US Politics: Four Days and Counting

[Ran]

11 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

The same thing is happening in the US, it's mostly Asian women doing it from what I've heard.

Russian women as well, funnily enough. The numbers are very small, though, and in these cases the children go back with their mothers and may well never find any use for their U.S. citizenship. No real harm in it, that I can see, just a quirk in our system.

All that said, jus soli became the law of the land (after having simply been unlegislated custom unequally practiced) at a time where there exactly 0 restrictions to immigration to the country. The world has changed a lot since then. I'm not opposed to statutory legislation or constitutional amendment to apply a restriction that prevents "birth tourism", but I'm certainly opposed to the theory that it can be done by executive order.

A lot of countries have done so over the last couple of decades -- the UK, Germany -- and its probably a sign of general governmental dysfunction throughout the Western hemisphere that so many countries maintain unrestricted jus soli despite a very different immigration picture and policy.

But it's not a pressing issue, in any case, and better to worry about it when we fix a lot of other things going on in the U.S.

[DMC]

Also, I'll start predictions:

Senate:  Even - Sinema and Rosen win, Heitkamp and McCaskill lose.

House:  Dems +38 - No, I'm not just doing this because it results in a 233-202 split, just like 2006.

Governors:  Dems +9 - They'll run the table on the tossups and take one of the four I just mentioned, probably South Dakota.  Feeling bullish here.

[Which Tyler]

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

Even as it stands, the idea of universal human rights has an obvious flaw: it grants equal rights to individuals who are obviously not equal regardless of how one chooses to measure them.

WTF have I just read?

[Relic]

1 minute ago, Which Tyler said:

WTF have I just read?

Again, replying to this douche just gives him a platform. 

[Fez]

Found this nifty little tracking sheet online, http://whatsontheballot.com/, really useful for keeping track of everything big going on tonight.

My predictions:

House: D+45 (range D+35 to D+50, I think more seats will flip than generally expected)

Senate: D+1 (Ds flip AZ, NV, and TX; Rs flip ND and MO)

Governor: D+10 (Ds flip FL, IA, IL, KS, ME, MI, NH, NM, NV, OH, and WI; Rs flip AK)

State Legislatures: D+10 (Ds flip AZ House, FL Senate, IA House, ME Senate, MI House and Senate, NH House, NY Senate, and PA House and Senate; Rs have no flips, though they do win the special election in the MN Senate to go from a tie to outright control).

So generally I am pretty optimistic, but basically I think there's going to be a lot of close races that Democrats will win. However, because they'll be close, it wouldn't take much for Republicans to win instead, so there's a wide range of outcomes I wouldn't be surprised by. For the Senate, I think turnout is up to much in TX that the polling models are missing something key, but on the other hand, I don't think McCaskill can pull out another win in MO, the state's gotten too red. I'm also worried about Donnelly in IN, but I think he'll squeak by. The other D incumbents I'm more confident in.

For Governors, beyond the flips, I think CT and OR are going to be way too close for comfort, due to voter unhappiness with the results of longterm Democratic control there, but the national environment will win. I also think GA is going to be tantalizing close but not enough, and SD and OK are going to be close enough that national Democrats are going to wish they spent more money there. For the flips I picked, I only feel like I'm going out on a limb on IA, KS, and NH; but I think IA is basically ground zero for Obama-Trump voters flipping back to Democrats, that KS is finally going to break free of its spell of voting for the worst Republicans all the time, and that NH is far swingy than VT, MA, or MD and so its Republican governor is not safe the way those others are.

We'll see soon enough. I'm basically Red from the end of The Shawshank Redemption right now.

I hope.

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Fez said:

and that NH is far swingy than VT, MA, or MD and so its Republican governor is not safe the way those others are.

Yeah I thought about adding New Hampshire - especially after that UNH poll showed them tied - but as a general rule I don't bet against the Sununus on their home turf.

[SeanF]

My best guess would be:-

House:  Dem 230 Rep 205 or thereabouts

Senate:  Rep 52, Dem 48

Governors, 7 net gains for the Dems.

The generic polls show quite a spread.  If Rasmussen is right, the Republicans will hold the House comfortably.  If CNN is right, the Democrats will have a 100 seat majority.  It rather resembles the polling the British General election, last year.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

WTF have I just read?

I imagine he's talking about personal attributes, such as intelligence, physical strength / athleticism, hawtness, healthiness etc that vary vastly from individual to individual, rather than social attributes (race, gender). Which is a dumb argument, since basic human rights are independent of these variables. The right to sit wherever you please on a bus does not depend on how fit or smart you are any more than what your skin colour is. And access to education is (or should be) a right, but educational achievement is not. So it doesn't matter if you are as thick as a brick or a stable genius, you still have a right to access education. One can say that for certain rights some individuals lack the capacity to exercise the right. For example, a person of extremely low intelligence to the point of being incapable to meaningful cognitive functioning (albeit still conscious) cannot exercise their right to vote, because there is no way for them to know for whom to vote, and there is no way for them to convey who they want to vote for. But the right for that person still exists, they are just unable to exercise that right.

If you try to make a right that is dependent on individual capacity for it to be granted, it's a bad right.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 years ago, people were also very optimistic. What makes this time different? 2 years ago, there were actually a lot of voices on the left (eg Michael Moore) saying things were going to go badly, because they had a better feel for the electorate than the pollsters, and the Democratic insiders. What are people like Michael Moore saying now? Are they saying the blue wave is real and being optimistic? Or are they preaching doom like they did 2 years ago?

[IheartIheartTesla]

Long lines at my polling station (here in the middle of Michigan). For a mid-term I would say that is somewhat unusual, but I really have no feel for what the demographics of the voters were....

[Fez]

49 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

2 years ago, people were also very optimistic. What makes this time different? 2 years ago, there were actually a lot of voices on the left (eg Michael Moore) saying things were going to go badly, because they had a better feel for the electorate than the pollsters, and the Democratic insiders. What are people like Michael Moore saying now? Are they saying the blue wave is real and being optimistic? Or are they preaching doom like they did 2 years ago?

Speaking just for myself, my optimism two years ago was driven partly by my disbelief that this country could elect Donald fucking Trump as President, partly by too much faith in early voting data and what "experts" were saying about it, and partly by confidence in the power of previous trends (the "blue wall"). Whoops.

The difference this time around is that the underlying data (polling, donations, number of Republican retirements, number of Democratic recruits, etc.) is much stronger, and the underlying conditions are much better (e.g. its much easier for an opposition party to win midterm seats than for an incumbent party to win a third consecutive presidential term).

Also, the map for the House, Governor's mansions, and state legislative chambers is so wide, and the Democratic starting point is so low, that there is basically no option but to have a lot of successes. However, a lot of that success is relative. Even if Democrats win every governor and state legislature race I predict, the state trifecta ratio would only go from 8D-26R-16split to 11D-19R-30split. That's certainly a major improvement, but not exactly domination at the state level. Also, a lot of those 30 split state governments would be a Democratic Governor and Republican legislature, and in many states the legislature can significantly hamper (or outright overrrule in southern states) the Governor.

ETA: Also, regardless of whether it was due to Comey or some combination of factors, there was a late break against Clinton that most people, and models, did not adjust to; meaning that a lot of predictions were based on outdated data.

[Seli]

10 hours ago, Altherion said:

...

For example, it makes it easier to quantify who is a worthy citizen and who is not. It used to be quite difficult to put together all sorts of court records, purchasing history, known associates, etc. etc., but we're on the verge of being able to do so for nearly everyone. Once this is done, what is the moral argument for people who are obviously contributing a lot to society to have the same rights as those who are obviously detrimental? In fact, China is already experimenting with this. At the moment, the effects are limited in both space (it's only in a few regions) and in scope (the carrots are along the lines of lower utility bills and the sticks are things like transportation restrictions), but there's no reason the idea cannot be extended.

...

Never will happen, because those who contribute most to society tend to be poor, while those who contribute least have a lot of money to protect themselves. Or are you using some weird system of contribution where the takers, those who hang onto everything that they can get from society and pile up their wealth are considered more worthy?

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

Even if Democrats win every governor and state legislature race I predict, the state trifecta ratio would only go from 8D-26R-16split to 11D-19R-30split. That's certainly a major improvement, but not exactly domination at the state level. Also, a lot of those 30 split state governments would be a Democratic Governor and Republican legislature, and in many states the legislature can significantly hamper (or outright overrrule in southern states) the Governor.

This is true, but not all states are equally important.  A lot of those Republican trifectas are in states with very few people.  While I'm sure it sucks for the people living in those states, a trifecta in Illinois is a great deal more important nationally than one in Wyoming.  If Democrats have a good election this year, they could have at least a share of 14 of the top 15 most populous states (all but TX).  In comparison, the Democrats could have CA, NY, IL, WA and NJ.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

No lines to speak of first thing this morning, but they have broken my polling place into two, so there may have been more at the other place.  I didn't realize when my place moved that they were using 2 places instead of 1. I wonder what the criteria was to determine who would use each site (they are right next to each other, so it's not a distance thing

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

3 minutes ago, Seli said:

Never will happen, because those who contribute most to society tend to be poor, while those who contribute least have a lot of money to protect themselves. Or are you using some weird system of contribution where the takers, those who hang onto everything that they can get from society and pile up their wealth are considered more worthy?

Of course the wealthy will always be judged more worthy.  Working 12 hr days, 2 or 3 jobs at a time just makes a person lazy. It's all part of the golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.

He brought up credit scores as one criteria.  But think about how credit scores are determine.  Sure one part is making payments on time, but the other part is how much credit is available to you vs. how much you are using.  So if a person doesn't have a car loan, doesn't have credit cards or a mortgage, then they get a low score.

So if you are a responsible person who doesn't use credit you are now less worthy than someone who does use credit. Even having just a mortgage without other loans or credit cards will keep your score fairly low since you will be using nearly all your available credit.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

An aquaintance at my new employer advised that people were being told to completely deactivate their smartphones per Department of Homeland Security instructions.  This was in Greenville County SC.

She also said there were some heated arguments taking place in the long lines to  vote.

[Mexal]

No lines where I am in Manhattan but didn't expect there to be. It was pretty calm in 2012 too.

[DMC]

29 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

This is true, but not all states are equally important.

Good way to look at this is 538's Governors forecast.  If the Dems pickup the 8 seats they expect, Dem governors will cumulatively be in states with 195 million of the total population.  That's 59%, which bodes well for the House and redistricting.  If you look at the states beyond Texas the GOP holds, it emphasizes how much this cycle can mitigate gerrymandering - especially considering three of the handful of semi-large states the GOP will still hold are Maryland, Massachusetts, and Arizona.  This is the biggest potential story that's not getting enough attention.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 hours ago, Ran said:

Russian women as well, funnily enough. The numbers are very small, though, and in these cases the children go back with their mothers and may well never find any use for their U.S. citizenship. No real harm in it, that I can see, just a quirk in our system.

All that said, jus soli became the law of the land (after having simply been unlegislated custom unequally practiced) at a time where there exactly 0 restrictions to immigration to the country. The world has changed a lot since then. I'm not opposed to statutory legislation or constitutional amendment to apply a restriction that prevents "birth tourism", but I'm certainly opposed to the theory that it can be done by executive order.

A lot of countries have done so over the last couple of decades -- the UK, Germany -- and its probably a sign of general governmental dysfunction throughout the Western hemisphere that so many countries maintain unrestricted jus soli despite a very different immigration picture and policy.

But it's not a pressing issue, in any case, and better to worry about it when we fix a lot of other things going on in the U.S.

I don’t believe birthright citizenship can be changed via Legislation.  If people want to stop “birth tourism” it will take a Constitutional Amendment.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

My predictions are less optimistic:

House: Dems +25

Senate: Repubs +2 (Dems win either NV or AZ, Repubs sweep ND, MO and IN)

Governors: Dems +8

The big one though is state House and Senate seats. I think Democrats will make huge gains here. Idk how many legislatures will flip, but it will set Dems up nicely for 2020 and redistricting.