Midterm Elections 2018

[Mike Corey]

I think the only potential major legislation in Congress before the midterms would come if the discharge petition in the House opens debate for an immigration bill, or whether Paul Ryan is pressured to put something on the table to address the issue. There are House members that want to go on the record voting for one or more various plans, even though the odds of getting a single plan through the House is nil.

I thought there was some pre-midterm financial deadline too that, Mitch McConnell fears, may be blocked by the President if it does not include significant financing for a southern border wall. Not remembering what bill that was though. (Not taking a position on the wall, obviously, just pointing out that McConnell and the President differ on its relative importance in the funding pecking order).

But agreed, Congress is essentially done for the year.

Aside from the legislative piece, I'd suggest that--because this is the next special election, and (I believe) the last one prior to the midterms, the optics and "momentum" component of the special election will, um, trump the legislative significance since it will indeed be up for grabs just a few months later.

[JasonEvans]

Succeeder Will Moderate Before October

Silly Words Must Be Obfuscated

[Troublemaker]

Silly Words Must Be Obfuscated

"Selectee": Word My Brain Omitted!

[SoCalDukeFan]

One thing California has implemented something that is REALLY STUPID is so called Jungle Primary. The top two for each race get on the November ballot, regardless of party. So you could have 2 D's or 2 R's whatever. I have read that one reason why is was implemented is because CA is so heavily Democratic that a very liberal Dem might capture the Dem primary and be assured of winning in Nov. Idea is that this way you might have a very liberal Dem and a more moderate Dem on the ballot in Nov. Also the parties are pretty weak here when compared to say Chicago.

Anyhow we have 27 people running for Governor and 32 running for the Senate. Two pages on the ballot. Likely that many will vote for one on each page.

In some races which are heavily for one party, that party has 8 to 10 running for the spot, other side just 2. The dominant party could split their votes and the minority party could get both spots. (I told you the parties are weak.)

In races where the top candidate is foregone, that candidate sometimes has ads favoring someone, maybe the opposite party, that he thinks he can beat more easily in November rather than the number 2 from his own party.

It is a mess.

SoCal

[CameronBornAndBred]

And McConnell has hinted at staying in over what's usually the August recess...

-jk

I would almost bet a pie (that's how certain I am) that will never happen.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Tuesday that he’s canceled the chamber's traditional August recess, citing Democrats' "obstruction" and the need to pass spending bills.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...9de?li=BBnb7Kz

[Tappan Zee Devil]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...9de?li=BBnb7Kz

At the risk of punishment, I will speculate that his motive may be to keep the 26 Dems running for reelection in DC rather than home campaigning.

[Tappan Zee Devil]

At the risk of punishment, I will speculate that his motive may be to keep the 26 Dems running for reelection in DC rather than home campaigning.

So - mainstream media appear to agree with me - so maybe I am off the hook for expressing an opinion

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/05/polit...ess/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...=.3644a2e31535

[CameronBornAndBred]

At the risk of punishment, I will speculate that his motive may be to keep the 26 Dems running for reelection in DC rather than home campaigning.

So - mainstream media appear to agree with me - so maybe I am off the hook for expressing an opinion

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/05/polit...ess/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...=.3644a2e31535

Yep. From the CNN article you linked.

Read between the lines. McConnell is canceling the recess not because of a hard deadline on anything -- lawmakers haven't passed all of their appropriations bills on time in more than 20 years, according to a recent Pew review. Despite Trump's vow never to sign a massive spending bill again, the Capitol Hill system, as it works today, does not require them to start this August. And nobody is calling for the House to cancel recess, although it's much easier for Republicans to pass funding bills there.
But it sure might help McConnell's chances of keeping his majority if Democrats up for re-election are stuck in DC.

[cato]

One thing California has implemented something that is REALLY STUPID is so called Jungle Primary. The top two for each race get on the November ballot, regardless of party. So you could have 2 D's or 2 R's whatever. I have read that one reason why is was implemented is because CA is so heavily Democratic that a very liberal Dem might capture the Dem primary and be assured of winning in Nov. Idea is that this way you might have a very liberal Dem and a more moderate Dem on the ballot in Nov. Also the parties are pretty weak here when compared to say Chicago.

Anyhow we have 27 people running for Governor and 32 running for the Senate. Two pages on the ballot. Likely that many will vote for one on each page.

In some races which are heavily for one party, that party has 8 to 10 running for the spot, other side just 2. The dominant party could split their votes and the minority party could get both spots. (I told you the parties are weak.)

In races where the top candidate is foregone, that candidate sometimes has ads favoring someone, maybe the opposite party, that he thinks he can beat more easily in November rather than the number 2 from his own party.

It is a mess.

SoCal

I am not convinced that this is stupid and am very interested to see how it plays out. As I understand it, the goal is to avoid the primary being the election. If the two top vote getters in the primary are in the same party, why not let them run against each other in the general?

[OldPhiKap]

I am not convinced that this is stupid and am very interested to see how it plays out. As I understand it, the goal is to avoid the primary being the election. If the two top vote getters in the primary are in the same party, why not let them run against each other in the general?

Agreed.

I think the theory, FWIW, was that the extremes of both parties tend to win their primaries. In this model, theoretically, a moderate who can build a bloc can get in.

In theory.

[dudog84]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...9de?li=BBnb7Kz

It's not August yet. We'll see. I think it's a bluff.

Also, if one house stays does the other have to? Rs have more to defend in the HofR. McConnell is overplaying his hand.

Of course, he may not care about the HofR. He wants to remain majority leader in the Senate.

[OldPhiKap]

It's not August yet. We'll see. I think it's a bluff.

Also, if one house stays does the other have to? Rs have more to defend in the HofR. McConnell is overplaying his hand.

Of course, he may not care about the HofR. He wants to remain majority leader in the Senate.

My guess is that this does not force the House to stay by rule, although there may be political pressure to do so.

Having said that, IIRC last time this happened the Senate only stayed in session an extra week or so before bolting. So yeah, some skepticism is warranted.

[dudog84]

My guess is that this does not force the House to stay by rule, although there may be political pressure to do so.

Having said that, IIRC last time this happened the Senate only stayed in session an extra week or so before bolting. So yeah, some skepticism is warranted.

After some more thought, has any piece of legislation ever been sent from one chamber to the other and not been changed and sent back? I mean, isn't there ALWAYS back and forth? Seems to me there's always a bill from each chamber on a certain issue, and then they get together to work out the differences.

If not, please correct me. I honestly don't follow the sausage-making that closely. But if so, won't this be seen by everyone as grandstanding, which is something the entire public hates (I know they all do plenty of grandstanding, but this is not a filibuster to an empty room).

[OldPhiKap]

After some more thought, has any piece of legislation ever been sent from one chamber to the other and not been changed and sent back? I mean, isn't there ALWAYS back and forth? Seems to me there's always a bill from each chamber on a certain issue, and then they get together to work out the differences.

If not, please correct me. I honestly don't follow the sausage-making that closely. But if so, won't this be seen by everyone as grandstanding, which is something the entire public hates (I know they all do plenty of grandstanding, but this is not a filibuster to an empty room).

The Senate has a backlog of appointments to vote upon, which do not require House action. So, they have independent work to do.

Beyond that, I agree that most bills of substance have a reconciliation process between the two chambers. Other than a finance bill that must be passed by late September or early October, most substantive bicameral activity is done for the year.

[Troublemaker]

After some more thought, has any piece of legislation ever been sent from one chamber to the other and not been changed and sent back? I mean, isn't there ALWAYS back and forth? Seems to me there's always a bill from each chamber on a certain issue, and then they get together to work out the differences.

If not, please correct me. I honestly don't follow the sausage-making that closely. But if so, won't this be seen by everyone as grandstanding, which is something the entire public hates (I know they all do plenty of grandstanding, but this is not a filibuster to an empty room).

McConnell might just focus on confirmations instead of legislation. You hit on a good point, though. Tappan Zee really had no reason to worry about his/her comment above because really, there's no such thing as an August congressional session that isn't political in mind; I think both Ds and Rs would analyze McConnell's move as politically-based, with an eye on the midterms. McConnell makes this move because he thinks he can win the PR over it. Ds will scream that an August session is pointless and will unfairly affect midterm races, and McConnell will respond with X, Y, Z, TBD. And then we'll see how the public responds.

I suspect the public won't have too much sympathy for Senators not being able to take August off from work.

[dudog84]

The Senate has a backlog of appointments to vote upon, which do not require House action. So, they have independent work to do.

Beyond that, I agree that most bills of substance have a reconciliation process between the two chambers. Other than a finance bill that must be passed by late September or early October, most substantive bicameral activity is done for the year.

From the article:

"In a brief written statement, he said: “Senators should expect to remain in session in August to pass legislation, including appropriations bills, and to make additional progress on the president’s nominees.”"

Ha Ha, if he thinks the Ds are going to just ok a bunch of nominees, well...

Also from the article:

"But another factor could scramble the appropriations process. Republicans recently cobbled together a “rescissions” bill, which cancels spending Congress already allocated."

That's a new one on me. Ah, the comedy of our nation's capital.

[OldPhiKap]

From the article:

"In a brief written statement, he said: “Senators should expect to remain in session in August to pass legislation, including appropriations bills, and to make additional progress on the president’s nominees.”"

Ha Ha, if he thinks the Ds are going to just ok a bunch of nominees, well...

Also from the article:

"But another factor could scramble the appropriations process. Republicans recently cobbled together a “rescissions” bill, which cancels spending Congress already allocated."

That's a new one on me. Ah, the comedy of our nation's capital.

McConnell previously said that the “rescissions” bill was a non-starter. The President proposed it, but no Congressman wants to take back monies already tabbed to go to their constituents.

The Congressional concern about appropriations from the Republican leadership perspective is that Trump will demand funding for a border wall — which Dems will oppose and a significant number of Republicans will not support. Without debating the policy of it, suffice to say that border district Republicans have real practical eminent domain problems with the idea and many fiscal conservatives do not see it as fiscally responsible. So it could cause a huge confrontation about a month before Election Day and the President is, shall we say, somewhat unpredictable.

[Bluedog]

Agreed.

I think the theory, FWIW, was that the extremes of both parties tend to win their primaries. In this model, theoretically, a moderate who can build a bloc can get in.

In theory.

Yep. But a ranked choice voting system would also achieve this without having the pitfall of one party possibly "splitting the vote" which leads to bizarre strategies as stated above. I'd love for some states to implement ranked choice voting in statewide or congressional elections. I know it does exist in some local elections.

For example, if there are 10 Republicans and 2 Democrats running, a voter would rank all 12 candidates. In a "top 2" system in say a 60 % Republican/40% Democratic district, it's possible the two Democrats move onto the general election as the Republicans split the vote even if Republicans get more total votes. In a ranked choice system, every vote gets counted towards the "final two" as the bottom vote gets removed first, and voters who selected that individual #1 then get their #2 choice and so forth (until there are only two left). This system makes it less likely "extreme" candidates get chosen (as cross party votes would probably "prefer" a more moderate choice), but also eliminates the possibility of "spoiler" candidates and other perverse incentives.

[OldPhiKap]

Yep. But a ranked choice voting system would also achieve this without having the pitfall of one party possibly "splitting the vote" which leads to bizarre strategies as stated above. I'd love for some states to implement ranked choice voting in statewide or congressional elections. I know it does exist in some local elections.

For example, if there are 10 Republicans and 2 Democrats running, a voter would rank all 12 candidates. In a "top 2" system in say a 60 % Republican/40% Democratic district, it's possible the two Democrats move onto the general election as the Republicans split the vote even if Republicans get more total votes. In a ranked choice system, every vote gets counted towards the "final two" as the bottom vote gets removed first, and voters who selected that individual #1 then get their #2 choice and so forth (until there are only two left). This system makes it less likely "extreme" candidates get chosen (as cross party votes would probably "prefer" a more moderate choice), but also eliminates the possibility of "spoiler" candidates and other perverse incentives.

Not sure I follow all of that, but doesn’t that assume a level of deep voter education that sadly does not exist? Or a number of runoffs that are impractical?

(Just asking — not criticizing — unsure how this would work)

We had six total candidates for labor secretary — how would that work?

[Bluedog]

Not sure I follow all of that, but doesn’t that assume a level of deep voter education that sadly does not exist? Or a number of runoffs that are impractical?

(Just asking — not criticizing — unsure how this would work)

Yeah, I was actually about to edit my post saying the concern is that people are incapable of doing such voting. It really shouldn't be that hard and if somebody just wanted to vote for their #1 choice, that could still do so and it'd be no different than it is today (i.e. their vote "doesn't count" if they don't choose a top candidate). Or they could do 1-6 if they wanted. The "runoffs" are instant and done by a computer so you don't actually need people to go to a voting booth each time. In fact, this method actually would actually eliminate the need for a general election in theory. But I assume politicians wouldn't want to give up more time to campaign!

Edit: looks like Maine actually just started using this method but they're having separate R and D primaries unlike California:

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/06/03/maine-voters-to-field-test-ranked-choice-voting-in-june-primaries/

This article explains it better than I did and makes the same argument for California:
https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2018/5/29/17405562/california-top-two-primary-ranked-choice-voting