2026 Mid-Term Elections

[Derec]

If you flee to Canada or Europe, you need to line up a job before you go, or at least go to some place where your talents are in demand; And you need at least a couple of good, trustworthy friends who are either locals, or have been there a long time, to show you the ropes.

Unless you are Arab, Afghan, or Somali, of course.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you flee to Canada or Europe, you need to line up a job before you go, or at least go to some place where your talents are in demand; And you need at least a couple of good, trustworthy friends who are either locals, or have been there a long time, to show you the ropes.

Unless you are Arab, Afghan, or Somali, of course.

It's "cute" that you think any of the Afghan, Somali, or "arab" folks any of us met or know or see day on day are there (wherever they happen to be) without talents or a job plan or skills, without community and trustworthy friends.

And by "Cute" I mean disgustingly and appallingly ignorant.

 

[bilby]

If you flee to Canada or Europe, you need to line up a job before you go, or at least go to some place where your talents are in demand; And you need at least a couple of good, trustworthy friends who are either locals, or have been there a long time, to show you the ropes.

Unless you are Arab, Afghan, or Somali, of course.

No, what I said applies just as much to them - probably more so, in cases where the primary language in their new home is not their first language.

That you think otherwise suggests that you are in thrall to racist propaganda. Which is very sad; But not very surprising, which is also very sad.

 

[Tigers!]

Seriously? It's more than fifteen months to election day.

Come back in fourteen and a half months.

In the US, everything is political now. It's an indicator of the accelerating decline of the country.

I have following US politics off and on (more on now than off) since 1980.
Its always been about politics. Back then you tried to hide it and were more polite ( ). Now you don't even try to be polite anymore.

Yeah, you don't come across as someone that has followed it well. The discourse certainly has gotten more toxic, but you have this tendency to file everything under false equivalences.

 

[Tigers!]

These mid-tem elections - are they run or held in the same way as a presidental election?
Same rules (such as they are) apply or different rules?
Same groups run them or other groups?
Is it just your upper or lower houses or both?

 

[jonatha]

These mid-tem elections - are they run or held in the same way as a presidental election?
Same rules (such as they are) apply or different rules?
Same groups run them or other groups?
Is it just your upper or lower houses or both?

Same way same rules same groups. All of the lower house and roughly a third of the upper house.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

These mid-tem elections - are they run or held in the same way as a presidental election?
Same rules (such as they are) apply or different rules?
Same groups run them or other groups?
Is it just your upper or lower houses or both?

Asks the person who has been paying attention to US politics since the 80s.

 

[laughing dog]

Bernie Sanders and Gavin Newsom become adversaries over push to tax California billionaires

This idea of a one-time confiscation of some people's wealth is among the stupidest proposals for a tax reform I have seen. But some people can't look past the "tax the billionaires more" mantra, without thinking of any details or unintended consequences.

The proposal seems to be even worse than it would appear at first glance.

The Proposed California Wealth Tax Is Far Higher than 5 Percent

Frightening adjectives in the intro leads me to believe the article is less than objective.

The article’s author - the Tax Foundation - is usually pro-growth and anti-tax.

Taxing financial wealth always introduces “distortions” (i.e. choices caused by the tax that would not be made otherwise). By definition in economics, those distortions are economically inefficient.


Whether the resulting economic inefficiencies are socially desirable or not is a completely different matter.

 

[Toni]

Bernie Sanders and Gavin Newsom become adversaries over push to tax California billionaires

This idea of a one-time confiscation of some people's wealth is among the stupidest proposals for a tax reform I have seen. But some people can't look past the "tax the billionaires more" mantra, without thinking of any details or unintended consequences.

The proposal seems to be even worse than it would appear at first glance.

The Proposed California Wealth Tax Is Far Higher than 5 Percent

Confiscation? No: paying a fair share commensurate with the benefits they receive from the services government provides , and to clean up the environment and other damage they cause.

 

[Tigers!]

These mid-tem elections - are they run or held in the same way as a presidental election?
Same rules (such as they are) apply or different rules?
Same groups run them or other groups?
Is it just your upper or lower houses or both?

Asks the person who has been paying attention to US politics since the 80s.

Just making sure I am getting bit right.

When paying attention I ma more concerned with various laws that ae passed and they might affect Australaia.
I have taking far less attention to actually how the memeres are elected. Time to remedy that.

 

[unapologetic]

given how much they spent the first time to locate in California and to move all their employees there.

All their employees?
Doubtfull.
Only top execs. Employees are easy to replace.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

These mid-tem elections - are they run or held in the same way as a presidental election?
Same rules (such as they are) apply or different rules?
Same groups run them or other groups?

In the US, voting is not mandatory. While some states require employers to allow time off, we do not have a national day off to vote. Coupled with the perception that the President has special powers to affect the price of eggs, gasoline, and interest rates, the average voter perceives a different cost-benefit to voting in midterms compared to the Presidential election. Therefore, turnout is lower in midterms. The demographics also shift; midterm voters tend to be more white, wealthier, and more educated.

Voters go to the same polling places. The same local infrastructure is there from a voter perspective. However, all US elections are decentralized--they are run by state and local authorities (like County Clerks) rather than a single national body.

Rules differ because the President is elected through the Electoral College, whereas midterms are decided by a direct popular vote. In the Presidential race, most states are "winner-take-all," meaning the candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote in that state gets 100% of its electors (Maine and Nebraska are the only ones that allow these to be split).

Residents of US territories, such as Puerto Rico, cannot vote for President and have no voting representation in Congress. However, if a Puerto Rican moves to and becomes a resident of one of the 50 states, they can vote in all federal elections.

Representatives (House) are elected by popular vote in their specific Congressional district. Senators are elected by a statewide popular vote.

Is it just your upper or lower houses or both?

100% of the House of Representatives is up for election every two years, which is intense relative to the time spent campaigning. There is usually a primary election to pick the party's nominee, followed by the general election. Where's the time to legislate?

Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for election every two years. This is because a Senator's term is 6 years, and the seats are staggered so the entire chamber doesn't change at once.

So, as you can see, our perfectly streamlined system ensures that our politicians spend 100% of their time campaigning and 0% of their time governing while our voters spend 50% of their time being confused and the other 50% of their time not caring enough. Just as our corporate overlords intended.

 

[Tigers!]

These mid-tem elections - are they run or held in the same way as a presidental election?
Same rules (such as they are) apply or different rules?
Same groups run them or other groups?

In the US, voting is not mandatory. While some states require employers to allow time off, we do not have a national day off to vote. Coupled with the perception that the President has special powers to affect the price of eggs, gasoline, and interest rates, the average voter perceives a different cost-benefit to voting in midterms compared to the Presidential election. Therefore, turnout is lower in midterms. The demographics also shift; midterm voters tend to be more white, wealthier, and more educated.

Voters go to the same polling places. The same local infrastructure is there from a voter perspective. However, all US elections are decentralized--they are run by state and local authorities (like County Clerks) rather than a single national body.

Rules differ because the President is elected through the Electoral College, whereas midterms are decided by a direct popular vote. In the Presidential race, most states are "winner-take-all," meaning the candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote in that state gets 100% of its electors (Maine and Nebraska are the only ones that allow these to be split).

Residents of US territories, such as Puerto Rico, cannot vote for President and have no voting representation in Congress. However, if a Puerto Rican moves to and becomes a resident of one of the 50 states, they can vote in all federal elections.

Representatives (House) are elected by popular vote in their specific Congressional district. Senators are elected by a statewide popular vote.

Is it just your upper or lower houses or both?

100% of the House of Representatives is up for election every two years, which is intense relative to the time spent campaigning. There is usually a primary election to pick the party's nominee, followed by the general election. Where's the time to legislate?

Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for election every two years. This is because a Senator's term is 6 years, and the seats are staggered so the entire chamber doesn't change at once.

So, as you can see, our perfectly streamlined system ensures that our politicians spend 100% of their time campaigning and 0% of their time governing while our voters spend 50% of their time being confused and the other 50% of their time not caring enough. Just as our corporate overlords intended.

Nice summary. Esp. the last paragraph.
Thank you.

Aust. has a few of similartities. We do not have full senate elections usually. Only half-senate, though a full senate can be done if certain conditions are met.
We can go pretty much to the same locations to vote for local, state and commonwealth elections. Though state and commonwealth are always on a Saturday. Local are usually spread over a few days.
I think having a national electoral body, the AEC (Aust. Electoral Commission) does help by imposing uniformity and certainity.
We have FPTP for commonwealth lower house and a sort of proportional for senate.
State lower is FPTP while upper (in Victoria is multi-member electorates).
We do not have primaries for either state or commonwealth elections. From over here I could think of little worse to disengage voters and have them wondering if it be all worth it. Plus the extra money it would cost.

Tasmania has the Hare-Clark system (only ones who use it) for its state elections.

 

[bilby]

These mid-tem elections - are they run or held in the same way as a presidental election?
Same rules (such as they are) apply or different rules?
Same groups run them or other groups?

In the US, voting is not mandatory. While some states require employers to allow time off, we do not have a national day off to vote. Coupled with the perception that the President has special powers to affect the price of eggs, gasoline, and interest rates, the average voter perceives a different cost-benefit to voting in midterms compared to the Presidential election. Therefore, turnout is lower in midterms. The demographics also shift; midterm voters tend to be more white, wealthier, and more educated.

Voters go to the same polling places. The same local infrastructure is there from a voter perspective. However, all US elections are decentralized--they are run by state and local authorities (like County Clerks) rather than a single national body.

Rules differ because the President is elected through the Electoral College, whereas midterms are decided by a direct popular vote. In the Presidential race, most states are "winner-take-all," meaning the candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote in that state gets 100% of its electors (Maine and Nebraska are the only ones that allow these to be split).

Residents of US territories, such as Puerto Rico, cannot vote for President and have no voting representation in Congress. However, if a Puerto Rican moves to and becomes a resident of one of the 50 states, they can vote in all federal elections.

Representatives (House) are elected by popular vote in their specific Congressional district. Senators are elected by a statewide popular vote.

Is it just your upper or lower houses or both?

100% of the House of Representatives is up for election every two years, which is intense relative to the time spent campaigning. There is usually a primary election to pick the party's nominee, followed by the general election. Where's the time to legislate?

Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for election every two years. This is because a Senator's term is 6 years, and the seats are staggered so the entire chamber doesn't change at once.

So, as you can see, our perfectly streamlined system ensures that our politicians spend 100% of their time campaigning and 0% of their time governing while our voters spend 50% of their time being confused and the other 50% of their time not caring enough. Just as our corporate overlords intended.

Nice summary. Esp. the last paragraph.
Thank you.

Aust. has a few of similartities. We do not have full senate elections usually. Only half-senate, though a full senate can be done if certain conditions are met.
We can go pretty much to the same locations to vote for local, state and commonwealth elections. Though state and commonwealth are always on a Saturday. Local are usually spread over a few days.
I think having a national electoral body, the AEC (Aust. Electoral Commission) does help by imposing uniformity and certainity.
We have FPTP for commonwealth lower house and a sort of proportional for senate.
State lower is FPTP while upper (in Victoria is multi-member electorates).
We do not have primaries for either state or commonwealth elections. From over here I could think of little worse to disengage voters and have them wondering if it be all worth it. Plus the extra money it would cost.

Tasmania has the Hare-Clark system (only ones who use it) for its state elections.

Queensland got rid of their upper house, in 1921.

The Legislative Council had been a major source of frustration for the lower house; While the lower house was directly elected, the LC was populated by appointment for life by the Governor, under advice from the sitting State Premier. The new Labor Premier appointed sufficent members (27 new members, to bring the total to 58, 34 of whom were now Labor members) to the LC to have enough votes to vote for the permanent dissolution of the chamber, and they did so on October 26th, 1921.

They rose for the last time the following day.

The non-Labor parties petitioned the Colonial Secretary, one Winston S Churchill, asking that the bill passed by the so called "suicide squad" be refused royal assent; However he declined to involve himself in what he described as "a matter essentially for determination locally", and the bill recieved the royal assent on 3rd March 1922, becoming law twenty days later.

The idea of appointment for life without any general public input was (and remains) generally unpopular, so it's almost certain that if we did re-introduce an upper house, its membership would be elected by the people via some system or other.

As things stand, ours is the only State in Australia with a unicameral legislature, though both the Northern and Australian Capital Territories have them, as does New Zealand.

 

[TV and credit cards]

These mid-tem elections - are they run or held in the same way as a presidental election?
Same rules (such as they are) apply or different rules?
Same groups run them or other groups?

In the US, voting is not mandatory. While some states require employers to allow time off, we do not have a national day off to vote. Coupled with the perception that the President has special powers to affect the price of eggs, gasoline, and interest rates, the average voter perceives a different cost-benefit to voting in midterms compared to the Presidential election. Therefore, turnout is lower in midterms. The demographics also shift; midterm voters tend to be more white, wealthier, and more educated.

Voters go to the same polling places. The same local infrastructure is there from a voter perspective. However, all US elections are decentralized--they are run by state and local authorities (like County Clerks) rather than a single national body.

Rules differ because the President is elected through the Electoral College, whereas midterms are decided by a direct popular vote. In the Presidential race, most states are "winner-take-all," meaning the candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote in that state gets 100% of its electors (Maine and Nebraska are the only ones that allow these to be split).

Residents of US territories, such as Puerto Rico, cannot vote for President and have no voting representation in Congress. However, if a Puerto Rican moves to and becomes a resident of one of the 50 states, they can vote in all federal elections.

Representatives (House) are elected by popular vote in their specific Congressional district. Senators are elected by a statewide popular vote.

Is it just your upper or lower houses or both?

100% of the House of Representatives is up for election every two years, which is intense relative to the time spent campaigning. There is usually a primary election to pick the party's nominee, followed by the general election. Where's the time to legislate?

Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for election every two years. This is because a Senator's term is 6 years, and the seats are staggered so the entire chamber doesn't change at once.

So, as you can see, our perfectly streamlined system ensures that our politicians spend 100% of their time campaigning and 0% of their time governing while our voters spend 50% of their time being confused and the other 50% of their time not caring enough. Just as our corporate overlords intended.

Nice summary. Esp. the last paragraph.
Thank you.

Really? I was thinking everything but the last paragraph.
I think it's these negative assessments of the political climate that oftentimes gives us the politicians we deserve: Can you think of anyone? Anyone at all? Sure, we can all say, well maybe the statement isn't wholly true but to what degree do we each think it's true? Consider too, what do we know about the day to day of a life in politics or the political machinations politicians must navigate to achieve what they want to achieve?
And from whence does this knowledge spring?

 

[Jarhyn]

given how much they spent the first time to locate in California and to move all their employees there.

All their employees?
Doubtfull.
Only top execs. Employees are easy to replace.

It doesn't happen all at once "the first time".

In fact, it seems to resemble a logistics problem in a game called RimWorld (prior to the current expansion, anyway): it takes work to get people over time, but it also takes piles of work to move them and lots of logistics spent on preparing the move rather than growth.

These are issues associated with any large move, and in the real world, part of that logistics BOTH times is often relocating employees as you hire them.

Over time with an initial growth or local relocation, you can keep most of those people in place once you get them there, but there will always be churn into California.

With Texas? Why?!? Maybe a few of the known shittiest companies relocate there because they're cheap assholes, but if you decide your first employer isn't working out for you, you might get trapped in Texas with a bad debt for the relocation if it doesn't work out, and only more shitty companies who moved there for similar reasons and with similar financial strain over movement.

This is the real world where you can't just build "substructure" under everything, slap on a a grav engine, and fly off to Texas. You have to load some 50 cargo containers worth of stuff and have 50 relocation plans just for a medium sized company, assuming you can even get all 50 of your employees to stay with you, which you won't because fucking EW, Texas.

It is a hollow threat from all but the shittiest companies which are doomed to fail or harm themselves in the attempt to dodge those taxes, because it's a very expensive threat to carry through on.

 

[ZiprHead]

Pro-Trump activists who say they are in coordination with the White House are circulating a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election as a basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.

 

[Jarhyn]

Pro-Trump activists who say they are in coordination with the White House are circulating a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election as a basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.

These fucking articles: "Trump lies about Chinese election interference to get cover for his own election interference."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yup. Also The New Republic:

It Can Now Be Plainly Said: Trump Is Planning a November Coup d’État

During the campaign, it was kind of hard to picture the specifics of how Trump might pull such a thing off. Alas, it’s getting less hypothetical by the week.

newrepublic.com

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And all of the faux conservatives and libertarians here and across the nation will cheer it on.