The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

2018 Congressional/Senate Election Results Thread

1161719212225

Posts

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Trump might have also really believed his own bullshit about how it was actually going to be a red wave this election.

    That belief, coming up against the reality of “actually, most of the country hates you and doesn’t like what you’re doing”, might be tough for Trump.

    The Fox News Bubble is a thing for a reason.

    You're muckin' with a G!

    Do not engage the Watermelons.
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    point of order @PantsB

    Speaker is not equivalent to the Minority Leader in the House. It's Constitutionally mandated in A1 S2, and the entire body votes for the Speaker's role - it goes to someone in the majority because it's always going to of course, but technically it's only going to be Pelosi because when the votes are tallied, whoever the GOP Reps vote for won't win.

    But that person could win, technically, because some Democrats could vote for that person if they wanted to! In theory, a secret coalition of 20ish rogue Democrats could throw the Speaker's chair to the Republican.

    The Majority and Minority Leaders and other party leadership positions in the House are all internal ones that they parties themselves select, but the Speaker is different.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    point of order @PantsB

    Speaker is not equivalent to the Minority Leader in the House. It's Constitutionally mandated in A1 S2, and the entire body votes for the Speaker's role - it goes to someone in the majority because it's always going to of course, but technically it's only going to be Pelosi because when the votes are tallied, whoever the GOP Reps vote for won't win.

    But that person could win, technically, because some Democrats could vote for that person if they wanted to! In theory, a secret coalition of 20ish rogue Democrats could throw the Speaker's chair to the Republican.

    The Majority and Minority Leaders and other party leadership positions in the House are all internal ones that they parties themselves select, but the Speaker is different.

    While technically correct you'd also have to fine a Republican that all the republicans could agree on which has been an issue of late.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    point of order @PantsB

    Speaker is not equivalent to the Minority Leader in the House. It's Constitutionally mandated in A1 S2, and the entire body votes for the Speaker's role - it goes to someone in the majority because it's always going to of course, but technically it's only going to be Pelosi because when the votes are tallied, whoever the GOP Reps vote for won't win.

    But that person could win, technically, because some Democrats could vote for that person if they wanted to! In theory, a secret coalition of 20ish rogue Democrats could throw the Speaker's chair to the Republican.

    The Majority and Minority Leaders and other party leadership positions in the House are all internal ones that they parties themselves select, but the Speaker is different.

    While technically correct you'd also have to fine a Republican that all the republicans could agree on which has been an issue of late.

    In checking my facts before posting, I learned that in the past it's taken months to settle on a Speaker because various factions have all put forward their own candidate and the Constitution requires winning a majority of the House to assume the role...

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    point of order @PantsB

    Speaker is not equivalent to the Minority Leader in the House. It's Constitutionally mandated in A1 S2, and the entire body votes for the Speaker's role - it goes to someone in the majority because it's always going to of course, but technically it's only going to be Pelosi because when the votes are tallied, whoever the GOP Reps vote for won't win.

    But that person could win, technically, because some Democrats could vote for that person if they wanted to! In theory, a secret coalition of 20ish rogue Democrats could throw the Speaker's chair to the Republican.

    The Majority and Minority Leaders and other party leadership positions in the House are all internal ones that they parties themselves select, but the Speaker is different.

    Also, the speaker of the house doesn't have to be a member of Congress. You know who the Democrats love, Trump hates to the point where he might just like explode into a shower of white hot rage, and isn't a member of Congress. A fine gentleman named Barrack Obama ;)

    Having thought about it for 10 seconds, I've decided its the best idea ever. The press would eat it up, and they'd treat Obama as if he was like the '#2 President'. He could have press conferences, and go to meet with foreign leaders and state representatives.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    point of order @PantsB

    Speaker is not equivalent to the Minority Leader in the House. It's Constitutionally mandated in A1 S2, and the entire body votes for the Speaker's role - it goes to someone in the majority because it's always going to of course, but technically it's only going to be Pelosi because when the votes are tallied, whoever the GOP Reps vote for won't win.

    But that person could win, technically, because some Democrats could vote for that person if they wanted to! In theory, a secret coalition of 20ish rogue Democrats could throw the Speaker's chair to the Republican.

    The Majority and Minority Leaders and other party leadership positions in the House are all internal ones that they parties themselves select, but the Speaker is different.

    Also, the speaker of the house doesn't have to be a member of Congress. You know who the Democrats love, Trump hates to the point where he might just like explode into a shower of white hot rage, and isn't a member of Congress. A fine gentleman named Merrick Garland ;)

    :rotate:

    Not just as a passive aggressive reminder that McConnell is a shit bird: there's also going to be some budgets that need to be reconciled and they will have to work face to face.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    point of order @PantsB

    Speaker is not equivalent to the Minority Leader in the House. It's Constitutionally mandated in A1 S2, and the entire body votes for the Speaker's role - it goes to someone in the majority because it's always going to of course, but technically it's only going to be Pelosi because when the votes are tallied, whoever the GOP Reps vote for won't win.

    But that person could win, technically, because some Democrats could vote for that person if they wanted to! In theory, a secret coalition of 20ish rogue Democrats could throw the Speaker's chair to the Republican.

    The Majority and Minority Leaders and other party leadership positions in the House are all internal ones that they parties themselves select, but the Speaker is different.

    Also, the speaker of the house doesn't have to be a member of Congress. You know who the Democrats love, Trump hates to the point where he might just like explode into a shower of white hot rage, and isn't a member of Congress. A fine gentleman named Merrick Garland ;)

    :rotate:

    Not just as a passive aggressive reminder that McConnell is a shit bird: there's also going to be some budgets that need to be reconciled and they will have to work face to face.

    Eh, I'm pretty sure that Trump no longer remembers who Merrick Garland is, also, Garland still has a job as a federal judge. Barrack Obama for speaker of the house (AKA, the Actual President of the USA)

    "Mr Trump.. Oh wait, President Trump I guess. How does it feel to be so overshadowed by Barrack Obama? Are you nothing but a footnote on the pages of history? Is it tough being the first President to have to share the role?"

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    point of order @PantsB

    Speaker is not equivalent to the Minority Leader in the House. It's Constitutionally mandated in A1 S2, and the entire body votes for the Speaker's role - it goes to someone in the majority because it's always going to of course, but technically it's only going to be Pelosi because when the votes are tallied, whoever the GOP Reps vote for won't win.

    But that person could win, technically, because some Democrats could vote for that person if they wanted to! In theory, a secret coalition of 20ish rogue Democrats could throw the Speaker's chair to the Republican.

    The Majority and Minority Leaders and other party leadership positions in the House are all internal ones that they parties themselves select, but the Speaker is different.

    Also, the speaker of the house doesn't have to be a member of Congress. You know who the Democrats love, Trump hates to the point where he might just like explode into a shower of white hot rage, and isn't a member of Congress. A fine gentleman named Barrack Obama ;)

    Having thought about it for 10 seconds, I've decided its the best idea ever. The press would eat it up, and they'd treat Obama as if he was like the '#2 President'. He could have press conferences, and go to meet with foreign leaders and state representatives.

    Leave Barack Obama alone

    He's done enough

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    point of order @PantsB

    Speaker is not equivalent to the Minority Leader in the House. It's Constitutionally mandated in A1 S2, and the entire body votes for the Speaker's role - it goes to someone in the majority because it's always going to of course, but technically it's only going to be Pelosi because when the votes are tallied, whoever the GOP Reps vote for won't win.

    But that person could win, technically, because some Democrats could vote for that person if they wanted to! In theory, a secret coalition of 20ish rogue Democrats could throw the Speaker's chair to the Republican.

    The Majority and Minority Leaders and other party leadership positions in the House are all internal ones that they parties themselves select, but the Speaker is different.

    Also, the speaker of the house doesn't have to be a member of Congress. You know who the Democrats love, Trump hates to the point where he might just like explode into a shower of white hot rage, and isn't a member of Congress. A fine gentleman named Barrack Obama ;)

    Having thought about it for 10 seconds, I've decided its the best idea ever. The press would eat it up, and they'd treat Obama as if he was like the '#2 President'. He could have press conferences, and go to meet with foreign leaders and state representatives.

    Leave Barack Obama alone

    He's done enough

    Yeah, make it Michelle Obama. She's awesome and would drive them even more nuts. :P

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Michelle wants even less to do with politics than her husband these days

    Maybe it’s time to get some new blood in the mix

    Lots of awesome people won elections this time, just saying

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Michelle wants even less to do with politics than her husband these days

    Maybe it’s time to get some new blood in the mix

    Lots of awesome people won elections this time, just saying

    I'm being like 99% facetious, and sure, there are some fine people. Pelosi (who will be the one chosen in the end) will do a fine job, albeit with less personality than I'd like, but she'll do it while maintaining an iron grip on an unruly caucus and avoiding backbench rebellions. But as much as we may love our new candidates, none of them are Barrack Obama. Very very few people are. I genuinely believe that if you made Barrack Obama speaker of the house that Trump might literally explode. Can you imagine how upset he would be to see him on the news every day? To hear questions like, "Obama says you are wrong on this, and the people believe him. How do you respond to that?"

    It would create such a beautifully absurd narrative.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    point of order @PantsB

    Speaker is not equivalent to the Minority Leader in the House. It's Constitutionally mandated in A1 S2, and the entire body votes for the Speaker's role - it goes to someone in the majority because it's always going to of course, but technically it's only going to be Pelosi because when the votes are tallied, whoever the GOP Reps vote for won't win.

    But that person could win, technically, because some Democrats could vote for that person if they wanted to! In theory, a secret coalition of 20ish rogue Democrats could throw the Speaker's chair to the Republican.

    The Majority and Minority Leaders and other party leadership positions in the House are all internal ones that they parties themselves select, but the Speaker is different.

    Also, the speaker of the house doesn't have to be a member of Congress. You know who the Democrats love, Trump hates to the point where he might just like explode into a shower of white hot rage, and isn't a member of Congress. A fine gentleman named Barrack Obama ;)

    Having thought about it for 10 seconds, I've decided its the best idea ever. The press would eat it up, and they'd treat Obama as if he was like the '#2 President'. He could have press conferences, and go to meet with foreign leaders and state representatives.

    Leave Barack Obama alone

    He's done enough

    Yeah, make it Michelle Obama. She's awesome and would drive them even more nuts. :P

    Ooh, how about Chelsea Clinton?

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    If you’re just looking for “conservative tears” you already have Nancy Pelosi, whom they hate

    If you brought in the ghost of Ronald Reagan they would hate him too

    Turns out Republicans will hate any Democrat in charge because they hate Democrats

    Maybe let’s not set leadership based on what will make hateful people angry but instead based on who is the best person for the job

    Being the party of sanity means not being vindictive trolls

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • NEO|PhyteNEO|Phyte They follow the stars, bound together. Strands in a braid till the end.Registered User regular
    It's probably a bad thing that I read that nonserious suggestion and pondered how the line of succession interacts with term limits.

    It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
    Warframe/Steam: NFyt
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Beto O'Rourke for Speaker.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Peeps, this isn't the "BRAINSTORM A NEW SPEAKER" thread

    Let's get back to analyzing election results - anything else going to be final soon?

  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    Yeah, the philosophy of "owning the libs" is how you get shit like conservatives stuffing their faces with shitty pizza because the CEO is racist.

    Maybe we just pick a government that can govern? Conservatives will hate anyone, so might as well just pick the best policies?

  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Peeps, this isn't the "BRAINSTORM A NEW SPEAKER" thread

    Let's get back to analyzing election results - anything else going to be final soon?

    Florida for the governor today at least. In about 2 hours actually for the machine recount.

    u7stthr17eud.png
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Peeps, this isn't the "BRAINSTORM A NEW SPEAKER" thread

    Let's get back to analyzing election results - anything else going to be final soon?

    Florida for the governor today at least. In about 2 hours actually for the machine recount.

    What all is in question for Florida elections? Is it still Governor and Senator, or just the G at this point?

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson

    Steam: Korvalain
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Peeps, this isn't the "BRAINSTORM A NEW SPEAKER" thread

    Let's get back to analyzing election results - anything else going to be final soon?

    Florida for the governor today at least. In about 2 hours actually for the machine recount.

    What all is in question for Florida elections? Is it still Governor and Senator, or just the G at this point?

    Both, last I heard.

    You're muckin' with a G!

    Do not engage the Watermelons.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Peeps, this isn't the "BRAINSTORM A NEW SPEAKER" thread

    Let's get back to analyzing election results - anything else going to be final soon?

    Florida for the governor today at least. In about 2 hours actually for the machine recount.

    What all is in question for Florida elections? Is it still Governor and Senator, or just the G at this point?

    Both, with Senator being the one most likely to be changeable.

  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Brody wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Peeps, this isn't the "BRAINSTORM A NEW SPEAKER" thread

    Let's get back to analyzing election results - anything else going to be final soon?

    Florida for the governor today at least. In about 2 hours actually for the machine recount.

    What all is in question for Florida elections? Is it still Governor and Senator, or just the G at this point?

    Both, with Senator being the one most likely to be changeable.

    Fingers crossed.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Brody wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Peeps, this isn't the "BRAINSTORM A NEW SPEAKER" thread

    Let's get back to analyzing election results - anything else going to be final soon?

    Florida for the governor today at least. In about 2 hours actually for the machine recount.

    What all is in question for Florida elections? Is it still Governor and Senator, or just the G at this point?

    Both, with Senator being the one most likely to be changeable.

    Fingers crossed.

    Our only real hope is that those missing votes for Senate in Broward are due to a miscalibrated machine there, and not due to bad ballot design. And when they are recounted on a properly calibrated machine (or by hand) we'll find an extra 20000 votes for Nelson. It's not impossible, but it does seem unlikely.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    Non-members for speaker are a fun parlor game, but the position has *real* legislative importance and putting a skilled legislator in the job is important.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Looking over the map on the New York Times we REALLY need to somehow get the whole country onto a better voting system. There are so many seats where tiny little third party groups are messing things up.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Non-members for speaker are a fun parlor game, but the position has *real* legislative importance and putting a skilled legislator in the job is important.
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Peeps, this isn't the "BRAINSTORM A NEW SPEAKER" thread

    Let's get back to analyzing election results - anything else going to be final soon?

  • SunrizeSunrize Registered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »
    Blue states have lots of Republican strongholds based on wealth and property

    the tax bill was a 50 foot tall neon FUCK YOU sign to those people.

    And it isn't the megarich that are going to be hurt, it's the Wall St Journals idea of "regular people" the Henry's and such.

    Sure they have more money then they'll ever need, but they don't have the offshore tax haven money you needed to really take advantage. A lot of their net worth is tied up in their houses and such and they are about to get soaked this tax season.

    Hell they haven't even gotten the bill yet and they rebelled, next year should be interesting.

    This is really interesting to me, do you guys mind explaining this in a little more detail? Was there something in the tax bill that specifically tried to screw over blue states, or is it more generically the "upper-middle / lower-upper / working rich" are taking a hit more uniformly?

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Sunrize wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    Blue states have lots of Republican strongholds based on wealth and property

    the tax bill was a 50 foot tall neon FUCK YOU sign to those people.

    And it isn't the megarich that are going to be hurt, it's the Wall St Journals idea of "regular people" the Henry's and such.

    Sure they have more money then they'll ever need, but they don't have the offshore tax haven money you needed to really take advantage. A lot of their net worth is tied up in their houses and such and they are about to get soaked this tax season.

    Hell they haven't even gotten the bill yet and they rebelled, next year should be interesting.

    This is really interesting to me, do you guys mind explaining this in a little more detail? Was there something in the tax bill that specifically tried to screw over blue states, or is it more generically the "upper-middle / lower-upper / working rich" are taking a hit more uniformly?

    The tax bill ended the state tax deduction. Blue states usually have very high real estate taxes to pay for stuff.

  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Sunrize wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    Blue states have lots of Republican strongholds based on wealth and property

    the tax bill was a 50 foot tall neon FUCK YOU sign to those people.

    And it isn't the megarich that are going to be hurt, it's the Wall St Journals idea of "regular people" the Henry's and such.

    Sure they have more money then they'll ever need, but they don't have the offshore tax haven money you needed to really take advantage. A lot of their net worth is tied up in their houses and such and they are about to get soaked this tax season.

    Hell they haven't even gotten the bill yet and they rebelled, next year should be interesting.

    This is really interesting to me, do you guys mind explaining this in a little more detail? Was there something in the tax bill that specifically tried to screw over blue states, or is it more generically the "upper-middle / lower-upper / working rich" are taking a hit more uniformly?

    The tax bill ended the state tax deduction. Blue states usually have very high real estate taxes to pay for stuff.

    It ended it over 10k right?
    Which the people paying more than 10k in property taxes hit that sweet spot of lawyers/dentists/small business owners the GOP desperately needs to maintain "we're not just the party of racists and billionaire racists"

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    I like to ART
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    TRO denied in Maine's RCV challenge, lawsuit and count will continue.
    “In denying plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order, I do not discount the sincerity of their complaints regarding the RCV system,” Walker wrote in his 16-page decision. “The remedy in a democracy, when no constitutional infirmity appears likely, is to exercise the protected rights of speech and association granted by the First Amendment to persuade one’s fellow citizens of the correctness of one’s position and to petition the political branch to change the law.

    As it stands, the citizens of Maine have rejected the policy arguments plaintiffs advance against RCV. Maine voters cast their ballots in reliance on the RCV system,” he continued. “For the reasons indicated above, I am not persuaded that the United States Constitution compels the Court to interfere with this most sacred expression of democratic will by enjoining the ballot-counting process and declaring Representative Poliquin the victor.”

    If anyone can find a link to the decision, I'd love to read it. None of the links in that article seem to work.

  • SunrizeSunrize Registered User regular
    Thanks for clearing that up!

  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Sunrize wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    Blue states have lots of Republican strongholds based on wealth and property

    the tax bill was a 50 foot tall neon FUCK YOU sign to those people.

    And it isn't the megarich that are going to be hurt, it's the Wall St Journals idea of "regular people" the Henry's and such.

    Sure they have more money then they'll ever need, but they don't have the offshore tax haven money you needed to really take advantage. A lot of their net worth is tied up in their houses and such and they are about to get soaked this tax season.

    Hell they haven't even gotten the bill yet and they rebelled, next year should be interesting.

    This is really interesting to me, do you guys mind explaining this in a little more detail? Was there something in the tax bill that specifically tried to screw over blue states, or is it more generically the "upper-middle / lower-upper / working rich" are taking a hit more uniformly?

    Like here in New Jersey let's say you have a family with an income of 350-400k or so. They're doing pretty well!

    They live in Maplewood, have a house currently valued at 700k (they bought it at 550k) and pay about 20k a year in property taxes. Another 20k in state taxes. They don't have so much money that they can be wildly irresponsible, but the odds of seeing financial ruin in their lifetime is slim.

    They used to be able to deduct both of these taxes on their federal return, but now they can only deduct 10k of it.

    These are the people who along with a turnout increase flipped New Jersey from a 7/5 Dem Rep delegation to 11/1 this past election.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    a700k house in Maplewood what is it a refrigerator box under the turnpike?

  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Brody wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Peeps, this isn't the "BRAINSTORM A NEW SPEAKER" thread

    Let's get back to analyzing election results - anything else going to be final soon?

    Florida for the governor today at least. In about 2 hours actually for the machine recount.

    What all is in question for Florida elections? Is it still Governor and Senator, or just the G at this point?

    Both, with Senator being the one most likely to be changeable.

    Fingers crossed.

    Our only real hope is that those missing votes for Senate in Broward are due to a miscalibrated machine there, and not due to bad ballot design. And when they are recounted on a properly calibrated machine (or by hand) we'll find an extra 20000 votes for Nelson. It's not impossible, but it does seem unlikely.

    That is really the only shot, unfortunately. There’s never been a state scale recount that changed things by more than a few hundred votes one way or another, so barring a systemic issue like a flawed vote reader 15k is probably a bridge too far.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »
    Sunrize wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    Blue states have lots of Republican strongholds based on wealth and property

    the tax bill was a 50 foot tall neon FUCK YOU sign to those people.

    And it isn't the megarich that are going to be hurt, it's the Wall St Journals idea of "regular people" the Henry's and such.

    Sure they have more money then they'll ever need, but they don't have the offshore tax haven money you needed to really take advantage. A lot of their net worth is tied up in their houses and such and they are about to get soaked this tax season.

    Hell they haven't even gotten the bill yet and they rebelled, next year should be interesting.

    This is really interesting to me, do you guys mind explaining this in a little more detail? Was there something in the tax bill that specifically tried to screw over blue states, or is it more generically the "upper-middle / lower-upper / working rich" are taking a hit more uniformly?

    Like here in New Jersey let's say you have a family with an income of 350-400k or so. They're doing pretty well!

    They live in Maplewood, have a house currently valued at 700k (they bought it at 550k) and pay about 20k a year in property taxes. Another 20k in state taxes. They don't have so much money that they can be wildly irresponsible, but the odds of seeing financial ruin in their lifetime is slim.

    They used to be able to deduct both of these taxes on their federal return, but now they can only deduct 10k of it.

    These are the people who along with a turnout increase flipped New Jersey from a 7/5 Dem Rep delegation to 11/1 this past election.

    Is that 20k deduction -> 10k deduction or 40k deduction -> 10k deduction?

  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    edited November 2018
    The SALT deduction can be charitably viewed as an incentive for blue states to cut back on paternalistic welfare and public education programs if they are unable to do so without their upper-middle class tax bases artificially taking a break on the high property taxes that support those programs by deducting them from their federal income taxes

    In practice the argument looks like: If you want to have a socialist blue state that internally redistributes the surplus of its high land wealth to supporting infrastructure, education of children, healthcare and poverty programs, you should have to pay a extra tax to the federal government who can redistribute that money to irresponsible lassez-faire states in the deep south with depressed tax bases and safety nets that are more hole than rope

    EDIT: To be clear this is not a persuasive argument to many "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" McMansion owners in the suburbs

    Hakkekage on
    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2018
    shryke wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    Sunrize wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    Blue states have lots of Republican strongholds based on wealth and property

    the tax bill was a 50 foot tall neon FUCK YOU sign to those people.

    And it isn't the megarich that are going to be hurt, it's the Wall St Journals idea of "regular people" the Henry's and such.

    Sure they have more money then they'll ever need, but they don't have the offshore tax haven money you needed to really take advantage. A lot of their net worth is tied up in their houses and such and they are about to get soaked this tax season.

    Hell they haven't even gotten the bill yet and they rebelled, next year should be interesting.

    This is really interesting to me, do you guys mind explaining this in a little more detail? Was there something in the tax bill that specifically tried to screw over blue states, or is it more generically the "upper-middle / lower-upper / working rich" are taking a hit more uniformly?

    Like here in New Jersey let's say you have a family with an income of 350-400k or so. They're doing pretty well!

    They live in Maplewood, have a house currently valued at 700k (they bought it at 550k) and pay about 20k a year in property taxes. Another 20k in state taxes. They don't have so much money that they can be wildly irresponsible, but the odds of seeing financial ruin in their lifetime is slim.

    They used to be able to deduct both of these taxes on their federal return, but now they can only deduct 10k of it.

    These are the people who along with a turnout increase flipped New Jersey from a 7/5 Dem Rep delegation to 11/1 this past election.

    Is that 20k deduction -> 10k deduction or 40k deduction -> 10k deduction?

    $40k -> $10k

    Though remember that this is for tax dollars so the cost is the marginal tax rate on that deduction rather than 100% on the dollar. Still, not great in order to pay for *checks notes* even richer people lowering their taxes.

    moniker on
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited November 2018
    PS: Golden (D) won in ME2, for another flipped seat
    Golden won 50.5% to Poliquin's 49.5%, Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap told reporters Thursday afternoon

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/15/politics/democrats-maine-house-ranked-choice-jared-golden/index.html

    Oddly, all the big name result trackers now list him as being declared the winner but still show the first round results (where he is losing).

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    PS: Golden (D) won in ME2, for another flipped seat
    Golden won 50.5% to Poliquin's 49.5%, Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap told reporters Thursday afternoon

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/15/politics/democrats-maine-house-ranked-choice-jared-golden/index.html

    Oddly, all the big name result trackers now list him as being declared the winner but still show the first round results (where he is losing).

    Fraud! Stolen election!

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    The SALT deduction can be charitably viewed as an incentive for blue states to cut back on paternalistic welfare and public education programs if they are unable to do so without their upper-middle class tax bases artificially taking a break on the high property taxes that support those programs by deducting them from their federal income taxes

    In practice the argument looks like: If you want to have a socialist blue state that internally redistributes the surplus of its high land wealth to supporting infrastructure, education of children, healthcare and poverty programs, you should have to pay a extra tax to the federal government who can redistribute that money to irresponsible lassez-faire states in the deep south with depressed tax bases and safety nets that are more hole than rope

    EDIT: To be clear this is not a persuasive argument to many "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" McMansion owners in the suburbs

    Yeah, though Republicans still managed to win the >$100k crowd outright. Though the margin appears to be narrowing, which is great for Dems.

This discussion has been closed.