2016 elections - because it's never too early

[DGuller]

Sounds like it.  And the job is at campaign HQ in Brooklyn, so I imagine one way or the other it goes away after November.  If Trump wins, then I guess I'm getting deported to Mexico.

So it is a short-term 6 month contract?  How is that even remotely attractive?  Unless the pay is really, really good.

No idea.  Data scientists aren't exactly the kinds of people hurting for opportunities.  And I can't imagine how they can be useful with only a couple of months to ply their trade, though I could be wrong about that.

[Valmy]

Does Puerto Rico lean Democratic?  If so, there seems no incentive for a Republican controlled congress to agree to increasing the number of Democratic senators by two.

Maybe. But it is not like the Democrats have rushed to bring them into the Union when they have been in control. It is complicated...and by complicated I mean stupid. Inertia is DC is inexorable.

[alfred russel]

Does Puerto Rico lean Democratic?  If so, there seems no incentive for a Republican controlled congress to agree to increasing the number of Democratic senators by two.

Maybe. But it is not like the Democrats have rushed to bring them into the Union when they have been in control. It is complicated...and by complicated I mean stupid. Inertia is DC is inexorable.

It isn't just DC. There is controversy about becoming a state in Puerto Rico as well.

[alfred russel]

Sounds like it.  And the job is at campaign HQ in Brooklyn, so I imagine one way or the other it goes away after November.  If Trump wins, then I guess I'm getting deported to Mexico.

So it is a short-term 6 month contract?  How is that even remotely attractive?  Unless the pay is really, really good.

No idea.  Data scientists aren't exactly the kinds of people hurting for opportunities.  And I can't imagine how they can be useful with only a couple of months to ply their trade, though I could be wrong about that.

I imagine major campaigns are general clusterfucks of organization. Everyone is on a really short term gig, funding is always variable, lots of people with their own agenda, also lots of people who are true believers (ie, take everything way too seriously), tons of public scrutiny, geographical dispersed, etc.

[Valmy]

It isn't just DC. There is controversy about becoming a state in Puerto Rico as well.

Maybe. But there has never even been a binding vote on the subject.

[Zanza]

Is there a downside to being a US state as opposed to a territory?

[Berkut]

There needs to be a "Choose one" vote. People will always vote for the status quo if that is an option, and the current disaster makes it pretty clear that status quo should not be an option.

Full statehood, or independence. Take your pick.

[garbon]

There needs to be a "Choose one" vote. People will always vote for the status quo if that is an option, and the current disaster makes it pretty clear that status quo should not be an option.

Full statehood, or independence. Take your pick.

I didn't recall it but the two step vote in 2012 actually showed Puerto Rico wanting to become a state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2012

[Barrister]

Is there a downside to being a US state as opposed to a territory?

IIRC they'd have to pay federal taxes, which they don't now.

[Admiral Yi]

Is there a downside to being a US state as opposed to a territory?

Not sure about the other US territories, but residents of PR don't pay any federal income tax.

[Valmy]

Is there a downside to being a US state as opposed to a territory?

Yes. In exchange for having no representation in the US government you more self rule and you pay less taxes.

There needs to be a "Choose one" vote. People will always vote for the status quo if that is an option, and the current disaster makes it pretty clear that status quo should not be an option.

Full statehood, or independence. Take your pick.

Yep.

[Valmy]

There needs to be a "Choose one" vote. People will always vote for the status quo if that is an option, and the current disaster makes it pretty clear that status quo should not be an option.

Full statehood, or independence. Take your pick.

I didn't recall it but the two step vote in 2012 actually showed Puerto Rico wanting to become a state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2012

The first question muddies the water. It is hard to tell if a majority actually wanted statehood. We know 54% wanted to end territory status, but doubtful that means over 50% wanted to both end territory status AND become a state.

Barely any support for independence though. Probably even less so now.

[garbon]

There needs to be a "Choose one" vote. People will always vote for the status quo if that is an option, and the current disaster makes it pretty clear that status quo should not be an option.

Full statehood, or independence. Take your pick.

I didn't recall it but the two step vote in 2012 actually showed Puerto Rico wanting to become a state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2012

The first question muddies the water. It is hard to tell if a majority actually wanted statehood. We know 54% wanted to end territory status, but doubtful that means over 50% wanted to both end territory status AND become a state.

Barely any support for independence though. Probably even less so now.

That's fair. If you use the base of everyone who answered the first question then you end up with like 46% picking statehood. Of course, I believe you could always answer both questions, so too bad for the people who chose not to answer it.

At any rate, doesn't appear Congress did much with those results.

[Valmy]

At any rate, doesn't appear Congress did much with those results.

There was a bill introduced last year by the PR rep but it got sent to committee where it still resides. Probably indefinitely

[alfred russel]

I'd vote to derecognize Georgia as a state if it meant no more federal income taxes. That is a pretty sweet set up.