Jump to content

US Politics: Fate of congress hangs in the Ballots


A Horse Named Stranger

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, DMC said:

Heh, I just finished looking up clips of FNC to enjoy their whining and crying - Marc Theissen definitely got in the spirit of joining Team DeSanctimonious - and finished with Hannity's (I'm assuming) opening segment.  One thing he honed in on that I can't help but agree with is how ridiculous it is both Arizona and Nevada - and California - take so fucking long counting results. 

I say this every two years, but I guess each state needs to blow a presidential election and change the course of history to figure out how to count ballots quickly, because Florida is now the gold standard in reporting results as fast as possible despite being the third largest state in the country.  New York often sucks at this too btw, albeit they seem much improved this cycle.

Isn't part of this the fact that the law on mail-in ballots in these states says that ballots postmarked on Election Day must be counted even if they arrive several days later? Though that may not be all of the issue, as long as their laws stay that way it will mean in very close elections you won't have results until a week later. And I'm not sure I disagree with that aspect of their laws -- this seems like the opposite of voter suppression, but a way to increase overall voter participation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Isn't it time that with such a high population that the US added at least a second day of voting?

Most states already have early voting, which adds way more than just one more day to the days one can vote. In Georgia, early voting for their runoff begins a week prior to the election date, for example. There are many states where early voting before the regular election lasted a lot longer than a week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DMC said:

...One thing he honed in on that I can't help but agree with is how ridiculous it is both Arizona and Nevada - and California - take so fucking long counting results...

On the other hand, one of the drivers for the long count is the preponderance of mail-in ballots.  In AZ and CA, voters can mail in their ballot on Election Day, so some of the ballots are still in the USPS system.  Or voters can bring them to drop boxes.

Subsequently, the judges of elections need to collect all of those ballots, and then verify the signatures on the mail-in ballots from both drop boxes and those arriving via USPS.  This is the same procedure as voting in person, where the election officials take and compare your signature to the registration records, at least here in AZ.  Then the envelopes are preserved with the ballots for later vouching and tracing in official ballot audits, in another parallel to the signature register check for in-person balloting.

So the in-person ballots can be fed to the voting systems and collated immediately via computer, but the mail-in ballots are a far more manual process with multiple pieces of paper instead of a single signature register, prior to being input to the voting system.

Therefore mail-in balloting, or at least the processing and preservation of ballot evidence thereof, does take a while to do properly.  But I would argue that along with Motor Voter, Mail-In Ballots are a significant driver for increased voter participation and improved "turnout", since in our case, we can turn out in our living room.

Furthermore, my own opinion is that a voter, sitting in his or her living room with the ballot and a voter guide, may make more informed, and therefore better choices, than a voter walking into the local senior center, standing in a line, and feeling the pressure to vote quickly.  Since I prefer that citizens vote on ideas rather than personalities, I am willing to wait a little bit on the results if that means more of the citizenry has given their vote some thought beyond just pulling the lever on "R" or "D".

Edit - And that is in a well-ordered county like Maricopa.  In counties with, uh, "other priorities" like Cochise County, they are doing hand-recounts despite judges' orders not to do so.  Despite having far fewer citizens and votes to count than an urban county like Maricopa, the "stop the fraud" hand counts in Cochise are not improving the speed of reporting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Does anyone know the latest on House control? I know there's an extremely narrow pathway for Dems, but not finding a good resource that is up-to-date and gives the latest info. NYTimes website useless.  

Good is kinda relative and dependent on your preferences for lay out etc.

Personally, I find The Guardian website quite good.

Scroll down a bit, there you'll find the district map and hover over the district of your choice, if you want more than what they labeled key races.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Does anyone know the latest on House control? I know there's an extremely narrow pathway for Dems, but not finding a good resource that is up-to-date and gives the latest info. NYTimes website useless.  

I think ABC News has a good layout, and they are very up-to-date

https://abcnews.go.com/Elections/2022-us-house-election-results-live-map

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Does anyone know the latest on House control? I know there's an extremely narrow pathway for Dems, but not finding a good resource that is up-to-date and gives the latest info. NYTimes website useless.  

The situation in the House is very slow moving, as we are waiting on the mail in states to process a lot of votes.  Most of the races we're waiting on are in CA, OR and WA, and it will be several more days (possibly well into next week) before we have a complete/nearly complete picture. 

Major news sites are going to tell you the actual calls, but I think what you're looking for is more of the informed guesswork of "X many ballots left, that favors candidate Y".  People are definitely doing that work, and we'll get a much clearer picture of where things stand today and tomorrow.  There definitely are smart people on election twitter who think that the Democrats have the votes and will win the House.  But I think that the more common opinion is that the the Republicans will hold a very narrow majority (220-215 or so). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So crying into their beer by the media today is all about the reich and the elections and getting things wrong, and who is hatin' on whom -- evidently the Maine reich celebration gub party turned into a brawl as the loser left and the rest drunkenly began fighting -- https://www.rawstory.com/paul-lepage-2658627180/ --

Quote

 

.... LePage, who previously served as Maine's governor for two terms, has a long history of making racist statements and also making threats of physical violence against his political rivals.

With all of this baggage, Mills had little trouble dispatching LePage on Tuesday night's election, as she defeated him by roughly 16 percentage points in a race that was called quickly after polls closed. ....

 

has replaced eyerolling re the melon and twit. 

Media you are so pathetic and predictable. :rolleyes:

And President Biden:  We say, "About time!"


Biden says Elon Musk’s foreign connections are ‘worth being looked at’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/10/biden-elon-musk-twitter-foreign-ties/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The situation in the House is very slow moving, as we are waiting on the mail in states to process a lot of votes.  Most of the races we're waiting on are in CA, OR and WA, and it will be several more days (possibly well into next week) before we have a complete/nearly complete picture. 

Major news sites are going to tell you the actual calls, but I think what you're looking for is more of the informed guesswork of "X many ballots left, that favors candidate Y".  People are definitely doing that work, and we'll get a much clearer picture of where things stand today and tomorrow.  There definitely are smart people on election twitter who think that the Democrats have the votes and will win the House.  But I think that the more common opinion is that the the Republicans will hold a very narrow majority (220-215 or so). 

Yep, that's what I thought and assembling the mosaic is painstaking work. 

I doubt it will happen too, but whether Biden has any legislative agenda left from January 2023 onwards will depend on the House.  Even if Rs take control, the size of the margin and the rules adopted will be crucial.  The Child Tax Credit seems like the best one can hope for. 

I think the stars are in alignment in the lame-duck session for ECA reform, for same-sex marriage legalization, and Manchin's permitting reform.  Those would be valuable things to accomplish and give Biden an outstanding set of legislative (and bipartisan) accomplishments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The situation in the House is very slow moving, as we are waiting on the mail in states to process a lot of votes.  Most of the races we're waiting on are in CA, OR and WA, and it will be several more days (possibly well into next week) before we have a complete/nearly complete picture. 

Major news sites are going to tell you the actual calls, but I think what you're looking for is more of the informed guesswork of "X many ballots left, that favors candidate Y".  People are definitely doing that work, and we'll get a much clearer picture of where things stand today and tomorrow.  There definitely are smart people on election twitter who think that the Democrats have the votes and will win the House.  But I think that the more common opinion is that the the Republicans will hold a very narrow majority (220-215 or so). 

Yeah, Democrats hitting 215 doesn't seem too hard to me at this point (but not guaranteed yet!), though it does rely on some existing patterns in mail ballots to hold up in places.

Getting the final 3 seats is hard. CO-3 (Boebert's seat) is pretty much vital. And then it comes down a combo of a couple reach CA seats having disproportionately Dem-leaning mail or a Dem comeback in OR-5, AZ-6, or NY-22. Getting two seats out of that seems unlikely, but not impossible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who thinks that "Georgia goes to runoffs" was prematurely called? Warnock went from 49.2% to 49.6%, so only he needs about 16 000 more votes. From what I saw, most of the remaining votes are from the Atlanta area, and there are way more than 16 000 of them. Then again, I don't know how reliable the estimate of remaining votes to count actually is.

At this point, Warnock winning without a runoff seems more likely than a Democratic win in Nevada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Republicans have a tiny majority, then any small group of Republicans will have the power to unseat the Speaker.  We have no doubt that the Freedom Caucus will have a list of unreasonable demands, but it's quite possible that the moderate wing (which has made a small comeback this election in NY/NJ) will also have requirements, and they may be the polar opposite of what the Freedom Caucus wants. 

It seems entirely possible that if there are 220 Republicans in the House that there isn't a single member that can get the majority.  And if they can decide on someone, that Speaker may be very, very short lived.  We might see a repeat of the Tories in England these days, where the different factions are all strong enough to bring down the government but not to actually do anything.  Fortunately for them, no one will be expecting them to actually pass legislation with Biden as President.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

Yeah, Democrats hitting 215 doesn't seem too hard to me at this point (but not guaranteed yet!), though it does rely on some existing patterns in mail ballots to hold up in places.

Getting the final 3 seats is hard. CO-3 (Boebert's seat) is pretty much vital. And then it comes down a combo of a couple reach CA seats having disproportionately Dem-leaning mail or a Dem comeback in OR-5, AZ-6, or NY-22. Getting two seats out of that seems unlikely, but not impossible. 

Would the Republicans really adopt the Hastert rule in such a narrow Congress? By requiring a majority of a majority, you basically destroy the leverage any Speaker had to cut deals with a Dem President or Senate.  If I recall correctly, it's one of the reasons the Boehner-Obama grand bargain flew like a turkey.  But McCarthy's a wimp who wants the big office and the marble fireplace more than anything else, so... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

If the Republicans have a tiny majority, then any small group of Republicans will have the power to unseat the Speaker.  We have no doubt that the Freedom Caucus will have a list of unreasonable demands, but it's quite possible that the moderate wing (which has made a small comeback this election in NY/NJ) will also have requirements, and they may be the polar opposite of what the Freedom Caucus wants. 

It seems entirely possible that if there are 220 Republicans in the House that there isn't a single member that can get the majority.  And if they can decide on someone, that Speaker may be very, very short lived.  We might see a repeat of the Tories in England these days, where the different factions are all strong enough to bring down the government but not to actually do anything.  Fortunately for them, no one will be expecting them to actually pass legislation with Biden as President.  

That's why, if it winds up actually a 218-217 Republican majority, I would not be too surprised if eventually Democrats come to a deal with someone like Dan Newhouse or Brian Fitzpatrick for them to be Speaker with Democratic votes. Do a deal that there will be clean debt ceiling and budget bills and otherwise all sit tight for 2 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fez said:

That's why, if it winds up actually a 218-217 Republican majority, I would not be too surprised if eventually Democrats come to a deal with someone like Dan Newhouse or Brian Fitzpatrick for them to be Speaker with Democratic votes. Do a deal that there will be clean debt ceiling and budget bills and otherwise all sit tight for 2 years. 

@Fez @Maithanet, you both seem quite skeptical that a narrowly divided Congress is the end of the road for Biden's legislative agenda. 

Maybe that's how it will work out in practice, but in theory, a Dem President and Dem Senate should be bending over backwards to cut deals with the Republican leadership or a small number of moderates to pass legislation no? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again!!!!! the media!!!! Good God!!!!

One of the NYT pundits opens his Big Think Piece on the tsunami that couldn't by speaking of Biden's "Houdini escape' of the midterms curse.  Not a frakin' word about women, younger gen, latino, activism, get out the votism, that Dem candidates have actual policies that they speak for, articulately, o no.  Just a professional sleight of hand artist's tricks.

When it's been the reichs who have been pounding their one trick of cruelty and insanity non stop for years.  

But suddenly this morning it seems the reich adjacent seem to have noticed that tax cuts for billionaires and perpetual torment for women maybe didn't cut it as a platform for many.  

Media.  It never ever changes its spots, never ever learns, just keeps doing the same shyte over and over and over -- while getting rich from the insanity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

Most states already have early voting, which adds way more than just one more day to the days one can vote. In Georgia, early voting for their runoff begins a week prior to the election date, for example. There are many states where early voting before the regular election lasted a lot longer than a week. 

I know that. And along with mail in ballots they're necessary. But maybe an extra day of physical voting will reduce Republican grumblings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What’s the remaining vote?

From the CNN website, 1%. However, it doesn't make sense, because when you go into actual county map, a lot of high-population ones have estimated counts of 90-95%. For example, DeKalb county, which Warnock won 84-14, is at 91%, meaning there 27 000 votes left just in that one county.

This is why I was wondering how reliable this information is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...