2018 Senate (& House)

[Joe Fan]

 

[Phil Elliott]

Dems now saying they will "drain the swamp" - reminds me of when Abortion Barbie came out and said she was pro-open carry. Kinda smacks of desperation.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Some state politics
Dem turnout near a 100-year low ("smallest number of ballots cast — in the 14 Democratic gubernatorial primary runoffs held since 1920")

Texas Democrats are truly in denial mode. Greg Abbott is an exceptional candidate (even if I think he sucks), so he's not vulnerable to defeat by anybody. However, Democrats could have at least made it interesting by nominating White. He would have been a good candidate. Instead, they chose the most intersectional candidate, who's going to get torched and humiliated. It'll be closer than the 2014 race because that was a GOP wave election, but she'll lose decisively.

 

[Mr. Deez]

A friend on Facebook posted this.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Greens are finding out Texans are a lot smarter than they give us credit for.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Not sure if Maxine's just that stupid or if she's just being opportunistic. Of course, it doesn't help that the media is playing along as if the feds literally "lost" a bunch of kids. And of course, Maxine knows that if their parents are being detained, it's against the law for the kids to be detained with them (since I believe 2016 when that law was passed.) And she also knows that in many cases, the "parents" are actually traffickers using the kids as a shield to help them get into the U.S. illegally.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Greens are finding out Texans are a lot smarter than they give us credit for.

Perhaps, but you do understand that the Greens not being on the ballot helps Democrats, right?

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Seattle Husker]

There are worse places to be.

California is now the world's fifth-largest economy, surpassing United Kingdom

California's economic output is now surpassed only by the total GDP of the United States, China, Japan and Germany. The state has 12% of the U.S. population but contributed 16% of the country's job growth between 2012 and 2017. Its share of the national economy also grew to 14.2% from 12.8% over that five-year period, according to state economists.

 

[Horn6721]

Of course there are worse places to be.
Yet record number of people are leaving Calif.
And guess which state sadly is getting most of them?
Hence the bumper sticker.

Don't choose to come here
And then want to make it like the craphole you were glad to leave.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Of course there are worse places to be.
Yet record number of people are leaving Calif.
And guess which state sadly is getting most of them?
Hence the bumper sticker.

Don't choose to come here
And then want to make it like the craphole you were glad to leave.

California added 309,000 residents last year. It was a slowing of a previous astronomical growth rate that puts their population at ~40M. Their growth rate now matches the national growth rate.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

http://theweek.com/articles/777349/democrats-are-totally-blowing

This should be required reading for all dem politicians, and I hope they believe every word of it. The midterms are turning sour for the democrats, according to The Week, because they didn't fight hard enough on the DREAM act (ignoring that they could have settled the whole thing if they didn't want it as a club to wield in said midterms), and didn't capitalize on a tax cut that apparently didn't help anyone but rich robber barons and that is apparently VERY unpopular. (HINT: Dems, if you want to win, campaign HARD on repealing that tax cut. That's a winner for you.) And of course, he makes the point that things are going great in the economy because Trump hasn't changed any of the "2016 Status Quo (read: Obama policy) " items except for Obamacare. (Which of course is a total lie, but hey, it's The Week.)

He unwittingly makes the point that most Trump tolerators point out: Trump says a LOT of stuff, but hasn't actually done most of the horrible, vilified actions that people just assume he's done because he always drops comments about how he might do this or that. Which raises the issue that MAYBE if the left hadn't been determined to tell people that we'd be a pile of ashes by this time under a Trump presidency, people would be more willing to listen to them now.

 

[Joe Fan]

Sounds like no Soros money for Kirsten Gillibrand -

I think there are many qualified candidates, and I think also that some will distinguish themselves in the 2018 elections that will give them more chances. I may add that there’s only one whom I would not like to see succeed, and that’s Gillibrand of New York because she is responsible for pushing ... the comedian ... Al Franken, whom I admire, to resign. In order to improve her chances. So she is campaigning, and I hope she doesn’t — there is one less candidate.​

She was the first Dem Senator to call for Al Franken to resign

 

[Horn6721]

SH
Are those people who moved in?
From 2007 to 2016 5 million moved in while 6 million
lleft or moved out.

 

[Garmel]

SH
Are those people who moved in?
From 2007 to 2016 5 million moved in while 6 million
lleft or moved out.

Husker's data includes children born and illegal immigration.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Seattle Husker]

SH
Are those people who moved in?
From 2007 to 2016 5 million moved in while 6 million
lleft or moved out.

That's a net immigration number put out by the State of California. You got a link to your numbers? The article I linked included a link directly to the state's report.

 

[Seattle Husker]

It's almost as if someone feels threatened.

 

[Horn6721]

SH?
Help me find the stat in your link that shows approx. 390k people moved into the state, " net immigration number". What is the definition of "Immigration number"?

here is the stat I used. That as I posted 1 million people left Ca than moved in
"CALIFORNIA -- In recent years, more people have left California than moved in. A state report found that 5 million people moved to California from other states, while 6 million left California for other states from 2007 to 2016, according to a report by the state's Legislative Analyst's Office.:
https://patch.com/california/castrovalley/more-people-leaving-california-moving-study

Perhaps as JF suggested your stat included illegals who snuck in?

 

[Garmel]

Perhaps as JF suggested your stat included illegals who snuck in?

Birth rate as well. According to stats 400,000 to 500,000 children are born in Cal every year. Cal is growing as as state due to births and illegal immigration but you're correct about the mass exodus as well.

 

[Mr. Deez]

California's problems are deeper than population issues. This was probably written by a partisan source and reaches some at least arguably unfair conclusions. However, it's supported by statistics and evidence that don't look good no matter how you interpret them.

 

[Seattle Husker]

SH?
Help me find the stat in your link that shows approx. 390k people moved into the state, " net immigration number". What is the definition of "Immigration number"?

here is the stat I used. That as I posted 1 million people left Ca than moved in
"CALIFORNIA -- In recent years, more people have left California than moved in. A state report found that 5 million people moved to California from other states, while 6 million left California for other states from 2007 to 2016, according to a report by the state's Legislative Analyst's Office.:
https://patch.com/california/castrovalley/more-people-leaving-california-moving-study

Perhaps as JF suggested your stat included illegals who snuck in?

The difference in our numbers is methodology.The American Community Survey (original source of your data) uses tax filer data. That means they immediately excluded ~25-30% of the total population. My study seeks to measure (or estimate) the total polpulation, like a census. Both can be correct.

Looking more closely at the ACS one thing is apparent, the cost of housing is as huge factor. California is positive net migration for those making >$110k and with graduate degrees. The vast majority of those leaving CA make <$50k annually. The former can afford the housing...the latter not so much.

Simply put, the high cost of housing driven by the hugh tech economic boom (and CA's antiquated property tax system that favors holding onto your house forever) makes it impossible for lower and middle income families to own homes. The lack of "affordable" housing is also a huge factor in the homelessness problem throughout the West Coast.

 

[Seattle Husker]

California's problems are deeper than population issues. This was probably written by a partisan source and reaches some at least arguably unfair conclusions. However, it's supported by statistics and evidence that don't look good no matter how you interpret them.

One observation about that writer. He's an environmental writer. I suspect his criticism are born more from a bias that CA isn't progressive enough.

Much of his stats due appear to be accurate with researching each of them. I'm familiar with them because Seattle is enduring the same challenges and is very much as progressive as all but SF. The primary challenge is housing prices which are exacerbated by the salaries High Tech employees demand. The lack of affordable housing (even rentals) is killing the low and middle income demographic. If you are nit in a high tech role (or company) then it's much more challenging to keep pace with the cost of living.

As an example, I purchased a 720sqft 1 bedroom condo in Seattle 15yrs ago. The attainable rent rates for that unit more than doubled during that time. The value of the property increased almost 150%. A renter would have had to see the income keep pace. They did for many high tech workers but not for your average middle income family. My sister moved to a more rural town in Eastern Washington for this very reason.

 

[Mr. Deez]

One observation about that writer. He's an environmental writer. I suspect his criticism are born more from a bias that CA isn't progressive enough

I looked at his report, and some of what he advocates is Left-leaving, but most of it I'd describe as conservative-libertarian.

Much of his stats due appear to be accurate with researching each of them. I'm familiar with them because Seattle is enduring the same challenges and is very much as progressive as all but SF. The primary challenge is housing prices which are exacerbated by the salaries High Tech employees demand. The lack of affordable housing (even rentals) is killing the low and middle income demographic. If you are nit in a high tech role (or company) then it's much more challenging to keep pace with the cost of living.

As an example, I purchased a 720sqft 1 bedroom condo in Seattle 15yrs ago. The attainable rent rates for that unit more than doubled during that time. The value of the property increased almost 150%. A renter would have had to see the income keep pace. They did for many high tech workers but not for your average middle income family. My sister moved to a more rural town in Eastern Washington for this very reason.

Ordinarily when there's a big demand for something that people are willing and able to pay for, someone enters the market and meets the demand. That's not happening in some of these communities, and I think it's fair to ask why, particularly when it's causing very wealthy places like California to be have a big poverty problem.

 

[Seattle Husker]

That's not happening in some of these communities, and I think it's fair to ask why, particularly when it's causing very wealthy places like California to be have a big poverty problem.

My thoughts:
1. Some of these cities are locked by geography. Like SF, Seattle is locked in by water on both sides preventing new home building.
2. CA has a funky property tax system that inhibits increases as long as an owner doesn't sell. This is how you get properties worth >$1m paying extremely low property tax. The system disincentivizes people to trade reducing available inventory.
3. Salaries in high tech. At Facebook the average salary is >$150k. Same at Google and most of the tech firms. Lots of money to bid up limited inventory of housing.
4. Traffic. Affordable housing may be CDC available if you can afford to sit in traffic 2-3 hours a day commuting.

Some of the solution is better telecommuting options. My best friend was allowed to move out of Silicon Valley to Portland and work remote. He was better able to afford a house for his family there.

 

[militaryhorn]

California's problems are deeper than population issues. This was probably written by a partisan source and reaches some at least arguably unfair conclusions. However, it's supported by statistics and evidence that don't look good no matter how you interpret them.

After reading the article, I can't help but wonder if the US's doom will look like California's when they can't borrow anymore money. The article says that they currently owe $366 billion in pensions and health benefits to public employees.

Already the state’s top accountants are predicting a $55 billion shortfall over the next three years. And that amount is dwarfed by the much larger $366 billion debt taxpayers owe in pension and health care benefits to public employees.

I wouldn't live there if I made but loads of money. I believe in paying my fair share but sometimes it doesn't mean I should have to give most of it to the government to pay for someone's pension.

 

[Mr. Deez]

My thoughts:
1. Some of these cities are locked by geography. Like SF, Seattle is locked in by water on both sides preventing new home building.
2. CA has a funky property tax system that inhibits increases as long as an owner doesn't sell. This is how you get properties worth >$1m paying extremely low property tax. The system disincentivizes people to trade reducing available inventory.
3. Salaries in high tech. At Facebook the average salary is >$150k. Same at Google and most of the tech firms. Lots of money to bid up limited inventory of housing.
4. Traffic. Affordable housing may be CDC available if you can afford to sit in traffic 2-3 hours a day commuting.

Some of the solution is better telecommuting options. My best friend was allowed to move out of Silicon Valley to Portland and work remote. He was better able to afford a house for his family there.

Those are undoubtedly factors, but keep in mind a few things. First, other cities run out of land too. They build up. Central Austin is basically at that point. Their housing prices are still high but much more manageable.

Second, I think the high salaries in tech feed the problem, but they are also a product of the problem. Obviously if housing prices are too high, then salaries have to be high so employees can afford to work in the area.

Third, though the problem has gotten worse in the last 5 years, it predates the tech boom and even Proposition 13. It probably goes back to the early '70s. Personally, I remember hearing my dad talk about the profit my grandparents were able to make when they sold their house in Palos Verdes in 1975 (which they had bought in 1965). It was outrageous.

The point is that other areas have found ways to manage housing prices through increased supply. California doesn't, and I think this guy makes a pretty good case for relaxing some of their regulatory barriers to new construction.

 

[Joe Fan]

Is this the stuff of a winning campaign strategy?
+ "Ivanka is a c-word"
+ Maher “hopes for a recession to get rid of Trump”

 

[Joe Fan]

Insurgent Corey Stewart won the Virginia R primary
At the victory party, Stewart blasted “Hillary Clinton’s running mate Tim Kaine” and promised a “vicious” campaign. The crowd chanted of “Lock Her Up”
But it's a blue state now so we will see