Election 2022 Results

[Hans Blaster]

People still that if Nader had not been in the race Gore would have won easily. Nader's votes in Florida were enough to put him over the finish line with many thousands to spare.

I've heard this from both major parties about the couple percent that the votes of the third parties that seem "close" to their side of the political spectrum would go to them (the major party) if the 3rd party wasn't there, or that they "deserve" such votes. While removing Nader from the ballot might have been enough for Gore to win, we shouldn't assume that. I know one conservative voter who went third party in 2016 and another that left the line blank because they could bring themselves to vote for the GOP presidential nominee.

1. Some third party voters don't actually support either of the platforms/policies of the main parties.
2. Many third party voters would not vote, or leave blank their ballots if there was not 3rd party "outlet valve". (Nevada has a "none of the above" type line which gets a couple percent even in close elections.)
3. Some third party voters may be trying to avoid "responsibility" for a choice. ("Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos." -- Homer Simpson)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Alaska instant runoff count:

First round (thousands of votes):
Peltola (D): 128.4
Palin (R) : 68.2
Begich(R): 62.4
Bye (L): 5.0

Peltola is ~3500 votes short of 50% and win.

Second round, eliminate Bye (L):
about 2000 votes transfered to Begich, 1000 each to Palin & Peltola, 900 go to no one.

After the redistribution, Peltola was 2100 votes shy of 50% (of remaining votes) and victory.

After the second round Begich trailed Palin by less than 5 thousand votes.

Third round, eliminate Begich(R):
43 thousand to Palin, almost 7500 to Peltola, and 13,800 exhausted.

This put Peltola over the top 136,893 to Palin's 112,255.

It should be noted that even if all of the Begich-Nobody voters had voted for Palin, she still wouldn't have lost.

Alaska US House results

 

[HARK!]

Republicans lead Democrats by roughly 3.5 million votes when all 435 House elections are combined, in what analysts call a clear but not overwhelming signal of voters’ preference for the Republican Party.

GOP won 3 million more votes this year, but not where it counted

Republicans lead Democrats by roughly 3.5 million votes when all 435 House elections are combined, in what analysts called a clear but not overwhelming signal of voters’ preference for the GOP.

www.washingtontimes.com

Gerrymandering?

 

[Fantine]

There have been many other times when Democrats have gotten more aggregate House votes while losing the House.

 

[mark46]

People still that if Nader had not been in the race Gore would have won easily. Nader's votes in Florida were enough to put him over the finish line with many thousands to spare.

and in NH

 

[wing2000]

Early voting has started in Georgia:

In more than two dozen counties across the state, thousands of voters from both parties came out to vote, some waiting for hours in lines stretching around the block for the chance to cast their ballot early for the Dec. 6 runoff.

The secretary of state’s office reported that at least 70,000 people voted Saturday. The first Saturday of early voting for the general election drew 79,682 people, more than double the 2018 number. Early voting will continue through Friday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/26/georgia-senate-runoff-saturday-voting/

 

[Fantine]

I predict that Warnock will win. Since the Democrats already hold 50 seats in the Senate, Walker's election would not give Republicans a majority so they have little incentive to vote, other than the entertainment value at Walker might provide as he brings his own unique style to the Capitol

 

[Aldebaran]

I predict that Warnock will win. Since the Democrats already hold 50 seats in the Senate, Walker's election would not give Republicans a majority so they have little incentive to vote, other than the entertainment value at Walker might provide as he brings his own unique style to the Capitol

That doesn't explain why Warnock has 3x the money as Walker to buy the runoff election. But this does: Why Democrats would be in better shape with 51 Senate seats

 

[Fantine]

No campaign money is being used to change minds. It is principally a matter of getting the vote out. As for money I'm in favor of passing a law to make the citizens united decision irrelevant and invalid. Are you? Regardless of political party, the people who get dark money are not working for ordinary Americans.

 

[Don't Panic]

That doesn't explain why Warnock has 3x the money as Walker to buy the runoff election. But this does: Why Democrats would be in better shape with 51 Senate seats

Is it possible that in a free election that more people with money are interested in Warnock winning?
Is it not also possible that you would consider limits to campaign monies?

 

[JSRG]

I predict that Warnock will win. Since the Democrats already hold 50 seats in the Senate, Walker's election would not give Republicans a majority so they have little incentive to vote, other than the entertainment value at Walker might provide as he brings his own unique style to the Capitol

This doesn't make much sense. Sure, Democrats have a majority, but as it is it's where it was before the election. If Warnock wins, then it means they've gained a seat compared to where they were before--and also makes their majority much less shaky (right now if they lose a single person they can't pass stuff, whereas with an extra person it means it's easier).

Then again, people often aren't logical about such things anyway. However, even accepting that, wouldn't this apply to the Democrats as well? "Well, we already have our majority, so why bother voting?"

 

[Don't Panic]

This doesn't make much sense. Sure, Democrats have a majority, but as it is it's where it was before the election. If Warnock wins, then it means they've gained a seat compared to where they were before--and also makes their majority much less shaky (right now if they lose a single person they can't pass stuff, whereas with an extra person it means it's easier).

Then again, people often aren't logical about such things anyway. However, even accepting that, wouldn't this apply to the Democrats as well? "Well, we already have our majority, so why bother voting?"

It might be better stated as, the Republicans will not have a majority in the senate no matter how I vote, so why should I vote for this yahoo? Yes there will be non-voters either way, but what is the calculus on each side?

 

[Hans Blaster]

This doesn't make much sense. Sure, Democrats have a majority, but as it is it's where it was before the election. If Warnock wins, then it means they've gained a seat compared to where they were before--and also makes their majority much less shaky (right now if they lose a single person they can't pass stuff, whereas with an extra person it means it's easier).

It has something to do with the "power sharing agreement" McConnell was able to force in Jan 2021 despite the Dems having a technical (w/VP) majority. This agreement placed equal number of R and D senators on each committee. This has trapped nominees in committee (requiring extra work on the Senate floor to move forward) and prevented subpoenas since both require majorities and there is no VP in the committees to break the tie.

I haven't quite figured out how McConnell forced this, but I suspect that it was through a tacit agreement that the majority existed on the Senate floor and not requiring lots of procedural votes (w/ the VP) to move regular Senate business. With 51 actual Senators that threat is apparently removed.

Then again, people often aren't logical about such things anyway. However, even accepting that, wouldn't this apply to the Democrats as well? "Well, we already have our majority, so why bother voting?"

maybe they just don't want to be represented by Walker?

(Or they have paid attention to how hard things were to accomplish with a 50-50 Senate and would like there side to have more maneuvering room.)

We'll see what happens soon.

 

[Fantine]

This doesn't make much sense. Sure, Democrats have a majority, but as it is it's where it was before the election. If Warnock wins, then it means they've gained a seat compared to where they were before--and also makes their majority much less shaky (right now if they lose a single person they can't pass stuff, whereas with an extra person it means it's easier).

Then again, people often aren't logical about such things anyway. However, even accepting that, wouldn't this apply to the Democrats as well? "Well, we already have our majority, so why bother voting?"

Of course they want to up their majority. Republicans don't have that incentive.

 

[SimplyMe]

That doesn't explain why Warnock has 3x the money as Walker to buy the runoff election. But this does: Why Democrats would be in better shape with 51 Senate seats

I'm guessing it also has to do with the fact that various groups fundraising "for Walker" are actually fundraising for themselves, which is why Walker had to come out and say to ensure people give his campaign money and not to other groups claiming to fund raise for him. I'm guessing a lot of the Republican money donated has ended up outside of Georgia.

 

[Aldebaran]

No campaign money is being used to change minds. It is principally a matter of getting the vote out. As for money I'm in favor of passing a law to make the citizens united decision irrelevant and invalid. Are you? Regardless of political party, the people who get dark money are not working for ordinary Americans.

Not being used to change minds, but to get the vote out? How does that work? Is he using his money to drive democrats to the polling places if they agree to vote for him?

 

[Aldebaran]

Is it possible that in a free election that more people with money are interested in Warnock winning?
Is it not also possible that you would consider limits to campaign monies?

IOW, it's the wealthiest Georgians who want Warnock.

 

[Fantine]

IOW, it's the wealthiest Georgians who want Warnock.

Most wealthy people want legislators who are capable of understanding the issues, doing the research necessary to get the facts, and making a sound decision.

As Obama said about Walker, "he may have won the Heisman trophy, but would you trust him to pilot a plane you were on?"

Competency trumps ideology when only one candidate possesses the necessary competence.

 

[trunks2k]

This doesn't make much sense. Sure, Democrats have a majority, but as it is it's where it was before the election. If Warnock wins, then it means they've gained a seat compared to where they were before--and also makes their majority much less shaky (right now if they lose a single person they can't pass stuff, whereas with an extra person it means it's easier).

IMO, Walker's major problem is going to be not having the Governor's election to pull in votes. I think the Democrats are very much aware of how much better having a 51 seat majority is vs a 50/50 tie with a tie breaking vote.

Walker cannot stand on his own. Politics aside, he's just a horrible candidate.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

IMO, Walker's major problem is going to be not having the Governor's election to pull in votes. I think the Democrats are very much aware of how much better having a 51 seat majority is vs a 50/50 tie with a tie breaking vote.

Walker cannot stand on his own. Politics aside, he's just a horrible candidate.

If Democrats are smart, they will also be aware that this seat is for 6 years and the 2024 Senate map is a complete disaster for them. Democrats have to defend seats in swing states AZ, PA, and WI along with seats in red states MT, OH, and WV. And the best chances for Democrats to flip a Republican seat are FL and TX. Breaking even for Democrats will be a Herculean task so going in up 51-49 rather than 50-50 level will be important.