US "Mid-term" Elections 2018 [Archive]

View Full Version : US "Mid-term" Elections 2018

Seamus Fermanagh

11-06-2018, 23:24

I just voted for more Democrats for federal and statewide offices on today's ballot than I have in the preceding 35 years.

Should be an interesting evening.

Montmorency

11-07-2018, 01:07

Some kind of election-day spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1z1ydQBJrlnIYqrBiS4M3GQWy_gPeLAPS6Ffd32wmrSQ/htmlview?sle=true#) to watch.

And this (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1peOepPqFLcThlNGJpJeUC4BkztRDwyP179SU2wwD5-w/htmlview?sle=true#gid=555614770).

The contrast in this election could not be more clear. Republicans produce jobs. Democrats produce mobs. You've heard that. You've seen it. You've seen it. You've seen it. Antifa. They the helmet off and they take the arm bands and you see these little arms, you see these little arms. And then you see the clubs in their hands.

You know, they're tough guys, right? Where are the bikers for Trump? Where are the police? Where are the military? Where are the ICE? Where are the border patrol? No. No. We've taken a lot. We've taken a lot, folks. But, you see these guys, you take off their helmet, their black helmet, their black outfit with the pads.

What is Right, and What is Wrong, by the law, by the law?
What is Right and what is Wrong by the law?
What is Right, and what is Wrong?
A short sword, and a long,
A weak arm and a strong, for to draw, for to draw
A weak arm and a strong, for to draw.

Ye Jacobites by name, lend an ear, lend an ear,
Ye Jacobites by name, lend an ear,
Ye Jacobites by name,
Your faults I will proclaim,
Your doctrines I must blame, you shall hear, you shall hear
Your doctrines I must blame, you shall hear.

:pop2: :candle:

a completely inoffensive name

11-07-2018, 07:27

Seamus Fermanagh

11-07-2018, 18:15

Heard O'Reilly talking on Beck's radio show this morning.

O'Reilly's take was that suburbia, particularly women, were voting against Trump the person and not so much against the policies/economic situation -- which is why the state-wide races were less problematic to GOP's results.

Mainstream Media is already talking about House subpoena powers -- because nothing is more important than constant conflict. I am sure it will make for good political bloodsport.

Sad.

edyzmedieval

11-07-2018, 18:52

FiveThirtyEight last night bottled it - their system at one point showed 39% chance of Democratic House. They retooled it after complaints.

Montmorency

11-07-2018, 20:34

First note: Turnout was massive, and while we can only estimate yet it looks like above 50% of registered voters (~220 million give or take 10?), and not much lower among all eligible voters according to ElectProject (http://www.electproject.org/2018g).

The average turnout since Nixon during midterms has hovered around 40%, hitting a modern low in 2014.

Heard O'Reilly talking on Beck's radio show this morning.

O'Reilly's take was that suburbia, particularly women, were voting against Trump the person and not so much against the policies/economic situation -- which is why the state-wide races were less problematic to GOP's results.

Mainstream Media is already talking about House subpoena powers -- because nothing is more important than constant conflict. I am sure it will make for good political bloodsport.

Sad.

I don't think O'Reilly and Beck (lol) have a credible interpretation. The reality looks more like Trump drumming up a Red counter-wave in Republican turnout, closing margins to the point that structural barriers showed their advantage to the Republican side.

W-What? What did you think the election was about? Retaking the House, and the size of the House surge. Taking the House isn't about "sending a message" to Trump, it's about concretely blocking and investigating him. Politics has real-world effects, it's not mere symbolic posturing!

If you don't like constant conflict, then you should be glad Democrats achieved the bare minimum necessary to "hold Trump accountable". (Keep reading for my response to ACIN)

People will say the blue wave broke, but this election has more toss ups going down to the last precinct in a long time. This was supposed to be a disastrous year for Dems, the blue wave was really a rally to staunch the blood loss. Once 2020 census hits, many of state legislatures that have flipped blue will reverse the Republican gerrymandering holding back the House.

ACIN, I'm not going to dig into all the numbers but from a preliminary glance at key battleground states we can see that there was a wave in absolute terms. The answer to the mediocre relative performance does not seem to come down to a late fumble in turnout. For example, Georgia saw over 55% turnout and Florida over 60% - pretty good even for a presidential election (based on denominator of registered voters; the figures when accounting for all eligible voters fall by 3-4% and 8% respectively). When you and others chide Democrats not to focus on structural hurdles like gerrymandering and voter suppression, you contend instead that they somehow gin up unprecedented and overwhelming surges in turnout on the regular. In that case, the story goes, the structural hurdles can be rendered obsolete. There's a hint of something sound here, but it indulges in a certain fallacious premise that is after all very common in discussions of the Democratic Party: that only the Democrats have agency.

The thing is, Republicans can try to surge their turnout too! Dems seemed to underperform their polling in many Senate races, to my unsystematic eye. If I have that right it is less likely because turnout fumbled in the end than because Trump's racist agitprop was extremely and distressingly successful. Shit dude, he was working harder in the weeks leading up to the midterms than in all his term so far, holding multiple "rallies" a day throughout the country. *sigh*

So unless the strategy is genuinely 'somehow generate overwhelming Democratic turnout all the time while hoping Republicans stay passive', dismantling structural impediments is just as important. As usually turns out to be the case in such dilemmas, "why not both?" If one can eliminate their opponent's entire projected surplus vote through disenfranchisement, less than abnormal turnout will not do much good. The narrow elections in Georgia and Florida - go to your aggregator of choice and take another look at those numbers - were very likely won by Republicans in a way that would evoke international censure if it happened in, say, Nigeria. Similar events unfolded when North Dakota basically refused to let reservation Native Americans vote, but the margin was large enough that it at least was not dispositive.

For the readers, a little recap of the results:
(Terminology note, when I use "narrow" I usually mean around 1% margin, and when I use "close", I usually mean 3 or 4% margin)

House: Democrats pulled off the bare minimum and retook the House. The final distribution when all seats are called will be 229-206 for Dems. Many seats were won with close margins, and many contested GOP-held seats were saved by close margins as well. I saw probably 10 GOP victories by 1% or less, that if flipped would have at last manifested that "Blue Wave". There were some interesting matches, such as the defeat of Russophile Dana Rohrabacher in California. The Democrats took 1 + 2 out of 4 congressional districts in Iowa, and nearly took the 4th (seat of crypto-Nazi Steve King).

Senate: Some key probabilities I noted beforehand (off FiveThirtyEight) were Nevada (tie); Arizona (+1D); North Dakota (+5R); Tennessee (+6R); Texas (+5R); Missouri (+2D); Indiana (+3D); WV (+7D); PA (+7D); Florida (+3D); MIssissippi (+1R); MT (+8D).

The Senate races were one of the worst possible outcomes for Democrats, with 3 net seats lost. Solidly defeated in the defending territory of North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana, and Tennessee, reviled former governor of Florida Rick Scott defeated the Dem incumbent for Senate by a margin of less than half a percentage point, in one of the more bitter outcomes. Due to a split vote between two Republicans, a Dem was (only) narrowly defeated in a Mississippi special election. Beto O'Rourke became one of the nationally most-captivating contenders, against Ted Cruz in Texas; he came quite close. Beto will be back for more national politics soon enough it's safe to assume. Capping off the rout, a narrow race in Arizona ultimately went for the Republicans. Final results not in, but it seems Montana's seat will stay Democratic. The only pickup was Nevada.

Governors: Some key probabilities I noted beforehand (off FiveThirtyEight) were Florida (+4D); Wisconisin (+2D); Georgia (+1R); Nevada (+1R); Ohio (+1D); CT (+5D); Iowa (+2D); Kansas (+1.5R); Alaska (+4R); Oklahoma & South Dakota +7R.

Actually not bad overall, but two of the most infuriating shortfalls of the election occurred in Georgia and Florida. In Florida Mr. '#1 with racists' won by <1% against an aggressive and capable black candidate. In Georgia, another aggressive and capable black candidate lost by 2% to the Republican Secretary of State running for governor, who was overseeing his own election and deciding who would and would not get to vote (hint: hundreds of thousands of probable Dem voters would not get to vote). It would take another post to summarize all the irregularities and malfeasance that transpired under this man's remit; I'll tag in ACIN to handle that.

The rest of the bad is that close races were lost in South Dakota, Ohio, and Iowa, and the Republicans took Alaska from the Independent incumbent (who suspended his campaign at the last minute and endorsed the Dem candidate). Still, picking up 7 governorships while preserving your holdings is a good showing. At least the despised Repubican incumbent of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, was finally ousted (albeit narrowly).

State Legislatures: Democrats controlled 32/99. According to Ballotpedia (https://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2018), they picked up 6 and lost 1. :yawn:

Ballot Initiatives: Florida just restored voting rights to over a million felons. Suppress that. Michigan, Missouri, and Colorado approved non-partisan redistricting committees. Several states expanded Medicaid and raised minimum wages.

Unless the Democratic Party enters Berserker mode soon, this is a fragile platform from which to prosecute a 2020 campaign...

Alright, horse race over, time to get back to work*. Expect Mueller news shortly.

I'll revisit anything I got wrong or where my understanding on a point or narrative is amended by new considerations

*"Work" in this context meaning bloviating at an online tavern, and being self-consciously smarmy about it as befits the style of the times

Csargo

11-07-2018, 20:57

People will say the blue wave broke, but this election has more toss ups going down to the last precinct in a long time. This was supposed to be a disastrous year for Dems, the blue wave was really a rally to staunch the blood loss. Once 2020 census hits, many of state legislatures that have flipped blue will reverse the Republican gerrymandering holding back the House.

There were a few ballot measures in a couple of states about having a independent committee drawing districts. Seems like the most obvious solution, outside of having some sort of computer program drawing districts, which I would think could be a possibility.

Monty beat me. Sad days.

Husar

11-07-2018, 22:25

A 50% turnout is just sad for a country that believes itself to be the best democracy in the world.
It doesn't help that it was even more sad in past elections.

Montmorency

11-07-2018, 23:18

A 50% turnout is just sad for a country that believes itself to be the best democracy in the world.
It doesn't help that it was even more sad in past elections.

lol

Low baseline turnout in America is definitely tied to the general state of society and politics rather than tactical decisions by cycle; if GOP tactics surged turnout by even 2% for their candidates though, that's enough to blunt the effects of a blue wave, because overall turnout is depressed compared to other countries. The lesson again is that the Democratic Party needs a concrete, intelligible, and long-term national agenda that includes explicitly disempowering Republicans. Momentum has to build toward the presidential election, not deflate. Let's aim for over 70% turnout for 2020, 60% 2022, etc. The worst thing would be if underwhelming results today discouraged turnout later.

Just to be clear, the results were not bad, they were 'mixed' - the problem is we need better than mixed at this juncture, especially with 2020 in mind.

Some bits of good news I didn't mention:

New York Senate is finally under Democratic control, which has almost never happened in modern history.
There are two more "socialists" in Congress (Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez).
Many socialists won local races throughout the country.
Many useful ballot initiatives were passed throughout the country (that I didn't list above).

a completely inoffensive name

11-08-2018, 06:46

ACIN, I'm not going to dig into all the numbers but from a preliminary glance at key battleground states we can see that there was a wave in absolute terms. The answer to the mediocre relative performance does not seem to come down to a late fumble in turnout. For example, Georgia saw over 55% turnout and Florida over 60% - pretty good even for a presidential election (based on denominator of registered voters; the figures when accounting for all eligible voters fall by 3-4% and 8% respectively). When you and others chide Democrats not to focus on structural hurdles like gerrymandering and voter suppression, you contend instead that they somehow gin up unprecedented and overwhelming surges in turnout on the regular. In that case, the story goes, the structural hurdles can be rendered obsolete. There's a hint of something sound here, but it indulges in a certain fallacious premise that is after all very common in discussions of the Democratic Party: that only the Democrats have agency.

Well, the idea is that certain structural obstacles can only be dismantled through wave elections. Also, depending on how smart gerrymandered districts are structured many of the districts are planned out as only slightly advantageous to the GOP, just enough to secure a solid 3-5 point lead. What this does is maximize the number of districts a party can rig in their favor by not stacking on too few. This also means wave elections with large turnout can easily hop those hurdles and force the opposition to spend everywhere and spread itself thin to prevent a sweep of districts typically solid red.

You are right that ultimately there is another variable, which is the Republican energy. But you are basing this on hindsight. Typically when one side is energized, there is a reciprocated lethargy for the opposition such as when 2012 saw Obama still win by a very comfortable margin despite 4 years of GOP death panel momentum up to that point. Chalk this round to the consistent abnormality of Trumpian politics.

The thing is, Republicans can try to surge their turnout too! Dems seemed to underperform their polling in many Senate races, to my unsystematic eye. If I have that right it is less likely because turnout fumbled in the end than because Trump's racist agitprop was extremely and distressingly successful. Shit dude, he was working harder in the weeks leading up to the midterms than in all his term so far, holding multiple "rallies" a day throughout the country. *sigh*

We will need to wait for the full statistical breakdown. Many states had much higher turnout than normal (oddly enough California was lower than normal at 37% turnout). But whether there is more avenues to expand the voting base next time remains to be seen. Let's keep in mind that Georgia has been considered 'ruby red' only until the last few years. The closeness of the elections were due to the stolen votes by the Secretary of State and Florida is...Florida.

So unless the strategy is genuinely 'somehow generate overwhelming Democratic turnout all the time while hoping Republicans stay passive', dismantling structural impediments is just as important. As usually turns out to be the case in such dilemmas, "why not both?" If one can eliminate their opponent's entire projected surplus vote through disenfranchisement, less than abnormal turnout will not do much good. The narrow elections in Georgia and Florida - go to your aggregator of choice and take another look at those numbers - were very likely won by Republicans in a way that would evoke international censure if it happened in, say, Nigeria. Similar events unfolded when North Dakota basically refused to let reservation Native Americans vote, but the margin was large enough that it at least was not dispositive.

I think we can bet that Republicans will not be staying passive for 2020, but unlike the Obama years, Democratic turnout this year evolved in the opposite direction of Republicans. Local candidates that gave a fresh face energized grassroots democratic efforts which fed off each other with no real guidance from the DNC. Trumpists show up when leader Trump shows up like in panhandle Florida and don't when doesn't like in California.

House: Democrats pulled off the bare minimum and retook the House. The final distribution when all seats are called will be 229-206 for Dems. Many seats were won with close margins, and many contested GOP-held seats were saved by close margins as well. I saw probably 10 GOP victories by 1% or less, that if flipped would have at last manifested that "Blue Wave". There were some interesting matches, such as the defeat of Russophile Dana Rohrabacher in California. The Democrats took 1 + 2 out of 4 congressional districts in Iowa, and nearly took the 4th (seat of crypto-Nazi Steve King).

Senate: Some key probabilities I noted beforehand (off FiveThirtyEight) were Nevada (tie); Arizona (+1D); North Dakota (+5R); Tennessee (+6R); Texas (+5R); Missouri (+2D); Indiana (+3D); WV (+7D); PA (+7D); Florida (+3D); MIssissippi (+1R); MT (+8D).

The Senate races were one of the worst possible outcomes for Democrats, with 3 net seats lost. Solidly defeated in the defending territory of North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana, and Tennessee, reviled former governor of Florida Rick Scott defeated the Dem incumbent for Senate by a margin of less than half a percentage point, in one of the more bitter outcomes. Due to a split vote between two Republicans, a Dem was (only) narrowly defeated in a Mississippi special election. Beto O'Rourke became one of the nationally most-captivating contenders, against Ted Cruz in Texas; he came quite close. Beto will be back for more national politics soon enough it's safe to assume. Capping off the rout, a narrow race in Arizona ultimately went for the Republicans. Final results not in, but it seems Montana's seat will stay Democratic. The only pickup was Nevada.

Governors: Some key probabilities I noted beforehand (off FiveThirtyEight) were Florida (+4D); Wisconisin (+2D); Georgia (+1R); Nevada (+1R); Ohio (+1D); CT (+5D); Iowa (+2D); Kansas (+1.5R); Alaska (+4R); Oklahoma & South Dakota +7R.

Actually not bad overall, but two of the most infuriating shortfalls of the election occurred in Georgia and Florida. In Florida Mr. '#1 with racists' won by <1% against an aggressive and capable black candidate. In Georgia, another aggressive and capable black candidate lost by 2% to the Republican Secretary of State running for governor, who was overseeing his own election and deciding who would and would not get to vote (hint: hundreds of thousands of probable Dem voters would not get to vote). It would take another post to summarize all the irregularities and malfeasance that transpired under this man's remit; I'll tag in ACIN to handle that.

The rest of the bad is that close races were lost in South Dakota, Ohio, and Iowa, and the Republicans took Alaska from the Independent incumbent (who suspended his campaign at the last minute and endorsed the Dem candidate). Still, picking up 7 governorships while preserving your holdings is a good showing. At least the despised Repubican incumbent of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, was finally ousted (albeit narrowly).

State Legislatures: Democrats controlled 32/99. According to Ballotpedia (https://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2018), they picked up 6 and lost 1. :yawn:

Ballot Initiatives: Florida just restored voting rights to over a million felons. Suppress that. Michigan, Missouri, and Colorado approved non-partisan redistricting committees. Several states expanded Medicaid and raised minimum wages.

People put too much emphasis on the Senate. The Senate is structured to be a GOP stronghold. Guaranteed dominance for the few dozen rural states leave them to focus their energy on 5 or so states for control of the chamber.
Also, the loss Dems experienced was a consistent loss of moderate Dems in Trump country, while Dems did pickup a spot in the increasingly blue Nevada. This year just ended up being structurally bad since the increasing polarization of the country is turning more and more states into solid red/blue camps. The division is real and I don't see how Dems even thought they could hold on in those regions when the idea of a Democrat now evokes hostility to Trumpists.

Those state legislatures/governorships are the big win. Dems now have trifectas in three more states and each state which elected a Dem governor will be immune to outright GOP gerrymandering in 2021.

Unless the Democratic Party enters Berserker mode soon, this is a fragile platform from which to prosecute a 2020 campaign...
The party is too weak to evoke this energy, I think we both realize this by now. Listening to Trump and Pelosi back to back is a world of difference. The leadership is too old, too removed from the ground to understand how the future needs to play out.
Grassroots movements are emerging and are showing their potential in races like Georgia, Florida, and Texas. Beto single handily carried an extra 2-3 Texas districts to flip even if his own run did not succeed. While at the end of the day a win is better than promise, it's good news that we now see a viable means to effectively fighting than simply spitballing among each other and relying on the DNC's internal structure to adapt and innovate. They are just as slow to react as the RNC in the 2016 primaries.

a completely inoffensive name

11-08-2018, 07:05

lol

Low baseline turnout in America is definitely tied to the general state of society and politics rather than tactical decisions by cycle; if GOP tactics surged turnout by even 2% for their candidates though, that's enough to blunt the effects of a blue wave, because overall turnout is depressed compared to other countries. The lesson again is that the Democratic Party needs a concrete, intelligible, and long-term national agenda that includes explicitly disempowering Republicans. Momentum has to build toward the presidential election, not deflate. Let's aim for over 70% turnout for 2020, 60% 2022, etc. The worst thing would be if underwhelming results today discouraged turnout later.

Just to be clear, the results were not bad, they were 'mixed' - the problem is we need better than mixed at this juncture, especially with 2020 in mind.

Some bits of good news I didn't mention:

New York Senate is finally under Democratic control, which has almost never happened in modern history.
There are two more "socialists" in Congress (Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez).
Many socialists won local races throughout the country.
Many useful ballot initiatives were passed throughout the country (that I didn't list above).

No one ever said the battle for America's soul was going to be easy. Even an outright sweep of both chambers and the executive in 2020 would not settle this. We are in the beginnings of Act 3 of what could be a full 5 part Shakespearean tragedy. This election has seen the first native-Americans, bisexuals, and socialists elected to the House ever. This country also sends to its capitol Neo-Nazi's and authoritarian sycophants. It is truly becoming a battleground of humanity in all of its forms. We simultaneously frighten and inspire ourselves to a degree that will carry both sides forward for decades to come.

rory_20_uk

11-08-2018, 10:57

No one ever said the battle for America's soul was going to be easy. Even an outright sweep of both chambers and the executive in 2020 would not settle this. We are in the beginnings of Act 3 of what could be a full 5 part Shakespearean tragedy. This election has seen the first native-Americans, bisexuals, and socialists elected to the House ever. This country also sends to its capitol Neo-Nazi's and authoritarian sycophants. It is truly becoming a battleground of humanity in all of its forms. We simultaneously frighten and inspire ourselves to a degree that will carry both sides forward for decades to come.

We are seeing the massive downside of a written constitution: the inability to alter as reality alters. The Senate is hilariously imbalanced regarding the "one person, one vote" but of course every state only gets the same number of Senators and the Senate is the senior chamber. Things would be better if the House was the senior chamber since they represent more closely the people (at least the numbers of people). But this highly unlikely to change since why would the "loosers" in a rebalance vote to reduce their power? Because they are there for the people? :laugh4:

If things can not gently move to a new stable state, they tend to do so in a more violent jolt. Perhaps the "solution" would be a rebalancing of the states vs Federal power to help paper over the disagreements.

~:smoking:

Husar

11-08-2018, 15:27

lol

Low baseline turnout in America is definitely tied to the general state of society and politics rather than tactical decisions by cycle; if GOP tactics surged turnout by even 2% for their candidates though, that's enough to blunt the effects of a blue wave, because overall turnout is depressed compared to other countries. The lesson again is that the Democratic Party needs a concrete, intelligible, and long-term national agenda that includes explicitly disempowering Republicans. Momentum has to build toward the presidential election, not deflate. Let's aim for over 70% turnout for 2020, 60% 2022, etc. The worst thing would be if underwhelming results today discouraged turnout later.

I'm not sure why you bring up tactics. My suggestions to begin with would simply be:

1) Automatic voter registration. People need to be sent invites to come and vote, not required to register in places that open once a month on workdays.
2) The elections should be held on Sundays, not on workdays. Maybe even declare the day a public holiday, forcing most businesses to close (in that case you may leave it on a Tuesday if you want).

Once you solved that, you can look at gerrymandering and all the other oligarchic traits of the system that remain.
Your biggest problem though, appears to be that many do not want any of these changes for ideological and selfish reasons.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-08-2018, 16:19

We are seeing the massive downside of a written constitution: the inability to alter as reality alters. The Senate is hilariously imbalanced regarding the "one person, one vote" but of course every state only gets the same number of Senators and the Senate is the senior chamber. Things would be better if the House was the senior chamber since they represent more closely the people (at least the numbers of people). But this highly unlikely to change since why would the "loosers" in a rebalance vote to reduce their power? Because they are there for the people? :laugh4:

If things can not gently move to a new stable state, they tend to do so in a more violent jolt. Perhaps the "solution" would be a rebalancing of the states vs Federal power to help paper over the disagreements.

~:smoking:

When written, the Constitution called for a bicameral legislature with divided powers -- neither was supposed to be "senior" per se. Congress collectively was allocated to declare war. The Senate got 'advice and consent' over treaties and appointments and sits in judgment during an impeachment, but the HOUSE got the power, to impeach and ALL budget/funding bills must originate in the House. The House was directly elected by the people of their districts, whereas the Senators were selected by their state governments. None of these federal representatives were supposed to spend more than 2/3 of their time at the Capitol, and were supposed to be regularly in touch and beholden to their constituencies (the persons of their district or the government of their states respectively). The Presidency was to administer the laws established by Congress, head up national defenses as funded by Congress, and conduct foreign relations.

Obviously, in practice, it doesn't really function like that at all anymore, and never worked quite like it had been blue-printed. Though written to constrain the powers of the federal government, particularly the executive, the House has abrogated the development of a budget to the executive; Senators are directly elected state wide and for longer terms than the governors of the states they represent and can, effectively, operate almost independently of increasingly redundant state governments (subject to the practical needs/connections needed to secure re-election), and Congress as a whole has largely turned over War decisions to the executive aside from pro forma votes to 'authorize' the military actions already being taken by the Executive. Direct taxation via the 16th further marginalizes state government since they do not fund the federal government via apportionment anymore.

Power is concentrating in the hands of the Senate (who have costly elections, but only stand one year in six) and the executive -- which always seek to acquire power. The house is too busy fundraising for re-election to make much time for governance.

But changes have been made to the written document and have had a sweeping impact.

I would venture to say that one amendment more -- the removal of the electoral college in favor of either a popular vote or a Federal district by district vote across -- would see the USA as a proper social democracy in no more than 3 Presidential election cycles.

I don't see us getting around to a fuller revision of things to reflect what is really out there -- abolition of state government in favor of regional administrative districts that reflect population centers and do not adhere to silly impracticalities like according 2 Senators to Montana (Population 1.1M) and 2 Senators to California (Population 39.6M); federal districts assigned an appropriate number of representatives elected from that district; laws proposed by subject matter experts working for the executive by requiring the advice and consent of the representatives, etc.

We are too enamored of tradition to rationalize our government structure to reflect its practice.

a completely inoffensive name

11-08-2018, 17:04

Did not expect that last sentence to be spoken by you Seamus. Have you joined Monty's camp of radical restructuring?

Montmorency

11-08-2018, 20:05

You are right that ultimately there is another variable, which is the Republican energy. But you are basing this on hindsight. Typically when one side is energized, there is a reciprocated lethargy for the opposition such as when 2012 saw Obama still win by a very comfortable margin despite 4 years of GOP death panel momentum up to that point. Chalk this round to the consistent abnormality of Trumpian politics.

The trouble is in the lesson:

For the Democrats, the lesson is build turnout by mobilizing grassroots with direct participation, uplifting candidates, and promises of "dignity", economic security, and a more just balance of power.

For Republicans, the lesson is to embrace Blood and Soil rhetoric, and a death struggle against the liberal menace.

This orientation will be intensified, orthogonally to how I believe the progressive shift should be intensified on the Dems' part, precisely because it's what the base is drawn to, and if it's successful Republicans will adopt it and if they adopt it they will be hemmed into that choice (Weberian dialectic again).

Just another indication that what comes after Trump will be worse.

(The other day I read a piece by an oblivious liberal type on how Americans don't take politics that seriously as evidenced by the way common folk still treat each other civilly in everyday interactions. What, are 5% of us supposed to be continually engaged in running street battles (https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/bj44e5/the-nypd-is-still-rounding-up-proud-boys-over-violent-manhattan-brawl) between partisans for it to be a true schism? 10%? Even 1% would be halfway to failed statehood... minds stuck on a permanent Zeno treadmill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#/media/File:Zeno_Achilles_Paradox.png).)

People put too much emphasis on the Senate. The Senate is structured to be a GOP stronghold. Guaranteed dominance for the few dozen rural states leave them to focus their energy on 5 or so states for control of the chamber.
Also, the loss Dems experienced was a consistent loss of moderate Dems in Trump country, while Dems did pickup a spot in the increasingly blue Nevada. This year just ended up being structurally bad since the increasing polarization of the country is turning more and more states into solid red/blue camps. The division is real and I don't see how Dems even thought they could hold on in those regions when the idea of a Democrat now evokes hostility to Trumpists.

No one ever said the battle for America's soul was going to be easy. Even an outright sweep of both chambers and the executive in 2020 would not settle this. We are in the beginnings of Act 3 of what could be a full 5 part Shakespearean tragedy. This election has seen the first native-Americans, bisexuals, and socialists elected to the House ever. This country also sends to its capitol Neo-Nazi's and authoritarian sycophants. It is truly becoming a battleground of humanity in all of its forms. We simultaneously frighten and inspire ourselves to a degree that will carry both sides forward for decades to come.

While the Senate defeats, particularly in Texas and Florida, were some of the most painful of the election, I agree that they were flesh wounds. Beto will "rise again". The governor-race defeats in Florida and (I'm just going to write off) Georgia are mor consequential.

IIRC even in the 18th century the basis for representation in the Senate was considered a suboptimal arrangement (compromise). The Framers would certainly shit if they saw the Wyoming-California disparity. I don't have a lot of good takes on solutions here. I would definitely like something comprehensive (as in all things) and sweeping to be debated rather than more narrow technical adjustments.

Weirdly enough, Montana is more Democratic than West Virginia at this point (I'm not referring to just the Senate race). As I have argued elsewhere the "Obama-Trump" phenomenon is oversubscribed relative to its real nature and scope, but West Virginia as a whole state could be personified as an archetypical Obama-Trump voter, they've dumped the Democratic Party so harshly. I fear their capacity to accept even a Sanders trying to sell them the economic intervention they want, if their cultural and racial anxieties are not simultaneously assuaged.

As we saw evinced in many of the ballot propositions (though resource extraction companies lobbied rather successfully on their own turf), Republicans like many Democratic policies, but they hate the Democratic Party and embrace the Republican Party's worldview and symbolic politics.

But here's the deal: almost every state can be turned, given time. Is there a single state in the union that hasn't in the past 30 years sent a single Democrat to the Senate, or to the state capital? There are NOT more than 25 states that can be expected to reliably seat Republican senators. 10 years ago there were nearly 60 Dem senators. Plus you can't gerrymander the Senate (unless for some reason you want to repeal the 17th Amendment :coffeenews:).

The left needs insistent counterpropaganda just to negate the saturation of far-right ideology and thinking, not even to persuade but to desaturate. Mere exposure could have a dramatic effect in enabling independent thought. Since the Republican advantage here is in their wealthy patrons, how do we out-billionaire the right, even as we (justifiably) break with billionaire patronage? And what about MSNBC and CNN, which would struggle to be suitably informational even if they were government-owned and run by activists? They have a stultifying effect on viewers that arguably only helps enable the Fox LMOE silo...

Grassroots movements are emerging and are showing their potential in races like Georgia, Florida, and Texas. Beto single handily carried an extra 2-3 Texas districts to flip even if his own run did not succeed. While at the end of the day a win is better than promise, it's good news that we now see a viable means to effectively fighting than simply spitballing among each other and relying on the DNC's internal structure to adapt and innovate. They are just as slow to react as the RNC in the 2016 primaries.

One positive indicator during the midterms was the especially elevated turnout (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/youth-turnout-midterm-2018/575092/) of the "youth". Millennials aren't so young anymore, but if their turnout could be boosted above 50% that would guarantee long-term Democratic majorities in most of the country right quick.

A negative indicator is that millennial Republicans are especially horrid, 4chan demolitionists in the meat. Boomer Republicans have convictions and instincts (bad ones); their younger counterparts have a conscious Sith Lord mission. You will be hard-pressed to find worse people than young college-educated Republicans. Bork Republicans in the 1980s became dominant Republicans under Obama; Bannon Republicans will become dominant by the end of the coming decade I expect. I guess my point is, what the caucus loses in numbers as Boomers decline, they will gain in fervor and unity.

By the way, have you had a chance to read the discussion between HG Wells and Stalin (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1934/07/23.htm) I linked for you in the other thread? It's surprisingly evergreen in its essence.

Husar: I know, I was just trying to relate the effects of turnout to this specific election.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-08-2018, 21:41

Did not expect that last sentence to be spoken by you Seamus. Have you joined Monty's camp of radical restructuring?

I too am enamored of tradition. I'd scrag the 16-18th ammendments and push power back to the states.

But it will not happen. A more or less Euro-style social democracy will happen.

Montmorency

11-08-2018, 22:45

I too am enamored of tradition. I'd scrag the 16-18th ammendments and push power back to the states.

But it will not happen. A more or less Euro-style social democracy will happen.

Since America is so exceptional, let's be ambitious and envision Europe becoming an American-style socialist democracy. If not us, then who? :wink:

18th Amendment repealed already.

16th Amendment repeal: what are the benefits? What good comes from disempowering the federal government (empowering state governments is not even a corollary)? If we're gonna cancel all federal debt, I would prefer it to be in the process of shattering plutocracy and increasing federal intervention.

17th Amendment repeal: it's rare that I find a document (https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2017/8/1/16069872/repealing-17th-amendment-bad-idea) that in so few words demolishes a notion in so many ways.

a completely inoffensive name

11-09-2018, 03:06

rory_20_uk

11-09-2018, 13:38

I don't see the connection to written vs unwritten Constitutions. If you are suggesting that changing the rules on the fly would be more stable does not jive with what we are seeing in the house and senate. Many of the "unwritten" rules have been discarded, and has only contributed to more instability, more polarization. In fact much of our government is precisely the opposite of how you portray it. Only the basic structure is written down, the rest are social norms.

Society itself cannot agree on what we should be, whether the previous system was written down or not makes no difference.

So you've got the worst of both worlds - a rigid basic structure that in essence can't be altered and all the "fixes" not which can be bulldozed. I don't think that suddenly changing things is a good idea or even possible given the existing frameworks.

In times where things are homogeneous this can be easily overlooked, but now when the need for strong processes is more clear than ever (with the popular vote and the elected officials diverging ever wider) the ability to change the core appears to be absent.

So, given all that is in place, the only realistic solution would be for the Federal government to try to do better on less tasks and leave the states themselves to focus on aspects that are not agreed on - the 2nd amendment (and Supreme Court interpretation aside), it might well be that some states would ban guns and others would not. Clearly pretending everyone is exactly the same is working less and less well.

~:smoking:

Montmorency

11-09-2018, 13:50

ACIN, about California's turnout: if you include all eligible voters, turnout wasn't even 30% turnout. Going by 7.3 million votes so far in the governor's race (7.2 million for House), 25.6 million eligible voters (http://www.electproject.org/2018g), and 18 to 19 million registered (where you got 37% I gather). Even less turnout in the Senate race (25% turnout of eligible). Is this what happens when you're known as the state of surplus voters? It's crazy that Florida could cast more votes (8.2 million) than California with hardly half the population. I raise an eyebrow at the people who are confident a meta-gerrymandered sexpartite California could reliably deliver 12 Dem Senators.

In updates on the election, votes are still being counted in several congressional districts.

Arizona Senate race still tallying, but it looks like the Democrat will win this one after all. If so, only a 2-seat gain by Republicans.

Dem Stacey Abrams in Georgia governor race refuses to concede the election and is demanding a recount. ACIN, seriously, do a review of the shadiness in the Georgia election, up to and including the hundreds of missing (hidden) voting machines and the apparent thousands of early votes that were not tallied for some reason.

Florida counts/recounts are ongoing and the gap in the Senate race is just 0.2% (0.4% in the governor race).

The skin-of-the-teeth nearness of a real national Dem sweep should only galvanize us all to try harder. Remember that the overall popular vote surge for Dems is at least that of the historic Republican surges of 1994 and 2010.

So you've got the worst of both worlds - a rigid basic structure that in essence can't be altered and all the "fixes" not which can be bulldozed. I don't think that suddenly changing things is a good idea or even possible given the existing frameworks.

In times where things are homogeneous this can be easily overlooked, but now when the need for strong processes is more clear than ever (with the popular vote and the elected officials diverging ever wider) the ability to change the core appears to be absent.

So, given all that is in place, the only realistic solution would be for the Federal government to try to do better on less tasks and leave the states themselves to focus on aspects that are not agreed on - the 2nd amendment (and Supreme Court interpretation aside), it might well be that some states would ban guns and others would not. Clearly pretending everyone is exactly the same is working less and less well.

~:smoking:

Devolving to the states would leave most of America indicating like a Third-World country.

Pannonian

11-09-2018, 13:58

rory_20_uk

11-09-2018, 14:12

Devolving to the states would leave most of America indicating like a Third-World country.

That is a shame. This is increasingly why countries think that on balance perhaps the Chinese model works better - when you've got a problem with over a million people, you can just lock them all up without trial. Simple!

~:smoking:

Montmorency

11-09-2018, 14:22

That is a shame. This is increasingly why countries think that on balance perhaps the Chinese model works better - when you've got a problem with over a million people, you can just lock them all up without trial. Simple!

~:smoking:

Everyone wants the whole plate. :shrug:

I'm currently reading this alternate history novel (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B075HHNX1Y/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1) of the early Roman Empire in which the Romans underwent an industrial revolution and Jesus is a terrorist mastermind.

The author is one of those Liberals and expressed annoyance that people wrote to her adoring all the nice material aspects of Roman industrial and political domination, while ignoring negative aspects like torture and repression of dissidents and free speech.

I think we should avoid relying on circular logic about the integrity of the "cause"/"revolution"/"will of the people" to oppress people who may not be on board. The logical conclusion is some version of Pol Pot's Cambodia or Robespierre's France, where "he who protests is an enemy; he who opposes is a corpse." That always devolves back into violent anarchy or low-authoritarian capture. We have to break that old story to have any hope for the future.

https://i.imgur.com/HVZMQpb.jpg

a completely inoffensive name

11-09-2018, 18:24

So you've got the worst of both worlds - a rigid basic structure that in essence can't be altered and all the "fixes" not which can be bulldozed. I don't think that suddenly changing things is a good idea or even possible given the existing frameworks.

In times where things are homogeneous this can be easily overlooked, but now when the need for strong processes is more clear than ever (with the popular vote and the elected officials diverging ever wider) the ability to change the core appears to be absent.

So, given all that is in place, the only realistic solution would be for the Federal government to try to do better on less tasks and leave the states themselves to focus on aspects that are not agreed on - the 2nd amendment (and Supreme Court interpretation aside), it might well be that some states would ban guns and others would not. Clearly pretending everyone is exactly the same is working less and less well.

~:smoking:

Has the British model shown any better promise? Brexit is jeopardizing everything to the point where an independent Scotland and a unified Ireland is not out of the question if May ends up delivering a hard Brexit with hard borders.
Where is this flexibility on the part of Parliament to adapt to the country as it lives today?

ACIN, about California's turnout: if you include all eligible voters, turnout wasn't even 30% turnout. Going by 7.3 million votes so far in the governor's race (7.2 million for House), 25.6 million eligible voters (http://www.electproject.org/2018g), and 18 to 19 million registered (where you got 37% I gather). Even less turnout in the Senate race (25% turnout of eligible). Is this what happens when you're known as the state of surplus voters? It's crazy that Florida could cast more votes (8.2 million) than California with hardly half the population. I raise an eyebrow at the people who are confident a meta-gerrymandered sexpartite California could reliably deliver 12 Dem Senators.

In updates on the election, votes are still being counted in several congressional districts.

Arizona Senate race still tallying, but it looks like the Democrat will win this one after all. If so, only a 2-seat gain by Republicans.

Dem Stacey Abrams in Georgia governor race refuses to concede the election and is demanding a recount. ACIN, seriously, do a review of the shadiness in the Georgia election, up to and including the hundreds of missing (hidden) voting machines and the apparent thousands of early votes that were not tallied for some reason.

Florida counts/recounts are ongoing and the gap in the Senate race is just 0.2% (0.4% in the governor race).

The skin-of-the-teeth nearness of a real national Dem sweep should only galvanize us all to try harder. Remember that the overall popular vote surge for Dems is at least that of the historic Republican surges of 1994 and 2010.

I agree with everything you are saying here. Hope I haven't given the opposite impression.

6 California's would give 9 Dems and 3 Reps just FYI.

Pannonian

11-09-2018, 18:30

Has the British model shown any better promise? Brexit is jeopardizing everything to the point where an independent Scotland and a unified Ireland is not out of the question if May ends up delivering a hard Brexit with hard borders.
Where is this flexibility on the part of Parliament to adapt to the country as it lives today?

The institutions exist that can provide flexibility: an elected House that legislates, and an appointed House that scrutinises. The problem is the fanatical belief in the infallibility of the elected House, and the idiots currently ruling the roost in the elected House (of all parties). The Lords have repeatedly pointed out the holes in the Brexit arguments provided by the Commons. Unfortunately both main p;arties in the Commons want Brexit.

a completely inoffensive name

11-09-2018, 18:33

The institutions exist that can provide flexibility: an elected House that legislates, and an appointed House that scrutinises. The problem is the fanatical belief in the infallibility of the elected House, and the idiots currently ruling the roost in the elected House (of all parties). The Lords have repeatedly pointed out the holes in the Brexit arguments provided by the Commons. Unfortunately both main p;arties in the Commons want Brexit.

So it sounds like your unwritten Constitution has failed as well.

Pannonian

11-09-2018, 19:00

So it sounds like your unwritten Constitution has failed as well.

It takes less work to put it right. The Common actually listening to the Lords would be something that is doable in the immediate future. The Commons not threatening the Lords with dissolution whenever the latter disagreed with the former would be another step immediately doable. Just replace the idiots heading the Labour party with someone marginally effective in opposition (hello Stella Creasy, Yvette Cooper, etc.), and most of the current worst abuses of the British system would work itself out. It's taking the active collaboration of both main parties, in a system where there's supposed to be a permanent opposition, to override existing checks and balances. An equivalent in US terms would be Republicans and Democrats actively collaborating to bring something about which every scientist in the land says is a catastrophically bad idea. If you live in a democracy, and the largest parties work together to be stupid, there's not much you can do.

rory_20_uk

11-09-2018, 22:21

Has the British model shown any better promise? Brexit is jeopardizing everything to the point where an independent Scotland and a unified Ireland is not out of the question if May ends up delivering a hard Brexit with hard borders.
Where is this flexibility on the part of Parliament to adapt to the country as it lives today?

This was a plebiscite. So this is one time that Brexit has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. It was a decision by the PM to hold it and not one that the country expected to get since the EU seems to get on best when the people are sidelined.

I personally prefer the German model to what we have in the UK - I think that the UK model is better than that in the USA - but you set thebar very low.

~:smoking:

Montmorency

11-10-2018, 01:29

I agree with everything you are saying here. Hope I haven't given the opposite impression.

6 California's would give 9 Dems and 3 Reps just FYI.

I was speaking more to the thread than you, except where I named you.

Bro, how do California place fewer votes than Florida with twice the population size? That's shameful my dude.

Beskar

11-11-2018, 21:59

American attack ads are hilarious...
https://i.imgur.com/f48mwje.jpg

"Oh no, they are going to treat me for free! I wanted to get charged $200,000 in live in crippling debt for the rest of my life" cue Student Debt, cue Employment issues in repaying.

a completely inoffensive name

11-12-2018, 01:34

This was a plebiscite. So this is one time that Brexit has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. It was a decision by the PM to hold it and not one that the country expected to get since the EU seems to get on best when the people are sidelined.

I personally prefer the German model to what we have in the UK - I think that the UK model is better than that in the USA - but you set thebar very low.

~:smoking:

Our written Constitution doesn't allow the President or Congress to pose questions directly to the people. Sounds like your unwritten Constitution allowed British politicians to dump their responsibility on charged political questions in a very divisive way...
What difference does it make if the result was unexpected?

I was speaking more to the thread than you, except where I named you.

Bro, how do California place fewer votes than Florida with twice the population size? That's shameful my dude.

Many Californian Republicans don't show up in California because they feel the state is lost to the Democrats already. Never mind the fact the CALGOP lost the state when they went full Nazi in asking for complete removal of the brown people in the state.

Also, this might be alien to people who live outside of California, but since California is solidly blue and has a solidly blue government, we have been generally content with the current state of California politics.
Governor Moonbeam has been an amazing governor and is the reason I hate term limits.

Husar

11-12-2018, 02:42

American attack ads are hilarious...
[...]

"Oh no, they are going to treat me for free! I wanted to get charged $200,000 in live in crippling debt for the rest of my life" cue Student Debt, cue Employment issues in repaying.

To answer the ad:
It looks very sexy (in both ways), so sit back and relax?!

The only odd thing is the universal job guarantee, but I guess it riles up the working class who prefer to work in a coal mine for themselves rather than let a robot do it and enjoy socialist paradise. :shrug:

Montmorency

11-12-2018, 03:35

Many Californian Republicans don't show up in California because they feel the state is lost to the Democrats already. Never mind the fact the CALGOP lost the state when they went full Nazi in asking for complete removal of the brown people in the state.

Also, this might be alien to people who live outside of California, but since California is solidly blue and has a solidly blue government, we have been generally content with the current state of California politics.
Governor Moonbeam has been an amazing governor and is the reason I hate term limits.

Prop 187? (http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-voting-history/)

What's Brown like on immigration (https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article219145720.html)? I heard he hated it back in the 1970s (https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-jerry-brown-tried-to-keep-immigrants-out-of-california-1520634989). Then again, many labor Democrats did yet.

Our written Constitution doesn't allow the President or Congress to pose questions directly to the people. Sounds like your unwritten Constitution allowed British politicians to dump their responsibility on charged political questions in a very divisive way...
What difference does it make if the result was unexpected?

That's actually a very interesting question. Does Congress lack the authority to pass enabling legislation allowing the invocation of national referenda that would have the force of federal law/policy, or require the implementation of corresponding law/policy? Maybe such a thing already exists, idk.

###

Rory, on the subject of discourse and governance, I came upon this quote from Aneurin Bevan (https://www.theguardian.com/news/1948/jul/05/leadersandreply.mainsection), godfather of British socialism in the 20th century and architect of the NHS:

"The eyes of the world are turning to Great Britain. We now have the moral leadership of the world, and before many years are over we shall have people coming here as to a modern Mecca, learning from us in the twentieth century as they learned from us in the seventeenth," said Mr Aneurin Bevan, Minister of Health, at a Labour rally in Manchester yesterday.
The meeting was called to celebrate the anniversary of Labour's accession to power. The Labour party, he said, would win the 1950 election because successful Toryism and an intelligent electorate were a contradiction in terms. His own experiences ensured that no amount of cajolery could eradicate from his heart a deep burning hatred of the Tory party. "So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin," he went on. "They condemned millions of people to semi-starvation. I warn you young men and women, do not listen to what they are saying, do not listen to the seductions of Lord Woolton. They have not changed, or if they have they are slightly worse."

The Government decided the issues in accordance with the best principles, he said: "The weak first; and the strong next." Mr. Churchill preferred a free-for-all, but what was Toryism except organised Spivvery?

As a result of controls, the well-to-do had not been able to build houses, but ordinary men and women were moving into their own homes. Progress could not be made without pain. People who campaigned against controls were conducting an immoral campaign. There was a kind of schizophrenia in the country, so that people reading newspapers and hearing talk in luxury hotels got an entirely different conception of what was happening, which did not square with the statistics. The bodies and spirits of the people were being built up - but the Government's efforts could not be sustained except by the energies and labour of the people. Production must be raised to make the new legislative reforms a living reality.

The Government never promised in 1945 that everybody was going to be better off. It knew some were worse off to-day, but it always intended they should be.

Bevan merely retorted that men of Celtic fire were needed to bring about great reforms like the new NHS. That was why, he explained, Welshmen were put in charge instead of "the bovine and phlegmatic Anglo-Saxons."

On one hand, uhhh....

On the other hand, the Republicans like to say that the people want someone who "tells it like it is". :sneaky:

Strike For The South

11-12-2018, 04:33

I find all this talk about stratagem to be misplaced. One of two things will eventually happen to kill the GOP. The old people who vote for them will pass or younger people will reach a critical mass of participation and cause a tipping point.

That is the reason for the obsession with the supreme court and voter suppression tactics, the GOP knows the math.

Now obviously that is something to fight because of everything that has happened. However Democratic leadership either seems oblivious or willing to wait them out. That is the totally wrong way to deal with a group who knows their collective fate is sealed.

Beto lost , Frustrating with someone as unlikeable as Cruz. Even more frustrating, half of Texans didn't vote.

Askthepizzaguy

11-12-2018, 04:59

American attack ads are hilarious...

"Oh no, they are going to treat me for free! I wanted to get charged $200,000 in live in crippling debt for the rest of my life" cue Student Debt, cue Employment issues in repaying.

The future of America might be Norway, which leads the world in countless categories.

Oh noes, how dreadful.

Viking

11-12-2018, 11:09

"Oh no, they are going to treat me for free!

Of course you are not treated for free, you pay for the healthcare in forms of taxes and other fees. Publicly funded health care is a mandatory insurance with the state as the insurance company. If you want to be treated for free with public healthcare, you'll have to be on welfare so that you don't pay anything to the state; but that's for the few.

Fragony

11-12-2018, 16:39

Hillary is there, can someone feed her som crickets that is what I do with my reptiles.

Beskar

11-12-2018, 18:05

Of course you are not treated for free, you pay for the healthcare in forms of taxes and other fees. Publicly funded health care is a mandatory insurance with the state as the insurance company. If you want to be treated for free with public healthcare, you'll have to be on welfare so that you don't pay anything to the state; but that's for the few.

"Free at point of access with no significant unavoidable charges which will put me in crippling debt" *

I was going for simple as we all know what it means, but there is the expanded version if you desire that.

Husar

11-12-2018, 18:25

Publicly funded health care is a mandatory insurance with the state as the insurance company.

Of course that is not correct since Germany has several public insurance companies that are not directly run by the government.
They're technically (partially) government entities, but work independently, similar to a self-governing province one could say. If the government were the insurance company, there would be only one, but we have quite a few of them: https://www.krankenkassen.de/gesetzliche-krankenkassen/krankenkassen-liste/

a completely inoffensive name

11-12-2018, 20:53

Prop 187? (http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-voting-history/)

What's Brown like on immigration (https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article219145720.html)? I heard he hated it back in the 1970s (https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-jerry-brown-tried-to-keep-immigrants-out-of-california-1520634989). Then again, many labor Democrats did yet.

Prop 187 was one part. Keep in mind that some really disgusting Propositions get passed and then California goes ape-shit and flips the opposite way.
This is the same state that passed Prop 8 as well...

Brown isn't as loose on immigration as many San Fransisco liberals want, but to the overwhelming majority of liberals in here it fits right in. Welcome to come here and participate under no discrimination, but there is a legal difference between being a citizen and a non-citizen and we should keep a difference if we want immigrants to assimilate and become citizens. His first term was before my time, but my understanding is that he has mellowed out since the 1970s.

His admin has been the gold standard (among US governors) for encouraging Climate Change driven policies towards cap and trade and renewable energy. Debt as GDP for California has also decreased since 2010/2011.

That's actually a very interesting question. Does Congress lack the authority to pass enabling legislation allowing the invocation of national referenda that would have the force of federal law/policy, or require the implementation of corresponding law/policy? Maybe such a thing already exists, idk.

I think the Constitution makes it clear about a "republican" form of government. Idk how the courts would interpret that in the context of the representatives choosing to provide public referenda though.

Viking

11-12-2018, 21:22

Of course that is not correct since Germany has several public insurance companies that are not directly run by the government.
They're technically (partially) government entities, but work independently, similar to a self-governing province one could say. If the government were the insurance company, there would be only one, but we have quite a few of them: https://www.krankenkassen.de/gesetzliche-krankenkassen/krankenkassen-liste/

So, very broadly speaking, you currently have the same health care system in Germany as the US has, aka Obamacare (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/04/what-american-healthcare-can-learn-from-germany/360133/).

If you actually pay for your health care directly through bills (or can see the amount deducted from the salary for this purpose), it should be even more obvious that it is not free; and that over a lifetime, it should amount to quite a sum. A sum that you could use to pay for the treatment of a disease that the public health care system is unwilling to cash out for, either because the treatment is too expensive or experimental. Different health care systems have different benefits and drawbacks, and you can expect that some individuals will fall through the cracks with any system.

In other words, health care "free at point of access" - if you actually get access to it, which in practice is not always.

rory_20_uk

11-13-2018, 11:24

FFS, there are many different models of healthcare in the world. And almost all scale on approximately a line where extra money leads to extra improvements. The main outlier is the USA with their extremely inefficient system.

~:smoking:

Crandar

11-13-2018, 12:32

Apparently, maintaining a small majority in the Senate and losing it in the House counts as a great victory. Did a portion of the electorate always suffer from such a severe lack of touch with reality or has it recently become worse, due to polarization?

Husar

11-13-2018, 14:50

So, very broadly speaking, you currently have the same health care system in Germany as the US has, aka Obamacare (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/04/what-american-healthcare-can-learn-from-germany/360133/).

If you actually pay for your health care directly through bills (or can see the amount deducted from the salary for this purpose), it should be even more obvious that it is not free; and that over a lifetime, it should amount to quite a sum. A sum that you could use to pay for the treatment of a disease that the public health care system is unwilling to cash out for, either because the treatment is too expensive or experimental. Different health care systems have different benefits and drawbacks, and you can expect that some individuals will fall through the cracks with any system.

In other words, health care "free at point of access" - if you actually get access to it, which in practice is not always.

No, we don't. Only some people pay a bill and there is also a parallel private insurance system, where people also pay a monthly bill.
What you can access is defined by the state as a minimum level of care and it covers pretty much everything essential that is not a very experimental treatment abroad or whatever. For medications you usually have to pay a little.

What you're really wrong about though, is that I was arguing about it being free or not. I don't know why you bring up that strawman argument when I didn't even touch the subject of cost.

That no system is perfect is a terrible argument if many of them are vastly superior over the crappy one you're defending.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-13-2018, 16:12

Apparently, maintaining a small majority in the Senate and losing it in the House counts as a great victory.History is not exactly replete with pols who, following poor election results, openly declare 'we got our asses handed to us by the voters. We clearly need to rethink things.' In the USA's current delirium of narcissistic polarization, no admission of weakness can be made lest the other side use it against you. So "we've always been at war with Eastasia."

Did a portion of the electorate always suffer from such a severe lack of touch with reality or has it recently become worse, due to polarization? Of course a portion of the electorate suffers from being haphazardly indexed with reality. Rabid single issue voters who would vote for to adopt a dictatorship as long as abortion was outlawed; people whose nativism is driven more by a desire to retain the advantages they enjoyed from the lottery of birth without an appreciation for the value of change; people like my mother in law who voted straight democrat in every election for nearly 40 years (despite being pro death penalty, anti-amnesty for illegals, convinced that the welfare system was a hammock and not a safety net, and a believer in lower taxes) -- we have always had our voters who were out of touch.

But it is the self-chosen ignorance of our electorate that allows for and encourages the polarization. The loudest voices from the political extremes scream for their agendas, the media gleefully exacerbates on and focuses upon "the race" or the conflict or who is "on top" because THAT is good for revenues, and the ignorant mass -- a goodly portion of whom vote despite their ignorance of the particulars -- fall in line with the loud voices as feels most emotionally rewarding to themselves.

:no:

Viking

11-13-2018, 23:11

What you're really wrong about though, is that I was arguing about it being free or not. I don't know why you bring up that strawman argument when I didn't even touch the subject of cost.

Where does it say anything about what you are arguing? No, the point is that if you are in a healthcare system where you can easily see how much money you are investing in it, its total cost for you personally is also easy to calculate; a cost with which you can establish a much better basis for comparing healthcare systems.

That no system is perfect is a terrible argument if many of them are vastly superior over the crappy one you're defending.

Establishing facts; not defending, not attacking.

Fragony

11-14-2018, 08:28

Trump is there to stay, for a while at least he will be impeached evenyualy. I don't like him because the always objective notion that I don't like his face. But he isn't really doing such a bad job, it is just impossible to find him sympathatic

Husar

11-14-2018, 15:47

Where does it say anything about what you are arguing? No, the point is that if you are in a healthcare system where you can easily see how much money you are investing in it, its total cost for you personally is also easy to calculate; a cost with which you can establish a much better basis for comparing healthcare systems.

It doesn't because I wasn't. My post cannot say anything about something it wasn't saying. It's not a hard concept.
Your point is beside my point and therefore irrelevant to my argument that you were wrong.
You keep trying to drag me into your discussion that I specifically wish not to enter. So get your filthy hands off of me. ~;p

Establishing facts; not defending, not attacking.

Except that your fact was either wrong (not a fact) or irrelevant to my counter that wasn't even aimed at your fact. Depending on what fact you are talking about. My original point was very much related to post #39, if that helps you in any way.

With that said, I've only recently enjoyed some of that free healthcare. :2thumbsup:

CrossLOPER

11-16-2018, 21:08

American attack ads are hilarious...
I don't think you understand the state that many Americans are in. Many have been conditioned, since youth, that they are merely temporarily embarrassed millionaires, and that Democrats are standing in their way to prosperity with over-taxation and over-regulation. They can do it all by themselves, and that welfare is only for those who are lazy.

Polarization hasn't helped.

Montmorency

11-17-2018, 01:00

Nation's first use of ranked-choice (https://www.npr.org/2018/11/15/668296045/ranked-choice-voting-delivers-another-victory-to-house-democrats) in a congressional race delivers House seat in Maine to Dem candidate.
(For the ranked-choice fans out there)

I said at the top of the thread the final result for the House would be something like 229-206. I was too pessimistic. Now it looks like 234-201, an almost 40-seat pickup. I was wrong that there would end up being 10 Republican House victories within 1%, but there are at least 10 such within a margin of 2%. For anyone wondering whither the top-end estimate of a 50+-seat Democratic gain, maybe attribute to the aforementioned Trump wave.

It'll be a while before we get a conclusion to the Senate/Governor races in Georgia and Florida. ANTICS. Hashtag Florida, man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Man).

Held that there is no actual leadership challenge to coming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, because there aren't even any challengers willing to stand against her; the right-wing Democrats are just agitating performatively toward their inane campaign promises.

The left wing of the Democratic Party is dissatisfied with her just like the right wing, but not as vocally (it's the converse when it comes to Internet intellectuals, but those don't matter in Congress). Nancy Pelosi took the realist measure of co-opting the left wing of the party, mollifying them with grants of Land and Title while basically ignoring the right wing.

"Progressives back Pelosi for speaker — in return for more power (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/16/pelosi-speaker-progressives-congress-998595)"

In a sign of the rising influence of the Progressive Caucus leaders, outside groups specifically held off on endorsing Pelosi until she committed to these asks.

Pelosi's overtures also speak to progressives’ growing influence in the Democratic Caucus. The Progressive Caucus will increase its membership by at least 20 members next year, and comprise about two-fifths of the caucus. Its leaders intend to use those numbers to boost their power and agenda — starting first with committee assignments and leadership positions, then expanding into legislation.

Adding to that heft is their relationship with powerful groups on the outside — organizations that Jayapal argues are the main reason Democrats retook the majority.

“We coordinated very closely with them, and they actually told Pelosi that they won’t come out for her until [after] our meeting,” Jayapal said. “So we are leveraging our power in different ways within the caucus but also with our allies on the outside.”

Thursday's meeting with Pelosi included Jayapal and current Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Mark Pocan (D-Wis.). One request to which Pelosi agreed was to give the Progressive Caucus proportional representation on what lawmakers call the “A committees”: the Appropriations, Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services and Intelligence committees.

Given that there's no credible alternative to Pelosi for years to come, we should focus on replacing Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. That guy has assisted Republican aims so far he's practically Mitch McConnell's deputy. (Also, he's totally compromised with respect to Facebook (https://www.ctpost.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Sen-Chuck-Schumer-intervened-on-Facebook-s-13393564.php), for whom his daughter works.)

Montmorency

11-22-2018, 15:42

Someone else should take up posting midterm updates, of which there have been a few. Instead:

1. If this table (https://medium.com/@yghitza_48326/what-happened-last-tuesday-part-2-who-did-they-vote-for-e3a2a63a5ef2) is correct...

21667

2. Wrong thread, but the latest on Trump's authoritarian escalations is that he is more directly trying to authorize military orders (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/11/21/white-house-approves-use-of-force-some-law-enforcement-roles-for-border-troops/) bound to violate federal law on the domestic conduct of the Army. Remember when the French Foreign Legion was legally prohibited from operating on French soil, but the French government deployed them anyway to massacre thousands of Parisian communards while France was under German occupation in 1871? It's the kind of thing that makes the Posse Comitatus Act (1878) a good idea in theory, though at the time it was intended as one of the Reconstruction-killing acts.

https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/12/french-foreign-legion-expendables

Between 1870 and 1871, more than 900 legionnaires died while reinforcing the French Army in the Franco-Prussian War. This was their first fight on French soil. After the war ended, the Legion stayed on and helped with the bloody suppression of the Paris Commune—a civilian revolt during which legionnaires dutifully killed French citizens on French streets, often by summary execution. After order was restored, the legionnaires were quickly returned to their bases in Algeria, but they had earned the special loathing reserved for foreign mercenaries, and a visceral distrust of the Legion still felt by French leftists today.

Also, he repeatedly tried to get Justice to prosecute (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/trump-reportedly-wanted-prosecute-hillary-and-comey/576460/) Hillary Clinton and James Comey for being political enemies of his. Depending on the extent of Trump's official instructions, this alone could be a more severe abuse of power/obstruction than Nixon was impeached over. Add to the tally. And the ouster of Sessions with Whitaker? Forget about it.

Whar 2nd Amendment militias? Whar?

rory_20_uk

11-22-2018, 16:45

To paraphrase Stalin - one death is a disaster, one million is a statistic.

Previous politicians were brought down by one or at most a few related disasters and the learn here is to continue to create new ones so no one focuses on any one long enough. Rather than ever accept reality, continue to brazenly lie and just like in the Soviet Union, people start to believe it due to repetition (e.g. many in Russia view Stalin as a hero rather than a greater Xenophobe and genocidal maniac than anyone except Mao). His base likes his equivalent of a 5 Year Plan and choose the bubble. The odd voting system the USA is rather similar to the "rotten boroughs" in Britain c. 200 years ago where a few hicks hold a disproportionately large amount of power.

~:smoking:

Hooahguy

11-28-2018, 04:55

So the probably racist Cindy Hyde-Smith won re-election in Mississippi (to the shock of nobody). GOP now has a 3 seat lead in the Senate. Might be tough for Dems to retake the Senate in 2020.

Montmorency

11-28-2018, 06:10

So the probably racist Cindy Hyde-Smith won re-election in Mississippi (to the shock of nobody). GOP now has a 3 seat lead in the Senate. Might be tough for Dems to retake the Senate in 2020.

A 6-seat lead, probably surmountable depending on the 2020 climate.

Interesting about Mississippi 2018:

First Senator election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Mississippi,_2018), the white man Democrat pulled in 39% of the vote.

In the second Senator election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Mississippi,_2018) (runoff), a black man went against a neo-Confederate and achieved 46%. He had come within 1% in the first round, where a second Republican candidate split the vote from the eventual winner. Turnout was identical between the two races.

(It should be noted that the Republican frontrunner and winner for the second Senate seat is a woman, so that may have just as much to do with the narrower race as neo-Confederatism turning off voters, or the Democrat being black attracting voters.)

Hooahguy

11-28-2018, 06:14

A 6-seat lead, probably surmountable depending on the 2020 climate.

Where did you get 6 seats from? Though I guess the Dems would need 4 seats to solidly take control, not 3. Assuming Trump is defeated in 2020, a 50-50 Senate would go to the Dems.

Montmorency

11-28-2018, 06:18

Where did you get 6 seats from? Though I guess the Dems would need 4 seats to solidly take control, not 3. Assuming Trump is defeated in 2020, a 50-50 Senate would go to the Dems.

We're talking about the same thing in different words. The distribution currently is 47-53 (a 6-seat difference), so they would need to gain net 4 seats to have direct control of the Senate.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-28-2018, 08:21

Current (early ) projections suggest most of the seats are "safe."

3 of the 33 "lean" Republican and 1 Democratic.

The Dems would have to sweep all 4 close races to take the Senate. In a Presidential Election year with high turnout and Trump pulling as much of his base as remains.

Figure a Dem pickup of a seat or two, but not a majority.

Hooahguy

12-02-2018, 04:34

Assuming that Trump is the 2020 nominee of course. I think theres a very slim chance he either chooses not to run ("Ive done enough and saved the country") in order to save his own behind or gets primaried. If he chooses not to run again I would think its either due to mounting investigations or to just prevent the hit to his ego if he loses. Being primaried out is a very slim chance but you never know. I would highly doubt it though considering how much of the GOP have become Trumpish in the past couple of years. If he doesnt run for re-election then I think the Dems chance of taking the senate grows as I think a lot of the GOP base would not show up out of protest.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-02-2018, 04:52

Assuming that Trump is the 2020 nominee of course. I think theres a very slim chance he either chooses not to run ("Ive done enough and saved the country") ....

From your keyboard to God's ears I pray.

a completely inoffensive name

12-04-2018, 05:09

Dems will not gain control of the Senate in 2020. The goal is to make Trump a one term president.

Montmorency

12-06-2018, 22:10

On this episode (https://www.google.com/search?q=north+carolina+absentee+ballots&rlz=1C1ASUC_enUS624US624&oq=north+carolina+absentee+ballots) of the Republican electoral fraud saga: North Carolina ballot theft and destruction likely within the margin of victory.

Strike For The South

What's that legal term for wrongfully taking possession of something? Not "misappropriate".

In more comforting news, the race for one North Carolina Supreme Court seat saw the vote split at the last minute by a never-Trump Republican entering the race, allowing the Democratic candidate to win with 49% of the vote, giving the Democrats 5-2 on the court.

Someone else can discuss Wisconsin/Michigan, sigh

Strike For The South

12-06-2018, 23:49

Stealing!

Seamus Fermanagh

12-07-2018, 02:39

Wisconsin and Michigan this time, North Carolina 2 years ago. Alabama in 1999.

The lag time between election and inauguration used to be 3-4 months in many places -- travel times were slow.

With results certified in weeks and travel times cross-state and cross country so low, it could be argued that lame duck sessions should be abolished, restricted to existential emergencies only -- or called but the newly elected take their seats immediately.

Montmorency

12-07-2018, 03:21

As the story repeats these days, the existence of legacy functions is ancillary to the willingness to abuse them for nefarious purposes.

I don't know if this (https://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2017/Bills/House/PDF/H1117v0.pdf) has been passed yet, but the North Carolina lame duck is essentially trying to legislate 'when Democrats win elections, Republicans must remain in power':

In the even-numbered year, the chair shall be a member of the political party with the second highest number of registered affiliates

The reference to "political party with the second highest number of registered affiliates" is to the Republican Party. The reference to "even-numbered year" is to election years. The reference to "the chair" is to the chairs of county election boards. That is, the proposed (enacted?) law, among other things, would require that all county election boards have Republican chairpersons during elections. At what point do they just say ":daisy: it, non-members of the Republican Party are not allowed to run for, be appointed to, or occupy any office of public trust"?

The Grand Old Party should be renamed the Party of Individual One (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/individual-1-trump-emerges-as-a-central-subject-of-mueller-probe/2018/11/29/e3968994-f3f7-11e8-80d0-f7e1948d55f4_story.html).

a completely inoffensive name

12-08-2018, 23:32

As David Frum has stated, Republicans have had to make a personal choice between Democracy or Conservatism. 2012 has shown the future is bleak demographically and to maintain competitiveness, compromises untenable to several factions within the party would have to be made (specifically the transition of immigration policy from hard borders to promoted assimilation).

Those we call Never-Trumpers are simply the ones who chose to maintain a Democratic tradition. The rest are traitors to the ideals of this country.

a completely inoffensive name

12-08-2018, 23:38

Montmorency

12-09-2018, 01:44

My worry at the moment isn't so much the ongoing rising tension between the increasingly blatant attempts to undermine our Democracy but who will be the ones afterwards to put it back together when it is all said and done.
Obviously a victorious Trumpist movement would hearken the decline of liberal democracies around the world as the heart of the lion has been successfully stopped.

But even assuming that the centrist-left contingent of America wins out in the political/culture wars, would we be able to learn the right lessons? How does the lack of a democratically tamed right generate anything less than a power vacuum?

There is not going to be a "democratically-tamed right". There will be insurrection.

I would enjoy seeing a two-party system featuring Socialists and Social Democrats. Refer to this helpful breakdown of the American left today (though it's probably more generalizable):

21769

Rebuild democracy? The whole world needs to be rebuilt for humanity to survive, or to exist in a non-dystopia. I expected downfall would come even in 2014; of course my understanding in the before-time was much more diffuse, abstract, and apathetic. We're in it now though son. We know enough to know we can't imagine how things will look in even a generation.

Ultimately it's easy to remain confident that there are simply too many nodes that necessarily have to be reached step-by-step to believe that civilizational collapse is not overdetermined.

(I've enumerated or touched on most of these nodes here and there. I may have to assemble them for the reader's benefit sometime.)