Senate Election Thread (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Booker said:
    HBO has a documentary on this we happened to catch some of last night.

    www.hbo.com

    537 Votes | Watch the Movie on HBO | HBO.com

    Watch 537 Votes online at HBO.com. Stream on any device any time. Explore cast information, synopsis and more.
    www.hbo.com www.hbo.com

    Chuck is correct, Florida was briefly called for Gore, then flipped to too close to call. Fox News later made the decision to call Florida for Bush, and with it the election, and the other networks followed suit. Gore called Bush to concede, but before he could make his concession speech was told that Florida was still in play, so instead he called Bush and rescinded his concession. Eventually Florida was returned to too close to call, but as Bush had already been named the winner that narrative had been created.

    Something to note is that Gore never filed suit, he simply requested the votes be recounted as per state law, first by machine and then by hand when they discovered the chad issue. Bush's side filed suit to stop the recount and eventually won when the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, effectively deciding the election.

    But there was a whole lot of screwy stuff going on. The dimpled or hanging chads was a real thing -- holes were supposed to be punched in the ballots when people made their selections, but the machines in some heavily Democratic areas were old and underserviced. So just like a two or three hole punch that gets so full of those chads that it won't punch holes anymore until you empty it, the same thing happened with machines that weren't regularly emptied -- people's votes weren't being counted because it was too jammed with chads to allow a hole to be punched (thus 'dimpled' or 'hanging' chads).

    Then you had the infamous butterfly ballots in one area, where there were thousands of over votes where people accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan and then tried to punch the ballot for Gore as well, nullifying the vote for either (and Buchanan also received a disproportionately high number of votes). Plus there were a lot of screwy local politics (Jeb Bush was Governor, Katherine Harris was both Secretary of State and Co-Chair Bush's campaign in Florida), you had Republican activists flown in to stage "grass roots" protests, plus the whole Elian Gonzales thing had created a lot of anti-Democratic Party sentiment in the Cuban community that came into play.
    Click to expand...

    You know they did a study afterwards, and Gore would have probably won in a hand recount. It was an insanely close election, and the tie essentially went to the party in power in the state. The SC decision was the truly horrible part. It's so logistically inconsistent. If you are disenfranchising voters by tallying votes in different methods, then every single election ever held in America has been invalid. That was probably the biggest hit ever to the impartiality, and respect of the court.
     
    J-DONK said:
    You know they did a study afterwards, and Gore would have probably won in a hand recount. It was an insanely close election, and the tie essentially went to the party in power in the state. The SC decision was the truly horrible part. It's so logistically inconsistent. If you are disenfranchising voters by tallying votes in different methods, then every single election ever held in America has been invalid. That was probably the biggest hit ever to the impartiality, and respect of the court.
    Click to expand...

    I would have been fine with a hand recount, but I've seen some studies say the outcome would have been the same and others not. We'll never really know because of how close it was. Could have gone either way. I haven't ever read the SC decision, so I can't comment on their rationale for their decision. Didn't they remand it back to the state though? Or did they actually give the order to not do the hand count?
     
    J-DONK said:
    You know they did a study afterwards, and Gore would have probably won in a hand recount. It was an insanely close election, and the tie essentially went to the party in power in the state. The SC decision was the truly horrible part. It's so logistically inconsistent. If you are disenfranchising voters by tallying votes in different methods, then every single election ever held in America has been invalid. That was probably the biggest hit ever to the impartiality, and respect of the court.
    Click to expand...
    Yeah, it seemed pretty likely with everything they documented that Gore should have won that race, and that there were probably as many as 10,000 people who intended to vote for him that didn't have their vote correctly counted due to the the chads and butterfly ballot problems.
     
    DaveXA said:
    I would have been fine with a hand recount, but I've seen some studies say the outcome would have been the same and others not. We'll never really know because of how close it was. Could have gone either way. I haven't ever read the SC decision, so I can't comment on their rationale for their decision. Didn't they remand it back to the state though? Or did they actually give the order to not do the hand count?
    Click to expand...

    They stopped on the grounds of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Chuck may know this, but my understanding is no court before, or since has made a ruling about the constitutional uniformity of counting ballots.
     
    Last edited:
    J-DONK said:
    They stopped on the grounds of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Chuck may know this, but my understanding is no court before, or since has made a ruling about the constitutional uniformity of counting ballots.
    Click to expand...

    Yeah, in any case, I think all of the ballots should be the same layout and type with the only differences being the differences in language and candidates for different districts. That and each state should collect, count and report in the same manner. Being uniform will make it easier for everyone involved in the process. That each district is using different machines in different districts doesn't make a lot of sense. Other than maybe Gore, I don't think we've ever picked the wrong President based on votes, but we can always look for ways to improve the voting process. I loved the old lever machines where you pulled the big lever to close the curtains and toggle the switches for each pick. When you opened the curtains, the toggle switches would automatically reset. The fill in ovals like a stupid test is so lame. I want something mechanical. Lol.
     
    I’m not so sure about that. I think conventional wisdom is struggling right now, lol.

     
    The main reason I don't put too much stock into polls is that most pollsters are operating with old tools/conceits that largely ignore the highly partisan nature of politics today. As much as I like Nate Silver (and acknowledging he is not a pollster himself, but a statistician), he often talks about generic things like benefits of incumbency, etc. I don't think much of that stuff matters anymore as politics, particularly the Senate, has become more of a power grab and control issue versus a reasoned discussion of issues.

    That Chuck Grassley could lose in Iowa is the ultimate "hot take." He will win by ten points. Kim Reynolds, the current governor of Iowa, is leading in her race by well over that margin. She is solidly right-leaning conservative, especially on the more nationally prominent political and social issues. To think Iowa would reelect her comfortably yet send a Democrat to the Senate defies reason. This will only come into play in purple states where GOP candidate quality is severely lacking. Even then... Ron Johnson, Herschel Walker, etc. all have better than average chances of winning. Look at it this way: if Grassley's election in right-leaning Iowa were really that close, then the polls in purple Georgia should be showing Warnock ahead by a much wider margin.
     
    Last edited:
    With all due respect, I don’t think so, Saul. This election is different. Women have been awakened to the fact that Rs want to deny them vital healthcare. Young women and the men in their lives especially so. I think the pollsters are seeing hints, but they aren’t capturing the whole story. This is my belief. And hope as well.
     
    MT15 said:
    With all due respect, I don’t think so, Saul. This election is different. Women have been awakened to the fact that Rs want to deny them vital healthcare. Young women and the men in their lives especially so. I think the pollsters are seeing hints, but they aren’t capturing the whole story. This is my belief. And hope as well.
    Click to expand...
    I want to agree with you, but people are fickle and have short memories. I think it will impact the margins, but it won't be a sea change. For most people, change is hard. We'll see.
     
    DaveXA said:
    I want to agree with you, but people are fickle and have short memories. I think it will impact the margins, but it won't be a sea change. For most people, change is hard. We'll see.
    Click to expand...
    Really short memories…
    www.yahoo.com

    Republicans Gain Edge as Voters Worry About Economy, Times/Siena Poll Finds

    Republicans enter the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress with a narrow but distinct advantage as the economy and inflation have surged as the dominant concerns, giving the party momentum to take back power from Democrats in next month’s midterm elections, a New York Times/Siena...
    www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
     
    yeah, I was just reading about that:

    The survey showed that the economy remained a far more potent political issue in 2022 than abortion.

    “I’m shifting more towards Republican because I feel like they’re more geared towards business,” said Robin Ackerman, a 37-year-old Democrat and mortgage loan officer who lives in New Castle, Del., and is planning to vote Republican this fall.

    Ms. Ackerman said she disagreed “1,000 percent” with the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and erase the national right to an abortion. “But that doesn’t really have a lot to do with my decision,” she said of her fall vote. “I’m more worried about other things.”
     
    zztop said:
    yeah, I was just reading about that:

    The survey showed that the economy remained a far more potent political issue in 2022 than abortion.

    “I’m shifting more towards Republican because I feel like they’re more geared towards business,” said Robin Ackerman, a 37-year-old Democrat and mortgage loan officer who lives in New Castle, Del., and is planning to vote Republican this fall.

    Ms. Ackerman said she disagreed “1,000 percent” with the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and erase the national right to an abortion. “But that doesn’t really have a lot to do with my decision,” she said of her fall vote. “I’m more worried about other things.”
    Click to expand...

    Well, Ms Ackerman, don't complain when your daughter dies from an ectopic pregnancy and you're homeless because the Republican trashed the economy again. Just like every other time they've held power.
     
    Taurus said:
    Well, Ms Ackerman, don't complain when your daughter dies from an ectopic pregnancy and you're homeless because the Republican trashed the economy again. Just like every other time they've held power.
    Click to expand...
    Yep, people are shortsighted. It is what it is. I'm just not seeing a sustained movement that will change the balance when people vote. It's weird because it used to be the opposite years ago.
     
    I always love it when they say the quiet part out loud. From an article about Majorie Taylor Greene, talking about wanting to impeach Biden.

    My style would be a lot more aggressive, of course,” she told me, referring to McCarthy. “For him, I think the evidence needs to be there. But I think people underestimate him, in thinking he wouldn’t do it.
    Click to expand...

    Yep....straight up saying that she wants to impeach Biden even though she doesn't have any evidence.

     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom