Midterm Elections 2018

[DU82]

If somebody is counted as a resident for census purposes, they should be able to vote there, too.

This was a point back when I was in school over in Cheaterland. They didn’t want students messing up their local politics. Once the courts ruled that they could vote, CH elected a student to the council.

[dudog84]

You probably would if 33% of your voting age population was enrolled at one university.

Not an answer.

[dudog84]

The flip side of that is also problematic. In some college towns (including one very close to me), the size of the student voting bloc severely unbalances local elections.

Local taxpayers are at the mercy of the non taxpaying students so they end up funding whatever social programs the student activists want to support.

You probably would if 33% of your voting age population was enrolled at one university.

I guess I have to be more specific.

Please give me just one (1) example where the students in your community have rammed through a local “social program” that the rest if the citizens adamantly opposed. If you can come up with even one (1), I might give your statement some credence.

Sorry if that may seem harsh, but I stopped being scared of boogeymen when I was 10-years-old. Okay, maybe 11. Or distracted by straw men. Or red herrings. I get all these terms confused.

Furthermore, if your population truly jumps 50% when the students come to town, virtually every job in your community is reliant upon those students, either directly or indirectly. I am heavily involved in our local chamber of commerce, and believe I can speak for them that we would love to have your university relocate its operations to our town. And we already have 3 universities/colleges here and branches of several others.

[BigWayne]

I guess I have to be more specific.

Please give me just one (1) example where the students in your community have rammed through a local “social program” that the rest if the citizens adamantly opposed. If you can come up with even one (1), I might give your statement some credence.

Sorry if that may seem harsh, but I stopped being scared of boogeymen when I was 10-years-old. Okay, maybe 11. Or distracted by straw men. Or red herrings. I get all these terms confused.

Furthermore, if your population truly jumps 50% when the students come to town, virtually every job in your community is reliant upon those students, either directly or indirectly. I am heavily involved in our local chamber of commerce, and believe I can speak for them that we would love to have your university relocate its operations to our town. And we already have 3 universities/colleges here and branches of several others.

Here are two detailed long histories of how the student vote changed Santa Cruz.

http://www.beyondchron.org/santa-cru...politics-meet/
https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/san..._politics.html

A couple quotes extracted from these:

When 18 year olds won the right to vote in 1971, students at the University of California, Santa Cruz could decide local elections, which they have done with regularity ever since.

Did it make any difference that the progressives were in charge? Or was it business as usual, as might seem to be the case from a distance?

The new progressive majority immediately increased spending on social services, doubling it during their first year in office, which was made possible by a decision to postpone infrastructural maintenance projects by one year, creating a rolling fund of several hundred thousand dollars. By the end of the 1980s the progressives had increased social service spending ten-fold: from $150,000 in 1980 to over $1.5 million.
In addition, the new city council's focus on social welfare was aided greatly by the fact that progressives also won a majority on the county board of supervisors in the 1981 elections, making it possible for the city and county to coordinate their funding of social programs.

[Bostondevil]

Here are two detailed long histories of how the student vote changed Santa Cruz.

http://www.beyondchron.org/santa-cru...politics-meet/
https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/san..._politics.html

A couple quotes extracted from these:

The lack of statistical support for the arguments put forward in these articles is making steam come out of my ears. Also - they do not analyze, at all, how the non-student population has voted in any election since 1973. On Election Day 1973 (assuming local elections were held in November), Watergate was in full swing and the US was only 6 months removed from the withdrawal from Vietnam. The comparisons discussed in these articles mostly look at the town of Santa Cruz pre/post the opening of UC-Santa Cruz in 1965. They blame a "lack of development" on the university. None of it, however, supports the notion that the non-student population has had social programs rammed down their throats. I will concede, however, that the town of Santa Cruz changed significantly after a university came to town.

[OldPhiKap]

“Slime ‘em, Slugs!!!”

[Indoor66]

The lack of statistical support for the arguments put forward in these articles is making steam come out of my ears. Also - they do not analyze, at all, how the non-student population has voted in any election since 1973. On Election Day 1973 (assuming local elections were held in November), Watergate was in full swing and the US was only 6 months removed from the withdrawal from Vietnam. The comparisons discussed in these articles mostly look at the town of Santa Cruz pre/post the opening of UC-Santa Cruz in 1965. They blame a "lack of development" on the university. None of it, however, supports the notion that the non-student population has had social programs rammed down their throats. I will concede, however, that the town of Santa Cruz changed significantly after a university came to town.

Maybe the support comes from res ipsa loquetor.

[dudog84]

Here are two detailed long histories of how the student vote changed Santa Cruz.

http://www.beyondchron.org/santa-cru...politics-meet/
https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/san..._politics.html

A couple quotes extracted from these:

Surely you're joking.

The best you can do is a 45-year-old election? lol. And we're also supposed to believe the students had such a pronounced effect on one of the most liberal pockets of the most liberal states?

From one of your articles, UCSC had 3,713 students in 1970. The 1970 census had the City of Santa Cruz at 32,076. Big whoop, nowhere close to the 33% you stated earlier. Where are your statistics on the number of students that actually voted in the local elections? Furthermore, also from your article:

"...the new city council's focus on social welfare was aided greatly by the fact that progressives also won a majority on the county board of supervisors in the 1981 elections...".

The 1980 population of Santa Cruz County was 188,141. A few thousand students (most of whom probably aren't voting) means bubkiss. It's a liberal population. If anything, the students reflect that.

Also from your article:

"Still, the arrival of the university did help to revitalize what had come to be a run-down beach and retirement town with empty storefronts in the central business district."

Woe unto the City of Santa Cruz. Again, we'd be happy for the university to re-locate here.

So you've offered no proof, most certainly nothing that justifies the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of students across the country. It's the same as the people that scream "voter fraud!" when the vote doesn't go their way. Minuscule, if at all. Boogeymen.

[Bostondevil]

Maybe the support comes from res ipsa loquetor.

Hmmm, direct translation or what lawyers mean when they say it?

[Indoor66]

Hmmm, direct translation or what lawyers mean when they say it?

Direct.

[cato]

Hmmm, direct translation or what lawyers mean when they say it?

Direct.

Not being a Latin scholar, what is the difference?

[Indoor66]

Not being a Latin scholar, what is the difference?

I wasn't sure what the question was that I responded to so I went with the literal. I agree with you that there is no difference.

Simply, the thing speaks for itself.

Also, with your posting name, you must be a latin scholar. 😂

[Bostondevil]

Direct.

The lack of statistical support for your argument is making steam come out of my ears.

Also, in order for a thing to speak for itself, there does have to actually be a thing.

[Bostondevil]

Wonder what effect, if any, the Kavanaugh hearings will have on the midterms.

[cato]

I wasn't sure what the question was that I responded to so I went with the literal. I agree with you that there is no difference.

Simply, the thing speaks for itself.

Also, with your posting name, you must be a latin scholar. 😂

Ha. One of my law school professors had an assistant who was apparently a Latin person. I walked in for an appointment and he greeted me with “Cartago delendo est.”

In response to my obvious befuddlement, he explained the phrase and it’s history, and I suddenly knew that a modern day Cato would feel the same way about a different kind of threat to the Republic.

Since I’ll never make a speech in the Senate, I have to settle for signing off my posts here appropriately.

[Highlander]

Wonder what effect, if any, the Kavanaugh hearings will have on the midterms.

I doubt much. If Trump's selection were still open, I could see one side or the other being motivated to turn out at the polls to affect the decision. Anecdotally, some of my more conservative friends rationalized their vote for Trump in 2016 precisely because a SC seat was in the balance. However, the selection has already been made and barring Kavanaugh giving some horribly committal answers during his hearing (or some unknown dirt being uncovered), I think the entire thing will be over and done with before November. In fact, I fully expect several of the D's in red states to sign on to support him once it becomes obvious he will have 50 votes from the R side of the aisle to avoid it being used against them.

I don't see the hearings/confirmation as an issue that riles up anyone other than the hardcore Dems, and they are already pretty riled up.

[Bostondevil]

I doubt much. If Trump's selection were still open, I could see one side or the other being motivated to turn out at the polls to affect the decision. Anecdotally, some of my more conservative friends rationalized their vote for Trump in 2016 precisely because a SC seat was in the balance. However, the selection has already been made and barring Kavanaugh giving some horribly committal answers during his hearing (or some unknown dirt being uncovered), I think the entire thing will be over and done with before November. In fact, I fully expect several of the D's in red states to sign on to support him once it becomes obvious he will have 50 votes from the R side of the aisle to avoid it being used against them.

I don't see the hearings/confirmation as an issue that riles up anyone other than the hardcore Dems, and they are already pretty riled up.

Kavanaugh has a lower approval rating as a nominee than Harriet Miers did according to this poll https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-hearing-polls

He is a very unpopular pick and we're past Labor Day. There may be nothing to the data dump of documents the night before the hearing - but not postponing to give everyone a chance to review them? It lends credence to belief that there is dirt to be uncovered and the Rs are trying to prevent that from happening.

[Troublemaker]

I doubt much. If Trump's selection were still open, I could see one side or the other being motivated to turn out at the polls to affect the decision. Anecdotally, some of my more conservative friends rationalized their vote for Trump in 2016 precisely because a SC seat was in the balance. However, the selection has already been made and barring Kavanaugh giving some horribly committal answers during his hearing (or some unknown dirt being uncovered), I think the entire thing will be over and done with before November. In fact, I fully expect several of the D's in red states to sign on to support him once it becomes obvious he will have 50 votes from the R side of the aisle to avoid it being used against them.

I don't see the hearings/confirmation as an issue that riles up anyone other than the hardcore Dems, and they are already pretty riled up.

Agreed. One of my R friends actually suggested that the Rs should've announced they would hold confirmation hearings after the midterms in order to boost R turnout in November (which is going to be a problem relative to the Ds). His reasoning was that since the map looks good for the Rs Senate-wise, they should take that risk in order to boost the chances of maintaining the House. I said it was an interesting take but ultimately short-sighted. The whole point of winning elections is to put yourself in position to do things like confirming a lifetime SCOTUS candidate (and SCOTUS has way too much power in this country, imo). Why put that at risk in case a major blue wave does materialize that captures the Senate for the Ds? Confirming Kavanaugh is more important than keeping the House.

[Troublemaker]

Kavanaugh has a lower approval rating as a nominee than Harriet Miers did according to this poll https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-hearing-polls

He is a very unpopular pick and we're past Labor Day. There may be nothing to the data dump of documents the night before the hearing - but not postponing to give everyone a chance to review them? It lends credence to belief that there is dirt to be uncovered and the Rs are trying to prevent that from happening.

Which is what highly-motivated, pays-attention-to-political-news D voters think. But those people were going to vote anyway in November.

I think your average voter, if they're even aware that a SCOTUS confirmation is happening, had already mentally put Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS bench once he was nominated since the Rs control the federal government for now. I don't think they're following the timing of data dumps.

[Tom B.]

Wonder what effect, if any, the Kavanaugh hearings will have on the midterms.

Well, here I was settled in for a nice and comparatively quaint week of Twitter fights over the two Ks (Kavanaugh and Kaepernick). Then this happened.

Bob Woodward’s new book reveals a ‘nervous breakdown’ of Trump’s presidency

White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly frequently lost his temper and told colleagues that he thought the president was “unhinged,” Woodward writes. In one small group meeting, Kelly said of Trump: “He’s an idiot. It’s pointless to try to convince him of anything. He’s gone off the rails. We’re in Crazytown. I don’t even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I’ve ever had.”

Buckle up.

Meanwhile, two new polls out in the last couple of days show Ds with a double-digit lead (11 and 14 points) on the generic ballot.

Link.