|
NV news: https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/794791739420766208 quote:Dems win Clark by 11,000-plus, will be ahead overall there by 72K-plus, more than 2012. May be game over in NV for GOP.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
Neeksy posted:What I'm gathering is that women and ethnic minorities are what will save us from the fascist Hamburglar and that white males will largely be responsible for it from being the blowout it should be. Am I off or is the House/Senate still gonna be GOP in the face of all rational observation of their behavior since the 90s? The Senate is likely to go blue but it's not a lock. The House is probably out of reach.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Since the OP says the Democratic Party will most likely take the presidency will they actually be able to do things or will congress / senate cock block them? I'm not American so I'm not that familiar with your political system but wasn't Obama a lame duck because of that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
Garmann posted:Since the OP says the Democratic Party will most likely take the presidency will they actually be able to do things or will congress / senate cock block them? I'm not American so I'm not that familiar with your political system but wasn't Obama a lame duck because of that? "Lame Duck" is the term for a president after their successor is elected. That said, yes, Obama was given an absolutely absurd amount of obstructionism. The reason people are focused on the senate is because it would limit (but not prevent) the level of obstructionism that would be offered to a theoretical President Clinton. The big glowing neon sign here is the Supreme Court which the GOP has already said they will block as long as they are physically able.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
Garmann posted:Since the OP says the Democratic Party will most likely take the presidency will they actually be able to do things or will congress / senate cock block them? I'm not American so I'm not that familiar with your political system but wasn't Obama a lame duck because of that? As another non-American, Congress is out of reach but the Senate is very much contested right now. The hope is that the Democrats can seize the Senate, get a judge into the supreme court, and then do their best to make Hillary's Presidency super awesome enough for the mid-term elections/2020 presidential race.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
Garmann posted:Since the OP says the Democratic Party will most likely take the presidency will they actually be able to do things or will congress / senate cock block them? I'm not American so I'm not that familiar with your political system but wasn't Obama a lame duck because of that? If they take the Senate majority as well, they'll be set to do vastly more than this last session, but that isn't saying much given how inactive Congress has been as far as actually doing their jobs for the last few years. The part I'm hoping for is that the Dems take the Senate, and then the GOP tries to keep its hold on the Judicial committee so as to keep blocking SCOTUS elections, because it means every downticket race at the miderms can hammer that obstructionism against them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:The part I'm hoping for is that the Dems take the Senate, and then the GOP tries to keep its hold on the Judicial committee so as to keep blocking SCOTUS elections, because it means every downticket race at the miderms can hammer that obstructionism against them. The majority party also enjoys majority control of Senate committees, so "split control" of the Senate at large and the Senate Judiciary Committee is impossible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:The majority party also enjoys majority control of Senate committees, so "split control" of the Senate at large and the Senate Judiciary Committee is impossible. I know, but do you really think they won't try?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
Argas posted:As another non-American, Congress is out of reach but the Senate is very much contested right now. The hope is that the Democrats can seize the Senate, get a judge into the supreme court, and then do their best to make Hillary's Presidency super awesome enough for the mid-term elections/2020 presidential race. You're close. Congress is made up of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. So only 1/2 of congress is in play, namely the one that gets to vote on judges, appointments, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:You're close. Congress is made up of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. So only 1/2 of congress is in play, namely the one that gets to vote on judges, appointments, etc. Also importantly, treaties. Hope this wasn't off topic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:You're close. Congress is made up of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. So only 1/2 of congress is in play, namely the one that gets to vote on judges, appointments, etc. I'm bad at terminology because my understanding of the American political system is spotty as best and largely done through osmosis and observation of you guys. I usually think Congress + Senate, rather than Congress = House + Senate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
Argas posted:I'm bad at terminology because my understanding of the American political system is spotty as best and largely done through osmosis and observation of you guys. I usually think Congress + Senate, rather than Congress = House + Senate. So do probably 70% of Americans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
Hey guys and gals. I might be a steadfast lurker, but I just wanted to let you all know that I (and I think I can speak for many of the lurkers) love you all and I appreciate the wonderful posting you all do. You guys have been my morning news, my lunch break catch-up, and my evening tethering for the last 18 months, and I wouldn't trade you all for the world, as we ride out the end of this crazy train. Seriously, in spite of all this madness, this is the best political forum on the internet. ...just maybe please quote the loons on my ignore list less often.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
Argas posted:I'm bad at terminology because my understanding of the American political system is spotty as best and largely done through osmosis and observation of you guys. I usually think Congress + Senate, rather than Congress = House + Senate. No worries, our system is confusing and sometimes outrightly nonsensical. It was an assemblage of compromises because the arbitrary borders of states irrespective of population density meant that uniting under a single governmental system required pandering to tiny states by giving them undue representation; plus all the intentional design flaws to prevent progress from developing too quickly which have stuck around more due to tradition than any coherent look at how the government should react to a changing world and responsibilities. Most people in the US have no idea how it actually functions and just sort of assume the system is in place for a reason rather than as a national consensus of order.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
So here's something I forgot about : the state's electors for the Electoral College aren't bound to vote by the polls. For instance, "Washington state elector says he won't vote for Clinton" That's not necessarily good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:A personal email through gmail or the like would have meant that copies of emails might be retained on servers under the control of someone else. And the idea that anyone who Clinton might have emailed something that should have been turned over but was deleted instead would leap for a phone and call up the FBI the moment they heard about it is risible, as is the projection.  And yes, the fact that no deleted non-personal emails out of the 33,000 have come up speaks volumes. You don't have to recover every one - a handful would do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:So here's something I forgot about : the state's electors for the Electoral College aren't bound to vote by the polls. For instance, "Washington state elector says he won't vote for Clinton" If faithless electors overturn the results people will be furious. We may see a few but them actually overturning the will of the people would be a big, big deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Artificer posted:EMAILS! are bullshit. Yglesias, his eyes uncovered! Yeah, IMO the area where the media has failed the country the most, is in not going to any effort to remind voters of what the stakes are in this loving election. "Oh, who cares if Trump has control of the nation's nuclear arsenal and SCOTUS appointments? EMAILS!  "Trabisnikof posted:Also importantly, treaties. Definitely importantly. I really don't want to think of Trump as President while having a Senate that would help him repeal the Iran deal, New START, etc. That's...pretty much my worst nightmare. Majorian fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Lol. Clinton is a bad candidate and everyone in her circle knew it. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:So here's something I forgot about : the state's electors for the Electoral College aren't bound to vote by the polls. For instance, "Washington state elector says he won't vote for Clinton" So is he going to cast an electoral vote for Jill Stein then? One of the "Socialist __ Party" candidates?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Artificer posted:EMAILS! are bullshit. Slate's got an interesting article up regarding the most recent email kerfluffle, as well. Interesting specifically as it asks just how the FBI has any inkling of what those emails might contain, given the requirements of search warrants and the 4th Amendment protections involved in preventing fishing expeditions precisely like this one. twerking on the railroad posted:So is he going to cast an electoral vote for Jill Stein then? One of the "Socialist __ Party" candidates? It's a BernieBro. You know the one true answer. He's voting for The Johnson.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:So here's something I forgot about : the state's electors for the Electoral College aren't bound to vote by the polls. For instance, "Washington state elector says he won't vote for Clinton" I have a feeling he'll be getting a call from Sanders personally, explaining to him very carefully why what he is doing is a bad idea. I hope he listens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:It's a BernieBro. You know the one true answer. I would have guessed Stein, since it's pretty obvious why an American Indian activist would have a good reason to be disgusted by Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:If faithless electors overturn the results people will be furious. We may see a few but them actually overturning the will of the people would be a big, big deal. Is there recourse for that? Constitutionally the electors are allowed to be faithless, so you can't really use that as a cause for a do over, can you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:https://twitter.com/onlxn/status/794783491011448833 Who could have predicted that Latin@s would be strongly motivated to vote against the guy who's entire campaign was built around insulting them and threatening to take away their rights? Not the GOP, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:So here's something I forgot about : the state's electors for the Electoral College aren't bound to vote by the polls. For instance, "Washington state elector says he won't vote for Clinton" From my understanding most states in the US have local statutes that bind their electors to whoever wins the popular vote. Washington just isn't one of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
Not half-bad numbers from Florida: https://twitter.com/MDCElections/status/794719228653879296 43k EV voters in one day, most in @MiamiDadeCounty history, 382000 early votes, was 196000 in 2012 Obama won Miami Dade by 24% over Romney, and was the most votes from Florida with 879000 total canepazzo fucked around with this message at 09:53 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:So here's something I forgot about : the state's electors for the Electoral College aren't bound to vote by the polls. For instance, "Washington state elector says he won't vote for Clinton" Unless you do some really wonky stuff, it's kinda hard to get exactly 270. But somehow I love the idea that Clinton wins the popular vote and about 275 electoral, but loses 6 this way. Then it is a tie which obviously goes to Trump. I'm pretty sure that's the dream scenario for Russia. If that would happen, I legitimately think there would be a civil war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:From my understanding most states in the US have local statutes that bind their electors to whoever wins the popular vote. Washington just isn't one of them. AFAIK (and I may be wrong), faithless electors is a thing that's protected by the 12th Amendment. You can be punished for not pledging in line with the state's polls (in Washington state I believe it's $1,000, per the article I originally linked), but not for voting against the polls. Even still, a majority of the states have no laws on the books about faithless electors. So it's no rules just right for anyone who is an elector who wants to gently caress some stuff up. And even if there was a law, you could just be like this dude and eat a grand to try and gently caress over a nation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
One faithless elector is ok - assuming it's not a 269-269 tie, in which case the House would presumably pick Trump anyhow, then a 270-268 Clinton win just becomes a 269-268-1 Clinton win with Stein or whoever getting 1 vote, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:From my understanding most states in the US have local statutes that bind their electors to whoever wins the popular vote. Washington just isn't one of them. Dumber then that, in Washington it's just a $1,000 fine if you don't follow the popular vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:One faithless elector is ok - assuming it's not a 269-269 tie, in which case the House would presumably pick Trump anyhow, then a 270-268 Clinton win just becomes a 269-268-1 Clinton win with Stein or whoever getting 1 vote, right? Nope. Unless she gets 270, congress gets to pick Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 10:09
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:The Senate is likely to go blue but it's not a lock. The House is probably out of reach. House is out of reach for two reasons: 1) Gerrymandering (and geography) favor the republicans. 2) Nobody expected the GOP to run an orange clown against Hillary, so lots of weak candidates/campaigns against the incumbent. It would be nice if we get a situation where they lose the popular vote (again?) but retain the house - maybe get some traction on the "holy gently caress the apportionment system is bullshit".
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
Harik posted:It would be nice if we get a situation where they lose the popular vote (again?) but retain the house - maybe get some traction on the "holy gently caress the apportionment system is bullshit".
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
I will say that I'm glad people are energized by the prospect of taking down an orange proto-facist. Maybe if we have more candidates like this, voter turn-out will be up, up, up! EDIT: Also PEC's Sam Wang will eat a bug if Trump hits Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:That's almost a certainty and if it doesn't happen it means Hillary lost the election anyway. Probably true. I thought there was a segment of the voting population that believed in divided government for "checks and balances" but I have no numbers on that. Even if there used to be, with the bitter split as of late I doubt there's enough left to matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
Harik posted:It would be nice if we get a situation where they lose the popular vote (again?) but retain the house - maybe get some traction on the "holy gently caress the apportionment system is bullshit". Sadly people don't know or care about gerrymandering enough for it to be a scandal. The media will half heartedly report on it but how voting districts are distributed just isn't exciting enough to get much media attention. Plus as we're seeing with the Supreme Court and FBI the use of a non-partisan commission that most democracies use to define constituency boundaries would be at grave risk of partisan subversion. Edit: Also if there were a federal boundary commission you'd run into the issue of the the US President having considerable powers of appointment in the civil service. I don't know how much power of appointment the executive has in other countries but in the UK it is very minimal. This causes its own problems but it does allow for a decent level of independence and neutrality on issues like this. The US system being more partisan has genuine benefits but it would create problems regarding gerrymandering. ReV VAdAUL fucked around with this message at 10:55 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
Quoting to say I agree with you and I'm not ignoring a good response to me. "NEARLY A MILLION FRADULENT BALLOTS CAST LAST ELECTION" This is a talking point that resurged recently, which I guess means some state got a hand-slapping over voter ID, again. The number 800,000 gets bandied about, (Not 31, which is the actual number of documented cases). As with all of these loving things, it's persistent because it's a deliberate distortion of some real truth - does anyone know where that number is coming from? It's possibly related to "There's totally busses driving minorites around with lists of the recently deceased you can claim to be", but I think the 800k number is something different. If I had to guess, it's the number of names that have voted more than once, (Not people, people with the same name) but I wonder if there's some other, dumber reason it's being used. I dropped social media and nobody knows my email, so I'm going from what actual real people have told me. The fact that I've heard if multiple times means someone's pushing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 11:14
|
|
|
there wolf posted:So who has the worst ballot measure? We have one that's about replacing the current judicial ethics board with one approved by the senate. It's being pushed by a legislature that stepped down from his judgeship when he was investigated by the board for sexually harassing an attorney. Locally, there's a ballot measure to re-ban (I suppose?) the sale of recreational marijuana, which is dumb and bad in a variety of ways not all of which directly relate to my personal ability to get high, but honestly I shouldn't complain because ColoradoCare is also on the ballot and may actually pass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 12:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
So I made a number of bets on the US election with a friend (popular vote, electors etc) and one of the things we bet on was voter turnout. Which got me thinking: we know that Latino voter registration is way up, is there any data on changes in voter registration by white people?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 12:37
|
|