US Politics: Fate of congress hangs in the Ballots

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

@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? 

I'm not sure what your first sentence is really saying.  If the Dems get 51 seats in teh Senate and 219 in House (basically a best case scenario right now), then I expect they will pass relatively limited legislation.  Probably less than the past 2 years, although it will be something.

If it's a Dem Senate and exactly 218 Republican seats, then maybe they pass the essential bills and nothing else. 

If it's the Republicans with 219 or more seats, then it will be extremely challenging to get anything but the most essential bills passed.  Even the debt ceiling and the basic budget might get held up by the Freedom Caucus, so it really remains to be seen what happens. 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

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?

1 hour ago, Wilbur said:

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.

Being able to mail in your ballot up to Election Day - which notably Florida does not have - is not the primary problem.  As we were discussing just yesterday, these aren't the overwhelming portion of uncounted ballots in Clark and Washoe that we're still waiting on - it's primarily the drop boxes.  Same goes for the 619 thousand uncounted ballots in Arizona.  Indeed, election officials point to the drop boxes being open on election day as the main reason for the delays. 

But drop boxes for mail-in ballots are available until polls close on election day in Florida too.  Hell, in 2020 more than 82 percent of the Florida votes were by mail, but they still managed to count and report most of the results before midnight.  Now, maybe this is because more Arizonans than Floridians wait til the last minute to drop off their ballot, or a staffing thing, or because of the different process - I'm pretty sure in Arizona they take all the mail ballots to a centralized location, maybe that slows them down.  But what's annoying is there's no impetus to fix it - again, like Florida blowing a presidential election - even though it's clear if they wanted to they could figure out ways to dramatically speed up the counting.

[Fez]

12 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

@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? 

Republican House moderates (and there's only maybe 5 or 6 actually worth that name anymore, the rest are all varying degrees of crazy) have never shown an interest or ability in bucking GOP leadership. And I don't think that is likely to change at all now. A Republican House means pure gridlock. The only exception might be if there is literally a one-seat majority, because then Democrats can offer the enticement of being Speaker to get a flip. Which is probably what it'll take, because it'd be the end of their congressional career come January 2025.

Of course, thanks to the filibuster there's only so much even a pure Democratic majority could get done; though I am more optimistic than DMC about McConnell still willing to compromise on stuff his members want. 

[Gaston de Foix]

18 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

If it's the Republicans with 219 or more seats, then it will be extremely challenging to get anything but the most essential bills passed.  Even the debt ceiling and the basic budget might get held up by the Freedom Caucus, so it really remains to be seen what happens. 

Yeah, this is the key question.  You would hope that 5-6 Republican moderates from Biden 2020 districts in a Republican House would be willing to buck leadership to pass a clean debt ceiling and or a CR to stop a government shut-down.  

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Yeah, this is the key question.  You would hope that 5-6 Republican moderates from Biden 2020 districts in a Republican House would be willing to buck leadership to pass a clean debt ceiling and or a CR to stop a government shut-down.  

I doubt it.  Moderate Republicans have shown very little stomach for a showdown with leadership (unlike the far right, who do it regularly). 

[maarsen]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

I doubt it.  Moderate Republicans have shown very little stomach for a showdown with leadership (unlike the far right, who do it regularly). 

The far right has no problem with showdowns as they know in the end they will not get their way and it is all theatre for their supporters. Moderates hate showdowns because they accomplish nothing.

[Gaston de Foix]

2 minutes ago, maarsen said:

The far right has no problem with showdowns as they know in the end they will not get their way and it is all theatre for their supporters. Moderates hate showdowns because they accomplish nothing.

Defaulting on the US debt, and government shut-downs are both bad politics.  Vulnerable Republicans have incentives to cooperate.  But, yeah, who knows? Dysfunction is endemic, and will almost certainly continue in one form or the other. 

Recent British politics showed us the amount of damage irresponsible economic management can inflict on the economy, so let's pray the Republicans don't. 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Would the Republicans really adopt the Hastert rule in such a narrow Congress?

To be clear, the Hastert rule is not a formal rule of the House, and has been "broken" on a number of occasions by Speakers of both parties.

1 hour 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. 

Whenever a party takes over the House there's always this speculation that the presumed Speaker won't be able to get to218 due to this or that, and it never comes to fruition.  That's because every member of the majority party caucus has a vested interest in not letting the minority party have a say in who is Speaker.  Now, granted, the GOP may well have the slimmest margin in a very long time - perhaps since that 1932 election I mentioned yesterday.  But it's not THAT much different than the 222 the Dems were working with two years ago, or even the slim margins the GOP had 20 to 25 years ago.

As Maith said, McCarthy is going to have to give concessions to a number of factions, but he will almost certainly be Speaker no matter the margin.  If Dan Newhouse or Brian Fitzpatrick cut a deal with the Dems to become Speaker, they might as well switch parties/caucus with the Dems because they would never win another Republican primary (albeit granted Newhouse is in a jungle primary system, but he should count on the Republicans supporting another candidate).

[Fez]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

To be clear, the Hastert rule is not a formal rule of the House, and has been "broken" on a number of occasions by Speakers of both parties.

Whenever a party takes over the House there's always this speculation that the presumed Speaker won't be able to get to218 due to this or that, and it never comes to fruition.  That's because every member of the majority party caucus has a vested interest in not letting the minority party have a say in who is Speaker.  Now, granted, the GOP may well have the slimmest margin in a very long time - perhaps since that 1932 election I mentioned yesterday.  But it's not THAT much different than the 222 the Dems were working with two years ago, or even the slim margins the GOP had 20 to 25 years ago.

As Maith said, McCarthy is going to have to give concessions to a number of factions, but he will almost certainly be Speaker no matter the margin.  If Dan Newhouse or Brian Fitzpatrick cut a deal with the Dems to become Speaker, they might as well switch parties/caucus with the Dems because they would never win another Republican primary (albeit granted Newhouse is in a jungle primary system, but he should count on the Republicans supporting another candidate).

Right, this would be a career ender. It's a question if one of them wants to end their career on such a high note. There's only been 54 Speakers so far in US history, it's quite a feather in the cap. Also, I'm not necessarily saying it would happen immediately, but perhaps after several months of chaos with the House failing to fulfill even basic functions. And only literally if its a 1-seat margin, because there's only 1 Speaker.

[Mindwalker]

Boebert now leading by several hundred votes. I call foul! Where are these votes suddenly coming from?! Stop the steal!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

Boebert now leading by several hundred votes. I call foul! Where are these votes suddenly coming from?! Stop the steal!

Do not lose heart!  We will take out the Colorado QNut.  

Edited November 10, 2022 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Larry of the Lake]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Do not lose heart!  We will take out the QNut Barbie.  

She sucks but can we not call her barbie?  

[Maithanet]

I don't know how credible this person is.  But if AK-AL is considered only Leans D, that is a good sign that they aren't just assuming Dem victories in places they are still uncertain, because a lot of people consider that one in the bag. 

EDIT:  I would say that the big difference I'm seeing between this and several other people's predictions is that a lot of those CA seats we really don't have a lot of information, but those are Republican incumbents.  Is it possible they get defeated?  Sure.  But they won in 2020, so it seems like most election observers are giving them the benefit of the doubt.  So if I had to guess, I'd say there's better than 50/50 odds that the Republicans win the majority of those 7 tossups. 

Edited November 10, 2022 by Maithanet

[Corvinus85]

12 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

Boebert now leading by several hundred votes. I call foul! Where are these votes suddenly coming from?! Stop the steal!

Has she started any stop the count chants yet?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

She sucks but can we not call her barbie?  

Sure…

[Paladin of Ice]

11 hours ago, mormont said:

I'm sure the GOP are now following their own advice to the Dems and reflecting on how best to reach out to voter groups who have rejected them.

Or not.

And meanwhile they are going to insist on keeping the acceptable age for being a mother to 10, and owning a gun to 18. Make of that what you will.

Edit: if Boebert does wind up winning, she and the GOP should be trolled with "Stop the Count" chants for eternity. She was down on election night, so she lost, right? that's the way this works according to them?

(Yeah, I know they don't care about hypocrisy, but it feels good to hit them with it.)

Edited November 10, 2022 by Paladin of Ice

[Gaston de Foix]

5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I don't know how credible this person is.  But if AK-AL is considered only Leans D, that is a good sign that they aren't just assuming Dem victories in places they are still uncertain, because a lot of people consider that one in the bag. 

@Taniel has prepared the helpful chart below. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1s-SH7EKOsn9lT32CWak5bYh9mMpkKnyaYGKWAgJVSJY/htmlview?pru=AAABhIbh3UQ*BJ3XzYnHE1fNUHfcw-qEyg#

According to him,  apart from holding all their current leads, Dems need to win 5 of the following districts where the GOP are currently ahead: AZ02, AZ06, CA03, CA13, CA22, CA27, CA41, CA45, CO03, MD06, NY22, OR05.

I hear MD06 is quite promising for Dems, so maybe only 4 left.  CO-03 and winning 3 of the California districts should do it. NY22 is looking pretty clearly R, so I would be tempted to remove it from the list.   

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But if AK-AL is considered only Leans D, that is a good sign that they aren't just assuming Dem victories in places they are still uncertain, because a lot of people consider that one in the bag. 

I wouldn't call those 4 California seats tossups.  The Republicans currently have strong leads in three of them and all four are sorted as likely/lean Republican by ABC.

[Gaston de Foix]

7 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

@Taniel has prepared the helpful chart below. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1s-SH7EKOsn9lT32CWak5bYh9mMpkKnyaYGKWAgJVSJY/htmlview?pru=AAABhIbh3UQ*BJ3XzYnHE1fNUHfcw-qEyg#

According to him,  apart from holding all their current leads, Dems need to win 5 of the following districts where the GOP are currently ahead: AZ02, AZ06, CA03, CA13, CA22, CA27, CA41, CA45, CO03, MD06, NY22, OR05.

I hear MD06 is quite promising for Dems, so maybe only 4 left.  CO-03 and winning 3 of the California districts should do it. NY22 is looking pretty clearly R, so I would be tempted to remove it from the list.   

Looking at this a bit more OR-05, CO-03, AZ-06, CA-13 are probably the best bets.  

[Gaston de Foix]

Can the Democrats redistrict in NY state before 2024?