quo; and if we don’t have a more-than-bare-majority agreement on this, it will be a long-term problem.

      The Senate is supposed to be the house that protects the minority, both in its structure and its procedures. Them’s the breaks in this case, but I’d rather have the issue decided by a large majority agreement, so we end the debate.

      1. If only the left played by the same rules but they don’t and by sticking to this tradition we handicap ourselves. And the filibuster isn’t in the Constitution at all and didn’t exist during the time of the Founders.

        1. I would agree with you there. The filibuster is a way of using the rules of the Senate that were designed to promote polite and orderly debate to allow the minority to control the Senate. The Senate was not designed to protect the minority, it was designed to be the body that protects the interests of the states, but the people ruined that by passing the 17th Amendment, thus making the legislative branch two parts of a whole, rather than two bodies representing different interests.
          The problems with congress all stem from that one amendment.

          1. States are made up of their constituents. I’ve yet to see a convincing argument that the 17th Amendment made a substantive difference, given that by the time the 17th Amendment passed, many states were already popularly electing their senators, and there’s no way to stop that.

  5. Bennet was probably a fake yes as was Udall. Udall is gone and replaced by a probable real yes but that is still -1 from the recorded vote.

  6. When the Senate leadership really wants something done and need 60 votes, they attach legislation to a must-pass bill like the budget or debt ceiling. That’s what they want to do with DACA, and if they truly wanted this to pass, thats what they would do with this.

    They do not really want this to pass. They want to set up a fake photo opportunity for the 2018 elections. “Hey we tried, vote to oust {Insert Senator here}”

    Actually, I am somewhat surprised Claire McCaskill is a hard NO.

    Does she want to be re-elected? If so, she will change her vote.

    1. She voted no in 2013, as well.

      I found the House’s haste to be strange, myself. There’s some kind of backstory we don’t know, and I haven’t heard of any floor vote in the Senate yet. Maybe they’re waiting for a must-pass bill to come bay, maybe they’re looking to burnish credentials on the cheap, maybe they’re pissed at the House for pushing the issue.

      But I will note that comments this past year pooh-poohed this even getting a vote in the House, much less passing. Just because I can’t see any way to count to 60, doesn’t mean there isn’t a way.

      Though that’s the way I’m betting (no 60)

  7. Rand Paul will be the stealth “No” vote. Everybody thinks of him as pro-gun…and he mostly is…but he does not support federally-mandated reciprocity, seeing it as an infringement upon states’ rights. He may use “Fix NICS” as the excuse, like Thomas Massie did, but he will not support it when push comes to shove.

    1. Good point. I know a number of gun owners against it. I understand their point. They just don’t like federal gun laws period.

      However, until every state is at least “shall issue” for residents and non-rsidennts, we need this legislation to push pull recognition of our self-defense rights that are guaranteed by the Second Amendent.

      1. I hope you’re right, but I still have my doubts. He has still not co-sponsored the Senate reciprocity bill.

        1. Which is weird, if he thinks it’s not going to pass. Why not fake it?

          1. Same reason Massie voted no, even though it would pass the House without him. “Mah principles!”

            1. Massie could get away with that because it did pass without him. Rand is playing with fire, if this goes 58 or 59 Aye without him, he gets painted as “the losing vote” by a primary challenger.

              OTOH, he’s not up next year, is he? He may not care about a primary challenger right now.

  8. I’m in South Carolina and I’m good in 34 States with or without my CWP and Open Carry in some States once I cross the border West or North.
    I do NOT go anywhere near the Communist Democrat controlled States.

      1. We all have the option. It’s calling moving. There is NO job or ANYTHING else that is more important than safety and freedom, or anything that can’t I’m found, in the free south.

        1. Eh. My husband signed on the dotted line with the US Military. He literally can’t quit.

        2. There’s a song lyric that goes something “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”
          People judge their own risks, that’s part of their own freedoms.

    1. That’s the real answer. I’m not a fan of boycotts but if we spent our money exclusively in origin states it would have a HUGE impact. But it takes commitment. I will NOT buy from NY NJ CA or MA. Period. They have nothing I cannot get somewhere else.

      1. I was thinking that Doug Jones is the Scott Brown of 2017. Someone who won a special election to fill a vacancy for a few years in a state that swings deeply the other way. Unless the GOP primary voters go crazy again, this should be a relatively easy GOP pickup in 2020.

        1. Except that Scott Brown WON his race because of policy. Voters, even in Mass. didn’t want Obamacare. Roy Moore LOST because of false accusations and dirty tricks by the Media that reduced turnout by Republicans. The outcome was the same but I wouldn’t say this portends a Democrat wave in ’18 the way that Scott Brown did.

          1. I agree with that. I was only comparing these two special elections, not any kind of overall trend.

            I tend to think that 2018 will generally be a status quo election in terms of the Senate. Maybe one or two seats flip here or there (and simple arithmetic says that there is more a chance of Dem to GOP flips than vice-versa), but I doubt there will be a wave in either direction.

    1. Depends when the vote is held – looks like he’s going to get sworn in on 27 December, and there’s the tax bill to get voted out as well, so you’re almost certainly correct. Which is why my 59-vote count included Luther Strange or his replacement voting Aye as a caveat.

      1. Bottom line: we were never at 60 even with the most generous calculation given even in the current session of Congress. Oh well.

        It will be interesting to see what the calculation is by Jones. If he wants to keep his seat for more than two years, does he support what his constituents want, or does he vote with the likes of Chuck Schumer? Or does he even care considering it would be an easy pickup in 2020 if the GOP doesn’t screw it up again.

        1. That was the basis of my original post. No party to 60, without a miracle. This means we need a bigger miracle.

Comments are closed.