2014 US Midterms: Good News - The Polls Were Skewed!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 2014 US Midterms: Good News - The Polls Were Skewed!

«‹›326 »

BAD AT STUFF: May 10, 2012; We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because fuck you.

CannonFodder posted:

Dumb question, but the Electoral College has dumb rules so I feel this is justified:

If the Pres and VP candidates are from the same state and win that state, what happens with the Electoral College votes? Do they go to the party that was second? Do they disappear into the ether? If they disappear, does that change the overall electoral math to get 50%+1 EC votes?

The rule was written under the assumption that the electors would be free to make a decision about their two picks for President and VP. So right there you might have an issue if the elector is from a state where there's now a legal penalty for not voting the way they pledged. The key thing is that they vote for the President and VP separately, not as one ticket. The prohibition is against voting for two from the same state, so presumably the electors would vote for the Presidential candidate and abstain from the VP or write in Batman or something.

Then the fun begins. If the state was large enough and the race close enough, you might end up with a VP who has less than the 270 electoral votes needed for the majority required by the final paragraph in the 12th Amendment. Then, per that paragraph, the Senate has a runoff vote between the top two VP candidates by electoral votes. They need a quorum of 2/3ds of all Senators to be present to do so, and a simple majority of Senators present is all that's needed.

In practice, just make the VP move before the election.

BAD AT STUFF fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Jul 27, 2013

# ? Jul 27, 2013 08:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 17:50

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

CannonFodder posted:

Dumb question, but the Electoral College has dumb rules so I feel this is justified:

If the Pres and VP candidates are from the same state and win that state, what happens with the Electoral College votes? Do they go to the party that was second? Do they disappear into the ether? If they disappear, does that change the overall electoral math to get 50%+1 EC votes?

The electors can vote for either the VP or the presidential candidate on that ticket. If it's that close, you could have the candidate of one party get 270 and the vice presidential candidate of the other get 270, or you could have it go to the Senate if no one gets it.

But yeah, just make the VP move. (This is what Cheney did.)

# ? Jul 27, 2013 13:00

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

The Warszawa posted:

The electors can vote for either the VP or the presidential candidate on that ticket. If it's that close, you could have the candidate of one party get 270 and the vice presidential candidate of the other get 270, or you could have it go to the Senate if no one gets it.

But yeah, just make the VP move. (This is what Cheney did.)

I sincerely doubt you would ever have an instance of the electors picking people from opposite parties. It is far more likely if it did come to where the state delegation couldn't split their votes and get both to 270 they'd elect the president or whichever candidate corresponded to the house of Congress they didn't control.

But yeah, just moving is the obvious answer so it's a moot piece of constitutional trivia.

# ? Jul 27, 2013 16:36

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

farraday posted:

I sincerely doubt you would ever have an instance of the electors picking people from opposite parties. It is far more likely if it did come to where the state delegation couldn't split their votes and get both to 270 they'd elect the president or whichever candidate corresponded to the house of Congress they didn't control.

But yeah, just moving is the obvious answer so it's a moot piece of constitutional trivia.

It actually makes sense if you say "okay, pick the presidential candidate the majority/plurality voted for, then pick the eligible VP candidate the majority plurality voted for," etc.

But really, you're never going to get a situation where a same-state VP is picked.

# ? Jul 27, 2013 16:47

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

The Warszawa posted:

It actually makes sense if you say "okay, pick the presidential candidate the majority/plurality voted for, then pick the eligible VP candidate the majority plurality voted for," etc.

But really, you're never going to get a situation where a same-state VP is picked.

Except that's not what the electoral college does?

# ? Jul 27, 2013 16:52

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Mimetic posted:

So right there you might have an issue if the elector is from a state where there's now a legal penalty for not voting the way they pledged.

Actually, I think that if you ran into this issue the elector who didn't vote for the selected vice presidential candidate would have an argument that the law is unconstitutional as it would penalize not doing an act the Constitution prohibits.

# ? Jul 27, 2013 17:11

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

farraday posted:

Except that's not what the electoral college does?

Given that we're talking about how the electors vote in a situation with conflicting mandates, I'm not sure we can say "that's not what the electoral college does" when discussing possible resolutions to this conflict.

# ? Jul 27, 2013 17:21

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

The Warszawa posted:

Given that we're talking about how the electors vote in a situation with conflicting mandates, I'm not sure we can say "that's not what the electoral college does" when discussing possible resolutions to this conflict.

Given that we're talking about people chosen for their faithfulness to their party and not, for example, people who might switch from Bush to Gore because Gore won the national popular vote, then yes I think we can unilaterally dismiss the idea they'd vote for the opposing party to become VP.

# ? Jul 27, 2013 17:26

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

farraday posted:

Given that we're talking about people chosen for their faithfulness to their party and not, for example, people who might switch from Bush to Gore because Gore won the national popular vote, then yes I think we can unilaterally dismiss the idea they'd vote for the opposing party to become VP.

And no candidate is going to be stupid enough to pick a VP that can't get as many electoral votes as himself or herself. In the abstract, it's perfectly possible, and once we start introducing "well, it's not probable" the whole thing goes to poo poo because it's never going to happen.

# ? Jul 27, 2013 17:28

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

The Warszawa posted:

And no candidate is going to be stupid enough to pick a VP that can't get as many electoral votes as himself or herself. In the abstract, it's perfectly possible, and once we start introducing "well, it's not probable" the whole thing goes to poo poo because it's never going to happen.

It's also perfectly possible for all 538 to decide they really like that Anti McChrist chap and his positions on Pay-Go and his Wormwood plan to cut health care costs. Both that and your suggestion are about as reasonable though.

# ? Jul 27, 2013 17:33

BAD AT STUFF: May 10, 2012; We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because fuck you.

Kalman posted:

Actually, I think that if you ran into this issue the elector who didn't vote for the selected vice presidential candidate would have an argument that the law is unconstitutional as it would penalize not doing an act the Constitution prohibits.

Yeah, that's more what I meant. Not that they'd end up in prison (or whatever the penalty is for faithless electors), but that there'd be a court case. Although if we were living in some Bizzaro world where it actually happened, I assume the electors would just pledge for a different VP candidate to begin with. So the ballot in that state would be Obama/Hillary instead of Obama/Biden or whatever (Bizzaro Biden is from Illinois).

# ? Jul 27, 2013 23:43

Idran: Jan 13, 2005; Grimey Drawer

farraday posted:

It's also perfectly possible for all 538 to decide they really like that Anti McChrist chap and his positions on Pay-Go and his Wormwood plan to cut health care costs. Both that and your suggestion are about as reasonable though.

And both of those are about as reasonable as the possibility of this situation occurring in the first place.

# ? Jul 28, 2013 00:07

CannonFodder: Jan 26, 2001; Passion’s Wrench

Thanks for the answers. I knew that Cheney moved to avoid that problem.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 14:45

ufarn: May 30, 2009

If Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook were to run for public office, which would be the most likely position for her to pursue (first): governor, congressman, or senator?

Presumably in CA.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 16:20

pangstrom: Jan 25, 2003; Wedge Regret

ufarn posted:

If Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook were to run for public office, which would be the most likely position for her to pursue (first): governor, congressman, or senator?

Presumably in CA.

Who knows, other than whoever (presumably Sandberg) prompted us to entertain this question in the first place. I have trouble seeing her settle for "just" being a representative but governor and senator depend on opportunity and even then are a pretty big ask.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 17:23

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

Booker not elected yet and already going to Iowa. At least he won't be my senator for long.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 17:53

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

Edit: Double post

# ? Jul 29, 2013 18:06

The Whole Internet: May 26, 2010; by FactsAreUseless

CannonFodder posted:

NC's Democrats went from John Edwards as a VP candidate and Erskine Bowles trying to stay important enough for a cabinet pick to the hottest mess as a party in the nation. Sen. Kay Hagan is neck and neck with 'generic republican' but Cherie Berry dropped out of the race so Hagan has a solid shot to keep the seat. But that's the US Senate race with incumbency advantages. The local party is fuuuuuuucked.

She was 4 points ahead of all her Republican challengers back in June but it shot up to a 10-point lead a month ago. Nothing to do with her personally--her approval ratings are the same. The General Assembly is the culprit in this case. Looks like it could be a safe year for Hagan.

The local races will be a bloodbath in the coming years. I think both parties are going to fight hard. Dems will aggressively target the Wake County board of commissioners and the schoolboard this year in response to the GA shifting much of the power of the schoolboard over to the county commissioners (which was in response to Wake county voting out the teabaggers that got in in 2009 and retaking the majority on the board). I suspect that John Odom, the lone remaining republican in Raleigh's city council, is in serious danger of losing his seat.

It's tough to say what 2014 will look like. We have a whole year to wait and find out, but if Hagan's 10-plus point lead holds, that could translate into significant gains for the dems on the rest of the ticket. Unfortunately the only State Supreme Court seats up for reelection in 2014 are already held by dems, so there's no opportunity to take over the court and have them challenge the state's district maps. This is entirely their fault for endorsing nobody against Paul Newby last year... morons.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 18:36

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

New Q-poll:

quote:

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn: 27%
Public Advocate Bill de Blasio: 21%
Former Comptroller Bill Thompson: 20%
Anthony Weiner: 16%

The numbers for Weiner are brutal. By a 53-40 margin, likely Democratic primary voters say he should drop out of the race. His 16% support is down from 26% a week ago, when he was still the technical front-runner in the Democratic primary.

de Blasio might have a shot at this; it looks like he's pulling some Weiner, so to speak.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 23:42

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

ufarn posted:

If Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook were to run for public office, which would be the most likely position for her to pursue (first): governor, congressman, or senator?

Presumably in CA.

If DiFi or Boxer die, then she might run for Senate. Otherwise, governor or house or (more likely, if Democrats win the presidency in 2016) she shoots for something appointed. She was discussed for Treasury a while back, wouldn't be impossible for that to actually happen.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 23:50

oldfan: Jul 22, 2007; "Mathewson pitched against Cincinnati yesterday. Another way of putting it is that Cincinnati lost a game of baseball."

For some reason they didn't test a Quinn/de Blasio runoff (while testing most of the other reasonable permutations), but I would think de Blasio would be a pretty substantial favorite in such a scenario.

One thing I would note about these polls is that they very much undershot the amount of African-American support that Thompson picked up in 2009, in both the primary and general stages, and they're generally showing a lack of AA support in the crosstabs for Thompson this time around (while showing Quinn and Weiner as the beneficiaries as opposed to de Blasio, who you would expect to be in a comfortable second place with that demo behind Thompson's comfortable first place). So they may be hitting the wrong voters in that demo again.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 23:54

kitten emergency: Jan 13, 2008; get meow this wack-ass crystal prison

Willa Rogers posted:

New Q-poll:

de Blasio might have a shot at this; it looks like he's pulling some Weiner, so to speak.

I'm waiting for the Post headline of "WEINER SAGGING IN POLLS" or "ELECTORAL DYSFUNCTION - WEINER CAN'T KEEP IT UP IN MAYORAL RACE"

# ? Jul 29, 2013 23:55

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

serewit posted:

I'm waiting for the Post headline of "WEINER SAGGING IN POLLS" or "ELECTORAL DYSFUNCTION - WEINER CAN'T KEEP IT UP IN MAYORAL RACE"

You're close; its hed for the polling story was "Weiner goes limp: falls to fourth in new mayoral poll"

eta:

jeffersonlives posted:

For some reason they didn't test a Quinn/de Blasio runoff (while testing most of the other reasonable permutations), but I would think de Blasio would be a pretty substantial favorite in such a scenario.

One thing I would note about these polls is that they very much undershot the amount of African-American support that Thompson picked up in 2009, in both the primary and general stages, and they're generally showing a lack of AA support in the crosstabs for Thompson this time around (while showing Quinn and Weiner as the beneficiaries as opposed to de Blasio, who you would expect to be in a comfortable second place with that demo behind Thompson's comfortable first place). So they may be hitting the wrong voters in that demo again.

That reminds me: Has Rangel announced whether he's running again?

# ? Jul 30, 2013 00:33

pangstrom: Jan 25, 2003; Wedge Regret

This is neither here nor there but (if we think it's worth talking about at all) I don't think the manner of Weiner's second "apology" got enough attention. It's hilarious/sad that he went back to the well over and over after getting busted but it's also hilarious that his second "apology" was in a way just as dissembling and self-indulgent as his first. I don't know what's wrong with him or the psychobabble that describes what's wrong with him but I definitely had an "OH, this guy's not well" realization.

Best case is he's sticking it out so he can use the public money to improve his image a little (nowhere to go but up), but who knows.

# ? Jul 30, 2013 15:27

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

pangstrom posted:

This is neither here nor there but (if we think it's worth talking about at all) I don't think the manner of Weiner's second "apology" got enough attention. It's hilarious/sad that he went back to the well over and over after getting busted but it's also hilarious that his second "apology" was in a way just as dissembling and self-indulgent as his first. I don't know what's wrong with him or the psychobabble that describes what's wrong with him but I definitely had an "OH, this guy's not well" realization.

Best case is he's sticking it out so he can use the public money to improve his image a little (nowhere to go but up), but who knows.

To be fair, I'd rather be known as a failed mayoral candidate than the guy who resigned his seat in Congress over dick pictures.

# ? Jul 30, 2013 15:43

Mr. Boogie: Apr 1, 2013; Is a meat patty something or nothing?

So Weiner won't even definitively say whether or not he's sexting people right now.

quote:

"You can quibble about beginnings, middles and ends," Weiner told the Daily News' Denis Hammill for Tuesday's front page story, "but what we're talking about is over a year ago." That's what Weiner said when Hamil asked the question The New York Times' Magazine forgot: are you still sending sexy messages?"

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/07/anthony-weiner-fails-answer-only-important-interview-question/67761/

How on Earth can you answer that question with anything other than "No, absolutely not," unless you're pretty sure someone is going to come out and reveal that you were literally sexting people during the press conference.

# ? Jul 30, 2013 15:44

Zero_Grade: Mar 18, 2004; Darktider 🖤🌊

~Neck Angels~

Mr. Boogie posted:

How on Earth can you answer that question with anything other than "No, absolutely not," unless you're pretty sure someone is going to come out and reveal that you were literally sexting people during the press conference.

At this point, I don't think I'd put it past him.

# ? Jul 30, 2013 17:10

Push El Burrito: May 9, 2006; Soiled Meat

Zero_Grade posted:

At this point, I don't think I'd put it past him.

Hamill receives a text just as he's asking the question.

# ? Jul 30, 2013 17:52

Beamed: Nov 26, 2010; Then you have a responsibility that no man has ever faced. You have your fear which could become reality, and you have Godzilla, which is reality.

THE GAYEST POSTER posted:

Hamill receives a text just as he's asking the question.

I just got weird looks for cracking up hysterically, you dick.

# ? Jul 30, 2013 21:02

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

Man who publicly quit his last job insists he's not a quitter.

# ? Jul 30, 2013 23:26

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

He just wants to show us all how hard and ready he is this time around. First round yea, it was embarrassing, he had to pull out too early, but he's better prepared now. No more fooling around, his mind is going to be focused on the task at hand and he's not going to finish this until everyone involved is satisfied.

# ? Jul 30, 2013 23:33

Adar: Jul 27, 2001

As tough as it is for a man like him to finish last, it does seem pretty likely right now. But if I were Christine Quinn right now, I wouldn't be satisfied. There's a lot of danger in cumplacency.

# ? Jul 31, 2013 00:03

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

Well you have to account that this is Quinn's first time dealing with Weiner. She may think she has it all figured out, and granted Weiner is a pretty simple factor, but you never know when there's a surprise from Weiner.

(Oh god I'm five)

# ? Jul 31, 2013 00:06

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

No one's topping Borowitz when it cums to the Weiner jokes:

quote:

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)�One day after his campaign manager quit, the mayoral candidate Anthony D. Weiner named his penis to the post, telling reporters, �He was already making most of the major decisions, anyway.�

In announcing the new appointment, Mr. Weiner lavished praise upon his penis, calling him �a tough hombre� who �cares about the struggles of ordinary, middle-class New Yorkers.�

After one reporter questioned the wisdom of naming his penis to such an important role in the campaign, Mr. Weiner dismissed that concern, saying, �Look, he�s gotten me this far.�

While Mr. Weiner�s decision to give the top job to his controversial appendage raised eyebrows among political observers, insiders said the move merely reflected his headline-grabbing member�s already prominent role in the campaign.

�He [Mr. Weiner�s penis] has been calling the shots for weeks now,� one source said, adding that clashes between the former campaign manager Danny Kedem and the mercurial body part had led to Mr. Kedem�s exit.

�There was a power struggle between Danny and the package, and Danny lost,� said one campaign source. �Danny would try to talk sense to Anthony, but at the end of the day, the penis had his ear.�

# ? Jul 31, 2013 02:02

Mooseontheloose: May 13, 2003

Look he just wants to make sure anything he does isn't premature. It may take awhile for him to recover after blowing his wad on something like this.

Sex pun.

# ? Jul 31, 2013 02:05

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

The Anthony Weiner classiness express rolls on.

quote:

The campaign staff awoke to see their former intern, Olivia Nuzzi, on the front cover of the Daily News. Inside the paper was an article bylined by Nuzzi in which she told a rather unflattering tale of her experience working on Anthony Weiner�s mayoral bid.

Now, Team Weiner is firing back. TPM called Weiner�s communications director Barbara Morgan to discuss an unrelated story Tuesday and she went off on a curse-filled rant about Nuzzi, describing her as a fame hungry �bitch� who �sucked� at her job. Morgan also called Nuzzi a �slutbag,� �twat,� and �oval office� while threatening to sue her.

On the one year anniversary (almost) of "WHAT ABOUT YOUR GAFFES?!" we've found a worse press aide than Rick Gorka.

# ? Jul 31, 2013 02:26

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Joementum posted:

The Anthony Weiner classiness express rolls on.

On the one year anniversary (almost) of "WHAT ABOUT YOUR GAFFES?!" we've found a worse press aide than Rick Gorka.

Mmm hmm.

quote:

�loving slutbag. Nice loving glamour shot on the cover of the Daily News. Man, see if you ever get a job in this town again,� said Morgan.

�It�s all bullshit,� she said. �I mean, it�s such bullshit. She could loving � loving twat.�

�And then like she had the loving balls to like trash me in the paper. And be like, �His communications director was last the press secretary of the Department of Education in New Jersey,� Morgan said. �You know what? gently caress you, you little oval office. I�m not joking, I am going to sue her.�

# ? Jul 31, 2013 05:38

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

There's literally no way we can keep up with the jokes at this stage. Every loving time we get some good laughs something else comes out. I'm expecting tomorrow to just be straight up "WE GOT PICTURES OF HIM SNEAKING INTO THE ZOO TO gently caress ANIMALS WHAT THE HELL" and then that somehow topped by "HE SAID THAT GORILLA WAS A FUCKIN SLUT THOUGH"

# ? Jul 31, 2013 05:42

Kim Jong Il: Aug 16, 2003

He should switch to the Republican primary.

# ? Jul 31, 2013 13:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 17:50

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

We've reached Pryordammerung: Bill Kristol's favorite Representative Tom Cotton's running for Senate in Arkansas.

# ? Jul 31, 2013 16:27

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 2014 US Midterms: Good News - The Polls Were Skewed!

«‹›326 »