US Midterm Election Megathread II: The Stretch Run Begins

[Shrillland]

snip

How is Prop 10 bad for renters? Imposing rent controls means rents will go down and more people can actually afford to have an apartment or a rental home.

Also, on a side note, polls in Alabama's runoff close at 20:00 EDT, so we'll probably know what'll happen there by 21:00.

[Shofercia]

snip

How is Prop 10 bad for renters? Imposing rent controls means rents will go down and more people can actually afford to have an apartment or a rental home.

Also, on a side note, polls in Alabama's runoff close at 20:00 EDT, so we'll probably know what'll happen there by 21:00.

Who do you think has more sway with City Governments - the owners/developers or the renters?

https://hcidla.lacity.org/blog/what-jus ... t-increase

Under the City of Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance, there are rent increases that do not require approval, such as the annual rent increase or an increase for additional tenants. There are also increases that do require approval, including

• Capital Improvements
• Primary Renovation
• Rehabilitation Work
• Just and Reasonable (J&R) rent increases

Let’s focus on J&R rent increases. The Los Angeles J&R guidelines allow an increase in rent when a landlord's current year's Net Operating Income (NOI) is less than his/her base year's NOI adjusted for inflation. This calculation is designed to ensure that landlords receive a minimum predictable amount of income from their investment property.

For example, assume that during the base year a landlord had a $15,000 NOI with 100% inflation to the current year. If, during the current year, the landlord did not receive a NOI of at least $30,000, he or she is eligible for a J&R increase.

[Shrillland]

How is Prop 10 bad for renters? Imposing rent controls means rents will go down and more people can actually afford to have an apartment or a rental home.

Also, on a side note, polls in Alabama's runoff close at 20:00 EDT, so we'll probably know what'll happen there by 21:00.

Who do you think has more sway with City Governments - the owners/developers or the renters?

https://hcidla.lacity.org/blog/what-jus ... t-increase

Under the City of Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance, there are rent increases that do not require approval, such as the annual rent increase or an increase for additional tenants. There are also increases that do require approval, including

• Capital Improvements
• Primary Renovation
• Rehabilitation Work
• Just and Reasonable (J&R) rent increases

Let’s focus on J&R rent increases. The Los Angeles J&R guidelines allow an increase in rent when a landlord's current year's Net Operating Income (NOI) is less than his/her base year's NOI adjusted for inflation. This calculation is designed to ensure that landlords receive a minimum predictable amount of income from their investment property.

For example, assume that during the base year a landlord had a $15,000 NOI with 100% inflation to the current year. If, during the current year, the landlord did not receive a NOI of at least $30,000, he or she is eligible for a J&R increase.

Yeah, but I don't think that 100% inflation is going to happen anytime soon. Besides, we've let the free market decide on rents already, and it's clearly not doing its job.

[Shofercia]

Who do you think has more sway with City Governments - the owners/developers or the renters?

https://hcidla.lacity.org/blog/what-jus ... t-increase

Yeah, but I don't think that 100% inflation is going to happen anytime soon. Besides, we've let the free market decide on rents already, and it's clearly not doing its job.

I'm saying that it'll lead to more free market decisions:

If passed, Prop 10 would add the following language to the state’s Civil Code:

“A city, county, or city and county shall have the authority to adopt a local charter provision, ordinance or regulation that governs a landlord’s right to establish and increase rental rates on a dwelling or housing unit.”

Do you see how that could be misused?


On a separate note, what the actual fuck? 44% of Democrats don't want illegal alien gang members caught at the border? What is going on with my state? (In their defense, 50% do, and 6% are unsure - it's a tough question.)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRep ... bc68bbdc74

There is a debate about whether troops from the California National Guard should be sent to the Mexican border. Should California National Guard troops be sent to the Mexican border to patrol for people attempting to cross the border illegally? Should they be sent with orders to only focus on gang and drug activity?

(By Party - Rep/Indie/Dem)

Patrol for innocent illegal aliens: 58%/33%/9%
Patrol for criminal illegal aliens: 31%/35%/41% (I'm part of the 35%)
Not sure, it's a tough question: 6%/7%/6%
Should not be sent: 5%/24%/44%

Uhh Dems, seriously?

[Valgora]

On a separate note, what the actual fuck? 44% of Democrats don't want illegal alien gang members caught at the border? What is going on with my state? (In their defense, 50% do, and 6% are unsure - it's a tough question.)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRep ... bc68bbdc74

There is a debate about whether troops from the California National Guard should be sent to the Mexican border. Should California National Guard troops be sent to the Mexican border to patrol for people attempting to cross the border illegally? Should they be sent with orders to only focus on gang and drug activity?

(By Party - Rep/Indie/Dem)

Patrol for innocent illegal aliens: 58%/33%/9%
Patrol for criminal illegal aliens: 31%/35%/41% (I'm part of the 35%)
Not sure, it's a tough question: 6%/7%/6%
Should not be sent: 5%/24%/44%

Uhh Dems, seriously?

Choosing to not send the CA National Guard =/= not wanting gang members and drug traffickers caught.

[Freezic Vast]

Yeah, but I don't think that 100% inflation is going to happen anytime soon. Besides, we've let the free market decide on rents already, and it's clearly not doing its job.

I'm saying that it'll lead to more free market decisions:

If passed, Prop 10 would add the following language to the state’s Civil Code:

“A city, county, or city and county shall have the authority to adopt a local charter provision, ordinance or regulation that governs a landlord’s right to establish and increase rental rates on a dwelling or housing unit.”

Do you see how that could be misused?


On a separate note, what the actual fuck? 44% of Democrats don't want illegal alien gang members caught at the border? What is going on with my state? (In their defense, 50% do, and 6% are unsure - it's a tough question.)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRep ... bc68bbdc74

There is a debate about whether troops from the California National Guard should be sent to the Mexican border. Should California National Guard troops be sent to the Mexican border to patrol for people attempting to cross the border illegally? Should they be sent with orders to only focus on gang and drug activity?

(By Party - Rep/Indie/Dem)

Patrol for innocent illegal aliens: 58%/33%/9%
Patrol for criminal illegal aliens: 31%/35%/41% (I'm part of the 35%)
Not sure, it's a tough question: 6%/7%/6%
Should not be sent: 5%/24%/44%

Uhh Dems, seriously?

It's things like this that I prey for those who have to suffer in Cali, like you and Telconi.

[Shofercia]

On a separate note, what the actual fuck? 44% of Democrats don't want illegal alien gang members caught at the border? What is going on with my state? (In their defense, 50% do, and 6% are unsure - it's a tough question.)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRep ... bc68bbdc74



(By Party - Rep/Indie/Dem)

Patrol for innocent illegal aliens: 58%/33%/9%
Patrol for criminal illegal aliens: 31%/35%/41% (I'm part of the 35%)
Not sure, it's a tough question: 6%/7%/6%
Should not be sent: 5%/24%/44%

Uhh Dems, seriously?

Choosing to not send the CA National Guard =/= not wanting gang members and drug traffickers caught.

Are you saying that the Californian National Guard is so inept, that sending them to the border with specific orders to focus solely on drug traffickers, would not result in a single drug trafficker being caught?

[Shrillland]

Yeah, but I don't think that 100% inflation is going to happen anytime soon. Besides, we've let the free market decide on rents already, and it's clearly not doing its job.

I'm saying that it'll lead to more free market decisions:

If passed, Prop 10 would add the following language to the state’s Civil Code:

“A city, county, or city and county shall have the authority to adopt a local charter provision, ordinance or regulation that governs a landlord’s right to establish and increase rental rates on a dwelling or housing unit.”

Do you see how that could be misused?


On a separate note, what the actual fuck? 44% of Democrats don't want illegal alien gang members caught at the border? What is going on with my state? (In their defense, 50% do, and 6% are unsure - it's a tough question.)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRep ... bc68bbdc74

There is a debate about whether troops from the California National Guard should be sent to the Mexican border. Should California National Guard troops be sent to the Mexican border to patrol for people attempting to cross the border illegally? Should they be sent with orders to only focus on gang and drug activity?

(By Party - Rep/Indie/Dem)

Patrol for innocent illegal aliens: 58%/33%/9%
Patrol for criminal illegal aliens: 31%/35%/41% (I'm part of the 35%)
Not sure, it's a tough question: 6%/7%/6%
Should not be sent: 5%/24%/44%

Uhh Dems, seriously?

Well, I don't think there would be as much opposition if it wasn't for the current separation situation. Right now, people are understandably upset about what Trump's been doing to people, and they don't want the state national guard to be part of this mess.

As for the other matter, yeah I can see how that could be misused. Even so, there are plenty of places in California that likely would impose rent controls like the navy blue folks in San Francisco and the like. But yes, it could be misused in a lot of places in your neck of the woods.

[Valgora]

Choosing to not send the CA National Guard =/= not wanting gang members and drug traffickers caught.

Are you saying that the Californian National Guard is so inept, that sending them to the border with specific orders to focus solely on drug traffickers, would not result in a single drug trafficker being caught?

Where in the hell did you even come up with that conclusion?

I said "Choosing to not send the CA National Guard to the boarder does not equal not wanting gang members and drug traffickers caught".
I said nothing about the Californian Nation Guard being inept.

[Shofercia]

Are you saying that the Californian National Guard is so inept, that sending them to the border with specific orders to focus solely on drug traffickers, would not result in a single drug trafficker being caught?

Where in the hell did you even come up with that conclusion?

I said "Choosing to not send the CA National Guard to the boarder does not equal not wanting gang members and drug traffickers caught".
I said nothing about the Californian Nation Guard being inept.

If you want the drug traffickers caught, why not devote more resources to the venture, like the California National Guard?

[Shrillland]

Where in the hell did you even come up with that conclusion?

I said "Choosing to not send the CA National Guard to the boarder does not equal not wanting gang members and drug traffickers caught".
I said nothing about the Californian Nation Guard being inept.

If you want the drug traffickers caught, why not devote more resources to the venture, like the California National Guard?

Because that's not what they'l be used for. They'll be used to put families from Central America who are coming here as asylum seekers into dog kennels for unlimited periods of time. Normally, I don't like to sound emotionally partisan when I can avoid it, but this is the stark truth of the matter.

[Valgora]

Where in the hell did you even come up with that conclusion?

I said "Choosing to not send the CA National Guard to the boarder does not equal not wanting gang members and drug traffickers caught".
I said nothing about the Californian Nation Guard being inept.

If you want the drug traffickers caught, why not devote more resources to the venture, like the California National Guard?

There's multiple reasons why someone in CA might not want the California National Guard to patrol the border.

I can't imagine that it's cheap to do such a thing.
And there's something called the United States Border Patrol.

[Shofercia]

If you want the drug traffickers caught, why not devote more resources to the venture, like the California National Guard?

Because that's not what they'l be used for. They'll be used to put families from Central America who are coming here as asylum seekers into dog kennels for unlimited periods of time. Normally, I don't like to sound emotionally partisan when I can avoid it, but this is the stark truth of the matter.

When operating on Californian Soil, doesn't the National Guard answer to the Governor, and not the President? And if that's the case, can't the Governor, be it Brown, Newsom, or Cox, limit their mandate and womandate to drug traffickers? I don't want them splitting up families either.

[Shofercia]

If you want the drug traffickers caught, why not devote more resources to the venture, like the California National Guard?

There's multiple reasons why someone in CA might not want the California National Guard to patrol the border.

I can't imagine that it's cheap to do such a thing.
And there's something called the United States Border Patrol.

Unfortunately, the USBP doesn't adhere to our state policy, which is to avoid harming illegal aliens who committed no other felonies. As a result, local law enforcement isn't cooperating with them, and Brown and Trump have ginormous egos, too big to sit down and maturely discuss the situation. Add a few morons like Mirkarimi, who treat all illegal aliens equally, irrespective of whether they're felons or not, and you have a gorgeous cluster fuck.

[Shrillland]

Because that's not what they'l be used for. They'll be used to put families from Central America who are coming here as asylum seekers into dog kennels for unlimited periods of time. Normally, I don't like to sound emotionally partisan when I can avoid it, but this is the stark truth of the matter.

When operating on Californian Soil, doesn't the National Guard answer to the Governor, and not the President? And if that's the case, can't the Governor, be it Brown, Newsom, or Cox, limit their mandate and womandate to drug traffickers? I don't want them splitting up families either.

You are indeed correct. Except that Trump could instruct Sessions to federalise the National Guard like Kennedy and Johnson did back in the 60s, so that they could become answerable and take orders from Trump, and I wouldn't put it past him to try it.

[Shofercia]

When operating on Californian Soil, doesn't the National Guard answer to the Governor, and not the President? And if that's the case, can't the Governor, be it Brown, Newsom, or Cox, limit their mandate and womandate to drug traffickers? I don't want them splitting up families either.

You are indeed correct. Except that Trump could instruct Sessions to federalise the National Guard like Kennedy and Johnson did back in the 60s, so that they could become answerable and take orders from Trump, and I wouldn't put it past him to try it.

So couldn't the mandate/womandate say that if Trump nationalizes the Guard, the mandate/womandate no long applies, and we're back to the cluster fuck with the USBP?

[Shrillland]

You are indeed correct. Except that Trump could instruct Sessions to federalise the National Guard like Kennedy and Johnson did back in the 60s, so that they could become answerable and take orders from Trump, and I wouldn't put it past him to try it.

So couldn't the mandate/womandate say that if Trump nationalizes the Guard, the mandate/womandate no long applies, and we're back to the cluster fuck with the USBP?

Not necessarily. It would be a lot harder for local law enforcement to refuse to cooperate with what effectively becomes part of the armed forces at that point. Sure, the military cannot be used as civilian police, but Trump could grant them wide latitude to do what he thinks is necessary.

[Shrillland]

All right, everyone, polls are now closed in Alabama. Only one race to look at, but it's a loyalty litmus test one, and it'll be a bit before numbers come in.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

All right, everyone, polls are now closed in Alabama. Only one race to look at, but it's a loyalty litmus test one, and it'll be a bit before numbers come in.

Early numbers showing that Rep. Roby could run away with it.

[Shrillland]

All right, I'm calling it.

GOP AL-2(Montgomery-Dothan): Martha Roby

And that's it. I'll have my analysis of next week in the next post.

[Mosleyberg]

Voting in Michigan's gubernatorial primaries and I have to vote in the Libertarian primaries because everyone running is either corrupt establishment or absolutely nuts. Not even sure who I am voting for for the rest. There's no choice anymore.

[Shrillland]

Now for my take on next week.

Georgia Take Two: When we last left Georgia, their governor's race looked like it would be the surprise of November...until Bredesen stood in Tennessee. But the GOP did not get their candidate chosen, leaving Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle and Secretary of State Brian Kemp. As Therm pointed out in an aborted version of this thread, the campaign has only gotten more intense, especially after an audio tape from last month showed that Cagle pushed through a school choice measure that he personally opposed just to get more donations. Since then, even incumbent governor Nathan Deal's endorsement may not be enough to save him with a UGA poll putting Kemp in the lead. However, Cagle has been showing that Kemp was not an unequivocal supporter of Trump in the '16 election, and loyalty has been a big factor this time around. There's still a lot of undecideds, but I think Kemp can pull it off. As for November, that's now up in the air.

On the the house. Two Democratic races went on the next week's runoff, starting with the 6th(Alpharetta-Dunwoody). Here, Everytown for Gun Safety spokeswoman Lucy McBath got a close lead back in May against Tech consulting firm head Kevin Abel(who, incidentally, is an immigrant from South Africa originally. Not making a point, just think it's kind of cool). It's a soul primary, centrist vs. progressive, but I think that McBath will pull it off. As for November...I'm still leaning for Karen Handel to win that one.

Next, we have the 7th(Norcross-Duluth). Here, the race was closer still, with GSU professor Carolyn Bourdeaux leading by only 435 votes against test prep company head and publisher of Teen Ink magazine, David Kim. The party mostly seems to be standing behind Bourdeaux at the moment, and it seems like she should win....but Crowley was supposed to win in New York too. Even so, Georgia is not New York, and I think that Bourdeaux will win it. As for November, Rob Woodall is still the more likely candidate, but it could change by Election Day.

[Zurkerx]

Here's my prediction as of 7/18:

http://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/8roPWl

[Washington Resistance Army]

I can't really see any situation in which the Dems win majority in the Senate. That just seems way too unlikely this year.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

Here's my prediction as of 7/18:

http://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/8roPWl

Right now I don't see that, TN should come back at some point, WV is touch-and-go because whatever President Trump does might decide that race, FL- Scott's lead might be overblown and was not expecting a tightening until later