|
axeil posted:https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/928059354653380610 yeah virginia is a loving nightmare to watch because usually the republican counties come in first and the republican has a solid lead that stays steady for a while and then suddenly NOVA drops in and massively changes the race late in the night, the fact that its pretty even in the count now with no fairfax means this is almost certainly over
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/928064094346924038 https://twitter.com/brianschatz/status/928066312613564416
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:When do find out NY and NJ fall? nj was called the second the polls closed
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I know its a literal pipe dream but what do the Dems need for a super majority? the va senate being up for election, which its not unfortunately
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
as a reminder recounts/provisionals virtually always move the needle in favor of the democrats
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:If you, as an electorate, fall for this twice, you kinda get the government you deserve. just look at all the people who were old enough to remember ralph nader fervently posting in support of jill stein voting
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
axeil posted:A tie would be really good. Still a chance of a whole lot more back and forth on this. They also noted that they mistyped and the GOP lead in that race is now 115 votes, not 15. I asked in the Trump thread, but what are provisional ballots in VA like? Do people who voted provisionally need to show up with ID, do anything, or what's the story there?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
I did my own research:quote:Provisional Ballots are not counted on Election Day. Your local Electoral Board will meet the day after the election to begin its determination of provisional votes. Voters who did not present photo ID have until noon on Monday after the election to present photo ID. The votes of qualified voters will then be counted and included in the results for your locality. If you're in Virginia you should make very sure everyone who you know knows that if they voted by provisional ballot they have to do this asap. Especially if they're in one of those 5 tossups: even if nobody you know didn't have ID, they may know someone who didn't.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:So, is the DNC going to step up and properly fund Doug Jones' campaign? What I'm reading is they're trying to figure out what resources they can get that are quiet so they don't nationalize the race. I bet they try to replicate the VA strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:If you're so ignorant you don't know how elections work, I don't think I can help you. are you aware that primaries are elections
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:It's not a totally unreasonable position. Feed Jones money by way of GOTV and organizing but stay away from running ads--don't let him get Ossoff-ed. i think what he means is out of staters phonebanking will probably backfire in alabama if you're out of state give money, but don't call voters from new york with a northern accent
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:It's funny Howard Dean annihilated his own chances by screaming like a wild man, and very unfunny that Moore might win a seat assaulting a childing. Sucks that Moore also made this into a big fight between the Obama-Hillary-Mitch McConnel Coalition the dean scream happened when dean had already lost the primaries and he knew it but non-politics nerds did not because his strategy was shot: he needed that iowa win because kerry, as a senator from mass, was going to kill it in nh it just got widely mocked and because people like funny explanations more than boring math, people remembered it as the cause not a reaction to his loss
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Whats the reasoning for not being able to give them new ballots and saying you have a week to mail it back or something? the lack of a law saying they can do that, for one
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Im just asking for the legal explaination for why cause just going 'welp, nothing we can do' seems like a violation of their rights. there hasn't been a legal determination that "welp, nothing we can do" but the fact that your prefered legal remedy isn't provided for by law is a big point against it
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
axeil posted:They're still trying to figure out what the hell to do in the race where ~500 voters got the wrong ballot, but if the Dems are still losing after that is decided they also can file for a recount there. I'm a little confused there, as it would seem to me that a recount should proceed at the same time as the "uh is this election even valid" - because (a) perhaps the recount moves the margin of victory outside the number of voters who received the wrong ballot, mooting the whole idea of a special election and (b) if not, at least you know definitively who will be the winner if there's not a special election. If I were the judge in that case I'd tell both sides that they should hold a recount and that filing for such a recount wouldn't be a waiver of any claims or defenses. Because god, I would really, really, really be hoping situation (a) happened. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Nov 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
axeil posted:I think the lawsuit is arguing they should count the 500 ballots for the party they voted for (I doubt they will though). If they allow that then it's over because they are very likely to have voted massively for the Dem candidate and will give the Dem the win (Northam won the precinct by a ton). The recount is less certain and costs state resources so they're waiting to figure out the first question before having it. Is that even technically possible? It's a secret ballot, you know who voted, but how do you identify the ballots at issue - shouldn't they just be mixed in with all of the other ballots with no way to know who exactly those 500 people voted for? Seems to me the only possible solution would be a new special election, or sworn affidavits from every single person at issue saying who they voted for and who they would have voted for had they gotten the correct ballot, and I don't know that the second one is even legal (or the first, but the second one strikes me as even less legal).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
axeil posted:It's one entire precinct that got the wrong ballot. You don't know who specific people voted for but you know it's all the ballots from a certain location and you also know everyone who voted at that location from the sign-ins. If the court accepts an argument that people would have voted for the other Dem/GOP candidate if given the proper ballot you can count them where they "should" have been. Oh, if it's limited in that specific way then the court should have a much easier time. Hell, they can do a special election in that specific precinct. But yeah, while in practice it is virtually certain that everyone voted for party, not person, our voting system is electing people not parties and so I think that it would be legally indefensible to count them for the party they voted for but not the person.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Alabama is a hairs' breadth away from electing a slavery apologist (if not pro-slavery), homophobic, misogynist, child molester. And the most charitable reason is for pure partisanship. gently caress 'em. i mean, it's alabama, they've got a long history of electing that really we should be surprised that suddenly it's not a net plus
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
"now he campaigns by appeasing LGBTQ-haters, courting misogynists & racists" citation needed
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:why a prosecutor is a fundamental part of a legal system that has criminal laws, so unless you're an anarchist it is stupid as gently caress to rant generally about a prosecutor instead of specific bad things you think the prosecutor did this is especially important for a us attorney, which is different from a local prosecutor w/r/t poor and minorities because federal prosecutors tend not to be doing the jailing of the poor and minorities on penny ante poo poo because it doesn't rise to the level of worth their time, and because a us attorney actually has substantial discretion in what to direct their office to focus on so you can look at what they specifically did instead of your general dislike for the system as a whole
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
xrunner posted:In my experience prosecutors care mostly about convicting people, regardless of whether it serves justice. Defense attorneys seem to primarily focus on everyone having the right to a vigorous representation, rather than seeing every client walk. These are very different things, hth. it's literally the defense attorney's job to do their utmost to have each and every client walk, within ethical limits, no matter how guilty they are you're confusing their explanation of why their job is what it is with what their job is, which is the sort of mistake that makes me doubt your actual experience here
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:nah I feel pretty confident saying gently caress the justice system as a whole. you've managed to stretch something fairly reasonable, that our justice system is generally bad, into something where you are stupid and your point is stupid, and you will probably support your stupid point by gesturing vaguely in the direction of a correct thing, and insist that your ignorance is actually knowledge. how i know this is because i pointed to specific important details and you did precisely that. those details are important when judging a specific person on a separate matter which is why it is important. if doug jones is good or bad depends on what he did in the justice system, not your thoughts on the justice system as a whole.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:how about something less racist to start ok, what are your problems with the proprietorial decisions made by the us attorney for the state of alabama for the years 1997-2001
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:I was never talking about doug jones specifically. calm the gently caress down and stop being a dick jeez then it was an odd time to post your thoughts in a discussion on someone's specific criticism of doug jones
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
botany posted:prosecutors might be necessary, but adversarial systems are not. the square root of negative one is i
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
hanales posted:That's not what the tweet says. It says pandering to the "moderate repub" is working with the same regressive assholes who voted for Trump, while at the same time expecting the black vote to come out just because the dude is a dem. Let's not pretend "prosecuted church bombers" isn't in every single thing said about the guy, as if he has zero other prosecutorial accomplishments. for starters, people think what the actual thing the tweet says is stupid instead of a reinterpretation that you've come up with second, the idea that he "campaigns by appeasing LGBTQ-haters, courting misogynists & racists" is stupid because nobody can think of a single thing he's done that would support that statement. it appears to be aimed at the idea that he would hope to get the votes of republicans. but that's not what "appeasing" means: he's angling to get the votes of republicans by not disqualifying himself and pointing out their candidate did. if he's done any "appeasing", one would expect to have heard about it - but he's not. he hasn't even pandered to republicans by pretending to be pro-life. he's suggesting that regardless of their stupid opinions, they aren't quite stupid enough to vote moore and therefore perhaps they should do the right thing. it's not a "pretty standard progressive statement" it's a stupid thing, and stupidity is not actually a progressive value despite what some dead-enders think. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Dec 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:How does one achieve a “non-adversarial” criminal justice system? Most people don’t like getting caught for commtting crimes, admitting that they did them, or going to jail. he is referencing an inquisitorial system, where the judge also acts as an active factfinder (questions witnesses, orders searches). except the most prominent nation with an inquisitorial legal system is france which also has a prosecutor.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
hanales posted:This is the bullshit hillary "anything but trump" stuff. And feel free to ignore the "Expect black people to vote dem" part which is also correct. you appear to be an irredeemable moron, but here goes: the criticism that you appear to be referencing was of the hillary campaign and the criticism of their outreach of "better than trump because trump is bad" was ineffective, not pandering. it is completely irrelevant to an argument over if you should or should not vote for doug jones, merely an argument over what the most effective way to get people to vote is so good work, man who can definitely read and definitely has thoughts worth sharing
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
hanales posted:Ok you condescending dickhead, that criticism is the same no matter who it applies to, do you understand? Those were doug jones ads vs. a trumpist candidate? You get that right? It didn't work last time, and instead of being a strong rebuke of republican ideals it's "I just can't stomach voting for this particular guy". I get why they run a non-progressive person in Alabama, because it's Alabama. when you say stupid things, expect to be treated like you are stupid. you are currently saying a different stupid thing than the person in the tweet. hers is factually false. yours is stupid because you don't grasp that the dynamics of a special election in a deep red state are much different than the dynamics of a presidential election nationwide, but mostly because you don't grasp that you're saying something different than what she's saying and i don't really feel like going in depth on you. you do not seem to have any loving idea what the tweet said, which means you need to work on reading. the tweet said, basically, jones is a bad person and the one good thing he talks about doesn't make up for it...except that the "bad person" stuff is nonsense, and the birmingham bomber stuff is far from the only thing he runs on. my level of condescension is nowhere near what is warranted, holy crap you're dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Don't think I'd seen the party ID breakdown: https://twitter.com/Brand_Allen/status/940714722772553728 While I'm sure most Alabama "independents" are Republicans, iirc there was a dramatic difference between what self-described republicans and self-described independents thought of Moore so they may more be the persuadable Republicans.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
hanales posted:You really don't think that in the view of someone who works for prison reform and on innocence projects that Jones would be a lame choice? You're the one ignoring the specific point of black voters. You've ignored it in every post, concentrating on her calling Jones "bad", so you can do a sick takedown of her tweet. we're discussing a specific tweet that you apparently can't read; i'm not going to start discussing new things that you suddenly read into it that are not there. given your inability to read a simple tweet im also uninterested in your factual assertions because you seem bad at them. w/r/t "moore is a terrible person don't vote for him": that is (a) not pandering to republicans, its seeking to get their vote without compromising on the issues at all; and (b) necessary in a deep red state because you cannot win without at least some republicans in alabama. (b) is different from clinton's campaign because clinton could win without republicans, making her focus on disqualifying trump to them a mistake compared to making a positive case however the more problematic part of your theorizing is that jones has absolutely repeatedly put forth a positive case for himself: you just don't know about it because you didn't pay attention and are using your ignorance of him doing it as evidence he didn't. you are jumping in to defend a bad take to spout nonsense, which is annoying and dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:he has been like this ever since he watched his dreams of career advancement at any point over the next four years collapse into flames, along with all his long-received wisdom about How Politics Works; it is best not to take him seriously i dont work in politics, man still bitterly angry about being probated five years ago
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
hanales posted:https://twitter.com/elisabeth/status/940606122318278657 let me explain it to you: the first part is "doug jones is bad for these (wrong) reasons" and then the latter is 'but he expects that one prosecution to erase all that?!?!?!?!' the latter part is wrong (among other reasons) because the predicate is wrong: there are no bad things that the birmingham bombing is supposed to erase. without the first part the second is nonsensical. that's what you're not getting the other reason it's wrong is that's not the only thing he's running on. i don't know if that person is also projecting their ignorance or just wants to play holier than thou or what, but it's also dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Elizabeth Epps is an activist and an analyst. She isn't a rando just because you don't follow black people. i don't follow the overwhelmingly vast majority of activists from, what twitter tells me, colorado, and now that i know she is an activist/analyst in colorado she definitely falls into the category of 'rando' when it comes to analysis of alabama
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
dial of doom will start vibrating at 8:15 apparently https://twitter.com/jeremybowers/status/940673795672760321
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Is there any state where polls don't stay open as the citizen has done his or her duty to show up on time? My recollection is they're required to by federal law, so no.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:that's pretty good for jones Pretty good by historical standards, not good by what he needs to win. Not "its over" but not great.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
axeil posted:Mississippi should absolutely be targeted next year. When Wicker won it last time he got 57% of the vote. Democratic recruiting was already absolutely bonkers, like 2-3x the good challengers that you would get even in a year that looked really promising. After this they may have a candidate everywhere, because even if you can't win in a straight up fight as Generic Democrat in a D+15 wave in a state, you've got a shot at them nominating an unelectable pedophile. It's not like the DNC didn't know that more challengers is better, it's just hard to get good people to spend months on an unpaid job that has a good chance of going nowhere, usually. Now, uh, people are motivated. I wouldn't be shocked if there was a serious candidate even in Utah and Wyoming.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Alabama was a 30 point swing. 538 just did a back of the napkin take on the factors and only attributed 10 points to the fact that Republicans pushing a child molester. If every state with less than a 20 point red lean is a tossup or better, then Democrats (and Americans as a whole) have every reason to get excited. Don't even need it to be a tossup: Moore is unlikely to be the only unelectable weirdo that wins a Republican primary, and if there's one thing Steve Bannon does, it's double down no matter what. He's still going to be supporting nutters, and one of those might win.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I would love to be wrong. I suspect we're going to see improvements in state legislatures EVERYWHERE, but I doubt we'll seize the whole thing. I doubt we are, like, going to capture the Oklahoma legislature. But if we can improve even in Oklahoma, we can take the legislatures in purpler states. And then (with some luck) the Supreme Court will have just banned gerrymandering sometime in the first half of 2018 so I guess we are constitutionally required to immediately fairly redistrict all of those states. Wouldn't want to upset the Supreme Court by waiting until 2020!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 16:58
|
|