U.S. Politics - Oh no! Here we Don McGahn. Recuse or pack.

[DMC]

55 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Please, to say the DOJ and the government in general has been doing everything it can to protect the vote ignores how so many officials have spent a long time trying to pretend the situation isn't as bad as it actually is.

Please, accusing the DOJ's civil rights division and the person who runs it - Kristen Clarke, who has devoted her entire adult live to advancing civil and voting rights - of not caring is both laughably ignorant of how government works and offensively arrogant.

[Fez]

Whelp, I woke up at 6am with a big pit in my stomach...it must be election day!

About to head out to vote. Shame though that I live in a deep blue district and Virginia has no statewide elections this year, so I can't have a direct say in how things turns out.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately) I live in one of those swingy states (Michigan) with numerous important choices on the ballot. The most (more so than any elected official) is Prop 3 of course, and only slightly less so is Prop 2. Will also be interesting to see how redistricting affects the results here, after the citizen-led petition got an independent committee to reduce gerrymandering..

Regarding the 'hopium' that some liberals seem to have ingested, suffice to say I dont feel the same and am very concerned about today.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

As of 2 minutes ago we’ve had 225 voter.  Three have tried to tell me how this is all “fixed”.

[Maithanet]

39 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Regarding the 'hopium' that some liberals seem to have ingested, suffice to say I dont feel the same and am very concerned about today.

I think that there's a decent chance Dems overperform, but they need to overperform by a lot to even make much difference.  I mean, all elections matter, but if polls are exactly right, Dems have 50 senate seats and 200 house.  If they overperform a bit, it's 51 and 210.  That is...really not a meaningful difference except maybe for the potential to hold the Senate in 2024 (which even with 51 is a very tall order). 

Now if they overperform a LOT, then they could hold the House and get 52 in the Senate and that would be a HUGE deal.  But there's no indication that's about to happen.

[Jaxom 1974]

Longest line I've ever recalled voting in my district here in Wisconsin...but still in and put in 30 minutes...

(Gonna be better than people expect today...except the part where any and all Republicans who lose won't accept it...)

[DMC]

53 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Regarding the 'hopium' that some liberals seem to have ingested, suffice to say I dont feel the same and am very concerned about today.

While I'm not sure what this is referring to I think some perspective should be emphasized before everybody loses their minds.  If things go about as everybody is forecasting, it will be Republicans - not Democrats - who underperformed.  Take Sabato's final predictions - he's usually the most conservative/right-leaning of the big 3 prognosticators.  He's got the GOP picking up 1 seat in the Senate (Dems win NV, GOP wins GA and PA); 24 seats for 237 total in the House; and picking up one governorship (GOP winning AZ, KS, NV, WI).

In a vacuum, that's a "good" night.  But when you consider the contextual/environmental factors, the GOP should be expecting to have a great night - at least 54 seats in the Senate, 245/50 in the House, and at least a couple more governorships.  Now, to be clear, that still could happen, but it's on the tail end of most forecasts.  And the GOP clearly blew the opportunity to do so - at least easily - with the lack of candidate quality/recruitment.

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Regarding the 'hopium' that some liberals seem to have ingested, suffice to say I dont feel the same and am very concerned about today.

As a personality psychologist I know that some people are more energized by optimism, while others are "defensive pessimists" who are more motivated by their pessimistic outlook. It's just too bad we can't insure that all of the voters on our side end up with the attitude that most motivates them personally on election day.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Please, accusing the DOJ's civil rights division and the person who runs it - Kristen Clarke, who has devoted her entire adult live to advancing civil and voting rights - of not caring is both laughably ignorant of how government works and offensively arrogant.

I didn't say she didn't care. I'm saying they're doing a piss poor job and I've seen little evidence to the contrary. 

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

In a vacuum, that's a "good" night.  But when you consider the contextual/environmental factors, the GOP should be expecting to have a great night - at least 54 seats in the Senate, 245/50 in the House, and at least a couple more governorships.  Now, to be clear, that still could happen, but it's on the tail end of most forecasts.  And the GOP clearly blew the opportunity to do so - at least easily - with the lack of candidate quality/recruitment.

But we're in a situation where even a good night for Republicans could realistically shut out Democrats from ever getting back into power.  If Republicans win 51 seats in the Senate, they'll surely expand that margin in 2024 (horrific cycle) and likely shut out of the Senate for many years. 

And that's not even getting into the anti-democratic candidates at the state level.  The man running for governor of Wisconsin has openly said that if he wins Democrats will never win in Wisconsin ever again.  Likewise the governor and SoS in Arizona have basically pledged that no Democratic victory is possible in Arizona.  Also the Nevada SoS, and the list goes on.  If the Republicans slightly overperform their polls, it is realistic that they win the 2024 Presidential election tonight.  You can see how people might be a bit panicky about this. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I didn't say she didn't care. I'm saying they're doing a piss poor job and I've seen little evidence to the contrary. 

First of all, yes you did say people at the DOJ didn't care:

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Cool, so they're showing up like three months too late. Talk about looking like you want to say, "see, I tried" while not actually doing jack shit. 

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Please, to say the DOJ and the government in general has been doing everything it can to protect the vote ignores how so many officials have spent a long time trying to pretend the situation isn't as bad as it actually is.

Whether you're aware of it or not, that was a direct attack on the civil rights division.  That's what the press release Longrider posted and you responded to was explicitly about - the division's enforcement of federal voting rights laws.  Moreover, it is laughably ignorant to suggest the division as currently constituted isn't doing everything they are able to do - and been preparing for the obvious threats and difficulties of this election cycle.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

If Republicans win 51 seats in the Senate, they'll surely expand that margin in 2024 (horrific cycle) and likely shut out of the Senate for many years. 

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

If the Republicans slightly overperform their polls, it is realistic that they win the 2024 Presidential election tonight.

These are decidedly silly assumptions to make which are indeed panicky.  No one has any idea what the environment is going to look like in two years and while the Dems have a difficult map in 2024 that hardly means they'll be "shut out" of the Senate for "many years."  Particularly considering routine shifts in power has been the norm for both the House and Senate over the past twenty or so years.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

The former US ambassador to the United Nations and South Carolina governor Nikki Haley told Republicans at a rally for Herschel Walker the Democrat in the Georgia US Senate race, the Rev Raphael Warnock, should be “deported”.

Outcry as Republican Nikki Haley says Raphael Warnock should be ‘deported’
Comments from former South Carolina governor and UN envoy, seen as a potential 2024 candidate, draw widespread criticism

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/07/republican-nikki-haley-raphael-warnock-deported

 

[Gaston de Foix]

Isn't this the David Shor thesis? I haven't reviewed it carefully, but he has been warning about the GOP winning the trifecta in 2024 for a while.  The gods love bold predictions, so his reputation as a sage may not endure, but a lot of serious people sure take Shor seriously. 

That said, I think people consistently underestimate how effectively Congress can legislative during the lame-duck session to prevent the risks of a Wisconsin governor, or a Republican supermajority legislature, steals the election for DJT or the next Republican candidate.  God knows why it hasn't been done yet, but it's not too late. 

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Isn't this the David Shor thesis? I haven't reviewed it carefully, but he has been warning about the GOP winning the trifecta in 2024 for a while. 

To be clear, a Republican trifecta in 2024 is eminently possible.  That isn't really that bold of a prediction.  But will a good and/or great night tonight "ensure" that for Republicans?  Well, it will certainly help them hold the Senate, no argument there.  But the GOP taking the House and subsequently acting as batshit as they promise to be could very well lead to significant backlash in two years that will hinder their ability to retain the House and win the presidency.

[Gaston de Foix]

46 minutes ago, DMC said:

While I'm not sure what this is referring to I think some perspective should be emphasized before everybody loses their minds.  If things go about as everybody is forecasting, it will be Republicans - not Democrats - who underperformed.  Take Sabato's final predictions - he's usually the most conservative/right-leaning of the big 3 prognosticators.  He's got the GOP picking up 1 seat in the Senate (Dems win NV, GOP wins GA and PA); 24 seats for 237 total in the House; and picking up one governorship (GOP winning AZ, KS, NV, WI).

In a vacuum, that's a "good" night.  But when you consider the contextual/environmental factors, the GOP should be expecting to have a great night - at least 54 seats in the Senate, 245/50 in the House, and at least a couple more governorships.  Now, to be clear, that still could happen, but it's on the tail end of most forecasts.  And the GOP clearly blew the opportunity to do so - at least easily - with the lack of candidate quality/recruitment.

Maybe, but structural factors for the Senate were just bad for the GOP in 2022, no?  14 Dems and 20 Reps are up for election.  Only NH, NV, GA, and CO ever represented real pick-up opportunities for the Reps, while the Dems have recently (going back to 2014-6) been competitive in WI, PA, FL, OH, NC, MO, IA, IN.  And the Dems have good candidates, Ryan, Demings etc who will nonetheless probably lose.   

[Gaston de Foix]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

But the GOP taking the House and subsequently acting as batshit as they promise to be could very well lead to significant backlash in two years that will hinder their ability to retain the House and win the presidency.

From your lips to God's ears (swinging between poly and monotheism these days).  I've been drinking copious amounts of hopium to fortify myself for tonight.  But after the sugar-rush fades, the dread creeps back in.  

[Maithanet]

I remain firm in the statement that if Republicans win the governorships and SoS of most of the swing states tonight, that a Democrat winning the WH in 2024 is dramatically less likely.  Not impossible (no one knows the future), but not at all likely.  2020 was a good dress rehearsal for how to steal the election via soft coup, and that is definitely the plan for a lot of the people running. 

[Ormond]

Just got back from voting here in Omaha. One of the election workers turned out to be a personal friend of mine, which was nice. They told me so far in the first two hours the voting rate was about normal. 

I'm disappointed because the Democrats in Nebraska didn't field any candidates for statewide office other than Governor.  The only person running against the state Attorney General was from the "Legal Marijuana NOW" party. If anyone had told me ten years ago that I would ever be voting for the candidate of the Legal Marijuana NOW party for my state's Attorney General I would have told them they were crazy, but that's what I just did.

Also, Nebraska is one of the states where the governor appoints all judges, but then you have "retention elections" every few years where the ballot question is "Shall Judge Soandso of Suchandsuch Court by retained? Yes or No". The parties the judges belong to aren't listed on the ballot, but when doing my pre-election homework last night I saw every single judge on my ballot was Republican. So I voted "No" on retention for all of them. In the past I've always done the opposite and always voted "Yes" to retain judges but I decided to do a protest vote this time. Republicans as a party are just too horrible to even vote to retain a judge. 

[Gaston de Foix]

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I remain firm in the statement that if Republicans win the governorships and SoS of most of the swing states tonight, that a Democrat winning the WH in 2024 is dramatically less likely.  Not impossible (no one knows the future), but not at all likely.  2020 was a good dress rehearsal for how to steal the election via soft coup, and that is definitely the plan for a lot of the people running. 

IMHO, all you need is the Supreme Court to accept a strong version of ISL.  If state legislatures can allocate electoral votes as they see fit, all they need to do is pass legislation saying electoral votes go to the Republican ticket.  If states can split the electoral college vote amongst CDs, or join the National Popular Vote compact, then they can just ignore the statewide popular vote in favor of a predetermined outcome.