Politics... US election edition (2020 almost over, read all about it!)

[Bartimaeus]

And back in reality, there is no path of victory remaining for Warnock's opponent, Warnock has been given a >95% chance to win (final margin likely to be a ~2 point victory). There is only the smallest sliver of a chance for Ossof's opponent to win, but it is very small indeed (6%). We're just waiting for one particular Atlanta county to drop its results before this is called for at least Warnock and possibly Ossof as well.

(e): And there you go, Warnock has officially taken the lead back, with Ossof only very slightly trailing (but with the big drop without any surprise shift, his opponent also no longer has any remaining path of victory).

Edited January 6, 2021 by Bartimaeus

[the_dog_days]

43 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Is this true? Everything I have seen and heard is that the VP role is purely ceremonial and he cannot  legally block the electoral college recognition today of Biden

Twice in US history the VP has decided the outcome of a precedential election by picking which electors to certify. John Adams, VP for Washington, ran for president in 1797 and read Georgia (no joke) to himself and won. Thomas Jefferson, his main opponent, returned the favor ('cause he was made VP for Adams) in 1801 by doing the same thing.

Edited January 6, 2021 by the_dog_days

[Elerond]

Democrats winning both seats seems most likely out come. They have become quite good with their strategic vote dumps 

[Bartimaeus]

38 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Democrats winning both seats seems most likely out come. They have become quite good with their strategic vote dumps 

Yep. Publications have started officially calling for Warnock. Ossof will probably take longer, but at a >95% chance, he has almost certainly won as well. A monumental achievement by the Democrats to take Georgia like this.

(e): I've been spelling his name "Ossof" all night and apparently it's "Ossoff". Whoops.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Bartimaeus

[Gromnir]

Amendment XII
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

...

this is not a situation where one needs be an expert regarding Constitutional interpretation to divine how the law will be applied. the vp opens the f'ing envelopes. "open all the certificates" did not have a unique legal meaning in 1804 which might confer 'pon the vp powers unclear from a 2021 reading o' the language o' the text. is no implied powers based on historical precedent or some kinda fuzzy constructive grant resulting from necessity to fulfill purpose o' the amendment. 

12th amendment were adopted in part to eliminate vp shenanigans. 1800 election resulted in the adoption o' the 12th amendment so as to prevent just the kinda nonsense trump suggests is possible. 

is no way to read 12th amendment the way trump and trump loyalists suggest.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[the_dog_days]

36 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

12th amendment were adopted in part to eliminate vp shenanigans. 1800 election resulted in the adoption o' the 12th amendment so as to prevent just the kinda nonsense trump suggests is possible. 

But it 'eliminated' VP shenanigans by using almost the exact same language. There's no reasonable difference in wording which means there's no reasonable difference in law. 

[Gromnir]

22 minutes ago, the_dog_days said:

But it 'eliminated' VP shenanigans by using almost the exact same language. There's no reasonable difference in wording which means there's no reasonable difference in law. 

am uncertain where the confusion arises. the problem previous to 1804 were the split ticket and the possibility o' a plurality. biden has 306. 

even if we ignore subsequent Congressional legislation which clarifies that vp participation is ministerial, there is no situation which would/could produce a scenario such as were the case prior to 1803.

HA! Good Fun!

ps you are looking at the wrong dates if you wanna stir up confusion. the 1876 election is what trumpers is saying is basis for vp powers to overturn the election. is not actual same situation as the states in 2020 didn't actual send competing certificates. claim to be electors is not same as being electors.

electoral count act o' 1887 addressed the 1876 issues. 

 

Edited January 6, 2021 by Gromnir

[the_dog_days]

47 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

am uncertain where the confusion arises. the problem previous to 1804 were the split ticket and the possibility o' a plurality. biden has 306. 

When did I say anything about Biden? 

[ComradeYellow]

Of course Georgia would go Blue:  Democrats are conservative!

They just have enough sense to realize alt-right politics isn't the way to go.  Now let's try to explain this reasoning to the Red Yankees from the North, the more blatantly alt-right types that are arguably worse than southerners.

[the_dog_days]

Whole conversation.

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Is this true? Everything I have seen and heard is that the VP role is purely ceremonial and he cannot  legally block the electoral college recognition today of Biden

 

1 hour ago, the_dog_days said:

Twice in US history the VP has decided the outcome of a precedential election by picking which electors to certify. John Adams, VP for Washington, ran for president in 1797 and read Georgia (no joke) to himself and won. Thomas Jefferson, his main opponent, returned the favor ('cause he was made VP for Adams) in 1801 by doing the same thing.

Never said anything about 2020 or Biden or Trump or anything.

[Gromnir]

Just now, the_dog_days said:

When did I say anything about Biden? 

doesn't matter if you said his name or not. is no plurality this time. the pre 1804 scenarios have no relevance. biden & harris ticket has been certified by enough state legislatures. 306. 

again, is the 1876 problem and chaos which trump is trying to suggest gives pence some kinda authority to decide the election, but legislators is not same as legislature. all state legislatures has certified the election results. a random collection o' legislators protesting is irrelevant.

1887 act makes this a non-issue... although it were never actual an issue.

HA! Good Fun!

[the_dog_days]

36 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

doesn't matter if you said his name or not. is no plurality this time. the pre 1804 scenarios have no relevance. biden & harris ticket has been certified by enough state legislatures. 306. 

again, is the 1876 problem and chaos which trump is trying to suggest gives pence some kinda authority to decide the election, but legislators is not same as legislature. all state legislatures has certified the election results. a random collection o' legislators protesting is irrelevant.

1887 act makes this a non-issue... although it were never actual an issue.

HA! Good Fun!

I'm glad you're able to have an argument with yourself. 

[Bartimaeus]

[Gromnir]

3 minutes ago, the_dog_days said:

I'm glad you're able to have an argument with yourself. 

*sigh*

again, the vp didn't decide the 1796 and 1800 elections. were pluralities leading to multiple votes. you misunderstand the issue or are reading wrong. the only election where the vp were arguable deciding the election were 1876, and 2020 ain't presenting an 1876 issue neither.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 6, 2021 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

Democrats winning both seats seems most likely out come. They have become quite good with their strategic vote dumps 

You right, the Democrats are taking the lead in Georgia...its unexpected 

Well we all need to accept the outcome as this is what the people of Georgia have voted for and the same as the 2020 election its the will of the people 

I wont lie and say Im not disappointed but as I mentioned in a previous post having complete control of the Congress may be exactly the right political outcome to address the pandemic in the USA and that can only be a good thing

 

[ComradeYellow]

2 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

You right, the Democrats are taking the lead in Georgia...its unexpected 

Not really.  The South appears to be going through some kind of weird phase since like 2017 or something.  Some kind of mood shift.  From Nixon->Trump the south was always considered a Red stronghold but it's become strangely complex in recent years.

[BruceVC]

Oh I just heard on CNN  one practical and positive policy that Democratic control of the Congress could lead to 

The $2000 stimulus checks will be approved for unemployed Americans  

 

[BruceVC]

2 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

Not really.  The South appears to be going through some kind of weird phase since like 2017 or something.  Some kind of mood shift.  From Nixon->Trump the south was always considered a Red stronghold but it's become strangely complex in recent years.

Im interested in understanding this complexity and why we seeing this change outside of the obvious which is a pushback against the Trump presidency and how most US citizens who vote believe Biden was  the better candidate in the 2020 election

In your opinion what do you attribute this Democratic success to ?

[Gromnir]

1 minute ago, BruceVC said:

You right, the Democrats are taking the lead in Georgia...its unexpected 

 

 

just to be sure, bruce understands that the democrat candidates are not taking a lead in any real sense. votes from an election which already happened is being tallied, yes?

personal, am ordinarily in favor o' gridlock from Congress, but perdue and loeffler is both so utter skeevy and contemptible is no way we could support either. 

freaking gaetz threw loeffler under the bus?

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

45 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

*sigh*

again, the vp didn't decide the 1796 and 1800 elections. were pluralities leading to multiple votes. you misunderstand the issue or are reading wrong. the only election where the vp were arguable deciding the election were 1876, and 2020 ain't presenting an 1876 issue neither.

HA! Good Fun!

Gromnir can we keep this simple, are you saying that Pence cannot legally block the Biden electoral college recognition?

[BruceVC]

2 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

just to be sure, bruce understands that the democrat candidates are not taking a lead in any real sense. votes from an election which already happened is being tallied, yes?

 

This is a very relevant question, no I dont understand how this Senate election really works. I know the Democrats won Georgia in 2020 but I dont know what you mean by " democrat candidates are not taking a lead in any real sense. votes from an election which already happened is being tallied" 

What do you mean by that ?

[ComradeYellow]

18 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

personal, am ordinarily in favor o' gridlock from Congress

Yeah Gridlock is last thing we need right now.  Democrats are bad, Republicans are worse, but Dems at least seem a bit more able of handling a falling apart economy so I guess it's "Go Dems!" until we finally get a 3rd Party on the scene.

[Gromnir]

45 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Gromnir can we keep this simple, are you saying that Pence cannot legally block the Biden electoral college recognition?

is not possible. 

but again, this administration has done illegal and impossible many times. is not legal possible, but if senate were to be complicit and the Court decided that the issue were a nonjusticiable political question...

impossible or illegal is only having meaning if the people with power involved accepts rule of law.

example:

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/05/953738158/in-explosive-debate-pa-gop-refuses-to-swear-in-reelected-democratic-senator

am repeating, but what if mitch mcconnell refuses to accept Presidential and runoff results and a senate majority backs him? what if the Court refuses to hear any election related issues, asserting that all such is non-justiciable political questions? am not suggesting such will happen, but is so many things which has occurred the previous four years we thought were impossible.

at the moment it don't appear as if the trump loyalists have a majority in senate or house supporting the unconstitutional efforts to reject state certifications. moot. even so, has been numerous times in the last four years when illegal happened with support o' the senate. 

'course by tomorrow afternoon it may be clear the senate minority leader is mitch mcconnell. will change the dynamic significant IF that happens, and not necessarily for the better. biden may wish to heal old wounds, but many democrats will be looking not only for change but for payback. republicans claiming payback rights has been a big reason why the last four years were such a mess.

an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye...

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 6, 2021 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

14 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

i

'course by tomorrow afternoon it may be clear the senate minority leader is mitch mcconnell. will change the dynamic significant IF that happens, and not necessarily for the better. biden may wish to heal old wounds, but many democrats will be looking not only for change but for payback. republicans claiming payback rights has been a big reason why the last four years were such a mess.

an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye...

HA! Good Fun!

Thanks for explaining in a way I understand, this post above has been one of the primary concerns I have  with a Democrat sweeping victory and I have mentioned it on several occasions

The Trump backlash could be more about payback and that isnt helpful in the long-term. But as Scott Jennings, moderate and reasonable Republican commentator,   mentioned now on CNN " he is happy if the Democrats implement so called " extreme left polices " because this will just aid the Republicans in the next mid-term elections

But I dont consider Biden an extremist and I do believe the focus now is going to be on the virus and addressing the spread so I doubt this will occur 

But yes the point " an eye for an eye " cannot be completely ignored 

[ComradeYellow]

3 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

 

The Trump backlash could be more about payback and that isnt helpful in the long-term. But as Scott Jennings, moderate and reasonable Republican commentator,   mentioned now on CNN " he is happy if the Democrats implement so called " extreme left polices " because this will just aid the Republicans in the next mid-term elections

 

You call this "moderate" and "reasonable"?  Good God man how far right are you?