• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house

Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean, I think people would care about the specifics if it messes with their daily lives?

If suddenly the roads I used became toll roads I'd probably be unhappy.

surprisingly we don't have toll roads anywhere in Idaho, I've never encountered one in my life

Toll roads are generally more prevalent as you go east. I like the ones in Illinois because they're so much better maintained than the "free" interstates. As for privately run toll roads, you just have to look across the border at Indiana to see what that's a bad idea (or at the Chicago Skyway right here I guess, but that was a disaster from the get-go).
 

PBY

Banned
This is absolutely true, but he's a smart enough guy I think there has been value in what he generates via his opportunistic latching-on.

This is bullshit man. Come on, like any good conspiracy theorist, he's picking up good data, mixing in some conspiratorial speculation, and then packaging it as "just asking questions".

Its all nonsense, he has zero credentials and is largely just regurgitating what actual reporters are doing, mixed with some reddit and twitter nonsense. Its a stones throw away from what Mensch does.


I know I'm a bad messenger here for anything Russia - but it only weakens any argument you have if your starting point is a twitter detective. It just degrades any dialogue that we could have on this subject.
 
An increasingly necessary idea: We need to increase the size of the House.

We need more SC seats as well.

I wouldn't even care if it was required that they were 50/50 D/R SC seats. 9 is a ridiculously small amount for how powerful the SC is. One president shouldn't have the power to influence politics for 40+ years just because he got lucky someone died during his presidency.
 
Dems get their big name in Maine governor's race:

http://www.pressherald.com/2017/07/...et-mills-says-shell-run-for-governor-in-2018/

Maine’s Attorney General Janet Mills announced Monday she would seek the Democratic Party’s nomination for governor in 2018.

Mills is the highest profile Democrat to enter the race and is known for her frequent clashes with Maine’s Republican Gov. Paul LePage.

A former legislator and long-time party leader, Mills has pushed for more access to opioid addiction treatment, including anti-overdose medication that has been opposed by LePage. And she joined with attorneys general from other states who condemned President Trump’s travel ban for immigrants from a group of predominately Muslim countries.

“In Maine, when something’s not working, we don’t wait around for someone to come along and take care of it for us; we roll up our sleeves and fix it ourselves,” Mills said in a prepared statement Monday. “Well, it’s pretty clear that our government is broken, and there’s no way I’m going to stand on the sidelines and not fight to put it back together.”

Mills is the ninth candidate to announce. She joins fellow Democrats Adam Cote, Betsy Sweet and Patrick Eisenhart. Also running is former Maine Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Mary Mayhew, a Republican, and State Treasurer Teresea Hayes, an independent. Also in the race is Republican Deril Steubenrod, Libertarian Richard Light and Green Party candidate Jay Parker Lunt Dresser.

Mills is a native of Farmington, where she still lives. She is a graduate of Farmington High School and holds a bachelors degree from the University of Massachusetts Boston and a law degree from the University of Maine School of Law.

Mills, 69, has been a frequent target of LePage’s criticism and earlier this year he sued her in Kennebec County Superior Court claiming she was abusing her power as attorney general by refusing to represent the governor in federal lawsuits. Mills had refused to join several lawsuits aimed at former President Barack Obama’s administration.

Mills, who is serving her third consecutive 2-year term as Attorney General, has long been rumored to be considering a bid for the governor’s office and in February said she was regularly being asked to run by supporters.
 
Been a really nice trend the last few weeks of big names entering into races they could win.

Of course it's not going to stop people from screaming about how the Democrats aren't doing anything and will lose 2018 because they're so terrible and incompetent.

I've been hitting this point for a while, but it's no coincidence that the Dems are seeing much better recruitment than the GOP this cycle.
 
Remington Research (R) firm tested a bunch of people against McCaskill.

First, her approval ratings are 40-45, which I guess isn't terrible for a Dem in Missouri. But anyway.

MO Treasurer Eric Schmidt: 49
Sen. Claire McCaskill: 45

Rep. Jason Smith: 48
Sen. Claire McCaskill: 45

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer: 50
Sen. Claire McCaskill: 43

Rep. Vicky Hartzler: 48
Sen. Claire McCaskill: 44

In other news, Claire raised 3.1 million in Q2 and has 5.1 million CoH, so she's not going to go down swinging.
 
I hope the left in Maine actually coalesces around ONE FUCKING CANDIDATE for once. Nobody wanted LePage, but the Democrat and Independent split the vote.

Of course, if Sue Collins runs, she'll be pretty much coronated provided the health care bill truly and finally dies.

That would at least open her Senate seat up for a Democrat to win. Honestly, I would rather her be governor than Senator. But if the GOP really do ram through the ACHA, then it's possible for Democrats to pick up both.
 

ascii42

Member
I think that's a totally okay number. Let me look to see what the number of seats would be.

Yeah, I'd be interested in seeing how that worked out with actual population numbers for the states, since obviously state populations aren't all exact multiples of Wyoming's population.
 

Teggy

Member
Is there anything more terrible than the AL senate race?

First you've got this guy

In a new Senate campaign ad, Brooks, a Congressman from Huntsville, said he would filibuster any spending bills if the Senate doesn't fund Trump's plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.


"If I have to filibuster on the Senate floor, I'll even read the King James Bible until the wall is funded," Brooks said in the ad. "We're going to build that wall, or you'll know the name of every Republican who surrenders to the Democrats to break my filibuster. I give you my word, and I don't give my word lightly."

And he's running BEHIND Roy Moore, who lost his job as Chief Justice for failing to honor the Supreme Court rulings on same sex marriage. Although I guess that is a selling point down there.

https://articles.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/07/mo_brooks_trump_wall_mexico.amp
 
Yeah, I'd be interested in seeing how that worked out with actual population numbers for the states, since obviously state populations aren't all exact multiples of Wyoming's population.

The way you actually calculate congressional seats is really annoying but let me see what I can figure out.
 
Good get - if Collins runs she's pretty much hosed, but we need a top-tier candidate anyway to encourage downballot turnout. Democrats could win the state legislature which would basically turn Collins into a moderate Dem governor anyway, ideologically speaking. IIRC Dems hold the House and just need one seat to flip the Senate.

Remington Research (R) firm tested a bunch of people against McCaskill.

First, her approval ratings are 40-45, which I guess isn't terrible for a Dem in Missouri. But anyway.

MO Treasurer Eric Schmidt: 49
Sen. Claire McCaskill: 45

Rep. Jason Smith: 48
Sen. Claire McCaskill: 45

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer: 50
Sen. Claire McCaskill: 43

Rep. Vicky Hartzler: 48
Sen. Claire McCaskill: 44

In other news, Claire raised 3.1 million in Q2 and has 5.1 million CoH, so she's not going to go down swinging.
Little concerned about these #s, but it's an R firm and the campaign hasn't begun in earnest. Claire knows what she's doing, although I doubt she'll luck out like she did last time.
 
I mean, I think people would care about the specifics if it messes with their daily lives?

If suddenly the roads I used became toll roads I'd probably be unhappy.

surprisingly we don't have toll roads anywhere in Idaho, I've never encountered one in my life

I don't think the biggest issue would be toll roads. Their plan involved giving tax breaks to companies that do infrastructure projects regardless of whether the project was already going to happen. That's quite literally a handout to corporations but I don't think it would lead to much ire outside of leftists who already hate them.

It's an easy win for them I think. They're just dumb.
 
With 548 seats, it would be about (I'm not using the exact formula since it would take too long, but this is a decent approximation):

CA: 67 (+14)
TX: 47 (+11)
FL: 35 (+8)
NY: 34 (+7)
IL: 22 (+4)
PA: 22 (+4)
OH: 20 (+4)
GA: 18 (+4)
NC: 17 (+4)
MI: 17 (+3)
NJ: 15 (+3)
VA: 14 (+3)
WA: 12 (+2)
AZ: 12 (+3)
MA: 12 (+3)
TN: 11 (+2)
IN: 11 (+2)
MO: 10 (+2)
MD: 10 (+2)
WI: 10 (+2)
CO: 9 (+2)
MN: 9 (+1)
SC: 8 (+1)
AL: 8 (+1)
LA: 8 (+2)
KY: 8 (+2)
OR: 7 (+2)
OK: 7 (+2)
CT: 6 (+1)
IA: 5 (+1)
UT: 5 (+1)
MS: 5 (+1)
AR: 5 (+1)
NV: 5 (+1)
KS: 5 (+1)
NM: 4 (+1)
NE: 3 (-)
WV: 3 (-)
ID: 3 (+1)
HI: 2 (-)
NH: 2 (-)
ME: 2 (-)
RI: 2 (-)
MT: 2 (+1)
DE: 2 (+1)
SD: 1 (-)
ND: 1 (-)
AK: 1 (-)
VT: 1 (-)
WY 1 (-)

Clearly this is not how it would be done since this is 584 seats (I used 548 as the coefficient, I checked), so the House would be smaller. But anyway, I don't think it would've changed the 2016 a lot. It would give marginally more seats to smaller states, which they may like, but ultimately more power to CA/TX/FL/NY.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Erica Werner‏Verified account @ericawerner

Cornyn says new bill this week, vote next week

Still trying.
 
I kind of wonder what a third district in Idaho would look like. Would they try to carve Boise up into three districts to try and make sure it can't ever elect a Democrat? I mean, not too big an issue because Meridian + Nampa + Caldwell would weigh down any theoretical Boise metro district but I'd be interested in seeing how we'd get cut up.
 

dramatis

Member
If we allocate the member delegations from each state as multi-member districts for the whole state done proportional to state votes, that might be better than simply adding more House members.
 
With 548 seats, it would be about (I'm not using the exact formula since it would take too long, but this is a decent approximation):

CA: 67 (+14)
TX: 47 (+11)
FL: 35 (+8)
NY: 34 (+7)
IL: 22 (+4)
PA: 22 (+4)
OH: 20 (+4)
GA: 18 (+4)
NC: 17 (+4)
MI: 17 (+3)
NJ: 15 (+3)
VA: 14 (+3)
WA: 12 (+2)
AZ: 12 (+3)
MA: 12 (+3)
TN: 11 (+2)
IN: 11 (+2)
MO: 10 (+2)
MD: 10 (+2)
WI: 10 (+2)
CO: 9 (+2)
MN: 9 (+1)
SC: 8 (+1)
AL: 8 (+1)
LA: 8 (+2)
KY: 8 (+2)
OR: 7 (+2)
OK: 7 (+2)
CT: 6 (+1)
IA: 5 (+1)
UT: 5 (+1)
MS: 5 (+1)
AR: 5 (+1)
NV: 5 (+1)
KS: 5 (+1)
NM: 4 (+1)
NE: 3 (-)
WV: 3 (-)
ID: 3 (+1)
HI: 2 (-)
NH: 2 (-)
ME: 2 (-)
RI: 2 (-)
MT: 2 (+1)
DE: 2 (+1)
SD: 1 (-)
ND: 1 (-)
AK: 1 (-)
VT: 1 (-)
WY 1 (-)

Clearly this is not how it would be done since this is 584 seats (I used 548 as the coefficient, I checked), so the House would be smaller. But anyway, I don't think it would've changed the 2016 a lot. It would give marginally more seats to smaller states, which they may like, but ultimately more power to CA/TX/FL/NY.
Two district Montana would be interesting, if they split it down east/west the western district would probably be Lean Demish.

IIRC they have an independent commission for redistricting, it's just been dormant since the 80s at the congressional level.
 
With 548 seats, it would be about (I'm not using the exact formula since it would take too long, but this is a decent approximation):

CA: 67 (+14)
TX: 47 (+11)
FL: 35 (+8)
NY: 34 (+7)
IL: 22 (+4)
PA: 22 (+4)
OH: 20 (+4)
GA: 18 (+4)
NC: 17 (+4)
MI: 17 (+3)
NJ: 15 (+3)
VA: 14 (+3)
WA: 12 (+2)
AZ: 12 (+3)
MA: 12 (+3)
TN: 11 (+2)
IN: 11 (+2)
MO: 10 (+2)
MD: 10 (+2)
WI: 10 (+2)
CO: 9 (+2)
MN: 9 (+1)
SC: 8 (+1)
AL: 8 (+1)
LA: 8 (+2)
KY: 8 (+2)
OR: 7 (+2)
OK: 7 (+2)
CT: 6 (+1)
IA: 5 (+1)
UT: 5 (+1)
MS: 5 (+1)
AR: 5 (+1)
NV: 5 (+1)
KS: 5 (+1)
NM: 4 (+1)
NE: 3 (-)
WV: 3 (-)
ID: 3 (+1)
HI: 2 (-)
NH: 2 (-)
ME: 2 (-)
RI: 2 (-)
MT: 2 (+1)
DE: 2 (+1)
SD: 1 (-)
ND: 1 (-)
AK: 1 (-)
VT: 1 (-)
WY 1 (-)

Clearly this is not how it would be done since this is 584 seats (I used 548 as the coefficient, I checked), so the House would be smaller. But anyway, I don't think it would've changed the 2016 a lot. It would give marginally more seats to smaller states, which they may like, but ultimately more power to CA/TX/FL/NY.

Good stuff, thanks for this. Also, at least here in MS, we'd probably win that extra seat. The state is like 40% Dem but with only 4 reps, we only hold 25% of our House delegation. Winning that extra seat would be a fight but it would certainly be competitive. I'd be interested in how many red states would likely get extra blue seats.
 

jtb

Banned
Trump has ushered in a golden age for grifters. Abramson is either, at best, a fucking idiot, or at worst, a shameless grifter. Likely a combination of both.
 

jtb

Banned
Wouldn't growing the size of the house only exacerbate the packing problem the D coalition already has?

Unfortunately, as much as I want the house to grow for one person, one vote purposes, it's basically impossible to execute. In an ideal (small d) democratic world, the legislative districts wouldn't even be bound to state lines to allow for the most equal distribution of votes possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom