U.S. Politics: Gunnin' From The Long Arm of the Law

[Ormond]

22 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Geez, what Russian mother names her son 'German'? 

 

Ok, as the resident name expert I need to explain this even though it's probably not a serious comment.

The Russian word for "German" as in the nationality is Немецкий, which if I am interpreting the chart I found correctly would be transliterated into the Roman alphabet as something like Nemeckij or Nemetsky. 

"German" is the Russian form of Herman, according to behindthename.com, one of the best sites for name etymology. 

When German is used as a given name in English or several other European languages, it is also not from the name of the nationality but is a modern form of Latin Germanus, which meant "brother" and was the name of several early Christian saints. Today people are probably most familiar with it in its French form, Germain (feminine form Germaine, as in Germaine Greer).

Any way, there is no reason why a Russian mother who didn't know English would think of the country of Germany at all when choosing to name a child German.

http://www.behindthename.com/name/german-2

http://www.behindthename.com/name/germanus

http://www.behindthename.com/name/herman

 

[Maithanet]

49 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

And depending on what poll you use, Conor Lamb is within the margin of error to take PA-18. THAT would be something. We in this district haven't elected a Democrat since forever. 

One downside (virtually the only one I see) of the new PA map is that PA-18 is getting redder between March and November.  So even if Lamb pulls off the upset, he probably isn't going to win again in November.  Which means that the vote is really only important as an indicator of public opinion and as a possible "boost" to democrats.  That isn't nothing, but it's more of a moral victory rather than gaining any real power, since reducing the Republican margin in the House by 1 is pretty insignificant. 

[Ormond]

20 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

 

And remember, say what you want about Mormons, they were the one evangelical group that dropped Trump like the radioactive hot potato that he is on election day.

Oh gosh, Mormons are not and have never been "Evangelicals"!!! Just because a group tends to be conservative in life style and politics and is a Christian denomination is not the same as being "Evangelical". Self-respecting Mormons would never call themselves Evangelicals, and Protestant Evangelicals would never give that title to LDS members. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 hours ago, Shryke said:

Did he? Obama is still more popular then Trump afaik. I don't think Trump has ever been more popular then Obama was at any point. Trump couldn't even win the popular vote.

Trump got a small contingent of white supremacists to buy in hardcore. The rest is the same kind of shit Obama ran on: change. And even there he didn't succeed as Obama did.

Obama sold a story of change but he sold it in a positive way, whereas Trump's vision is always "everything sucks". And Obama's worked way better then Trump's ever has.

I don’t disagree, but I think you’re missing the point. You have to look at this through the politics of the Republican base. Trump was able to capture and gain complete loyalty from a large enough segment of the Republican base to allow him to do whatever he wants. I believe this is unique compared to other Republican nominees.

[Fez]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

One downside (virtually the only one I see) of the new PA map is that PA-18 is getting redder between March and November.  So even if Lamb pulls off the upset, he probably isn't going to win again in November.  Which means that the vote is really only important as an indicator of public opinion and as a possible "boost" to democrats.  That isn't nothing, but it's more of a moral victory rather than gaining any real power, since reducing the Republican margin in the House by 1 is pretty insignificant. 

If Lamb wins it may put a damper again on Republican candidate recruitment, which has been on the upswing lately. Kevin Kramer deciding to challenge Heidi Heitkamp for the North Dakota senate seat is a real problem for Democratic hopes of regaining the Senate. Since Kramer is the state's only representative, he's already known statewide; and he's more popular than she is.

Heitkamp isn't unpopular, but she only won with 50.2% back in 2012. Kramer won with 69.1% in 2016 (although only 55.5% and 54.9% in 2014 and 2012), and Trump beat the combined Clinton/Johnson* vote by 30 points. Democrats have basically no margin for error for retaking the senate, thanks to Kramer they now have 4 very vulnerable seats.

*Johnson got 6.2% of the vote, it was his second-best state.

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

If Lamb wins it may put a damper again on Republican candidate recruitment, which has been on the upswing lately. Kevin Kramer deciding to challenge Heidi Heitkamp for the North Dakota senate seat is a real problem for Democratic hopes of regaining the Senate. Since Kramer is the state's only representative, he's already known statewide; and he's more popular than she is.

Heitkamp isn't unpopular, but she only won with 50.2% back in 2012. Kramer won with 69.1% in 2016 (although only 55.5% and 54.9% in 2014 and 2012), and Trump beat the combined Clinton/Johnson* vote by 30 points. Democrats have basically no margin for error for retaking the senate, thanks to Kramer they now have 4 very vulnerable seats.

*Johnson got 6.2% of the vote, it was his second-best state.

True, but isn't candidate recruitment season more or less over by early March?  The only big question outstanding is whether Rick Scott jumps in to challenge Nelson in Florida, and Scott can wait because he's a billionaire who doesn't need to fundraise. 

[Fez]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

True, but isn't candidate recruitment season more or less over by early March?  The only big question outstanding is whether Rick Scott jumps in to challenge Nelson in Florida, and Scott can wait because he's a billionaire who doesn't need to fundraise. 

Depends on the state; there are plenty that don't have filing deadlines until April or May, and a handful with deadlines from mid-June to mid-July. It's true that candidates will be missing out on valuable fundraising time by waiting until closer to the deadlines; but you don't need to be as rich as Rick Scott to be able to partially self-finance (or having money sitting in accounts from previous elections that you can roll-over).

I think the improved January polling led to Kramer's decision, and it'd be nice to have a big shock like a Lamb win to put a damper on other would-be challengers. Nelson's is the only big senate race without a credible Republican yet, but there are plenty of open seats from retiring Republican reps that no one serious is trying to defend yet. I don't know the states of the state-level races, but I imagine there are plenty of races without credible Republicans there too.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Most of them, yeah. Florida is a bit shorter than most, because it's straight up 2 calendar months, rather than 60 legislative days spread out over a longer period of time. But there's only 11 states that don't constitutionally mandate short legislative sessions, and even most of them aren't always in session. Legislatures meet for a little while to pass the state budget and handle any other legislation, and only go into special session if they fail to pass the budget, have to deal with any vetoes, or the governor summons them to handle an immediate issue.

It dates back to the idea that being a state legislator should be a part-time job that anyone can do, and the salaries are generally matching that. There's only 10 states where they make more than $50k annually, another 5 that make more than $40k, and another 5 that make more than $30k annually. Though things don't always match up fully. There are states where being a legislator is a full-time job but the salary is not (e.g. Rhode Island, where they make $15k per year) and states were legislator is part-time but they get paid well (e.g. Hawaii, where they make $61k). 

Florida is kinda in the middle. They get $29,697 for 2 months of work. Which is a real nice rate if it covered the whole year, but is hard to get by on if there's no income sources for the other 10 months. And it can be tricky holding a job while being a state legislator (except for ones like, "partner in a law firm" where you can set your own hours), since you're gone from it for a few months each year, you may be gone additional time for special sessions without much advance warning, and you need to spend time on fundraising, campaigning, and constitutient duties. The whole part-time idea is extremely flawed and helps continue the trend of only the independently wealthy being able to run for office.

Which is all insane given how much power state legislatures actually wield.

[Rorshach]

4 hours ago, Seli said:

Your wording is a bit strange. But The Netherlands, yes our head of government leads a coalition that has a majority in parliament. But none of the government members keep their seats in parliament (which is easier with the party-system that the country runs on in practice).

Another slight but I feel there is another huge difference between the USA and many other countries, the political nature of the executive bureaucracy. I think (but am not sure) that in most of the western world the executive is balanced by long-serving bureaucrats, which act as an additional counterbalance against radical change. A process which seems weaker in the USA, with its political appointments every new government makes.

I think that the Norwegian system fits about as badly as the Netherlands. 

Like you (if I understand correctly), our cabinet does not serve in Parliament. Most of them are elected to Parliament, but they leave their seats to their seconds when entering the cabinet. 

Also, our current PM does not have a majority in Parliament, and needs to rely on at least one more party to get any legislation through. 

The second part is also correct for Norway, FWIW.

[Ice Queen]

27 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

One downside (virtually the only one I see) of the new PA map is that PA-18 is getting redder between March and November.  So even if Lamb pulls off the upset, he probably isn't going to win again in November.  Which means that the vote is really only important as an indicator of public opinion and as a possible "boost" to democrats.  That isn't nothing, but it's more of a moral victory rather than gaining any real power, since reducing the Republican margin in the House by 1 is pretty insignificant. 

Our districts have been redrawn. The new 18th district will include most of the City of Pittsburgh and the southeastern suburbs. They are creating a new 17th district to include the north and northwestern suburbs (where I live), Beaver County to the north and very affluent Mt. Lebanon. Why they're putting Mt. Lebanon in the 18th and not the 17th is something I don't understand, but it's still fairer than it was. I predict the 17th will be blazing red. They should have kept Allegheny and Beaver together, but they were going by population. Most of the population of Allegheny is in the eastern and southern ends. 

Like I said, it's better than it was. It remains to be seen how this impacts our legislature. 

 

[The guy from the Vale]

The Swiss system fits even worse. It features a parliamentary system where the chief executives are elected by the parliament but are not part of parliament. They are also collectively the head of state. Parliament is led by its own president who wields no executive power. This has been stable for almost as long as the USA (and longer than the US if we count the Civil War as the starting point), a bicameral system similar to the USA but with proportional representation instead of district-level representation on the state level, and a high degree of direct democracy. So... yes, stable democracy for close to two centuries is entirely possible with a parliamentry system.

[Maithanet]

21 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Our districts have been redrawn. The new 18th district will include most of the City of Pittsburgh and the southeastern suburbs. They are creating a new 17th district to include the north and northwestern suburbs (where I live), Beaver County to the north and very affluent Mt. Lebanon. Why they're putting Mt. Lebanon in the 18th and not the 17th is something I don't understand, but it's still fairer than it was. I predict the 17th will be blazing red. They should have kept Allegheny and Beaver together, but they were going by population. Most of the population of Allegheny is in the eastern and southern ends.

From what I understand, which is mostly based on this 538 article, the current 18th district is mostly going to become the 14th district, which is very conservative.  That article indicates that if 2018 is a D+5 year, Democrats would be heavily favored (>80% chance) in 6 districts, and slight favorites in three more (1st, 7th, 8th), as well as have a >20% chance in the 10th and 17th.  But the new 14th district representing the Southwest corner of the state (where PA-18 is now), democrats have very little chance. 

[Ice Queen]

27 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

From what I understand, which is mostly based on this 538 article, the current 18th district is mostly going to become the 14th district, which is very conservative.  That article indicates that if 2018 is a D+5 year, Democrats would be heavily favored (>80% chance) in 6 districts, and slight favorites in three more (1st, 7th, 8th), as well as have a >20% chance in the 10th and 17th.  But the new 14th district representing the Southwest corner of the state, democrats have very little chance. 

Oh, they won't stand a chance in the 14th, no question about it. 

Here's an interactive map. You can see what they did. They butchered the old map, and if they had to do that it means it wasn't fair to begin with. 

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-nation/2018/02/20/National-GOP-republicans-pennsylvania-redistricting-gerrymandering-lawsuit-challenge-map-supreme-court-federal-court/stories/201802200117

To say voters here are confused is an understatement. LOL 

Edit: When this goes into effect, it will make Saccone's position interesting even if he wins. His residence is Jefferson Hills, which will be in 18. Heavily Democratic. Lamb lives in Mt. Lebanon, which will be in the new 17th. 

[Ice Queen]

3 hours ago, Fez said:

Most of them, yeah. Florida is a bit shorter than most, because it's straight up 2 calendar months, rather than 60 legislative days spread out over a longer period of time. But there's only 11 states that don't constitutionally mandate short legislative sessions, and even most of them aren't always in session. Legislatures meet for a little while to pass the state budget and handle any other legislation, and only go into special session if they fail to pass the budget, have to deal with any vetoes, or the governor summons them to handle an immediate issue.

It dates back to the idea that being a state legislator should be a part-time job that anyone can do, and the salaries are generally matching that. There's only 10 states where they make more than $50k annually, another 5 that make more than $40k, and another 5 that make more than $30k annually. Though things don't always match up fully. There are states where being a legislator is a full-time job but the salary is not (e.g. Rhode Island, where they make $15k per year) and states were legislator is part-time but they get paid well (e.g. Hawaii, where they make $61k). 

Florida is kinda in the middle. They get $29,697 for 2 months of work. Which is a real nice rate if it covered the whole year, but is hard to get by on if there's no income sources for the other 10 months. And it can be tricky holding a job while being a state legislator (except for ones like, "partner in a law firm" where you can set your own hours), since you're gone from it for a few months each year, you may be gone additional time for special sessions without much advance warning, and you need to spend time on fundraising, campaigning, and constitutient duties. The whole part-time idea is extremely flawed and helps continue the trend of only the independently wealthy being able to run for office.

PA has the largest full-time legislature: 253 members, and they make $86,478 per year, which also makes it the most expensive. 

[Maithanet]

So reading some more about the PA reshuffling is that the situation in the special election is actually more complicated than I'd previously mentioned.  Sabato has a breakdown, but the quick rundown is:

Saccone (R) is running against Lamb (D) in PA-18, the special election is on March 12.  In the November election, most of PA-18 will become heavily Republican PA-14, while a portion of it will be part of the very competitive PA-17.  Whether he wins the special election or not, Saccone will probably run for the PA-14 seat. 

Lamb actually lives in what will soon be PA-17, so it's quite possible that if he wins the March special election, he'll choose to run in the competitive PA-17 district, even though most of his PA-18 constituents now live in PA-14.  However, if Lamb chooses to run in PA-17, he would have to do it against Keith Rothfus (R PA-12), who also lives in what will soon be PA-17, and currently represents ~56% of the new PA-17 constituents in the old PA-12. 

Further complicating things is that there are already a democratic challengers running against Rothfuss, such as businessman Ray Linsenmayer.  I don't know if Linsenmayer et al would step aside if Lamb wins his special election, but they would be at a real disadvantage given the national attention Lamb is attracting.

I'm such a nerd, but I think all this chaos is pretty interesting.

[denstorebog]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Which means that the vote is really only important as an indicator of public opinion and as a possible "boost" to democrats.  That isn't nothing, but it's more of a moral victory rather than gaining any real power

I would love to see some data on this, but it's pretty likely that it can make a lot of difference in fundraising efficiency in the weeks after, especially on a small-donor level. For example, after a race like GA-06 which was such a dramatic (and expensive) culmination at the time, it must have been difficult to keep selling the idea to Dem supporters that pitching in $5-$10 for the next special elections was worth it.

It's obviously less important now, with so many special elections behind us and the blue wave pretty well established, but I imagine that the thrill of an improbable victory and a dealing a black eye to Republicans will be worth some dollars for other candidates down the line.

[Jace, Extat]

Ryan Deitsch is the real deal. Don't need no speech, say what's in your heart kid.

Fuck, almost enough to make me wish I had one.

[Ice Queen]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

So reading some more about the PA reshuffling is that the situation in the special election is actually more complicated than I'd previously mentioned.  Sabato has a breakdown, but the quick rundown is:

Saccone (R) is running against Lamb (D) in PA-18, the special election is on March 12.  In the November election, most of PA-18 will become heavily Republican PA-14, while a portion of it will be part of the very competitive PA-17.  Whether he wins the special election or not, Saccone will probably run for the PA-14 seat. 

Lamb actually lives in what will soon be PA-17, so it's quite possible that if he wins the March special election, he'll choose to run in the competitive PA-17 district, even though most of his PA-18 constituents now live in PA-14.  However, if Lamb chooses to run in PA-17, he would have to do it against Keith Rothfus (R PA-12), who also lives in what will soon be PA-17, and currently represents ~56% of the new PA-17 constituents in the old PA-12. 

Further complicating things is that there are already a democratic challengers running against Rothfuss, such as businessman Ray Linsenmayer.  I don't know if Linsenmayer et al would step aside if Lamb wins his special election, but they would be at a real disadvantage given the national attention Lamb is attracting.

I'm such a nerd, but I think all this chaos is pretty interesting.

I used to live right down the street from Keith Rothfus in PA 12. I moved two miles down the road and into PA 18. But be that as it may...Rothfus is a Grade A idiot, honest to God. Typical tea party: anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, the whole works. He even voted against renewing the Violence Against Women Act. You can look him up. You will not find a bigger dork anywhere. I can't believe some woman had sex with him to produce the 6 kids he has. Ick!

With the redistricting, he could be in some trouble. He marches lockstep with Trump--every single time. PA 12 was heavily Democratic for a long time and guess what? It was gerrymandered that way by the Republicans prior to 2011! The problem is that Dems here are more conservative than those in Philadelphia and even in Pittsburgh. Lamb is trying to appeal to that kind of Democrat--he is no liberal but more of a centrist. 

[Jace, Extat]

Ever see that episode of Family Guy where people keep putting themselves on fire rather than date Meg?

Delaney Tarr is putting the State House on fire rather than date the GOP

[Maithanet]

43 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

With the redistricting, he could be in some trouble. He marches lockstep with Trump--every single time. PA 12 was heavily Democratic for a long time and guess what? It was gerrymandered that way by the Republicans prior to 2011! The problem is that Dems here are more conservative than those in Philadelphia and even in Pittsburgh. Lamb is trying to appeal to that kind of Democrat--he is no liberal but more of a centrist. 

Lamb does seem like a pretty centrist Democrat.  And I am 100% on board with that.  I'm not a centrist myself, but I think that Democrats looking for true blue liberals to run in places like SW Pennsylvania are setting themselves up for failure.  It's a big tent!  Everybody* who isn't happy with the Trump disaster is welcome to join. 

* Not everybody.  Almost everybody.